Erastria coloraria - (Fabricius, 1798)
Broad-lined Erastria
Other English Common Names: broad-lined erastria
Synonym(s): Catopyrrha coloraria Hübner, 1823
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.116095
Element Code: IILEU28030
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Other Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Erastria
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B83HOD01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Erastria coloraria
Taxonomic Comments: The correct name for this genus is probably Erastria, which is confusing because that name has actually been used mostly for a group of Noctuidae. The names Catopyrrha and Syrrhodia have also been used. This species has sometimes (at least in Canada) been referred to as S. cruentaria, but that name is properly applied to a larger, more common species of the southeastern USA. Some identifications southward should be treated as suspicious.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 27May2011
Global Status Last Changed: 22Jun2007
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: A declining species with very few populations left from Kentucky eastward, but status not really clear farther west. This moth is extirpated from Connecticut, and probably New Hampshire and New Jersey, and historic in Georgia, and probably several other states. The last known New Jersey population of E. coloraria was present in Passaic County in 1986, but probably is not extant now given known recent deer impacts to the flora on the site. Not thought to be imperiled in its core range farther west. Very possibly now reduced and fragmented enough to be considered globally uncommon or vulnerable and at least the deer threat will surely get worse and spread. All ranks from Ohio and Ontario through Georgia and eastward are in the SX, SH, SU to rounded S2 range, and it is unranked but naturally very rare in Kentucky. This species is extirpated to imperiled eastward and is probably globally rare but without better information for the lower Mississippi Valley and west there is some doubt.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4 (22Jun2007)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N1N3 (17Aug2017)

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), Indiana (SNR), Maryland (SH), Massachusetts (SH), New Hampshire (S1), New York (S1S2), North Carolina (S2S3), Pennsylvania (S1), Virginia (S2?)
Canada Manitoba (S1S3), Ontario (S2)

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: New York (formerly New England) to southeastern Manitoba, Texas and Florida. McGuffin (1981) also indicates Colorado, but possibly this is another species. Very spotty range with huge gaps in some portions, e.g. perhaps as few as three remaining populations from central PA and MD through New York. However, somewhat widespread in Wisconsin and probably from there to Missouri. This species often occurs or occurred with Erynnis martialis and probably has a similar range (see Brock and Kaufman, 2003). Also there is a good possibility that some southern records for this moth are error for Erastria cruentaria.

Number of Occurrences: 21 to >300

Population Size: Unknown

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Unknown

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: At least in the east and upper Midwest, one or more of these threats applies to most remaining populations: excess to extrme herbivory by deer, succession, fragmentation, gypsy moth sprayng, inappropriate fire management (too much or not enough), and outright loss of habitats to development. In the Midwest and on the Pennsylvania serpentine barrensfire regimens might affect this moth similarly to Erynnis skippers, although it is not certain where the moth pupates. In most situations the foodplant is exceptionally vulnerable to out of control deer, perhaps less so where patches tend to be very large. Populations of the moth are of course much more vulnerable than the plant itself.

Short-term Trend: Unknown
Short-term Trend Comments: Has obviously declined in last 100 years, but possibly is failry stable, but in mnay areas, very rare, now. Came very close to extirpation in eastern Pennsylvania in mid 1990s due to deer, but did recover at both sites when deer were reduced. Deer now a growing threat in some areas such as New Jersey, but the moth is probably already gone. Habitat degradation and obliteration have also claimed many sites but maybe not recently. In short while threats can be identified and historic decline is obvious, the recent and current situation is not clear.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: In much of range an overwhelming majority of barrens and savanna habitat this moth normally occurs in has been destroyed However the extent of decline south of about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is not really clear. Besides the well-known decline of oak savannas, inland pine barrens , etc., there has been an enormous decline of foodplant in some areas. For example it was common enough to be commercially important as New Jersey Tea in the mid 1700s into 1800s and now would barely rank an S4 in that state with few or no remaining large populations. Only a handful of major occurrences of the plant remain in New England, although many small ones.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: In most of the range the species has become vulnerable due to islation of habitat scraps such that recolonization and gene flow are unlikely.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: Far more habitat restricted than its foodplant (Ceanothus americanus) which used to be very common in many areas and still is not rare in most of its range.

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)) New York (formerly New England) to southeastern Manitoba, Texas and Florida. McGuffin (1981) also indicates Colorado, but possibly this is another species. Very spotty range with huge gaps in some portions, e.g. perhaps as few as three remaining populations from central PA and MD through New York. However, somewhat widespread in Wisconsin and probably from there to Missouri. This species often occurs or occurred with Erynnis martialis and probably has a similar range (see Brock and Kaufman, 2003). Also there is a good possibility that some southern records for this moth are error for Erastria cruentaria.

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: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CTextirpated, IN, MA, MD, NC, NH, NY, PA, VA
Canada MB, ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NH Merrimack (33013)*
NY Albany (36001)
PA Chester (42029)
VA Augusta (51015), Giles (51071)*, Henry (51089)*, Montgomery (51121)*, Rockbridge (51163)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Merrimack (01070006)+*
02 Middle Hudson (02020006)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, Maury (02080202)+
03 Upper Dan (03010103)+*
05 Upper New (05050001)+*, Middle New (05050002)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: A moderate sized, about 26-32 mm, partially diurnal Geometrid moth often flushed from Ceanothus patches in the daytime and taken at lights. While the upperside coloration varies the underside is consistently colorful.
Diagnostic Characteristics: In most of the range the illustrations and description in Covell (1984) or McGuffin (1981) should suffice. Note spring forms are very much grayer than the summer form Covell shows. Useful characters include the pectinate antennae of males, the two broad-lines across both wings above. The underside is colorful. McGuffin (1981) describes the color as red-brown or orange-brown, heavily spotted with darker brown scales. Summer forms are paler yellowish. Most persons will probably perceive the color of at least summer forms as somewhat to strongly pinkish in good light as does Covell (1984). With in the range of true E. cruentaria, that is from about eastern North Carolina southward, consult an expert.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Conifer, Savanna, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Much more restricted than the foodplant. Mainly a species of non-coastal pine barrens, glades, former oak savannas, less often ridge top openings in woods. Very often falsely reported from other habitats. It occurs primarily, perhaps only, where Ceanothus species are or recently were significant components of the flora over substantial areas (generally at least hundreds of hectares)
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults feed exclusively one species of Ceanothus, possibly only C. americanus. Adultsd take nectar from flowers of these and many other plants.
Phenology Comments: In most of the range, including at the northern limits in Wisconsin and Ontario, there are or were two broods, which typically coincided closely with those of Erynnis martialis which was using the same foodplants. Generally the first brood of adults occurs in April or May and the second about two months later. As with the skipper, it is very likely there would be a partial third brood southward. However, Florida records (possibly not all correct) cover only January and March to May, which could be only two broods even there.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: This species needs substantial tracts of open woodland, barrens, savanna, or scattered glades or openings in more forested settings. It does not persist long on isolated patches of the foodplant. Many habitats require fire or other disturbance to persist. It is not known how vulnerable the pupae of this species would be to fire--very vulnerable if they are in the leaf litter to generally safe if in the soil. It is also not known how vulnerable the larvae would be to either defoliation of their foodplant by gypsy moth caterpillars or to BTK used to control them. Generally management that favors the sipper Erynnis martialis should similarly benefit this moth since they use the same foodplants and have similar phenology.
Restoration Potential: Minmal eastward due to habitat fragmentation, decline of foodplant, and out of control deer eastward. Much better in Great lakes region and Midwest.
Biological Research Needs: Are pupae of this exposed to dormant season fires? Are larvae sensitive to BTK or not? Habitat needs other than presence of foodplant?
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: In and east of New York and Pennsylvania those for Pine Barrens moths can be applied atthe two or three remiaining occurrences and in some areas other woodland or savanna moth Group Specs probably would often apply. However the minimum criterion is a specimen, or diagnostic photo, or genuinely expert sight record in association with a species of Ceanothus. A specimen or very good photo is needed within the range of congeneric species.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 6 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: These separation distances are suggested where no Group Spec seems appropriate. 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: A fairly localized but somewhat mobile moth. Typical high quality occurrences consist of multiple occupied patches within a large barrens or savanna of at least a few hundred hectares. Within these few or no patches will be consistently unoccupied except perhaps very shaded small plants. However some occurrences are smaller and more isolated and relatively small distances may be appropriate. Adults are almost never seen outside of such open woodland or brushland even though they do wander within it. At least eastward the species is nearly always completely absent but within the few communities that have it adults and larvae can be found around virtually any healthy patch of foodplant. This argues for fairly large separation distances within such communities.
Date: 10Feb2004
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: 30Mar2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 22Jun2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 22Jun2007
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
  • Allen, T.J., J.P. Brock, and J. Glassberg. 2005. Caterpillars in the field and garden. Oxford University Press, New York. 232 pp.

  • Brock, J. P., and K. Kaufman. 2003. Butterflies of North America. Kaufman Focus Field Guides, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY 284 pp.

  • Covell, C. V., Jr. 1999. The butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of Kentucky: An annotated checklist. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series Number 6, Frankfort, Kentucky. 220 pp.

  • Covell, C.V., Jr. 1984. A field guide to the moths of eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 496 pp.

  • Covell, Charles V. 1984. A field guide to the moths of eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • 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.

  • Forbes, William T. M. 1948. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states part II. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 274.

  • General Status 2015, Environment Canada. 2014. Manitoba moth species list and ranks as recommended by expert.

  • Heppner, J.B. 2003. Lepidoptera of Florida. Part 1. Introduction and catalog. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Areas. Volume 17. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville. 670 p.

  • 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.

  • Holland, W. J. 1903. The moth book. A guide to the moths of North America. Doubleday, Page & company, New York. 479 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.

  • 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. 1997. Memorandum of 11 February to Jim Thorne and Barb Barton regarding MD status for serpentine barren moths. 2 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.

  • Schweitzer, Dale. 1991. Memo to Kathy Schneider of March 20, 1991 regarding Tim McCabe's 1990 pine bush moth samples.

  • Schweitzer, Dale. 1991. Memo to Kathy Schneider regarding pine bush Geometridae and closely related families of January 17, 1991.

  • 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.