Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 36(1), 1982, 18-30

THE LARVA AND STATUS OF CATOCALA PRETIOSA (NOCTUIDAE), WITH DESIGNATION OF

A LECTOTYPE

DALE F, SCHWEITZER

Peabody Museum, P.O. Box 6666, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511

ABSTRACT. A lectotype is designated and illustrated for Catocala pretiosa Lint­ner (1876) and the larva is described, illustrated, and compared with that of related species. The status of this taxon as distinct from C . mira Grote and C. crataegi Saunders is confirmed. However, its relationship to C . texarkana Brower (1976) is unresolved. The known present and former range of C. pretiosa is documented. Larvae were reared on Prunus maritima, a likely foodplant in New Jersey. However, no larvae could be located in the field.

Catocala pretiosa Lintner (1876) was described hom "three ex­amples .. , captured by me at sugar, at Schenectady, N.Y., last year." Dates given are 8 and 10 July (males), 16 July (female). The New York State Museum (NYSM) has a male in its type collection (as of December 1979) with three labels: 1) "Schenectady, N.Y. July 10, 1874. Lintner CoiL"; 2) "pretiosa Lintner 3966 0"; 3) "J. A. Lintner collection." An enlarged photograph of the labels shows that the first printed label originally read 1875 but that a 4 was written in ink over the 5. The U.S. National Museum also has two specimens with the same locality and collector dated 15 July 1874 (female) and 8 July 1875 (male). These labels are printed in the same style as that on the "type" and the 4 on the female's label is similarly written over a printed 5.

It is quite possible that the manuscript was written in 1875 and that "last year" referred to 1874. It is also possible that Lintner was mis­taken about the years. At any rate, there can be virtually no doubt that the above NYSM specimen was among Lintner's three specimens. Unfortunately, no mention of any types is made in the original de­scription. McCabe & Johnson (1980) listed this specimen as a syntype. I hereby designate this specimen, illustrated in Fig. 3, as Lectotype for Catocala pretiosa Lintner and will have an appropriate label af­fixed.

Catocala pretiosa Lintner has remained a little known taxon since its description. Some authors (e.g., Barnes & McDunnough, 1918) have treated it as a form ofC. crataegi Saunders. Forbes (1954) treated it as a species. Sargent (1976) reached no definite conclusion regard­ing its status. One of the major problems faced by taxonomists has been a shortage of specimens, especially recent ones. Quite a few old specimens lack data.

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 19

I I I I I I I i I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iii FIG.!. Mature larva (dorsal) of Catocala pretiosa, ex ovis Cape May, New Jersey,

reared on Pro nus maritima May-June 1978 by D . F. Schweitzer (2.54x). Larva at YPM.

Based on material that I have seen and the literature (e.g., Sargent, 1976; Brower, 1974), this species seems to have formerly been widely distributed in the northeastern United States, though it may have been partial to coastal areas (e.g., Stonington, Connecticut and Kittery, Maine) and sandy areas [e.g., the Merrimack River Valley in New Hampshire and the Albany-Schenectady (Centre), New York "Pine Bush"]. Bailey's account (1877) suggests it was locally common at Centre, New York. Despite this, nothing has been published regard­ing its life history or foodplant; so, the following description is pre­sented. About 13 late instar larvae reared from two females, both from Cape May, New Jersey taken in 1977 and 1978, were examined.

Description of Early Life Stages

Penultimate and ultimate instar larvae. As illustrated (Figs. 1,2), dorsum pale gray and bold mid-dorsal stripe. Stripe, brown with thin darker, almost black, edges which do not include tubercles I or II. Facial stripe, black. Other dorsal markings, nearly untraceable. "Saddle" with faint light brown shading extending ventrad to tops of third and fourth prolegs. Venter whitish with velY dark brown patches as shown. Dorsal horn present, brown. Dorsal ground color close to that in the black and white photo­graph in Fig. 1.

Earlier instars. Ground color darker, with usual pattern more visible, middorsal stripe not darkened but with fragments of darker edging.

Egg. Typical for the group, quite flat and rather circular. First, last and two intermediate instar larvae; eggs and pupal shells are preserved at

Peabody Museum. Reared moths are in that collection and the author's.

20 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

FIG. 2. Same larva as Fig. 1 clinging to edge of glass showing ventral markings.

Foodplant

The larvae were reared on Prunus maritima, but the natural food­plant has not been established. Crataegus sp. (?crus-galli) was also accepted by hatchlings. Prunus maritima is abundant at the Cape May locality and is present at sites of recent captures of C. pretiosa at Atsion and Batsto, Burlington Co., New Jersey by myself and John Nordin. It does not occur at the immediate locality near Eldora, Cape May Co., New Jersey where a number of recent captures were made by Joseph Muller. P. maritima could not have been the host of the fonner inland C. pretiosa populations in New Hampshire and New York. Extensive searching and beating (including nocturnally) of P. maritima thickets on 7 and 20 May 1979 and 1 June 1980 at Batsto and Atsion failed to produce C. pretiosa larvae, although last and earlier instar Catocala ultronia Hubner larvae were found on both 1979 dates. The few known Crataegus uniflora plants at Batsto were also checked in 1979. Prunus serotina is the only rosaceous tree or shrub known to be present at all New Jersey sites where C. pretiosa has been taken. Crataegus is scarce to absent at all such sites and in the New Jersey Pine Barrens region generally. Amelanchier and Py­rus (Aronia) spp. are frequent in this region.

Taxonomic Status

The notes on the larva of C. crataegi given by Forbes (1954) and the larval illustrations given by Barnes & McDunnough (1918) agree

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 21

FIG. 3. Lectotype Catocala pretiosa Lintner "Schenectady, N.Y. July 10, 1874. Lint­ner Col!." "pretiosa Lintner 3966 0" "J. A. Lintner Collection" (New York State Mu­seum).

well with each other and with Saunders' (1876) original description. C. pretiosa differs in several aspects. C. pretiosa has a pale gray ground color; C. crataegi is decidedly brown. Catocala crataegi has a very different head capsule, featuring extensive brown mottling and a darkened face. C. pretiosa also lacks red or orange in the face which Saunders (1876) reports for C. crataegi. C. pretiosa also lacks orange on the tubercles and has a prominent brown line (not dots) on segment 11 (not 12 as Saunders states). The horn is not red in C. pretiosa, and there are no green or blue hues ventrally, and the spiracles are dark. C. crataegi apparently does not have a fonn with a dark dorsal stripe.

The alcohol preserved larva described as C. crataegi by Crumb (1956) appears to differ considerably from the above larvae and may be C. mira Grote. C. pretiosa differs from it on at least the following points: The dark granules are not more prominent on the thorax than on the abdomen; the middorsal stripe is dark brown, not pale, and its black border is quite prominent. The black U-mark on the face is not broken above seta A3. The adfrontal markings are very fine.

The larva of C. mira reportedly has a long twisted horn (Barnes &

22 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

McDunnough, 1918). I have collected such a larva in Connecticut (on Pyrus Xpurpurea); but several dozen known C. mira which I have seen from Florida had smaller untwisted horns as does Crumb's (1956) larva.

The larva of C. pretiosa differs from Crumb's (1956) C. mira larva from Iowa on at least the following points: The middorsal stripe is dark; tubercles are not orange; spiracles are dark brown, not white; the head has little pattern aside from the U-mark, and no brown or protuberances. It differs from six C. mira larvae from Liberty Co., Florida (leg. H. D. Baggett & D. F. Schweitzer in YPM) in several details as well, including: the lack of protuberances on the face, which is also much less brown and paler on C. pretiosa; the lack of weakly defined transverse bands of brown flecks dorsally on the thoracic and first two abdominal segments; the less prominent brown on the saddle mark behind the horn; and the lack of orange on the tubercles.

H. D. Baggett and colleagues have reared a number of C. texarkana Brower (most det. A. E. Brower) from larvae collected on Crataegus at Torreya State Park, Liberty Co., Florida from 1978 to 1980 (Fig. 9). I have examined photographs of larvae believed to be C. texarkana and they are similar to C. pretiosa. C. texarkana occasionally lacks the dark dorsal stripe and C. mira occasionally has such a stripe (H. D. Baggett, pers. comm. 1980, 1981). C. texarkana and C. mira feed together on Crataegus in April at Torreya State Park. C. mira, at least, also occurs there on wild plum (Prunus angustifolia) (reared by author, at YPM).

I have reared three broods of Catocala blandula larvae from Con­necticut and one from Lebanon, New Jersey, and these were similarly dimorphic. These larvae differed from C. pretiosa in their lack of an abdominal horn and in having somewhat more dark mottling. C. pre­tiosa thus may prove to have an unstriped form.

Catocala pretiosa adults differ from C. crataegi on a number of characters. C. pretiosa has a paler median area of the forewing, with the reniform much more conspicuously ringed with bright white. There is little or no darkening of the forewing inner margin of C. pretiosa, and little or no brown beyond the postmedian line on the forewing of C. crataegi. C. pretiosa has a deeper orange hindwing than C. crataegi. The pale median area can be used to separate both of these species from C. mira. The hindwing color of C. mira is like that of C. pretiosa. For further descriptions and color figures of this group see Forbes (1954), Sargent (1976) and Barnes & McDunnough (1918).

Theodore Sargent has suggested to me that the present New Jersey

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 23

FIG. 4. Catocala pretiosa <;>, Schenectady, N.Y., 17 July 1877, J. A. Lintner coIl. (NYSM).

population (Figs. 5, 6) might not be the same as the original C. pre­tiosa of Lintner. Indeed my Batsto, New Jersey specimen that Sargent illustrated (1976, p. 67, B) is not typical of C. pretiosa. It differs most obviously in having the dark basal area on the forewing extending to the inner margin. However, this specimen appears to be atypical of the New Jersey population now that adequate material has been ex­amined. Most of the recent southern New Jersey specimens appear to me to match Lintner's description, the lectotype and old New En­gland material quite closely.

The forewing black area appears to be paler and browner on five of the seven old specimens I have at hand than on recent New Jersey ones (14, 9 reared, at hand). However, other old Catocala I have examined are frequently similarly discolored because of fading.

Based on the above comparisons of larvae and the consistent dif­ferences in adult wing characters, I conclude that Catocala pretiosa is not conspecific with C. mira or C. crataegi. C atocala pretiosa is thus restored to its original status as a full species.

Separation of Catocala texarkana from C. pretiosa is extremely dif­ficult. At present, some specimens cannot be determined with cer­tainty. The original description of C. texarkana does not contain ex-

24 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

FIGS. 5, 6. Catocala pretiosa 0, "'; siblings to larva in Figs. 1 & 2, eclosed 21, 27 June 1978. (In author's collection.)

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 25

FIG. 7. Catocala ?texarkana 0 ; Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 12 June 1974, leg. Chas. C. Horton (in T. D. Sargent collection).

plicit comparisons with related taxa, and I can find no constant differences between these two taxa. However, several characters will work for most specimens.

Many C. texarkana var. "bridwelli" have the inner margin con­spicuously darkened in the median area as noted by Brower; almost all other specimens have some vague darkening of this region. C. pretiosa typically has only a few scattered dark scales, and no north­ern specimens have this conspicuous dark median shade. Sargent (1976, p. 67, B, C) illustrates specimens showing both extremes for northern C. pretiosa.

Typical C. texarkana has almost no black in the basal part of the forewing. A large C. pretiosa 2 from Sherborn, Massachusetts is es­sentially a perfect match for three such topotypical specimens of C. texarkana (YPM, Bryant Mather colIs .). Most other C. pretiosa have extensive basal black or at least a mixture of brown and black scales (but see Fig. 4). C. texarkana form "bridwelli" also has extensive basal black.

The basal black of C. pretiosa stops abruptly at the anal vein as noted by Forbes (1954) but may continue (when present) to the inner margin in C. texarkana. The lone exception among C. pretiosa seen is my Batsto, Jersey 0' illustrated by Sargent (1976, p. 67, B).

26 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

FIG. 8. Catocala ?texarkana 'i'; Fontana Dam, Graham Co. North Carolina, 1200-1800 feet, 8 July 1972, leg. D. F. Schweitzer (in author's collection).

Most C. pretiosa have less darkening beyond the reniform than is present on C. texarkana .

There apparently is some geographical variation in C. texarkana. Three Florida specimens and photographs of three others before me are all variety "bridwelli," and all have a prominently dark inner margin. Several other Florida specimens shown to me by H. D. Bag­gett were also "bridwelli." This is apparently a minority form at the type locality (Brower, 1976).

I have at hand a 0' from Chapel Hill (cited as C. pretiosa by Sargent, 1976) and a pair from Fontana Dam, North Carolina. Two of these are illustrated (Figs. 7, 8). The Fontana 0' could pass for a rubbed C. pretiosa but has some of the median dark scaling at the inner margin. The female collected with it (Fig. 8) has a strongly darkened inner margin and the brightest white median area I have seen on either taxon. These three have less subapical brown shading in the post median gray than on any C. texarkana (three photographs, seven spec­imens) before me now-a trait shared by most C. pretiosa. Two of these also have less darkening beyond the reniform than is typical of either species, but some C. pretiosa agree closely. I see no point in placing allegedly certain names on them now.

The specimens listed below from Virginia, Tennessee and Ohio all

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 27

FIG. 9. Catocala texarkana, dwarfed 0; Torreya State Park, Liberty Co. Florida, ex larva on Crataegus, eclosed 27 April 1978, leg. H. D. Baggett (in author's collection).

have slightly more dark scales in the median white at the inner margin than more northeastern specimens. However, none has a solid dark inner marginal shade. These approach my Fontana 0' (above). I can see no reason not to regard these specimens as C. pretiosa, despite this trivial difference. Texas, Florida, and North Carolina populations apparently are all composed largely of specimens that deviate more noticeably from northern C. pretiosa.

More material from the southern Appalachians and other poorly collected southern regions is needed. Until such specimens are avail­able, the prudent course seems to be to treat the names in this group as proposed by their authors. Specimens from the Northeast can con­fidently be placed as C. pretiosa. Those from Ohio, Virginia, and eastern Tennessee appear almost identical. Populations in the Gulf Coast States appear to be C. texarkana. Specimens from North Car­olina are, at present, unplaceable.

Distribution

There is little chance that Catocala pretiosa occurs in upstate New York or New England at present. There have been no captures in those areas for at least 40, and probably 80, years despite fairly intense collecting. It has not been taken recently at Albany despite substantial

28 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

FIG. 10. Catocala- texarkana 'i'; Torreya State Park, Liberty Co. Florida, 28 May 1978, leg. D. D. Baggett (YPM).

collecting by myself, T. L. McCabe, John Cryan and others. It also seems very likely that the species was formerly absent in southern New Jersey where it is now widespread and not rare. Lakehurst, New Jersey is one of the most intensively collected places in North Amer­ica and has been studied from before 1900 into the early 1970's, and C. pretiosa has not been taken there. The area is very similar to Atsion and Batsto, and Prunus maritima is frequent. Smith (1899, 1910) gives no southern New Jersey records for C. pretiosa. I have seen none in collections taken prior to 1968. Smith (1899) records C. crataegi from New Jersey near New York City, and states "The variety pretiosa Lint., has also been taken in the state."

The first record in southern New Jersey appears to be Joseph Mul­ler's capture of three specimens at Cape May on 28 June 1968; sub­sequent captures have been from 1972 to 1981 at Atsion, Batsto, Elmer and Eldora by John Nordin, myself, the Rutgers University staff and Muller. The date range is 23 June to 16 July. I visited the exact Cape May locality in 1977 and 1978 and collected the species on each of three nights. The moths have been taken mostly at sugar baits.

I have not attempted to catalog all records of C. pretiosa. However, during a visit to the U.S. National Museum (USNM) in July 1980, I recorded all specimens that seemed to be this species. These records,

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1 29

plus the others given below, probably give a reasonable indication of the range of this species in the past. All recent records known to me are discussed above. All specimens recorded below were examined by me in 1979, 1980, or 1981 except as noted.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Milford, 10 July 1877, ex call. C. P. Whitney, det. Lintner as typical pretiosa (not seen by me , record courtesy of Richard E. Gray, Montshire Mu­seum, Hanover, N.H.); Manchester (figured by Sargent, 1976, PI. 8, Fig. 4; moth now at MCZ, Harvard U.). NEW YORK: Schenectady, July 10, 1874, Lintner call., herein designated Lectotype (New York State Museum); Schenectady, July 15, 1974 and July 8,1875 (USNM); July 17, 1877 (NYSM) (all four ex Lintner coll.); Albany, July 4, 1877 S. C. Waterman collector, ex Wm. W. Hill call. (NYSM); Centre, July 1877, ex Oberthur call. (USNM); Centre July 5, 1877 ex Oberthur & Barnes calls. (USNM); "Lint. N.Y." (ce rtainly Albany-Schenectady region leg. Joseph Lintner) (USNM); "call. J. Angus, West Fanns, New York City" (which may be merely an address labe l) (2 at Rutgers University and one, USNM); Duchess Co., 14 and 16 August (2, E. L. Quinter coll.); no specific locality ex Barne s call. (USNM). MASSACHUSETTS: Sherborn, July ex E. J. Smith call. (Yale Peabody Museum = YPM). CONNECTICUT: Stonington, 29 June 1898 ex H. P. Wilhelm call. (YPM, illustrated by Sargent, 1976, p. 67); no specific locality ex Barnes call. (USNM); Ely call. (no data, not definitely Connecticut, but very likely from East River, YPM); two with no data but believed to be from Connecticut, before 1940 ex John Reichelt call. (YPM). NEW JERSEY: no other data, "Col. B. Neumogen," ex Brooklyn Museum call. (USNM); no specific locality July '83 ex J. B. Smith call. (USNM); also Atsion, Batsto, Eldora, Elmer and Cape May, 1968-1980 (see above). PENNSYLVANIA: no specific locality, 10-6-96, ex Oberthur call. (USNM). MARYLAND: no specific localities ex E. A. Smyth, Wm. Schaus & Edw. T. Owen calls. (USNM). OHIO: Columbus, W. N. Tallant call., second label Edw. T. Owen call. (3, (USNM); no specific locality, ex Wm. Schaus call. (USNM). VIRGINIA: Montgomery Co., 1947, E. A. Smyth call. (USNM). TENNESSEE: Norris Park, 27 May 1938 (2, J. W. Cadbury coll.); no locality, "Teneese" ex Dodge call. (YPM); no specific localities 5. 22, 27, 27, 28, all ex Barnes call. (USNM).

Except for the southern New Jersey specimens, the records all ap­pear to represent very old specimens; the 1947 Virginia record is doubtless the most recent. Catocala pretiosa quite clearly was more frequent, at least northward, in the past than it is today. The Virginia specimen is probably the most northern capture between about 1920 and 1968.

Specimens seen from Tennessee, Virginia and Ohio differ from most of the others in having slightly more dark shading along the forewing inner margin, and some are somewhat browner (faded?) and larger. These specimens might be Catocala texarkana, but as noted above, I tentatively regard them as C. pretiosa. All specimens from Texas to Florida (see Figs. 8, lO) are presumably C. texarkana.

Northern specimens should be easily identifiable, and at present C. pretiosa does not appear to be sympatric with either C. mira or C. crataegi. In New Jersey, C. pretiosa seems to be confined to the southern, coastal plain counties. I have one C. mira from this region (New Lisbon, 1972). Otherwise, C. mira and C. crataegi seem limited to the hilly northern counties. C. mira ranges from at least Massachu-

30 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

setts to Florida and west through much of the Midwest. C. crataegi is decidedly northern, reaching southward to Hamden, Connecticut; Lebanon, Hunterdon Co., New Jersey 0. Muller); Schuylkill Co., Pennsylvania (E. L. Quinter); Chicago, Illinois (Crumb, 1956) and Louisiana, Missouri (USNM). I have seen the specimens cited by Kimball (1965) from Florida (USNM, AMNH) and these are similar to Baggett's specimens of C. texarkana "bridwelli." I have not seen C. crataegi from the southern Appalachians.

If C. texarkana is in fact a good species and if the recent North Carolina specimens are C. texarkana, then southern New Jersey may be the last stronghold for C. pretiosa. However, this population seems to be of very recent origin, and perhaps other populations are still extant. This species should be looked for in the hard pine areas of eastern Maryland and southern Delaware. The prospects for long term survival of the species in southern New Jersey appear good if the food plant is something common like Prunus maritima, which grows on coastal dunes and on disturbed sites and edges of woods in the Pine Barrens.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1 wish to thank H. D. Baggett for specimens and infonnation concerning C. mira and C. texarkana in Florida and for taking me to the Torreya locality. 1 thank Charles L. Remington, Theodore D. Sargent and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions for improving this paper. Timothy McCabe generously provided the photographs for Figs. 3 and 4. All other photographs were taken by William Sacco, Peabody Museum, Yale University.

LITERATURE CITED

BAILEY, J. S. 1877. Catocalae taken at sugar at Center, N.Y. Canad. Entomol., 9:215. BARNES, W. & J. McDuNNOUGH. 1918. Illustrations of the North American Species of

the Genus Catocala. Mem. Amer. Mus. Natural Hist. new series, vol. 3: part 1, 47 pp., 22 plates.

BROWER, A. E. 1974. A list of the Lepidoptera of Maine: part 1, The Macrolepidoptera. Life Sci. and Agric. Exp. Sta., Univ. Maine, Orono. Tech. Bull. 66, 136 pp.

-- 1976. New Catocala of North America (Noctuidae). J. Lepid. Soc., 30:33--37. CRUMB, S. E. 1956. The larvae of the Phalaenidae. USDA Tech. Bul. 1135, 356 pp. FORBES, W. T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring States: part III,

Noctuidae. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. 433 pp. KIMBALL, C. P. 1965. The Lepidoptera of Florida: An Annotated Checklist. Fla. Dept.

Agric., Div. Plant Industry. 363 pp. LINTNER, J. A. 1876. On Catocala pretiosa, n.s. Canad. Entomol., 8: 121-122. MCCABE, T. L. & L. M. JOHNSON. Catalogue of the Types in the New York State

Museum Insect Collection. N.Y.S.M., Albany, N.Y. Bul. 434, 8 pp. SARGENT, T. D. 1976. Legion of Night: The Underwing Moths. Univ. Mass. Press,

Amherst, Mass. xiii + 222 pp., 8 plates. SAUNDERS, W. 1876. Notes on Catocalas. Canad. Entomol., 8:72-75. SMITH, J. B. 1899. Insects of New Jersey. Supplement to 27th Ann . Rept. State Board

Agric., Trenton, N.J. 755 pp. -- 1910. The Insects of New Jersey. Report of the New Jersey State Museum for

1909, Trenton, N.J. 888 pp.