Key to Moth Families

[Jason Green]

Afternoon all,

Does a (dichotomous?) key exist that would identify a moth to it's family? I know there are plenty of websites that feature 'field pics', but I don't really have time to wade through pictures of family-representatives to get an idea - I'd rather know the anatomical stuff to confirm it on.

Such keys, thankfully, exist for other insect orders so I'm really just wondering if there's a 'Heteroceran' equivalent.

Thanks!

Take care,

Jason

[nutmeg]

Jason,

I don't know of such a key, but that's not to say one isn't available. I use The Field Guide to Moths of Great Britain and Ireland (Waring, Townsend and Lewington)which describes the field characters of each family and each species (just macro moths though). Most moth-ers that I know quickly become familiar with the characters of each family and this narrows down where to look. A lot of moths can be identified without more than a comparison with illustrations and descriptions - and it's indicated if there are confusion species or if reliable ID can only be achieved with gen det.

It's also worth making contact with your county recorder to find out which records will not be accepted without confirmation. For example, my CR has a list of pugs which indicates ease of identification (from unmistakable through to gen det being required) and also the likelihood of a particular pug being in the county.

(Sorry it's probably not very helpful!)

[poschiavanus]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Afternoon all,

Does a (dichotomous?) key exist that would identify a moth to it's family? I know there are plenty of websites that feature 'field pics', but I don't really have time to wade through pictures of family-representatives to get an idea - I'd rather know the anatomical stuff to confirm it on.

Such keys, thankfully, exist for other insect orders so I'm really just wondering if there's a 'Heteroceran' equivalent.

Thanks!

Take care,

Jason

Yes, such keys do exist.

I presume there is one in one of the Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland (MBGBI) volumes. These are now very expensive.

The one I have to hand (Exkursionsfauna von Deutschland) makes extensive usage of features of venation, but I don't think I've ever used it. However, the short key to larvae by family in the same book is invaluable.

This one on-line is probably usable for British moth families and gives an idea of the sort of characters used.

In the main I now find I can pretty much get to family by jizz: although depending on the moth I still find it useful to check Pyralidae or Gelechiidae as well.

[Jason Green]

Great stuff, that's the sort of stuff I was after.

For me if you can base an ID on a range of features rather than comparisons with images in field-guides you can be surer of the resulting ID knowing it is based on a combination of characters as stated by an expert-written key in a book that has gained a reputation - rather than just comparing points that are visible in a photo that you think are significant.

[Fauna]

Hi Jason...

Have you tried British Insects: Lepidoptera Families - Interactive Key . Not tried this one myself for Leps, so can't really comment if its up to much cop!!

Regards Chris.

[Jason Green]

Thanks Chris. How much would the Butterflies and Moth Family Key cost? If I could get some to family, then I suppose it would then be a case of looking up further literature.

[poschiavanus]

Originally Posted by Fauna

Hi Jason...

Have you tried British Insects: Lepidoptera Families - Interactive Key . Not tried this one myself for Leps, so can't really comment if its up to much cop!!

Regards Chris.

The Delta Int-key apps I'm familiar with (i.e., families of British insects) are all based on out-of-copyright material (typically late 19th century). AFAIK they are mainly illustrative of the principles of the underlying software technology. This is meant to allow use of characteristics in a multi-key style. I've found them frustrating because many insect families may be defined taxonomically by a combination of larval and adult features: something not readily usable on a single specimen in the field or in the hand.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

For me if you can base an ID on a range of features rather than comparisons with images in field-guides you can be surer of the resulting ID knowing it is based on a combination of characters as stated by an expert-written key in a book that has gained a reputation - rather than just comparing points that are visible in a photo that you think are significant.

While I understand what you are getting at here, any good field guide will specify the characters that confirm an identification in the text that accompanies a photo or illustration. So, although you may get to the identification by a different route, you can be as sure of an ID based on characters in an expert-written field guide that has gained a reputation as you can be of an ID based on a key written by a similar (or even the same) expert.
If a field guide doesn't tell you which characters you should be looking at to confirm an ID then it is not a good field guide (and resulting IDs will be no more certain than a similarly poorly put together key - perhaps one that relies on a combination of features from adult + larvae, or male + female, in a single identification, or which relies on ambiguous or variable characters).

I do think that keys are usually easier to use than field guides if you don't know a group and have a specimen though.

[Cordaline]

Hi Jason,
Just a quick reply.
Why don't you PM Adam to look at this thread.
He might be able to shed some more light on this subject for you, seeing as Moths are his speciality.
(Sorry, not read the other replies)

[Jason Green]

Is there a British photographic field-guide that covers every species of British moth, then - both micros and macros?