I suppose that you cannot actually rule out Cyclophora nanaria, but you have more experience with these and related ones, in that location. (widespread, mostly southern)

since the discal spots are filled with white; C. nanaria is more likely because the PM and AM lines don't appear to be distinct and uniformly separated dots as in C. packardi

both are found in TX

Thinking about the fact that two of you have a differing opinion, I began to think of size as a possible tie breaker. Dave has a pretty large size posted, but I don't know how he gets his sizes. Hopefully he will enlighten us. I went back to all of my C. nanaria photos. It is always so tiny that I photograph it over and over. I find the elongated shape of it's wings to be quite different and the only one I actually measured had an 18 mm WS. My C. nanarias are usually to the gray look with a few being brown/rust. I have C. packardi as well and the measured one had a WS of 30 mm and the shape of the wings is much thicker. I thankfully had measured the only S. ella that I have seen before my recent post. It had a WS of 26 mm. Dave posted a second photo which I moved to species so quickly that I do not think either of you had a chance to see it . I will move it back if you all still think I am wrong after reading this. I have moved to species a number of S. ellas that Delmar Cain has posted. He seems to see them more regularly than anyone in Texas. Because they are all so different and BOLD does not have many representatives I asked him to catch some for me so I could check them out with BOLD. I am in the process of preparing a new batch. Hopefully, when I get the specimens from Delmar the size will be defined better. The package was returned for insufficient address, so it will be a while. I DO remember thinking that my recent S. ella was larger than I had remembered but it escaped while I was trying to catch it.

This image is one of a first batch that I photo'd out at the Devils River. There were hundreds of moths, many so small that I could not make a good image with the equipment I had at hand. I measured several of the moths just to get an idea of approximate size and then photo'd a selection of the moths that were bigger than 1 cm. Most of the moths I photographed were between 1 cm and 1.5 cm in length, and I did not comprehend that differences of 1 mm might be significant in making an identification.

Quite frankly, I have to say that when I first submitted these images, I did not even begin to realize the variety of moths, and the difficulties in identifying them. I still don't know how you all are able to identify so many of them. It seems that as a further complication, many species are also quite variable. And another complication is that some moths are ragged and worn.

In order to better illustrate the moths for identification in my images I have included a ruler in most of the images I have subsequently photo'd. I nervously note here that in the identification of this moth and several others I have submitted, there has been discussion of the measurement of the wingspan. What I have been supplying in my submissions is the length of the body. Is that incorrect?

Based on similar sized specimens that I have photo'd alongside the ruler, I would amend my estimate of length of the body of this specimen here from 1.4 cm to approximately 1.1 cm to 1.2 cm.

Dave, as long as you specify WHAT you are measuring, any measurement will do. Not many, if any, go down to 1mm to break a tie in an ID. Usually it is their wing markings or range.