There are many examples of what I think are also Pigritia scattered around Blastobasinae, Blastobasini and even Blastobasis glandulella. In the cases where the palps are obviously reduced to the point of seeming non-existant, would Pigritia be the more reasonable tentative ID?

Yes, Steve, that's the idea. In any photo such as the one above, in which the labial palpi (or apparent lack thereof) can be seen reasonably clearly, blastobasines of the genera other than Pigritia will definitely show palpi, whereas Pigritia will not. For the sake of completeness, according to the 1989 Adamski and Brown generic revision (Miss. Ag. & Forestry Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 165), there is one other blastobasine genus, Mastema, that has reduced palpi as in Pigritia, but Mastema is represented by just one species, and it is known to occur only in Arizona; it is separated from Pigritia on characters of the male genitalia. Needless to say, Mastema is not relevant to discussions of eastern-USA blastobasines, at least as far as is presently known.

If you want to round up the photo numbers of BugGuide images that you suspect of depicting misplaced examples of Pigritia, and post the photo numbers here, I'll be happy to have a look at them and weigh in with my $0.02 worth.

With ASCII characters, you could give your 2¢ worth :)

At the risk of embarrassing myself, here is the list:

90840
92076
120690 - Specimen from PA, ID'd as Blastobasis yuccaecolella
131948
140968
148281
189192 - Specimen from Oklahoma
215799
219268
249282 - Specimen from Texas
249379
284484 - Not sure this is even Blastobasinae
288738
292243
301329
301433 - Specimen from Oklahoma (reduced palps)
310570
329183 - Specimen from Oklahoma
334360 - Specimen from Arizona
401747 - Specimen from California
403801
418674 - Specimen from Oklahoma was DNA barcoded to Coleophoridae so I am puzzled by it.
424167
440771
440772

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my previous question and doing it in such detail. Please do not feel obligated to go through this entire list. If I just got a nod that I am going in the right direction, I be a happy camper.

Thanks very much for posting the photo numbers. I agree that the majority of the images that you flagged do depict Pigritia spp. For each of those, I have posted an ID on the page. Here are the few for which I can't pull the trigger with an ID of Pigritia, and my reasons for same:

92076—I think I see a labial palpus curling up on the right side of the head; plus, the FW color and pattern look more like what is seen in some of the genera other than Pigritia
120690 - Could be Pigritia, but coloration more strongly suggests one of the other genera; status of palpi can’t be seen because of angle of head
249282 – I think I see a notch near the base of the right antenna, and a labial palpus jutting forward from the head (visible just below base of right antenna), both of which would rule out Pigritia
284484 – Tischeriidae sp.
301433 – Palpi reduced but still visible from above; must be in a genus other than Pigritia
401747 – moth appears to have been already dead when photographed, which allows the possibility that the palpi are broken off; coloration indicates not Pigritia, and it looks as though there might be a notch at base of antenna
418674 –I agree with you that this is Pigritia sp.; barcode result of Coleophoridae makes sense, considering that BOLD classifies Blastobasinae as a subfamily of Coleophoridae

Thank you so much! This genus has been bothering me for a long time and I was feeling a bit helpless knowing it could be sorted out better.

Andrew - Sorry for polluting your entry but I just can't look a gift horse in the mouth.

No problem Steve. It's interesting. I guess you're dedicated. That's great.

Thanks Terry. Good enough for me. They are frustrating little buggers.