Many of the Cisthene lichen moths are similar in general pattern but quite variable within each species. This led Knowlton (1967) in his "Revision" of the genus to provide limited information on discrimination by pattern and to rely heavily on genitalic differences for species separation. While that might be justifiable from a technical standpoint, it left the identification of specimens and photos by non-specialists at a great disadvantage for 50 years. Along with Knowlton's brief notes, much useful information on identification by color patterns has been previously published but it is widely scattered in the literature (e.g., Neumoegen & Dyar 1893; Holland 1903; Dyar 1904; Covell 1984; Powell & Opler 2009; Beadle & Leckie 2012). That said, I have studied sets of verified images and specimens (e.g., Barcoding of Life Data System, BOLD) to elucidate additional helpful hints to separate several species. I searched Moth Photographers Group (MPG), BugGuide (BG), Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA), and other online sites for images and distributional data. I reviewed all iNaturalist observations (as of 9/26/2017) of Cisthene moths in the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains. None of these sources is error-free, thus I relied heavily on barcoded specimens (BOLD) and those vetted by genitalic examination (e.g., Knowlton 1967) and recognized experts to assess color patterns.

In the previous two journal entries, I provided an artificial key to the 12 Texas species of the genus Cisthene. In this third part of this series, I offer the first of a set of descriptions of species, emphasizing those aspects which are most useful for identifying each in the field or from photographs and descriminating them from similar species. I review the range of each species as presently known and offer any habitat notes that I can recognize. The reader is refered to that previous key for more images of the species covered here.

For convenience, I am starting with Thin-banded Lichen Moth, the most widespread species in Texas, most numerous in Central Texas, and the one with which several other species are likely to be confused. In this journal entry, I include notes on these species: Thin-banded (including the Arizona population known as C. tenuifascia schwarziorum or "Schwarz's Lichen Moth"), One-banded, Barnes', Martin's, and Tamaulipan Lichen Moths. Common names are from Covell (1984), Beadle & Leckie (2012), and BAMONA (2017); I offered a few suggestions for common names in the previous key to facilitate communication among non-specialists.

Acknowlegments: I am grateful to @alexwild (Univ. of Texas Insect Collection), @hughmcguinness (who checked specimens at U.S. National Museum), Ed Knudson (Texas Lepidoptera Survey), Steven Nanz and Bob Patterson (Moth Photographer's Group), Valerie Bugh (Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center), @beschwar, @dianaterryhibbitts, @jaykeller, @leehoy, @ptexis, @rjnjr, @royaltyler, Ann Hendrickson, and Arlo Pelegrin for useful discussions, and to the several photographers cited below and in previous parts of this ID Guide 3, and all of the iNaturalists who have uploaded observations of Cisthene moths.

Thin-banded Lichen Moth (Cisthene tenuifascia)
MPG: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=8066 (but see note below)
BG: http://bugguide.net/node/view/90495

Figures 1 & 2. Variation in the Thin-banded Lichen Moth in Texas. Ph. @greglasley, used by permission.

Range. Thin-banded Lichen Moth ranges from Arizona ("Schwarz's" Lichen Moth) east through most of Texas and Oklahoma. It is also found in northeast Mexico (Coahuila, Nuevo Leon). There are scattered reports from Utah, South Dakota, and perhaps elsewhere north of this general range. Older literature indicates that Thin-banded ranges across the southeastern U.S. to Florida, as far north as southern Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina, and up the Atlantic Coast (rarely) to New Jersey (Knowlton 1967, Muller 1976, and MPG) but no records of the species are turning up on iNaturalist or BugGuide in the eastern U.S. in the modern digital era, suggesting that those earlier pronouncements of the range were based on misidentification of other species of Cisthene.

The species ranges over most of Texas with its center of abundance in the central third of the state where it is by far the most numerous species. It has been documented as far west as the Davis Mountains, reported in older records on the BAMONA website from the Panhandle, and overlaps with other species in East and South Texas. In the latter areas, it overlaps broadly with One-banded and Lead-colored Lichen Moths, the last one being probably more numerous in heavily forested parts of East Texas.

Identification. Thin-banded Lichen Moth can be recognized by the combination of an orange vertex, dark thoracic disk, relatively narrow basal orange streak which nearly or actually reaches the PM band, and a narrow, sometimes irregular and sometimes broken orange PM band.

Because of it's variability and similarity to several other species, there has been extensive confusion on how to identify Thin-banded Lichen Moth. Knowlton's (1967) bias against using patterns to identify most Cisthene lichen moths left a major knowledge gap for the past fifty years. This has been compounded by other factors including: (a) overlooking previously described field marks, and (b) biased selection or erroneous identification of images on authoritative sites like MPG and BAMONA. Sources of confusion include the following:

Figure 3. Apparent "Schwartz's Lichen Moth", Cisthene tenuifascia ssp. schwarziorum, Chiricahua Mts., AZ.
Ph. @sambiology, used by permssion.
-- One problem in recent years has been the images available for comparison online. At the present writing (September 2017) it appears that all of the images on the MPG page for Thin-banded Lichen Moth are examples from Arizona and New Mexico and all are of the subspecies schwarziorum ("Schwarz's" Lichen Moth) described by Dyar in 1899, with a very confusing subsequent taxonomic history. Schwartiorum differs from nominate Thin-banded in Texas by having a proportionately wider, complete PM band, yellower colors, and blackish gray ground color. Texas Thin-banded are more variable in these aspects but typically have a narrower PM band; in about a third of specimens, the PM band is broken. Color areas are usually true orange, although yellow examples occur, and the ground color is typically a slate gray on fresh specimens. See the key in the previous journal entry for more illustrations of typical Thin-banded in Texas.

Figure 4. One-banded Lichen Moth, Burnet Co., TX. Ph. @gcwarbler.

-- One-banded Lichen Moth (C. unifascia). Older literature (pre-1916) did not distinguish what we now call Thin-banded and other species from unifascia, thus old references to the latter included several different lichen moths. To this day, the similarity of the two names (scientific and common) can still cause confusion among non-specialists. In almost all instances, One-banded is easily separated from Thin-banded by the shape of the PM band made up of two broad-based triangles which meet narrowly--or not at all--in middle. The forward edge of the PM band is irregular and deeply indented, the notch appearing nearly rectangular. One-banded Lichen Moth is confined to the s.e. one-half of Texas; it co-occurs widely with Thin-banded in Central Texas and with Lead-colored and Packard's Lichen Moth in East Texas.

Figure 5. Barnes' Lichen Moth, Hays Co., TX. Ph. @greglasley, used by permission.
-- Barnes' Lichen Moth (C. barnesii) is normally recognized by the gray vertex (top of head). It can otherwise be very similar to Thin-banded. Original descriptions of barnesii emphasize the paleness of the gray color on the head and thorax (Dyar 1904, Knowlton 1967), thus presumably lighter than Thin-banded. The "legacy" version of BOLD (version 3) illustrates a single barcoded example of Thin-banded which seems to show gray on the vertex, the only one of 21 images on that page. None of the 25 public data images on BOLD of Thin-banded show a gray vertex, so this condition is assumed to be rare in Thin-banded. If a photo of a purported Thin-banded shows gray on top of the head, the color of the middle legs may be useful: Thin-banded should show at least some yellow-orange on the middle femur, often half or more but at least a smudge at the base of the mid-femur (see Fig. 2, above). The legs of all barnesii are reportedly gray and should show no more than a trace of yellow at the base of the mid-femur, if any (Fig. 5). There is, however, an apparent correlation within all Cisthene of the extent of orange/yellow color in the wings and the amount also on the legs. Range again may help; Barnes' Lichen Moth is generally associated with foothill areas and pinyon-juniper or juniper-oak woodlands; it is unexpected outside of the Trans-Pecos or southern and eastern Edwards Plateau.

Figure 6 (left). Angel Lichen Moth, Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Ph. @jaykeller, used by permission.
Figure 7 (right). Pictured Lichen Moth, Washington Co., OK. Mark Dreiling, BOLD public data.

-- There seem to be no confirmed specimens or images of Thin-banded which have a solid orange thorax. Such examples are likely to be either Angel (C. angelus) or Pictured Lichen Moth (C. picta) (Figs. 6 & 7). However, this mark has been overlooked in some online images, placing them erroneously as Thin-banded. The solid orange thorax of those other two species may occasionally show a thin gray line in the rear center of the thorax (Fig. 7). Both Angel and Pictured Lichen Moths typically have a wide basal streak which is usually broadly connected to the PM band. Range is also useful since neither of those two species is expected to occur in deep East or South Texas and angelus is apparently confined mostly to the Trans-Pecos within Texas, ranging east only to the Devil's River.

Figure 8. Martin's Lichen Moth, Cochise Co., AZ. Ph. copyright Charles W. Melton, BugGuide, used by permission.
-- Martin's Lichen Moth (C. martini) is a species primarily of the forested mountains of southern Arizona and adjacent New Mexico and basically looks like a Thin-banded on which the colors are all darkened and oversaturated. At the moment it should be considered hypothetical in Texas. MPG shows a single occurrence of Martin's Lichen Moth in Jeff Davis Co., but the source of that record is unknown to me. Bob Neuelle Jr. collected series of Cisthene moths in August 2015 and July 2016 high in the Davis Mountains which look similar to Thin-banded Lichen Moth but have much darker ground color and much richer red-orange color areas on the FWs (see specimen images on iNat by @rjnjr). Some of these look like good candidates for Martin's Lichen Moth. This identification is speculation on my part and has not yet been confirmed by barcoding or genitalic examination. A Cisthene photo from the Davis Mountains in July 2015 by @aredoubles looks like a standard Thin-banded, similar to populations to the east.

Figures 9 & 10. Tamulipan Lichen Moth, (both) Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Ph. @gonzalezii, used by permission.

-- In South Texas, the poorly known Tamaulipan Lichen Moth (Cisthene subrufa) occurs. The species has been documented several times in northeastern Mexico around Monterrey and at least as far south as eastern San Luis Potosi (iNaturalist observations; Figs. 9 & 10). Color areas on this species are pale creamy yellow rather than orange. A key mark is the basal streak which stops well short of the PM band area. The basal streaks are convex and thus in top view they appear to form a symmetric elliptical pale area flanking the dark thoracic disk, looking like an avocado split in half. Ground color is brownish gray, thus paler than fresh Thin-banded, but faded examples of the latter will appear browner. Size is important: Tamaulipan Lichen Moth is small, with a reported wingspan of 13 to 16 mm (thus FWs about 5.5 to 7 mm) while the smallest individuals of Thin-banded span 16 mm and larger; I have four measured images of Thin-banded with FWs ranging from 8 to 10.5 mm.

Even as I upload the last two images of (assumed) Tamaulipan Lichen Moth for this article, I am challenged to figure out how to separate that species (particularly the example in Fig. 9 on the left) from "Schwarz's Lichen Moth" of southern Arizona (Fig. 3). Over 100 years ago, Dyar (1899) apparently named "Ozodania" (= Cisthene) schwarziorum from two widely separated specimens (AZ and Veracruz); Knowlton (1967) tried to retrace the later use of that name and settle the designation of the type specimens but perhaps even his careful examination was insufficient to properly portray this complexity. I may be in error on my identification of the moth in Figure 9...or Figure 3...or both...or neither. Such is the continuing challenge of learning about this intriguing genus*!

• UPDATE (10/15/2017): "It's the leg color, Stupid!" Further examination of lots of images suggests that Schwarz's and Tamaulipan Lichen Moths can be distinguished by leg color (see the images above): Schwarz's, being a subspecies of Thin-banded, has mostly gray legs including in particular the middle tibia which are most often easily visible in photographs. By contrast, Tamaulipan Lichen Moth consistently has banded middle legs, especially the tibia which is often yellow in the middle third with gray on either end, and the hind legs are usually all yellow. See my next journal entry: https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/12088-id-guide-3-concluded-more-field-marks

References:

Barcoding of Life Data System (BOLD) website: http://www.boldsystems.org/ Version 4.0 (last accessed 28 September 2017).

Beadle, David, and Seabrooke Leckie. 2012. Peterson Field Guide to Moths of Northeastern North America. Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt, Boston.

Covell, Charles V., Jr. 1984. A Field Guide to the Moths of Eastern North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Dyar, Harrison G. 1899. A new Lithosian. Psyche 8(277):359-360. [Describes Ozodania schwartiorum from Arizona and Mexico, but see Knowlton's analysis (1967).]

Dyar, Harrison G. 1904. Descriptions of new forms of the genus Illice Walker. Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 6(4):197-199. [Describes several new species and varieties. All descriptions are very brief, based on one to seven specimens. Includes key to all known species and varieties.]

Holland, W. J. 1903 (1968 Dover reprint). The Moth Book. Dover Publ., New York. [Key to seven spp. of "Illice" (= Cisthene) on p. 109.]

Knowlton, Carroll B. 1967. A revision of the species of Cisthene known to occur north of the Mexican Border (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Lithosiinae). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 93(1):41-100. Link to pdf copy available on BugGuide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/790908

Lotts, K. and T. Naberhaus, [coordinators]. 2017. Butterflies and Moths of North America (BAMONA). Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. On-line posting: (http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/, Version 09282017), accessed 28 September 2017.

Moth Photographers Group (MPG) website: http://mothphotogrphersgroup.msstate.edu (last accessed 28 September 2017).

Muller, Joseph. 1976. Third addition to the supplemental list of Macrolepidoptera of New Jersey. J. New York Ent. Soc., 84(3):197-200.

Neumoegen, B. and H. G. Dyar. 1893. A preliminary revision of the Bombyces of America, North of Mexico. J. New York Ent. Soc. 1(3):97-118. [p. 115 has brief key to 7 spp.]

Powell, Jerry A., and Paul A. Opler. 2009. Moths of Western North America. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley.

In the previous journal article, I introduced the topic of constructing an artificial key to the 12 species of the lichen moth genus Cisthene which have been reported in Texas. The present article offers the identification key, along with selected illustrations and links to each of the twelve species. A third installment of this journal entry will have more detailed species descriptions along with updated range information. Here are the twelve species of Cisthene which have been reported in Texas, along with links to representative examples:

#8059 Cisthene subrufa (Barnes & McDunnough, 1913)
http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxon=Cisthene+subrufa&searchTax=Search+Taxonomy
#8060 Cisthene unifascia Grote & Robinson, 1868 http://bugguide.net/node/view/725219
#8061 Cisthene kentuckiensis (Dyar, 1904 http://bugguide.net/node/view/1131852
#8066 Cisthene tenuifascia Harvey, 1875 http://bugguide.net/node/view/90495
#8067 Cisthene plumbea Stretch, 1885 http://bugguide.net/node/view/1228517
#8070 Cisthene angelus (Dyar, 1904) http://bugguide.net/node/view/578042
#8071 Cisthene subjecta Walker, 1854 http://bugguide.net/node/view/1206008
#8072 Cisthene packardii (Grote, 1863) http://bugguide.net/node/view/1355054
#8073 Cisthene conjuncta (Barnes & McDunnough, 1913) http://bugguide.net/node/view/806771
#8074 Cisthene barnesii (Dyar, 1904) http://bugguide.net/node/view/309878
#8075 Cisthene picta (Barnes & McDunnough, 1918) http://bugguide.net/node/view/911893
#8078 Cisthene martini C.B. Knowlton, 1967 http://bugguide.net/node/view/321518

Figure 1. Thin-banded Lichen Moth, Cisthene tenuifascia, showing key elements used in the identification key.

ARTIFICIAL KEY TO TEXAS SPECIES OF CISTHENE:

1a. Color areas on FW mainly whitish; PM band consists of only a rectangular spot on costa and a rounded spot on inner margin; white basal streak partly separated from marginal PM spot by a gray patch or by more gray along inner margin; rare, mainly LRGV. #8073 C. conjuncta (Fig. 1-1)
I propose the common name "White-streaked Lichen Moth" for this species.

1b. Color areas mainly orange, ranging from yellow to red-orange. (2)

2a. Basal streak separated from inner margin of FW by gray (Fig. 2-1); narrow edge of yellow present along much of costal margin; East Texas. (3)
( This does NOT refer to the gray central disk on the thorax in many species.)

2b. Basal streak contiguous with inner margin of FW (Fig. 2-2). (4)

3a. Basal streak meets marginal PM spot at apex of spot; basal streak mainly reddish, contrasting little with thorax, collar, and marginal PM spot; costal PM spot low, flattened, usually 2X to 3X wide as tall; uncommon in n.e. Texas. #8071 C. subjecta (Fig. 3-1)
Subject Lichen Moth

3b. Basal streak meets marginal PM spot below apex of spot; basal streak usually yellowish, contrasting with reddish on thorax, collar, and PM spots; costal PM spot mixed red and yellow, semicircular, with steep forward edge; e. 1/3 of Texas, west to Bastrop Co. #8072 C. packardii (Fig. 3-2)
Packard's Lichen Moth

4a. Thorax, including central disk, entirely yellow or orange (Fig. 4-1) or with just a small streak of gray in rear center; basal orange streak broadly connected to PM band. (5)

4b. Thorax with gray central disk (Fig. 4-2). (6)

5a. Axis of PM band perpendicular to inner margin; distal edge of orange PM band clearly concave; basal streak with straight lower (forward) margin; Edwards Plateau, High Plains, eastward; uncommon. #8075 C. picta (Fig. 5-1)
Pictured Lichen Moth

5b. Axis of PM band oblique, nearly parallel with outer FW margin; distal margin of PM band relatively straight (but flaring at costa); in Texas primarily in the Trans-Pecos, east to the Devil's River. #8070 C. angelus (Fig. 5-2)
Angel Lichen Moth

6a. PM spot usually absent on costa, but extensive yellow-orange streak extends along costa (1/2 to full length, variable); PM spot on inner margin typically large, rounded or triangular; ground color medium gray; common in wooded East Texas, west rarely to Travis and Uvalde Cos. #8067 C. plumbea* (Fig. 6-1)
Lead-colored Lichen Moth

(* Highly variable amounts of yellow-orange; sometimes very extensive; see Fig. 6-2.)

6b. PM band complete or at least costal PM spot obvious. (7)

7a. Top of head (vertex) gray (but collar and tegulae usually orange)*; basal streak narrow; PM orange band typically very narrow or broken into 2 or 3 spots or virtually absent, often slightly convex on distal edge; primarily West Texas and Edwards Plateau, east to Austin. #8074 C. barnesii (Figs. 7-1, 7-2)
Barnes' Lichen Moth
(* Some C. plumbea may have gray head; see couplet 6.)

7b. Top of head orange or yellow (along with collar and tegulae) (Figs. 1, 4-2, etc.). (8)

8a. Primarily LRGV, uncommon: color areas pale yellow; basal streak stopping well short of PM band, the pair of short basal streaks along with the pale tegulae thus creating an elliptical patch around the dark thoracic disk; PM band variable but usually flares much wider at inner margin then at costa, or PM band broken with large triangle on inner margin, small one on costa; ground color brownish gray, often darker next to PM band or triangles; size small (FW 6 to 7 mm; wingspan 13 to 16 mm). #8059 C. subrufa (Fig. 8-1)
I propose the common name Tamaulipan Lichen Moth for this species based on its general distribution.

8b. Not as above; color areas typically orange to red-orange (occasionally yellow); basal streak usually reaching PM band or close to it, sometimes broadly connected; PM band usually complete, wide to thin, sometimes broken; ground color typically slate gray to blackish. (9)

9a. Ground color black; basal streak wide and widely connected to wide PM band; PM band with rounded, concave forward margin; extreme n.e. Texas only. (Color areas may be orange or yellow; ground color of worn specimens will be grayer.) #8061 C. kentuckiensis (Figs. 9-1, 9-2)
Kentucky Lichen Moth

9b. Ground color dark gray to slate gray; basal streak variable but not broadly connected to PM band if at all; PM not shaped as above. (10)

10a. PM band typically consisting of two broad-based triangles which barely connect in middle; forward edge of PM band thus deeply indented, angular, irregular (not smoothly concave); color areas usually pale orange but may be yellow or red-orange; s.e. 1/2 of Texas. #8060 C. unifascia (Fig. 10-1)
One-banded Lichen Moth ("Banded Footman" in early literature)

10b. Not as above: PM band complete and of more uniform width and/or forward edge smoothly concave. (11)

11a. Color areas usually dark red-orange, often with very narrow yellow edge; ground color dark gray to blackish; rare, local in mts. of Trans-Pecos (poss. specimens). #8078 C. martini (Fig. 11-1)
Martin's Lichen Moth

11b. Color areas typically orange; ground color slate gray; orange basal streak and PM band variable but usually relatively narrow, parallel sided or slightly concave on both edges, sometimes broken; common and widespread across much of Texas. #8066 C. tenuifascia (Figs. 11-2, 11-3, 11-4)
Thin-banded Lichen Moth

(Make sure to note the orange vertex, as noted on each of these examples.)

Supplemental Notes
As can be discerned from the structure of this key, the Thin-banded Lichen Moth is best identified by process of elimination. Yet it appears to be the most widespread species in Texas and, frustratingly, one of the most variable. To rephrase much of the information in the above key in a negative way, a Cisthene moth might be identified as Thin-banded IF it LACKS all of the following characters:

-- Gray separating the basal streak from inner margin ( = Subject or Packard's Lichen Moths)
-- Gray vertex ( = Barnes' Lichen Moth)
-- Orange thoracic disk ( = Pictured and Angel Lichen Moth)
-- PM band of two (or just one) broad spots or triangles ( = One-banded or Lead-colored Lichen Moth)

Indecision/confusion will occur if it can be demonstrated (e.g. by barcoding or genitalic examination) that some of the above characters can be documented in individuals of Thin-banded, but those occurrences are apparently very few in number, if they exist at all. A detailed discussion of the identification of Thin-banded Lichen Moth will be found in my next journal entry (Sept. 27, 2017). The most likely confusion among Texas members of this genus will be with the following:

-- Barnes's Lichen Moth can have (usually has?) an orange collar contrasting with the gray vertex. Failure to note the gray vertex and/or confusion of the collar and vertex color patches has led to many apparent misidentifications. Confusion arrises with Thin-banded because both species not infrequently have a very thin or broken PM band, but that condition is more frequent, perhaps the norm, in Barnes'. Observers should rely more on vertex color than PM band strength for identification. By range, Barnes' seems to be a moth of pinyon-juniper foothills and is unexpected (in Texas) outside of the Trans-Pecos and the southern and eastern Edwards Plateau.
-- Kentucky Lichen Moth has thus far only been documented in extreme n.e. Texas (Caddo Lake area). The black ground color (on fresh specimens), wide orange basal streak, and wide PM band normally distinguish this easily from Thin-banded, but faded individual Kentucky Lichen Moth which have somewhat narrower orange streaks and band may be confusable with Thin-banded having wider than normal color areas. Any confusion with One-banded is usually easily resolved with reference to the shape of the forward edge of the PM band. Confusion with Pictured Lichen Moth is resolved by thoracic disk color and the broader connection of the basal streak to the PM band in that species.
-- The enigmatic Tamaulipan Lichen Moth of the Lower Rio Grande Valley is known from few specimens and many images are suspect, thus I relied almost exclusively on BOLD specimens (see link above). Along with the short basal streak and brownish ground color, size is critically important. Based on published measurements, most/all Tamaulipan should be recognizably smaller than most Thin-banded. Keep your millimeter rule handy when in the LRGV (and everywhere else)!!

I emphasize again that the above key should be useful for identifying the majority of specimens and images, but uncommon or aberrant forms will not key out successfully, and the full range of variation in each species is still not easily examined solely from online images.

NOTE: This should be considered a DRAFT publication. I retain all rights to its content and subsequent publication. Please contact me (iNat message) for further details about development of the full article (in prep.).

Photo credits: (All photos by @gcwarbler unless noted otherwise.)
Fig. 1-1 Texas Lepidoptera Survey, BugGuide, used by permission.
Figs. 2-1, 3-2 @royaltyler, iNaturalist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 3-1 Gary J. Goss, BugGuide, used by permission.
Figs. 4-1, 5-1 Ann Hendrickson, BugGuide, used by permission.
Fig. 5-2 @leehoy, iNaturalist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 6-2 @kueda, iNaturalist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 7-1, 10-1, 11-4 @greglasley, iNaturlist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 7-2 @hannawacker, iNaturalist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 8-1 Spec. by Kons & Borth; BOLD public data, #HKONB166-08
Fig. 9-1 Jonn, BugGuide, used by permission.
Fig. 9-2 @annikaml, iNaturalist.org, used by permission.
Fig. 11-1 Copyright Charles W. Melton, BugGuide, used by permission.

Over the past few weeks, I have made a long-overdue attempt to learn the small and confusing gray-and-orange lichen moths in the genus Cisthene. Twenty species are known from North America, and at least 12 species have been reported in Texas. The latter seemed like a good group to start out with; there are several additional species to be dealt with in FL, AZ, and the Pacific Coast, but that's for another day. I have found that even though many of the Cisthene species are quite variable, standard descriptions of the common patterns of each species can be constructed which will serve to identify the vast majority of moths (contra Knowlton, 1967), at least among the Texas fauna. Range is also important, and broad habitat and biogeographical considerations should not be ignored. This journal entry provides an introduction to the "Artificial Key" that I have created for the 12 Texas species. An artificial key is a dichotomous key which helps separate species without regard to their actual phylogenetic relationships.

I reviewed readily available (online) literature, including original descriptions, and studied online images from Barcode of Life Database (BOLD), Moth Photographer's Group (MPG), BugGuide (BG), iNaturalist, and other sources, along with my own collection of photos. None of these sources has been error-free. I relied primarily on barcoded specimens and those vetted by genitalic examination and recognized experts to assess color patterns.

The twelve species of Cisthene which have been reported in Texas are (with Hodges numbers and original authors):

8059 Cisthene subrufa (Barnes & McDunnough, 1913)

8060 Cisthene unifascia Grote & Robinson, 1868

8061 Cisthene kentuckiensis (Dyar, 1904)

8066 Cisthene tenuifascia Harvey, 1875

8067 Cisthene plumbea Stretch, 1885

8070 Cisthene angelus (Dyar, 1904)

8071 Cisthene subjecta Walker, 1854

8072 Cisthene packardii (Grote, 1863)

8073 Cisthene conjuncta (Barnes & McDunnough, 1913)

8074 Cisthene barnesii (Dyar, 1904)

8075 Cisthene picta (Barnes & McDunnough, 1918)

8078 Cisthene martini C.B. Knowlton, 1967

Important Features of Adult Cisthene Moths for Identification Purposes

Critical to identification of photographic records are a combination of both lateral and dorsal images and an image with a mm rule wherever possible. An understanding of the structure of the adult moth is also crucial to descriptions of Cisthene as is a general agreement on the names of colors. Below, I highlight those portions of the moths that I emphasize in the key in a subsequent journal entry. First I'm embedding a set of photos of various Cisthene species to illustrate most of the common features I use in the identification key:

Figure 1. Cisthene tenuifascia: Useful Characters for Identification of Cisthene moths.

Figure 2. An example of Cisthene packardii, showing additional features used in the identification key.
(Photo credit: @royaltyler, from iNaturalist)

Figure 3. An example of Cisthene plumbea, showing additional features used in the identification key.

Figure 4. Cisthene nr. subrufa, showing additional features used in the idenfication key.

Head. The head only occasionally provides useful information in a macroscopic examination of a Cisthene specimen or photograph. Particular attention should be paid to the vertex, i.e., the top of the head between the eyes and in front of the collar (see next).

Thorax. The collar is a narrow rectangular band of scales covering the front of the thorax (e.g. the "neck"); it is often colored similar to the bands on the forewings. Most Cisthene show a dark oval central disk on top of the thorax between the base of the wings. A few species are distinctive in having this disk entirely orange. Flanking the disk are the tegulae (singular: tegula) which are usually colored with the same yellow or orange color as seen on the forewings.

Forewings. Many useful characters which help distinguish adult Cisthene moths are viewed on the forewings (FWs), particularly in a side view of a live specimen. On such a specimen, the inner (or rear) margin of the FWs is on top where the wings meet. The costal margin is the "forward" edge of the wings, i.e., the lower edge on a perched moth. The dark ground color varies from black or dark gray to dark gray-brown and provides useful information in just a few species. More important are the colored stripes, bands, and spots on the FWs. These include:

-- Basal streak. Almost all Cisthene have some kind of colored band along the inner margin of the FWs (the top edge on a living specimen with folded wings). It's width and color are useful in many cases, as is its connection (or lack thereof) to the postmedian color band, or its separation from the inner FW margin by gray.
-- Postmedian band (PM band). This band of color crosses the wing just beyond the middle, extending in most instances from the inner margin down to the costal margin (lower edge on the folded wing). It is quite variable in shape in many species: It may be wide or narrow and is typically flared out at both the top and bottom ends. It's orientation, perpendicular to the inner margin or paralleling the outer FW margin, is sometimes important. In some species this band is very narrow and broken into just two or three thin spots. In a few species it consists of only two colored PM spots (semicircles or triangles) on the inner and costal margins or just a single spot on the inner margin. While variable, this band, in combination with the basal streak, provides crucial information in most species.
-- Costal margin. Away from the costal PM band or spot, most species show only the dark ground color along the costal margin. However, a few species characteristically show an extensive but narrow yellow margin along the costa which can be useful for identification.

Hindwings. Most Cisthene have a red, pink, or yellow hindwing with a variable amount of dusky gray color near the apex (outer corner) or outer margin. However, since this is rarely visible in photos of living specimens, I don't emphasize it in the present key. There are important differences among species (and even subgenera) in the shape and scaling on the anal angle (inner corner near the abdomen) on males; for these differences, the reader should consult Knowlton's 1967 review of the genus.

Legs. The legs of almost all Cisthene are blackish with varying and variable amounts of color (orange or yellow) on the base of the middle femur and sometimes other segments. These are so variable as to be of almost no use in field identification. As a general rule, however, the more yellow or orange color on the FWs, the more color there is on the legs.

I try to use common color names familiar to a contemporary reader. The ground color on all species will be some shade of slate gray, but ranging from brownish gray to nearly black; this is important for identification in a few species. The remaining "color" areas of the body and wings are various shades of orange, ranging from yellow to red-orange, but with a few important exceptions.

Subsequent parts of this multiple-entry journal article will include (a) the identification key and (b) a set of more complete species descriptions. I am also preparing a series of maps which will bring together (verifiable) records from several sources including original literature, BOLD, MPG, BugGuide, iNaturalist, and other sources.

NOTE: This should be considered a DRAFT publication. I retain all rights to its content and subsequent publication. Please contact me (iNat message) for further details about development of the full article (in prep.).

References: (A more complete list of references and literature is in preparation.)
Holland, W. J. 1903 (1968 Dover reprint). The Moth Book. Dover Publ., New York. [Key to seven spp. of "Illice" (= Cisthene) on p. 109.]

Knowlton, Carroll B. A Revision of the Species of Cisthene Known to Occur North of the Mexican Border (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Lithosiinae). Trans. of the Amer. Entom. Soc., Vol. 93, No. 1 (Mar., 1967), pp. 41-100. Link to pdf copy available on BugGuide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/790908

Knudson, Ed, and Charles Bordelon. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of Texas, 2010 ed. Texas Lep. Soc. Publ. No. 6.

Lafontaine, J. Donald, and B. Christian Schmidt. Annotated check list of the Noctuioidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera) of North America north of Mexico. ZooKeys 40:1-239 (2010). Link to pdf copy on BugGuide: http://bugguide.net/node/view/601000

Powell, Jerry A., and Paul A. Opler. Moths of Western North America. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley (2009), 369 pp.

Here's a great new resource from Mike Quinn, announced Aug. 6 on the TX-Butterfly listserv:

Primer on Texas Treehoppers - Family Membracidae
http://texasento.net/TX_Membracidae.html

A couple of recently corrected IDs have prompted me to write a long-overdue journal article which covers two extremely similar sallow moths (Noctuidae, Amphipyrinae) and a few other look-alike species. The primary focus of this entry includes:

Grote’s Sallow (Copivaleria grotei): http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=10021

Figure-eight Sallow (Psaphida resumens): http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=10019

Both species occur widely across the eastern U.S. and both are early fliers, primarily from February-April. I’ve recorded both species at my porchlight/blacklight on the same night in mid-March in Central Texas. Both are mottled dark gray Noctuids with paler orbicular and reniform spots and other pale patches. I had previously addressed this ID issue with one of my observations from Feb. 2017: http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5095885
I also just revised the BugGuide account for Grote's Sallow to include some of the information below.
http://bugguide.net/node/view/15291

Here I recap the ID tricks to separate these two species and add notes about a third species of sallow and one potentially confusable dagger moth. Of course, these are not the only mottled gray and white Noctuids!

For the two species I'm primarily focused on here, four areas should be examined and compared. In descending order of importance, these are:

(1) the pale “arrowhead” at the junction of the FWs in their outer portions (center of the folded wings),
(2) the light-dark contrast on the thorax,
(3) the pale area (if any) on the outer 1/8 of the FWs, and
(4) the relative width of white banding on the tarsal segments (not highlighted on the images).

Here are marked-up examples of each:

On Grote’s Sallow, notice that the pale central “arrowhead” consists of a small triangular whitish arrowhead, partially set off from a larger, shield-shaped pale area. The latter area commonly has a simple sinuous dark line cutting across it in the forward portion. The upper margin of the shield is generally rounded without sharp outer corners. The thorax, if not worn, is characteristically whitish in the center, with dark “shoulders” (tegulae). The outer 1/8 of the FWs are mottled gray and whitish without a clear pale patch. The white banding on the distal end of each tarsal segment is relatively narrow, taking up << 1/2 of the segment. Something that some individuals of Grote's Sallow have that is absent in Figure-eight is the presence of ochre or gold or olive-brown highlights scattered over much of FWs. This is evident in many images on BugGuide, but a large portion of Grote's lack any hint of those yellow/gold/brown tones and thus are much more similar to Figure-eight.

By contrast, the Figure-eight Sallow has a single larger pale arrowhead in the outer portion of the FWs; it has sharp forward corners; there is no “shield” forward of it. The thorax is variably mottled black, gray, and whitish without a pale center; if anything, the tegulae are sometimes paler than the center of the thorax (as in this image from @greglasley). The outer 1/8 of the FWs is commonly uniformly pale gray to whitish, more broadly so toward the inner margins. These terminal pale areas are set off from the pale “arrowhead” by dark “anal streaks”. Each tarsal segment has proportionally wide white banding on it; on several segments, this approaches or exceeds 1/2 of the length of the segment. While the dark ground colors of Figure-eights will occasionally trend toward dark brownish gray, very few individuals show any of the yellow/gold/brown highlights shown by a substantial number of Grote's. Here are a couple of the rare examples (perhaps 3 out of 75) of Figure-eight Sallow showing such highlights:
http://bugguide.net/node/view/496802/bgimage
http://bugguide.net/node/view/94121/bgimage
One Florida example seems to have green highlights (unique):
http://bugguide.net/node/view/96264/bgimage

Another potentially confusing gray sallow is Roland’s Sallow (Psaphida rolandi):
http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=10014
It is also an early flier (Feb-Apr) but Roland's is much more uniform medium to dark gray without any conspicuous pale arrowhead in the middle of the FWs. The orbicular spot is small, almost perfectly circular, and commonly outlined in black; the reniform spot has black forward and rear edges.

Many of the dagger moths (Acronicta spp.) appear in mottled gray tones, but most of them have conspicuous basal and/or anal black streaks or “daggers”. The most similar to the present set of sallows that I’ve encountered in Central Texas is the Afflicted Dagger (Acronicta afflicta):
http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=9254
It shares with Grote’s Sallow the pale center of the thorax, but it has: (a) overall more uniformly dark FWs, (b) a small, conspicuous, circular white orbicular spot, (c) little or no contrast in a gray reniform spot, (d) no obvious or well-marked “arrowhead” in the rear of the FWs (although the area can have some smudgy whitish color), and (e) no obvious pale area in the outer 1/8 of the FWs. It has a much longer flight period from March to September, with a couple of Texas records as early as February and as late as October.

I’d be interested in opinions of other potentially confusable species with this group, particularly for those of us in Texas. I can try to add further information to this post as the need arrises.

Mike Quinn's (@entomike) tremendous entomology website, texasento.net, has been a go-to site for me for years. It has a heavy emphasis on beetles and some bugs but all the diverse resources on the site are worth exploring.

Mike just added what will prove to be another hugely important improved web page. He has just edited and enlarged his page for the stink bugs (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae). He now includes many images of nymphal stages of these bugs which can look very different from the adults. Check it out!

http://texasento.net/TX_Pentatomidae.html

Introduction

I tend to write up identification notes for myself as reminders on how to separate similar species...and then most often file these in a drawer somewhere until someone happens to ask about the same ID challenge. So, I'm going to attempt to begin posting a series of really miscellaneous Identification Guides to various tough moth identification challenges that I have encountered in Central Texas. With this limited geographic focus, some/many of these may not be relevant nor sufficient for ID help in a wider area, but hopefully they will offer starting points for consideration. All images are my own unless otherwise noted.

Two Similar Armyworm Moths

The Gray-streaked (or Unbarred) Armyworm (Spodoptera albula) and Southern Armyworm (Spodoptera eridania) occur across much of the southern U.S. They are superficially very similar. Both are paler and more uniformly patterned than a couple of their common relatives, the Fall Armyworm and Yellow-striped Armyworm.
Gray-streaked: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=9673
Southern: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=9672
Fall: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=9666
Yellow-striped: http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=9669

After examining a series of photographs taken in the Austin area in October-November 2012 as well as available online images and specimens at the University of Texas Insect Collection, I offer the following information on how to separate these with some small details visible in specimens or close-up photographs.

Typical pale adults of the two species share these overall general characters:

(1) Overall pale cream to whitish-gray ground color.
(2) A small reniform spot which is fairly well marked by black spots or smudging.
(3) A subterminal zigzag band of brown edged on the outer side by white.
(4) Usually have a post-median row or arc of small dark dots on each vein (sometimes absent/obscure).
(5) Pale puffy grayish-white thorax with several thin dark longitudinal lines.
(6) Both have typical “Spodoptera” forelegs with puffy gray pantaloons (heavily scaled tibia), pale gray first tarsus, and darker, banded or white-tipped 2nd-5th tarsi.

Here are examples of the typical pale adults of each species:

Above: Gray-streaked Armyworm Below: Southern Armyworm

Here’s what I’ve figured out for distinguishing pale adults of the two species. (See note below about dark morph [female?] Southern Armyworm Moths.)

Gray-streaked Armyworm Moth:

White margin of subterminal brown band: Note that the forward points of this zigzag band (highlighted by white) are inbetween the veins, particularly the point I’ve highlighted, and the point where the white touches the outer wing margin is on a vein rather than inbetween the veins.
Post-median band of dots: This row of dots, when present, is typically less than half way from the reniform spot to the outer wing margin, usually about 1/3 to 2/5 of the way, i.e. closer to the reniform spot than the outer margin.
Claviform spot: This elongate spindle-shaped gray spot is almost always present just on the basal side of the small orbicular spot (cream-edged brown dot).
Basal wing dash: Best viewed from the side. Most Gray-streaked Armyworm Moths have a long black dash from the base of the forewing. This dash is gently curved downwards (towards the forward wing margin), ending near the claviform spot. A shorter thin dark line may or may not be present on the thorax*. When paired with this dark line on the thorax, the dash looks partially doubled as in this individual.

• This field mark is emphasized in a number of published guides and online keys, but it is so variable and subject to wear that it should be used only in conjunction with the other marks. In particular, it can be difficult to distinguish a single dark line (thoracic? or base of wing?) when viewed from directly above. A shadow of the thoracic “epaulet” (tegula) may also show on photos illuminated from above.

Southern Armyworm Moth:

White margin of subterminal brown band: The forward points of this zigzag white band are on the veins, particularly the point I’ve highlighted, and the point where the outermost white touches the outer wing margin (that is, the distal point of the dark brown band) is inbetween veins rather than on a vein.
Post-median band of dots: This row of dark dots on the veins, more often present in this species, is typically at least half way from the reniform spot to the outer wing margin, and thus a bit closer to the outer margin.
Claviform spot: The elongate gray spot of the Gray-streaked Armyworm is absent in this species.
Basal wing dash: Most Southern Armyworm Moths have only the thin dark line on the thorax, making this a single shorter dark line. This is best viewed from the side; see note on this field mark under the Gray-streaked Armyworm, above.

A darkly streaked form (female?) of the Southern Armyworm Moth is more distinctive:

Southern Armyworm Moth, dark form

[Originally prepared for Austin Butterfly Forum, November 12, 2012; revised Dec. 2012, Mar. 2017.]

I just had an odd moment when uploading this Common Oak Moth for March 1 (= 3/1):
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5228931
I was refiling that image in my usual folder for “iNat - Moths” when I got a warning that “There is already a file named ‘Phoberia atomeris_0927'. Do you want to replace it?” I hadn’t uploaded this image previously so I went on to investigate why there was a duplicate.

It turns out I had photographed and uploaded an image of this same species on February 15, 2016, just over a year ago…and it happened to end up with the same sequential file number from my camera.
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/2702960

What are the odds of that?

Well, the numerologist in me recalled that my camera cycles through 4-digit file numbers so one thing that this tells me that in the interim 1 year and 13 days, I had taken precisely 9,999 digital images with my little point-and-hope camera. (It would be an even 10,000 but it doesn’t use the file number “0000”.) If I were to take just one picture of this species randomly during any file number cycle, the odds would have been 1 in 9,999 of ending with the same file number. Yet over the past year, I’ve probably documented over a thousand different species with my camera. Even taking multiple images of most species, the odds of ending up on the same file number with the same species would seem astronomical.

But of course, the Common Oak Moth is fairly routine at my porchlights and I try to document the species at least once each month in which I encounter them. It turns out I had taken exactly 13 (!!) images of the species in the interim year+. So the odds of me randomly landing on “0927” with a Phoberia atomeris might be better stated as about 1 in about 770 (that is, pretty close to 10,000 ÷ 13).

Oh, by the way, that file number “927” can be written using only the digits “1” and “3”. It can be factored by prime numbers as 3 x 3 x 103 which can be rewritten:

927 = 3 x 3 x ((3 x ((3 x 3) +1)) +13)

If you were curious, neither of the iNat observation numbers above (5,228,931 or 2,702,960) is a prime number. The prime factors of the latter number include the number 13, that is:

2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 5 x 13 x 23 x 113

If you divide the latter observation number by 13, you get 207,920 which is an anagram of 6 of the 7 digits of the previous number after dropping the numeral “6”.

My favorite numbers? Why, 7 and 13, of course. My wife and I were married on July 13.

I’m not makin’ this stuff up. If you read all the way through this journal post, your new bumper sticker should read, “NUMBERS HAPPEN!”.

With some prompting by @billdodd, I have once again started using the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (www.gbif.org) to help with identifications of my iNat observations. Because of the massive size of their database (1.6 million species; 700 million occurrences), it offers a vast network of possible natural history occurrences through which to search. Then, combining their search results with an image search on Google Images offers a quick visual check of possibilities. This one-two punch is often sufficient to narrow an identification considerably and often nail it exactly. This is particularly true for groups of organisms or particular areas which may not be well-represented in the iNat database or other common resources.

But there’s a problem: How to do you narrow a search in such a huge database like GBIF? I have found it particularly powerful when I can begin by limiting my search parameters to a certain family or genus (of plants, for instance). The combination of a “species” search (which can be tailored to a family or genus) and the mapping capabilities of GBIF can really help you zoom in on likely possibilties. Here is an example from my recent efforts:

A Maidenhair Fern from Chiapas:

In January, I photographed a maidenhair fern in dry oak-pine woodland in the mountains surrounding San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/5066655
I knew that there were several species in Mexico. A quick search of the iNat database alone indicates at least 13 species in Mexico:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=6793&taxon_id=48436&view=species
Even selecting for just the state of Chiapas indicated at least four possibilities:
http://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=97003&taxon_id=48436&view=species
but there were only four iNat observations of the genus from that state so that limited my confidence in this comparative set.

So I went to the GBIF database: www.gbif.org and did this: From the home page, under the “Data” menu at the top, I chose “Explore Species”:

This brings up a simple search field: http://www.gbif.org/species. Next, I typed “Adiantum” into the search field. (I didn’t bother to limit my search to “Vascular Plants” although I could have.)

The subsequent search results gave me 1,307 results for “Adiantum”, the very first one of which is the one I'm interested in: “Accepted Genus, Adiantum L.” Make sure you find the one you want; you may also see other names labeled "Doubtful Genus", "Doubtful Species", "Species Synonym", etc. Sometimes the family or genus name may have two different entries spelled the same but with different original authors. You'll always want to pick the "Accepted ..." of whatever your focused on. A taxonomic classification listed under the name also helps to make sure you're in the right group of organisms; notice in the screen capture below that there is a genus of mammals spelled "Adianthus"!

Ignoring all the ways to “Refine your search” (right hand panel), I just clicked on that first result for “Adiantum L.” That brings up an Overview page.

Below the Overview box you’ll find a map of the world. Next to the map, it indicates that this search found 63,779 georeferenced data points.

Adiantum is distributed on all continents except Antarctica. The next step offers the most powerful capability: Just zoom into the area of interest! (With the little roller brush icon in the lower right of the map, you can choose among various views such as Classic, Night, Terrain, Satellite, High Contrast, or Roads. Since I am a Google Earth fanatic, I often choose Satellite, but “Roads” is also useful where I need to navigate to my location by that means. As you zoom, the specimen dots may seem to disappear--they are probably just too small. When that happens, go to that handy "paint roller" icon again and choose a larger point size.) So I zoom and zoom and zoom, until I’m looking at just the area around San Cristóbal de las Casas, in the middle of Chiapas:

Then clicking on “In viewable area” in the right panel of the map brings up a list of all those georeferenced data just in my area of interest--that is, just the area I've zoomed into. A portion of that list is shown in this screen capture:

Again, the "Refine your search" panel on the right side would allow me to subset this group of specimens more if the number of returns was still too large or if I want some other refinement. In this case, I don't need to, since I have narrowed my possibilites from 60,847 records to just 32 records. This represents 32 museum specimens of Adiantum collected through the years right around San Cristóbal! Scanning down the list, I find that five species of Adiantum have been collected there: A. andicola , A. braunii , A. capillus-veneris , A. concinnum , and A. patens. In actuality, an even closer zoom into San Cristóbal—where a lot of botanical collecting has been done—narrows my search to just andicola, capillus-veneris, and concinnum, and of these the first is the most numerous in the database by far.

Now I can open a new tab in my browser and have Google Images ready. A quick search through each of the three relevant Adiantum’s shows that my photos (especially the view of the underside of the fronds) is a good match to only Adiantum andicola. And I have my ID!

A few caveats with this method:

— No database is complete, even GBIF. Depending on how specific an area you zoom to on the map, there may or may not be a good selection of specimens. So gauge your zoom area to get a reasonable set of possibilities. If you zoom in too far, you may miss all records or you may accidentally exclude relevant ones. If your area of interest has no specimens right near it, back out to encompass the nearest county or state to gather more records. And keep in mind that you are widening your search, so the precise species you find in that larger area may or may not occur where you were.

— No database is infallable. There are always the possibilities of mis-identified museum specimens, or changes in taxonomy not reflected in the GBIF search. [In particular, see the link to @rdmpage's blog in @kueda's comment, below.] Related to this, Google Images is a great resource for finding images of species, but it is often very “inclusive” when grabbing images off the internet, especially when it can’t find your specific search target. When scanning through Google Images, ALWAYS check the description and/or go to the original page to double-check that the pic your looking at matches what you searched for.

–– Interestingly, GBIF taps into iNaturalist observations. If any meet your criteria and geographic area of interest, they will show up in your search results. That's a double-edged sword: Good for seeing local iNat observations along with specimen records, but Bad because of the potential pitfalls we are all familiar with using crowd-sourced identifications. In that helpful right-hand panel to "Refine Your Search", you can include or exclude "Human Observations" (where iNat observations fall); by default they are included.

— Most importantly, keep in mind that photos may not be sufficient to make a solid identification. This may be due to the technical details of how similar species are distinguished and/or it may be due to the quality of your photos. You can always help your cause by photographing all the important parts of a plant or critter. For plants in particular, it’s not always obvious what characters will help distinguish one species from another, and those characters may or may not be visible in a set of photos. Be sure to photograph the whole plant, the leaves, the flowers and fruit if present, and get good close-ups at various angles. This might includes top and side views of flowers (e.g. for Composites), views of the underside of leaves, etc., etc. If you’ve ever worked through dichotomous keys for a given group of organisms, you’ll have some sense of the characters to emphasize in images; this just comes with experience. If you have some science training, a little supplemental research with something like Google Scholar, Archive.org, or JSTOR may point you to useful technical papers to help with your ID. A particularly useful link to the Biodiversity Heritage Library is found in the right-hand panel of the Overview window in the search results on GBIF. That will bring up a list of very specific references to your species of interest; you can dive into that rabbit hole and follow it ad infinitum.

Mary Kay and I spent 10 days in Chiapas from Jan 8 - 17. It was a combination birding and cultural trip. Because we were traveling some distances daily and combining several interests, it was quite impossible to adequately document the breadth of tropical diversity to which we were exposed. Any one of our half dozen major destinations would be worthy of a week-long BioBlitz with an iNat effort, but we had to “settle”. Our destinations included, in chronological order, Palenque, Bonampak, Yaxchilan (on the Usumacinta River by boat), Rio Lacantun/Rio Tzendales (again by boat), Lagos de Montebello, and San Cristobal de Las Casas (including the Moxviquil and Huitepec Reserves).

As a result, I came home with “only” about 1000 images which I’m rapidly sorting through now. As always, birds and butterflies were tough subjects to capture with my point-and-hope camera, thus plants (with flowers) and relatively sedentary critters were the more common focus.

I’ll be adding some thumbnails of the more interesting images/species below. Keep checking back for more uploads.