smithsqrd's Journal

I had noticed a few months ago that some moth species I have observed in The Gambia were taxon swapped, but I didn't pay too much attention to it. After learning that there were quite a few more taxa of African Acontiini involved in recent revisions (Thank you Wolf-Achim/Hanna for that info) I figured it was a good time to go through and try to bring more taxa up to date. Out-of-date taxa have been a fairly large headache as I have been trying to implement one of my project goals as a Peace Corps Volunteer working with the University of The Gambia to increase access to educational material about local Lepidopteran biodiversity by writing Wikipedia articles for African Lepidoptera. A huge benefit of writing those articles is that they populate the "About" section of species profiles on iNat, but only if the taxa on both sites match each other. Unfortunately I have had species articles deleted by Wikipedia curators if they are listed as a synonym on GBIF, even if the taxa is accepted by Afromoths and iNat. In an effort not to waste my time on Wikipedia, I focused on writing articles for species that were accepted by both GBIF and Afromoths, and I updated iNat accordingly.

Because my main objective was updating the species profiles, rather than figuring out the taxonomic mess that Acontiini is, there are a few species that still need some work. I have tried to flag problematic species and include sources, but many of the problems do not seem immediately solvable. My efforts are as follows:

Acontia hemixanthia and Acontia pauliani are still accepted on GBIF, so the Wikipedia articles were written under Acontia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acontia_hemixanthia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acontia_pauliani

Emmelia citrelinea is accepted by both sites, and a taxon swap had already been performed. The article was written.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_citrelinea

A taxon swap was performed and a Wikipedia article was written for these 7 species that are accepted under Emmelia on both GBIF and Afromoths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_basifera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_antica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_aureola
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_nephele
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_conifrons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_natalis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmelia_tanzaniae

Acontia ectorrida is listed as a synonym of Emmelia ectorrida on Afromoths which is itself listed as a synonym of Hoplotarache nubila on GBIF. No taxon change or article.

Emmelia dichroa is listed as a synonym on GBIF but accepted by Afromoths. No article written. The taxon swap had already been performed by someone else.

Emmelia guttifera is listed as a synonym on GBIF but accepted by Afromoths, so no taxon swap was performed. An article already exists for Acontia guttifera.

Acontia gratiosa is accepted, but shares a common name (and range) with Acontia imitatrix. The search function of iNat for Acontia zelleri says that it is a synonym of Acontia gratiosa, but that is not true, it is actually Acontia imitatrix that is a synonym of Acontia zelleri. Both already have articles, so only flagged, no other action taken.

In the process of going through these updates I also looked through observations of each species to look for incorrect IDs, and worked to refine the IDs of additional records in Acontiini that remained unidentified. Fortunately there were not many misidentified records, probably because most taxa are not included in Computer Vision or only recently got enough observations to be eligible to be included in the training models. There's still plenty of work to be done in this tribe, but at least now there's a bit more of a foundation to build off of. Please let me know if you see any additional species that need taxon swaps or articles written, or if you notice any mistakes in the efforts I have made so far!

After 233 days in a cocoon, I was recently welcomed to the sight of an freshly eclosed Westermannia roseitincta! This is the longest pupation period so far of the moths and butterflies that I have reared through Caterpillar Rearing Group (CRG), a Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa project. I wanted to take some time and get to know this species a little bit better.

Westermannia roseitincta was described by Elliot Pinhey in 1968. There are now 11 records of this species on iNaturalist, being documented in The Gambia and South Africa which matches the information available on Afromoths. A surprising number of species that I have reared through CRG have a similarly disjointed range, either suggesting that these species are actually widespread and also present in the Bight of Africa, or there have been some significant introductions from or to local ports. There are no host plant records on Afromoths, so I am thrilled to be able to contribute to the natural history knowledge of this species. This host plant Terminalia macroptera is mostly confined in West Africa, so there is likely a different host plant in south-eastern Africa. The duration of the pupation period coincides perfectly with the growth cycle of the host plant, which has been barren for months now. The dry season is almost over, and Terminalia macroptera trees are just now starting to have fresh growth. I could not find any other photos of larvae, so it is also wonderful to have added that small piece of the puzzle.

Looking at the species profile on iNat, I noticed that there is no Wikipedia article yet for this species. In fact, only 2 of the 30 species under the genus Westermannia have articles on Wikipedia, which populate the "about" section of species profiles on iNat. Adding that to my to-do list, as I am working with the University of The Gambia to increase access to educational material about local Lepidopteran biodiversity as part of my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer. It is always exciting to see what will emerge from each caterpillar I have reared, however many of the species have not been identified yet. This one will definitely be a highlight of my rearing efforts!

I am decently proud of my efforts during the nature challenge this year, finishing with 682 observations and 188 "species" (It should be over 500, I think). We are in the latter end of dry season here in The Gambia, which offers a restricted yet unique opportunity to document local biodiversity. Some trees are already starting to put out new growth, so insects associated with those host plants are abundant, and the birds seeking refuge here from The Harmattan are feasting on them. Once the rains begin, the entire mood of the environment will shift and there will be a host of different species present. We are also in gardening season, so there are a few agricultural pests that are unique to this time period. Farming will take over during the rainy season, with different crops being planted in different areas of the village.

One of my biggest goals during the nature challenge this year was to focus on Lepidoptera in the hopes that my observations could be identified by others in the week following, aiding in my efforts with the University of The Gambia to catalog local butterfly and moth biodiversity. I was able to voucher 164 individuals, however only 8 "species" have been identified. Those observations can be seen here. I have been struggling to find sufficient literature about local taxa, and hoped that observations included in a global challenge would catch some extra attention.

There are a few things I have noticed during this challenge. Certainly, the number of iNat users in West Africa is limited, and the number of identifiers is even more limited. Local taxa are also more difficult to identify, and often only able to be identified to higher rankings and therefore not included as a unique "species". I'm not sure a challenge focused on the number of species is equitable for local participants, but I understand the shift towards quality over quantity on a global scale. I would love to see metrics for the numbers of species only observed by a single participant, a leaderboard of who has the most unique taxa not observed by anyone else. This could even further refine user's efforts during the challenge, as common species like the Common Dandelion (this year's most observed) would almost certainly not be included in those metrics. Errant Computer Vision identifications have also been a problem I have noticed as a result of users hoping to inflate their species counts. I have done my best to curate local Lepidoptera observations, and a few globally as well. Because CV knows species that are more frequently observed, using CV during the challenge would actually be discouraged because the result is less likely to be a unique taxa. Users in less populated areas would gain some incentive to look for endemic species, rather than focus on total quantity of more common species.

I was able to encourage one of the university students to join the CNC, they uploaded a few plant vouchers and are getting more familiar with iNat. I expect all six research students will be more active during Moth Week in July, like they were during Moth Week 2025. We now have more than 20,000 observations of Lepidoptera in The Gambia that will be available to curate at a later date, after my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer ends in July. Looking forward to upload observations to the International Day for Biological Diversity project, with the same aspirations for increased traffic by identifiers!

More accurately titled: "A hunt for Sufetula diminutalis records in Florida".

Prompted by observing a few examples of Sufetula diminutalis last night during an event the the UF Natural Area Teaching Lab in Gainesville, Florida, I wanted to go through the observations of a species that I consider to be very similar, the Waterlily Leafcutter Moth (Elophila obliteralis). Both species are relatively small and darkly colored with reduced patterning, and after minimal interaction I would describe their behavior at the light and resting posture to also be comparable.

The starting numbers were 711 (463 RG) observations of E. obliteralis in the state of Florida, with 226 of the total being my own observations. During this review I found 9 observations that I believe were incorrectly identified, those are as follows:

1 Crocidocnemis pellucidalis
1 Subfamily Glaphyriinae
2 Family Crambidae (possibly both are Penestola simplicialis)
1 Elophila nebulosalis
2 Elophila gyralis
1 Elophila tinealis
1 Sufetula diminutalis

Success! I did find a single Sufetula diminutalis observation hiding among Elophila obliteralis.

Worth noting is that the E. tinealis was my own, and I had also either previously agreed with or suggested 2 of the other incorrectly identified observations. Two observations were RG, the S. diminutalis and C. pellucidalis. All 9 incorrectly identified observations appear to be attracted to a light source, 3 are on a wall and 6 are on a sheet, which is surprising for some reason. I would have expected photos in a natural setting to be more likely to be incorrect, which is an interesting personal bias. This exercise does reaffirm the reality that common species are an excellent place to look for unusual ones, partly the fault of the Computer Vision, but also partly the fault of a system that in my opinion has incentivized the overidentification of observations (something I am actively trying to acknowledge with my own identification efforts).

Now for some math. Florida has just less than 10% of the global observations for E. obliteralis and had 1.3% incorrect, so if the ratios hold true there are likely ~90 of the remaining 7,000 E. obliteralis records that are incorrectly identified. There are only 35 records on iNat for S. diminutalis, of which Florida has 22.9% (8). I would wager that there are other S. diminutalis hiding in other common species throughout their range, and targeted efforts like this review could track those records down if there was ever a specific need to do so.

I am including a link to the found Sufetula diminutalis record, both to confirm the accuracy of my ID and the relative importance of a single observation for a species with so few observations. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/53630209

I am also tagging a few people that I think will find this interesting and may have feedback, I am always eager to improve my knowledge and technique both as an observer and an identifier. @hughmcguinness @hanly @gcwarbler @d_kluza @b_gonzalez @mecopteron_bouillon @mako252 @jeffmci9 @annainok @matthewcock @perfectman