Catocala robinsonii - Grote, 1872
Robinson's Underwing
Synonym(s): Catocala robinsoni Grote, 1872
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.107469
Element Code: IILEY89110
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. 2002. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Noctuidae). III. The types of William H. Edwards, Augustus R. Grote, and Achille Guenée. Journal of The Lepidopterists' Society 56(4): 234-264.
Concept Reference Code: A02GAL02EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Catocala robinsoni
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 28Nov2006
Global Status Last Changed: 31May2002
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: Despite substantial decline in range and greater decline in numbers this remains a fairly common moth in forested areas in the core of its range from about Ohio and Kentucky to Missouri but status is less clear to southeast. While causes for decline are partially unknown the species seems stable in core of its range.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR
Nation: Canada
National Status: NNR (30May2014)

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 Alabama (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), Connecticut (SH), Georgia (SNR), Illinois (SNR), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (SNR), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S4), Louisiana (SNR), Massachusetts (SNR), Michigan (SH), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Nebraska (S1), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (SNR), New York (SNR), North Carolina (SNR), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S4?), Pennsylvania (S1S3), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (S4), Virginia (S3), West Virginia (SNR)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Originally was regular from Connecticut to at least Missouri and probably south to Arkansas and western South Carolina. Apparently no longer resident east of Ohio and probably has contracted somewhat around other peripheral areas.

Area of Occupancy: 2,501 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Overall Threat Impact: Medium

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

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%
Long-term Trend Comments: Disappeared from about 20% of range from about 1958-1970, perhasp starting a bit earlier. Decline in population since 1700 obviously much greater.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)) Originally was regular from Connecticut to at least Missouri and probably south to Arkansas and western South Carolina. Apparently no longer resident east of Ohio and probably has contracted somewhat around other peripheral areas.

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 AL, AR, CT, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Litchfield (09005)*
NE Lancaster (31109), Nemaha (31127), Richardson (31147)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Housatonic (01100005)+*
10 Salt (10200203)+, Tarkio-Wolf (10240005)+
+ 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
Food Comments: The larvae feed on Carya ovata, Juglans, and Quercus alba.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Catocala Moths: default North American Species

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A forest or other appropriate habitat or cluster of such habitats where the species occurs, or recently has occurred, with sufficient foodplant and other resources for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a habitat (usually a forest) where presence has been verified by specimens or adult photographs or by larval collections if these can be positively identified or were reared to adults. Exceptionally for some taxa sight records can be accepted. Note if foodplants are growing in residential neighborhoods proximate to primary habitat, these will usually be part of the occurrence.
Mapping Guidance: Where the species occurs in small woodlots (<50 hectares) in basically agricultural or residential or lightly urbanized settings a functional EO is almost certain to be several of these combined so it is probably prudent to combine all in the area that have the foodplant and are within five kilometers of at least one other. This is especially so if the intervening landscape has shade trees since few if any of these big CATOCALA avoid such places. If the intervening area has the foodplant, e.g. as shade trees in yards, they are probably part of the EO unless some obvious factor like complete lack of possible pupation sites or regular biocide applications would preclude successful use. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information regarding what constitutes habitat when mapping individual species. When the overall habitat (usually forest) is large and the foodplants somewhat spotty within it (often true for shagbark hickory or willow specialists) consider the entire forest area between patches as habitat since the moths move widely in them and appear to require some space and resources other than larval foodplants. Many of the species often rest away from the foodplants especially in hot weather.
In really contiguous forest areas such as in parts of the Appalachians EO definition may be impossible, but consider using gaps created by habitat unsuitable for the foodplant or other features even if less than five kilometers. Another possible approach would be basing EOs on optimum habitats which may be more discrete than total habitat which for most species is any wooded or at least shaded area with the foodplant at any density.

Separation Barriers: There are almost certainly no really effective barriers. These moths will enter cities and even breed in them. They reach offshore islands where there is no habitat and at least two species have been taken on incoming ships several hundred kilometers at sea.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 4 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 20 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: For forest species the suitable habitat distance generally applies in wooded or semiwooded (includes wooded residential) terrain if the larval foodplant is present at all. In large contiguous or nearly contiguous forests the unsuitable habitat distance would seldom apply since adults seem to be quite mobile and live several weeks at least and most larval foodplants are not highly localized (although they are often sparse). However, use half the suitable habitat distance for separating occurrences if the larval foodplant is truly absent within continuous forest.
Separation Justification: While there are few or no quantitative data the evidence that large Catocala move substantial and sometimes great distances is overwhelming. See Sargent (1976) for some review, also some relevant information in Schweitzer (1991). Evidence includes records of many species hundreds of kilometers out of range of their foodplants (e.g. Brower, 1974; Ferguson, 1955), observations (often in cities) of mixed species migratory swarms, collections of C. nebulosa and subnata 500 miles off the coast of New Jersey (specimens and notes in Paine collection, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia), and the fact that nearly every collection site within regions where they occur eventually produces specimens whether or not the foodplant grows there. Collections of species such as vidua, epione and palaeogama 5-20 kilometers out of habitat are not unusual in southern New Jersey where their foodplant hickories are not ubiquitous. Furthermore, although adults do seem to concentrate around stands of the larval foodplants and in darker moister microhabitats on hot days, they are invariably widespread and not localized within a forest region during the course of a season.

These are landscape level moths not occurring in local colonies, with adults living and flying around for apparently about one to three months in most species. Thus while it is unlikely that four kilometers would fully separate two occurrences and nearly certain that populations would commonly be spread over 20 kilometers of contiguous habitat, some arbitrary distances are needed and these seem reasonable or at least practical for most species.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Where the habitat is truly extensive and contiguous use this figure, although these moths can persist in smaller areas. It is known that many individuals move much farther and given populations of mobile long-lived adults, unbroken or moderately fragmented habitat within and beyond this distance is almost certain to support at least continued recurrence. If habitat (usually forest) patches are smaller than 1000 hectares, infer presence throughout.
Date: 26Jul2001
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: 28Nov2006
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
  • Gall, L.F. 1984. The evolutionary ecology of a species-rich sympatic array of Catocala moths. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.

  • Gall, L.F. 1991a. Evolutionary ecology of sympatric Catocala moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). I. Experiments on larval foodplant specificity. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 29(3): 173-194.

  • Gall, L.F. 1991b. Evolutionary ecology of sympatric Catocala moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). II. Sampling for wild larvae on their foodplants. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 29(3):195-216.

  • Gall, L.F. and D.C. Hawks. 2002. Systematics of moths in the genus Catocala (Noctuidae). III. The types of William H. Edwards, Augustus R. Grote, and Achille Guenée. Journal of The Lepidopterists' Society 56(4): 234-264.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Peacock, J. W., D. F. Schweitzer, J. L. Carter, and N. R. Dubois. 1998. Laboratory Assessment of the effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on native Lepidoptera. Environmental Entomology 27(2):450-457.

  • Sargent, T. D. 1976. Legion of Night: The Underwing Moths. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 222 pp. and 8 plates.

  • Schweitzer, D.F. 1982. Field observations of foodplant overlap among sympatric Catocala feeding on Juglandaceae. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 36(4): 256-263.

  • Schweitzer, Dale F. 1991. The hickory feeding Catocala (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) fauna in the absence of Carya ovata in southern New Jersey. Ent. News 102(4):165-172.

  • Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversity-oriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

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.