Jason, Is there some reason you are hesitant to move images such as this one to the lowest confirmed ID, such as Digrammia sp. in the present case? Unless you have some specific concern about the ID, and IF a reviewer like myself is (or sounds?) confident in the suggested taxonomic level, it seems safe to move this to the genus level. I would also think that folks with an interest in reviewing Digrammia images would miss images filed only at the Macariini level, but that's just the way I wander through BG. Thanks for all your work.

I agree with you, I am just not familiar enough with the macariines of Texas, so I was reluctant to move it further.

After I posted the image, I had also settled at D. californiaria as best match, but not willing to make the final call. It does have a faint wing patch, but I'd feel safer if it was more distinctive such as



Did you think my second individual is the same thing, whatever that is?

I didn't realize you'd linked two different individuals. That's frowned upon by the BG editors; they'd rather see each individual uploaded separately. You can still unlink them. As for your question, I think, yes, it's probably in the same species group, but we have several species here in Texas that are hard to separate (or at least, hard for *me* to separate!).

The second individual is a "thumb" link [thumb:nnnnn] which is part of the comment and is allowed. And I labeled it clearly as a second individual. See http://bugguide.net/help/markup#thumb bottom of page.

It does seem odd when thumb links in the comment appear before the same individual links, but that's the way BG does it.

Separately, what do you mean by "species group"? Something less than genus but broader than species I suppose, but BG doesn't show any levels between Digrammia and californiaria http://bugguide.net/node/view/14252/tree

First, I was confused on thumbnail links vs other images of the individual which you'd uploaded; I should have examined your upload more carefully! You structured it all correctly; I was just in too big a hurry.

Second, I'm using "californiaria species group" in an informal sense for a set of variable and easily confused species (at least by me). For the Texas area, the confusable's in this group might include denticulata (6373), delectata (6374), californiaria (6380), colorata (6381), pervolata (6383), and perhaps others (depending on one's level of confusability, which is high with me). My usage may or may not have some geographic or ecological foundation--that is beyond my understanding. The MONA fascicle on this group of Geometrids might shed more light on their relationships, but I don't have access to that.