Psectraglaea carnosa - (Grote, 1877)
Pink Sallow
Other English Common Names: pink sallow
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.109656
Element Code: IILEYFN010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Other Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Psectraglaea
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
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: Psectraglaea carnosa
Taxonomic Comments: Now a monotypic genus but apparently should be combined with at least Eucirroedia and maybe Pseudoglaea.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10May2005
Global Status Last Changed: 11Aug1997
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Moderately widespread but very local and sporadic. Historic to rare at best in much of range. Huge gaps in range. Strong evidence of decline in some parts of range, e.g. most of New England and New York. Only one collection in inland New England since 1975 and none in upstate New York. Often seems to be absent from seemingly suitable places, even in New Jersey Pine Barrens. On the other hand it is not rare in parts of southern New Jersey, Cape Cod area and the Islands, Long Island Pine Barrens of New York, nor apparently in sandy parts of Wisconsin and northern Michigan. Otherwise spotty. Clearly not now imperiled in all parts of its range. but not demonstrably secure. Very disjunct, fragmented range, specialized habitat, rather low occupancy rate, and decline all suggest this species should be considered globally uncommon to rare.
Nation: United States
National Status: NNR
Nation: Canada
National Status: NU (25Oct2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Connecticut (S1), Maine (SH), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (S2S3), Michigan (SNR), New Hampshire (SH), New Jersey (S3S4), New York (S2), Pennsylvania (S1), Wisconsin (S2S4)
Canada New Brunswick (SU), Ontario (S3), Quebec (S3)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Very spotty range. Originally occurred from southern Maine west very spottily through southern Quebec and Ontario to Michigan and Wisconsin (to Bayfield Co.), south in the eastern part of range into northeastern Pennsylvania (extant, 1990s) and southern New Jersey (mainly in the core of the Pine Barrens, but also a small occurrence in Salem Co.). Historic in Maine and mainland of New York. Almost certainly now extirpated in Connecticut and probably Rhode Island. Status unclear in Quebec and Ontario. No records for Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Formerly one known occurrence in western Pennsylvania, possibly extant. Most occurrences are concentrated in cebtral Wisconsin, northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, northeastern Pennsylvania, coastal Massachusetts including the islands, and in southern New Jersey.

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

Number of Occurrences: 21 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: EO's very difficult to define in New Jersey and perhaps Michigan; Massachusetts EO's large and not immediately threatened.

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Abundant some years in several EOs, usually fairly common at two MA EOs; sometimes locally common in NJ Pine Barrens.

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

Overall Threat Impact: High - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: In managed midwestern barrens excessive (two or more per decade) prescribed burns are probably a very real threat and have probably reduced or eradicated some EOs, especially if fires occur in fall, winter or spring. While this species can survive and sometimes even thrive for decades without fire, complete fire suppression is probably a long term threat in most places. Few or no eastern occurrences have actual fire management programs in place. Gypsy moth spraying is a severe threat if chemical biocides are used. Best guess based on related genera is that the larvae would not be sensitive to BTK but this could be incorrect (see Peacock et al., 1998).

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Probably stable in New Jersey and Cape Cod region.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 10-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Has lost significant habitat in almost all parts of range and no longer occurs in many remnants.

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Should persist where still present as long as habitat remains, unless a complete burn occurs.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Should be watched for in Sept.(north) or Oct. (MA, PA, NJ)

Protection Needs: Probably needs large habitats. Large poorly managed barrens may fail to support this species, e.g. it died out on the Albany Pine Bush sometime before 1980 even with over 2000 acres of mostly more or less overgrown habitat. Probably most EOs need some fire.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Very spotty range. Originally occurred from southern Maine west very spottily through southern Quebec and Ontario to Michigan and Wisconsin (to Bayfield Co.), south in the eastern part of range into northeastern Pennsylvania (extant, 1990s) and southern New Jersey (mainly in the core of the Pine Barrens, but also a small occurrence in Salem Co.). Historic in Maine and mainland of New York. Almost certainly now extirpated in Connecticut and probably Rhode Island. Status unclear in Quebec and Ontario. No records for Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Formerly one known occurrence in western Pennsylvania, possibly extant. Most occurrences are concentrated in cebtral Wisconsin, northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, northeastern Pennsylvania, coastal Massachusetts including the islands, and in southern New Jersey.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.

Map unavailable!:
Distribution data for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is known to be incomplete or has not been reviewed for this taxon.

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States CT, MA, MD, ME, MI, NH, NJ, NY, PA, WI
Canada NB, ON, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CT Litchfield (09005)*, New London (09011)
MA Barnstable (25001), Dukes (25007), Franklin (25011), Nantucket (25019), Plymouth (25023), Worcester (25027)
NH Grafton (33009)*, Rockingham (33015)*, Strafford (33017)*
NJ Gloucester (34015), Salem (34033)
NY Suffolk (36103)
PA Lackawanna (42069), Luzerne (42079), Monroe (42089)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Piscataqua-Salmon Falls (01060003)+*, Pemigewasset (01070001)+*, Nashua (01070004)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Miller (01080202)+, Chicopee (01080204)+, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Quinebaug (01100001)+, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Lackawaxen (02040103)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+*, Lehigh (02040106)+, Cohansey-Maurice (02040206)+, Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna (02050107)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: The Pink Sallow, a noctuid moth.
General Description: A moderately large noctuid, wing spand about 38-45mm, usually with bright pink forewings and almost white hindwings. Male antennae pectinate. Should usually be unmistakable. See illustration in Rockburne and LaFonatinae (1976). Many are brighter than this figure. A few have the pink greatly reduced and are then a dull dark olive color. Even so there is probably always some pink and the white hindwings and male antennae should be distinctive. Larva is reddish brown with no obvious pattern, probably at least superfically indistinguishable from EUCIRROEDIA PAMPINA.
Diagnostic Characteristics: No other eastern North american moth has similar size and color. XYSTOPEPLUS RUFAGO is much smaller and usually more red or orange-red than really pink. Its male does not have pectinate antennae. Some other "glaeas" may be tinted with pink.
Ecology Comments: The population is underground as aestivating prepupae or pupae from about the end of June into October in New Jersey and for a brifer summer periods farther north. Eggs are laid loose in the sand or litter.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Not migratory, but individuals do turn up several to several tens of kilometers out of habitat in New Jersey and New England, for example single specimens from Washington, Connecticut and Leverett, Massachusetts (both now at Yale) and Tabernacle TWp., New Jersey (H.Boyd) each representing single captures in several to more than 20 trap-years. There is no known obvious source for the Connecticut stray but the other two sites are less than 20 kilometers of likely habitats. Also several collectors have taken specimens at frequencies of less than one per trap years several to around ten kilometers out of habitat on Cape Cod. Also this is one of two of about 20 pine barrens moths that has been found in the small habitat on the Willow Grove Lake Preserve about 100 kilometers from the massive occupied habitat of the New Jersey Pine Barrens. All information supplied here by Dale Schweitzer.
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Usually in unburned sandy pine or oak barrens. Occasional captures in dry oak forest may indicate these can be low quality habitats or more likely are stray individuals. While Schweitzer has heard reports that this occurs in bogs, he cannot verify any examples. It does seem to prefer pitch pine lowlands (also called "wet pine barrens") in New Jersey, but also occurs there in some xeric scrub oak areas. It is particularly common on the coastal heath-scrub oak "moors" of Nantucket, Massachusetts. Dwarf pine plains on Long Island and New Jersey also support this species. Except in eastern Pennsylvania, it is usually not present on ridgetops even if there is a lot of heath and scrub oak cover. So eastern pine barrens habitats range from xeric to mesic. West of Pennsylvania it appears all habitats are xeric and sandy. An important habitat feature probably is a high density of low oaks, Rosaceae or blueberry which larvae can easily locate and climb. This species is apparently absent from many suitable looking habitats, including nearly all barrens of less than 2000 acres as well as all of the boreal variant pitch pine-scrub oak barrens in southwest Maine and adjacent New Hampshire. However it is mobile and probably can establish transient colonies to some extent which may explain some historic occurrences and rare out of habitat captures. This is one of several barrens species documented as having disappeared from the Albany Pine Bush during this century. Fires are strongly suspected as the explanation for some absences, especially for the boreal variant barrens which were all engulphed in a 300,000+ acre wild fire in October 1947. Gypsy moth spraying probably explains the absence of this and many other barrens species in Rhode Island. Remarkably this is virtually the only pine barrens moth in New Jersey that has been looked for and actually not found in the Ft. Dix Impact Area. This may be a false negative (several actually) or this species may genuinely not tolerate the extreme fire frequencies (probably about six to 12 patchy burns per decade at all times of year) there. On Long Island 1996 sampling (LIFO) found this species much more common in unburned pine barrens than in similar nearby areas burned in August 1995. This suggests adults that emerged in the burned area probably left. However two of the best areas for it (Myles Standish State Forest and the Nantucket "moors" in MA) likewise ahve been mostly unburned for 40 year or more. This species has been found in a tiny (500-1000 acre) isolated unburned pine barren (partially contained in the Willow Grove Lake Preserve) in Salem County, New Jersey. All evidence suggests that this species does best in unburned barrens. It has been taken in a recently burned area at Atsion, New Jersey, but even there most sites are long unburned.
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults apparently do not feed much in nature. The feeding habitats of the larvae in nature are unclear. Larvae will eat a variety of low growing Ericaceae, Rosaceae and small oaks. They eat young leaves, flowers and fruits and the young larvae show a strong preference for flowers of blueberry and Rosaceae such as ARONIA. However, the larvae grow quite slowly with high mortality on anything Schweitzer has tried. It is certain from the habitat near Atlantic City Airport that the larvae do not require oak catkins since the annual or every second year mowing regimen there precludes these--but does allow small blueberry stems to flower. The late instars are remarkably intolerant of maturing foliage (by late May in New Jersey) and so apparently must find late shoots such as on sprouts or else locate fruits of blueberry or Rosaceae. All information on larvae in this document is from rearing rearings of Massachusetts and New Jersey larvae by Schweitzer. The mention of a wild larva collected at Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 18 by Crumb (1956) is consistent with the slow growth of reared larvae. This seems very late for any Xylenine larva there. Crumb reports no foodplant but the general literature repeats blueberry and oak without crediting a source.
Adult Phenology: Crepuscular, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Adults fly as the Ericaceae are turning red. Their coloration matches this background well. Southward, i.e. southeastern Massachusetts and New Jersey, adults rarely or never appear before early or mid October, while in the far north (e.g. northern Michigan and Wisconsin) they may appear by the middle of September or even a bit earlier. The flight season is uncharacteristically brief for a "glaea" and seldom lasts even a full month. Larvae hatch as the foodplants leaf out in spring. They apparently mature about mid to late June in NJ, later elsewhere. Mature larvae aestivate undergound and pupate in the fall.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Many habitats for The Pink Sallow are maintained by fires at frequencies from about one or two to perhaps ten per century. The underground summer aestivation and pupation pre-adapts this species to natural (lightning) summer fires, except perhaps with extreme fuel loads, but all other stages are fully exposed from early fall through spring. Since adults turn up 10-20 km or more out of habitat in places with trap-years of effort, it can be inferred they are excellent colonizers. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this species now seems to be absent from the Shapleigh-Waterboro (Maine) and Ossipee (New Hampshire) barrens. It may not be a coincidence that all of these barrens were burned in the wildfires of October 1947, nor are P. carnosa and C. cerata the only missing species that would be vulnerable to massive fall fires. Unfortunately there was apparently no moth collecting in these barrenn before that year, but the moth was known from the general area in southern Maine (Brower 1974) and southern New Hampshire (e.g. specimens in University of New Hampshire collection). These sites each contain thousands of hectares of seemingly ideal habitat. One would expect burned over barrens to be good habitat by the second spring post-fire. However since these larvae may actually need blueberry flowers or fruits for normal development, unburned refugia should be left. Some species of blueberry may not flower the first spring.

Peacock et al. (1998) found two other "glaeas" and several related species to be insensitive to BTK. Small larvae might gain substantial protection from BTK spray if they are feeding inside flowers. Even if the larvae are moderately sensitive,it is unlikely that BTK applications would be as detrimental to this species as would a severe gypsy moth outbreak that defoliated both scrub oaks and blueberries. While in some parts of the range, scrub oaks in sandy barrens are vulnerable to defoliation, blueberries are less so. Both are highly vulnerable on dry ridgetops.

Biological Research Needs: Need to better understand habitat needs, esp. reason for absence in all known Maine and most New Hampshire barrens (the Oct. 1947 fires?). A better understanding of the impact of fire on this species is needed. Apparent aversion to burned areas seems strongly counter-intuitive in consideration of larval needs.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Pine Barrens Moths

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location with a substantial (generally no less than 100 hectares) pine-shrubby oak-heath barrens or other xeric open pine woodland, where the species is documented as present (or historically present) with potential for continued presence and/or regular recurrence. Minimum documentation required varies somewhat among the species but requires a specimen or diagnostic photograph. Not all collections will represent occurrences as individuals of most of these species do turn up rarely 2-20 kilometers out of habitat. These Specs should also be used for these moths where they occur in oak savannas or other forms of oak woodland scrub. Occurrences ranked higher than C should generally be greater than 1000 hectares if only one patch or at least two patches of 400 hectares each.
Mapping Guidance: In most cases outside of southern New Jersey, available habitat associated with a collection of several these species is small (under 2000 hectares) and the appropriate community (or communities) so well defined and well mapped that EO boundaries for these Lepidoptera should be drawn to coincide with recognized community boundaries or at least to fit within them if the community is too broadly defined to be so used. Even in New Jersey vegetation maps can often be used to define EOs. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences. In general closed canopy oak-pitch pine-heath forest should not be regarded as suitable habitat for these moths. Where species in this Specs Group occur on smaller ridgetop outcrops map the discrete habitats even though an EO may consist of several proximate patches, most likely all on that ridge.

Almost all species in this Specs Group feed on one or more of the dominant plants (pines, scrub oaks, blueberries) which are normally all abundant throughout pine barrens communities or at least on associated grasses which are patchily widespread. In the northern New York and northern New England barrens scrub oak can become spotty and in some previously severely disturbed parts of the Albany, New York barrens the blueberries and other heaths have not recovered. When mapping occurrences or in considering inferred extent, a given moth species should not be assumed to occupy habitat where its foodplant is scarce or absent or for most species where there is canopy closure of much more than 50%. Such areas are unsuitable habitat just as are closed canopy oak-pine-heath (mainly black huckleberry) forests that surround many pine barrens.

Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 20 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: If the pine barren community is, or recently (within last 100 years) was, large and more or less contiguous it should be regarded as a single occurrence for any of these species that occur. This is generally the case even if there has been habitat fragmentation and some fragments are now separated by up to the suitable habitat distance. A single pine barrens community occurrence rarely or never supports more than one occurrence for moths in this Specs Group. Most of these moths have poor or no potential to persist in isolated scraps of habitat

Where these moths occur on ridgetop situations all habitats on one ridge system separated by somewhat stunted oak-heath woods, these should be regarded as one occurrence subject to suitable habitat separation distance even though the oak woods may not really be habitat. In most cases the foodplants will occur at least in small patches between the major outcrops which are the main habitats and it will usually be more reasonable to apply the 10 kilometer distance than the 5 kilometer unsuitable habitat figure. However between ridges separation distance should be applied at ground or tree top level and is not merely the minimum distance between the ridge crests. Between ridge separation distance should usually be based on unsuitable habitat.

In the New Jersey Pine Barrens for purely practical reasons separation distances less than those recommended may be used in order to define discrete EOs--however arbitrary. Some subjective discretion in defining suitable vs. unsuitable habitat may be warranted (especially in the Appalachians south of Pennsylvania) if it appears that the barrens affinity of a particular species in the region is not as strong as it typically is in and north and east of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Compromise distances may sometimes be suitable in marginal habitats.

Separation Justification: These are moths of extensive habitats, likely to be absent in small habitat scraps. Their larvae feed on dominant or at least common plants of one or more layers in the community. Individuals of several of these species including CATOCALA HERODIAS, PSECTRAGLAEA CARNOSA, and DRASTERIA GRAPHICA ATLANTICA have been captured in New Jersey and/or southeastern Massachusetts, but at frequencies of well under one per trap-year, at locations 10-20 kilometers from any substantial habitat patches, and virtually all of them turn up more than a kilometer or two out of habitat, indicating very good dispersal potential. Similarly the generally rare HEMARIS GRACILIS (a pine barrens moth in much of its range) turns up in right of ways supporting low heath vegetation more than 10 kilometers from any other known habitats. CHAETAGLAEA TREMULA commonly establishes minor populations in powerline corridors in New Jersey well south of its core habitats there, presumably by colonization from massive natural barrens areas. Based on samples from in and near Myles Standish State Forest, Massachusetts, in and near the Long Island Dwarf Pine Plains of New York and in New Jersey, in general within a given barrens complex pine barrens moths normally fully occupy all suitable habitat patches, even when habitats are somewhat patchy, or even sharply defined and a few kilometers apart such as near Atlantic City Airport. However note that some species are less tolerant of canopy closure than others so definitions of suitable habitat may differ slightly. No instances are known where highly suitable habitat within 2-5 kilometers of major population centers is consistently unoccupied for any of these species, although data are limited. Based on extensive efforts in 1996-1997 by Dale Schweitzer, the Willow Grove Lake Preserve and vicinity in New Jersey has about 400 hectares of pitch pine-scrub oak-heath woodland but lacks over 90% of potential pine barrens specialist moths including most of those considered common in New Jersey. This preserve is less than 100 kilometers from the main part of the extensive Pine Barrens region, and there are small intervening patches. This suggests that even with a massive (>200,000 hectares) source area distances of a few tens of kilometers can be very effective isolation, although marginal habitat size at Willow Grove Lake is a confounding factor. One or two kilometers would clearly be too short as separation distance for most or all of these species but 10-20 kilometers across non-barrens habitats such as forests, swamps, farms or suburbia seems impracticably large. Therefore 5 kilometers (measured from the edges, not centers) is chosen keeping in mind that for most of the species few or no known occurrences are likely to be less than 2 kilometers across in all dimensions and some are well over 10,000 hectares. In practice outside of New Jersey EOs for most of these species are far apart and except at Shapleigh-Waterboro barrens in Maine there is seldom doubt as to whether occurrences are separate EOs or not. Separation across suitable (but unchecked) habitat needs to be considered mostly in southern New Jersey. While it is completely arbitrary and probably unrealistic to do so, it seems prudent for practical reasons to consider observations more than 20 kilometers apart as separate occurrences pending further sampling which will probably show them to be one EO. If these distances seem large consider that occurrences are long term populations of usually at least thousands of moths capable of flying generally from 2 to 20 km per hour. The suitable habitat distance will probably rarely apply outside of New Jersey.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Outside of New Jersey few pine barrens exceed 5,000 hectares in size and most are under 1000 hectares which seems to be near the minimum size on which many of these moths are likely to still occur (Schweitzer, personal observations; Givnish et al., 1988; Schweitzer and Rawinski, 1987; Cryan, ca. 1985; Schweitzer, 1996 ). Such occurrences are usually isolated by tens of kilometers or more from one another making boundaries and inferred extent (the entire habitat) isobvious. In larger pine barrens the 2 kilometer radius is unjustifiably small but here suggested as practical. No examples are known where species in this group have been shown or even suspected to occupy much less than all available habitat and most have at least one known occurrence of at least 5000-10000 hectares. Some of these species while of very limited distribution elsewhere are fairly common in the core of the New Jersey Pine Barrens and are almost continuously distributed over tens of thousands of hectares and/or have linear distributions of ten kilometers or more within large habitats. While it is generally unreasonable to assume species in this group occupy much less than all available habitat contiguous to an observation point, some practical upper limit is needed especially in New Jersey. Therefore it is recommended that IE not be extended more than 2 kilometers radius in extensive contiguous suitable habitat, pending further sampling which is nearly certain to show a larger extent. A circle of radius 2 km would define a habitat comparable to some of the smaller occurrences known for most of these species. A circle of one kilometer radius would define a habitat of only 400 hectares and most of these species are likely to be absent from such small remnants (although some, it is unpredictable which, will likely occur) and so it makes no sense to define an Inferred extent smaller than known small occurrences. At least outside of southern New Jersey, in no case should Inferred Extent around individual collection points ever be used to justify recognition of more than one occurrence for these moths in large pine barrens areas.
Date: 17Apr2001
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: 09Sep2003
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 20Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 20Mar2007
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
  • Crumb, S. E. 1956. The larvae of the Phalaenidae [=Noctuidae]. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. No. 1135. 356 pp.

  • 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, W. T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring States, Noctuidae, Part III. Memoir 329. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. Ithaca, NY.

  • Forbes, William T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states part III. Cornell University Experiment Station Memoir 329.

  • Handfield, Louis, 1999. Le Guide des Papillons du Quebec, Scientific Version. Broquet Inc, Boucherville, Quebec, Canada, 155pp + plates.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • McCabe, Timothy L. 1990. Report to the Natural Heritage Program: Results of the 1990 field survey for lepidoptera (especially noctuidae). New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. 38 pp. plus supplements.

  • NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Data last updated August 2010)

  • North American Moth Photographers Group at the Mississippi Entomological Museum. No date. Mississippi State University, Mississippi. http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/MainMenu.shtml

  • Opler, Paul A., Kelly Lotts, and Thomas Naberhaus, coordinators. 2010. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. (accessed May 2010).

  • 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.

  • Rockburne, E. W., and J. D. LaFontaine. 1976. The cutworm moths of Ontario and Quebec. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture. Publication 1593. 164 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.

  • Wagner, D. L., D. F. Schweitzer, J. B. Sullivan, and R. C. Reardon. 2008. Owlet Caterpillars of Eastern North America (Lepidoptera: Noctudiae)

  • Wagner, David L., Nelson, Michael W., and Schweitzer, Dale F. 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 95-112.

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.