Lacinipolia sareta (Smith, 1906)

Schmidt, B. Christian, 2015, Revision of the Lacinipoliavicina (Grote) complex (Noctuidae, Noctuinae, Eriopygini), ZooKeys 527, pp. 103-126 : 111-112

Taxon classification Animalia Lepidoptera Noctuidae

Lacinipolia sareta (Smith, 1906) Figs 7-15, 59, 67, 73

Mamestra sareta Smith, 1906: 229.

Type material.

lectotype male (AMNH, examined), designated by Todd (1982); type locality: Minnehaha, Yavapai Co., Arizona.

Diagnosis.

Lacinipolia sareta is the most common and widespread species in the Lacinipolia pensilis group, and most of the identification difficulties are in separating it from Lacinipolia pensilis and Lacinipolia acutipennis in the West. This is most reliably done based on genitalia, where males lack the ventrally projecting, paired spinose crests above the juxta that are found in Lacinipolia acutipennis and Lacinipolia pensilis ; females of Lacinipolia sareta have a simple ostium with a strongly convex prevaginal margin, compared to those of Lacinipolia pensilis and Lacinipolia acutipennis which have an asymmetrical, conch-shaped ostium with a straight prevaginal margin. Lacinipolia sareta flies earlier in the year (mostly June–July) than Lacinipolia pensilis and Lacinipolia acutipennis ( August–September), although the southernmost Lacinipolia sareta populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas fly again in late September–October after an initial May flight.

The remaining species ( Lacinipolia vicina , Lacinipolia teligera , and Lacinipolia dimocki ) can, for the most part, be distinguished from Lacinipolia sareta by geographic distribution; in Washington, Oregon and California, where the range of Lacinipolia sareta overlaps that of Lacinipolia dimocki , Lacinipolia sareta is smaller and has a duller white hindwing, in addition to the genitalic characters given under dimocki . From eastern Colorado and New Mexico through western Oklahoma and northern Texas Lacinipolia sareta overlaps with Lacinipolia teligera ; characters given in the keys and the Lacinipolia teligera diagnosis will separate the two. The range of Lacinipolia sareta might overlap with that of Lacinipolia vicina in the East (from the Great Lakes region eastward through New York and New England), where the smaller size, different flight period and genitalic differences given under Lacinipolia vicina will reliably separate the two.

Distribution and biology.

Lacinipolia sareta occurs throughout western North America from the southern Yukon and Northwest Territories to Texas, Arizona and California; it undoubtedly also occurs in northern Mexico. It ranges eastward across the southern boreal region to at least Quebec, with an unverified record from Maine ( Forbes 1954). Most or all records of Lacinipolia vicina for Michigan ( Moore 1955) probably apply to this species, but Lacinipolia sareta is not known from Ohio ( Rings et al. 1992) where it would be expected in sandy habitats along Lake Erie. Although found in a huge variety of woodland, steppe and prairie habitats, Lacinipolia sareta particularly favours sandy soils and can be abundant in dune and beach habitats. Crumb (1956) describes the ground-dwelling, polyphagous larva (as Lacinipolia vicina ). Godfrey (1972) illustrates the larva, and states that Arizona and Montana larvae are identical.

Remarks.

The vast geographic range and considerable DNA barcode variation suggest that Lacinipolia sareta could be a cryptic species complex. Alternatively, DNA barcode variation simply may not be fully congruent with species limits in the group, a phenomenon that occurs in about 10% of Noctuoidea ( Zahiri et al. 2014). In contrast to the mtDNA variation, genitalic structure and wing pattern is highly conserved, and I could find no way to segregate specimens with divergent barcodes or those from different ecoregions. The shape of the digitus varies somewhat, with nominate Lacinipolia sareta from the southwestern United States with a slightly longer, narrower tine-like digitus, compared to most (but not all) northern specimens, which have a shorter more triangular digitus, but the differences are inconsistent and again do not correlate with geographic or molecular differences. This is surprising given that molecular divergence among Lacinipolia sareta haplogroups was greater than the minimum divergence between Lacinipolia sareta and Lacinipolia dimocki (Fig. 75), despite the considerable morphological differences between the two species. Studies of pheromone variation, nuclear DNA sequence data, and immature stages would provide more insight into this difficult group.