Starting to Identify Moths (part 2) - What family?

 

I don't know about you, but my natural instinct when trying to identify something - be it moth, butterfly or bird - is to look at pictures in field guides or online. But with many groups of insect, this doesn't work. Differences between species, or even families, can be subtle or even invisible to a casual observer, making them difficult to illustrate by drawings or photographs. The normal identification method for many insects - from beetles to caddis flies - is therefore to use a key. This will set out a series of choices, allowing you (in an ideal world) to eventually reach an identification. Many insect keys require the use of lenses or microscopes, and in some cases dissection of genitalia.

Happily, moths (generally) are an exception. The good news is that most macro-moths and many micro-moths can be identified from obvious visual characters.  As a result, most moth field guides do not contain detailed keys. Instead, they rely in the first instance on the user matching their specimen to an appropriate image before consulting the more detailed identification advice in their species accounts. 

The bad news is that a beginner trying to identify a moth is faced with a bewildering variety of images, many of which - at first sight - look very similar to each other!

If you haven't already seen it then you may want to take a look at the first blog post of this series, which gives more detail about the identification resources that are out there (link: Identification Resources Blog Post). There are a lot and that list is growing. The purpose of the present post is to suggest a way of making sense of all of those pictures! 

(Disclaimer: I'm only looking at macro-moths in the context of Britain and Ireland. Once you leave these shores, it gets even more interesting - and even more complicated!)

(Second disclaimer: This post is not intended to be comprehensive; the idea is to describe the families and sub-families that a beginner is most likely to come across.)

A Route Towards Identification

Obviously, you can trawl through the many hundreds of drawings or photographs one by one, which is time consuming and can be dispiriting. A better way to do it is to narrow your search - and the easiest first step along that route is to work out which family your moth belongs to.

You will search in vain for a simple key to macro-moth families. Mainly, this is because their formal definition is often based upon obscure characters: these include genitalia, the pattern on veins on their wings and features such as ocelli (additional lenses sited near to the main compound eye) and tympanal organs (which sense pressure or vibration). In addition, some characters only relate to caterpillars (larvae), which is hardly helpful when you're looking at an adult.

The other complication is that families have a nasty habit of changing as more information becomes available to the taxonomists. Hopefully, things have now settled down, although I wouldn't bet on it.

[As an aside, if you are looking for a book about general moth biology and evolution I can recommend David Lees and Alberto Zilli's Moths: Their biology, diversity and evolution which is published by the Natural History Museum. Reasonably priced, and nicely illustrated, it includes images of moths from the British Isles and around the world (NHBS bookshop link here)]

Macro-moths and Micro-moths

The distinction between 'macros' and 'micros' is so well established that it comes as a bit of a shock to learn that it has almost no scientific basis whatsoever.  Apologies for a short detour into the world of taxonomy - the classification of life.

You can picture the evolution of moths and butterflies (which together make up the Order Lepidoptera) as a series of branches, as new forms have split off and diversified over millions of years. The older the split, the less that the modern day representatives of these branches are related to each other.

There are currently around 74 families of Lepidoptera (including the butterflies) on the British checklist (compiled by Agassiz, Heckford and Beaven in 2013, and regularly updated - link to the Natural History Museum data portal) . The checklist gives a two-part number to each species, the first part signifying its family, the second part being unique to that species. So the Vestal moth pictured at the start of this blog post has been given the number 70.038, meaning that it is the 38th species on the checklist in the Geometrid family (Geometridae) - family number 70. 

In simple terms, the families that are classed as micro-moths were the earliest to split off from the 'main' evolutionary line of moths and butterflies (around 100-200 million years ago). You could call them 'primitive', although their surviving members are actually as modern as any other living moth. Most of the macro-moths appeared on the scene later (around 80-100 million years ago). 

This evolutionary sequence is reflected in the checklist classification. Micro-moths, which comprise most of the moth families (around 50 out of 74), generally have the lower numbers, while macro-moths are generally higher.

However, to complicate things, a few of the more 'primitive' families are generally included with the macro-moths. The only reason for this is that they are large and easily observed. But they are only distantly related to the main group of macro-moths.

To bring this together, here is a list of the macro-moth families of Great Britain and Ireland, with their checklist number, scientific name, common name and the (approximate) number of resident species in our area - taken from the 3rd edition of Waring and Townsend (see my resources blog post for the detailed reference). This may look off-putting, but things are actually less complicated than they may first appear.

• 3. Hepialidae - Swift Moths (5 species)
• 50. Cossidae - Leopard and Goat Moths (3) 
• 51. Sesiidae - Clearwings (14)
• 53. Limacodidae - Festoon and Triangle (2)
• 54. Zygaenidae - Forester and Burnet Moths (10)
• 65. Drepanidae - Hook-tips and Lutestrings (6)
• 66. Lasiocampidae - Eggar and Lappet Moths (10)
• 67. Endromidae - Kentish Glory (1) - but don't look for it in Kent!
• 68. Saturnidae - Emperor Moth (1)
• 69. Sphingidae - Hawk-moths (9 plus immigrants) - everyone's favourites
• 70. Geometridae - Geometrids (around 300)
• 71. Notodontidae - Prominents, Kittens and Processionaries (21)
• 72. Erebidae - Tussocks, Tigers, Footmen and the like (89 species) - a mixed bag
• 73. Noctuidae - Noctuids (around 370)
• 74. Nolidae - (14) - another mixed bag that can easily get confused with some micros

Several things jump out of this list.

First, and most importantly, the vast majority of macro-moths are in two large families - the Geometrids and Noctuids. Getting a feel for these two is an important step in learning to identify moths. It's a pity that these families don't have better common names. Geometrids (or geometer moths) are named for their caterpillars, some of which loop along as if they are making a measurement ("inchworms"). Elsewhere in the world, Noctuids are known as owlet moths, armyworms or cutworms, but none of these names are used here.

Second, the Hepialidae (Swift Moths) are real outliers in an evolutionary sense - family number 3 on the checklist. Their closest living relations are tiny micro-moths, not that you would know it from looking at them - for example this female Ghost Moth (below).

Ghost Moth (female) - an 'honorary' macro-moth (one of the Swift moths)

Third, you will see that there is a 'gap' between the Zygaenidae (54) and Drepanidae (65). This contains two important micro-moth families - the Pyralidae (61) and Crambidae (62) - which both include a few species that are large, common and conspicuous enough to be confused with macro-moths. Mother of Pearl is a good (and common) example - see below. The butterflies are also found in this 'gap' - they are families 56 to 61 in the Checklist. I've done a separate blog post on the differences (or not) between moths and butterflies - link here.

Mother of Pearl - a big "micro" moth (family: Crambidae)

Going Forward - First, check out the Big Two

So, you have found a macro-moth. How can you can assign it to a family?

The first job is to check whether it is a member of either of the 'Big Two' families, the Geometrids or the Noctuids. Given that these account for over two-thirds of our macro-moth species, including most of our commonest moths, there's a good chance that it will be. 

(In Dorset, we publish an annual report that includes the Top Twenty most recorded moths for the year - downloadable free via this link. In 2022, all but three of these were in the 'Big Two' families.)

This post briefly runs through the moth families that you are most likely to encounter, giving typical examples from each one - starting with the 'Big Two'. The idea is that you should start to get a 'feel' for the characteristics of each family, which should help to narrow down your search for the correct species.

First, some typical Geometrids:

Typical Geometrid - Common White Wave

Grey Pug - another Geometrid (but pugs can be tricky!)

Mocha - a rarer, but lovely, Geometrid

Brimstone - an attractive and common Geometrid

Flame Carpet - the carpets are an important Geometrid group

Large Emerald - a stunning Geometrid

Early Thorn - a Geometrid that holds its wings vertically

While there's plenty of variety, it's also possible to observe a general theme. In Geometrids the wings rarely overlap and are usually held out flat like a basking butterfly. One group (the thorns) rest with their wings held vertically (or near-vertically); some other geometrids, like the carpets, will also sometimes close their wings above them. (This is annoying when you want to identify them.) 

Turning to the other 'Big Two' family, here are some typical Noctuids. Most will lie flat with wings partly or wholly overlapped (a good pointer) but a few adopt a more upright (tent-like) position, like the Silver Y pictured a bit further down.

Typical Noctuid - Clouded Drab (a common Spring moth)

Large Yellow Underwing - one of the commonest Noctuids

Flame Shoulder - another common Noctuid.

Hebrew Character - a common Spring Noctuid

Coronet (Noctuid) - can be a common where you find Ash trees.

Silver Y - a Noctuid with an upright (tent-like) stance. A common migrant species.

Again, there is a clear general theme - Noctuids are usually stocky or chunky moths, with wings either overlapping or lying side-by-side (but not spread out like a butterfly). Most wings sit fairly flat, but some rest in a tent-like pose. But do note that some other families contain moths with these characteristics, for example the Ermines, which are found in our next family ...

Not the Big Two? Check the next biggest family.

So, what about the other families? I'll deal with the next largest first (the Erebidae) and then move onto some of the smaller - and perhaps more distinctive - families.

For me, the Erebidae doesn't hang together as a family. Its members appear very diverse, with no obvious linking visual theme. And indeed the taxonomists have found them to be problematic; anyone with a first edition of Waring and Townsend (2003) will discover that this family didn't even exist then!

Luckily, however, they break down into a few distinctive groups. Here are some typical ones: examples of the Snouts, Ermines, Tigers, Footmen and Underwings (excluding Yellow Underwings!), which all live within this family.

Snout - common and frequently seen (Erebidae).

Buff Ermine - a common member of the Erebidae. Like many Ermines, this is easily confused with the Noctuids. 

Garden Tiger - my favourite of the Tigers (Erebidae) but sadly declining. Tigers are usually bright and colourful.

 

Dingy Footman - Footmen are a tricky group of the Erebidae

Red Underwing - sensational moths, but they don't like to hang around (Erebidae)

As I said, there is no obvious visual linking theme to this family, but each group (or sub-family) within the moths are generally distinctive.

Prominents - The Next Biggest Family

There may be only 21 species in the family, but some members of the Prominent & Kitten family (Notodontidae) will certainly turn up in your moth trap. Usually resting in a tent-like position like some of the Noctuids, they tend to appear more furry, and even more chunky, than most members of that family. Here are three typical examples:

Buff Tip - a crowd-pleasing twig-mimic (Notodontidae).

Pebble Prominent (Notodontidae).

Sallow Kitten (Notodontidae) - easily confused with Poplar Kitten.

Best of the Rest - Other Distinctive Families

Ignoring four families that are unlikely to turn up in your trap (but congratulations if they do!) - namely the Clearwings, Festoon/Triangle, Kentish Glory and Emperor Moth - that leaves us with seven more families that you are very likely to come across. Happily, most are pretty distinctive. Of these, three families can be easily identified: the Hawk-moths, the Eggars and the Burnet Moths. I'll start with these.

The Hawk-moths (family Sphingidae) are large and obvious. Even better, some are common. Here's two for starters:

Elephant Hawk-moth

Privet Hawk-moth - one of the biggest moths in Britain and Ireland

The Eggar moths (family Lasiocampidae) contain some of my favourite macro-moths. Like some other moths (for example most of the Notodontidae) the adults cannot feed. Most are large and particularly furry: here are two typical examples:

Oak Eggar (female)

Drinker - another Eggar moth

Although unlikely to appear in a light trap, the Burnet Moths (family Zygaenidae) are frequent and visible day-flyers in grassland and other open areas - especially sand dunes and flowery chalk grassland.  Look for them on flower-heads. This is the most widely spread species in Britain and Ireland:

Six-spot Burnet Moth

Four more families to go! I've already introduced the Swift Moths (family Hepialidae) with the image of a Ghost Moth earlier on in this blog post. These hold their wings in a tent-like position like some of the Noctuids, but have a fairly consistent, rounded wing shape. Very often the abdomen pokes out beyond the back of the forewings. Here's another characteristic Swift Moth species that may well turn up in your light trap:

Orange Swift - a common Swift Moth

Only three species from the Goat and Leopard Moths (family Cossidae) are found in Britain and Ireland. All have long wings, which are also held in a tent-like resting position. Leopard Moth is most likely to appear in a moth trap, although it is absent from Ireland, Scotland and parts of Wales and Northern England. A lovely moth with distinctive black spots on a white background.

 

Leopard Moth (Cossidae)

The Hook-tip and Lutestring family (Drepanidae) is another family that has caused problems for the taxonomists. It is divided into two groups (strictly, sub-families) that look quite different from each other. However, within itself, each group has a fairly distinctive character.

The first group (the Hook-tips) generally hold their wings out flat like the Geometrids. The clue to their identification is in the name - look out for the hooked tip to their forewings (although, as we'll see later, not all hook-tipped moths are in this family!). Pebble Hook-tip (below) is a common and typical example of the Hook-tips. 

Pebble Hook-tip (Drepanidae)

Having said that, there is one complete outlier in the Hook-tip sub-family - the Chinese Character. It is a common and fascinating little moth that mimics bird poo with great accuracy. It can be easy to miss.

Chinese Character - an unusual Hook-tip (Drepanidae)

The other sub-family of the Drepanidae are the Lutestrings. These look very like Noctuids, and I can't think of an easy way to separate them from that big family. However, there aren't very many of them and they are easily learned. First, a distinctive one; and then one that's a bit more confusing.

Peach Blossom - a distinctive member of the Drepanidae.

Common Lutestring - one of the Drepanidae that's easily confused with the Noctuids

And that leaves us with the Nolidae. Sitting after the Noctuids at the back of most field guides, these can get a bit overlooked. Like the Drepanidae, there is no obvious linking visual characteristic for the family as a whole, but also like that family, they are few in number and easily learned. Six of the family (all various kinds of Black Arches) do share a consistent 'look'. They are small, so there is a danger of confusing them with some micro-moths. Of these, Least Black Arches is the most widespread across Britain and Ireland, but it's still not common.

Least Black Arches (Nolidae) - not a micro-moth!

Very different, and rather more common (I'm happy to say) is the beautiful Green Silver-lines.

Green Silver-lines (Nolidae)

 Whew! Well done if you've made it this far.

Finally ... what's in a name?

There's been a lot to get through in this blog post, but I'll leave with a quick word of warning about common (or vernacular) moth names. The message in a nutshell is as follows: common moth names can be inconsistent and confusing! Many relate to visual features that can be found across more than one moth family. Do not assume that a similar common name implies any sort of actual relationship. 

For example:

• Black Arches (family Erebidae) is not related to Least Black Arches, Kent Black Arches and the others in the Nolidae family.

Black Arches (Erebidae) - no relation to the Nolidae.

• And the 'Arches' name applies to moths in other families as well - such as Green Arches (in the Noctuid family).

Green Arches - a Noctuid.

• Beautiful Hook-tip (also family Erebidae - which has a lot to answer for!) is not a member of the Hook-tip family (Drepanidae), although it really looks like one.

Beautiful Hook-tip (Erebidae) - not in the Hook-tip family (Drepanidae)

• There's a lot more of this, but I'll leave it there. There's more identification advice to come, so watch this space ...

On Moths and Butterflies

 

My slightly tongue-in-cheek social media post yesterday (below) provoked an entertaining exchange of views on the differences - or, more exactly, the lack of differences - between moths and butterflies. 

I chose the images deliberately to suggest the similarities between moths and butterflies. But for many people there is a deep and profound divide. "I love butterflies" versus "I hate moths". Butterflies flap colourfully around in the sun, while moths are seen as sinister creatures of the night that eat your carpets. 

This bias appears surprisingly pervasive. Butterfly Conservation does a lot of great work for moths. (I am a member, and I urge you to join too - there's a link here.) It runs the National Moth Recording Scheme, carries out moth research (check out the excellent State of Britain's Larger Moths 2021 report, which can be downloaded free from the website) and undertakes moth conservation projects. Its Atlas of Britain's and Ireland's Larger Moths is an essential resource (I sponsored a moth in it - see whether you can find it!). Through its #MothsMatter campaign, Butterfly Conservation acts as a much needed cheerleader for moths, while its officers appear regularly on the TV to explain why most moths do not actually eat carpets.

However, you only have to look at Butterfly Conservation's members' magazine to understand that moths are secondary to the interest in butterflies. The magazine is called "Butterfly", for a start. In a (very) much smaller font you will find the strapline: "Saving butterflies, moths and our environment". Butterfly Conservation's Twitter (X) handle is @savebutterflies. Several times, I have suggested to BC officers that the charity's name could be changed to include a reference to moths: the response has always been on the lines of "it's just not going to happen". 

Aside from the fact that a lot of BC members simply like butterflies (and there's nothing wrong with that), there is another (largely unstated) reason why moths aren't given equal billing. Namely, the fear that mentioning moths will put people off from joining and donating. I don't know whether this is based upon any hard evidence - it may have been focus-grouped, I suppose - but there's no denying that there is a weird, and largely irrational, dislike of moths out there. A particularly bonkers example is in a Guardian comment piece from 2012, titled "Why I Hate Moths". 

(By the way, if you do open this link, you will see that the main photo, which has appeared all over the place including the Times, Daily Express and Good Housekeeping, is a classic piece of deliberate misinformation: two geometrid moths have been placed next to a hole in a woollen jumper. As most of you will know: (1) these aren't clothes moths, (2) only a tiny number of moth species damage fabric and (3) it's the larvae that do the damage, not the adult moths.)

But if the level of aggression against moths in some quarters seems disproportionate, then it's perhaps also rather odd to focus too strongly on butterflies in preference to moths. Three reasons why:

First - many moths are spectacular and conspicuous. There are at least as many day-flying moth species in Britain and Ireland as there are butterflies. Below are a couple of the more showy ones - Jersey Tiger, a species that has colonised the south of England and is heading north, and Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet - one of a number of burnet moths, all of which are vibrantly coloured.

Jersey Tiger - Dorset

Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet - Northumberland

Second - butterflies only make up a small part of the Lepidoptera (the order containing moths and butterflies). Published numbers vary, partly because new species are being added to the list regularly, but a good estimate of the total count for the Lepidoptera is around 157,000 species (Stork, 2018), of which between 15-20,000 are butterflies - around 10%. In Britain and Ireland, the difference is even more stark: we have around 60 resident butterfly species compared to around 2,500 moths - only about 2.5%. 

Butterflies are the exception; moths are the rule.

This means that, even in our biologically impoverished islands, moths demonstrate significant and interesting species diversity. There is much to learn, and fascinating stories to tell. For example, studies of moths have pointed towards reasons for the general decline of insect numbers (see my blog post on this here). 

Third - and this is the crucial one - there is really no meaningful distinction between moths and butterflies anyway. As we have seen, moths fly during the day as well as at night. Many moths are bright and colourful. The uraniid moth from Ecuador's Yasuni National Park pictured below is perhaps an extreme example, but it makes the point. See also the Cream-spot Tiger photo at the head of this blog post.

Uraniid moth (Urania leilus) - Ecuador

Look harder at the taxonomy and you will struggle to find differences as well. Butterflies are grouped together in a 'superfamily' (the Papilionoidea), that appears to have split-off from the main 'family tree' of the Lepidoptera around 100 million years ago. A recent study has suggested that this split took place in North America (Kawahara et al., 2023). But the butterfly superfamily sits within the rest of the Lepidoptera - and these are all moths. They include families that are more 'primitive' than butterflies (for example that have a single genital opening for mating and egg-laying) as well as families that share the same characteristics as butterflies - for example two genital openings (Lees & Zilli, 2019).  The oft-quoted 'fact' that butterflies have clubbed antennae while those of moths is tapered is confused by the sheer diversity of moth forms. For example, the antennae of Burnet Moths, such as this Six-spot Burnet below, end in a wider section that then tapers. Not unlike that of a Dingy Skipper (also pictured below).

Six-spot Burnet - Dorset

 

Dingy Skipper - Dorset

As such, there is no one characteristic that separates butterflies from moths. Moths can therefore be defined as 'Lepidoptera that aren't butterflies'. But - to cut to the chase - it's far easier to say that butterflies are actually moths!

So, let's hear it for a bit of blurring of boundaries, and leaping out of traditional silos. If you love butterflies, then try dipping a toe into the magical world of moths. You won't regret it!

References

Lees, D.C. and Zilli, A. (2019) Moths: Their biology, diversity and evolution. London: Natural History Museum

Kawahara, A.Y., Storer, C., Carvalho, A.P.S., Plotkin, D.M., Condamine, F.L., Braga, M.P., Ellis, E.A., St Laurent, R.A., Li, X., Barve, V. and Cai, L. (2023). 'A global phylogeny of butterflies reveals their evolutionary history, ancestral hosts and biogeographic origins.' Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(6), pp.903-913.

Stork, N.E. (2018) 'How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth?' Annual Review of Entomology, 63, pp.31-45.

 

Starting to Identify Moths (part 1) - Helpful books, websites and other resources.

 

Moth identification can be a daunting business. With around 2,500 moth species in the UK alone it's hard to know where to start. Fortunately, there is help at hand. This blog post points you in the direction of the best identification resources for moth recording in the UK and Ireland. 

I cover four main information sources:

1. Moth identification books.

2. Useful websites.

3. Online discussion groups and other online advice.

4. Artificial Intelligence-based resources.

All have their own advantages and potential pitfalls. So, read on.

1. Moth Identification Books

This is a personal selection of the books that I have found most helpful. Others are available, and the absence of any publication from this list does not amount to any sort of criticism. It's just that I don't use it.

I have included links to the Atropos shop for most of the books covered (links open in a new window). This is simply for ease of reference: I don't get anything for it and other online bookshops are available, such as NHBS. It's always worth shopping around for deals and special offers.

The two Bloomsbury guides to (macro) moths and micro-moths

One of my key messages is that the more identification resources you use, the better. It always pays to have a few books to hand. However, if I was forced to choose the moth identification book that I have used most of all it would be The Field Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland by Paul Waring and Martin Townsend, with brilliant illustrations by Richard Lewington. This is now into its third edition (published 2017) - Atropos bookshop link here.

One (very) small complaint about Waring and Townsend, as it's usually referred to, is that the title is misleading. Strictly, it only deals with the larger moths - the macro-moths. I will deal with moth classification in another blog, but suffice to say at this stage that Waring and Townsend will cover most of the moths that a beginner will want to identify. And it's pretty comprehensive. Only a handful of recently recorded species aren't covered. This is an important point: many otherwise excellent insect identification books will include only a selection of species, which is understandable given the scale of insect diversity, but which risks misidentification because of the potential to ignore possible confusion species.

Given the success of the first edition of Waring and Townsend, it was always likely that a companion guide would follow covering the micro-moths. Phil Sterling (who is a leading light of our Dorset moth verification team) and Mark Parsons teamed up with Richard Lewington to prepare The Field Guide to the Micro-moths of Britain and Ireland. The second edition (here) came out in 2023. Unlike its macro companion, this doesn't aim to be comprehensive: 1286 species are covered (out of 1576), with 1012 species illustrated. This does mean that it's possible, even likely (given time), that a micro-moth will turn up that isn't in the book. However, such an event is unlikely to trouble anyone who is new to moth recording.

For the sake of completeness, I should add that certain groups of micro-moths (as well as a few macro-moths) cannot be identified from images alone: many species require the dissection of genitalia ("gen. det.") to confirm the species. As such, Phil and Mark set out a clear warning against trying to "shoehorn" every micro-moth into one of the species illustrated in their book.

Both of the Bloomsbury guides are available in hardback, but I have had no problems using paperback versions of them both. Having said that, I have backed them both with what the 1970s TV programme Blue Peter referred to as 'sticky-backed plastic', which has made them considerably more resilient. Without this, both would suffer from spine-cracking, especially the thicker micro book. As well as coffee spillages and the like.

Bloomsbury have also produced a condensed (and cheaper) version of the Waring and Townsend - the Concise Guide to the Moths of Britain and Ireland, now in its second edition. This also contains Richard Lewington's illustrations, but the text entries are reduced in size and (to my mind) usefulness. I bought the first edition of this book but, despite its user-friendly spiral binding, it has remained on the shelf. 

(In the same series as the macro and micro-moth books, Phil Sterling, Barry Henwood and Richard Lewington have also produced a Field Guide to the Caterpillars of Great Britain and Ireland. This is also excellent, but outside the scope of the present blog.)

Chris Manley's Photographic Guide

Excellent though Richard Lewington's illustrations are, I like to have a photographic guide to hand as well. My stand-by here has been Chris Manley's British Moths: A Photographic Guide to the Moths of Britain and Ireland. This is now into a third edition (here), but I'm still using the second edition. The photos in Chris's book are excellent and orientated consistently in order to aid comparison. It is a joy to look at. A huge advantage is that it combines macros and micros into a single volume. It's not fully comprehensive, but it does include an impressive range of species, including a few that don't make it into the two Bloomsbury guides already mentioned. The species accounts in this book are however extremely brief, so look elsewhere for more detailed identification pointers. (The second edition of Chris's book contained a number of errors, although an addendum was made available. It also has a terrible index! Hopefully, these problems have been addressed in the third edition?) 

 

James Lowen's Gateway Guide

A special mention should be given to James Lowen's A Gateway Guide to British Moths (here), the only book in this list that is explicitly aimed at beginners. It's another photographic guide, and the quality of the images is simply stunning. One innovative feature is the presence of numbered pointers on the photographs, which refer to particular identification features in the text - very useful.

In setting the book out, James has departed from the traditional taxonomic approach of the other books described above. Moths are ordered by flight season, and then grouped broadly by visual appearance. This means that moths from different families are often shown on the same page. Personally, I find this confusing, as I never know where to find anything, but then I'm not the target audience. I can see that it might work very well for someone who is new to moths and doesn't know where to start looking to find the species that they are trying to identify. I like the way that James has included some of the more conspicuous micro-moth species, as a "taster" to perhaps encourage further study. 

Obviously, this book doesn't aim to be comprehensive (it focuses on only around 350 species), but James has done a great job in selecting those moths that beginners will want to identify. It's worth having just for the quality of the photographs.     

My 'go-to' list of moth identification books also includes two slim volumes. Both appear at first to have a limited geographical basis, but both have proved invaluable to this Dorset-based moth recorder.

Not only useful in the North West! 

All moth recorders will tell you that pug moths are a menace. I don't find the illustrations in either Waring and Townsend or Manley's book to be as helpful as they should be. While there is a useful preamble to the pugs section of Waring and Townsend, the sheer number of species listed is a bit daunting. (For example, the section headed "Conspicuous dark spot in middle of forewing but no distinct whitish spot in trailing corner" gives you a list of over 25 possibilities.) In this case, the separation between text and images acts against easy usage.

In contrast, Brian Hancock's Pug Moths of North-west England (here) is a model of spaciousness and clarity. Obviously, its distribution maps are of little use outside its stated geographical area (Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria). But the photographic illustrations are excellent, and include (where appropriate) images showing variation both within a species and as a result of wear during the season. In some cases, comparisons are shown side by side. Almost all of the UK's resident pug species are covered, with only six omissions. These include Cypress Pug and Channel Islands Pug, both of which have turned up in my Dorset garden. As long as you bear that limitation in mind, this is a very useful volume. 

Useful outside Berkshire, too!

In a similar vein, the Berkshire Moth Group have prepared a superb guide to the Common Micro-moths of Berkshire. A second edition is now available (here), which I haven't bought yet (note to self: do this!). Although this guide makes no claims to be comprehensive, it has an uncanny focus on the more common species of micro-moth that are likely to turn up in your trap. The first edition, which I'm still using, covers just over 100 species; apparently this number has been doubled in the second edition. This is another photographic guide, with the photos also having numbered annotations to point out key identification features. Photos of similar species are presented side by side, which is particularly helpful, especially in the awkward Eudonia/Scoparia complex of micro-moths (Crambidae). 

Old school identification! (Now out of print)

For the sake of completeness, I should also mention my first ever moth identification book - Bernard Skinner's Colour Identification Guide to the Moths of the British Isles (2nd edition). Before Waring and Townsend arrived, this was a standard reference book for macro-moths. It contains photographs of set specimens, with separate text. I found it difficult to use, for three main reasons. First, the set specimens look unnatural in comparison with the usual resting position of moths. Second, the images have a rather poor resolution, although I understand that this may be a particular problem with the second edition. Finally, the supporting text contains only limited descriptions of key identification features compared to more recent identification books - even the Concise Waring and Townsend. But having said all of that, Skinner has one feature that the other books omit: by showing set specimens, it includes images of the hind wings for all species. 

Skinner now appears to be out of print, but can no doubt be tracked down second hand. I probably wouldn't bother to buy it now, but it remains a useful part of my identification armoury.

Addendum: Since I first published this post, it has been pointed out to me (thanks Paul C) that I missed out Sean Clancy's Moths of Great Britain and Ireland (link here - available at an enticing discount, at the time of writing!). I haven't used the book myself, but other moth recorders speak highly of it. And, as I say, the more identification resources, the better.

2. Useful Websites

There are a lot of moth-related websites out there, so this will necessarily be a selective look at the ones that I find most useful for identification purposes.

Dorset Moths - an example of a county moth group website

If you are lucky, a local moth group will have set up a website describing the moths of your area. This is usually a county, such as our local Dorset Moths website, but it may cover a larger area such as West Midlands Moths. If you are lucky, this website will contain specific identification advice, such as Phil Dean's guide to pug moths on the Devon Moth Group site (here). But even if it doesn't, there should be some information that is useful for identification. One feature that is really helpful for beginners, and found on many county websites, is a page showing the moths that are most likely to be seen at different times of the year in your local area. An example is the Moths By Month feature on the Butterfly Conservation East of Scotland Branch website (here). The local dimension is really important here: as a result of their wider coverage, the identification books listed earlier in this post can only give broad ranges for flight times.

Once you have a tentative identification for your moth, it is always worth checking to see whether

your local moth recording website has information on its status in your area. For example, the Dorset Moths website contains distribution maps, flight times, photographs and summary text for all macro-moths recorded in the county (but only up to 2019 at the moment). If your species looks like an outlier then you have either found something that is interesting and unusual or you've misidentified your moth. Trust me, it's usually the second of these! (But as a rider to that, I should stress that validated observations of species flying at unusual times or unexpected places are some of the most interesting and scientifically useful records.)

Turning to national websites, Ian Kimber's UKMoths contains a great range of images of both macro and micro-moth species. There's a "beginners' top twenty" of his most popular ID requests. However, the website's text doesn't include as much detailed identification information as many of the books listed above.

Chris Lewis's British Lepidoptera website also contains a gallery of images. Although of less relevance to the beginner, these include images of moth dissection and genitalia. Not that I've used it, but Chris offers a moth genital dissection service, for a fee.

Useful though these may be, the website that I use most often myself is actually German - Lepiforum. This is an amazing resource, despite a few drawbacks. First, it includes plenty of species that you won't get in the British Isles. Second, it's in German (which I don't speak); while the advent of automatic translation has eased this particular burden a bit, it's still a bit clunky when it comes down to technical vocabulary. Having said that, the website contains an extraordinary range of images, and is particularly useful for exploring variation within a species. It's also the best place to look in the happy event that you have found something that is new to the British Isles!

Although not aimed at beginners, Phil Sterling (via Butterfly Conservation) recently presented a series of four hour-long moth identification video sessions on YouTube. These give a lot of essential detail to help in separating the more confusing groups of moths - mostly macro-moths but a few micros as well (Phil's speciality). A link to the first of these videos is here.

3. Online discussion groups and other online advice.

Social media has many disadvantages, but it is a useful tool for moth identification. Facebook, in particular, is the home for online discussion groups where members can post images of moths and ask for identification advice. I use two in particular. First is the Dorset Moths Facebook group (here), for which I am one of the administrators. Set up by the late Terry Box, who pioneered the online face of the Dorset Moth Group, this now contains 640 members. It's a private group, but if you have a genuine interest in the moths of Dorset then you are very welcome to join us. We have many out-of-county members. There may well be other similar local groups out there.

Also on Facebook, I dip from time to time into the Pugs In Flight Tonight group (here), another private group but with a larger membership (currently around 1,200 members). As already mentioned, pug identification can be especially tricky, and this is often reflected by the diversity of views expressed within the group about some submitted photographs! However, a consensus is usually reached (but it can be quite entertaining when it isn't.)

(Although a bit of a diversion, I can't resist also mentioning the Moth Trap Intruders Facebook group (here) where the topic of discussion is everything except moths. I can't help being interested in the huge variety of other insects (and other things) that turn up my trap. My most unusual 'intruder' was a juvenile House Martin (below) - not that it needed identifying, of course.)

House Martin - an unexpected moth trap intruder - Dorset

Facebook groups can be really helpful when you're stuck on an identification, but it's worth giving a bit of guidance about their use. Simply posting an image and asking 'what's this?' or 'ID please' is likely to get peoples' backs up quite quickly. It is far better to show that you have at least tried to work out the identification by yourself. Although this risks potential embarassment from being corrected in public, this has happened to most (all?) of us, and is probably a better learning tool in the long term. And here's a plea to those more experienced moth recorders who provide assistance on these forums: when giving out an identification it really helpful to explain why you have reached that view. 

Obviously, it goes without saying that participation in Facebook groups (and other online forums) should be respectful, avoiding unpleasantness. My experience has generally been positive - moth people are nice people! - but unfortunate comments do get through from time time to time, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes not. 

Which neatly brings me on to Twitter (X). This can also be a useful tool for moth identification, particularly thanks to helpful people like Sean Foote who runs the UK Moth Identification Twitter (X) account (@MOTHIDUK). Sean identifies a bewilderingly large number of moth images online: if you use his services then how about giving him an online tip? 

Using the #teammoth hashtag on Twitter (X) will improve the chances of your post geting seen by the right people. 

The same hashtag will also work on BlueSky, where an online community is developing as an alternative to Twitter/X. You can find me there at @mikemoths.bsky.social.

4. Artificial Intelligence-based resources.

By this, I mean image-recognition systems which can analyse your photographs and make suggestions.

I'm covering two of these in this blog post - Google Lens and ObsIdentify. 

Disclosure: until now, I have used neither of these systems for identifying UK moths. However, I have found Google Lens to be useful when going through my moth (and butterfly) pictures from parts of the world where diversity is high and comprehensive field guides are hard to come by - most recently India (see other blogs on this site). The ObsIdentify app sat unused on my phone, but I see from various sources that more and more UK moth recorders are using it, so I have decided to try it out.

Obviously, neither of these systems can identify species that rely on evidence that doesn't appear in your image - such as those that need dissection. It shouldn't need saying, but I have noticed that a minority of recorders appear reluctant to disagree with a computer-generated identification. It is always worth bearing in mind that IT is only as good as the data that goes into it. 

On the face of it, Google Lens is a neat system that works on both laptops and phones. Simply click the square icon at the right of the search box (see above) and upload an image. Google will then present you with a large number of what it 'thinks' are matching images on other web pages.

For the purposes of this blog post, I tried using Google Lens to identify 25 of my own photos, including macro and micro-moths. I used photos of species which seemed to me to be fairly obvious identifications (such as Alabonia geoffrella, Brimstone Moth and Four-spotted Footman), as well as those that might appear more challenging (includiinng Eudonia delunella, Ringed China-mark and Common Lutestring), plus a few species that are rare  the UK (such as Grass Webworm and Blair's Mocha).

The results were ... mixed. Google Lens presents you with a large number of possible 'hits'. In the case of the more easily identfiable species, such as Brimstone Moth (below), the vast majority of these were pointing to the correct species. More of these were macro-moths, but some of the micros that I tried out, such as Green Oak Tortrix Tortrix viridana, also did well, presenting very few incorrect IDs. My non-scientific scoring system showed that six of my 25 species were identified almost unanimously (i.e. almost no incorrect websites came up), while the overwhelming number of hits were correct in a further nine species. 

Brimstone Moth - no problem for Google Lens

However, two particular problems arose even with these more easily identified species.

First, a lot depends upon the quality of your photographs. I tried to use images where the key identification features were easily seen. But what looks straightforward to me may 'appear' quite different to an AI system. Rather alarmingly, one of my Buff-Tip photos generated a blank screen containing the comment: "Warning: this may contain explicit images". I don't even want to speculate.

So, Google Lens health warning no.1 is: use clear and unambiguous photos.

Elder Pearl Anania coronata - not an American moth

My image of Elder Pearl Anania coronata (above) highlighted a further potential problem, in that prompted a number of hits for the similar Anania tertialis. This is a North American species that, in fairness, has previously been considered as a subspecies of A. coronata - so they are quite similar.  Google Lens seems very keen to suggest North American species, which I guess reflects where most of its users are based. So this is my Google Lens health warning no. 2: read the supporting geographical information on the relevant website carefully!

Rusty-dot Pearl Udea ferrugalis - Google Lens struggled

The remaining 10 images were dealt with less satisfactorily by Google Lens. The good news is that in all cases at least one link was shown that included the correct species. However, there were also a similar number, or in some cases (such as this Rusty-dot Pearl photo above) many more, incorrect links. This could lead to misidentification, although by carefully comparing your original photo with the range of images that are offered by Google Lens, it may well be possible to find the correct species.

In doing so, there is however a further possible pitfall. Google Lens appears to trawl through a wide of websites. Even on a short survey like this, it was quickly obvious that not all of them contain accurate moth identifications. (Also, beware links that show the correct image but with an incorrect moth name below it). So, Google Lens health warning no. 3 is: only refer to reputable websites when seeking identifications. The websites discussed earlier in this blog post can be relied upon.

The best thing about Google Lens is, therefore, that it narrows the field - which is very useful for an inexperienced moth recorder. But it does have limitations. Use it as a tool, but not as a definitive identification source.

  

Angle Shades - no problem for ObsIdentify

ObsIdentify is a phone-based app that aims (as it puts it) to "recognize nature in one click" (link here). I tried it out with an (admittedly rather small) selection of 8 species from this morning's trap. (Moth numbers are still low this year, as explained in an earlier post.) The results were impressive.

All eight species were correctly identified with either a 99% or 100% probability. For the record, these were: Angle Shades (above), Clouded Drab, Hebrew Character, Light Brown Apple Moth, Muslin Moth, Pale Tussock, Shuttle-shaped Dart and Waved Umber. All are fairly distinctive, so perhaps this wasn't the toughest test, although I did wonder how it would cope with Clouded Drab, which is quite a variable species. The app coped well with images that wouldn't have made the cut for this blog, including moths perched at various angles on egg boxes. It works best when the subject is in the centre of the image, which can be cropped after you have taken the photo.

So, surprisingly, I must give ObsIdentify the thumbs-up, at least on the basis of this limited test. But the caveats that I outlined at the start of this section remain. While it looks like an extremely effective tool, it cannot be relied upon as the sole means of identification. 

Conclusion

If you have made it this far then many thanks. I would welcome any comments, particularly if you feel that there are any useful identification resources that I have missed. Surely there must be? I can then update the blog post as appropriate.