@unpublished {22378,
	title = {Anti-bat ultrasound production in moths is globally and phylogenetically widespread},
	year = {2021},
	month = {09/2021},
	pages = {1-31},
	type = {bioRxiv preprint},
	abstract = {<p>\&quot;Warning signals are well known in the visual system, but rare in other modalities. Some moths produce ultrasonic sounds to warn bats of noxious taste or to mimic unpalatable models. Here we report results from a long-term study across the globe, assaying moth response to playback of bat echolocation. We tested 252 genera, spanning most families of large-bodied moths, and outline anti-bat ultrasound production in 52 genera, with eight new subfamily origins described. Based on acoustic analysis of ultrasonic emissions and palatability experiments with bats, it seems that acoustic warning and mimicry are the raison d\&$\#$39;etre for sound production in most moths. However, some moths use high-density ultrasound capable of jamming bat sonar. In fact, we find preliminary evidence of independent origins of sonar jamming in at least six subfamilies. Palatability data indicates that jamming and warning are not mutually exclusive strategies. To explore the possible organization of anti-bat warning sounds into acoustic mimicry rings, we intensively studied a community of moths in Ecuador and found five distinct acoustic clusters using machine learning algorithms. While these data represent an early understanding of acoustic aposematism and mimicry across this megadiverse insect order, it is likely that ultrasonically-signaling moths comprise one of the largest mimicry complexes on earth.\&quot;</p>
},
	keywords = {ACOUSTICS, APOSEMATISM, BATS, DEFENCE, DIVERSITY, EREBIDAE, EVOLUTION, HEARING, JAMMING, LEPIDOPTERA, MIMICRY, PREDATOR AVOIDANCE, SPHINGIDAE, STRIDULATION, TYMBAL ORGANS, ULTRASONICS},
	doi = {10.1101/2021.09.20.460855},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.20.460855},
	author = {Barber, J.R. and Plotkin, D. and Rubin, J.J. and Homziak, N.T. and Leavell, B.C. and Houlihan, P. and Miner, K.A. and Breinholt, J.W. and Quirk-Royal, B. and Padr{\'o}n, P.S. and Nunez, M. and Kawahara, A.Y.}
}
@article {21182,
	title = {Quantifying wing shape and size of saturniid moths with geometric morphometrics},
	journal = {Journal of the Lepidopterists{\textquoteright} Society},
	volume = {70},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {99-107},
	chapter = {99},
	abstract = {<p>\&quot;Butterflies and moths exhibit a spectacular diversity of wing shape and size. The extent of wing variation is particularly evident in wild silk moths (Saturniidae), which have large wing shape and size variation. Some species have jagged wing margins, rounded forewing apical lobes, or narrow hind wings with long tails, while others lack these traits entirely. Surprisingly, very little work has been done to formally quantify wing variation within the family. We analyzed the hind wing shape and size of 76 saturniid species representing 52 genera across five subfamilies using geometric morphometrics. We identified fifteen landmarks that we predict can be applied to families across Lepidoptera. PCA analyses grouped saturniid hind wings into six distinct morphological clusters. These groups did not appear to follow species relatedness\&mdash;some phylogenetically and genetically distantly related taxa clustered in the same morphological group. We discuss\&nbsp; ecological factors that might have led to the extraordinary wing variation within Saturniidae.\&quot;</p>
},
	keywords = {GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS, LANDMARKS, MORPHOMETRICS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS, PROCRUSTES ANALYSIS, SATURNIIDAE, WING LENGTH, WING SHAPE},
	author = {Zhong, M. and Hill, G.A. and Gomez, J.P. and Plotkin, D. and Barber, J.R. and Kawahara, A.Y.}
}
