Jump to content

Talk:Luna moth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Picture

[edit]

I have taken a picture of a female Luna moth with a wingspan of about 7.5 inches. The article describing the Luna moth gives it a wingspan of up to 4.5 inches. This should be changed since it is evident from my picture the wingspan can be much greater. Please note the moth on the brick in front of the window. I can be reached at jimdrummo@comcast.net if you like. I am located 15 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, PA. Jim Drummond (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also took a picture of female Luna moth Saba imran bhat (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But o don't know how to upload that picture here Saba imran bhat (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Luna Moths

[edit]

Luna moths can be a valued learning opportunity for kids and families. We have found four luna moth cocoons, suspended them from a cage, and have awaited their arrival. At times, the luna moth will move in its cocoon and make sounds like a fidgeting mouse. Today, my kids excitedly met me at the door to tell me a moth has hatched, and sure enough, one beautiful luna moth held nicely to its old cocoon to show off its beauty.

we found a Luna Moth!

[edit]

We found a Luna Moth! it is so so big and beautiful!

Scientific name

[edit]

Should this article really be under the scientific name? What is the reason for this? I haven't seen any other such article. You might as well change Gray wolf to Canis lupis, and likewise for every other living creature. The title of the article should be something people recognize. How many people will see "Actias luna" and say, "oh, that's a luna moth." This would especially be a problem if the article was in a list somewhere, which it very well could be. If no good reason for this change is proposed, I plan on reverting it in a few days.--Sarabi1701 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it to help standardize things. No, no other article is going to have a problem because I changed all the articles linking to Luna moth to link to Actias luna. All of the articles I created are under the scientific name (in Sphingidae and Saturniidae) including most of them here. Yes, I would changed gray wolf to the scientific name and have the colloquial name redirect, but I'm working in Lepidoptera. I'd prefer if you didn't change it back, it's simply not encyclopedic to not use scientific names when addressing biodiversity. I've also done it to several other pages including Mutillidae and Sialidae without complaint. One of my main beefs is that other things may be under the colloquial name (for example, if gray wolf was also a product or company) and putting gray_wolf_(biology) is much tackier and less rational that Canis lupis. If you have any more questions, please mention them before reverting the change.--Kugamazog 02:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so, I found this section in a Wikiproject that might help us...click here. I know it's just a suggested guidline, but I think it's a good suggestion. Living organisms that are well known to the general public should be under their common names, so gray wolf should stay gray wolf, as should cat, horse, tiger, and so on. I will admit, the luna moth is not so well known...so, perhaps it should stay under it's scientific name...I guess I could get used to it :-p Well, goodluck in your entomology studies! ~ Sarabi1701 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thanks for the LOVELY article. I was blessed to see one flittering about a light in the SOUTH at night and it was like looking at a fairy. It is one of the most beautiful moments in my life and I will never forget that, in the creatures brief one-week life at this stage, I was fortunate enough to witness its beauty.

I saw my first and only luna moth when one flew into my bathroom at night while I lived in B'ham Alabama. As a transplanted Californian I was at first startled and then delighted. I'd never seen anything so unusual or beautiful. For once I had the humidity to thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

[edit]

This image is of what I know as a luna moth. THe grid is s screen, the moth was on the outside, so it is an image of the underside of the insect. I put iot here wioth questions. What luna moth is it, and is a picture such as this right for Wikipedia?

Luna moth, underside

--Dumarest 12:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a luna moth (if you're in the US I should say) but the picture is rather small and the screen removes any details of the moth so I would say it's not really suitable for the page. Feel free to ask any other questions :) --Kugamazog 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I am in the U.S., Maine. It is not that common to get a view of the underside of a live moth, and given the chance, I took it - screen or not. Did you look at the image itself - the one in Talk is a thumb. But the larger one has the screen more prominent. So, a little sorry, I will erase the image from Wiki. Thanks for your response. --Dumarest 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I was recently out in the woods and came across what appears to be a Luna Moth caterpillar, but the markings seem much more colourful than the pictures I find here and elsewhere. Is the colour element a characteristic of a particular phase, environment, etc? Luna Moth Caterpillar picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanhb (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very likely a Cecropia caterpillar (Hyalophora cecropia) --Kugamazog (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ventral image, left here

[edit]

Can't give up - one does not often see the ventral of a live moth, so I leave it here.--Dumarest 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

[edit]

I believe this is endangered in part of its range. 66.41.66.213 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to NatureServe Explorer, Actias luna is not officially endangered anywhere. It is considered secure (N5) in both Canada and the US, and apparently secure (S4) in both Ontario and Québec (US states have not yet ranked A. luna).
Threats: The only real concern appears to be the out of control introduced biocontrol Compsilura concinnata (Diptera: Tachinidæ) which has impacted this and other large moths in New England and vicinity. however there is no clear evidence such impacts are spreading, although the fly is, and there has been obvious recovery since the low point in the 1970s. At present luna moth appears unthreatened in about 90% or more of its range and unlike some compsilura victims, luna moth has not been actually extirpated from any significant area. FUNgus guy 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi we saw a female luna moth last nite on our porch. It was beautiful. We live in marlton NJ 7/31/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.83.9 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Host plants

[edit]

List of host plants should include gardenia. I have a magnificent green caterpillar happily munching on my gardenia plant at this moment. It is a beautiful creature now, and I can imagine what a glorious moth "LuLu" will become. 96.253.121.96 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Moth Picture

[edit]

A Luna Moth flew into my garage last night and I took a great picture of it. Much more colorful than the one posted on the main page. I have no idea how to submit the photo for review. The flickr link is: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4044/4502895790_2fa0568968_o.jpg Thanks, NicoleSquiggly (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Luna moths

[edit]

I've also seen Luna moths nearly as wide and long as the top section of a screen door, in southeastern Virginia. They definitely get bigger than 4.5 inches. 99.36.206.41 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to wingspan

[edit]

Millimeter value added in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atreyiu (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bioluminescence

[edit]

Should add a mention of bioluminescence in this species, with a ref. Article needs better refs and copy-editing, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in literature search. Wrong species? David notMD (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Good Article nomination

[edit]

For a very popular moth, the article could use massive improvements in content and referencing, and then a nomination for Good Article status. Working on it. David notMD (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a LONG history of people adding and other people deleting mentions of Luna moths in popular culture (including video games). My inclination is to leave all of this except the postage stamp mention out. Such a list could go on and on and on, and add little to the knowledge about the species. However, an opposing point of view can be seen in the article Death's-head hawkmoth, where there is an "In popular culture" section. But please, keep the THE HUNGER GAMES mention out of it. That was a one-liner about a "green-and-silver moth," which clearly means Collins did not even bother to look up a plausible moth description. David notMD (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Actias luna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


You can just go on over to WP:RM and put it under Technical requests and cite WP:Common names. It should go through pretty quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put in for a RM. Note: when I changed a name for another insect myself rather than submit a RM, the name change went through, but the page view statistics were not transferred. That was for "Brown-tail" to "Brown-tail moth". David notMD (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Name change completed for article and Talk.
Take refs no. 7 and no. 1, they're not formatted correctly, which would not happen if the article consistently used {{cite}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Used CITE the change format of ref 1,7 and the newly added 11. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them all. David notMD (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did not, I see instar isn't, aldehyde isn't, cocooning is twice, imago is twice. Go over it again   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a careful balance   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I’ll get there later today   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember when that happened on bottlenose dolphin   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It takes up half of the Etymology section and seems very tangential, it spends more time explaining Greek mythology than the Luna moth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few still to comply to, and still, the remaining CNs. David notMD (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CNs cleared. The one new ref for Polyphemus moth does state that luna moth pupae secrete cocoonase to weaken the cocoon silk. David notMD (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have addressed all bullets from the first and second set, including using CITE for improperly formatted citations. David notMD (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use {{cite}} for all refs, I see more that aren’t formatted correctly. Also, websites need access-date parameters. If you don’t know the date it was first accessed, just put down today’s date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cite and access-date applied to refs 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16. David notMD (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion down here for half the current Etymology section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content after "several other North American giant silk moths" runs off topic, and suggests something not stated in refour-giant-silk-moths-and-ancient-mythology. nationalmothweek.org probably doesn't rate a mention, (though they deserve national holidays).I was reviewing the article and was noting this when I saw the 2nd opinion request. cygnis insignis 05:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I yield to majority. Section shortened. David notMD (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "There was no chemical analysis to determine whether the active substances were derived from plants the larvae ate, or synthesized de novo" and where it says some other giant silk moths don't give warning clicks are really relevant. For the latter, you could just start off the paragraph as "Like some giant silk moth larvae..." and leave it. Instead of saying "The regurgitated material was confirmed as being a predator deterrent against several species," you could just say the first time you mention regurgitated material that it's a predator-deterrent instead of giving it an entire sentence. It's still unnecessarily wordy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the paper and the paragraph, a quick comment after considering this [before coffee]. Actius luna is used in the comparative study of the research subject, so there is, of course, a lot of irrelevant discussion. What has been presented in our article is somewhat relevant though it may need to be refined, facts gleaned with their context. The absence of research on appropriation of phytotoxins or novel agents in the regurgitant is a qualification to what is known about their suite of defence systems, it is a known-unknown that might skew their investigation of 'clicking' as "aposematic signalling". cygnis insignis 04:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it just needs to be reworded, there's a lot of unnecessary padding and repetition that's effectively acting as page filler right now is what I'm seeing, like, "The regurgitated material was confirmed as being a predator deterrent against several species," and, "The results of this experiment support echolocation distortion as an effective countermeasure," though noteworthy, don't really need their own sentences. For the third paragraph, sentence 2 is implied in and thus unnecessary with sentence 3; sentences 4, 5, and 6 describing the study procedures I don't really see as noteworthy; and sentence 7 repeats sentence 1.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further reduced, to 288 words. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the third paragraph, only the first 2 sentences are necessary. You don't typically have to described what a study did (and if you do, maybe like "...a study that clipped the tails off moths to test for likelihood to bat predation..." and move right on to conclusion). You can use all the extra space to explain how long tails distort echolocation (I'm still confused)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any major predators in particular? You said bats and I know you deleted owls so I'm wondering if it's just that basically everything eats Luna moths or not?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tuskes, Hall/UnivFL and Kellogg are vague about other predators and parasites. Clearly, if females are laying 200 eggs and a constant population calls for two survivors to mate and continue, there is 99% loss to various causes. Hall/UnivFL states insect parasites and "...a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate predators." Kellogg mentions a few instances of parasite flies other than C. concinnata. I expect that birds eat the larvae, but there is no published work on that. Mice, chipmunks and other small vertebrate omnivores would probably tear open cocoons and eat the pupae, but again, no literature. Literature does not mention diseases, which is why I took that out of the section title, even though it is well known that some moth larvae are killed by viruses. Nothing on what might eat eggs. Here, the fact that eggs are scattered suggests there is egg predation. In contrast, gypsy and brown-tail moths lay all eggs in one place and cover the egg mass with protective materials (for brown-tail, poison-containing hairs from the female's body). David notMD (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was the scattering eggs thing in the source?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both Tuskes and and Hall/UnivFL state eggs laid singly or in small groups/clusters. Those are the citations. David notMD (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the part about it being an anti-predator behavior, that'd be notable as well's the comparison between the gypsy and brown-tail moths   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the literature on what percentage of Luna moth eggs lost to predators, or for that matter, any of the giant silk moths. Most of the website literature is by commercial growers, so they protect eggs, larvae, cocoons, emerging adults. David notMD (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a set percentage, just a general idea of the size. Some? Many? Most? A few? A professional grower could be considered a reliable source, all your sources don't necessarily have to come with a doi or ISBN, just remember to make sure they seem reliable and verify they genuinely know what they're talking about. Also, back to the original comment, what exactly was the reason you deleted the owls part?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OWLS: My reason to delete: the only evidence was a casual observation made in Kellogg (2003): "In spring 1999, the ground below an unidentified owl roost on campus was regularly littered with numerous saturniid wings, including A. luna, A. polyphemus and C. regalis." I am leery about generalizing this to stating that owls (species?) are predators of Luna moths. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EGG PREDATION: Other than the already cited references, the only information sources are professional growers/sellers. They mate moths inside netted cages, then transfer the females to the inside of a large paper bag to lay eggs. That is why one of the photos in the article (there before I started on it) shows a large number of eggs on a brown paper backing. I have exchanged emails with Bill Oehlke (from External sources) to learn if he could provide information on what goes on in the wild, but he had nothing to add. David notMD (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Optional suggestion. I read somewhere that they are grown commercially, can that be mentioned in the article? cygnis insignis 21:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not for silk production, but there are growers who will sell eggs or cocoons, to collectors, but also to schools that want these as a science teaching tool. Two of the three External links are to one of those. I am leery about trying to incorporate into article because not possible to reference except to commercial sites. David notMD (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things left to do

Are you sure you hit the Publish change button? I’m reading it and absolutely nothing has changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Last paragraph before and after = 19 words shorter. (See below.) The bats paragraph now states that with intact hindwings, the attacking bats often grabbed the tails, allowing the moths to escape. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE: The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America, including Luna moths.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata.[6] Researchers concluded that this parasitic fly, deliberately introduced to North America to provide biological control of gypsy moths, had collateral damage on native moth species, including the Luna moth.[4][6]

AFTER: The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata. The researchers concluded that this parasitic fly caused collateral damage to Luna moths.[6]

  • The parasitic fly Compsilura concinnata native to Europe was deliberately introduced to the United States throughout much of the 20th century as a biological control for gypsy moths. Due to its flexible life cycle, it can parasitize more than 150 species of butterflies and moths in North America.[4][5] One field trial placed second through fifth instar Luna moth larvae on hickory tree leaves in several test areas. These were then collected and returned to the laboratory. Four parasitoid species emerged, the most common being C. concinnata. The researchers concluded that this parasitic fly caused collateral damage to Luna moths.[6]
What's in red is unnecessary, just add onto the second sentence, "...including the Luna moth," and end it. I'm reading the second paragraph, there is no change. You did not explain in-text how long tails disrupt echolocation. The text "Experiments were conducted with Luna moths with intact wings and with the tails removed. With intact wings, a majority of the attacking bats contacted the hindwing tails rather than the body of the moth; only 35% of intact moths were caught versus 81% for those with clipped tails. The results of this experiment support echolocation distortion as an effective countermeasure," is unnecessary. If you're describing a study, use a few words as possible and go right to the conclusions. I'm not even sure it's notable to write so much about the study if it's only supposed to say "long tails disrupt bat echolocation." All that's notable is here is that the hindwing tails are used by moon moths to disrupt bat echolocation. Write about that, not a study about that.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Egg fertilization observation

[edit]

This from a person who raises and sells Luna moth eggs and cocoons: "Most females remain still for two to three nights. They are conserving energy, but are actively seeking a mate by extending a scent gland from the tip of the abdomen at night. If not mated by end of third evening will stop "calling" and start laying infertile eggs. The eggs do not become fertile at the time of copulation. The eggs get fertilized as they pass through a mix of male sperm, seminal fluids and "glue", stored in the female's body. This immersion/fertilization takes place as the female expels/deposits the eggs. Thus eggs deposited four days before other eggs will usually hatch four days earlier, even though they have come from the same female." David notMD (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research idea

[edit]

Walnut, hickory and pecan leaves all contain juglone. Luna moth larvae use regurgitated food as a predator deterrent. Effectiveness could be that it contains juglone. Comparison would be to larvae fed white birch or sweet gum. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found in India Maharashtra from Kokan Division

[edit]

Tonight 12th June 2020 (Corona Lockdown) I found a rare species of butterflies named Luna moth I located in India Maharashtra from konkan Division Sindhudurga District Village Gaorai. I have lots of good pictures and videos of it. Kindly contact me for photos and video on below contact details. Sundar Samant Email. SUNDAR000049@gmail.com Mob No. 7666784696 Sundar YS (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: General Entomology

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ReeseWB (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ReeseWB (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luna_moth&oldid=1193693822"