Distribution Eastern Asia between the Russian Far East, southern India and Sri Lanka, and the Mollucas Islands. Elevations range from sea level to 6,500 feet (Grehan, 2011).
Systematics & Biogeography Revised by Tindale (1941, 1958) and Chinese species byZhu et al. (2004), the latter including illustrations of larvae and pupae. Includes 60 species, but monophyly has yet to be corroborated. The presence of a specialized prothoracic sensory pit in the larva and some other features may represent evidence of a close phylogenetic relationship with some other stem and root boring genera such as Aenetus, Phassus, and Phymatopus(Grehan & Rawlins, 2003). The distribution of Endoclita is vicariant to that of Aenetus and this geographic relationship my also represent evidence of a close relationship according to the vicariance criterion (Craw, Grehan & Heads, 1999). This evidence was recognized by Tindale (1958) who noted that the tendency to have large eyes in the adult is not the only link between Endoclita and Aenetus, and that they may be closely related with a tendency to replace each other east and west of Weber's or Wallace's line. Grehan (2011) suggested that this pattern is the result of local differentiation from a widespread common ancestor whose range encompassed the combined distributions of each genus. This differentiation may have been promoted by the tectonic history associated with the origin of the triple plate junction of the Asian, Philippine and Australian plates.
Biology Larvae are wood borers of trees and shrubs (Grehan, 1989). Early instar larvae are predicted to be detritus or fungal feeders as reported for one species by Kalshoven (1965), implicated for Endoclita malabaricus where there is a three month delay between egg deposition and subsequent entry into tree hosts (Nair, 1982), and recently documented for E. signifer by Yang et al. (2013). A unique pattern of development occurs in E.excrescens and E. signifer in Japan where early instar larvae feed on the leaves of grasses or herbs for about a month before transitioning to tunneling into woody plants and feeding on callus (Ueda, 1979). Details of embryonic development were described by Tanaka et al. (1985).
A detailed appraisal of E. signifer biology in China was recently provided by Yang et al. (2013) who described the life history of this species as a pest of Eucalyptus plantations. Most larvae were found to complete development within one year, although some required two years.
Literature Grehan, J.R. 1989.Larval feeding habits of the Hepialidae. Journal of Natural History 33, 469-485. Grehan, J.R. 2011.Notes on the biogeography and phylogeny of eastern Asian ghost moths (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 40, 59-74. Craw, R.C., Grehan, J.R. & M.J. Heads. 1999. Panbiogeography: Tracking the History of Life. Oxford University Press, New York. Grehan. J.R. & J.E. Rawlins. 2003.Larval description of the New World ghost moth Phassus and the evolutionary biogeography of wood boring Hepialidae (Lepidoptera: Exoporia: Hepialoidea). Journal of the Washington Entomological Society 105, 733-755. Hampson, G.F. 1892.The Fauna of British India: Moths vol 1. Taylor & Francis, London. Kalshoven, L.G.E. 1965. Notes on some injurious Lepidoptera from Java. Tijdshrift voor Entomologie 108, 73-93. Nair, K.S.S. 1982. Seasonal incidence, host range, and control of the teak sapling borer, Sahyadrassus malabaricus. KFRI Research Report 16, 1-36. Nair, K.S.S. 1987.Life history, ecology and pest status of the sapling borer, Sahyadrassus malabaricus (Lepidopera: Hepialidae). Entomonograph 12, 167-173. Nishi, K. & Yoshii, T. 1979. On the damage of the mulberries by the swift moth Endoclita excrescens (Butler). Journal of the Sericultural Science of Japan 48, 263-267. English translation Swinhoe, C. 1892. Catologue of eastern and Australian Lepidopera Heterocera in the collection of the Oxford University Museum I. Sphinges and Bombyces (Oxford Clarendon Press). (Section on Endcolita only here). ..........Embryonic development of the nervous system and other ectodermal derivatives in the primitive moth, Endoclita sinensis (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae). In Recent Advances in Insect Embryology in Japan, ed by H. Ando & K. Miya. ISEBU Co. Ltd., Tsukuba, pp. 215-229. Tindale, N.B. 1958. Revision of the ghost moths (Lepidoptera: Homoneura, family Hepialidae). Part VII. Records of the South Australia Museum 13, 157-197. Tindale, N.B. 1941. Revision of the ghost moths (Lepidoptera: Homoneura, family Hepialidae). Part IV. Records of the South Australia Museum 7, 15-46. Tshistjakov, Y.A. 1966. Taxonomic study of the Far Eastern hepialid moths. Record 2. Description of Endoclyta excrescens subsp. n. (Lepidoptera, Hepialidae) from southern Primorye. Japan Heterocisist's Journal 190, 247-248. Ueda, K. 1979.Endoclita excrescens. Natural History 1, 18-20. English translation. Ueda, K. 1987. A new species of the genus Endoclita Felder & Rogenhofer (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) from Taiwan. Tinea Supplement 12, 103-108 Yang, X-H., Yu, y-H., Wu, Y-J., & Luo, Y-Q. 2013.Report of Endoclita signifer (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) as a new pest on Eucalyptus. Journal of Economic Entomology 106, 866-873. Yasuda, T. & K. Abe. 1986. Endoclita hosei Tindale (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae) attacking eucalyptus in Sabah, with descriptions of the immature and imaginal stages. Applied Entomology and Zoology 21, 417-423. Zhu, H., Wang, L. & Han, H. 2004. Fauna Sinica. Insecta Vol. 38. Lepidopera. Hepialidae. Epiplemidae. Science Press, Beijing.
Endoclita absurdus Daniel 1940 China (northern Yunnan)