4, aa on EVE ee ye at nus eae hey i veda her ane SENN Raat Atos ete nat tS Sih ky ‘ STs he eee eat Pe ee kt Cea em ire Wee ey oo AREER en: ; SAgh Sie NV Tess A signe Nata RPA arice UNS : oe Say . Raartneaiiecny © Be) Sate z “ ihe tet > ‘ : z BA avi as Rett “es Pike: “ , \ ce eS SAAN f ‘ RaeEcen mre y Tet tyratys OEY ; : VBE ee repeat \ er Wah ahha kes SYS Heat ) PERS sshd Sy \Frua teh eek nt St baeeh hh shih tee at aN: Wee ase EVANS AM Als p tg ye z : > ate Syyters Wants < . a Sakis \ : Peni RAN UU K ATR sth won NTA a os wy sce beginten ot + Urey er ees uy Va ey ; ti Pyare Ny noe es Ute peat . ny ox {es} oe Reet << ity : ; chun aster rsa NA NCR ate Sates Sane SS ep) an - se ANTS ea VRS Seas . yey pen hats aie: Sse tetgsea Ps - 2 ret hae sa APA Ro Na ede mPa ak) tae Sects SSS ae) Sey eS. . Ne hors ct mo ttt tet ik E BASS Eriol weg PACE Kiet 6, beete sears Sela “ “| ca Sat oo mse i 5 ~ SIA PaNeoh wou Mba ¥ ; : e me Hine AAA aac eT? a3 ~ . net Sractren : * : a8 R ; ion ea Seta “iy " EL SPAR at aN Mine hia ne + UAE Bow Aaa , io eae t Favs ; = AE AA NN crear oh te rites : peruse as cae Ee ste rceles Sey etne SIS MLAS race NE Aan. os APA Aeon Heh Seen: naire see vhf ia my neas pire LONE watt eee canker Nr ee traceanaaneteh .Se ae oe BA . OP Ron Oo Le marine nthe bitter fore oreteeety Modi It ed cafe i ont wer charteae SON eA" od wo Pogo aa LIMES Ne pod week to arenes Ae ttt re : “ ow piece eens hin tt act bes oa fe : . Sale ay ae Pot ere tefl Aas bo mes fier Wi departs ety ase elegy TNA LYS eine pertior ts hee x athe abs Ke etal ke tame nb dod ceyt tod iyag MA e Aye | f , ee 4 - Ape aS: BL EASE Oe f bi Pg tk f Seder Rigs et 4 a \ 4 i ess zi ae ine et pre dog. Pore f - : pie CAaera 3 (i : : ; wn A Fit Bub by Una Gas ae fad Need, : 4 ah ix Se At phe Se bah. Voncrrsednt be ‘ , ce pang ne face PL tne ge : , seater’ we Bei a a is ie aes anenaath ne poe! banal Le) LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN NOTICE: According to Sec. 19 (a) of the University Statutes, all books and other library materials acquired in any man- ner by the University belong to the University Library. When this item is no longer needed by the department, it should be returned to the Acquisition Department, University Library. ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY \ \ May : a ,) ae r ; ful 7 Pe A 1 ; ; a i 4 " A 7 4 % a i | ?, v ' a th : ‘4 F 7 ae DENTIFICATION and DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ULTIMATE INSTAR LARVAE OF Hydraecia immanis (Hop Vine Borer) and H. micacea (Potato Stem Borer) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) George L. Godfrey «yt = Le : Ao a eh Pt ae . all a By ST 2 Biological Notes No. 114 Illinois Natural History Survey Champaign, Illinois February 1981 State of Illinois Illinois Institute of Natural Resources Natural History Survey Division Identification and Descriptions of the Ultimate Instar Larvae of Hydraecia immanis (Hop Vine Borer) and H. micacea (Potato Stem Borer) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) The distribution of and economic damage caused by two species of stalk and root boring noctuid cater- pillars, Hydraecia immanis Gueneée (hop vine borer) (Fig. 1) and H. micacea (Esper) (potato stem borer), are being monitored by entomologists in several re- gions of the USA, especially Illinois, lowa, Minnesota, New York, and Wisconsin, because of recent prob- lems associated with these species in field and sweet corn (Zea mays L.). (Hydroecia has been used by many North American authors, but Nye [1975] pointed out that it is an unjustifiable emendation of Hydraecia.) In the corn growing areas of these states one or both species have caused rather extensive, although loca- lized, feeding damage. H. immanis is native to North America, and the moth occurs from “Quebec to Virginia, west to the west coast” (Forbes 1954). Its caterpillar has been reported from corn before, but its greatest previously associated economic damage has been with hop (Hu- mulus lupulus L.) (Hawley 1918). Two other recorded hosts are Silphium sp. (Compositae) and Lupinus mi- crocarpus Sims (L eguminosae) (Tietz 1972). Reared adults of Hydraecia immanis from Cicero, Illinois, are in the collection of the Illinois Natural History Sur- vey, with host-plant labels corroborating Tietz’s pub- lished record of Silphium, but I do not know of any sources that authenticate the association with Lupinus microcarpus, a western plant species that occurs on Vancouver Island and coastal Puget Sound, extends southward to Baja California, and also is found in Chile (Hitchcock et al. 1961). Hydraecia micacea is a polyphagous Palaearctic species that apparently was introduced to the New World in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick around the turn of the century (Gibson 1909). Gibson (1909) recorded the localities of the first corn associations for the larva of H. micacea in North America as Mahone, Nova Scotia, 1906, and Tramore, Ontario, 1907. The distribution of H. micacea in the USA until recently was confined to the extreme northeastern states, per- haps due in part to the barrier afforded by the Hud- son and St. Lawrence river valleys, the Great Lakes, and the several mountain ranges in that area. But Muka (1976 and personal communication) reported infestations of H. micaceain field corn in 1975 in New York (St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton, and Essex counties). He and Professor John G. Franclemont (personal communication) subsequently have seen H. micacea On corn in several other New York counties Tees is published by authority of the State of Illinois and is a contribution from the Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification of the Llinois Natural History Survey. Dr. George L. Godfrey is an Associate Taxonomist at the Survey Cover Illustration.—Larva of Hydraecia immanis and damaged cornfield in Clayton County, lowa (Photographs by Jerry DeWi- Extension Coordinator, Integrated Pest Management, Iowa State University, George L. Godfrey (Monroe, Orleans, Niagara, Jefferson, Lewis, Oneida, Herkimer, Wayne, Cayuga, and Oswego) and H. im- manis in Onondaga County. Farther west, larvae of Hydraecia have been seen in field corn during June in increasing numbers since 1976 in a region that centers on northern Illinois, southwestern Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, and northeastern Iowa (Fig. 2). The area of most severe infestation to date has been in Fillmore County, Minnesota, necessitating the replanting of 2,000 acres of corn in 1979 (S. F. Tutt personal communication). There is some confusion regarding the identity of Hydraecia found in field corn in the Midwest as a result of tentative determinations ap- plied to larvae collected in the field. The most widely circulated name has been H. micacea (Fig. 3), but adults reared from larvae collected in Illinois during 1978 were identified by me and later confirmed by) Franclemont as H. immanis (Fig. 4). A reared adult from Fillmore County, Minnesota, in 1979 proved to be H. immanis also. The ultimate larval instar of each species has been described several times. Bethune (1873) gave the) earliest account of the larva of H. immanis although at. the time he acknowledged not knowing its identity.’ The first published association between the larva and) moth of H. immanis is Comstock’s (1883). Some of the: earliest larval descriptions of H. micacea by North American entomologists, in addition to Gibson's) (1909), are Brittain’s (1915 and 1918). Presently, no; taxonomic literature exists that can be reliably used to} identify and separate the mature larvae of H. immanis and H. micacea. Hence, the following comparative, larval descriptions and illustrations are provided to promote positive determinations. Other species of North American Hydraecia (dependent in degree on. the generic definition of this taxon) may feed on corn,, but H. immanis and H. micacea are the only ones’ positiv ely associated to date. I believe that the follow-y ing information will aid in monitoring distributional changes and in the development of pest management| Fig. 1.—Dorsal view of mature larva of Hydraecia immani (about 2.0X life size). Ames, Iowa). Pea os fa ae Bp a eae a Eales | iL Bs oN sue SOT Ree TE NS y sanaze seakeaingea Br AE sree ONG ia So % aasir Seen canes cateasee f . ae a > on Bees eous uS & o vi os iS ¥ ‘ aK ae rae SOS Fig. 2.—Distributional records of Hydraecia immanis larvae in Ilinois and neighboring states. programs for H. immanis and H. micacea. The mor- phological terminology and abbreviations used in this paper have been used previously (Godfrey 1972). DESCRIPTIONS Hydraecia immanis Guenée General. Head smooth, width 3.00-3.58 mm. Body uniformly cylindrical, length 29-35 mm; ap- _ Fig. 3 and 4.—Adults (males) of Hydraecia. 3, H. micacea; 4, H. immanis (0.92% life size). pears smooth, but numerous, minute granules visible at 100X, especially along anterior edge of cervical shield. All setae simple, body setae arising from con- spicuous pinacula. Prolegs present on Ab3-6 and 10: subequally developed. Crochets uniordinal and in mesoseries. Head. Postgenal sutures parallel to each other; length of epicranial suture 1.56 times distance from apex of frons to Fa’s (Fig. 9); distance FI-F1, 0.50- 0.72 mm; AFa cephalad and AF2 caudad of frons apex; Al—3 form obtuse angle at A2; distances P1—P] and P2—P2 subequally spaced; P1’s distinctly closer to epicranial suture than to L; L cephalad of juncture of adfrontal ecdysial lines; margin of antennal socket convexly produced; distance Ocl—Oc?2, 0.10-0.14 mm; Oc2—Oc3, 0.06-0.08 mm; Oc3—Oc4, 0.05-0.07 mm. Mouthparts. Mediobasal area of oral surface of labrum has scattered, thin, short spines. Hypo- pharyngeal complex (Fig. 10): spinneret elongate, tubular, narrowing distad, with acute apex greatly surpassing tip of Lp2; length about 2.9 times that of Lpsl. Length of Lps1, 2.1 times that of stipular seta, 13.0 times that of Lp1l, 6.0 times that of Lps2, 4.3 times that of Lp2. Distal region without spines except for very short, fine ones laterad; proximomedial re- gion lacks spines; proximolateral region bears nu- merous thin spines that become stouter and longer proximad. Mandible (Fig. 11): two outer setae pres- ent, closely spaced; inner tooth absent; inner ridges reduced, terminating before cutting edge; first outer tooth reduced, triangular, inconspicuous; outer teeth 2-5 triangular; sixth outer tooth reduced, rounded. Thorax. Segment Tl: SDI and SD2 setal inser- tions contiguous with or slightly separated from lat- eral edge of cervical shield (Fig. 5 and 14); interspace D1-D1 about 0.68 times the distance XD1—XD1; D2- SD2 about 2.3 times the distance SD2—XD2; seta SD1 minute, inconspicuous; L2 insertion minute, seta ab- sent; spiracle broadly elliptical, length about 2.0 times width, major axis passing caudad of SD and SV setal insertions. Segments T2 and T3 (Fig. 14): distance D1-D2 about 0.8 times distance D2-SD2; SD1 hair- like; coxal bases distinctly separated. Tarsal setae 1-3 slightly thickened, 4 merely setose; base of tarsal claw reduced, weakly convex. Abdomen. Segment Abl has 2 SV setae. Seg- ments Ab2-6 have 3 SV setae each, 1 each on Ab7 and Ab8. Chaetotaxy of Ab6, Ab7 as in Fig. 15. Segment Ab9: SD1 semihairlike, much thinner and shorter than D1] and D2. Segment Ab10: posterior margin of anal shield entire; anal shield convex with but slight transverse depression before posterior margin; subanal setae unmodified, subequal to lateral setae of anal proleg. Coloration (Fig. 1). Head orange to reddish brown (head of earlier instars may be yellow), essen- tially immaculate, some specimens show very faint reticulation; clypeus ranges from solid orange to dark brown; ocelli and ocellar area dark brown to black; mandibles reddish brown to black. Body ground color sordid white, underlaid by transverse, violet bands on segments T2 through Ab8; bands inter- rupted by thin, white continuous middorsal and sub- dorsal lines (Fig. 6) (violet bands fade before prepu- pal stage); conspicuous dark brown to black pinacula present dorsally, subdorsally and laterally; setae white; spiracles brown with black peritremes; cervical shield (Fig. 5) glossy, pale brownish orange, with distinct black anterolateral margin; anal shield dark brown to black; cervical and anal shields interrupted by thin, whitish middorsal line. Material examined. ILLINOIS: De Kalb, 23 June 1965, corn, H. B. Petty, 1 larva; Boone County, 10 June 1976, Zea mays L., C. Bremer, 2 larvae; Carroll County, 14 June 1978, Zea mays L., 4 larvae; Boone County, June 1978, Zea mays L., C. Bremer, | larva; Stephenson County, June 1979, corn, 6 larvae. IOWA: Clayton County, 12 June 1978, corn, | larva; Winneshiek County, 15 June 1979, corn, 2 larvae. MINNESOTA: Houston County, 22 June 1976, P. Sreenivasam, 7 larvae; Fillmore County, 22 June 1979, corn, J. Lofgren, 11 larvae; Fillmore County, June 1979, corn, S. F. Tutt, 8 larvae. NEW YORK: Onondaga County, Pompey, 7 July 1978, corn, A. A. Muka/M. E. Philipps, 3 larvae. WISCONSIN: Racine, 24 June 1926, International Harvester Company, 1 larva; northern Iowa County, 26 June 1979, corn, P. Pellitteri, 2 larvae; Richland County, near Excelsior (Dobbs’ Farm), 19 June 1979, field corn, J. M. Scriber, (12 larvae), 25 June 1979 (31 larvae), 3 July 1979 (24 larvae). Hydraecia micacea (Esper) General. Head smooth, width 2.75-3.16 mm. Body uniformly cylindrical, length 25-31 mm; ap- pears smooth, but numerous, minute granules visible at 100X, most distinctive along anterior edge of cer- vical shield. All setae simple, body setae arising from conspicuous pinacula. Prolegs present on Ab3-6, 10; subequally developed. Crochets uniordinal and in mesoseries. Head. Postgenal sutures parallel to each other; length of epicranial suture 1.51 times distance from apex of frons to Fa’s (Fig. 12); distance F1-F1, 0.44— 0.52 mm; AFa cephalad and AF2 caudad of apex of frons; Al—3 form obtuse angle at A2; distances PI—P1 and P2-P2 subequally spaced; P1’s about 0.33 times closer to epicranial suture than to L; L cephalad of juncture of adfrontal ecdysial lines; margin of anten- nal socket distinctly flanged outward; distance Ocl— Oc2, 0.08-0.10 mm; Oc2-—Oc3, 0.05-0.08 mm; Oc3= Oc4, 0.04—0.06 mm. Mouthparts. Mediobasal area of oral surface of labrum has thin, short spines. Hypopharyngeal com- plex (Fig. 13): spinneret elongate, tubular, bluntly tipped, with apex distinctly surpassing tip of Lp2; length about 2.3 times greater than length of Lpsl. Length of Lpsl, 1.7 times that of stipular seta, 6.7 times those of Lp] and Lps2, 5.0 times that of Lp2. Distal region bare except for few, scattered, short, stout spines located laterad; proximomedial region lacks spines; proximolateral region bears short, stout spines, length increasing proximad. Mandible (Fig. 11): two outer setae present, closely spaced; inner ridges reduced, terminating before cutting edge; first outer tooth reduced, rounded. Thorax. Segment T1: SD1 and SD2 setal inser- tions very narrowly separated from edge of cervical shield (Fig. 7 and 16); interspace DI-D1 about 0.66 times the distance XDI-XD1; D2-SD2 about 1.9 times the distance SD2—XD2; seta SD1 minute, in conspicuous; L2 insertion minute, seta absent; spira- cle narrowly elliptical, sides of peritreme nearly par- allel to each other, spiracle length about 2.4 time width, major axis of spiracle caudad of SD and S setal insertions. Segments T2 and T3 (Fig. 16): dis tance D1-D2 about 0.8 times distance D2-SD2; SDI hairlike; coxal bases distinctly separated. Tarsal seta ‘VIII “FY *R pue / ‘stuDUU “FY “GQ puR SIUSUUBAS NeLOYIOAd UO Spjarys [PIIAAII JO SMILA [PSAOG—'g—G “Sly 8 9 ¢ Sulpurq asiaasuesy Jo soousiayiIp Summoys ‘aeaary JO (Mor WOO) sJusuIBsas [RUTLIOpGe ply) pur (Mo1 dor) 6 1-3 slightly thickened, 4 merely setose; tarsal claw thinner and shorter than D1] and D2. Segment Ab10: base reduced, weakly convex. posterior margin of anal shield entire, dorsal surface Abdomen. Segment Abl has 2 SV setae. Seg- of anal shield evenly convex except for pinacula; ments Ab2-6 have 3 SV setae each, | each on Ab7 — subanal setae unmodified, subequal to lateral setae of and Ab8. Dorsal and lateral chaetotaxy of Ab6, Ab7 anal proleg. as in Fig. 17. Segment Ab9: SDI semihairlike, much Coloration (in part, translated from Beck 1960). FO a onal AA “Ail wh AN cau ANE La \ sy 10 Ta AY, nA Wr 1 B Fig. 9-11.—Mature Hydraecia immanis larva. 9, frontal view of head c: apsule; 10, left lateral view of hypoph aryngeal complex; 11, oral surface of left mandible. Fig. 12 and 13.—Mature H. micacea larva. 12, frontal view of head capsule; 13, left lateral view of hy popharyngeal - complex. Scale lines equal 0.5 mm. ao ee 14 T1 T2 16 ul —— T2 15 abe Fig. 14 and 15.—Mature Hydraecia immanis larva. 14, prothoracic (11) and mesothoracic (T2) segments (dorsolateral aspects); 15, sixth Ab6) and seventh (Ab7) abdominal segments (dorsolateral aspects). Fig. 16 and 17—Mature larva of H. micacea. 16, prothoracic and nesothoracic segments; 17, sixth and seventh abdominal segments. Scale lines equal 0.5 mm. dead reddish brown, ocellar area shghtly darker; mandibles dark brown to black. Body ground color vhitish gray tinged with red, continuous transverse ands (Fig. 8); pinacula conspicuous, dark brown to ack; cervical shield (Fig. 7) glossy, pale yellowish rown, with wide, dark brown anterior border, thin brownish lateral and posterior borders, thin whitish middorsal line. Anal shield varies from yellow to dark brown. Material examined. NEW YORK: Monroe County, Hamlin, 8 June 1978, corn, A. A. Muka/M. E. Phillips, 4 larvae; Lewis County, near Constableville, 6 June 1979, corn, J. G. Franclemont, 9 larvae. NEWFOUNDLAND: Lamaline, September 1976, boring in potato stem, 2 larvae. QUEBEC: Drummondville, 21 June 1978, boring in iris stem, 1 larva. DISCUSSION The ultimate instar larvae of Hydraecia immanis and H. micacea can most accurately be distinguished from each other by collectively examining the spin- neret, hypopharynx, color pattern of the cervical shield, shape of the prothoracic spiracle, and dorsal transverse banding on the abdominal segments. The spinneret of H. immanis is acutely pointed and the hypopharyngeal spines are very fine and numerous (Fig. 10). In contrast, H. micacea is Charac- terized by having a bluntly tipped spinneret and stout spines on the hypopharynx that are less numerous (Fig. 13). The characteristics of the spinneret and hypopharynx remain unchanged in preserved speci- mens and can be seen easily with a dissecting micro- scope at 50-100X magnification after the removal or abduction of either mandible. Using these charac- teristics is disadvantageous if field-collected larvae must be kept alive. The cervical shield of H. immanis has a dark anterior border that is wider laterally than medially (Fig. 5). This border on H. micacea (Fig. 7) is also dark but is nearly of equal width across the cervical shield and thinly extends around the lateral and posterior edges. The maculation of the cervical shields is useful for identifying living or freshly preserved larvae, but the thin, dark lateral and posterior borders on H. micacea can be difficult to see on old, poorly preserved specimens. The prothoracic spiracle of H. immanis tends to be broadly elliptical (Fig. 14), while that of H. micacea is narrowly elliptical (Fig. 16). These differences can be used cautiously to diagnose either the living or pre- served larvae of the two species but should not be used solely. The transverse banding on the abdominal seg- ments, as detailed in the above descriptions, is species specific and easily interpretable in living specimens at the onset of the ultimate larval instar. However, the diffuse, continuous transverse bands on H. micacea and the bands of H. immanis, which are interrupted by the middorsal and subdorsal lines, may be lost entirely shortly prior to the prepupal stage. It is the implied constancy of the interspecific differences of the transverse banding that presents difficulty in Crumb’s (1956) identification key. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by funds from US EPA Grant R805429 (University of Mis- souri), subcontracted to the Illinois Agricultural Ex- periment Station. I thank Dr. John G. Franclemont (Cornell University) for his numerous contributions to this work, including invaluable information, dis- cussions, resolution of identifications, and the dona- US ISSN 0073-490X tion of study material. Additional loans of specimens were arranged by Ms. Suzanne Allyson (Canadian National Collection) and Dr. Philip J. Clausen (Uni- versity of Minnesota). I appreciate the provision of field collections and unpublished information by Drs. Jerry R. DeWitt (Iowa State University), Donald E. Kuhlman (University of Illinois), Arthur A. Muka (Cornell University), J. Mark Scriber (University of Wisconsin), and John L. Wedberg (University of Wisconsin) and Messrs. Rick Foster (Iowa State Uni- versity), John A. Lofgren (University of Minnesota), Phillip Pellitterri (University of Wisconsin), and Sam- uel F. Tutt (Balaton, Minnesota). Drs. DeWitt, Fran- clemont, Kuhlman, Muka, Scriber, and Wedberg and Mr. Lofgren also reviewed the manuscript. I am grateful to Mr. John P. Sherrod for his continuous- tone drawings of the cervical shields and abdominal segments. Messrs. Lloyd LeMere and Les Woodrum, Illinois Natural History Survey Illustrator and Pho- tographer, respectively, provided technical advice and assistance with the other illustrations. Mrs. Ber-_ nice Sweeney graciously typed the drafts of this © paper, which was edited for publication by Robert M. — Zewadski, Technical Editor of the Survey. LITERATURE CITED Beck, H. 1960. Die Larvalsystematik der Eulen (Noctuidae). Ab- handlungen zur Larvalsystematik der Insekten. No. 4. Aka- demie-Verlag, Berlin. 406 p. Beruune, C. J. S. 1873. Insects affecting the hop. Pages 27-34 in Report of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 1872. — ‘Toronto. Brirrain, W. H. 1915. Hydroecia micacea as a garden pest. Nova | Scotia Entomological Society Proceedings 1: 96-97. . 1918. Notes on two unusual garden pests in Nova Scotia. | Pages 94-99 in Forty-eighth Annual Report of the Entomolo- | gical Society of Ontario, 1917. Toronto. . Comstock, J. H. 1883. The hop-vine borer, or hop grub. Ameri- — can Agriculturist 42: 275. Crump, S. E. 1956. The larvae of the Phalaenidae. U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1135. 356 p. { Forses, W. T. M. 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighbor- / ing states. Noctuidae. Part 3. Cornell University Agricultural » Experiment Station Memoir 329. 433 p. | Gipson, A. 1909. Hydroecia micacea, Esp. in Canada. Pages 49-51 Thirty-ninth Annual Report of the Entomological Society of © Ontario, 1908. Toronto. | Goprrey, G. L. 1972. A review and reclassification of larvae of the ~ subfamily Hadeninae (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) of America: north of Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical | Bulletin 1450. 265 p. Haw ey, I. M. 1918. Insects injurious to the hop in New York with: special reference to the hop grub and the hop redbug. Cornell, University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 15:14I- 224. Hitcucock, C. L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownsey, and J. W. THOMP- son. 1961. Vascular plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part oH Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 614 p. ' Muka, A. A. 1976. A new corn pest is south of the border. Hoard’s ° Dairyman 121:688. ; Nye, I. W. B. 1975. The generic names of moths of the world. Vol. 1. Noctuoidea (part): Noctuidae, Agaristidae, and Nolidae. British Museum (Natural History), London. 568 p. ! Tietz, H. M. 1972. An index to the described life histories, early stages and hosts of the macrolepidoptera of the continental} United States and Canada. Part 1. Allyn Museum of co logy, Sarasota, Florida. 536 p. (22800—2M—2-81) 7 5 i] ‘ \ Pes . ‘hate b ‘ 4 i : fol pn Hifiean Wabié ba Ff ign , “ce gee lias ’ ty a anger? Wau vi ' ear srt, ae ey rs ura aT ‘Whee. wd Poh Lie i ee é F Nis) ew eg vedua at} pd Men, OS bbs P's Fee” la Wa RLY ple % RE a: | rds eer we * Dy bart eke nS AS ar oA} Lm § oe ‘ er ae . } s ‘ i %; dee ae ha, wees Ob an rr: "oY Cea iy) « Ce ee wot: joshua reg Ai