InsectNet forum

Catocala season finally started for me yesterday. Probably the latest start to the season I can remember. However, it makes sense since
spring was about 2 weeks late this year in Southern Wisconsin.

I had 1 C. ilia in the bait trap yesterday. This morning I had 4 and they were all different forms including a nice form conspicua.

Great to hear Chris !

I put out my Mercury vapor light setup a couple times in June on nights I thought would yield catocala --- to no avail. We did have a rather unsettling June here in Illinois as the weather was still quite unstable. We had a few really hot days but we also had some periodic rainy ones and many cool nights.

I was hoping to maybe run across C. coccinata or illecta in my efforts as they are traditionally early summer (June) species. Now I'm wondering if we may see either of those now. Of course neither is quite as prolific as ilia.

Wish you well and keep us updated.

I am a little more hopeful now that we received some good rainfall this past week. The last couple of days has yielded the following:
C. ilia form normanii
C. blandula
C. parta
C. insolabilis

Last year produced the most C. coccinata I have ever seen, and yes they are one of the earliest species. I did, however see them into mid summer, so hopefully I will still see C. coccinata yet this season. I don't think C. illecta ventures quite as far north as me.

Anyone know this species? It's new to me. Western Maryland.

iNaturalist suggested a species not even close, and I couldn't find it on bugguide.

Chuck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:12 pm Anyone know this species? It's new to me. Western Maryland.

iNaturalist suggested a species not even close, and I couldn't find it on bugguide.

Catocala ilia? -

https://bugguide.net/node/view/1965259/bgimage

livingplanet3 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:23 pm

Chuck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:12 pm Anyone know this species? It's new to me. Western Maryland.

iNaturalist suggested a species not even close, and I couldn't find it on bugguide.

Catocala ilia? -

https://bugguide.net/node/view/1965259/bgimage

Thanks! I thought I had a number of ilia, but not anything that looks like this specimen, which certainly does look like ilia on BG.

It's C. ilia, f. conspicua.

Having just noticed this latest post I've been beaten to the punch (so to speak) by livingplanet3 and 58chevy in identifying it. This is a nice form of C. ilia to encounter because you only run across it here and there. It is distinct because the rentiform spot of the fourwings is solidly white.

There are two other forms of this moth that I am aware of. In form "normani" the reniform spot is only (outlined in white) against a semi-melanic background. In form "satanus" the forewings are very blackened overall including the reniform spot.

Here's a photo of all 4 ilia forms. Top left: typical, bottom left: normani, top right: conspicua, bottom right: satanas.

Thanks guys for the ID on form conspicua. Odd that iNaturalist couldn't ID such a distinct form, but I suspect it's not even in there.

After some much needed rain the Catocala action has picked up quite a bit with several species showing up for the first time this year.
C. ultronia
C. amica
C. neogama
C. paleogama
C. unijuga

The discussion here is greatly limiting in scope and understanding. In 1918 Barnes and Mcdonnough listed 10 different names synonymous which were mostly described as variations of ilia. And if you are familiar with the rules of zoological nomenclature, form names have no taxonomical status. And in the past century since then, a handful of others have been described. E.g., One of 6 different forms of Catocala ilia (Cramer, 1775) that Worthington named in 1883 was C. ilia var. umbrosa. No one has made an effort in the past century to take a good look at these 10 or more synonym names under C. ilia. No one that is, except for myself looking closely at Catocala ilia var. umbrosa. As it turned out, I described Catocala umbrosa Brou in 2002 based upon personally capturing tens of thousands of good quality adults here in Louisiana over the prior 33 years, operating various automatic capture insect traps back then. Here at my home (Abita Entomological Study Site), back then we logged capturing 3,033 wild adult ilia-appearing moths in light traps and fermenting fruit bait traps 24 hours every day/night of the calendar year for 33years. We were able to visually separate out two entities. We discovered the two entities actually had different phenology pictures. In Louisiana, where the two occur in sympatry, the brood peak of umbrosa occurs about 10 days later than ilia . Then we dissected the male genitalia and discovered each had very different genitalia, each being separable visually as well.

What I did when I described it was to use the name umbrosa as the designated species name in the formal published species description. I could have just as easily named it after my daughter April Brou. That would have been Catocala broui Brou, 2002. One cannot name a new species after oneself. But you may be familiar with the species: Cartwrightia cartwrighti Cartwright, a (scarab beetle) brother naming a species for his brother in a new genus Cartwrightia.

I intended just to make a statement about the earlier post stating "Here's a photo of all 4 ilia forms". If one has only 10 or 20 adults you may think the are only four forms, but in reality there are probably thousands of forms. How do I know? Collect tens of thousands of just good quality C. ilia (I did), and spread them; then you will have more informed opinions and actual proofs about these matters. This is the reason form names are insignificant and hold no taxonomical value in our scientific literature.

Thanks Vernon for the insights.

Forms, once identified that they are indeed just forms, do have no taxonomic value. But they are not without value. Some forms are random, i.e., an adult of siblings could emerge as one of several forms. But other forms indicate genetic alteration from the environment, some indicate a flight eclosion with ingression of genes from a different species, and I'm sure there are others that occur as a result of "something." In these cases, the form names are not insignificant, they have scientific meaning, even if not taxonomically recognized. Generally the scientific meaning is "more research needed here."

There are of course "marketing forms" which demand higher prices from collectors. In this case, taxonomically and scientifically they are meaningless. However, we still don't understand in many cases if a form is random, or a result of something scientifically interesting. Case in point is Ornithoptera victoria rubianus form niclasi. In that it actually only occurs on Rannonga Island, is perhaps there something behind it?

That said, I'm struggling with this very topic right now- trying to determine if a taxon is unique, or just a form. Three years of research hasn't answered that, so waiting on genetic analysis.

I think the use of forms still merits some value. Perhaps not from the pure taxonomic point but, it has allowed us to differentiate select (unique) appearing populations from amongst certain complex species.

Catocala ilia has proven to be a complex species; and Cramer who was likely a "lumper" in a scientific manner of speaking failed to notice a separate
species contained within it. Forms were later applied to it to (show) less frequently encountered --- yet consistent variations present within the species.

There have not been hundreds or even thousands of forms applied to any given species. Only a relative few of the complex species have been given such "splitter" status.

Catocala lacrymosa is yet another with several named forms (which have stood the test of time). I haven't heard of any new ones added as of late....

I'm certainly not as informed scientifically as you are Vernon but, the use of form names I think still helps most of us to have a better understanding of the complexities that can occur within nature or within a species.

Here are 6 of the hundreds of aberrations/forms of Catocala ilia.

Also, this is one of 6 drawers of pinned, spread and labeled Catocala umbrosa Brou I have here captured at my home, (AESS) near Abita Springs, Louisiana, USA. This is me in jpg holding Cornell drawer taken in 2007. You will note the consistent drab monotone color of the forewings on C. umbrosa, very different from the highly variably colored forewings of C. ilia.

Also I have provided the phenograms illustrating the flight periods of both C. ilia and C. umbrosa here at my home. Brood peak of C. umbrosa occurs about 10 calendar-days later than brood peak of C. ilia.

For 170 years no one bothered to look at the obvious. Catocala ilia form umbrosa was actually a distinct and valid species. That is about 8 generations of Catocala experts. Lessen here: NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ, evaluate matters yourself as only you are the real experts. This is how we discovered over 400 species of moths new to science here in Louisiana, and we stopped counting more new species about 12 years ago. Jpg here illustrates male genitalia for C. ilia vs C. umbrosa. When I described umbrosa as a valid species Catocala umbrosa Brou 2002 South. Lepid. News 24: 48-50. --'Noctuidae' I used the same form name for the species name so as to not muddy the waters with still another name assigned to these forms of ilia.

That is an amazing array of variation present in C. micronympha ! Always knew that it had (some) measure
But, your photo really impresses that fact.

Even more astonishing is the natural variation which occurs in your presentation of M. absumens....

The efforts of you (and your wife) have helped to detail for us (all) the absolute "depth" some aspects of this science may reach.

Your accounts of the incredible species diversity (actually) present amongst the Sessidae of Louisiana was ALSO amazing.

Such articles as these show us that only through concerted personal effort, extensive field surveys, and a thoroughness in one's "manner of work" is our understanding of a subject best accomplished !!

Thank you Vernon for the fascinating articles and all of the photographs which you kindly provide as well.