What do you recommend I do, Bob? That is, after I have apologized to Kyhl for my rambling gripe about his moving this moth to the Geometridae. Now, months later, I think he was right. As you have pointed out, I agree that this is not Anavitrinella. It's almost certainly I. defectaria, as it is a common species at my site. The closed loops on the PM line on the HW are pretty diagnostic, but almost all other characters of defectaria are not visible. It's either very pale, or very worn, and maybe both. Should I put it back in the Geometridae. Should I delete it? Thanks

Kyle Austin, why are you doing this to me? It's a lot of work for me to make my images among the best submitted to BG, and it's a lot of work to put them on BG. I am recording the moth fauna from an area that has not been surveyed and I have submitted more than 250 moth species on BG in the past four months; several are firsts for my state, dozens are firsts for my geographic area, more are firsts for the time of year. I have close to a 100% rate of identification for my ID Requests that remain in ID request for at least a week. I have only slightly more than 0% success of obtaining identifications for those images that you remove when posted less than 48 hours, and you have removed some of my images before they were posted even 24 hours. I KNEW this is a lepidopteran. It is definitely Anavitrinella and it wouldn't have taken you a minute to confirm that. Your area of expertise apparently does not overlap the single locality of my observations. However, there are at least four people who are and who identify most of my contributions. Please allow my moth images to remain in ID Request until they are identified, or at least until they are up for a week. Please stop taking them down. I am trying to make significant contributions to BG.