Should we move the bryanti subspecies to Z. jacchusalis, eliminate Z. lutalba, and place all western Zanclognatha examples into it per info at Pacific Northwest Moths:

"This moth has been known previously as Z. lutalba (Smith)and Z. bryanti Barnesin the West. These names are now used as subspecies of Z. jacchusalis, following Lafontaine and Honey (2009) and Lafontaine and Schmidt (2013). Subspecies Z. j. lutalba is dull gray brown. It occurs in eastern and central British Columbia in our region. The other PNW subspecies, Z. j. bryanti, is warmer brown and its terminal forwing is slightly darker in most individuals."

I should point out that Don Lafontaine in a 2011 email commented on an example saying: "Z. lutalba is a boreal-zone species that extends down the Appalachians. The wings are a paler more evenly buffy gray and the hindwing is pale with the transverse lines not sharply contrasting." Not sure what to make of that.

OK, spoke too soon. I couldn't find the above 2009 on the internet but I did find 2013 reference at ZooKeys, ZooKeys 264: 227-236 (06 Feb 2013) - J. Donald Lafontaine & Christian Schmidt, "Additions and corrections to the check list of the Noctuoidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera) of North America north of Mexico." I don't have an account so I could only read the results. It lists both bryanti and lutalba as subspecies of Z. jacchusalis as indicated by Pacific Northwest Moths. I am guessing that this corrects the 2009 paper which places the two in Z. lutalba.

If I have that right, then I think I should still move western images to Z. jacchusalis bryanti and create Z. jacchusalis lutalba but leave that empty until examples can be identified. Does that sound right?

Yeah, that sounds good to me. The new 2013 taxonomy seems pretty clear regarding the relationships of bryanti, lutalba and jacchusalis. I am still hoping to hear back from Chris to see if I can get a copy of the full revision or a clarification of what extent distribution might play in separating the given subspecies.

I had a copy of the 2009 revision, but I can't find it - doesn't matter now though since it's outdated.

But I'd say your suggested moves would be the right course of action. Thanks for looking through some of these older submissions and tracking down the new info.

The relationships are explained in the 2013 paper (see below). I misunderstood the Lafontaine comment above. Z. lutalba does extend into western Canada. I have made the taxonomy changes and am in the process of updating all "Info" pages.

ZooKeys 264: 232 (2013), Lafontaine & Schmidt: "Zanclognatha jacchusalis – The species is widely distributed in eastern United States and occurs as far west as Arizona. It is characterized by the burnt-orange fore- wing ground color that is heavily speckled with black scales. It is replaced in Canada by a form that has paler buffy-brown or gray-brown forewings with little black speckling. This northern form is currently treated as Zanclognatha lutalba (Smith), occurring from Nova Scotia to Alberta, and as Zanclognatha lutalba ssp. bryanti Barnes in British Columbia and Washington. However, there is a broad area in southern Ontario and Quebec, northern New York, and New England, where most specimens are intermediate between typical Zanclognatha jacchusalis and Z. lutalba and occasionally Z. lutalba-like forms are found as far south as the Appalachians of North Carolina. There are no external structural or genital characters to distinguish the two taxa and barcodes do not separate them either, so we synonymize Z. lutalba, syn. n., but retain the name as a northern subspecies as Z. jaccusalis ssp. lutalba, stat. n., and move subspecies bryanti to Z. jaccusalis ssp. bryanti, stat. rev."