Prorocopis group (genus)

Pronounced vertical lines, sort of like Pheraspis mesotypa

Pheraspis mesotypa is a north Queensland species. Unlikely to have strayed this far south.

I think it's in tribe Nacophorini of the Geos.

Looking again at the palpi, I think it's more likely to be in the Noctuidae/Erebidae. I didn't find it around Prorocopis or Crioa.

The closest match I found was perhaps Calathusa sp. genus, but none of the examples at the species level online (ALA) seemed to match.

I checked Calathusa too, couldn't find any longitudinal dark line.

What about https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/524800-Calathusa-eremna and the longitudinal lines are crease shadows?

How about https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/355228-Calathusa-basicunea/browse_photos . ?

I like C. basicunea, particulary Ken Harris' photo at
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/25553123

Yes I noticed that one, there are a few the same or others like it on the ALA, but there is still no dark longitudinal lines as our specimen has.

Looking again after lightening the image, I think the longitudinal lines are a combination of the antennae and their shadows, and I also think the subtly intricate pattern of Prorocopis euxantha is showing.

I too lightened the image in Photoshop and magnified it to look for the Prorocopis-like patterning but did not find the intricate detail I was expecting . To my eye the antenna are hidden below the forewing. This general fine patterning scheme is shared to a greater or lesser degree in most the genera which I note Moths of Victoria (Part 8 supporting disc) describe as the 'Prorocopis Group' (including the genera: Crioa , Crypsiprora , Prorocopis , 'NoAvailablegenus, plus several others) which they describe as a notoriously difficult group to identify for which further work is needed to describe and separate species. For example, I could not be sure whether this specimen is P. euxantha or the very similar looking P. transversilinea. While this discussion has earlier ruled out Crioa hades , I note this specimen shares two prominent features with that species: the strong, dark longitudinal lines and the dark parallel tick marks near the tornus on the forewing. Therefore, after looking at this in more detail, I tend to favour C. hades as the ID , but would also support creation of a Prorocopis Group pigeonhole for those specimens (including this one) which I'm pretty sure we are going have difficulty with.

The forewing second line has a clear and characteristic shape, and none of the species yet mentioned have a second line that shape.
If you reorient the photo so that the hind margin is approximately horizontal, then crop to just fit the forewing, and scale that to 200x150 pixels, you can then easily compare the first and second lines with those of other common Catocalinae and Calpinae using the webpages
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/calp/calp-wings.html
and
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/calp/cato-wings.html
where you will see it matches none of the 277 species pictured there,
including neither Calathusa basicunea, Calathusa eremna, Crioa hades, nor Prorocopis euxantha.

Ian’s account of the antennae in the photo seems better than mine, so we definitely have to find a species that has a prominent longitudinal dark streak from the base of the forewing to meet with what Ian described as a dark tick towards the tornus. I can see the start of a fine black line from the base of the fw in one of MoV’s Crioa hades photos, as well as the dark tick near the tornus , and both are also visible in many set specimens that I’ve looked at. But it is a very fine line, and it cuts off distinctly at about 1/3 of the wing, never reaching anywhere near the dark tick. Further, Crioa hades is a brown moth, not a grey one as in this photo. And I haven’t found a short dark line diagonally back from the forewing apex in any Crioa hades specimen, as is evident in this photo (and in some Prorocopis). So I’m confident the photo isn’t Crioa hades. But I can’t see the longitudinal dark line in any specimen of the other “Prorocopis group” species, and there are many of them at ANIC. As MoV notes, they are dry country species, and I haven’t found a specimen from in or near the ACT except for Prorocopis euxantha. (Incidentally, the reason I suggested P. euxantha wasn’t that its wing pattern closely matched the photo, but I thought it matched Prorocopis in a general way and P. euxantha was the only likely ACT prospect.) I agree it would be sensible to park this report under Prorocopis group until we know more. At the same time, remember that no match has been found for the dark longitudinal lines and we could be right off course.

Don's comment came in while I was keying mine, and I didn't see before lodging mine

The Sighting No 3870243 which Don and I called Crioa hades apparently has longitidinal lines (although only opposite the thorax) and the 'tick marks 'I mentioned.

Agreeing with Ian: all 3 of the C. hades specimens at
http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/cato/hades.html,
have the dark line, although only extending about 1/3 from the base, rather than 3/4 like this sighting, but the dark line on the outer half of the forewing of sighting 3870243, which seems to be a distorted outline of Australia, is a good match to that in all 3 of the Coffs webpage specimens of C. hades, whereas for this sighting (4244060) it does not match it, and looks more like the outline of Borneo. Perhaps it is a blow-in.

Ian's and Don's last comments seem to confirm my attempt to say the dark line on Crioa hades is different to that in this photo. Park it as Prorocopis group?

Yes I. agree, lets park it there.

Thanks everyone for all your hard work on this one.

For another opinion see: https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/observations/64090541#activity_identification_db18402a-a523-4b15-b2d4-4d0869d55b39