That one is my fault, as I don't believe I gave Chris the location of this one when verifying. Just a quick "does this look right for" email. Although, there are confirmed records for vittata in Iowa, unless they are all based on older misidentifications.

I actually ran this one (and many others from 2011/2012) by Chris Schmidt. From the email exchange on this one, it came down to nais or vittata. Given the more elongate FW and being still within the outermost range of vittata, that was the "most probable" ID agreed upon. I'll go ahead and move it back rather than leave it languishing in perpetual genus status.

There were so many misidentified and questionably identified photos on all the species pages for this group that a few of us decided it was time for a "purge" to clear up some of the confusion about the species, so we moved a lot of these back to the genus page. If Chris ID'd this one, then it makes sense to keep it on the species page though. Thanks! :)

There was only one other of your moves that I moved elsewhere - from my records it had been agreed to be most likely carlotta.

This group of Apantesis can definitely be a headache. Years ago when I was pulling tails on these, hoping I could nail down some local southeastern populations, I was finding it difficult to separate some of them even by genitalia due to variation/aberration in the aedeagus. I shared the frustration here and was suggesting a combo page for the uncertains at that time, but later realized that would basically be redundant to the genus page. So unfortunately, a lot of them are probably best left in genus unless there's enough to give a good 'probable' ID (which is another can of worms on BG - probable vs. precise IDs). I appreciate you tackling this group though.