49.162 Celypha rosaceana (Roseate Marble)
ws: 15-19mm; Jun-Jul, (Aug-Sep); sow-thistles (Sonchus arvensis/asper), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale); local in England & Wales
Most accounts give flight season as Jun-Jul. Yorkshire Moths mentions a possible second generation Aug-Sep and shows an overlapping flight from Jun to mid-Sep. Note that specimen §1 was obtained late Sep in Kent
Synonym: Celypa purpurana (Pierce & Metcalfe)
Most accounts give flight season as Jun-Jul. Yorkshire Moths mentions a possible second generation Aug-Sep and shows an overlapping flight from Jun to mid-Sep. Note that specimen §1 was obtained late Sep in Kent
Synonym: Celypa purpurana (Pierce & Metcalfe)
Celypha rosaceana §3 male
ID: Brightness of the pinkish forewing colour varies from bright purplish pink to drab yellowish buff; pinkest when fresh, becoming more drab with wear. Lacks the distinct median fascia shown by C.striana. C.rufana is similar but darker, ranging from dull olive-brown to ferruginous brown and is confined to Wales and NW England. C.rufana is also said to have a broader forewing than C.rosaceana (BTM).
Male genitalia: Celypha species differ mainly in the arrangement of the groups of saccular spines. In C.rosaceana there is a group of moderate length stout marginal spines at the ventrolateral angle of the sacculus (Group 1), medial to these is a cluster of long fine spines arising from the ventral surface of the sacculus and directed across the saccular margin away from the valva (Group 2), and a small cluster of short spines arising from the ventral surface of the sacculus between the two previously mentioned groups (Group 3). In C.rufana Group 1 arises from a longer length along the saccular margin so that the length of the origin is greater than the length of the spines - while in C.rosaceana the length of the origin is ~the same as the length of the spines; in C.rufana the spines in Group 2 are of moderate length (ie much shorter than in C.rosaceana), about the same length as group 1 and are directed towards the valva; in C.rufana there is no Group 3. C.striana is very similar to C.rosaceana (and they can be reliably distinguished on external features) - BTM comments that there is no difference in the male or female genitalia between these two species (and they are unhelpfully illustrated on different pages in MBGBI5.2) - however I think they can be distinguished on the relative lengths of the spines in Groups 1 and 2 - Group 2 >2x Group 1 in C.rosaceana; <2x in C.striana (and Group 3 may be absent in C.striana?)
Female genitalia: Illustrated in MBGBI5.2 (p344, f184) but this illustration is not very helpful as the peri-ostial sclerotisations are not drawn clearly and it shows the bursa copulatrix of C.rosaceana without a signum (it has one); shown at Moth Dissection, where insets labelled "A" and "B" illustrate the difference in the peri-ostial sclerotisation between C.rufana and C.rosaceana. In C.rufana there is a long heavily sclerotised antrum extending from the ostium at the the posterior margin of the ostial plate for ~2x the length of the ostial plate and there are a pair of heavily sclerotised lateral arcs extending from the ostium to the posterior margin of the subgenital plate - giving the whole ostial plate a crossbow shape. In C.rosaceana the sclerotised antrum is much shorter.
Male genitalia: Celypha species differ mainly in the arrangement of the groups of saccular spines. In C.rosaceana there is a group of moderate length stout marginal spines at the ventrolateral angle of the sacculus (Group 1), medial to these is a cluster of long fine spines arising from the ventral surface of the sacculus and directed across the saccular margin away from the valva (Group 2), and a small cluster of short spines arising from the ventral surface of the sacculus between the two previously mentioned groups (Group 3). In C.rufana Group 1 arises from a longer length along the saccular margin so that the length of the origin is greater than the length of the spines - while in C.rosaceana the length of the origin is ~the same as the length of the spines; in C.rufana the spines in Group 2 are of moderate length (ie much shorter than in C.rosaceana), about the same length as group 1 and are directed towards the valva; in C.rufana there is no Group 3. C.striana is very similar to C.rosaceana (and they can be reliably distinguished on external features) - BTM comments that there is no difference in the male or female genitalia between these two species (and they are unhelpfully illustrated on different pages in MBGBI5.2) - however I think they can be distinguished on the relative lengths of the spines in Groups 1 and 2 - Group 2 >2x Group 1 in C.rosaceana; <2x in C.striana (and Group 3 may be absent in C.striana?)
Female genitalia: Illustrated in MBGBI5.2 (p344, f184) but this illustration is not very helpful as the peri-ostial sclerotisations are not drawn clearly and it shows the bursa copulatrix of C.rosaceana without a signum (it has one); shown at Moth Dissection, where insets labelled "A" and "B" illustrate the difference in the peri-ostial sclerotisation between C.rufana and C.rosaceana. In C.rufana there is a long heavily sclerotised antrum extending from the ostium at the the posterior margin of the ostial plate for ~2x the length of the ostial plate and there are a pair of heavily sclerotised lateral arcs extending from the ostium to the posterior margin of the subgenital plate - giving the whole ostial plate a crossbow shape. In C.rosaceana the sclerotised antrum is much shorter.
§1 Sibton Park, Kent; 28/09/2010; male; fw 8.3mm
§2 Dungeness, Kent; 26/07/2017; male; fw 6.8mm
§3 Dungeness, Kent; 12/07/2018; male; fw 8.7mm
§4 Dungeness, Kent; 10/06/2019; male
§5 Chantry Field NR, Essex; 11/08/2023; male; specimen provided by Graham Ekins
§6 Heydon, Cambridgeshire; 26/06/2024; female; fw 8.9mm
§7 Heydon, Cambridgeshire; 09/07/2024; male; fw 9.5mm
All images © Chris Lewis
§2 Dungeness, Kent; 26/07/2017; male; fw 6.8mm
§3 Dungeness, Kent; 12/07/2018; male; fw 8.7mm
§4 Dungeness, Kent; 10/06/2019; male
§5 Chantry Field NR, Essex; 11/08/2023; male; specimen provided by Graham Ekins
§6 Heydon, Cambridgeshire; 26/06/2024; female; fw 8.9mm
§7 Heydon, Cambridgeshire; 09/07/2024; male; fw 9.5mm
All images © Chris Lewis
Page published 41/01/2013 (§1) | §2 added 07/11/2017 | §3 added 22/05/2019 | §4 added 14/02/2020 | §5 added 17/08/2023 |
§6&7 added 07/10/2024
§6&7 added 07/10/2024
