DOCSLIB.ORG

Lepidoptera of North America 6 Butterflies of Oregon Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lepidoptera of North America 6 Butterflies of Oregon Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology Lepidoptera of North America 6 Butterflies of Oregon Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology by Andrew D. Warren Department of Zoology Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331 [email protected] Research Associate: Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera” Departamento de Biología Evolutiva Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Apdo. Postal 70-399, México, D. F. 04510 México C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Section of Invertebrate Zoology Carnegie Museum of Natural History 4400 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 March 15, 2005 1 Front cover: Extremes in variation seen among females of the Eriogonum marifolium- feeding segregate of the Euphilotes battoides complex, ventral view. Specimens from Deschutes Co., vic. north base of Mt. Batchelor, ca. 6400’, 17 July 2002, 5 July 2003, Andrew D. Warren Back cover: Extremes in variation seen among females of Euphilotes glaucon (Mt. Hood segregate), ventral view. Specimens from Clackamas / Hood River Co., Mt. Hood, above Timberline Lodge, ca. 6000’, 20 July 2003, Andrew D. Warren ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 USA Copyright 2005© 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction…………………………………………………………………………7 Methods and Procedures……………………………………………………………8 Results………………………………………………………………………………10 Acknowledgments and Dedication………………………………………………… 16 List of Species………………………………………………………………………18 Epargyreus clarus (Cramer, 1775) ………………………………………………... 18 Thorybes pylades (Scudder, 1870) …………………………………………………20 Thorybes diversus Bell, 1927……………………………………………………….21 Thorybes mexicana (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) ……………………………………...22 Erynnis icelus (Scudder & Burgess, 1870) ………………………………………...23 Erynnis propertius (Scudder & Burgess, 1870) ……………………………………24 Erynnis pacuvius (Lintner, 1878) …………………………………………………. 25 Erynnis persius (Scudder, 1863) …………………………………………………...26 Pyrgus ruralis (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………………. 27 Pyrgus communis (Grote, 1872) …………………………………………………... 28 Heliopetes ericetorum (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………….30 Pholisora catullus (Fabricius, 1793) ……………………………………………….31 Hesperopsis libya (Scudder, 1878) ………………………………………………...32 Carterocephalus palaemon (Pallas, 1771) …………………………………………32 Oarisma garita (Reakirt, 1866) …………………………………………………… 34 Hesperia uncas W. H. Edwards, 1863……………………………………………...35 Hesperia juba (Scudder, 1874) …………………………………………………….36 Hesperia colorado (Scudder, 1874) ………………………………………………..38 Hesperia columbia (Scudder, 1872) ………………………………………………. 41 Hesperia lindseyi (Holland, 1930) …………………………………………………42 Hesperia nevada (Scudder, 1874) ………………………………………………….43 Atalopedes campestris (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………….45 Polites peckius (W. Kirby, 1837) …………………………………………………..46 Polites sabuleti (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………………47 Polites mardon (W. H. Edwards, 1881) ……………………………………………49 Polites themistocles (Latreille, [1824]) …………………………………………….50 Polites sonora (Scudder, 1872) …………………………………………………….51 Ochlodes sylvanoides (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………..53 Ochlodes agricola (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………...55 Ochlodes yuma (W. H. Edwards, 1873) …………………………………………... 55 Euphyes vestris (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………………57 Amblyscirtes vialis (W. H. Edwards, 1862) ………………………………………..58 Parnassius clodius Ménétriés, 1857……………………………………………….. 59 Parnassius smintheus Doubleday, [1847] ………………………………………….60 Battus philenor (Linnaeus, 1771) …………………………………………………. 61 Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758………………………………………………….. 62 Papilio zelicaon Lucas, 1852……………………………………………………….63 Papilio indra Reakirt, 1866………………………………………………………... 65 Papilio multicaudata W. F. Kirby, 1884…………………………………………... 65 Papilio rutulus Lucas, 1852………………………………………………………...66 3 Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852…………………………………………………… 67 Neophasia menapia (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1859) ……………………………….. 68 Pontia beckerii (W. H. Edwards, 1871) ……………………………………………70 Pontia protodice (Boisduval & Le Conte, [1830]) ………………………………... 71 Pontia occidentalis (Reakirt, 1866) ……………………………………………….. 72 Pontia sisymbrii (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………….. 73 Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758) …………………………………………………….. 75 Pieris marginalis Scudder, 1861……………………………………………………76 Euchloe ausonides (Lucas, 1852) …………………………………………………. 78 Euchloe hyantis (W. H. Edwards, 1871) …………………………………………...79 Euchloe lotta Beutenmüller, 1898…………………………………………………. 81 Anthocharis sara Lucas, 1852……………………………………………………... 82 Anthocharis lanceolata Lucas, 1852………………………………………………..84 Colias philodice Godart, 1819……………………………………………………... 85 Colias eurytheme Boisduval, 1852………………………………………………… 86 Colias occidentalis Scudder, 1862………………………………………………….87 Colias christina W. H. Edwards, 1863…………………………………………….. 89 Colias alexandra W. H. Edwards, 1863…………………………………………… 92 Colias pelidne Boisduval & Le Conte, [1830] ……………………………………..93 Colias interior Scudder, 1862………………………………………………………94 Phoebis sennae (Linnaeus, 1758) …………………………………………………. 94 Lycaena arota (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………………. 95 Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus, 1761) ………………………………………………... 97 Lycaena cupreus (W. H. Edwards, 1870) ………………………………………….98 Lycaena xanthoides (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………….98 Lycaena editha (Mead, 1878) ……………………………………………………... 100 Lycaena gorgon (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………………...102 Lycaena rubidus (Behr, 1866) …………………………………………………….. 103 Lycaena heteronea Boisduval, 1852………………………………………………..104 Lycaena helloides (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………………107 Lycaena nivalis (Boisduval, 1869) ………………………………………………... 108 Lycaena mariposa (Reakirt, 1866) ………………………………………………... 111 Habrodais grunus (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………... 112 Atlides halesus (Cramer, 1777) …………………………………………………….113 Introduction to Oregon’s green Callophrys species………………………………...114 Callophrys affinis (W. H. Edwards, 1862) ………………………………………... 115 Callophrys perplexa Barnes & Benjamin, 1923……………………………………116 Callophrys sheridanii (W. H. Edwards, 1877) (1852)……………………………...119 Callophrys gryneus (Hübner, [1819]) ……………………………………………...125 Callophrys spinetorum (Hewitson, 1867) ………………………………………….134 Callophrys johnsoni (Skinner, 1904) ………………………………………………135 Callophrys augustinus (Westwood, 1852) …………………………………………136 Callophrys mossii (Hy. Edwards, 1881) …………………………………………...137 Callophrys polios (Cook & Watson, 1907) ……………………………………….. 140 Callophrys eryphon (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………….141 Satyrium fuliginosa (W. H. Edwards, 1861) ……………………………………….142 4 Satyrium semiluna Klots, 1930……………………………………………………..144 Satyrium behrii (W. H. Edwards, 1870) …………………………………………... 146 Satyrium titus (Fabricius, 1793) ……………………………………………………147 Satyrium californica (W. H. Edwards, 1862) ……………………………………... 149 Satyrium sylvinus (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………… 150 Satyrium auretorum (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………… 152 Satyrium tetra (W. H. Edwards, 1870) …………………………………………… 153 Satyrium saepium (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………………154 Strymon melinus Hübner, 1818 …………………………………………………….155 Leptotes marina (Reakirt, 1868) …………………………………………………...157 Brephidium exilis (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………… 157 Cupido comyntas (Godart, [1824]) ………………………………………………... 158 Cupido amyntula (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………….160 Celastrina echo (W. H. Edwards, 1864) …………………………………………...161 Glaucopsyche piasus (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………...166 Glaucopsyche lygdamus (Doubleday, 1841) ……………………………………… 167 Philotiella leona Hammond & McCorkle, 2000……………………………………169 Introduction to Euphilotes…………………………………………………………..170 Euphilotes [on Eriogonum marifolium] ……………………………………………171 Euphilotes glaucon (W. H. Edwards, 1871) ………………………………………. 173 Euphilotes [on Eriogonum heracleoides] …………………………………………. 176 Euphilotes baueri (Shields, 1975) ………………………………………………….178 Euphilotes enoptes (Boisduval, 1852) …………………………………………….. 179 Euphilotes columbiae (Mattoni, 1954) ……………………………………………. 182 Euphilotes ancilla (Barnes & McDunnough, 1918) ………………………………. 184 Plebejus idas (Linnaeus, 1761) …………………………………………………….185 Plebejus anna (W. H. Edwards, 1861) ……………………………………………. 187 Plebejus melissa (W. H. Edwards, 1873) …………………………………………. 189 Plebejus saepiolus (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………...190 Plebejus icarioides (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………..192 Plebejus shasta (W. H. Edwards, 1862) …………………………………………... 196 Plebejus acmon (Westwood, [1851]) ………………………………………………197 Plebejus lupini (Boisduval, 1869) ………………………………………………….199 Plebejus [on Eriogonum pyrolifolium var. coryphaeum] …………………………. 202 Plebejus podarce (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1865) ………………………………….. 203 Apodemia mormo (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1859) …………………………………. 204 Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus, 1758) ………………………………………………. 205 Danaus gilippus (Cramer, 1776) …………………………………………………...206 Euptoieta claudia (Cramer, 1776) ………………………………………………… 206 Speyeria cybele (Fabricius, 1775) ………………………………………………….207 Speyeria coronis (Behr, 1864) …………………………………………………….. 208 Speyeria zerene (Boisduval, 1852) ………………………………………………... 209 Speyeria callippe (Boisduval, 1852) ……………………………………………….212 Speyeria egleis (Behr, 1862) ……………………………………………………….215 Speyeria hesperis (W. H. Edwards, 1864) …………………………………………216 5 Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval, 1869) ……………………………………………….218 Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval, 1869) ……………………………………………. 219 Boloria selene ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) …………………………………. 220 Boloria bellona (Fabricius,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Annals of Scottish Natural History." GEORGE HENDERSON, London
    RETURN TO LIBRARY OF MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY WOODS HOLE, MASS. LOANED BY AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY The Annals OF Scottish Natural History A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED Baturaltet EDITED BY J. A. HARVIE-BROWN, F.R.S.E., F.Z.S. MEMBER OF THE BRITISH ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION JAMES W. H. TRAIL, M.A., M.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. PROFESSOR OF BOTANY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN AND WILLIAM EAGLE CLARKE, F.L.S., MEM. BRIT. ORN. UNION NATURAL HISTORY DEPARTMENT, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND ART, EDINBURGH EDINBURGH DAVID DOUGLAS, CASTLE STREET LONDON: R. H. PORTER, 7 PRINCES ST., CAVENDISH SQUARE The Annals of Scottish Natural History No. 21] 1897 [JANUARY THE LATE PROFESSOR THOMAS KING. THOMAS KING was born on the I4th April 1834, at Yardfoot, Lochwinnoch, Renfrewshire, a farm which was owned and occupied by his father. He received his early education in a small school in the village of Glenhead. He was destined to be a teacher, and in 1855, after the sale of his birthplace, and the removal of the family to Glasgow, he entered the Normal Training College of the Free Church of Scotland. The early bent of his mind revealed itself in his attendance on the class of Botany in that Institution. In 1862 he was appointed teacher of English in the Garnet Bank Academy, where, in addition to the ordinary subjects, he taught an advanced class of Botany. The work of the session, however, proved too much for his strength, which had never been robust, and he was obliged to relinquish the position.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Overview of the Greater Fritillary Genus Speyeria Scudder
    INSECTA MUNDI A Journal of World Insect Systematics 0090 Taxonomic overview of the greater fritillary genus Speyeria Scudder and the atlantis hesperis species complexes, with species accounts, type images, and relevant literature (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) James C. Dunford McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida PO Box 112710, Gainesville, FL 326112710, USA Date of Issue: September 26, 2009 CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY, INC., Gainesville, FL James C. Dunford Taxonomic overview of the greater fritillary genus Speyeria Scudder and the atlantis hesperis species complexes, with species accounts, type images, and relevant literature (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Insecta Mundi 0090: 174 Published in 2009 by Center for Systematic Entomology, Inc. P. O. Box 141874 Gainesville, FL 326141874 U. S. A. http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org/ Insecta Mundi is a journal primarily devoted to insect systematics, but articles can be published on any nonmarine arthropod taxon. Manuscripts considered for publication include, but are not limited to, systematic or taxonomic studies, revisions, nomenclatural changes, faunal studies, book reviews, phylo genetic analyses, biological or behavioral studies, etc. Insecta Mundi is widely distributed, and refer- enced or abstracted by several sources including the Zoological Record, CAB Abstracts, etc. As of 2007, Insecta Mundi is published irregularly throughout the year, not as quarterly issues. As manuscripts are completed they are published and given an individual number. Manuscripts must be peer reviewed prior to submission, after which they are again reviewed by the editorial board to insure quality. One author of each submitted manuscript must be a current member of the Center for System- atic Entomology.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncus Shaped Akin to Elephant Tusks Defines a New Genus for Two Very Different-In-Appearance Neotropical Skippers (Hesperiidae: Pyrginae)
    The Journal Volume 45: 101-112 of Research on the Lepidoptera ISSN 0022-4324 (PR in T ) THE LEPIDOPTERA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, 29 DE C EMBER 2012 ISSN 2156-5457 (O N L in E ) Uncus shaped akin to elephant tusks defines a new genus for two very different-in-appearance Neotropical skippers (Hesperiidae: Pyrginae) Nic K V. GR ishin Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, USA 75390-9050 [email protected] Abstract. Analyses of male genitalia, other aspects of adult, larval and pupal morphology, and DNA COI barcode sequences suggest that Potamanaxas unifasciata (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867) does not belong to Potamanaxas Lindsey, 1925 and not even to the Erynnini tribe, but instead is more closely related to Milanion Godman & Salvin, 1895 and Atarnes Godman & Salvin, 1897, (Achlyodini). Unexpected and striking similarities are revealed in the male genitalia of P. unifasciata and Atarnes hierax (Hopffer, 1874). Their genitalia are so similar and distinct from the others that one might casually mistake them for the same species. Capturing this uniqueness, a new genus Eburuncus is erected to include: E. unifasciata, new combination (type species) and E. hierax, new combination. Key words: phylogenetic classification, monophyletic taxa, immature stages, DNA barcodes,Atarnes sallei, Central America, Peru. INTRODUCT I ON 1982-1999). Most of Burns’ work derives from careful analysis of genitalia, recently assisted by morphology Comprehensive work by Evans (e.g. Evans, 1937; of immature stages and molecular evidence (e.g. 1952; 1953) still remains the primary source of Burns & Janzen, 2005; Burns et al., 2009; 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinator–Friendly Parks
    POLLINATOR–FRIENDLY PARKS How to Enhance Parks, Gardens, and Other Greenspaces for Native Pollinator Insects Matthew Shepherd, Mace Vaughan, and Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation is an international, nonprofit, member–supported organiza- tion dedicated to preserving wildlife and its habitat through the conservation of invertebrates. The Society promotes protection of invertebrates and their habitat through science–based advocacy, conservation, and education projects. Its work focuses on three principal areas—endangered species, watershed health, and pollinator conservation. Copyright © 2008 (2nd Edition) The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 4828 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215 Tel (503) 232-6639 Fax (503) 233-6794 www.xerces.org Acknowledgements Thank you to Bruce Barbarasch (Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, OR) and Lisa Hamerlynck (City of Lake Oswego, OR) for reviewing early drafts. Their guidance and suggestions greatly improved these guide- lines. Thank you to Eric Mader and Jessa Guisse for help with the plant lists, and to Caitlyn Howell and Logan Lauvray for editing assistance. Funding for our pollinator conservation program has been provided by the Bradshaw-Knight Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the CS Fund, the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund, the Dudley Foundation, the Gaia Fund, NRCS Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, NRCS California, NRCS West National Technical Support Center, the Panta Rhea Foundation, the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Founda- tion, the Turner Foundation, the Wildwood Foundation, and Xerces Society members Photographs We are grateful to Jeff Adams, Scott Bauer/USDA–ARS, John Davis/GORGEous Nature, Chris Evans/ www.forestryimages.com, Bruce Newhouse, Jeff Owens/Metalmark Images, and Edward S.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005
    Utah Lepidopterist Bulletin of the Utah Lepidopterists' Society Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005 Extreme Southwest Utah Could See Iridescent Greenish-blue Flashes A Little Bit More Frequently by Col. Clyde F. Gillette Battus philenor (blue pipevine swallowtail) flies in the southern two- thirds of Arizona; in the Grand Canyon (especially at such places as Phantom Ranch 8/25 and Indian Gardens 12/38) and at its rims [(N) 23/75 and (S) 21/69]; in the low valleys of Clark Co., Nevada; and infrequently along the Meadow Valley Wash 7/23 which parallels the Utah/Nevada border in Lincoln Co., Nevada. Since this beautiful butterfly occasionally flies to the west, southwest, and south of Utah's southwest corner, one might expect it to turn up now and then in Utah's Mojave Desert physiographic subsection of the Basin and Range province on the lower southwest slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains, Battus philenor Blue Pipevine Swallowtail Photo courtesy of Randy L. Emmitt www.rlephoto.com or sporadically fly up the "Dixie Corridor" along the lower Virgin River Valley. Even though both of these Lower Sonoran life zone areas reasons why philenor is not a habitual pipevine species.) Arizona's of Utah offer potentially suitable, resident of Utah's Dixie. But I think interesting plant is Aristolochia "nearby" living conditions for Bat. there is basically only one, and that is watsonii (indianroot pipevine), which phi. philenor, such movements have a complete lack of its larval has alternate leaves shaped like a not often taken place. Or, more foodplants in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) 321-356 ©Entomofauna Ansfelden/Austria; Download Unter
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Entomofauna Jahr/Year: 2007 Band/Volume: 0028 Autor(en)/Author(s): Yefremova Zoya A., Ebrahimi Ebrahim, Yegorenkova Ekaterina Artikel/Article: The Subfamilies Eulophinae, Entedoninae and Tetrastichinae in Iran, with description of new species (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) 321-356 ©Entomofauna Ansfelden/Austria; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Entomofauna ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ENTOMOLOGIE Band 28, Heft 25: 321-356 ISSN 0250-4413 Ansfelden, 30. November 2007 The Subfamilies Eulophinae, Entedoninae and Tetrastichinae in Iran, with description of new species (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) Zoya YEFREMOVA, Ebrahim EBRAHIMI & Ekaterina YEGORENKOVA Abstract This paper reflects the current degree of research of Eulophidae and their hosts in Iran. A list of the species from Iran belonging to the subfamilies Eulophinae, Entedoninae and Tetrastichinae is presented. In the present work 47 species from 22 genera are recorded from Iran. Two species (Cirrospilus scapus sp. nov. and Aprostocetus persicus sp. nov.) are described as new. A list of 45 host-parasitoid associations in Iran and keys to Iranian species of three genera (Cirrospilus, Diglyphus and Aprostocetus) are included. Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel zeigt den derzeitigen Untersuchungsstand an eulophiden Wespen und ihrer Wirte im Iran. Eine Liste der für den Iran festgestellten Arten der Unterfamilien Eu- lophinae, Entedoninae und Tetrastichinae wird präsentiert. Mit vorliegender Arbeit werden 47 Arten in 22 Gattungen aus dem Iran nachgewiesen. Zwei neue Arten (Cirrospilus sca- pus sp. nov. und Aprostocetus persicus sp. nov.) werden beschrieben. Eine Liste von 45 Wirts- und Parasitoid-Beziehungen im Iran und ein Schlüssel für 3 Gattungen (Cirro- spilus, Diglyphus und Aprostocetus) sind in der Arbeit enthalten.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Analysis of the Tribe Emesidini (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae)
    Zootaxa 4668 (4): 475–488 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4668.4.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:211AFB6A-8C0A-4AB2-8CF6-981E12C24934 Genomic analysis of the tribe Emesidini (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae) JING ZHANG1, JINHUI SHEN1, QIAN CONG1,2 & NICK V. GRISHIN1,3 1Departments of Biophysics and Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and 3Howard Hughes Medical Insti- tute, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, USA 75390-9050; [email protected] 2present address: Institute for Protein Design and Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, HSB J-405, Seattle, WA, USA 98195; [email protected] Abstract We obtained and phylogenetically analyzed whole genome shotgun sequences of nearly all species from the tribe Emesidini Seraphim, Freitas & Kaminski, 2018 (Riodinidae) and representatives from other Riodinidae tribes. We see that the recently proposed genera Neoapodemia Trujano, 2018 and Plesioarida Trujano & García, 2018 are closely allied with Apodemia C. & R. Felder, [1865] and are better viewed as its subgenera, new status. Overall, Emesis Fabricius, 1807 and Apodemia (even after inclusion of the two subgenera) are so phylogenetically close that several species have been previously swapped between these two genera. New combinations are: Apodemia (Neoapodemia) zela (Butler, 1870), Apodemia (Neoapodemia) ares (Edwards, 1882), and Apodemia (Neoapodemia) arnacis (Stichel, 1928) (not Emesis); and Emesis phyciodoides (Barnes & Benjamin, 1924) (not Apodemia), assigned to each genus by their monophyly in genomic trees with the type species (TS) of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Inventory at Missouri National Recreational River
    Inventory of Butterflies at Fort Union Trading Post and Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Sites in 2004 --<o>-- Final Report Submitted by: Ronald Alan Royer, Ph.D. Burlington, North Dakota 58722 Submitted to: Northern Great Plains Inventory & Monitoring Coordinator National Park Service Mount Rushmore National Memorial Keystone, South Dakota 57751 October 1, 2004 Executive Summary This document reports inventory of butterflies at Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site (NHS) and Fort Union Trading Post NHS, both administered by the National Park Service in the state of North Dakota. Field work consisted of strategically timed visits throughout Summer 2004. The inventory employed “checklist” counting based on the author's experience with habitat for the various species expected from each site. This report is written in two separate parts, one for each site. Each part contains an annotated species list for that site. For possible later GIS use, noteworthy species encounters are reported by UTM coordinates, all of which are provided conveniently in a table within the report narrative for each site. An annotated listing is also included for each species at each site. Each of these provides a brief description of typical habitat, principal larval host(s), and information on adult phenology. This information is followed by abbreviated citations for published works in which more detailed information may be located. Recommendations are then made for each site on the basis of endemism, prairie butterfly conservation and
    [Show full text]
  • Moths & Butterflies of Grizzly Peak Preserve
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT MOTHS & BUTTERFLIES OF GRIZZLY PEAK PRESERVE: Inventory Results from 2018 Prepared and Submi�ed by: DANA ROSS (Entomologist/Lepidoptera Specialist) Corvallis, Oregon SUMMARY The Grizzly Peak Preserve was sampled for butterflies and moths during May, June and October, 2018. A grand total of 218 species were documented and included 170 moths and 48 butterflies. These are presented as an annotated checklist in the appendix of this report. Butterflies and day-flying moths were sampled during daylight hours with an insect net. Nocturnal moths were collected using battery-powered backlight traps over single night periods at 10 locations during each monthly visit. While many of the documented butterflies and moths are common and widespread species, others - that include the Western Sulphur (Colias occidentalis primordialis) and the noctuid moth Eupsilia fringata - represent more locally endemic and/or rare taxa. One geometrid moth has yet to be identified and may represent an undescribed (“new”) species. Future sampling during March, April, July, August and September will capture many more Lepidoptera that have not been recorded. Once the site is more thoroughly sampled, the combined Grizzly Peak butterfly-moth fauna should total at least 450-500 species. INTRODUCTION The Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) is an abundant and diverse insect group that performs essential ecological functions within terrestrial environments. As a group, these insects are major herbivores (caterpillars) and pollinators (adults), and are a critical food source for many species of birds, mammals (including bats) and predacious and parasitoid insects. With hundreds of species of butterflies and moths combined occurring at sites with ample habitat heterogeneity, a Lepidoptera inventory can provide a valuable baseline for biodiversity studies.
    [Show full text]
  • PHYLOGENY and ZOOGEOGRAPHY of the BIGGER and BETTER GENUS at ALOPEDES (HESPERIIDAE) What Makes Atalopedes Bigger and Better Is T
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 43(1), 1989. 11-32 PHYLOGENY AND ZOOGEOGRAPHY OF THE BIGGER AND BETTER GENUS ATALOPEDES (HESPERIIDAE) JOHN M. BURNS Department of Entomology. NHB 169, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560 ABSTRACT. What makes Atalopedes bigger and better is the addition of two tropical species, A. clarkei, new species and A. bahiensis (Schaus), and the subtraction of another, nabokovi (Bell & Comstock), which belongs in Hesperia. Comparison of genus Atalopedes with its sister Hesperia, using characters of size, antenna, facies, stigma, and, especially, male and female genitalia, precedes comparisons among the species of Atalopedes, using these same characters. The five species form three highly distinct groups, whose phylo­ genetic sequence is (1) A. campestris (Boisduval), which ranges from equator to USA; (2) the mesogramma group-A. mesogramma (Latreille), on most Greater Antilles, Isle of Pines, and some Bahama Islands including New Providence, and A. carteri Evans, New Providence Island; and (3) the clarkei group-A. clarkei, Margarita Island, Vene­ zuela, plus Cartagena, Colombia, and A. bahiensis, coastal central Brazil. The far-out clarkei group has switched its ecologic niche to seashore grass; habitat is very restricted. The older the species of Atalopedes, the wider its geographic range. Additional key words: genitalia (male and female), Hesperia, H. nabokovi, taxonomy, evolution. What makes Atalopedes bigger and better is the addition of two tropical species, an undescribed one plus its misplaced sister, and the subtraction of another, nabokovi (Bell & Comstock), which belongs in Hesperia (Burns 1987). Because the five resulting species form three highly distinct clusters, Atalopedes seems riddled by extinctions-far more than sister genus Hesperia, which, with four times as many species, is still relatively compact.
    [Show full text]