*COMMENT ~ Character notes. 
 
*CHARACTER NOTES
#2. Most of the family are crepuscular and/or nocturnal, but direct records are
sparse, and there are some notable exceptions. Daytime fliers are more 
often directly recorded in this context.
#3. Data calculated from the numeric character relating wingspan to
thoracic width (q.v.). 
#4. Apterous females, or females with greatly reduced wings, occur in
several families. 
#6. Some caution is required in using this character, because (1), the
descriptions refer exclusively to male insects; and (2), the literature
consulted is unconvincing regarding details of non-pectinate forms.
However, since the occurrence of bipectinated antennae is well
documented, and since an insect with bipectinated antennae will
presumably be a male, possession by a specimen of state 1 is certainly a
useful identificatory state. The other states are best avoided for this
purpose. Clubbed antennae (q.v.) are dealt with as a separate
character which is applicable to lepidopterans of both sexes, and are
here arbitrarily classed as simple (with reference to the shaft). 
#8. This character is potentially valuable; but the data compiled to
date do not inspire confidence, and anyway refer only to males. 
#12. As shown in the illustrations, the popular and euphonious
description porrected palps refers to labial palps, which lend the
delightful, perky appearance to the face presented by several groups of
Lepidoptera. These organs generally retain their position in set
specimens. However, from the standpoint of useful description, there
exists in reality an awkward continuum of forms, from porrected
through ascending to erect. 
#15. The assessments are based on base-to-apex length, divided by the
approximate maximum width measured at right angles to a line drawn from
base to tornus (i.e., approximately at right angles to the hind or inner
margin). 
#16. The assessments are based on base-to-apex length, divided by the
approximate maximum width measured at right angles to a line drawn from
base to tornus (i.e., approximately at right angles to the hind or inner
margin). 
#22. Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very
inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with
Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative
description of The Beautiful Carpet with Meyrick's inadequate and
boring attempt to be scientific. \par{}Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.
\par{}Fuscous: sombre brownish grey. \par{}Ochreous: pale yellowish- or
orangish-brownish, straw-coloured. \par{}Umber: greenish brown. Burnt
umber: dark (as if charred) greenish brown. 
#23. Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very
inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with
Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative
description of The Beautiful Carpet with Meyrick's inadequate and
boring attempt to be scientific. \par{}Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.
\par{}Fuscous: sombre brownish grey. \par{}Ochreous: pale yellowish- or
orangish-brownish, straw-coloured. \par{}Umber: greenish brown. Burnt
umber: dark (as if charred) greenish brown. 
#31. Fovea: a circular depression in the lower surface of the
forewing, usually situated near a basal fork in vein 1b. It is often
sub-hyaline, and sometimes surmounted by a small, thickened gland (cf.
Meyrick). 
#35. Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very
inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with
Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative
description of The Beautiful Carpet with Meyrick's inadequate and
boring attempt to be scientific. \par{}Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.
\par{}Fuscous: sombre brownish grey. \par{}Ochreous: pale yellowish- or
orangish-brownish, straw-coloured. \par{}Umber: greenish brown. Burnt
umber: dark (as if charred) greenish brown. 
#36. Published descriptions of wing colours and patterns are often very
inadequate and misleading, with later efforts comparing poorly with
Newman's. For example, compare the latter's genuinely informative
description of The Beautiful Carpet with Meyrick's inadequate and
boring attempt to be scientific. \par{}Ferrugineous: rust-coloured.
\par{}Fuscous: sombre brownish grey. \par{}Ochreous: pale yellowish- or
orangish-brownish, straw-coloured. \par{}Umber: greenish brown. Burnt
umber: dark (as if charred) greenish brown. 
#41. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more
prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#42. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more
prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#43-45. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is
more prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#49-51. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is
more prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#52. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is more
prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#57:60. Wing venation is best viewed from the under-side, where it is
more prominent but may still require removal of the scales. \par{}The
neuration characters and data accumulated here were taken primarily from
Meyrick (1927). Unsurprisingly (see below), cross referencing the
resulting descriptions in detail with Imms (1957), Le Cerf and Herbulot
(1948), and Common (1970) has resulted in considerably increasing the
levels of intra-taxon variation encoded. \par{}The abstruse descriptive
terminologies for lepidopteran venation employed in modern entomological
text-books represent attempts to standardise across all the insect
groups, and involve entangling the descriptive process with phylogenetic
hypotheses of doubtful validity. The simpler system presented by Meyrick
(1927), which is easier to apply to a specimen in practice, is used
here. He provides a wealth of comparative data and drawings of neuration
for British Lepidoptera, presumably reflecting his own efforts at
consistent interpretion. However, the requirement to identify veins with
his standard numbering still involves recognising veins that are
missing with reference to the standard (cf. the diagram accessible
via the Lepidopteran morphology toolbar button). Also, in the absence
of precise definitions, there are evident difficulties in making the
required distinctions between tubular veins and their vestigial
(reduced, obsolescent, obsolete, etc.) manifestations. Contrasting
interpetations by different authorities of neuration patterns for the
same species are common (see our accounts of \i{}Endromis
versicolora\i0{} and \i{}Sesia bombiformis\i0{}). The available data are
evidently untrustworthy, and since neuration characters are inconvenient
for application, their frequent use at critical positions in
professional printed keys is unfortunate. 
#63. In common with those describing antennal morphology, and for
similar reasons, this character is not reliably applicable to female
specimens. \par{}The data are mostly taken from Meyrick, who rarely
refers directly to the situation in females, and provides no information
at all on tibial spurs of Ennominae. Examination of material to hand
suggests that Ennominae (males and females) probably all have both
middle and end-spurs, and this condition is assumed for them in the
descriptions. Also, it appears that when males have all four spurs, the
corresponding females also have them all; on the other hand, as
indicated by text comments in the data, when the males lack middle
spurs, the condition in the corresponding females sometimes differs (nor
can it be assumed that all four are present in females when Meyrick
fails to mention them). \par{}Meyrick's key to the Sterrhinae (p. 195),
which relies on this character, contains a major error (for male read
female?).
#69. Bradley (2000) details in precise terms the national status of many
species, including those here tagged adventive. The term as used here denotes 
not native to this environment, and includes species usually 
indicated in check lists as of doubtful
British status. Assignment is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, because
situations where specimens have been rarely but genuinely found at large
in the British Isles as a result of migrations beyond the normal range
of a species, or of accidental transport by human agencies, are hard to
disentangle from honest but erroneous records and cases of fraud.
Migrant species recorded regularly in Britain as adults but which are
unable breed successfully there are treated as native in this
connection.
#72. Complete lists of species and genera are given here, cf. Bradley
et al. (1972).
\par{} Bradley (2000) details in precise terms the national status of many
species, including those here tagged adventive. The term as used here denotes 
not native to this environment, and includes species usually 
indicated in check lists as of doubtful
British status. Assignment is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, because
situations where specimens have been rarely but genuinely found at large
in the British Isles as a result of migrations beyond the normal range
of a species, or of accidental transport by human agencies, are hard to
disentangle from honest but erroneous records and cases of fraud.
Migrant species recorded regularly in Britain as adults but which are
unable breed successfully there are treated as native in this
connection.
#73. Tribal classification after Bradley (2000). 
 
