Talk:Blastobasis adustella

Karsholt and Sinev, 2004

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

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

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)