Thank you. It appears I put too much weight on the PM inner margin advice from the other site. That surely isn't their fault.

I've found some of your comments under older photos where you indicate the devil is in the dentates. With regard to that, I still have questions about two of the moths that are ID'd to species, but that isn't your job to fix and nearly impossible anyway with the morphologically challenged, moi. :o)

I don't mind any questions about particular specimens - sometimes another set of eyes can see something and question it, resulting in a correction. That's the good part about a community site like BugGuide bringing a collective effort to identification.

The inner margin area of the PM line used to be pretty reliable, but eventually proved to be too variable to be diagnostic. Most denticulata/strigataria can be relatively easy to distinguish based upon that missing or present tooth. However, there are definitely some specimens of denticulata that have such a reduced tooth on vein M1 (or peppered with such dark scaling), that at first glance it looks like a strigataria. And then there's some I just can't make up my mind on at all, they're so right down the middle.

Hopefully, as more voucher specimens roll in, the M1 vein 'tooth' characteristic will prove to remain diagnostic. So far, it looks that way, but you never know when nature will throw a monkey wrench into things.

I don't have questions in the sense of arguing points, my brain is on Phigalia overload and I'm in no position to debate. It's not possible for me to undo (embarrassingly large number) of hours of incorrect self-indoctrination in a day or two, but I wouldn't mind clarification on the moth above and this one(1).

In both moths, ignoring the turn of the PM line, in the case of strigataria above, is it Small because "those" teeth aren't showing on either wing, just dots? And, in the case of denticulata, is it Toothed because on the right wing the tooth is clearly visible? Keep in mind I'm not sure that I'm even looking at the correct tooth, although it seems to me that if your answer is "yes" then surely I must have it figured out. If not, oh dear!

Too bad I'm not in that "mothy" location any more. I definitely would have enjoyed learning alternatives to fly swatters to capture moths for mailing. As to monkey wrenches, I'm not unsympathetic. :o)

Essentially yes, you've got it right except that in the denticulata photo I wouldn't call it "clearly visible" - it's pretty reduced and there's a bit of wear, but I see enough to make the call for denticulata.

I don't know if you've seen this comparison image before, but it's a little visual to help in understanding which 'tooth' and more or less how it should appear between the two species:

"clearly visible": old-lady-with-bad-eyes-n-glasses-talk underlining that she, surprised at the fact, can see it ;)
Yes, have seen comparison before (forehead slap) but it didn't have as much meaning as it does now. Thanks for your time.

No problem. It's always a pleasure to help with moth IDs. :-)