Brand owl

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brand owl
Brand owl (Hydraecia micacea)

Brand owl ( Hydraecia micacea )

Systematics
Superfamily : Noctuoidea
Family : Owl butterfly (Noctuidae)
Subfamily : Xyleninae
Tribe : Apameini
Genre : Hydraecia
Type : Brand owl
Scientific name
Hydraecia micacea
( Esper , 1789)

The brand owl ( Hydraecia micacea ), also known as the river brand owl or river marsh high shrub or hop brand owl, is a butterfly ( moth ) from the family of the owl butterfly (Noctuidae). Basically, it is a complex of three very similar Central / Northern European species, whose independence was only recognized in 1952 and 1965. The old common name Markeule could therefore designate specimens of all three species, since the species were not differentiated; in practice, however , it has been restricted to Hydracea micacea (see Lepiforum). A fourth very similar species has its main distribution from Siberia to the Far East. The three European species are very difficult to distinguish from one another based on the external characteristics of the moths.

features

The moths of the brand owl are remarkably different in size; the wingspan varies from 30 to 50 mm (35 mm). The head and thorax are brown, the abdomen light brown. The antennae of the male are lamellate-ciliate, those of the female are simple thread-like. The forewings are light ocher to gray-brown in the basic color. The moth varies little in the drawing itself, but a great variability can be observed in the intensity of the drawing. The coloring of the individual wing sections is also very variable. A wavy root line is also often seen. Inner and outer transverse lines are dark brown and sharply drawn, as is the hemline. On the other hand, the wavy line is sometimes only weakly developed or can also be absent. The inner transverse line is more rounded, only the front, inwardly curved arch is slightly pointed or broken. The outer transverse line runs approximately parallel to the outer edge and bends back strongly towards the roots at the costal edge. It is often set off by a lighter line towards the lighter fringing area. In the outer part of the middle field there is usually a dark shadow, which can also be missing. Occasionally, the shadow between the blemishes and the rear edge extends from the outer transverse line to the inner transverse line. The flaws (ring and kidney flaws) are relatively large, bordered in dark brown and mostly kept in the basic color or only slightly lighter. In some specimens, a faint, dark brown central shadow is formed, which runs through between the kidney and ring flaws. The wing veins are usually a little darker than the basic color and usually stand out clearly, especially in the border area.

The hind wings are yellowish to light brownish, the veins are sometimes dusted brown. The hemline is brown and broken. A dark center spot is present and also visible on the underside. A median line is also usually present. Some specimens also have a weak, slightly darker band between the center line and the hem line.

The flattened, hemispherical egg is initially glossy yellowish white after being placed on the table; it later turns reddish yellow. The surface has many irregular ribs.

The reddish to yellowish pink colored caterpillar shows a dark back line and a lighter belly side. The sideline is darkly dotted. The point warts and the stigmas are colored black. The head is shiny red-brown or yellowish in color, the pronotum yellowish.

The red-brown to light-brown pupa is relatively slender, with a smooth and shiny surface. The Kremaster is relatively small and has two small, slightly diverging and downward-curved thorns.

Similar species

The species is very similar to two other Hydraecia species occurring in Europe . T. overlap with H. micacea : Hydraecia ultima and Hydraecia nordstroemi . After the flight, the moths of the three species can hardly be distinguished. Even fresh butterflies are sometimes difficult to identify due to the variability of the butterflies in color and drawing. In cases of doubt, specimens can only be reliably identified and differentiated through a genital examination . The southern border of the distribution of H. nordstroemi runs from southern Denmark, southern Sweden into the Baltic States and southern Finland. The western limit of the distribution of H. ultima , on the other hand, runs roughly through eastern Baden-Württemberg to northern Germany and Denmark, the northern limit then runs through southern Sweden and southern Finland, across Russia to the Urals. The southern border runs in the Alps through southern Austria to northern Hungary and northern Romania to the Black Sea. A determination by place of discovery is therefore possible with restrictions (but see comment under systematics). The caterpillars of the three species also differ very little. There is a fourth very similar species, Hydraecia mongoliensis Urbahn, 1967, which does not occur in Central Europe. The distribution area extends from the southern Urals (Russia and the European part of Kazakhstan) via Siberia, Mongolia to Japan.

  • With Hydraecia micacea the dark shadow in the outer middle field is usually less pronounced than with H. nordstroemi. The forewings are somewhat wider and a discal spot is formed on the hindwings, which is missing in H. nordstroemi . The fringing area is almost always very clearly lighter than the midfield; the outer transverse line is often lined with white or very light on the outside. The inner transverse line below the cell is less angled, more rounded than in the other two species. The outer transverse line bends far backwards at the costal margin . On average, it is the largest of the three species.
  • Hydraecia nordstroemi : With a wingspan of 28 to 38 mm, it is on average the smallest of the three species. The forewings are relatively broad and short, but relatively narrower than that of H. micacea . It has the darkest central shadow of the three species, but there are also specimens with a poorly developed central shadow. The basic color is often dark brown and the color of the border area is hardly different from the middle field. Even the blemishes hardly stand out from the basic color in dark specimens. On the hind wings there is no or only an indistinct central spot (in very dark specimens). The rear wing basic color is relatively dark, mostly (light) brownish.
  • Hydraecia ultima : With a wingspan of 30 to 44 mm, it is on average between the other two species. The forewings are relatively long and slender, the differences in the intensity of the colors are rather small; d. i.e., it is more of a uniform color.

Geographical distribution and habitat

The brand owl is spread almost all over Europe. In the north the distribution area extends to the Shetland Islands and northern Fennoskandia . In the south it extends to central Spain, central Italy and Bulgaria. It is absent on the Mediterranean islands. The distribution area extends further over Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, North and Central Asia to the Russian Far East. In southern Europe, however, it is limited to the higher mountain regions. The evidence of the Kuriles, Kamchatka, Japan and Korea mentioned in the older literature is now related to two closely related species.

It was introduced into eastern North America in the 1920s and has since spread to Nova Scotia , Newfoundland , eastern Canada, and the northeastern United States. It had reached the Midwest by the 1970s.

It is largely absent in the mountains, rises there and in the hill country to about 800 m above sea level.

The Markeule prefers cool and humid habitats such as river and stream valleys, wetlands and marshland as well as moors. The flight-active moths also appear in dry and warm places.

Way of life

The Markeule develops one generation per year, whose moths fly in a long flight period from mid-July, rarely even in June, until the end of September. Individual moths can still be found into October. The moths are nocturnal and only come to artificial light sources during the night. They get the bait rather sparsely. During the day they rest in the vegetation. The eggs are laid in rows on the food plants of the caterpillars. The egg hibernates. The egg caterpillars do not hatch until May, and a few as early as the end of April. The caterpillars eat and live in the stems, roots and tubers of various (useful) plants. Occasionally it can be harmful to crops. The caterpillars have cannibalistic tendencies when they meet other species. In the literature, food plants are named:

The caterpillar pupates in a cave in the earth.

Systematics

The taxon was first scientifically described in 1789 by Eugen Johann Christoph Esper as Phalaena Noctua micacea . The species was then designated as the type species of the genus Hydraecia Guenée, 1841 . However, this name was changed to Hydroecia in 1847 by Louis Agassiz . This misspelling of the generic name largely prevailed in the literature (cf. Bergmann in the literature cited here). Only in more recent works has the correct spelling of the genus been used again. The type material for micacea came from Tyrol. The "types for this taxon are no longer comprehensible".

It was not until 1952 and 1965 that it was recognized that three taxa are hidden under the name Hydraecia micacea in Europe , although the two newly separated species ( Hydraecia nordstroemi Horke, 1952, Hydraecia ultima Holst, 1965) only exist in parts of the distribution area of H. micacea occurrence. In Western Europe only H. micacea occurs, while in the Baltic States and southern Scandinavia all three species can occur sympatric. However, migratory moths can also be found far beyond their actual range. Accordingly, the older literature on dissemination z. Sometimes useless because it has not yet differentiated between the three types. Even today, the distribution areas of the two species that were separated last are poorly known. It cannot be completely ruled out that populations of H. nordstroemi and H. ultima could also exist outside the abovementioned distribution areas . A "determination by location" could therefore also give incorrect results. Ebert and Steiner found only H. micacea in specimens determined by genital morphology in Baden-Württemberg . According to the current state of affairs, it is unlikely that the two species, which were separated only later, are much more widespread than in the areas indicated above.

Danger

The brand owl is not endangered in Germany.

swell

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Red List at Science4you
  2. ↑ a b Bergmann (1954: pp. 763–765)
  3. ↑ International Symposium: Hop Cultivation 2020 Wolnzach (May 5/6, 2008)
  4. ↑ www.lepiforum.de Hydraecia micacea (Esper, 1789) - Markeule
  5. ↑ a b Ebert & Steiner (1998: pp. 71-73).
  6. ↑ a b c d Zilli et al. (2005: p. 53/4)
  7. ↑ a b c d e Carter (1984: p. 262/3)
  8. ↑ a b c d e f Forster & Wohlfahrt (1971: p. 145/6)
  9. ↑ a b c d Ahola & Silvonen (2009: p. 230/1)
  10. ^ N. French, FAB Ludlam and LR Wwardlow: Biology, Damage and Control of Rosy Rustic Moth, Hydraecia micacea (Esp.), On Hops. Plant Pathology, 22: 58-64, 1973 doi : 10.1111 / j.1365-3059.1973.tb01773.x
  11. ↑ Species taxon summary. AnimalBase, University of Göttingen, accessed on May 5, 2013 .
  12. ^ Butterflies and Moths of the World Generic Names and their Type-species
  13. ↑ Hermann Hacker: The types of Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera) described by EJ Ch. Esper (1742-1810) in his "The butterflies in pictures according to nature". Esperiana, Entomology Book Series, Vol. 6: 433-468, Schwanfeld, 1998 ISBN 3-9802644-5-9

literature

  • Matti Ahola and Kimmo Silvonen: Larvae of Northern European Noctuidae. Vol. 2. 672 pp., 2008 ISBN 978-952-92-2888-1 .
  • Arno Bergmann: The large butterflies of Central Germany. Volume 4/2: Owls. Distribution, forms and communities. Urania-Verlag, Jena 1954, DNB 450378381 .
  • David J. Carter: Pest Lepidoptera of Europe with special references to the British Isles. 431 S., Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht 1984 ISBN 90-6193-504-0 .
  • Günter Ebert, Axel Steiner: The butterflies of Baden-Württemberg. Volume 7, Moths V (Owls (Noctuidae)). 3rd part, Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-800-13500-0 .
  • Walter Forster , Theodor A. Wohlfahrt : The butterflies of Central Europe. Volume 4: Owls. (Noctuidae). Franckh'sche Verlagshandlung, Stuttgart 1971, ISBN 3-440-03752-5 .
  • Alberto Zilli, László Ronkay, Michael Fibiger: Noctuidae Europaeae Volume 8 Apameini. Entomological Press, Sorø 2005, ISBN 87-89430-09-3 .

Web links

Commons : Markeule  - collection of images, videos and audio files