from the Tawny Emperor? Does it need its own guide page on bugguide?

It's status went from being a subspecies of the Tawny Emporer (Asterocampa clyton), to a separate species. Asterocampa clyton louisa to Asterocampa louisa. I just created a guide page for it.

I don't know of any listings that conside this to be a distinct species. It intergrades westward with other subspecies of A. clyton. The current standard is to call it a regional subspecies of A. clyton. I'm curious, where is it considered to be a distinct species? I know that at least one author treated it as a species a few decades ago. Here are some examples of the usual treatment in some of the standard online references:
http://www.mariposasmexicanas.com/asterocampa_clyton_louisa.htm
http://butterfliesofamerica.com/asterocampa_clyton_louisa.htm
http://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/nymphalidae/apaturinae/asterocampa/index.html

Other places (particularly where subspecies are ignored), the name louisa is not used at all, and it is just lumped into A. clyton without comment: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species?l=1832

I had thought that it was considered a full separate species by Stallings & Turner (1947), but I think I may be backwards on that (I couldn't find a copy of Entomol.News 58(2) to read). And I had noticed it was treated as a full species on the species list at the University of Colorado as well as the species list at the University of Texas. It's also listed as a separate species in a few other places such as the Catalogue of Life site, zipcodezoo.com site, the EOL.org site, but I currently don't tend to give much weight to sites as those yet. The original site that stated the elevated status has since revised to state that louisa is subspecific to clyton.

I admit, I didn't search for any recent publications to see if louisa had been confirmed under the nominate species or otherwise. If the status of louisa is considered a subspecies of clyton (which it appears to be), then I can create a page for it and move this there. I just wasn't aware of any publications to that effect and it seems I may have perpetuated the error of others listing it as a separate species. It almost seems as if it has been treated one way or the other based on the fancy of the source.

there was a trend by some authors in the late '70's and '80's to call most of the variants of Asterocampa as species, but it seems the majority never bought into it (I didn't). Holland in his big butterfly book tended to treat every name as a species as well, but that still basically during the name sorting stage, and was before many of the revisions of groups like Asterocampa and Speyeria were published. So, there is popular literature out there that treats almost all the names as species. It's basically the old lumper vs. splitter thing. I tend to lean toward the lumper end of the spectrum with Lepidoptera. Seems to me their's a recent trend to want every minor variation to become a full species. However, to me a species should be something real, distinct enough from it's relatives that it doesn't interbreed or blend with them (not always easy to prove one way or the other).

I also thought you might be aware of some more recent work that I was not (here is plenty of that sort of thing around) that relates to Asterocampa.

Right now it seems Phelem's catalog is becoming the standard, even though it's not really a taxonomic work:
http://texasento.net/Pelham.htm

Anyway, I think I'd opt for the more conservative treatment, with louisa being treated as a subspecies. Just my opinion though.

Honestly, I agree with you on the split vs lump issue on Leps. In recent years it seems that there are so many former subspecies or forms being named to species and treated as separate without any substantive evidence like DNA analysis. And in those cases where DNA analysis is done, it seems all too often that even a very small allelic difference will demand a new species, rather than subspecies. Perhaps the standard for genetic identity estimates for subspecies needs to be revised? I'm not sure, as that is getting above my head. But I honestly don't know how or why so many have come about. I too would prefer lumping them together when strong evidence otherwise is lacking, and it would make it less complicated in keeping up with the changing taxonomy. Long story short, I agree with you and I'll move this to an A. c. louisa page. Thanks for the help. (And thanks for the reference to Pelham's catalogue)

Yes, I'd say that's the same.