pfau_tarleton 的最愛

Had such a blast with other iNatters at the Del Rio gathering. I saw lots and lots of new plants and animals -- so these ID's are tentative. I'll have to do a little more digging later.
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/sambiology/15447-spending-time-with-inat-community-in-del-rio

Expecting this to develop into an Anemone edwardsiana.

Green and black at rock.

Observation set: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?verifiable=any&place_id=any&field:Similar%20observation%20set=145517995

I wanted to practice with the zoom capabilities of my iPhone 14 and a new Xenvo magnifier. I tested them out on some Texas Snakeweed/Broomweed from the neighborhood, a species which is keyed out based on fine characteristics of the achenes and pappus.
The first two (or three?) images were taken with the iPhone at max (5X) zoom. The remaining images of the flowers and achenes were taken with a Clarus 15X Macro attachment (from Xenvo) positioned over the iPhone macro lens. I have annotated a few of the latter images to show characters that are useful in a key in the Flora of North Central Texas for separating species of Gutierrezia. The plants were obtained at the location of the pin on Q Ranch Road; they were photographed under artificial light at home. (I was so intent on documenting the flowers that I forgot to obtain images of the whole plant! Anyway, it looked like all the millions of other annual broomweed plants in pastures across much of Texas.)

What a fantastic gathering at Powderhorn WMA!!! Mosquitoes were quite memorable but so was the company.
These observations were from the second night, and WOW, did lots of stuff show up this evening!!! So many new bugs for me that I’d not seen before.

More info about the gathering:
https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/pfau_tarleton/74880-powderhorn-wma-bioblitz-may-19-21

See detailed discussion re differences in leaves of T. cuneifolia vs. T platycarpa as shown here.

Also, I am posting my detailed description of differences in other aspects of these two species, with emphasis on trichomes.

Finally, I am also posting here my data on the comparative height of these two species.

This bug has a superficial resemblance to Podisus maculiventris but I don't think it's that species. The legs are more richly colored, the scutellum is differently shaped, and the tips of the FWs don't have the dark central band which usually shows on examples of that species.

I got intrigued with this rather plain Pyralid moth because of a few distinctive things it shows compared to the vast array of other Phycitine-type moths.

1. Most obvious, this moth has a raised row of black scales across the base of the wings and the rear of the thorax. Raised bumps of scales occur here and there among the Phycitines, but this placement at the base of the wings is uncommon.
2. Most of the regular Phycitine pattern elements are missing or minimally expressed. These include the AM band (here indicated by just a diffuse oblique dark mark coming off the costal FW margin), the lack of any obvious PM band or discal dots, and only some diffuse black smudges in the terminal area of the FWs, one of which shows as an oblique apical dash.
3. The FWs themselves are proportionately narrow compared to many genera. FW length (2nd image) = 12 mm.
4. The palpi are held rather straight out.
5. The general coloration on the FW has a pale buffy ground color heavily suffused with white. The white makes up a pretty solid band along almost the entire costal FW margin.

With all this in mind, I went wandering through MPG looking for Phycitines with a black patch at the base of the wings and little other pattern. Some of the genera of cactus-feeding moths and their relatives have a basal black patch. This includes such genera as Melitara, Alberada, and Rumatha. Of these, some species of Rumatha seem to have the narrow wings and other details recited above. None of the Rumatha species are a close match to the present critter but we are hampered by very limited numbers of images of any of them (mostly mounted specimens on MPG and in a Neunzig MONA fascicle) and the descriptions in Neunzig's fascicle are minimal.
A most intriguing aspect of this investigation is that at least one of the species, Rumatha glaucatella, is documented to utilize tasajillo (= Christmas cactus; Cylindropuntia leptocaulis; abundant at Timberlake) as a host plant! In fact that species has been documented from Travis County (Neunzig 1997, p. 75). The present moth doesn't quite match the details of that species as presented by Neunzig, but it suggests to me that the present moth is likely to belong to the same genus.