How are other similar species eliminated? Pacific Northwest Moths has a really good page on Hyppa brunneicrista here. The antennae look like they're wide enough for that species but other features mentioned do not seem right, such as the lack of a "...prominent pale W-mark of the subterminal line..." and a lack of "...more extensive orange near the anal angle..."

Looking at BOLD images, it's hard for me to tell how important those features are for an ID.

I made this move based on its addition to the species page on MPG, but that's a practice I've started to avoid doing as there's no way of knowing who actually made the ID and what confidence level it is. I agree based on your remarks that it may actually be something else.

Thanks for the comment Steve. At the time I photographed this moth (2010), neither my identification or photography skills were that good. This isn't a very good photo because it lacks color. I don't recall what features I considered for identification. I subsequently submitted the image to Lep. Society and the ID was confirmed.

I have since taken much better photos of both H. brunneicrista and H. xylinoides in Montana.

If you have more images of H. brunneicrista, please post them.

I wasn't disputing the ID of this one, just trying to get a handle separating these similar species. Thanks for the added info. I'm guessing the antennae was the critical factor.

Chris - I do pretty much the same as you do. I add comments when I can if the move was made because of an ID at MPG. Thanks!

Just posted H. brunneicrista from this summer.