Zale lunifera - (Hübner, 1818)
Bold-based Zale Moth
Other English Common Names: bold-based zale moth
Synonym(s): Zale sp. 1 nr. lunifera
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113503
Element Code: IILEY7P300
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Other Moths
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Erebidae Zale
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ 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: Zale lunifera
Taxonomic Comments: This is the old Zale sp. 1 near lunifera from earlier editions of this database (BCD, Biotics). Applications of names in this complex have been essentially reversed. The very widespread species was called Zale lunifera is now Zale intenta and what was Zale sp. 1 near lunifera is now Zale lunifera. Species concepts are the same, only the names have changed.

As of Schmidt (2010), the species known as Zale lunifera will now be known as Zale intenta, a name with almost no prior usage; the name cingulifera remains a synonym. The familiar name Zale lunifera was transferred to a much more localized pine-oak barrens species found mainly along the coast from Maine to Mississippi. This species, which is now Zale lunifera, was in this database and it predecessors (such as BCD) as Zale sp. 1 near lunifera, or slight variations of that term, since the 1980s because the name lunifera was being applied to the common species. The circumscription remains identical to that for Zale sp.1 except that more southern (e.g. Florida) populations which had been included with some hesitation in the past are unequivocally included now. Except for the illustration in Covell (1984), all literature references to Zale lunifera prior to Schmidt (2010), including Covell's text, refer primarily or entirely to what is now Zale intenta.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 25May2013
Global Status Last Changed: 25May2013
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: The old rank of G5 applied to what is now known as Zale intenta. The old G3G4 from when this was known as Zale sp. 1 is retained pending further evaluation, but the correct rank is almost certainly within that range. This moth is fairly widespread Burlington and Ocean Counties of New Jersey extending into at least Atlantic as well, and could be so in some counties farther south. Northward it occurs in a scattered pine barrens, but some of these occurrences, e.g. in southeastern Massachusetts cover several thousand hectares or more.
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 Arkansas (SNR), Connecticut (SU), Indiana (SNR), Maine (S1), Maryland (SNR), Massachusetts (S2S3), New Hampshire (S1), New Jersey (S3), New York (SU), Pennsylvania (S2S3), Rhode Island (S1), Vermont (SNR), Virginia (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The species that the name Zale lunifera is currently (as of Schmidt, 2010) applied to ranges, mostly in xeric sandy pine barrens, along the Atlantic Seaboard and Gulf Coast from Maine to Mississippi, including northern Florida. It gets about more than 100 km inland in the sand plains of New England, and has been collected twice in the mountains--in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The range becomes wider southward, but apparently does not extend beyond the Sand Hills.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300

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

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-80%
Long-term Trend Comments: Much original habitat has been destroyed, especially south of New Jersey.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)) The species that the name Zale lunifera is currently (as of Schmidt, 2010) applied to ranges, mostly in xeric sandy pine barrens, along the Atlantic Seaboard and Gulf Coast from Maine to Mississippi, including northern Florida. It gets about more than 100 km inland in the sand plains of New England, and has been collected twice in the mountains--in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The range becomes wider southward, but apparently does not extend beyond the Sand Hills.

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 AR, CT, IN, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VA, VT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
MA Barnstable (25001), Dukes (25007), Franklin (25011), Nantucket (25019), Plymouth (25023)
NH Carroll (33003)
NJ Burlington (34005), Ocean (34029)
NY Albany (36001), Suffolk (36103)
PA Lebanon (42075), Monroe (42089)
RI Washington (44009)
VA Alleghany (51005), Botetourt (51023), Craig (51045)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Saco (01060002)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+, Cape Cod (01090002)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+
02 Mohawk (02020004)+, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, Mullica-Toms (02040301)+, Lower Susquehanna-Swatara (02050305)+, Upper James (02080201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Diagnostic Characteristics: For now must be confirmed by the few experts familiar with it. Smaller size, yellow reniform, smooth gloassy appearnace and later flight season would all be strong clues. Male genitalia do not offer good characters. Apparently females do not either.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Extensive scrub oak barrens areas, apparently always large pitch pine-scrub oak barrens northward, but as often with scrubby blackjack oak as scrub oak in New Jersey. Probably requires areas where oak phenology is delayed by cold spring nights. Larvae occur rather late in spring but still must have new growth even as last instars. This species is generally absent from barrens complexes much smaller than 2000-5000 hectares. However it does persist on Montague Plain, Massachusetts which is now under 1000 hectares but used to be much larger and it does occur on some small barrens in Maine which are close to much larger ones.
Adult Food Habits: Unknown
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Larvae eat new growth of scrubby oaks. They will eat wild cherry but pupae from larvae Schweitzer reared on this did not eclose (most from scrub oak did) and wild cherry would seldom be common in habitat.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Larvae are nocturnal at least in later instars and hide at base of foodplant or in nearby litter by day. Larvae occur in spring. Pupation is in June. Pupae hibernate. Adults emerge as early as late April in NJ, in May northward. A few persist into June in New England. Egg stage is less than two weeks so larvae in May and June. Florida adults that may be this species have been collected in March only.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: All stages are above ground with little or no protection from fires. Refugia are needed in prescribed burns. Furthermore it is possible that larvae need catkins as well as young leave and these do not appear for several years after fires top kill scrub oaks. On the other hand sprout foliage should be an excellent food source. There is no basis to predict sensitivity to BTK used against gypsy moth larvae, but most larvae of this Zale would be exposed in the early instars and a few late hatching larvae might escape exposure. Obviously severe defoliation of scrub oaks by gypsy moth larvae could also cause high mortality, although most places where this Zale occurs now are unlikely to have such outbreaks.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Forest, Woodland and Scrub Noctuidae

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: An occurrence where the species occurs or has occurred with potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a collection (generally must be an adult) associated with suitable habitat. Photodocumentation except from spread specimens is strongly discouraged but sometimes will suffice High quality occurrences will occupy at least hundreds of hectares and in some areas EOs often cover tens of thousands of hectares. Where forests are fragmented the metapopulation concept probably applies, similarly if the foodplant is very unevenly distributed within a large forest.
Mapping Guidance: General habitat boundaries will sometime suffice for mapping, especially for conifer feeders. When plausible combine populations in proximate fragments as one metapopulation. See habitat and food comments fields and/or ask local experts for species-specific habitat information. Be particularly careful with pine feeding ZALE species which may be species-specific. Note that many of conifer feeders such as FERALIA, PANTHEA and pine feeding ZALE do not wander far from their hostplants. In general then is the densitiy of pines (or other appropriate conifers) drops below about five per hectare in mixed forests such parts are probably best not mapped as habitat for these moths except over short distancs between more suitable patches.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 4 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 20 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: If the habitat is occurring patchily within an extensive overall wooded landscape consider all patches within half the suitable habitat separation distance of at least one other as one metapopulation occurrence. However apply the unsuitable habitat distance across cleared lands.
Separation Justification: Published data are virtually non-existent but there are extensive anecdotal observations or experiences of collectors. First habitats are almost always either vacant or essentially fully occupied. Several authors report migratory average sized noctuids as moving 10 m per second or faster and even half that would be 18 km per hour, surely a conservative distance within suitable habitats--but roughly an hour's flight distance seems like a reasonable cap. The unsuitable habitat distance is more arbitrary but reflects the general perception that moths tend to stay in habitat but on the other hand few Noctuidae should need even half an hour to cross such a small distance. Also Schweitzer has marked and released over 700 EUPSILIA and a few dozen LITHOPHANE in early spring when their life expectancy was still another four to ten weeks and after 26 hours recapture rates fell to less than 0.2%. Sargent and colleagues rarely recaptured CATOCALA moths released from their light traps. While CATOCALA are in other Specs Groups most are forest noctuids. Also Schweitzer has often noted that if all individuals of Xylenini or ZALE are collected from a bait trail each evening, the numbers still tend increase for at least five nights if the weather holds--it is well known bait trails improve with use. Such observations imply very open population structure and wide ranging moths. Moths assigned to this Specs Group are moderately to very strong fliers and with few exceptions (mainly PSAPHIDINAE and FERALIA) they feed and probably normally live between a week and a month as adults. Xylenini live more like two to seven months but the long lived ones are inactive much of that time. Species in this Specs Group feed on common to dominant forest trees or understory shrubs or common understory herbs and apparently are not much more localized within their habitats than their foodplants are. They commonly turn up in marginal habitats but uncommonly to never more than a few dozen to a hundred or so meters from woodland or scrub of some kind. That is these moths are normally widespread to landscape level species within extensive habitats even though they do not often wander far from woods. Some are very generalized in terms of habitat and few require much beyond adequate foodplants and probably tree cover. They can confidently be expected to occupy whatever habitat is available (Schweitzer >30 Xylenini and >50 other of species, especially ZALE and ACRONICTA, e.g. using multiple trap sites in their habitat). Occurrences occupying much more than 1000 hectares vary from frequent to normal and for most species some in New Jersey appear to far exceed 10,000 hectares. It is not clear what would be the minimum size patch capable of sustaining an occurrence, but probably a few tens or hundreds of hectares for many. These are normally species of large habitats and do move around and colonize or persist in somewhat fragmented patches. Both distances are arbitrary. In general two kilometers across more or less treeless terrain or residential or urban areas with some trees but not the foodplants or other essential features should provide substantial separation. The suitable habitat distance is far more problematic and assumed to be too low. Still some arbitrary cap is needed in extensively wooded places like parts of New England, southern new Jersey and Appalachia. Suitable habitat generally includes marginal habitats, but for species that feed solely on pines or other confiers do not treat as suitable habitat areas (forested or otherwise) where the foodplant occurs at less than three mature trees per hectare.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Inferred extent, for example based on one specimens in a light trap, is all suitable habitat within two kilometers of the collection point. If the habitat is more extensive than that there is almost no chance the resulting 1000 hectare circle will close to contain the entire occurrence. However when data are minimal conservative assumptions are warranted.
Date: 04Dec2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Notes: Care has been taken not to include species that would likely violate any of the distances given, especially inferred extent. Herminiine, smaller "deltoids" and some other small weak fliers are not included in this group. This group is mostly for noctuids that are either polyphagous or feed on a dominant, codominant, or at least frequent foodplant. It may not be appropriate for species feeding on grasses, forbs, shrubs or even tree that tend to occur as localized, well separated patches within a forest, although if such patches are fairly frequent they should work (see Alternate Separation Procudure).

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: 25May2013
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 21Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Mar2007
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
  • 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. 1998. A Survey of Moths in Four Indiana Nature Preserves: Final Report. 13 pp.

  • 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.

  • Jordan, M. J., W. A. Patterson III, A. G. Windisch. 2003. Conceptual ecological models for the Long Island pitch pine barrens: implications for managing rare plant communities. Forest Ecology and Management 185, 151-168.

  • 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.

  • Little, S. 1979. Fire and plant succession in the New Jersey pine barrens. P. 297-313 in R. T. T. Forman, ed. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. Academic Press, Inc. Orlando, FL.

  • McGuinness, Hugh. 2006. Overview of the 2005 Dwarf Pine Plains data.

  • 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)

  • Schmidt, B. C. 2010. Taxonomic reassessment of Zale lunifera (Hübner) (Erebidae, Erebinae). In: Schmidt B.C, Lafontaine J.D (Eds). Contributions to the systematics of New World macro-moths II. ZooKeys 39:99-106.

  • Schmidt, B.C. 2010. Taxonomic reassessment of Zale lunifera (Hubner) (Erebidae, Erebinae). In: Schmidt, B.C. and J.D. Lafontaine (Eds) Contributions to the systematics of New World macro-moths II. ZooKeys 39:99-106.

  • 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, D. L., D. F. Schweitzer, J. B. Sullivan, and R. C. Reardon. 2011. Owlet Caterpillars of Eastern North America (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 576 pp.

  • 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.