Archivos de diario de agosto 2019

30 de agosto de 2019

ID Guide 5: Petrophila Research

How did you spend the heat of the summer? Here's what's kept me off the street:

I’ve been deep into study of the genus in Petrophila (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Texas and far beyond for the past few months. The initial inspiration for the renewed study was to clarify the confusion over the Jalisco Petrophila (P. jaliscalis of Texas, Oklahoma, and westward to California) and the Florida endemic Santa Fe Petrophila (P. santafealis). That manuscript goes to print in September (Southern Lepidopteris' News), so I’m turning my attention to the rest of the genus. Encouraged by some of the reviewers of the previous manuscript, I’ll eventually take on an ID article for the whole genus. For the time being, I wanted to offer some fresh thoughts on the members of this genus occurring in Texas. I had a major breakthrough (breakdown?) today on some of the tougher ID challenges. Below are some of my newest ideas.

For starters: Here is the array of purported species of Petrophila previously ascribed to Texas. I list the Hodges numbers and I’m giving some of them new common names for ease of communication:

Petrophila daemonalis (#4771), Devil’s River Petrophila
Petrophila cappsi (#4772), Capps’ Petrophila
Petrophila kearfottalis (#4773), Kearfott’s Petrophila*
Petrophila bifascialis (#4774), Two-banded Petrophila
Petrophila jaliscalis (#4775), Jalisco Petrophila
Petrophila confusalis (#4780), Confusing Petrophila*
Petrophila avernalis (#4781), Spring Petrophila
Petrophila cronialis (#4782), Crony Petrophila*
Petrophila longipennis (#4783), Long-winged Petrophila*
Petrophila schaefferalis (#4784), Schaeffer’s Petrophila
Petrophila heppneri (#4784.1), Heppner’s Petrophila

  • May not occur in Texas, despite earlier reports.

(P. bifascialis, P. kearfottalis, and P. cappsi)

Two-banded is quite common and widespread in much of Central Texas, ranging up into Oklahoma. It also occurs in the n.e. US. A key field mark for Two-banded is the solid black spot in the middle of the HW. For years now, I have been identifying similar moths which have an open loop as “Petrophila kearfottalis” but I had a nagging feeling that wasn’t quite right. There is an old suggestion (Lange 1956) that Two-banded can have an open loop on the HW; that would throw a real monkey wrench into all of this. At the same time, the mysterious Capps' Petrophila, which was originally described from Kerrville and which was described as having an open loop on the HW, was hiding in the wings unnoticed and unappreciated. A couple of lines of new evidence have come together over the past week: (a) I reviewed all of the barcodes for the genus Petrophila available on the BOLD Systems website. (Whew!) Among them is barcode index number (BIN) BOLD:ADB2794 which has several Oklahoma specimens identified as P. cappsi which look just like the stuff I’ve been identifying in Texas as P. kearfottalis. Something didn’t jive. (b) After all this review, I’d still never confidently identified a Two-banded with an open loop on the HW so I began to think, “What if Lange was wrong, and all those open-loop versions were actually something else?” So I poured over all the imagery I could get my hands on (iNat, BG, MPG, BOLD) and realized it all made perfect sense if I make the following simplifying ASSUMPTIONS:

  1. There is NO version of Two-banded with an open loop on the HW, or if it exists, it is so rare that it can be ignored.
  2. The open-loop Petrophila’s we’re seeing in CenTex that look like the P. cappsi identified in BOLD:ADB2794, are in fact Capps' Petrophila and NOT Kearfott's.
  3. Assumption 2 clarified my confusion regarding the pseudo-Kearfott’s Petrophila’s that I’d been naming in Central Texas and allowed me to view true Kearfott’s for what it was: a species of the western US with distinct pattern elements very different from our Texas stuff.

Now all of a sudden, the skies lifted and it all became clear: Capps’ and Kearfott’s Petrophila are closely related geographic replacements within the genus. Each set of images within the now clarified ranges are very consistent and very recognizable. And although Munroe (1972, p. 121) states that Kearfott’s Petrophila ranges into western Texas, I haven’t found any examples of good-looking Kearfott’s in Texas yet.

In the next few days, I will be shaking up the Texas Petrophila world by re-identifying all the previous Kearfott’s as the once-hidden Capps' Petrophila. I also hope to pick out some way—any way—to discriminate between Two-banded and Capps’ when the HW isn’t visible. I’m working on that; I think I’m close.

Publicado el agosto 30, 2019 04:56 MAÑANA por gcwarbler gcwarbler | 6 comentarios | Deja un comentario

ID Guide 6: Notes on Texas Petrophila Identification

In my previous post, I described an “Ah-hah!” moment I had recently with some of the Texas species of Petrophila (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Before I settle in to write a longer dissertation on the identification of all the species in this genus in the U.S., I thought it might be beneficial at least to jot down some of my latest notes for the more local scene.

So once again, here is the array of purported species of Petrophila previously ascribed to Texas. I list the Hodges numbers and I’m giving some of them new common names for ease of communication:

Petrophila daemonalis (#4771), Devil’s River Petrophila
Petrophila cappsi (#4772), Capps’ Petrophila
Petrophila kearfottalis (#4773), Kearfott’s Petrophila*
Petrophila bifascialis (#4774), Two-banded Petrophila
Petrophila jaliscalis (#4775), Jalisco Petrophila
Petrophila fulicalis (#4777), Feather-edged Petrophila
Petrophila confusalis (#4780), Confusing Petrophila*
Petrophila avernalis (#4781), Spring Petrophila
Petrophila cronialis (#4782), Crony Petrophila*
Petrophila longipennis (#4783), Long-winged Petrophila*
Petrophila schaefferalis (#4784), Schaeffer’s Petrophila
Petrophila heppneri (#4784.1), Heppner’s Petrophila

Below I describe the best field marks that I can find for each species along with notes on their range and occurrence (or non-occurrence) in Texas. I include a link either to the iNat species page or a particularly good example of each species. Abbreviations: FW = forewing, HW = hindwing, AM = antemedial, PM = postmedial.


This is one of the most recognizable Petrophila’s. It has the most extensive golden yellow color on both the FWs and HWs. In particular, the yellow on the HW goes all the way out to the row of submarginal black eyespots.
This species is primarily a Texas Hill Country specialist, being most frequently encountered near the rivers and streams draining the southern edge of the Edwards Plateau. But it has also been recorded in Hays and Comal Counties and there is an iNat record in San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

This species has long been overlooked. The forewings are nearly identical to Two-banded Petrophila but the HW is distinctive in having a black line forming an open loop in the middle instead of a solid black blotch. I’m still working on how to separate those two species when only the FWs are visible. I had previously mistaken this species for Kearfott’s Petrophila, but that species has the two median orange bands on the FWs of equal width and has a dark line over the innermost black eyespots on the HW. Kearfott’s is rare in Texas, if it occurs here at all.
Originally described from Kerrville, Capp’s Petrophila is now known to range from the Devil’s River, across all of the Edwards Plateau, up through the DFW area into south-central Oklahoma. It thus overlaps broadly with Two-banded in Texas but it seems to be much less common.

When the HW is in good view, this species is easy to recognize by the sold black blotch in the middle of the white area. Otherwise, it looks a lot like Capps’ Petrophila. The brown/orange bands on either side of the median white line on the FWs are of different widths, the outer one being considerably narrower. That will distinguish this species from Kearfott’s but the two probably don’t overlap in range. Lange (1956) suggested that Two-banded might occasionally have an open loop on the HW, a rumor carried forward by Munroe (1972), but I can find no evidence that this is true. All such Petrophila's in Texas with an open loop are now identified as Capps' Petrophila.
Two-banded is probably the next most common Petrophila in Texas after Jalisco. It occurs in a broad band from Monterrey, Mexico, through south Texas, the Edwards Plateau, and up through north-central Texas into south-central Oklahoma. Curiously, it has not been found in East Texas; there is a significant gap in its range between Oklahoma/Texas and the rest of its widespread population in the northeast U.S.

Readily recognizable in most instances by the reddish brown or burnt orange color swatches on the FWs and HWs. Worn examples can look paler orange or even pink. The HW is extensively speckled in the middle with a narrow white band in front of the submarginal eyespots. There is no dark line over those eyespots.
Jalisco Petrophila is by far the most frequently encountered Petrophila in the Edwards Plateau and up to north-central Texas and into Oklahoma. There are small numbers of records just a bit east of I-35 but it doesn’t occur in East Texas. It ranges well down into Mexico, and westward across southern New Mexico, Arizona, and through much of California. Until recently, many online images and some barcoded specimens were erroneously labeled as “Petrophila santafealis” but I have cleared up that mess (Sexton, C. 2019. Southern Lep. News 41(3):216-225).

This is another species which has been confused in the literature and images. It has a conspicuous zigzag median white line and the PM area is usually the darkest area of the FW; it often shows a bold white-black-white dash or blotch in the middle of the PM area; the first of the two subapical white wedges is notably squiggly as it approaches the costal margin.. Compared to other similar species, all the white crosslines on the FW are crisp and bold. When the HW is visible, it is more easily recognized due to the presence of about 7 or 8 small submarginal eyespots rather than the 5 or 6 larger ones on most other species; the middle of the HW is grizzled gray nearly to the edge of the eyespots. Also, the HW has a continuous orange terminal line (usually alternating black and orange in most other species). The species has been confused with Long-winged and Crony Petrophila; online images are still not fully squared away.
Spring Petrophila ranges from Arizona and Colorado, south through New Mexico and the Trans-Pecos of Texas, thence into Mexico. An image in Knudson & Bordelon’s illustrated checklist for the Davis Mountains labeled “Petrophila cronialis” appears to be a standard Spring Petrophila.
I selected the common name “Spring Petrophila” as an adaptation of the Latin epithet “avernalis”. The species actually flies from February to September.

This species is grizzled dark gray-brown with little evidence of the underlying typical Petrophila pattern of bands and wedges, not unlike Long-winged, but smaller and darker than that species. The more basal of the two subapical white wedges is quite narrow and curves strongly towards the wing base as it approaches the costa. There is a small dark dusky discal loop in the middle of the PM area of the FW which shows up on most images. The HW margin has two alternating series of four small eyespots; the rest of the HW is fairly uniformly grizzled dark gray-brown with no white band in front of the marginal eyespots.
Schaeffer’s Petrophila has a broad range from southern California to west Texas (Trans-Pecos and High Plains) but is sparse everywhere.

After years of confusion with Feather-edged and Confusing Petrophila’s, we’ve only recently begun to recognize that Heppner’s Petrophila is a Texas Hill Country endemic related to this set of closely-similar species. It's actually most closely related to the more widespread Canadian Petrophila of the Northeast. The color patches on the FWs are light yellow-orange. It is a fairly small species with a prominent zigzag medial white line, and an orange-filled, dusky oval loop in the middle of the PM area of the FW. There is a prominent orange tornal wedge extending from the anal angle of the FW diagonally back into the middle of the wing (but has less extensive orange than on Devil's River Petrophila). The PM area of the HW is speckled dark gray brown. The series of big submarginal eyespots has an irregular line capping the innermost two or three, a mark absent on most other Texas species. The species is extremely similar to Feather-edged Petrophila.
Heppner's Petrophila was originally described from Kerr, Blanco, Colorado, and Kimble counties in Texas. More recent records also include Bandera, Edwards, Real, Uvalde, and Val Verde counties. It is thus apparently confined to the southern half of the Texas Hill Country, east mainly to the Balcones Escarpment, and west to about the Devil's River. Blanchard & Knudson's recitation of a collection on the coastal plain in Colorado County may be questionable.

Moths identical in pattern to Feather-edged Petrophila from east of the Mississippi River occur in north-central, central, and south Texas from Denton, Wise, and Throckmorton counties, south as far as Bexar, Goliad, and Harris counties. There are isolated records in Coke, Starr, and Terrell counties. Thus far Feather-edged has not been documented in the southern Hill Country where Heppner's Petrophila is found. The two may overlap slightly along the Balcones Escarpment but don't they seem to occur together locally.


Munroe indicated that Kearfott’s Petrophila ranges into “western Texas” but after having clarified how to ID this and separate it from Capps’ Petrophila, I have found NO online images or reports of the species here. It can be recognized by: (a) wide, equal width orange bands on either side of the median white line on the FW, (b) whitish basal and PM area of the FW with little speckling, (c) HW has an open black loop in the middle (like Capps’) but also has a thin black line over some of the submarginal eyespots.
Kearfott’s Petrophila ranges from southern California, east to New Mexico and north through the Rocky Mountain region to Idaho, Montana, and southernmost British Columbia and Alberta. It may yet be found in the Trans-Pecos of Texas; I’d expect it to be present in McKittrick Canyon in Guadalupe Mountains NP.

This aptly named species is a member of the widespread “fulicalis-species group” which includes 6 species spread from coast to coast, but the ranges of most of them don’t overlap. There were a few reports of this species from Texas and adjacent Mexico, but we now know that those refer to either Feather-edged Petrophila or the regional endemic Heppner’s Petrophila. The whole set of species has extremely similar wing patterns and some may not even be specifically distinct.
Confusing Petrophila ranges from California north to British Columbia and east to Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

[There are no good illustrations of confidently identified examples.]
A mysterious species which Munroe (1972, p. 129) indicated ranges from Nogales and the Huachuca Mts of Arizona south into Mexico. He did not illustrate either the adult nor the genitalia. The original illustration by Druce (1896) in Biologia Centrali-Americana looks at best like a generalized Petrophila and Munroe’s description is also pretty generic. This has left everyone guessing at what ought to be “Petrophila cronialis”. There is one BIN on BOLD Systems (BOLD:ADK0852) which has been labeled cronialis; all of the specimens are from Yavapai County, AZ, which also happens to be the type locality of a newly-described species P. anna (Solis & Tuskes 2018) which incidentally matches the old descriptions of cronialis. I suspect that P. anna will be found to be a synonym of P. cronialis.
As mentioned above, Knudson & Bordelon illustrate a specimen purporting to be P. cronialis in their Davis Mts illustrated checklist, but it appears to be a pretty typical Spring Petrophila.

LONG-WINGED PETROPHILA (a series of unspread specimens in poor condition)
This is the other Petrophila which has a row of about 8 small black eyespots on the margin of the HW instead of the 5 or 6 larger ones. It shares this with Spring Petrophila (above). As implied by the English name I’ve provided, it is a giant in the genus with FWs as long as 15-16 mm in the female, a bit smaller in the male. The FWs are extensively grizzled gray-brown, obscuring most of the underlying typical Petrophila series of bands and wedges. The obscure medial white line is zigzag as in Spring Petrophila, but the more basal of the two white subapical wedges is quite thin, much narrower than the subterminal one, and it is usually concave basally. The HW has extensive gray grizzling, much finer than the speckling of many other Petrophila’s.
Knudson & Bordelon include it on their Texas checklist (Jan 2018 edition) but I have found no solid records of the species in Texas (none on iNat, BG, MPG, BOLD, SCAN, or GBIF). MPG and BOLD (BIN BOLD:AAH5276, but not AAI4817) have records of Long-winged only in Arizona.

Publicado el agosto 30, 2019 06:56 TARDE por gcwarbler gcwarbler | 11 comentarios | Deja un comentario