Sorry this is getting so lengthy.

Obviously you are using some original descriptions for your study and yours is a more scientific methodology which I am just learning to use. My personal study of the Texas Petrophilas, done in 2015, was a sight only study using my personal spread specimens collected at our ranch and in Schulenburg using primarily MPG information. I followed this visual study up by submitting 5 specimens to BOLD.

In my defense, MPG does show a dot on the Texas map for range of P. kearfottalis. THAT DOT WAS THERE WHEN I WAS MAKING MY VISUAL STUDY and I have never personally submitted any of my photographs or personal sightings to Moth Photographers. My photographs that appear there were submitted by others, primarily Maury Heiman.

P. cappsi on MPG is shown ONLY for Arizona and the records on BOLD are non-public. I acknowledge that those BOLD photographs show the same HW marking that I attributed to P. kearfottalis, but I did not even LOOK at them because of the MPG range.

In the pictures on MPG for P. bifascialis, the HW marking is heavy. None of the open loop pictures are shown there.

As for my BOLD submissions, the results were as follows:

2 Petrophila specimens, which I thought were P. confusalis (1 Texas dot on MPG map), was identified as P. hepperni for which MPG has no photographs and there was not a species page or picture on BG,

1 Petrophila specimen which I had thought was P. daemonalis was placed in a separate BIN - nearest BIN was P. nr. daemonalis from AZ

2 Petrophila specimens that I had thought were P. daemonalis in a different BIN with that BIN nearest being Petrophila Biolep 617 from Panama

None of my BOLD specimens were considered P. bifasicalis.

I have been preparing some additional specimens to send to BOLD in hopes that more will at least appear in the SAME bins. Perhaps sending more specimens to BOLD will enlighten us further.

Ann, I hope my comment wasn't taken as a criticism of all the great work you have done/are doing! I value your contributions so much. I'm intrigued with the identity of Petrophila's in Texas--particularly the Hill Country--because they have been so confusing. Your efforts were seminal is peaking my interest in the group as a whole.

I'm putting the "finishing" touches--in quotes since no study like this is ever finished--on a guide to Texas Petrophila which will draw heavily on all of our Hill Country experience...and as you've seen, the current portrait is not at all clear. So my offering will be a "finished first draft". Watch for that soon.

Thanks as always for all your efforts and wonderful images.

Thanks for the comment.

Since I moved to Austin, Texas, in 2012, I saw Petrophila only this year, in June and July, total three times. Each specimen had a black circular line on the hindwings. However, none had an additional short black line just above the terminal black dots. Such a line is clearly visible on the P. kearfottalis photograph in the EOL. I wonder if that line has any taxonomic bearing.
Regards -

Andrew

Truthfully, I don't know. I have noticed the same thing, but there is nothing else that has the circular line, so I made a decision. I am sending my recently posted specimen to BOLD, so we may, sometime in the far future have a definitive answer. Until then, I think it is okay to leave it here. If BOLD has a specimen, I don't know how to search for it and I don't know where else to look. I also think I see some differences in the banding between the two species.

Have you been to UT to look at their pinned collection? Chuck Sexton used to mention doing that.

I agree, however, there are Petrophila species on MPG without images. This could be one of them. Moved to genus for now.

Thank you -

Andrew