In what way would hearing not sensitive to frequencies that appear in the environment be adaptive? The existence of hearing adapted to ultrasonics implies the existence of something to produce ultrasonics. It doesn't tell you what those producers were, just that detecting them was important to successful moth reproduction.
One possibility would be the moths themselves making sounds. But why would they lose such a capacity?
It is possible they had to evolve to stop making the sounds to avoid attracting the interest of bats, but thousands of species all dropping it, even in places where there are no bats, is not plausible.
The best alternative consistent with what we know is that the original insectivorous producers of ultrasonic noise are now extinct, and that bats later evolved into a similar niche.
There are other possibilities that must be eliminated, through careful research, before we can be confident of late-Cretaceous echolocating insectivores.
One might have expected one of "the greatest writers on nature" not to have so confused his ardent fan.
[EDIT:] Actually I don't recommend it to you either. Just above this thread you're on about being "able to deduce the former existence of creatures that left no physical trace." Seriously? Hearing implies echolocation by predators? I can hear; so can many other animals. Is echolocation really that common? How would echolocation itself evolve in the absence of hearing?