This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lepidoptera High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe I have found a new species of the Tussocks moth. I have tried to identify if it is in fact a know or unknown specied. I also believe I have solved the mystery of the bee declination. I agree to share these new finding with the world as long as no one tries to screw me out of anything or tries to hurt bubba (bubba is the moth). One more thing, don't you people thank it's time to break bread like corn bread and remember, I make no deals.

Are you being serious? -- IvanTortuga 00:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some great info in the intro/summary, but way too much of it for a summary. I suggest editing this to appear similiar to discussion of other families...with a short intro paragraph (i.e. This family is genrally called, x, and its species are known for y appearance) and then moving all the etymology/taxonomic alternative names into a separate section. The intor artcile is not user friendly as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.210 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that some taxonomists don't agree, (mostly old guard conservative...) but the concensus published by van Niuekerken et al in December 2011 (free access in Zootaxa), based on morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses (the most recent of which are Lafontaine & Schmidt, 2010; Zahiri et al, 2010 & 2011) now clearly place the tussock moths within Erebidae. Unfortunately there is now some major surgery required in the Wikipedia pages related to Lymantriidae, Arctiidae, Erebidae, Noctuidae, Euteliinae (to Euteliidae) and more . . HKmoths (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's not being discussed because the prospect of fixing hundreds and hundreds of WP entries is not particularly appealing, and we ARE in fact talking about hundreds of pages that are all incorrect. A very large portion of the Noctuidae was moved to Erebidae back in 2006, in the following major publication: Lafontaine, J.D.; Fibiger, M. 2006: Revised higher classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera). Canadian Entomologist, 138: 610-635. Not only did it split noctuids into two families, but it sank two other families, Arctiidae and Lymantriidae, into the new family, as well. The consensus since this publication has been to accept the new classification, and, for example, Wikispecies has been almost fully updated and brought into line. Wikipedia has not, and I can only assume there are two factors at work: (1) SCOPE - because the amount of work to fix all the broken articles is enormous, and (2) INERTIA - because many editors or would-be editors on WP are still using references that pre-date the new classification; one can expect, for example, that attempts to update all the articles that use the name "Arctiidae" so it says "Erebidae" instead are going to be subject to incessant reversion by well-meaning editors who are using OUTDATED resources. I doubt that any editor is going to be happy about spending days of effort re-writing the classifications on several hundred pages, if they are going to have to fight against an incessant battery of reversion attempts by other editors. As things stand as of today, the articles for Noctuidae, Arctiidae, and Lymantriidae are all INCORRECT, and need to be brought into line with the Erebidae article. I will post copies of this explanation on those pages, as well. Maybe some enterprising soul will take this project on, but even though it is certainly something that should not be ignored, it may be a long time before it's resolved; it's already been 8 years now, and only Wikispecies has been changed, presumably because there are no editors there who use outdated resources. Dyanega (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lymantriidae is redirected to this subfamily. Possible and unresolved (?) synonyms may be Orgyiidae and Dasychiridae--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those white bundles look like cocoons, not part of the caterpillar anatomy. I would think it important to mention that in the image description 74.77.118.11 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]