Up front I do not have anything to gain as to which species some of these forms end up being. The DNA data is there whether one want to consider it or not, and the specimen archived. I do have a concern over the lessening of the DNA data for what are usually much more subjective criteria. A species should not be determined by consensus. One example is Acleris lipsiana.

Yes, Acleris capizziana is matched to the many specimens from here. However, A. capizziana is also a 99-100% match to the other A. lipsiana forms from Europe, as well as, those from here in North America . On the main BOLD Tree updated in April of this year, the A. lipsiana from here is less than 0.2% from the European specimens. I have a feeling that you are somehow defining species to fit a present day geographic distribution and not the sequence data from the DNA tests. A complete non-variable endemic status. Geology and paleontology, especially upper Tertiary and Pleistocene, were my one time fields and the botanical changes across the Beringia connection have been verified in evidence such as pollen tests. Then the dynamic changes in the sea level and most certainly the ever changing botanical types resulting from temperature changes during advance and retreat of glaciers from North America to Asia. These were relatively fast geologically speaking. One of the unusual periods of the Holocene a few thousand years ago, was the hypsithermal interval which created the warmer temperate habitat across the entire northern areas with plants responding to it. I am sure the moth species took advantage. Today we probably see just a very small period and the results of what had taken place. I have an album on Flickr with ± 80 moth species with DNA sequences with species from my backyard matched to those from areas in Europe. Take a look at the other species of Acleris from here with very similar distributions to what I call, A. lipsiana from both continents:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/76798465@N00/albums/72157639274126665/with/24273916630/

Note: The various Acleris species seem to be highly polymorphic (host) and most likely this a factor in moving among similar and changing vegetive habitats. I have noted this in the species of Zeiraphera with matches to Z. griseana, as they moved among or into different conifers types. Or as better said as conifer types change in response to climate.

I have the same concerns about changing all the species from Orthotaenia undulana to Olethreutes deprecatoria. I can't see where this conforms to the DNA sequencing at all. Again, is it the oceanic separation as we have today with Asia and North America?

Gilligan et al. (2020) (1) treats A. lipsiana as strictly Palearctic. Specimens in the branch of tree for this BIN with the paratype of A. capizziana, all from North America, are treated as capizziana. That's not to say that the two taxa should not be lumped. It would be no surprise to me if they were.

We do not feel that we are "defining species to fit a present day geographic distribution." We believe that we are following the DNA barcode data, genitalia, etc. Your moth matches the paratype of capizziana, see Info page. You say "A. capizziana is also a 99-100% match to the other A. lipsiana forms from Europe." The closest European specimen appears to be 98.92% unless I am mistaken. Although lipsiana from Europe are in the same BIN, they are clearly separated by DNA barcode. This is very apparent in the barcode tree. The species are also separated by dissection. I have forwarded the email discussion.