UF/IFAS Featured Creatures
University of Florida entomology profiles were used for species life history, development, host plants, behavior, and taxonomy checks for a number of North American moths.
open source ↗research behind Moth
sources
I wanted the facts in Moth to be things you can actually trust, not random trivia copied from wherever. I used reliable sources whenever I could: universities, museums, government and conservation organizations, species databases, specialist moth references, and peer-reviewed research for narrower claims.
This page is a public directory of the sources behind Moth's facts. Some are broad species or taxonomy references; others back up one specific claim or study. I try to use universities, museums, government and conservation organizations, established databases, and peer-reviewed research when they're the best fit.
moth species, life history & behavior
Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA)
BAMONA was used as a species and life-history reference for North American moths, including occurrence and host information.
open source ↗Missouri Department of Conservation Field Guide
The MDC field guide was used for clear species and family-level natural-history checks on North American moths.
open source ↗Animal Diversity Web
The University of Michigan's Animal Diversity Web was used for broader Lepidoptera and species-level biology checks where appropriate.
open source ↗UKMoths
UKMoths was used for British and Irish species, especially flight season, life cycle, food plants, and identification context.
open source ↗The Moths of Borneo
J. D. Holloway's searchable Moths of Borneo catalogue was used for Southeast Asian moth taxonomy and natural-history reference.
open source ↗Área de Conservación Guanacaste
ACG's long-running caterpillar and parasitoid research was used for species-specific host and rearing information, especially for Costa Rican moths.
open source ↗Natural History Museum, London
The Natural History Museum's Lepidoptera collections and taxonomic resources were used as a museum-level reference for species and naming checks.
open source ↗GBIF
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility was used for accepted names, synonyms, distribution records, and taxonomic cross-checking.
open source ↗Catalogue of Life
Catalogue of Life was used to verify current accepted scientific names and synonym relationships for moth species in the collection.
open source ↗Cornell University entomology resources
Cornell entomology and extension material was among the university sources consulted during fact research and verification.
open source ↗peer-reviewed research
journal articles and primary studies
If a fact is really specific, I try to find the actual study behind it instead of stretching a general species page to fit. That includes things like echolocation defenses, migration, courtship chemistry, pollination, or something found in one experiment. If one study found something, I say that. I don't pretend it applies everywhere.
how I check a fact
- I prefer species-level evidence over family- or genus-level generalizations.
- If a fact comes from one experiment, locality, or rearing study, I try to phrase it that way instead of pretending it is universal.
- I cross-check scientific names and synonyms rather than assuming an older name is still current.
- I avoid padding a moth with weak trivia just to hit a number. Fewer strong facts are better than filler.
- If wording makes an animal sound worse, grosser, or more dramatic than the biology actually is, I rewrite it.
full source directory
Browse all 2,322 unique references currently used for facts in Moth. Search by publication, organization, journal, or topic. The full fact-by-fact audit is kept separately. This page is just the sources.
No sources matched that search.
found something wrong?
If you spot a fact that's wrong or a source that should be revisited, email report@mothselfcare.com. I want corrections to be easy to make.