What changed your mind? Should I add this to the brunnildalis page at MPG?

Before you move anything on MPG, let me cogitate on all of this for a few days more and dig into these a little more. I noticed that there is a fundamental difference in two types of Usingeriessa in Texas (and perhaps elsewhere). It is most apparent on the HWs. What is found on BOLD (Costa Rica) and elsewhere labeled as U. onyxalis has the entire PM area of the HW grizzled dark brown. The discal mark on the HWs consists of a *dark-centered*, orangish to whitish oval which itself is outlined in dark. By contrast, the Usi's that I've documented in Austin have the HW PM area mostly whitish (or lightly grizzled with gray) and the discal mark is a white-centered dusky loop--quite the opposite of "onyxalis" as currently labeled. Moreover, the PM area of the FW on the present type of moth is usually quite whitish, whereas in "onyxalis" the same area is heavily suffused with brown--not as dark as the brown AM band, but nowhere near as contrasting as in the present type.
The complication: I have some question about whether the BOLD taxon names are attached to the correct species. I got the feeling reading original descriptions that the marks I've described above would be *reversed* from the present name usage. This is what I'm still investigating. What'll need to happen is someone somewhere is going to have to track down the type specimens of each of these taxa and confirm (through genitalic examination or new DNA work) which name applies to which type of critter.
So right now, I'm just collecting images of each of the two types of Usingeriessa under the present taxon labels. They may or may not be due for a complete reversal later on after further research! ("Monkey Wrench" is my middle name.)

BOLD shows two species in Texas, not one. There are 25 specimens in BOLD:AAA0337, the BIN for Usingeriessa onyxalis. It includes Ann Hendrickson's 2 specimens, TXLEP304-16 & TXLEP305-16, from TX. The rest are from Costa Rica. The 2nd BIN, BOLD:ADK9630, contains only one specimen, TXLEP503-17, which is another one of Ann's. The barcodes of the two BINs are separated by nearly 7%. The benchmark for species is typically 1%. The appearance has slight differences. Most notably to my eye is the outer edge of the dark basal area and the am. line which lacks the toothed pattern of onyxalis. It's a bit worn but it also lacks the orange coloration of the terminal area.

Edit: Could it be that this is brunnildalis? Did Ed say how the two species were separated?

Steve, there's a discrepancy here with nearest neighbors for each of those Usingeriessa BINs. I looked up both BOLD:AAA0337 (n=25) and BOLD:ADK9630 (Ann's moth). While the former mentions that the latter is its nearest neighbor, the reverse is not the case. The distance measures from AAA0337 to the latter are marked "N/A". (Ann's specimen in the latter BIN was only very recently analysed.) So the stated NND of "7.09%" for AAA0337 probably applies to something else and not Ann's moth. Notice also that the nearest neighbor to Ann's ADK90630 is stated as BOLD:ABY8091 which refers to the Spilomeline moth Cnaphalocrocis poeyalis from which it differs by 7.34%. So my suspicion is that the NND of "7.09%" for AAA0337 might refer to the latter species as well. I understand topologically that two BINs need not necessarily be each other's nearest neighbor but this would be a first approximation.

Thus there is an apparent discrepancy of nearest neighbors here that BOLD hasn't properly sorted out, probably due to the newness of Ann's record. Then again, I may be misunderstanding all the NND information! :-)

I was not going by the listed BIN separation. I've found that to be often misleading and when there is only on specimen in a BIN, BOLD doesn't give complete info. Percent difference does not always equal nearest taxonomic neighbor. A tree view is better in my experience.

I copied the COI-5P sequence for TXLEP503-17 and pasted it into the "Enter sequences in fasta format:" field under the "Identification" tab with the "All Barcode Records on BOLD (5,409,991 Sequences)" radio button selected. The nearest neighbor is a specimen identified as Semomesia croesus (a butterfly!) at 93.23% followed by Usingeriessa onyxalis at 92.72%. Although Semomesia croesus is slightly closer, the tree clearly shows onyxalis as it's nearest relative. Baring a barcode screw up, which is always possible, there is almost certainly two species here. Once past 5% things do seem to break down using this method. Not sure why and I don't know how experts handle it. But I do think that the tree for Usingeriessa looks accurate.

I'll email you the tree and associated image list. When you see it, I think you will agree with my understanding. For Ann's TXLEP503-17 to diverge so much from the others, there would have to be an error like a samples being mixed up or contamination or something I would think. It does seem that being a different species is more likely. But I know that things I can't image could be at play too.

I should add that, with greatest respect for Ed K., this is a set of moths none of us has deep experience with. There are/were four specimens of Usingeriessa in the UT insect collection that were IDed by Ed; two onyxalis, one brunnildalis, and one "sp.". The differences among those first three are very slight. If anything, for the two onyxalis, the AM line is just a little more zigzag and the median area has a little more brown suffusion. For the single specimen IDed by Ed as brunnildalis, the AM line is smoother and the median area is predominantly white, especially by the costa, not unlike the present moth. The fourth specimen turns out to be (likely) Oligostigmoides sp., reminiscent of but quite distinct from Usingeriessa.

I was just speculating on possibilities given there appears to be two species involved based on the barcodes and no worries if you disagree my interpretation. Thanks for clarification.