Table Of ContentPROC.ENTOMOL.SOC.WASH.
105(4).200.^.pp. 1034-1042
STUDIES ON NEW GUINEA MOTHS. 1. INTRODUCTION (LEPIDOPTERA)
Scott E. Miller, Vojtech Novotny, and Yves Basset
(SEM) DepartmentofSystematic Biology,National MuseumofNatural History,Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560-0105, U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected].
edu); (VN) Institute ofEntomology, Czech Academy ofSciences and Biological Faculty,
University ofSouth Bohemia, Branisovska31, 37005 CeskeBudejovice,CzechRepublic;
(YB) Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Ancon, Panama
—
Abstract. This is the first in a series of papers providing taxonomic data in support
ofecological and biogeographic studies of moths in New Guinea. The primary study is
an extensive inventory ofthe caterpillar fauna ofa lowland rainforest site near Madang,
Papua New Guinea, from 1994-2001. The inventory focused on the Lepidoptera com-
munity on 71 woody plant species representing 45 genera and 23 families. During the
study, 46,457 caterpillars representing 585 species were sampled, with 19,660caterpillars
representing 441 species reared to adults. This introductory contribution is intended to
provide background on the project, including descriptions of the study site, sampling
methods, and taxonomic methods.
Kev Words: Malesia, Papua New Guinea, Lepidoptera, biodiversity,rearing,community
ecology
A very large portion of tropical biodi- 1992 and 1993 (Basset 1996, Basset et al.
versity consists ofherbivorous insects, and 1996). This paper represents the first in a
among them, Lepidoptera are among the series of papers providing taxonomic doc-
most amenable to study. To better under- umentation in support ofthe broader stud-
stand the structureandmaintenanceoftrop- ies,andisintendedtoprovidegeneralback-
ical biodiversity, we undertook a series of ground, including descriptions ofthe study
related inventories of Lepidoptera in New site, sampling methods, and taxonomic
Guinea. Our most extensive data set is an methods.
inventory of the caterpillar fauna of low- During 2002, we sampled an additional
land rainforests near Madang, Papua New 19 woody plant species near Madang,
Guinea, from 1994-2001. Our ecological bringing the total sampling universe to 90
analyses focus on the Lepidoptera com- species representing 58 genera and 32 fam-
munity on 71 woody plant species repre- ilies. The sampling effort per plant was re-
senting45 generaand 23 familiesnearMa- duced according to the guidelines in No-
dang. Ofthese species, 69 are native, while votnyetal. (2002c). The insects fromthese
2 species of Piper are not native. But for surveysarestill beinganalyzed. Atthetime
taxonomic purposes we have evaluated of this writing, the Madang study is being
specimens accumulated more broadly, in- expandedtoincludemontanesitesandase-
cluding the material resulting from a study ries of lowland sites, and material from
focused on 10 woody plant species con- these studies will be discussed and de-
ducted near Wau. Papua New Guinea, in scribed in later papers in this series. Sam-
VOLUME 105.NUMBER4
pling began atourfirst montanesiteinJune species are among the most important ones
2001 in primary and secondary forests and inlocalrainforests,withcombineddiversity
partially deforested landscape around Mu of579 species in New Guinea (Hoft 1992).
Village near Kundiawa town in Chimbu This selection offamilies includes all main
Province (145°02'E, 6°05'S. 1.800 m). lineages of flowering plants, viz. gymno-
sperms. monocotyledons, basal eudicots,
Materialsand Methods euasterids and eurosids (APG 1998). Fur-
Madang Study Area ther, locally common plants from all main
habitats within the study area, including
The study area is situated in Madang early and late stages offorest successionas
Province, Papua New Guinea, extending well as riverine and seashore habitats, were
Mforuonmtathiensc.oaAstvetroatgheeasnlonpueaslorfaitnhfealAldeinlbtehrits repPrleasnetnstewder(eLeipdsenettifaile.d2b0y01W).ayne Takeu-
area is 3.558 mm. with a moderatedry sea- chi at Lae Herbarium and many of them
son from July to September: mean airtem- were subsequently verified by the best
perature is 26.5 °C (McAlpine et al. 1983). available international specialists. Plant
The area is covered with species-rich ev- vouchers are deposited in Bishop Museum
ergreen rainforest (152 species of woody (BISH). Rijksherbarium (L). Lae Herbari-
plantswithdiameteratbreastheight ^5cm um (LAE)andSmithsonian Institution(US)
perhectare; Laidlaw et al.. in press). Field- (herbarium acronyms follow Holmgren et
work was concentrated in primary and sec- al. 1990).
ondary lowland forests nearBaitabag.Ohu.
and Mis villages, and in acoastal areanear Madang Insect Sampling and Rearing
Riwo Village (145°41-8'E. 5°08-I4'S. ca. All externally feeding caterpillars (Lepi-
0-200 m). Specific localities are Baitabag doptera). including leafrollers and leaftiers,
(145°47'E. 5°08'S, ca. 100 m). Ohu were collected by hand from foliage. Dur-
(145°41'E. 5°14'S, ca. 200 m). Mis ing each sampling occasion, a collector
(145°47'E. 5°11'S. ca. 50 m), Riwo Village spentoneday walkingthroughoutthestudy
(145°48'E. 5°09'S. m). area searching the foliage ofthe target tree
Madang Plant Sampling species for caterpillars. The sampling in-
cluded only more accessible branches, i.e.,
Seventy-one species of trees and shrubs those which could be reached easily by
from 45 generaand 23 families (seeappen- climbing or reached from the ground. Nu-
dix), including 15 species of Ficiis and 1 meroustreesfrom variouspartsofthestudy
speciesofArtocarpiis(Moraceae),6species area were sampled during each sampling
ofMacaranga and 9 species representing9 occasion. The number of tree inspections,
othergeneraofEuphorbiaceae,4speciesof that is, aparticulartree sampled at apartic-
Psychotria and 12 species representing 12 ular time, was recorded, as well as the ap-
othergenera ofRubiaceae. 3 species ofSy- proximateareaofthefoliagesampled.Each
zigittm (Myrtaceae). 3 species ofPiper(Pi- tree species was sampled continuously for
peraceae) and 18 species representing 18 the period ofat leastone yearbetweenJuly
other families offlowering plants, were se- 1994 and December 2001. Sampling effort
lected for the study oftheir associated cat- was equal forall plant speciesandainount-
erpillars. Moraceae, Euphorbiaceae. and edto 1,500m-offoliageareaexaminedper
Rubiaceae. whichwerestudiedindetail,are species, while the number of tree inspec-
importantcomponentsoflowlandrainforest tionsexceeded 1,000perplantspecies.This
flora in the Madang area and elsewhere in sampling effort represented approximately
New Guinea (Oatham and Beehler 1998), 2.000 person-days offieldwork. hi the lab-
The five genera represented by multiple oratory, each caterpillar was provided with
—
PROCEEDINGSOFTHEENTOMOLOGICALSOCIETYOFWASHINGTON
fresh leavesoftheplantspeciesfromwhich and hosts, are recorded in acustom Access
it was collected, and was reared to an adult database, described in Basset et al. (2000).
wheneverpossible. Only the specimensthat Background data and images are available
fed were considered in the analyses. Cat- at www.nmnh.si.edu/new_guinea.
erpillars and adults were assigned to mor- Our taxonomic studies also incorporate
phospecies. Moiphospecies were assigned material reared near Wau. Papua New
seve—n character codes as permanent identi- Guinea by Yves Basset and assistants dur-
fiers four lette—rs representing the family ing the precursor to the Madang project in
and three digits which remain unchanged 1992-1993 (Basset et al. 1996). Morpho-
even ifthe field identification ofthe family species numbers for these specimens are
was incorrect. distinguishedby beginningwith "LE." The
Oursamplingofthe 71 plantspeciespro- plants from that study were identified by
duced 46,457 caterpillars representing 585 Robert Hoft and vouchers are deposited at
species, with 19,660 caterpillars represent- LAE and L.
ing 441 species reared to adults. Most of
the field activities were carried out by par- Insect Identification
ata.xonomists, as described in Basset et al. Inthelaboratory,themoiphospeciescon-
(2000). The numbers reported in our ana- cepts were confirmed by disection ofgeni-
lytical papers are often lower, because var- talia (Clarke 1941. Robinson 1976) andex-
ious analyses included only a subset ofthe amination of other characters. Identifica-
plant species or were adjusted to equalize tions were made using relevant literature,
sample size per host plant. but especially by comparison to the collec-
In addition to the basic locality data and tions of Smithsonian National Museum of
adult morphospecies code, standard labels Natural History. Washington (USNM),
including caterpillar morphospecies. host Bishop Museum. Honolulu (BPBM). and
plant name, host plant abbreviation, and especially the rich historic collections of
specimen number, were affixed to each The Natural History Museum. London
specimen. The caterpillar morphospecies (BMNH). as well as less frequent compar-
code begins with '"CAT" and is used on isons to collections of Australian National
specimens after 1995. The original host Insect Collection. Canberra (ANIC) and
plant identification on the label sometimes Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Lei-
has changed with further study, so should den (RMNH), and types in other collec-
be used with care. For this reason, begin- tions. Because most of the types of New
ning in 1996. the labels include a three let- GuineamothsareatBMNH, ithasbeenthe
ter host plant abbreviation that does not critical resource, and we are especially in-
change with subsequent identifications. In- debted to their staff, as well as research as-
dividual specimen numbers are assigned to sociates J.D. Holloway and M. Shaffer, for
all specimens reared to adults. Early spec- unlimited access.
imens bearnumbers in BishopMuseumda- General taxonomiccontextisprovidedby
tabase series, while later specimens bear Holloway et al. (2001). although we follow
numbers in Smithsonian database series Kristensen (1998) in recognizingCrambidae
theuseofBishopMuseumandSmithsonian as a family. For macrolepidoptera. the on-
on the labels provides a unique specimen going series "Moths ofBorneo" (Holloway
numberand does not in itselfidentifyown- 1984-present) provides a vital foundation.
ership of the specimen (e.g.. Thompson For pyraloids and microlepidoptera. Robin-
1994), sonetal.(1994)andDiakonoff(1952-1955)
All data regarding specimens, theirrear- provide a general context. Nielsen et al.
ing status, moiphospecies numbers, and (1996) provide a taxonomic framework for
identifications, alonsz with imagesofinsects theAustralianfaunathathasbeenveryhelp-
VOLUME 105. NUMBER4 1037
fill. Gressitt and Szent-Ivany (1968) provide sembled by the late J. J. H. Szent-Ivany.
a bibliography of Lepidoptera systematics From 1968 to 1971, and again in 1974,
literature for New Guinea, now updated by Szent-IvanycollectedGeometroideaatlight
us and available online at www.nninh.si. and by rearing around Wau Ecology Insti-
edu/new_guinea. tute, Papua New Guinea. He assembled a
Taxonomic characters, and deHnitions of collection of some 300 species (listed in
genera and species, follow tho.se in general Gressitt and Nadkarni 1978: 83-88) which
use in Lepidoptera (e.g.. Miller 1994). as is now at BPBM. Szent-Ivany identified
well asspecialistliteratureasavailable.The these during an extended visit to BMNH.
reviews of many families in "Moths of Unfortunately, littleofhisrearingdatahave
Borneo" have been especially important in been published, and many of the reared
guiding generic and specific concepts. Be- specimens remain cryptically labelled.
cause our immediate need is identification
of the reared species, we often verified DiSCUS.SION
identihcations by dissection of type speci- A prerequisite to investigation of the
mens, but have not reviewed the variability ecology of species-rich insect taxa in di-
across the entire geographical range of the verse habitats such as lowland tropical rain
species. Cytochrome oxidase I (COI) se- forests is alarge sample size. Oursampling
quences. DNA barcodes of Hebert et al. generated data on a scale that has rarely
(2003).follow theprotocolsoutlinedin He- been achieved in the tropics (see Janzen
bert et al. (2003). The primary set of Lep- 1988, Janzen and Gauld 1997, Janzen 2003
idoptera vouchers are deposited in USNM. for a similar exercise in Costa Rica). Our
with representatives in the National Agri- data are now being used fora seriesoftax-
cultural Research Institute (Port Moresby), onomic (e.g., Holloway and Miller 2003)
BPBM. and other collections as appropri- andecologicalanalyses(e.g.,Novotnyetal.
ate. 2002a, b, c). Some of the ecological con-
clusions are reviewed below.
Other Material Individual host-plant species sustained
The historic collections of USNM. from 9 to 75 (median 25) species ofcater-
BPBM, and especially BMNH (Frodin and pillars. Caterpillar communities were
Gressitt 1982) provided the context for the strongly dominated by a single or few spe-
Madang collections. USNM collections in- cies. The single most common species typ-
clude material collected in Irian Jaya by ically represented 52% of individuals and
Syuti Issiki May-August 1936, and in Pap- 50% of biomass while the five most com-
ua New Guinea by Gary Hevel in Decem- mon species represented >80% ofindivid-
ber 1976, ScottMillerand PamelaMillerin uals and biomass in the entire community
July-August 1983, and Vitor Becker in (Novotny et al. 2002c). In addition tothese
September-October 1992. The BMNH col- dominants, each community included a
lection is especially richbecauseofaseries large numberofvery rare species(Novotny
ofexcellent collectors sent to New Guinea and Basset 2000). Despite significant sam-
by WalterRothschild fortheTring Museum pling effort, the species accumulation
(Rothschild 1983). and also includes many curves for individual host plant speciesdid
vouchersfromagriculturalandforestrypro- not approach an asymptote which suggests
jects (e.g.. Bigger 1988). that the total species richness ofcaterpillar
hi addition to the general collections at communities was not sampled (Novotny et
BPBM (Frodin and Gressitt 1982) and ma- al. 2002c).
terial collected by LarryOrsakaround Wau Caterpillars were mostly specialized to a
and Madang in the early 1990s, there is an single plant family, and within families to
important collection of Geometroidea as- a single genus, while capable offeedingon
PROCEEDINGSOFTHEENTOMOLOGICALSOCIETYOFWASHINGTON
multiple congeneric hosts (Novotny et al. investigators who have helped provide a
2002b). Only 15% ofthecaterpillarspecies context fortheproject, AllenAllison.Larry
feeding on Ficits, Macaranga, and Psyclio- Orsak. George Weiblen. and Jan Leps. to
trici strongly preferred a single host species postdoctoral researchers and graduate stu-
(Novotny et al. 2002a). but even among dents Lukas Cizek. Pavel Drozd. Jiri Hulcr
these species, none was strictly monopha- and Milan Janda, as well as Karolyn Dar-
gous. Thus, it is conceivable that no. or row. Parataxonomists Mark Andreas. John
very few. genuinely monophagouscaterpil- Auga. William Boen. Chris Dal. Micah
lars feed on speciose plant genera in rain Damag. Samuel Hiuk. Brus Isua. Martin
forests. A large overlap among caterpillar Kasbal. Richard Kutil. Max Manaono. Mar-
communities on congeneric plants means kus Manumbor. Martin Mogia. Kenneth
that the total number ofspecies feeding on Molem. and Elvis Tamtiai assisted with
speciose plant genera is relatively small, in most aspects of the project in PNG. Nu-
comparison with their size. These differ- merous collectors, acknowledged else-
ences, in combination with low host speci- where, assisted with insect sampling. The
ficity of herbivores with respect to conge- landowners Kiatik Batet. Ulai Koil. Hais
neric plants, suggest that the average over- Wasel. and Sam Guru kindly allowed us to
lap among herbivore communities on trop- collect on their lands. Botanical taxonomic
ical trees may be higher than on temperate help wasprovided by L. Balun.C. Berg.B.
trees (Novotny et al. 2002a). Bremer. K. Damas, John Dransfield, H.-J.
Caterpillarcommunitieswerenotseason- Esser, Paul Katik. C. E. Ridsdale, George
al, and the majority ofspecies were present Staples,George Weiblen, PetervanWelzen,
almost continuously throughout the year T C. Whitmore, andespecially WayneTak-
(Novotny et al. 2002c). Community com- euchi. Taxonomic help with Lepidoptera
position was also constant spatially over was provided by David Adamski, Vitor
distances <20 km (Novotny et al. 2002c). Becker. John Brown. David Carter. Ian
The dominance of caterpillar communities Common. E.D. (Ted) Edwards. Marc Ep-
by a small number of species, which also stein. Anthony Galsworthy. Robert Hoare,
exhibited low spatial andtemporal variabil- Ronald W. Hodges. Jeremy D. Holloway.
ity, permitted robust and reliable estimates Martin Honey. Marianne Horak, Ian J.
of community composition and between- Kitching, Martin Lodl. Koen Maes,Jacque-
community similarity from small samples, line Y. Miller, Lee D. Miller, Eugene G.
typically <300 individuals per host plant. Munroe, Ulrich Paukstadt. Michael Par-
In contrast, even considerably larger sam- sons. Richard Peigler. Robert W. Poole,
ples were not sufficient for estimates of Gaden Robinson. Rikio Sato. Klaus Sattler.
community species richness (Novotnyetal. Malcolm Scoble, Michael Shaffer,M. Alma
2002c). Solis, Kevin Tuck, and Richard Vane-
The analyses produced from these data Wright. Technical assistance at BishopMu-
show the importance of large samples col- seum was provided by Candida Cardenas,
lected over multiple years in understanding Valerie Hedlund, June Ibara. Karin Kami,
thestructureoftropical insectcommunities. Tracie Mackenzie, Gordon Nishida, and
These large samples have only been logis- David Preston, and at The Natural History
tically feasible with a team approach, uti- Museum, London by Maia Vaswani and
lizing the skills of parataxonomists, ecolo- Shayleen James. Access to additional type
gists. and systematists. specimens was providedby Wolfgang Mey,
Humboldt University, Berlin: Erik van
Acknowledgments
Nieukerken and Rienk de Jong, Nationaal
This has truly been a collaborative pro- Natuurhistorish Museum, Leiden; Chris
ject. We are grateful to our other principal Burwell, Queensland Museum, Brisbane;
.
VOLUME 105.NUMBER4 1039
and D.J. Mann. Oxford University, Oxford. Guinea.ResultsoftheThirdArchboldExpedition
JohnW. Brown,RonaldW. HodgesandDa- (1938-39).PartsI-V.VerhandelingenderKonink-
vid Smith commented on the manuscript. lijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschap-
The project has been funded by U.S. Na- p1e6n4.:s5e0r(.1)2.:419-(12)9:1;15-01(637);:419-(231):0.1-166:49(4): 1-
tional Science Foundation (DEB-94-07297, Frodin. D.G. andJ. L. Gressitt. 1982. Biologicalex-
96-28840, 97-07928, 02-11591), National plorationofNewGuinea,pp.87-130.InGressitt,
Geographic Society, Czech Academy of J. L.. ed. Biogeography and Ecology of New-
Sciences (A6007106, Z5007907), Czech Guinea. W.Junk.TheHague.
MGirnainsttrAygeonfcyEd(u2c0a6t/i9o9/n11(1E5)S,0I4n1t)e,rnaCtizoencahl GressiEKtcatio.nldoJig.:y.L.BWaaacnkudgrENoc.uonlNdoagdyktaorInnMsito.intut1tae9,n78eW.aNuG.ueiwdvieG-iut-oin1Me3t5a
Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
pp.
(Nairobi), Otto Kinne Foundation, and Gressitt. J. L. and J. J. H. S/ent-lvany. 1968. Bibli-
PNG Biological Foundation. National Sci- ography ofNew Guinea entomology. Pacific In-
ence Foundation grant BSR 89-13871 pro- sectsMonograph 18: 1-674.
vided curation support to the Bishop Mu- Hebert. P D. N.. A. Cywinska. S. L. Ball, and J. R.
osinfeuPtmhNeGcoNlawltaeicsotniasolun,ppAoacrnatddedeMmiblyylerot'fhseSecBaiarelcniheceresFwuoanrndkd Hoft.doDfeRNW.LaAoa1n9rb9dda2o.r.nc2oP0dBl0eas3n2..t7s0PB:orifoo3lcNo1eeg3ei-dwci3an2Glgu1siidnoeefnattihfaeincdaRtotiyhoeanslStoShlorcooimueogtnhy
the New England Biolabs Foundation. The Islands.DictionaryoftheGeneraandFamiliesof
Smithsonian Institution, Bishop Museum Flowering Plants and Ferns. Wau Ecology Insti-
andNatural History Museum(London)pro- tuteHandbook 13.
vided critical facilities for the taxonomic HolloIswsauye,dJi.nDp.art1s98b4y-2M00a3l.ayaTnheNaMtoutrhesJoofurnBaolrnaeno.d
work. Southdene,KualaLumpur
Holloway.J.D..G.Kibby.D.Peggie.D.J.Carter,and
Literature Cited S. E. Miller 2001. Families of Malesian Moths
andButterflies. Brill.Leiden, xii + 456pp.
APG (Angiospemi Phylogeny Group). 1998. An or- Holloway. J. D. and S. E. Miller. 2003. The compo-
dinal classification for the families of flowering sition, generic placement and host-plantrelation-
plants. Annalsofthe Missouri Botanical Garden ships ofthejoviana-gTOup in the ParaUeUu ge-
85:531-553. nericcomplex(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae.Catocali-
Bassebti,voYr.es1i9n96P.apLuoacaNlecwomGmuuinneiat:iepsreodfictaorrbsoroefalinsheecrt- Holmngaree)n..InPveKr.t.ebNr.ateH.SyHsotlemmgarteicns,1a7n:d1L1.1-C1.28B.arnett,
Bassevta,riYa.blaesn.dEVc.olNoogvyotn77y:.I1990969-.I9S1pe9c.ies richnessof ebdasr.ia1o9f90t.heIWnodrelxd.HeNrbeawriYorourmk.BoPtaratnicI:alThGeardHeenr.-
insect herbivore communities on Funs in Papua New York.
New Guinea. Biological Journal of the Linnean Janzen, D. H. 1988. Ecological characterization ofa
Society67:477-499. Costa Rican dry forest caterpillar fauna. Biotro-
Basset.Y.V.Novotny.S.E.Miller,andR.Pyle.2000. pica20: 120-135.
tQNauexawonntoiGmfuiyisintnesgabaiantndiddivdGeiurgsyiitatanyla:.pEhxBopiteoorSgicreianepcnhecyewii5nt0h:Pp8aa9pr9uaa-- fore.s2t0s0a3t.urHnioiwdcpatoelryppilhlaagros?u,spapr.e3C6o9s-t3a79R.icIannBdarsy-
908. set,Y.V.Novotny.S.E.Miller,andR.L.Kitch-
Basset. Y. G. A. Samuelson. and S. E. Miller. 1996. ing, eds. Arthropods ofTropical Forests: Spatio-
Similaritiesandcontrastsinthelocalinsectfaunas temporalDynamicsandResourceU.seintheCan-
associated with ten forest tree species of New opy. CambridgeUniversityPress.Cambridge.
Guinea. PacificScience50: 157-183. Janzen. D. H. and I. D. Gauld. 1997. Patternsofuse
Bigger,M. 1988.TheInsectPestsofForestPlantation of large moth caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Saturni-
TreesintheSolomonIslands.OverseasDevelop- idaeand Sphingidae)by ichneumonidparasitoids
ment Natural Resource Institute. Chatham. Kent. (Hymenoptera) in Costa Rican dry forest, pp.
U.K. 251-271. In Watt. A.D.. N. E. Stork, and M. D.
Clarke.J. E G. 1941.Thepreparationofslidesofthe Hunter,eds.ForestsandInsects.Chapman&Hall,
genitaliaofLepidoptera.BulletinoftheBrooklyn London.
EntomologicalSociety36: 149-161. Kristen.sen. N. P.. ed. 1998. Lepidoptera. Moths and
Diakonoff. A. 1952-1955. Microlepidoptera of New Butterflies. Vol. 1: Evolution. Systematics. and
1040 PROCEEDINGSOFTHEENTOMOLOGICALSOCIETYOFWASHINGTON
HmgcdgKiphy.WallerdeGruyler.BerlinandNow Bremer.L.Cizek.andRDro/d.2()02b. Low host
W.rk, X + 4^1 pp. specificityofherbivorousinsectsinatropicalfor-
Laidlavv,M..!..R.L.Kilehing,K.Damas.andR. Kia- est. Nature416: 841-844.
]iranis. In press. Tree tioristicandstructuralattri- Novotny,V,S.E.Miller,Y,Basset.L.Cizek,RDro/d.
bmos (il two lowland rainforest plots in Papua K. Darrow. and J. Leps. 2002c. Predictably sim-
NewGuinea. Biotropica. ple: Communities of caterpillars (Lepidoptera)
Lcps,J..V. Novotny.andY.Basset.2001. Hahilaland feedingon rainforesttreesinPapuaNewGuinea.
suecessional status of plants in relation to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B
coniniunilies oftheir leaf-chewing herbivores in 269: 2337-2344.
Papua New Guinea. JournalofEcology 89: 1X6- Oalham. M. and B. M. Beehler. 1998. Richness, tax-
IW, onomic composition, and species patchincss in
McAloplniPea.pu.1a. RN.e.wR.GuKienieg.a.aCndSIRR.OFaallnsd.AIu^sSt,r^.alCiIannnNaat-e tphp.ree61l3o-w6l3a1n.dInforDeasltlmpelioetrs.iFn PanadpuJa.AN.eCwomGiusikneeya,,
iional UniversityPress.Canberra. eMdosd.elFiornegs:tCBoinocdeipvetrusailtyBaRceksegarrocuhn.dMaonnditOolrdinWgoralndd
Millermt,hoetShM.ufsEa.meiul1ym99Do4af.lcCeSorymispdtaaeremaa(ttLiiecvpseidZoopfotoeltrhoaeg)y.NBeluo.'lit.l"r'e:otpi3in0c1ao-lf RobinCGsarosonue.pS.tGuP.daireSis.s.a1Un9Nd76E.NSeTCwhOeYoaprnrkde.pPaarratthieonnonofPusblliidseshinogf
495. Lepidopteragenitaliawithspecialreferencetothe
Nielsen.E.S..E. D.Edwards,andT. V.Rangsi. 1990. Microlcpidoptera.EntomologistsGa/ette27: 127-
Checklistofthe LepidopteraofAustralia. Mono- 132.
graphsonAustralianLepidoptera4: xiv + 529. Robmson.G. S.. K. R.Tuck,andM. Shaffer. 1994. A
Novotny. V. and Y. Basset. 2000. Ecological charac- held guide to the smaller moths of South-east
teristicsofrarespeciesincommunitiesoftropical Asia. Malaysian Nature Society and Natural His-
insect herbivores: Pondering the mystery ofsin- tory Museum. Kuala Lumpur and London. 309
gletons, OikosH9: 564-572. PP
Novotny, V., Y, Basset. S. E, Miller, R Dro/d.and L, Roihschild. M. 1983, Dear Lord Rothschild; Birds,
Ci^ek,20()2a,Hostspecializationofleaf-chewing ButtcrlliesandHistory. Balaban, Philadelphia,xx
insects in a New Guinea rain forest. Journal of + 398 pp,
Animal Ecology 71: 400-412, Thompson, F C. 1994. Bar codes for specimen data
Novolny, V,,Y Basset,S.E.Miller,G.D.Weiblen,B. management. InsectCollections News9; 2-4.
VOLUME 103. NUMBER4 1041
Appendix
lull list ofthe*-)() species cit pkiius s;iiiipled nearMadang. alphabetieally by tainily. The three lettereode is
usedon iiiseel specimen labelsand allowspositiveassociation withthecorrect name incasetheplantidentifi-
cationhaschangedfromtheoriginalidentihcation.Novotnyetal.(2002b)providedaphylogcnyfor43ofthese
species.
Agavaceae C Ixlii ills V Beauv COR
Agavaceae Drai iiiKiisiiloIni Roxb. DRA
Apoeynaceae Tain I'liUnui(iiiniiuicciGaud. TAB
Araliaceae (>Mii,>\xl,<ii .,vsilifloniin(Lauterb.)W.R. Phihpson OSM
Arecaceae /ivdruiMcIciiiuii>\piiili.\(Becc.)Burret ARE
Bignoniaceae Spailii'ilciiciiiii/iiiiiiiUiiii(L.) Kunth. SPA
Caesalpiniaceae MaiiilUHicl.plitniiii^ii Merrill& Perry MAN
Eaiphorbiaceae Brcyiiui.cniiui(Poir.) Much, Arg. BRE
liuphorbiaceae Coduuiiiiiliulnvnuiiiiiiii Any .Shaw COD
Euphorbiaceae Eiulo.spc'iiniiiiiliihiiis Schodde END
Euphorbiaceae ExciiccariaaiiaUochaL. EXC
EEuupphhoorrbbiiaacceeaaee HMoancuainlaiinuyhaiisiilncoiviiiiiiiniiiiiliiiswcEn.siMsue(lWla.rb.I K. Schuni. HMOAMA
Euphorbiaceae Macanms^iihi/mciiui.1.1. Smith MAP
luiphoibiaceae MiUiinmiiiiI'lculntriiIkiAny Shaw MAF
l-nphoihi.Kce Mcuuiiiiif^ciilcnsitloraWarb. MAD
l-.tiphorbiaceae Mcictiraiifiiiiiiniif^idneensisJ.J.Smith MAU
liuphorbiaceae MiiciiiiiiiniiipiiulrigUmdulosaWarb. MAQ
liuphorbiaceae Mallntiis niollisMiinis(Geisel.)AiryShaw MAL
luiphorbiaceae Mchinolcpi-. iiiiiliiKliiiiiliilnsa(Reinw.ex Bl.lReichb.f.& Zoll. MEL
luiphorbiaceae PhxIUiiiilnis liiiiipn.plixlhisMuell. Arg. PHY
liuphorbiaceae Piiiu'loJciu/niiiaiiilioiiiiciini Hassk. PIM
liuphorbiaceae EiiponuitiaUtiirina R. Br. EUP
l-'abaceae Pleroviirinisiiulicu.sWilld. PTE
I'lacourtiaceae Ciiscciiuicrvlliii'iiirpii.Sleum. CAS
(inetaceae Ciicnim i^ncnioii 1,. GNE
Heliconiaeeae HchcoiiuipapiuiiiiiW.J. Kress HEL
Lecythidaceae Belliiiiiiltiiiuisp. BAR
Leeaceae Lcciiiiu/icuMerrill LEE
Loganiaceae Neiiburgiacoryiwcciipn(A.Gray)Leenh. NEU
Malvaceae HibiscustiliaceiisL. HIB
Malvaceae Sicniiliii s,liiiiiiiiniiiiiini (Lauterb.)Mildbr, STR
Malvaceae Tinlif'spi-niiiiinpUniMigiiui(F. Muell.) Kostcrmans TRI
Meliaceae A^^liiuicl ciniilliiici(Roxb.)Pellegr. AGL
Monimiaceac Kihaiacl miuicca Hook.f.&Thoms. STG
Moraceae AiiiHiiipii.scinimiiiiiisJ.R.etG.Forst. ART
Moraceae Ficush&nuiysii King BER
Moraceae FiiiisInitryocarpnMiq. EOT
Moraceae FicusciniocephalifoliaRidley CON
Moraceae FicusciipiiisaSteud. COP
Moraceae FicusilaininaropsisDiels DAM
Moraceae FicuscrythrospermaMiq. ERY
Moraceae FicusgillK. Schum. & Laut. GUL
Moraceae FicusliispidioiilcsS. Moore HIS
Moraceae FicusinicnicarpaL. MIC
Moraceae FicusiiKilliorF. Meull.ex Benth. MOL
Moraceae FicusimdosaTeysm.& Binn. NOD
Moraceae FicusjHichyrrhachisK. Schum. lVi Laut. PAR
Moraceae Ficuspluiosxcc Lain c*;; K, Schum. PHA
PROCEEDINGSOFTHEENTOMOLOGICALSOCIETYOFWASHINGTON
Mitraceac Ficnspuiii^i'nsReinw.ex Bluine PUN
Moraceae FicKSsepticaBurm. SEP
Moraceae Ficussubtriner\'iaLaut. & K. Schuiii. PAS
(= F.pachystemonWarb.)
Moraceae FicuslernatanaMiq. TER
Moraceae FicustinctoriaForst. TIN
Moraceae FicKStrachypisonK. Schum. TRA
Moraceae FicusvariegataBlume VAR
Moraceae FicuswassaRoxb. WAS
Myristicaceae Myristicacf.sepicaini D.B. Foreman MYL
Myrtaceae Syzigiumlongipes(Warb.)Merrill & Perry SSW
Myrtaceae Syzygiumsp. I SRS
Myrtaceae Syzygiumsp. 2 SRB
Piperaceae PiperaduncumL. PAD
Piperaceae PipermacropiperPennant PMV
Piperaceae PiperumbellatumL. PUB
Rubiaceae AmaracarpusnymuniiValeton AMA
Ruhiaceae Dolicholohiuino.wlohuin K. Schum. DOL
Riihiaceae Gardeniahan.scnuiiiiiii K. Sclium. GAR
Rubiaceae Morindahracteaia Roxb. MOR
Rubiaceae MussaendascratclilcyiWernh. MUS
Rubiaceae Naucleaorientalis(L.) L. SAR
Rubiaceae NeonacleaclemensiiMeirill& PeiTy NEO
Rubiaceae PavettaplatycladaLauterb. & K. Schum. PAV
Rubiaceae PsycholrialeptothyrsaMiquel PSF
Rubiaceae Psychotriamicralabaslra(Laut.& K. Schum.)Val. PSM
Rubiaceae Psycholriamicrococca(Laut.& K. Schum.)Val. PSS
Rubiaceae PsychotriaramuensisSohmer PSL
Rubiaceae RandiaschumannianaMerrill& Perry MEN
Rubiaceae Tarennaburiiensis(Miq.)Val. TAR
Rubiaceae Timoniuslimon(Spreng.)Merrill TIT
Rubiaceae Versleegiacaulijiora(K.Schum.& Laut.) VER
Rutaceae LunasiaamaraBlanco LUN
Sapindaceae PometiapinnalaForster POM
Sapotaceae Pouteriasp. POU
Sterculiaceae KleinhoviahospitaL. KLE
Ulmaceae CellisphilippensisBlanco CEL
Urticaceae Leucosykecapilellata(Poir.)Wedd. LEU
Verbenaceae GeunsiafarinosaBlume GEU
Verbenaceae PremnaobtusifoliaR.Br. PRE
Verbenaceae Teijsmanniodendronsp. TEI
Zingiberaceae Honistcdtiascoiliana(F. Muell,) K. Schum. HOR
