Catocala pretiosa pretiosa - Lintner, 1876
Precious Underwing
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116110
Element Code: IILEY89911
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 pretiosa pretiosa
Taxonomic Comments: Now regarded as a northern subspecies of C.texarkana by both L. F. Gall and Dale Schweitzer, and treated as such by Gall and Hawks (2010). The name pretiosa Lintner (TL=Schenectady, NY) has 100 years priority over texarkana Brower (TL=Forestburg, TX). Both taxa were formerly more widespread, but are now widely allopatric. Populations in eastern NC appear to Schweitzer to be intermediate although leaning more toward texarkana. Schweitzer now regards the subspecies of 19th century specimens from VA and OH as unknown and presently unresolvable, although he (Schweitzer, 1982) originally included these ancient specimens as pretiosa. More than 95% of specimens (except in se NC) can be sorted to subspecies on the basis of the dark inner margin of the forewing which is strong and continuous in nearly all texarkana and is absent or nearly so in the median area on over 99% of pretiosa. Habitat and foodplant usage in nature also differ. Few larvae of texarkana have been examined by Schweitzer (all from n. FL) but these do not appear to differ from pretiosa from NJ. In this database subspecies pretiosa is considered to be current populations in New Jersey and Massachusetts and now extirpated populations in New York, New England and Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) and supposedly Maryland.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4T2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 12May2005
Global Status Last Changed: 12May2005
Rounded Global Status: T2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Catocala p. pretiosa was apparently not rare through the 1870's and possibly to about 1900, but later was considered possibly extinct until Joseph Muller collected three at Cape May, New Jersey on 28 June 1968. What happened to C. p. pretiosa around 1900 is unknown, but C. p. texarkana (det. D. Schweitzer) disappeared from Ohio around that time (Rings et al. 1992). Given the number of collectors active in New Jersey Pine Barrens since about 1900, it is very unlikely that C. pretiosa had been present there all along, and possibly decades of fire suppression allowed C. pretiosa to expand into much of the regions in the 1970's where the first collection was by D. F. Schweitzer in 1974 (illustrated by Sargent 1976). The Massachusetts population was discovered by John Peacock in 1989 and had substantial numbers of adults in 2003 and 2004 (Mike Nelson). This moth has been found at 20 sites in New Jersey, mostly on State, Federal, or Natural Lands Trust properties where deer hunting is allowed. Excessive herbivory of the host plant by deer eradicated the moth from one nature preserve and threatens some other populations, and another was destroyed by storm surge. Sea level rise has also destroyed recently productive habitat along Delaware Bay. This moth is extripated from more than 95% of its documented range, including the entire documented pre-1968 range, is now known from only about seven counties, and is probably declining again, but it is not yet imminently imperiled.

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 Connecticut (SX), Illinois (SNR), Maine (SX), Maryland (SH), Massachusetts (S1), New Hampshire (SX), New Jersey (S2S3), New York (SH), Pennsylvania (SX), Virginia (SH)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The pre-1900 range of C. p. pretiosa is summarized by Schweitzer (1982) and extended from extreme southern Maine through northern New Jersey to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There is also a vague Maryland record. Most collections were near the New England coast and in the Hudson Valley of New York. The oldest specimens are from Philadelphia, essentially on the Fall Line, reared in 1833-1836 (Titian Peale collection at ANSP). An image of the moths, one of which is still in perfect condition and unfaded, is available at .
There is an undated old Blacksburg, Virginia specimen and some others collected in the 1930's from eastern Tennessee (Schweitzer 1982) that might be C. p. texarkana, but need to be re-examined. The Ohio specimens (Rings et al., 1992) are pre-1900 and the Blacksburg, Virginia one probably is also (Schweitzer, 1982 misinterpreted an accession label on the latter as a collection date) and probably are C. p. texarkana.The current known range is from Atsion to Cape May, New Jersey and in one swamp complex in Plymouth County, Massachusetts (verified extant in 2003 and 2004 by M. Nelson). In New Jersey, extant populations have been documented from 1987 to 2006 in Burlington, Ocean, Atlantic, Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May counties, but not in Monmouth County in 1988. The strongholds appear to be the Mullica River basin in Burlington and Atlantic counties, the extensive wildlife management areas and preserves along the Maurice River and west through Downe Township in Cumberland County, and also the swamps of northeastern Cape May County, but it is unknown whether C. p. pretiosa is still extant on the Cape May peninsula. There is substantial unsampled, protected land in the northern part of that Couty, however. It now seems likely the extensive swamp forests and coastal thickets along Delaware Bay were the main refugia for this species for much of the 20th century, and these places are still a major portion of the total range.

Area of Occupancy: 26-2,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Probably a few dozen substantial at least marginally viable occurrences in New Jersey and one known in Plymouth County, Massachusetts.

Population Size: 1000 - 10,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Just an educated guess based on assumption density is < one adult per hectare at least in poor years and maybe in most years. Undoubtedly exceeds 10,000 in very good years. Uncommon, but not rare in most years. Quite rare in poor years at most EOs. Rarely abundant (>50/40 bait patches/night) at Atsion EO. More often at most places one would see 1-10 adults at bait in a night.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few to some (4-40)

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Factors causing original decline unknown. Current threats vary in severity from place to place. Deer are emerging as a potential to locally serious imminent threat. This can be aggravated by rabbits eating new sprouts but these alone do not appear to be a threat. Aronia is heavily browsed by deer to the extent that replacement of old senescent stems becomes impossible where deer populations are high, even where overall impact to tall shrub layer is only moderate. Individual sprouts or low branches are often damaged more than once a year. As a result the old clones die and are not replaced. Restoration attempts at the Eldora site failed and data could be interpreted as indicating such large plants cannot be replaced, or doing so would require decades, in a dense forest even with deer exclusion. Deer were overwhelmingly the main cause of the eradication of the population on and near The Nature Conservancy's Eldora Preserve and deer are to an uncertain extent threatening populations along the upper Maurice River. It is less clear what the situation currently is on state lands where there is deer hunting. Also prescribed burning or wildfires could eradicate EOs at least for for several years or long term if the frequency of fire were high, due more to unfavorable habitat changes than the likely 100% mortality of immatures in burned area. It is unlikely a burned area could become useable again in less than 5 years, or ever in places with high deer number since deer severely browse regrowth of Aronia. Areas traditionally subject to prescribed burning do not support habitat anyway as a result, so the main threat would be increased burning in swamps. Other current threats include loss of habitat to sea level rise along Delaware Bay which has reduced a major EO, a shift to herbiciding of powerline wetlands which wiped out part of at least one other, and in some places potentially gypsy moth spraying. Most habitats are at least partly protected from development. This subspecies is substantially more at risk in New Jersey now than it was at the time of its 1987 Status Survey. Threats to the Massachusetts occurrence are not known. It is not known whether the larvae are sensitive to BTK applications aimed at gypsy moth and data for congeneric species show a range of no effect to 95% mortality (Peacock, et al., 1998) and for some species sensitivity decreases by instar as larvae mature.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: A good guess would be around 15% decline in past ten years due to herbiciding of right of ways and excessive roadside cutting in early 1990s (which converted some superb habitat to Phragmites) in Downe township, loss of habitat to sea level rise along Delaware Bay (especially Downe Township where good otherwise protected occurrences were near salt marshes) but also more generally. Habitat is being degraded by deer to some extent but only one small population has actually been lost. Cape May Point State Park population destroyed by salt water overwash which killed the Malus trees and last records on lower peninsula were there in 1980s. From the 1960s until the mid 1990s this species was actually increasing.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Extirpated from well over 99% of known historic range. Curiously there is no evidence of occurrence in southern New Jersey before 1968.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Fluctuates from year to year so smaller EOs probably often die out.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Restricted to mature swamp forests, forest edges, bog edges, coastal thickets and other habitats with thickets or very large bushes of foodpplant exceeding 1.5 meters in height and usually taller. Of the three foodplant genera Aronia is by far the most important and does not grow that tall in most situations. So combination of shade, wet soils, lack of fire etc. are critical.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Should be looked for in suitable habitats on long Island, in Rhode Island and the Cape Cod region.

Protection Needs: Local extirpations certainly occur and there must be sufficient EOs to allow recolonizations. Protect better NJ EOs.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (1000-5000 square km (about 400-2000 square miles)) The pre-1900 range of C. p. pretiosa is summarized by Schweitzer (1982) and extended from extreme southern Maine through northern New Jersey to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There is also a vague Maryland record. Most collections were near the New England coast and in the Hudson Valley of New York. The oldest specimens are from Philadelphia, essentially on the Fall Line, reared in 1833-1836 (Titian Peale collection at ANSP). An image of the moths, one of which is still in perfect condition and unfaded, is available at .
There is an undated old Blacksburg, Virginia specimen and some others collected in the 1930's from eastern Tennessee (Schweitzer 1982) that might be C. p. texarkana, but need to be re-examined. The Ohio specimens (Rings et al., 1992) are pre-1900 and the Blacksburg, Virginia one probably is also (Schweitzer, 1982 misinterpreted an accession label on the latter as a collection date) and probably are C. p. texarkana.The current known range is from Atsion to Cape May, New Jersey and in one swamp complex in Plymouth County, Massachusetts (verified extant in 2003 and 2004 by M. Nelson). In New Jersey, extant populations have been documented from 1987 to 2006 in Burlington, Ocean, Atlantic, Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, and Cape May counties, but not in Monmouth County in 1988. The strongholds appear to be the Mullica River basin in Burlington and Atlantic counties, the extensive wildlife management areas and preserves along the Maurice River and west through Downe Township in Cumberland County, and also the swamps of northeastern Cape May County, but it is unknown whether C. p. pretiosa is still extant on the Cape May peninsula. There is substantial unsampled, protected land in the northern part of that Couty, however. It now seems likely the extensive swamp forests and coastal thickets along Delaware Bay were the main refugia for this species for much of the 20th century, and these places are still a major portion of the total range.

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.
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CTextirpated, IL, MA, MD, MEextirpated, NHextirpated, NJ, NY, PAextirpated, VA

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MA Plymouth (25023)
NJ Atlantic (34001), Burlington (34005), Cape May (34009), Cumberland (34011), Gloucester (34015), Salem (34033)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Cape Cod (01090002)+
02 Lower Delaware (02040202)+, Delaware Bay (02040204)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Great Egg Harbor (02040302)+, Chincoteague (02040303)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Moth. One of the small underwing moths with orange hindwings.
General Description: See Sargent (1976) for photos of adults and Schweitzer (1982) for photos of adults and one color morph of larvae. Larvae usually lack the dark dorsal stripe and may be more mottled than in Schweitzer's illustration.
Diagnostic Characteristics: Should be confirmed by an expert but for larvae the pale grey color with fairly strong "fringe" is reasonably diagnostic. Note also head markings. For adult several characters on the forewing are diagnostic or nearly so. Note strongly white median area, also note the lack of black up the inner margin through the median area in this subspecies. Note also that the black in basal area almost never extends back all the way to the inner margin on this subspecies.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Although some species of this genus are migratory, this one is probably not. Adults do commonly move at least a few hundred meters from habitats, and apparently very rarely really long distances--e.g. the 1989 record in MA probably was a colonization from NJ.
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Shrubland/chaparral
Habitat Comments: Typical habitat would be a pinelands swamp forest. Strays to and will breed in other forested habitats. Good habitat must have (at least in New Jersey) much ARONIA 2 meters or taller in understory. Best habitats usually headwaters swamps. Eggs laid on trunks of or very near ARONIA, AMELANCHIER, MALUS spp. Succesional mesic coastal thickets are a good alternate habitat.
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Larvae feed most of ten on tall (2m) ARONIA ARBUTIFOLIA but also use MALUS and AMELANCHIER spp. in nature.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: In NJ, adults occur mainly in a period of about three weeks in any given year usually beginning sometime between 15 and 25 June. Females collected after about 5-10 July can seldom produce many eggs. A few very worn stragglers may persist through July. The one modern MA record was in early August. Larvae are mature in NJ in mid or late May, pupal stage is about three weeks. Hatching of eggs and eclosion of adults is usually quite synchronized in any given area.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Biological Research Needs: Still need to know how sensitive this species is to BTK. Sensitivity of other CATOCALA species is known to vary widely.
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
Excellent Viability: Should be used for a few of the very best occurrences. While there is no real basis for ranking occurrences, any where adults or larvae can be found reliably and widely, that are over a thousand hectares of mature swamp forest nested within a larger forest matrix, with active deer hunting, not at the edge of rising salt water, with Aronia or other foodplants scattered throughout at average density of several large clumps per hectare, not subject to prescribed burning, and within 10 km of other substantial habitats, are among the best known and seem much more likely to persist than others and should be considered for possible A or AB rank. Since adults of this moth clearly do move around and can be found out of habitat (DFS has even had one in his yard), it is nearly certain gene flow still occurs in the core range some years.
Good Viability: Should be used for a few of the better occurrences, perhaps those in the top half but not top 20%. While there is no real basis for ranking occurrences, any where adults or larvae can be found reliably and widely, that are 500-1000+ hectares, with active deer hunting, not at the edge of rising salt water, with Aronia or other foodplants scattered throughout at average density of several large clumps per hectare, not subject to prescribed burning, and within 10 km of other substantial habitats, are among the better occurrences and seem much more likely to persist than others and should be considered for possible B or BC rank. Even if these populations occasionally fall to moderately small effective population sizes, gene flow should prevent serious genetic depletion at least in the core range (New Jersey).

Fair Viability: Populations whether now large or small where persistence is possible but where either the habitat is small (under 100 hectares) or where foodplant is sparse or very unevenly distributed, or where deer are uncontrolled, or where at risk of non-persistence for any other reason. In New jersey C may be applied to places that usually support the species on dozens of hectares of good habitat or larger tracts of poor habitat (e.g sparse foodplant) even if it it thought the population occasionally dies out. If such places are recolonized they probably do contribute to the over all persistence of the species and act as stepping stones for gene flow between the major colonies. At least in New Jersey sites with no deer hunting should not be ranked higher than C unless it is known that a larger portion of hundreds of large foodplant patches are in microhabitats deer seem to avoid (such as steep edges of ponds or very muddy riparian areas in which case consider BC for otherwise large habitats. Do not use C for small habitats with serious deer impacts to the foodplant and occasional occurrence of the moths or larvae. C should generally apply for smaller habitats where the species persists but probably depends on immigration to do so in poor years.
Poor Viability: Places where occasionally the species turns up but where due to inadequate habitat or deer persitence is not possbile. Sites closed to deer hunting are particualrly likely to merit D but consider whether a population is persisting in microhabitats avoided by deer in which case C would be reasonable..
Justification: There are no population data for this greatly reduced taxon. Most current habitats appear capable of maintaining persistent populations except where deer are a current problem or imminent threat. However, where there is not active hunting foodplants are mostly weak, dying, and some dead and not reproducing successfully except in habitats deer avoid. One samll population was wiped out by deer in the mid 1990s. Population sizes are never actually known, but its current core range it is one of the more stable Catocala, almost never abundant and almost never difficult to locate with proper effort. Habitats are mostly over 200 hectares and some are several thousand. Most good habitats are on state wildlife management areas or state forests where deer hunting is prevalent. While adults do not move great distances they clearly do stray a few kilometers at least in mostly forested areas, occasional larvae can be found on isolated foodplants, and there is surely gene flow between major sites. The taxon first appeared (origin unknown) in its modern range in 1968 and had spread north about 100 km within ten years, and was regionally widespread and not uncommon from 1986 to present. The last known prior collection within 100 km of the modern range was in the 1830s in Philadelphia. So clearly this is a decent colonizer. Whether the Massachusetts occurrence represents colonization from New Jersey or a separate persistence is unknown. In estimating habitat keep in mind that sites burned over or cut are not habitat until dense stands of 1.5 meter tall Aronia recover. Places subject to prescribed burning are never suitable with normal rotations. Places that usually, but not always, support the species do contribute to the regional dynamics are should not be ranked D solely because they are not self sustaining. the A and B rankspecs would separate out the better from merely potentially persistent occurrences. However those ranked C are of conservation value!
Key for Ranking Species Element Occurrences Using the Generic Approach (2008).
Date: 27Jun2007
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 12May2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 25Feb1991
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.

  • Rings, R. W., E. H. Metzler, F. J. Arnold, and D. H. Harris. 1992. The Owlet Moths of Ohio (Order Lepidoptera, family Noctuidae). Ohio Biol. Surv. Bull. New Series, Vol. 9, no. 2, vi. + 219 pp., 16 color plates.

  • Schweitzer, D. F. 1982. The larva and status of Catocala pretiosa (Noctuidae), with designation of a lectotype. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 36(1):18-30.

  • Schweitzer, D. F. 1987. Catocala pretiosa, the precious underwing moth: results of a global status survey with a recommendation for retention in Category 2. Report from TNC to USFWS, Newton Corner, MA.

  • Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. A progress report on the identification and prioritization of New Jersey's Rare Lepidoptera: 1981-1987. Pp. 105-117 and 235-237 in Karlin, E.F. (ed.) New Jersey's Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. Publ. of Institute for Environmental Studies, School of Theoretical and Applied Science, Ramapo College of NJ, 505 Ramapo Valley Rd., Mahwah, NJ 07430-1680.

  • Schweitzer, Dale F. 1998. Rare, potentially rare, and historic macrolepidoptera for Long Island, New York: A suggested inventory list.

  • Schweitzer, Dale. 1992. Memo to Kathy Schneider of December 3, 1992 concerning update of New York lepidoptera state ranks.

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 2018.
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 © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2018. 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.