Apodrepanulatrix liberaria - (Walker, 1860)
New Jersey Tea Inchworm
Other English Common Names: New Jersey tea inchworm
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.114331
Element Code: IILEU24010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Other Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Apodrepanulatrix
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: Apodrepanulatrix liberaria
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 07Apr2009
Global Status Last Changed: 07Apr2009
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: This species has declined substantially in the last century. There are fewer than ten known remaining occurrences from New York and Pennsylvania eastward. The species is apparently rare now in Georgia. There may be a substantial number of populations in Wisconsin and the Virginias.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR
Nation: Canada
National Status: N4N5 (24Oct2017)

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 Connecticut (S1), Georgia (S3), Indiana (SNR), Maryland (SU), Massachusetts (S1S2), New Hampshire (S1S2), New Jersey (SU), New York (S1S2), Pennsylvania (S1S3), Virginia (S2)
Canada Ontario (SNR), Quebec (S3)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Spottily distributed from extreme southern Quebec and southern Ontario south to Georgia and Mississippi with no records from some states in that range such as apparently Maryland (Wagner et al., 2001) and Delaware. Probably absent on the coastal plain. More western records in older literature refer to other species. The sand plains of Wisconsin and probably Michigan, along with Appalachian shale barrens are probably the strongholds now.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: While this one has persisted at a few more places in the Northeast than the other two Macrolepidoptera that specialize on Ceanothus in our region (Erynnis martialis and Erastria coloraria), and is the only one still extant in New England at about five places, overall it is probably nearly as rare now as the others, and it may have been the least common originally. Forbes (1948) regarded it as uncommon in New York. However it still occurs on the Albany Pine Bush but is not known extant elsewhere in New York (Tim McCabe). The species may have been rarer than has been supposed south of the Great Lakes States and New York While Smith (1910) reported E. coloraria throughout New Jersey he had records of A. liberaria only from Newark. There are a few specimens since then from elsewhere but the moth is historic there now.. Only a single specimen was known from Kentucky as of Covell (1999), which is near the center of the insect's range. On the other hand, Tietz (1952) reports it from five localities across southern Pennsylvania, compared to one different locality farther north for E. coloraria. Dale Schweitzer collected A. liberaria at three more places in the southeastern counties, two of which still have the species. It is still common locally in parts West Virginia (DLW). A specimen or two still turn up about every other year in Georgia (James Adams). Wisconsin is probably the stronghold. It is uncertain whether this still occurs in Canada. Deer were a major problem at some sites in the 1980s and 1990s.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: At so-called protected sites out of control deer are often a threat. Other issues could be gypsy moth spraying and prescribed burning.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Spottily distributed from extreme southern Quebec and southern Ontario south to Georgia and Mississippi with no records from some states in that range such as apparently Maryland (Wagner et al., 2001) and Delaware. Probably absent on the coastal plain. More western records in older literature refer to other species. The sand plains of Wisconsin and probably Michigan, along with Appalachian shale barrens are probably the strongholds now.

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 CT, GA, IN, MA, MD, NH, NJ, NY, PA, VA
Canada ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Hartford (09003), Litchfield (09005), New Haven (09009)*
MA Essex (25009), Franklin (25011), Hampden (25013), Hampshire (25015)*, Middlesex (25017)*, Suffolk (25025)*
NH Merrimack (33013), Rockingham (33015)*
PA Chester (42029)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+*, Merrimack (01070002)+, Merrimack (01070006)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Lower Connecticut (01080205)+, Westfield (01080206)+, Farmington (01080207)+*, Housatonic (01100005)+
02 Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History Not yet assessed
Help
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: No rangewide Specs can be suggested but in and east of southeastern Pennsylvania those for Pine Barren moths are appropriate, possibly with slight modification if the foodplant does not occur widely in a particular habitat. Elsewhere consider other group specs that might apply for savanna or woodland moths depending on local situation.
Mapping Guidance: When the occurrence is scattered Ceanothus patches within an overall barren or savanna use the suitable habitat distance for the Specs group or 5 km, whichever is larger, within such communities to minimize separation of metapopulation remnants into separate occurences.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 6 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Use appropriate group specs where appropriate for the habitat and apply the suitable habitat distance within obvious edaphic or vegetation features supporting multiple Ceanothus patches. For example in and east of New York pine barrens moth specs would be appropriate for the few remaining occurrences unless Ceanothus is truly absent over distances of half that for suitable habitat. If the habitat is not such a well defined community type apply the suitable habitat distance for marginal habitat where some foodplant occurs.

Separation Justification: These are suggested for use where no Group spec seems to apply.
Date: 09Feb2004
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: 07Apr2009
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.

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

References
Help
  • Ferge, L. A., and G. J. Balogh. 2000. Checklist of Wisconsin Moths (Superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimmallonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuiodea). Contributions in Biology and Geology of the Milwaukee Public Museum No. 93. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 55 pp. and one color plate.

  • 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.

  • McGuffin, W. C. 1981. Guide to the Geometridae of Canada (Lepidoptera), II Subfamily Ennominae. 3. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, no. 117: 153 pp.

  • Pohl, G.R.  J-F. Landry, B.C. Schmidt, J.D. Lafontaine, J.T. Troubridge, A.D. Macaulay, E.van Nieukerken, J.R. deWaard, J.J. Dombroskie, J. Klymko, V. Nazari and K. Stead. 2018. Annotated checklist of the moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Canada and Alaska. Pensoft Publishers. 580 pp.

  • Schweitzer, D. F., M. C. Minno, and D. L. Wagner. 2011. Rare, declining, and poorly known butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of forests and woodlands in the eastern United States. USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Technology Transfer Bulletin FHTET-2011-01. 517 pp.

  • Scoble, M. J. (ed.), M. S. Parsons, M. R. Honey, L. M. Pitkin, and B. R. Pitkin. 1999. Geometrid moths of the world: a catalogue. Volumes 1 and 2: 1016 pp. + index 129 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria, Australia.

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.