Erebidae

Spilosoma latipennis Pink-legged Tiger

10 9 8 n=6 • • 7 High Mt. 6 N 5 u 4 3 • m 2 • b 1 • e 0 r 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 • 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 NC counties: 6 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec o 10 f 9 n=12 = Sighting or Collection 8 • 7 Low Mt. High counts of: in NC since 2001 F 6 l 5 2 - Macon - 2000-05-19 = Not seen since 2001 4 • i 3 1 - Ashe - 2000-06-01 g 2 Status Rank h 1 1 - Haywood - 2002-06-09 0 NC US NC Global t 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec a 10 10 9 9 t 8 n=1 8 n=0 e 7 Pd 7 CP s 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 15 5 25 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Three periods to each month: 1-10 / 11-20 / 21-31 FAMILY: SUBFAMILY: TRIBE: Arctiini TAXONOMIC_COMMENTS: One of eight species in this found in North America, four of which have been recorded in

FIELD GUIDE DESCRIPTIONS: Covell (1984); Beadle and Leckie (2012) ONLINE PHOTOS: MPG, Bugguide, BAMONA TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION, ADULTS: Forbes (1960) TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION, IMMATURE STAGES: Forbes (1960); Wagner (2005)

ID COMMENTS: A nearly pure white moth with distinctive pink markings on the coxae and femora of the front legs; other white tiger , including other species of , Estigmene, and Hyphantria, have yellow on their fore-legs instead of pink (at least in our area). Apart from the pink markings, however, latipennis is similar to several of those species. Where the top of the abdomen can be seen, it is pure white in latipennis but marked with yellow or orange and with black in S. virginica, S. dubia, and E. acrea. Both S. congrua and H. cunea, however, also have white abdomens, although they are often much more heavily spotted than in S. latipennis. Lightly marked individuals of those species may be difficult to distinguish from S. latipennis without a view of the fore-legs, although H. cunea is much smaller and S. congrua slightly smaller, which may be difficult to determine from a photograph alone.

DISTRIBUTION: Probably restricted to the Mountains; records from other regions of the state need to be verified

FLIGHT COMMENT: Appears to have a single, early summer flight

HABITAT: Records from the Mountains come from primarily from slopes and ridges, with only a few from riparian areas (e.g., New River State Park).

FOOD: Probably polyphagous, like other members of this genus, feeding on a wide range of herbaceous and woody plants (Forbes, 1960; Wagner, 2005).

OBSERVATION_METHODS: Appears to come somewhat poorly to blacklights, with only single specimens being collected in light traps. None have been recorded at bait.

NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM RANKS: G4 [SU]

STATE PROTECTION: Has no legal protection, although permits are required to collect it on state parks and other public lands

COMMENTS: This species is far less frequently observed than Spilosoma congrua or virginica, even in the Mountains, where the range of all three species overlap. Although there is no indication that latipennis is specialized in terms of its habitat, more needs to be learned about its distribution, abundance, and habitat preferences in North Carolina before its conservation status can be determined.

March 2021 The Moths of North Carolina - Early Draft 1