Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera

Moths needs improvement!

I find it quite sad that the article for butterflies is a so expansive and rated GA, where as the article for Moth (90% of Lepidoptera) is basically a stub. Unfortunately it has been left on B class rating since 2008, this is definitely not a B class article.

The largest section on the page is on their relationship to humans.

The page for butterflies is 103,768 bytes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Butterfly&action=info), where as for moths it is 33,480(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moth&action=info) :(

I am trying to improve the article.

If any one is interested, there are several CNs on the page that need good quality citations.

Chattenoir (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work Chattenoir. Moth is one of the many articles which should be improved. Your work will make a difference. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've made some expansion and added a lot of citations. Still a ways to go ofcourse. Chattenoir (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Silk moth

I was editing the Monarch butterfly migration page and tried to link to Silk moth and couldn't figure out what the problem was. I was taken to a disambiguation page that I couldn't figure out. Is there no article for Silk moth or don't I know what I am doing? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the article for 'Silk moths' is Bombycidae, and there currently is no redirect for the article name Silk Moth. I could create a page for Silk Moth with a redirect to it perhaps. Chattenoir (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Thank you very nuch. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:16, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Barbara, apologies but I realised that the term Silk Moth can refer to another family of Moth also ( [1] ), so therefore it wouldn't be right to have the page redirect in case people were looking for the other family.

Instead of a redirect, what I recommend is using the following link: Silk Moth. You can get a link like this by typing the following: [[Bombycidae|Silk Moth]] Chattenoir (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Excellent. I can make that change myself. Thanks again.

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 18:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've known them as Bombyx mori since I first studied textile manufacture in the 1980s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be the domestic silk moth, but there is also the wild silk moth, Bombyx mandarina. Although per this source [2] it is apparent that the term Silk Moth is used for the Domestic silk moth, as this source uses the latter initially and then uses the shortened form afterwards.

Whether the link is appropriate for Bombyx mori or Bombycidae would depend on the context. If the former the link should be Silk Moth Chattenoir (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wrong moth genus?

I'm extraordinarily out of my depth here... Acrocercops malvacea cites to gracillariidae.net, but the link is dead. I was able to find this, which seems to indicate that the genus should be Dialectica instead? But their underlying 1907? source gives the Acrocercops genus, so I am confused and am taking it to folks who know more about moths/biology :-) GrapesRock (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

The new page you found on gracillariidae.net is giving the source of the original description of the species, which was Acrocercops malvacea. This is the name used in most works until recently, including gracillariidae.net when this Wikipedia article was written. However, the updated database indicates that someone has move the species to a new genus, although rather unhelpfully don't give a source for the change. The change is accepted by Catalogue of Life (see taxonbar link which I just updated), although that is not independent as it uses gracillariidae.net as its source. It's probably worth noting that the Global Lepidoptera Index effectively recommends that website/database for Gracillariidae, So I think the article should be moved to Dialectica malvacea.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the page and updated the taxonomy, reference and taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Iridopsis angulata

What are your favorite websites to search for info on moths. I have just spent over a half an hour and can't seem to find any info on this species. What search engine should I be using besides Google? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:05, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It can be helpful to search for any objective synonyms (synonyms where the species name is the same, but it has been placed in a different genus). I. angulata was originally described as Anacamptodes angulata; the original description can be downloaded here (starting on page 19 as the PDF pages are numbered, or page 191 as shown at the top of the pages as originally published). Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice-it really is helpful. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple of taxonomic references. Strangely I can't find a reference for the recombination. Hodges (1983) MONA still includes the species in Anacamptodes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to improve specie taxa pages by adding host species information

A critical piece of information for identifying moths is the host species of plant that a given species of moth relies on for food and shelter. In a sense the host species provides a context clue for identifying a moth and understanding its life cycle and range more generally. This information is largely not included in most species pages for moths. Because wikipedia's pages are used by Apps like iNaturalist this is a beneficial segment to include for quick reference by would be observers and researchers. Additionally this information is already documented in field guides and other moth resources online. ZMS5063 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Great idea. Wikipedia:Be bold. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Alucita caucasica

Hi. I came across Alucita caucasica during unreferenced articles patrolling. The finer points of lepidoptera taxonomy are quite a way out of my wheel house, so I'd be grateful for some help. From the Catalogue of World Alucitoidea, it seems that A. caucasica might now be a synonym for Alucita huebneri - I guess my question is, is that source reliable, and should I therefore turn the unreferenced article into a redirect to A. huebneri, having added the appropriate sourced synonym in the taxobox of the target article? Thanks for your help. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say the Catalogue of World Alucitoidea is as reliable as there is on two grounds. One, it's used by the Catalogue of Life and, two, the Global Lepidoptera Index (GLI) defers to it. Because of the vast size of the Lepidoptera the GLI focuses its resources when other resources are available and they name check the CoWA.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882, many thanks. I have made the redirect. If I've messed it up in some way, please do revert or let me know what I should've done differently. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)