Talk:Blastobasis adustella

Lepidoptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Blastobasis adustella is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Karsholt and Sinev, 2004

The paper is available here: [1] samillar94 (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what might be the source for the Taxonomy note: [2] samillar94 (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page 422-423 of Karsholt & Sinev, 2004 has the low-down on Blastobasis adustella, Blastobasis vittata and Blastobasis lignea. The type specimen of lignea was reassigned to vittata (p 406-410) but three varieties of lignea were reassigned to adustella. Then it turned out that lignea records from the British Isles were adustella, not vittata.

That much makes sense. But then K&S say "The true B. lignea is known from Madeira only". Which at first glance might suggest that they think lignea is a separate valid species from vittata and adustella. But if they thought so they'd have included it in their checklist. So my tentative interpretation is that only specimens from Madeira have ever been correctly identified as lignea as Walsingham meant it, but that those specimens now fall under vittata anyway. Clarification from the authors might be useful.

Upshot: B. lignea probably not a separate species. samillar94 (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]