This lacks the contrasting black and white eye spot near the tornus mentioned in the MONA. It looks a bit like the image of meridionalis in MONA Fascicle 22.2, pl. 4, fig. 15.

You may very well be correct. I'm not entirely positive what prompted the move back then, but I *think* this was the specimen that matched up really well in appearance with an old pinned leucophaea from FL that Doug [Ferguson] had personally ID'd. I can't for the life of me remember what collection it was part of though. Still, my perception of a photo "match" could have been flawed at the time.

The variation I've seen in the black & white tornal eyespot between some specimens of the two species though, is muddied enough for me (granted some of that can probably be attributed to misidentification as well) that if I were to do the ID today, I'd probably leave it at genus level since I haven't ever done much work with Lymantriidae. So I defer judgment to you on this one - I wouldn't object to a move back to meridionalis.

I agree. I should have noted that the eye spot can be poorly defined in leucophaea and that having an eyespot does not eliminate other species. My point should have been that leucophaea never seems to have a rust triangle in place of the contrasting black and white eye spot. Even in examples with a faint or obscured eyespot, they never approach this example but meridionalis does. But perhaps none of the matters.

I have emailed for an expert opinion and for now moved this to genus as you suggest.