Connected Looper (Plusia contexta) 931239 / 8952 at Cormierville, Kent Co., 9 August 2017

I couldn't let Joanne keep her monopoly on Connected Looper records for NB. This one appeared at our front door light around 11:30pm last night.

Connected Looper Plusia contexta 931239 8952 

attracted to light

Cormierville (Cocagne), Kent County, New Brunswick

9 August 2017

Views: 79

Replies to This Discussion

Attractive moth, and very good shot of it.

Thanks very much, Danny!

WOO HOO!!!  An excellent image Stuart and Congratulations!!!  The loopers are dwindling here, but I still have hope...lol

BTW...your explanation of the difference between this one and Putnam's helped me to ID one for someone else.  All the tips and info you and Tony have given me are sure coming in handy.  Hope you both don't mind.  :)

Thanks, Nancy! It was nice to get a handle on separating Putnam's and Connected but it was really quite straightforward once I looked at them critically. I wish more confusing species pairs were as easy. LOL

This Connected Looper came back again last night (August 10) but another huge hatch of midges (family Chironomidae) kept moth numbers low although there were hundreds of tiny white Coleophora sp.

I haven't had the midges again, Stuart...hope it stays that way.  Thought I had the Connected though, till I zoomed in.  I could see the sunglasses, but the vein ran through the very edge.

WTG, Stu!!! Happy you got the golden beauty. I notice I've not had Unspotted Looper [8898] yet this year as I did in both 2015 and 2016 but see it arrived in Sept each year..... I wait.

How's this one, Stu? Aug.22/17 to lights.

Bingo! 

Thanks, Stu! I knew, of course. One other id point I've noticed [finally], although the description in Peterson's points it out, is that the top apical dash is much longer with 8952 than with 8950.

Of course. Thanks for pointing out the difference in the length of the apical dash - I hadn't noticed that.

Have you figured out how to tell Putnam's Looper from 8951.1 Plusia magnimacula? It is apparently also known from New Brunswick and was only recently described (2006). I've stared at images but can't find any consistent differences between the two.

Never tried that one, Stu....in fact didn't  know it existed.... will have a look but am always mindful of Tony's solution when id gets tight!

8951.1 seems to have a bulging [on the bottom] innermost stigma, with irregular 'dit/dots' in it, Stu [if there's a certain term for 'dit/dots', I don't know it].

RSS

© 2017   Created by BNB Host.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service