Moths of North Carolina
Scientific Name:
Common Name:
Family (Alpha):
« »
View PDFHeliozelidae Members:
Antispila Members:
7 NC Records

Antispila isabella Clemens, 1860 - No Common Name


Antispila isabella
view caption
Antispila isabella
view caption
Antispila isabella
view caption
Antispila isabella
view caption
Taxonomy
Family: HeliozelidaeP3 Number: 21a0079 MONA Number: 236.00
Species Status: Antispila isabella was described by Clemens (1860) and is now thought to be a cryptic species complex involving two or more grape-feeding species. Nieukerken et al. (2012) recognized two barcode clusters as "A. cf isabella" and "A. vitis2" which may prove to be distinct species. Here, we designate all of the genetic groups within this complex as A. isabella, with the understanding that future research may reveal two or more closely related forms.
Identification
Field Guide Descriptions: Online Resources: MPG, BugGuide, iNaturalist, Google, BAMONA, GBIF, BOLDTechnical Description, Adults: Clemens (1860)Technical Description, Immature Stages: Nieukerken et al. (2012)                                                                                 
Adult Markings: In this species, the head is golden and the antenna purplish brown. The forewing varies from brownish-black to purplish-black and has a complete silvery white to light golden fascia at about one-fourth the wing length. The only other marks are a matched pair of triangular-shaped, costal and dorsal spots of similar color at about three-fifths. Males in most populations have conspicuous yellow or brown androconial scales on the underside of the forewing (Nieukerken et al., 2012). Antispila isabella (sensu lato and including A. cf isabella and A. vitis2) is a relatively large species that does not have an apical spot as seen is many related species.
Wingspan: 5.5 mm (estimate from a specimen in Nieukerken et al., 2012).
Immatures and Development: The larvae mine the leaves of grapes and the mines are much larger, and also have much larger cut-outs, than other grape miners. The mines of the two genetic groups that were distinguished by Nieukerken et al. (2012) have different characteristics. The eggs of both types are typically deposited singly near a vein and lack a linear portion. The larva of the first type produces a large blotch mine, with a roundish patch of reddish frass near the beginning. The mine often has dispersed black frass throughout, and the cut-out is large (5.0 mm long). The mines of the second type (A. vitis2) are relatively compact blotches, with the frass concentrated in a mushroom shape or a reversed triangular shape near the beginning of the mine. The cut-out is also large (4.8 mm). The last instars cut out an oval hole and construct a pupal case. The larvae in most local populations appear to be either univoltine or bivoltine. Larvae that feed in late summer typically overwintering in pupal cases on the ground and the adults emerging the following spring or early summer. One larva that Tracy Feldman collected in North Carolina in late July emerged as an adult about a month later, which suggests that populations in the Coastal Plain and eastern Piedmont may be bivoltine. It is uncertain if mountain populations produce a second brood.
Larvae ID Requirements: Identifiable from good quality photos, especially where associated with known host plants.
Distribution in North Carolina
Distribution: Nieukerken et al. (2012) and Eiseman (2022) have documented populations in Ontario, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, North Carolina and Georgia. As of 2024, we have limited records from four counties, including two in the eastern Piedmont and two in the Blue Ridge.
County Map: Clicking on a county returns the records for the species in that county.
Flight Dates:
 High Mountains (HM) ≥ 4,000 ft.
 Low Mountains (LM) < 4,000 ft.
 Piedmont (Pd)
 Coastal Plain (CP)

Click on graph to enlarge
Immature Dates:
 High Mountains (HM) ≥ 4,000 ft.
 Low Mountains (LM) < 4,000 ft.
 Piedmont (Pd)
 Coastal Plain (CP)

Click on graph to enlarge
Flight Comments: Rearing records suggest that the adults fly mostly in the late spring and the summer months. As of 2024, our larval records are from late-July through mid-September.
Habitats and Life History
Habitats: Local populations are found in habitats with native grapes, including forests, forest edge habitat, stream banks, early successional habitats and other disturbed sites.
Larval Host Plants: The larvae are specialists on grapes. Nieukerken et al. (2012) reported that the known hosts are Summer Grape (Vitis aestivalis), Fox Grape (V. labrusca) and Riverbank Grape (V. riparia). As of 2024, we have rearing records from Fox Grape and Frost Grape (V. vulpina). - View
Observation Methods: The adults occasionally visit lights, but are most easily obtained by rearing adults from grape leaves.
Wikipedia
See also Habitat Account for General Vitaceous Tangles
Status in North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program Status:
Natural Heritage Program Ranks: GNR S1S3
State Protection:
Comments: We currently do not have sufficient information on the distribution and abundance of this species within the state to assess its conservation status.

 Photo Gallery for Antispila isabella - No common name

Photos: 19

Recorded by: Ken Kneidel on 2024-06-02
Mecklenburg Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Ken Kneidel on 2024-06-02
Mecklenburg Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Ken Kneidel on 2024-06-02
Mecklenburg Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Jeff Niznik on 2023-08-31
Orange Co.
Comment: Larva was found Aug 31 on Vitis labrusca; pupated Sept 8th. ID of A. isabella based on large (just over 5 mm) round pupal chamber with ridge as seen here, and lack of a linear portion to the mine. Adult emerged early April, but I missed it so no exact date.
Recorded by: Jeff Niznik on 2023-08-31
Orange Co.
Comment: Larva was found Aug 31 on Vitis labrusca; pupated Sept 8th. ID of A. isabella based on large (just over 5 mm) round pupal chamber with ridge as seen here, and lack of a linear portion to the mine. Adult emerged early April, but I missed it so no exact date.
Recorded by: Jeff Niznik on 2023-08-31
Orange Co.
Comment: A reared adult from a larva that was found on 2023-08-31 (see companion photos).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2023-04-26
Rutherford Co.
Comment: Leaf mines were in a Vitis sp.; pupal case was ca. 5.0 mm and had a conspicuous ridge; adult emerged ca. 2 months after being removed from refrigerator; antennae solid black (no white tip).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2023-04-26
Rutherford Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2023-04-14
Buncombe Co.
Comment: Adult was reared from a Vitis mine; emerged on April 14, 2023 after overwintering in refrigerator (see companion photo of the mine from 2022-09-08).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-13
Rutherford Co.
Comment: Leaf mines were in a Vitis sp.; pupal case was ca. 5.0 mm and had a conspicuous ridge; adult emerged ca. 2 months after being removed from refrigerator; antennae solid black (no white tip).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-13
Rutherford Co.
Comment: Leaf mines were in a Vitis sp.; pupal case was ca. 5.0 mm and had a conspicuous ridge; adult emerged ca. 2 months after being removed from refrigerator; antennae solid black (no white tip).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-13
Rutherford Co.
Comment: Leaf mines were in a Vitis sp.; pupal case was ca. 5.0 mm and had a conspicuous ridge; adult emerged ca. 2 months after being removed from refrigerator; antennae solid black (no white tip).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-13
Rutherford Co.
Comment: Occupied leaf mines were in a Vitis sp.; pupal case was ca. 5.0 mm and had a conspicuous ridge; adult emerged ca. 2 months after being removed from refrigerator; antennae solid black (no white tip).
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-08
Buncombe Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-08
Buncombe Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Jim Petranka on 2022-09-08
Buncombe Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Tracy S Feldman on 2020-07-24
Durham Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Tracy S Feldman on 2020-07-24
Durham Co.
Comment:
Recorded by: Tracy S Feldman on 2020-07-24
Durham Co.
Comment: