Actias artemis is a members of the family Saturniidae, also known as wild silkmoths, have impressive color and size. In 2012, estimation of Actias artemis (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) abundance in HECRI was conducted using the mark-release-recapture (MRR) method (Jolly, 1965) from mid to late May. Seven sampling events were accomplished from 19 May, 21 May, 22 May, 24 May, 26 May, 28 May and on 30 May, during the main flight of the species. Marking was made by writing numbers in the hind wing of each individual moths. Most collections were undertaken by a team of experienced four or six researches of HECRI using light trap (mercury lamp: 250W). Seven female and 58 male moths were captured in study site. The effective population size of Actias artemis was 24.9 and heterozygosity was more than 97%. Seven marked moths were recaptured, resulting in 9.7% of recapture rate. The estimated population size of A. artemis showed a peak by 133 individuals on 22 May and then declined. The estimated adult numbers of A. artemis using MRR method from minimum 168 to maximum 5,332 (p<0.05).

Actias artemis and A. gnoma are the two saturniid species of which their gracious morphology often attracts butterfly collectors. The two species, however, have similar wing patterns, even with considerable amount of variations, making difficult to distinguish between the two. We gathered about a hundred specimens of either of the species and tried to distinguish them by their wing morphology as indicated in many books and webpages. This was definitely not easy and we were not even sure if our distinction was right. We changed our plan and we first tried to sequence their COI barcode region and found that the two have more than enough difference and could easily distinguish the two by sequence similarity. Then we compared their outer morphological characters that are often used by people between the two to see if any morphological character can distinguish the two. We concluded that no one characteristic can separate the two although combination of several characteristics may do so. We also made a comparison of their genitalia and they were distinctly different. With the help of genitalic dissection, we found that they can be distinguished without actual dissection by comparing their genital end after just brushing off some scales at the end. For female comparison, a further study with more material is needed as we found the proportion of females among the samples was very low.