Talk:Blastobasis vittata

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blastobasis vittata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724163148/http://www.nev.nl/eb/EB-2005/EB-65(2)/2005-030-042-Huisman.pdf to http://www.nev.nl/eb/EB-2005/EB-65(2)/2005-030-042-Huisman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Blastobasis lignea clarification and source

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 is probably NOT considered a separate species. samillar94 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also - vittata isn't endemic to Madeira, it's in the Netherlands, England and Northern Ireland too [1]. Bladmineerders.nl does indeed mean vittata, not adustella [2] as does UKMoths [3] and the Fauna Europea link needs replaced [4] (its distribution maps are out of date). samillar94 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)