My sentiments as well.

I agree with your comment. If you have the chance, look at the Iridopsis I just submitted and see if you can figure that one out. Thanks.
http://bugguide.net/node/view/1313649

I know this is an old thread, but I'd love to see additional discussion on this, as potentially both show up here in the LRGV. "Seek" ID's every moth of this type as "Brown-shaded", but I'm wondering if some of the paler specimens I've photographed are actually perfectaria or just worn defectaria (or is ID impossible aside from dissection)? Thanks.

Mary Beth,

Years ago I did a study of over 75 specimens of Iridopsis from mostly from Edwards County Texas, but also a few from Fayette County. It came up when I reared a caterpillar and sent it to BOLD for DNA and it came back as I. perfectaria.

Several of the experts had begun to suspect that the two species could not be reliably separated by sight in Texas, among them were Chris Schmidt, Steve Nanz and Jim Vargo. I separated them by dissection. I. perfectaria is surprisingly well represented in numbers. I sometimes notice what I think is a difference in the way they move around the sheet, but I am sure that is not reliable either. As you noted, they are frequently lighter in color, and hold their wings off of the sheet as opposed to flattened - at least at times.

This particular photograph is not a good one for distinguishing the two species.


After I sent them my results, there was never any information put out for publication.

At this location in the LWRG Valley, I find it strange that this discussion is about the difference between defectaria and perfectaria. According to Rindge (1966), defectaria is not found south and west of a line from Corpus Christi to San Antonio. With this in mind, the three species of Iridopsis possible at this location according to Rindge are dataria, gemma and perfectaria. We can quickly rule out dataria because its maculation is fairly distinct and unlike the maculation of this current moth. Rindge describes gemma as very similar to defectaria, except generally smaller and darker. So, when looking at a moth like this, that looks very much like defectaria, I would be inclined to think it is gemella at this location, especially since the range for gemella in Texas is limited to the LRGV. However, we have to take into consideration that perfectaria is also possible at this location. Its range extends from the LRGV upstream to about Del Rio and back east to about Austin and Corpus Christi. Looking at the description and images of perfectaria by Rindge, the best way for me to describe this species is a pale form of defectaria. So, a side by side comparison of the three species might look like perfectaria (somewhat paler), defectaria (darker) and gemma (darkest). Of course, as you know, there can be considerable variation within species, so a darker form of perfectaria could be mistaken for a paler form of gemma. Bottom line is that Rindge discusses separation of the three species under defectaria on page 224, and he notes where their range overlaps "...the only certain way to separate these three taxa is by examination of their genitalic structures." So, I must assume that the placement of this moth was done after dissection, otherwise I would find its placement questionable.

Please excuse my spelling of gemella as gemma in the above comment.

I just noticed the image below by Carol Wolf under perfectaria. It was taken the day before at this same location. To me, this is what perfectaria should look like and probably adds more doubt to the placement of the moth above.

Interesting opinion and well documented as usual.

My recollection at the time of my dissection study, was that Jim Vargo was the last of the experts to agree that dissection was necessary. I don't believe Carol collected specimens, mainly photographed them beautifully and often got her placements from Jim Vargo.

If this bothers you you would be justified moving it back to Genus.