InsectNet forum

My approach and opinion has to do with multiple variations within a single species even a single geographic location. Most field guides illustrate a single specimen image of a particular species. What are the chances of identifying the specimen or image you have based upon those publications when some species have dozens to hundreds of morphotype variations which may vary in each of multiple annual broods.
The opposite phenomena concerning other common species occurs. In 1972 Ferguson reviewed the validity of names for Actias luna: nine forms and synonyms from Nova Scotia to Texas, and reducing them all to a single species due to population variation and lack of consistent and definitive distinguishable characters. Even in abundantly populated and well known species as A. luna, it is difficult to figure out exactly what are the parameters for a single species. Here in Louisiana, A. luna has five annual broods, with each brood of this species, the moths become less brilliant in color and maculation, and become paler in color, wider in wingspan, shorter in length, the fifth brood becomes very different in appearance. The broods occurring mid February into October in Louisiana. Should our field guide or even ultimate treatments in MONA have examples of all five broods, and what about the females that have the same changing characteristics. Then we should have as a minimum 10 images in a single reference book. Somewhat impractible, though here in Louisiana there are moth species with 13 annual broods.
I have published may species accounts illustrating lots of morphotype variations withing a single species. e.g.
https://www.academia.edu/2588690/The_ge ... siana?sm=b
https://www.academia.edu/42307274/Zale_ ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/37824468/Uteth ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/32462144/Euchl ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/31681168/Proto ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/30865810/Metap ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/30540310/Nacap ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/30255214/Phyll ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/29296622/Panop ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/23425257/Varia ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/20063549/Hypar ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/19873206/Pheno ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/6029673/Metall ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/540169/Chaetag ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/540165/Nemoria ... _Louisiana
https://www.academia.edu/540163/Chaetag ... _Louisiana
I have attached two jpgs illustrating 58 morphotype variations involving just some of the male variations found in Hyphantria cunea here just at my home in Louisiana. There are females variations as well not illustrated here, nor are additional variations found in the first annual brood, nor are the male and female variations found in the second, third and fourth annual broods.

Excellent. Of course, field guides have limited space. Species descriptions though often show only one/ one pair, and I have this feeling that the type specimens depicted are sometimes cherry-picked to match the morphological description/ differentiators.

Very impressive Hyphantria series. I never would have guessed that there was that much variation. After reading the luna commentary, I checked my lunas and observed exactly what Vernon mentioned regarding variations in successive broods. I also noticed an unusual spring-brood specimen from Florida (shown below) that has darker purple borders and pronounced vertical markings on the wings.

That luna is spectacular. I have a specimen from KY that has purple edging, but no vertical stripes. AFAIK nobody has done genetic analysis to see what the relationship tree is for luna. Who knows what is variation, and what is something taxonomically significant.

Vernon's series of Hyphantria is impressive in that it demonstrates the variation within some taxa.