Field Guide Descriptions: Not in either field guide (Covell, 1984, describes tremula but does not illustrate it) | Online Resources: MPG, BugGuide, iNaturalist, Google, BAMONA, GBIF, BOLD | Technical Description, Adults: Stead and Troubridge (2015) | Technical Description, Immature Stages: Wagner et al. (2011 -- the description given for tremula is based at least partly on specimens that actually represent rhonda) | |
Adult Markings: The species is best recognized by its large size and lack of distinct patterning. It comes in a variety of color forms, reddish and gray being the most common. The cross lines are visible but the patterning around the orbicular and reniform spots is very weak. The spot in the reniform is usually visible, however, and contrastingly dark. Sexes are similar. |
Adult Structural Features: Both male and female genitalia are distinct but distinguishing them from C. tremula is difficult. However, they are readily discernable from the other two species of this genus found in our area, Note the outer half of the valva looks as though a bite has been removed and along the costal side is a serrated ridge. In the female the ductus bursae is sclerotized but more heavily anteriorly and with an unsclerotized band in the middle. |
Structural photos |
 Male reproductive structures |
 Aedeagus |
 Abdominal pelt |
 Female reproductive structures |
|
Adult ID Requirements: Identifiable from good quality photos of unworn specimens. |
Immatures and Development: Undescribed but probably much of the description given by Wagner et al. (2011) actually applies to rhonda. Larvae are pinkish or brownish with a broad, pale spiracular stripe. The larvae of sericea are similar and Wagner et al. recommend that larvae be reared to maturity in order to identify them. |
Larvae ID Requirements: Identifiable only through rearing to adulthood. |