Amphipoea erepta ryensis
an ear moth
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120251
Element Code: IILEYBY082
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Other Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Amphipoea
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B83HOD01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Amphipoea erepta ryensis
Taxonomic Comments: Both the distinctness and limits of ryensis are poorly known. Differs some from A. erepta from Mississippi Valley but needs to be compared to more eastern series. Taxon erepta may merit its own genus.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GUT1Q
Global Status Last Reviewed: 23Oct2000
Global Status Last Changed: 23Oct2000
Rounded Global Status: T1 - Critically Imperiled
Reasons: Known from 2 sites, but known to be easily overlooked, and not adequately looked for. Accidental fires and Phragmites are potent threats. Few records for species as a whole, but probably it is merely overlooked.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States New York (S1)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: <100-250 square km (less than about 40-100 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Known from New York City (Pelham Bay Park) & Rye, New York. Maybe S. Carolina population is same. Should occur more widely in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, etc., perhaps Connecticut.

Number of Occurrences: 1 - 20
Number of Occurrences Comments: This so-called subspecies reported only from vicinity of New York City. Two historic sites, one of them current.

Population Size: 1 - 1000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Unknown, presumably A at Pelham Bay.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Fire could eradicate a population. Phragmites has eliminated most potential habitat in and north of New Jersey and threatens the remaining site.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Not fragile, if not disturbed.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Collecting inadequate in CT, MD, VA.

Protection Needs: In NY/VA region, any EO. However, if SC population is some, then status should be reevaluated there.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (<100-250 square km (less than about 40-100 square miles)) Known from New York City (Pelham Bay Park) & Rye, New York. Maybe S. Carolina population is same. Should occur more widely in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, etc., perhaps Connecticut.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.

Map unavailable!:
Distribution data for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States NY

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NY Bronx (36005)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Bronx (02030102)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Moth.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Habitat Comments: Wetlands, usually or always tidal, with abundant foodplant - Tripsacum dactyloides.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Look for larvae about 1 June in stems of foodplants. Adults can be taken at light mid-late June.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Papaipema and Related Borers

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location supporting a breeding population. Minimally a specimen (exceptionally for some species a photograph or larval burrows in the foodplant) in association with plausible habitat including the foodplant. In mmost cases a photograph of an individual sitting near a collecting light will not be identifiable to species, especially from and JPEGS due to color distortion, although use of natural light does help. A genuine expert must approve all identifications based on less than an actual specimen and some specimens are difficult and require expert identification. Generally identification of Papaipema feeding damage (burrows, frass, borings) to genus is rather easy but in many cases these cannot be identified to species because more than one species could occur in that plant species. In a few cases location an symptoms on the plant (Hessel, 1954) will distinguish among possible species, e.g. P. nebris and P. maritima in the same sunflowers. Sometimes larval specimens can be identified to species. Collections of an adult not associated with habitats containing the foodplant are not EOs.

Mapping Guidance: The essential resource is the larval foodplant so in general EOs consist of foodplant patches and to some extent intervening connecting space, for example one would probably map an entire small bog, and not just the pitcher plant patches, as the EO for northern populations of P. APPASIONATA. Within the overall occurrence it may be advisable to map major foodplant patches carefully so that managers will know their exact locations. See habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes habitat when mapping occurrences.
Separation Barriers: None are really known and it is suspected there are none in practice, although nocturnal lighting could become a barrier in extreme cases. Some species at least do occur in fairly brightly lit residential areas.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: In general when multiple colonies occur in a distinct natural community occurrence, such as a prairie remnant or wetland complex, they should usually regarded as one metapopulation occurrence and so the suitable habitat distance should be used within the general habitat type(s) (forest, marsh, prairie) occupied by the species in that general area even if the foodplants are patchy. Do not do this across major vegetational changes such as prairie to forest unless both types actually sometimes support the foodplant and its borers. Also if the foodplants are highly patchy and the overall habitat not clearcut-consider compromise distances in marginal habitat but not less than twice the unsuitable distance. For widespread forest understory species, even occasionally the rarer ones like P. duplicata, large occurrences still exist and the Specs for "Forest, Woodland and Scrub Noctuidae" are justified.
Separation Justification: Females of Papaipema, and at least some related genera (e.g. Bellura spp., and Spartiniphaga carterae) are occasionally collected two or more kilometers from any potential larval habitat, but for the most part these are sedentary moths that are usually found within 10 meters of foodplant patches. Females apparently are more dispersive than males and tend to do so after laying some eggs at the natal site. So two kilometers while arbitrary seems adequate. Suitable habitat distance is shorter than for most Noctuidae because habitats and populations of these borers tend to be small, and situations do occur where patches a few km from known colonies remain unoccupied for no obvious reason. Sometimes, but not often, some foodplant is unsuitable due to edaphic or other conditions.

P. pterisii, P. sp. 1, P. frigida, P. furcata, P. inquaesita, and S. carterae can have large occurrences where they are ubiquitous over several hundred hectares. In most cases suitable foodplant patches are occupied at least in some years but in any given year some may not support mature larvae. Foodplant patches are often unoccupied or nearly so by immatures for the first season after a fall, winter or spring burn since by far most are killed. However, the same patch may be very good habitat a year later and until the next burn if there are unburned refugia adjacent (see e.g. Panzer, 1998). Similarly for some species such as P. sulphurata and P. stenocelis some, many, or all habitats may be suitable only in certain years depending on water levels and most or all patches are part of the metapopulation EO regardless of occupancy in a given season. In general then extensive suitable habitat will probably be occupied at least over several years if not every year, but it does seem prudent to consider collections more than five kilometers apart as separate occurrences pending more information especially given that patch sizes and therefore deme size can be quite small.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Use this radius only with virtually contiguous habitats with the foodplants widespread. Some known occurrences for P. pterisii, P. sp. 1, and S. carterae are several square kilometers. In by far most cases the inferred extent is the entire contiguous habitat which will usually be a few hundred hectares or less and if the habitat is under 400 hectares assume full occupancy (at least over time if not every year). Note also for riparian habitats this distance is not really a radius but more of a linear distance.
Date: 12Sep2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 02Apr2001
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 12Jan2000

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Bird, H. 1913. The appearance of an unexpected noctuid on the Atlantic seaboard (Lepid.). Entomological News 24:222-226.

  • City of New York, Department of Parks and Recreation. 1987. Pelham Bay Park management study. Department of Parks & Recreation, New York. 259 pp.

  • Forbes, William T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states part III. Cornell University Experiment Station Memoir 329.

  • Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.

  • Kunstler, David S. 1991. A rare plant hot-spot in the Bronx. New York Flora Association Newsletter 2(2):3-4.

  • NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Data last updated August 2010)

  • North American Moth Photographers Group at the Mississippi Entomological Museum. No date. Mississippi State University, Mississippi. http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/MainMenu.shtml

  • Schneider, Kathryn J. 1999. Memorandum of conversation with David Kunster of November 9, 1999 on Amphipoea erepta ryensis.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.