Catocala miranda - H. Edwards, 1881
Miranda Underwing
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109846
Element Code: IILEY89870
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Underwing Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Erebidae Catocala
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Gall, L.F. and D.C. Hawks. 2010. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Lepidoptera, Erebidae) IV. Nomenclatorial stabilization of the Nearctic fauna, with a revised synonymic check list. In: Schmidt B.C, Lafontaine J.D (Eds). Contributions to the systematics of New World macro-moths II. ZooKeys 39:37-83.
Concept Reference Code: A10GAL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Catocala miranda
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 21Oct2011
Global Status Last Changed: 23Jun2006
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: This species is probably difficult to collect and therefore overloooked. Its habitat is not understood. It could arguably be ranked GU and perhaps should be if a decline can really be documented. However both G1 and G5 seem untenable, and G2 seeems quite unlikely given the large range, much of it in the poorly-collected Southeast. Adults are usually collected in laight traps, or late a night, in rather ordinary forest. Still with less than 30 localities ever documented, and at least four of these single specimens over several trap-years or even a lifetime of effort, there has to be some doubt about the status of this species. Furthermore, the documented post 1985 range is much smaller and more southern than in the 1970s to early 1980s, so it might be declining. This is a supected case of false rarity, that is a species that is not readily collected at lights, bait, or as adults in the daytime, or it could rearly be very rare and declining. At any rate there are only a handful of places where it is found reliably.
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 District of Columbia (SNR), Florida (SNR), Louisiana (SNR), Mississippi (SNR), New York (SNR), North Carolina (SU), Ohio (SNR), Pennsylvania (SU), Tennessee (S4?), Virginia (S2S4), West Virginia (S2S4)

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: Gall's range maps show specimens from only 26 counties from New York to Louisiana and it has since been collected in Georgia (Adams). At least two of the three Pennsylvania records for it and a Tennessee record are based on single specimens in one to 10 years of nightly effort, but it is more regular in parts of the Appalachians from southernmost Ohio and (at least formerly) the Virginias to North Carolina, and on the Florida panhandle where the larvae occur on upland understory hawthorns.

Area of Occupancy: Unknown 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: Unknown
Number of Occurrences Comments: Very little information since the 1980s.

Population Size: Unknown

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to many (4-125)

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Deer and gypsy moth spraying are threats that need to be evaluated.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <50% to Relatively Stable
Short-term Trend Comments: It is difficult to asess changes in effort, but this species is not turning up where one might expect it in the Smokies or the Virginias.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-50%

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Gall's range maps show specimens from only 26 counties from New York to Louisiana and it has since been collected in Georgia (Adams). At least two of the three Pennsylvania records for it and a Tennessee record are based on single specimens in one to 10 years of nightly effort, but it is more regular in parts of the Appalachians from southernmost Ohio and (at least formerly) the Virginias to North Carolina, and on the Florida panhandle where the larvae occur on upland understory hawthorns.

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.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States DC, FL, LA, MS, NC, NY, OH, PA, TN, VA, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
PA Northumberland (42097)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Forest Edge
Habitat Comments: So many collections have been single adults in multi-year efforts, sometimes in the collector's yard, that it is difficult to associate most records with any habitat. Where it has been collected more than once, the habitats are typically mesic hardwoods at low elevations. On the Florida panhandle populations are along river bluffs etc. Larval collections there have been in dry woods. Presence of suitable species of hawthorn is a key habitat feature, perhaps essentially the only one. Schweitzer et al. (2011) consider this species a likely case of false rarity.
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Larvae feed on on certain hawthorns. Crataegus sphathula has been documented in the wild but the moth ranges farther north than that plant and so obviously uses other species. Use of related genera such as Malus is possible but not suspected.
Phenology Comments: All Catocala overwinter as eggs. Larvae of this one occur in spring, with adults by mid or late May in Florida and southern Georgia, and they occur sometime in June or July from north Georgia northward. Adults are present for only about a month, or less. See Schweitzer et al. (2011) for more detail.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Catocala Moths: most Rosaceae and Ericaceae feeders

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where the species occurs, or has recently occurred, with potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a suitable habitat with larval foodplant where the species has been documented by a specimen or positively identifiable photograph of an adult and for some species larvae are also identifiable.
Mapping Guidance: Occasionally, especially with species feeding on Aronia, the habitat may be very clear, for example around the edges of a Midwestern bog or a palustrine forest in New Jersey. Adults of most of these species wander some distance from foodplants in forests, especially swamp species seem to often move into immediately adjacent upland forsts probably to feed. In such cases use the habitat where the foodplant occurs plus 100 meter wooded buffer (if available) as the EO.
Separation Barriers: None known or suspected
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: These species often occur in well defined natural communities such as bogs, riparian forests, barrens or savannas on a generally wooded landscape. In such cases apply the suitable habitat distance across suboptimal wooded or brushy habitat if the larval foodplant is not completely absent over distances of > half the suitable habitat distance, except if the habitat is demonstrably unsuitable in some way for the adults. Females of this group do move around and both sexes rest in the woods even if the breeding habitat is open.
Separation Justification: There are no data on movements of these moths but in general the adults occur ubiquitously within the habitat where the foodplants grow but are seldom found more than a few hundred meters from it. When the breeding habitat is swamp forest adults may move slightly into surrounding drier forests at night apparently to feed. When the habitats is suburban yards adults often occur in adjacent woods, which probably offer better daytime resting areas, even when the foodplant does not. The same is probably true when the foodplants are growing mostly in successional old fields or pastures. However these moths are often localized and do seem to stay in the vicinity of the larval foodplants or at least in nearby woods. Dale Schweitzer knowns of no instance where any of these species has been taken as much as two kilometers out of habitat, although they commonly occur in marginal habitats. He lives about 3km from high quality occupied habitat and half a km from marginal habitat for several of these species and baits almost nightly in season. He does occasionally get C. gracilis and has had one pretiosa in 16 seasons, but andromedae (most common member of the group) and praeclara never. Obviously adults are not venturing out of their habitat. On the other hand C. grynea which had been about one per decade became common two years after the town planted numerous ornamental curbside crabapples, a preferred foodplant. Note though if the habitat is wooded and merely has a lower (but not zero) density of foodplant than adjacent areas it is still suitable for the adults. As with almost all CATOCALA, general experience is that populations do occupy available contiguous habitat even where it is extensive, and in the core of theri ranges some of thses species typically occur in tracts of more than 500 hectares. Aadults move widely within habitat at night even if they concentrate in local areas in the daytime. There is little chance two collections 10 kilometers apart within contiguous suitable (usually wooded) habitat would represent two occurrences and adults would almost certainly be readily found thoughout at varying densities in good years, but some practical arbitrary separation distance is needed when data are not available.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Habits for populations in suburban residential areas are hard to define, but otherwise the smallest habitat known to Schweitzer to have supported a fully contained occurrence of any of these species was about 1.0 square miles for C. gracilis in Pennsylvania. However habitat patches are often much smaller but clustered a few hundred meters or less apart in mostly wooded context obviously forming metapopulations. A few isolated bog occurrences, eg. in Ohio, might be smaller but the habitat in such cases includes the surrounding woods, not just the bog. When the habitat is under 1000 hectares assume full occupancy. Occurrences can be virtually undefinable in extensive forests that go for hundreds of kilometers in which the foodplant is sparsely scattered throughout--for example in northern New England with C. c. crataegi or C.blandula utilizing naturalized apple trees and C. gracilis and C. andromedae in many acid soil regions. So some arbitrary limit is need and 2 kilometers seems reasonable when data are lacking. However, if contiguous habitat is more extensive, in reality so is the occurrence for the Catocala. Anything smaller than 2km would be assuming a truly miniscule, if not insufficient, habitat for this group . Another consideration in recommending this relatively small distance is that usually one does not have good information on the extent of the foodplant, and often it is limited.
Date: 14Oct2005
Author: Schweitzer, D.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: 24Aug2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 08Nov2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): 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
  • Gall, L.F. and D.C. Hawks. 2010. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Lepidoptera, Erebidae) IV. Nomenclatorial stabilization of the Nearctic fauna, with a revised synonymic check list. In: Schmidt B.C, Lafontaine J.D (Eds). Contributions to the systematics of New World macro-moths II. ZooKeys 39:37-83.

  • Gall, Lawrence, F. Database containing county level data for the North American species of Catocala moths. Entomology Division, Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511. Accessed 1994, July 1.

  • Lafontaine, J.D. and B. C. Schmidt. 2010. Annotated check list of the Noctuoidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera) of North America north of Mexico. ZooKeys 40:1-239.

  • 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.

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.