Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla
species of insect
Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla, also known as the twin-spot plume, is a moth of the Pterophoroidea family found in North Africa, Asia and Europe. It was first described by the Austrian physician and naturalist, Giovanni Antonio Scopoli in 1763. It is one of four similar looking moths.
Description
The wingspan is 17–25 mm. The moths fly from dusk, in two overlapping generations from March to October, depending on location. They are also attracted to light.
Similar species
This moth may be an aggregate of species with similar looking wings and is part of the Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla group of four species which all look similar. The other moths of this group are,
small scabious plume (Stenoptilia annadactyla)
scarce plume (Stenoptilia inopinata)
Gregson's plume (Stenoptilia scabiodactylus)
See Gielis, C., 1996. Pterophoridae
Early stages
The larvae feed on devil's-bit scabious (Succisa pratensis), common toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), weasel's snout (Misopates orontium), small scabious (Scabiosa columbaria) and widow flower (Knautia species). There are differences in the early and intermediate larval instars which may be two different species or the variation may be due to diet, season or normal variation within the species.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla” as species of insect. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of insect. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q3111449. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1763 and 1996.
Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla primary sources, Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla archive and Stenoptilia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla”?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.