1 Common Anthelid at Rosedale, NSW
Identification history
| Anthela acuta | 4 Oct 2025 | ibaird | ||
| Anthela deficiens | 3 Oct 2025 | ibaird | ||
| Anthela acuta | 3 Oct 2025 | jb2602 |
Identify this sighting
Please Login or Register to identify this sighting.
6 comments
JulieMorgan
wrote:
3 Oct 2025
I have had similar moths in the past (as early as 2010) identified as belonging to the Anthela acuta group by Ted Edwards. I know that a lot of work has been done on Anthela since that identification. I don't think that the shape of the moth is consistent with A. deficiens.
ibaird
wrote:
3 Oct 2025
OK, thanks Julie. You are likely to be more familiar with the species than I am. Can you indicate how it's shape differs from A. acuta?
JulieMorgan
wrote:
4 Oct 2025
Hi Ian,
I have learned a lot from both you and John and your work on NatureMapr has created a wonderful resource for moth enthusiasts.
To begin, I should say that I am no expert on Anthela. My comments are as a result of my own observations and precious time spent at ANIC learning from people who know a lot more than I do. That said, I also acknowledge that much has happened in the world of moths since that time.
My colleagues in MABA have indicated that Lepidoptera records on ALA are not verified before being posted and so I am cautious when using their records for identification. I look for who has verified the records on iNat as the “wisdom of the crowd” is not always based on knowledge of the species. Looking at the Anthela deficiens records on ALA, the moths posted by Nick Lambert, Desmond Wells and Rebecca Stroud show a different shape to my eye – a boxier shape compared to Anthela acuta.
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/34cfec67-be9e-400c-8604-59244aa250b4#gallery
John Lenagan’s comments in Rebecca Stoud’s identification indicate that there double spot below the dissecting line on the lower wing and the single spot above the line on the upper wing in A. deficiens. These features are present in these 3 specimens. Based on this, I think that John’s moth (and also Lisa H’s from Moruya) are from the Anthela acuta group but I happy to be corrected as there is much to learn in the world of moths. Julie
I have learned a lot from both you and John and your work on NatureMapr has created a wonderful resource for moth enthusiasts.
To begin, I should say that I am no expert on Anthela. My comments are as a result of my own observations and precious time spent at ANIC learning from people who know a lot more than I do. That said, I also acknowledge that much has happened in the world of moths since that time.
My colleagues in MABA have indicated that Lepidoptera records on ALA are not verified before being posted and so I am cautious when using their records for identification. I look for who has verified the records on iNat as the “wisdom of the crowd” is not always based on knowledge of the species. Looking at the Anthela deficiens records on ALA, the moths posted by Nick Lambert, Desmond Wells and Rebecca Stroud show a different shape to my eye – a boxier shape compared to Anthela acuta.
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/34cfec67-be9e-400c-8604-59244aa250b4#gallery
John Lenagan’s comments in Rebecca Stoud’s identification indicate that there double spot below the dissecting line on the lower wing and the single spot above the line on the upper wing in A. deficiens. These features are present in these 3 specimens. Based on this, I think that John’s moth (and also Lisa H’s from Moruya) are from the Anthela acuta group but I happy to be corrected as there is much to learn in the world of moths. Julie
ibaird
wrote:
4 Oct 2025
Thanks a million Julie. That'ss very useful comment, I concur with your views overall. In the absence of better information my usual policy when a detailed view is posited that holds up is to go with it.
Looking at 'Bold Hobern' for both species see below. is that rule borne out by what you see there? (ie at least for one specimen of A. deficiens)?
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=324412
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=192042
Cheers.
Ian Baird
Looking at 'Bold Hobern' for both species see below. is that rule borne out by what you see there? (ie at least for one specimen of A. deficiens)?
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=324412
https://bold-au.hobern.net/specimens.php?taxid=192042
Cheers.
Ian Baird
JulieMorgan
wrote:
4 Oct 2025
Hi Ian,
Thank you for sending the links. Yes, it does for one specimen of A. deficiens. Unfortunately, I can't access all the images of A. acuta. I often have trouble accessing the website generally. Not sure why. What comes to mind is the variety of specimens at ANIC and the work that has yet to be done with the Anthela genus.
Cheers, Julie
Thank you for sending the links. Yes, it does for one specimen of A. deficiens. Unfortunately, I can't access all the images of A. acuta. I often have trouble accessing the website generally. Not sure why. What comes to mind is the variety of specimens at ANIC and the work that has yet to be done with the Anthela genus.
Cheers, Julie
Location information
- Coordinates 150.221877-35.812216
- Places Rosedale, NSW
Sighting information
- At least 1 Abundance
- 15 Sep 2025 08:53 PM Recorded on
- jb2602 Recorded by
-
Collections
jb2602 NatureMapr South Coast Anthela acuta Anthelid moths (Anthelidae) Moths (Lepidoptera) Insects
Additional information
- 25mm to 50mm Animal size
Species information
- Anthela acuta Scientific name
- Common Anthelid Common name
- Not Sensitive
- Local native
- Non-invasive or negligible
- Up to 1664.8m Recorded at altitude
- External link More information
-
Synonyms
Darala excisa
Record quality
- Images or audio
- More than one media file
- Verified by an expert moderator
- Nearby sighting(s) of same species
- GPS evidence of location
- Description
- Additional attributes