JOURNAL OF

THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

Volume 30 1976 Number 1

PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 1975- TO MY FELLOW AMATEURS

ANDRE BLANCHARD P. O. Box 20304, Houston, Texas 77025

The title of Dr. Rindge's Presidential Address to the twelfth annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Section at San Diego, California (1965) was: "The Importance of Collecting-Now". In it he explained that we were -we still are of course-in a losing race against the spread of civilization and concomitant destruction of breeding grounds for Lepidoptera. His address was a plea for immediate and intensive collecting of butterflies and moths. I am sure that few professionals needed such a reminder but I hope that many amateurs listened and followed his advice. Yet, and in full agreement with everything that he said, I would like to add my two cents worth of comments to Dr. Rindge's appeal. The number of amateurs interested in moths is disproportionately smaller than that of those interested in butterflies, yet there are many times more species of moths than of butterflies. If there are, say, ten times more species of moths and ten times less people interested in them, this is a deficiency factor of one hundred against the moths. In such a situation it is indeed very likely that many, many species of moths will disappear from the earth before they are seen by a single taxonomist. How can we hope to redress such an imbalance? By showing that study­ ing moths can be more rewarding because there is a lot more to be discovered about them. Before I go any further, let me tell you that I am very much aware of the fact that we do not have enough collectors even of butterflies, that we would like to have several times more of them. Nothing that I am going to say should be interpreted as an attempt to dissuade anybody from collecting butterflies: my ambition is only to convince some ama­ teurs to work on moths in parallel with butterflies and to kindle an inter­ est in moths in some neophytes. 2 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

Most of us come to lepidopterology for the pleasure of assembling a beautiful collection. We may differ as to how geographically extensive it will be or as to which groups of Lepidoptera will be included, but I think that nearly all of us start that way. Let me tell you, between parentheses that, from my contacts with many professionals, I have come to the conclusion that most of them are dyed in the wool amateurs who have found a way of getting paid for doing what they would gladly do, at their own expense, if they could afford to do so. However, many of us amateurs can not be happy for long, with collect­ ing Lepidoptera the way others collect postage stamps. Mere collecting of course is all right and quite satisfying for many, but those who gradu­ ate to the studying stage find their hobby considerably more satisfying. The key words are studying, doing research, and as there is immensely more that is unknown and unexplored among the Heterocera, the chances of hitting on something new are considerably better with moths than with butterflies. Where is the amateur who is not thrilled when he discovers something new like a wide extension of range, a new food­ plant, a new detail of a life history or a species new to Science? Moths, just because they are not overall as pretty as most butterflies, reserve their rewards for those who study them a little more deeply. Lepidopterology is a wonderful science in which you do not need to be an expert-as you would have to be in Mathematics, Physics or Biology for instance-to do some simple, simple but useful research. A good point of moths is that they are rather easy to collect: this is not the place to explain how, but I rather like my method which con­ sists of setting the traps at sunset, going to sleep, and gathering the loot at daybreak. The only disadvantage of this method is that you miss the day flying species and those which come only at bait. Moths, of course, are divided in Macroheterocera and Microheterocera. Both groups are replete with discoveries waiting to be made, but the micros are even more so. One of the most promising avenues to discovery is through rearing of larvae: rearing and careful field observations are research at its best, and this type of activity requires only very inexpensive equipment. When you come to think that in some good size genera, the larva or the food­ plant of not a single species is known, you realize that by rearing all the larvae that you can procure, you stand a more than even chance of dis­ covering from time to time something well worth your trouble. Good records of everything should of course be maintained, some larvae and pupae preserved by pickling or dehydrating. There was a time, late in the nineteenth and early in this twentieth centuries when entomologists vied for the description of new species. VOLUME 30, NUMBER 1 3

Today, it sometimes seems that they need an excuse to do so, unless it is in the course of a group revision. These group revisions, however, which have become their main activity, bring forth amazing results: hardly any genus is revised without recognizing several new species which had been overlooked, or splitting the genus into two or more genera. In any case, these group revisions necessitate bringing together, and making available to the reviser, all the material available in all the museums and the private collections. If you have any material available in the genus being revised, this is your chance of contributing something valuable which will, of course be fully acknowledged. I have already mentioned that the micros are even less well under­ stood than the macros. This, really is an understatement: some groups of micros are so poorly known that it is almost useless to request identi­ fication of specimens: more than half return with at most a genus name. These are orphan groups and you do not have to go very far down the check list of micros to find such groups: the Epipaschiines-a subfamily of the Pyralids-are a good example. I have assiduously collected them, prepared male and female genitalia and discovered that they are too similar to be of much help, on top of that several species look alike and there is some sexual dimorphism. I may be wrong but I am inclined to think that this is, in part at least, why these groups have been left alone and that, in cases like that, the success of a revision and the willingness of a potential reviser to tackle the job depend on the availability of good, long reared series of specimens with preserved larvae, pupae, eggs and careful records of everything including foodplants. Professionals will take care of all this for economically important species, but we, amateurs, could and should do it for all kinds of species. These would be wonderful projects for young amateurs. I say young, because the fruition of their efforts may come only after several years of routine and not immediately rewarding work. But would not the result be worth the effort? Will my plea bring forth the hoped for response? Not if I merely urge the amateurs to go ahead blindly into a world unfamiliar to most of them. This is where I turn to the professionals and tell them: we want, we need your help! I wonder if one of you "Pros" would come forth, prepare for us and publish in the Journal a clear and easy guide to the moths and particularly the micros. I do not mean something as complete and forbidding as Forbes' key in Volume One of his "Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring States," but a summary of the most easily observed characters of the different families and-where possible-subfamilies, well illustrated with sketches showing palpi, antennae, wing shapes, types of maculation, etc. This, in my opinion, is the most helpful tool that the professional could give the amateur. 4 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

I directed my address to "My Fellow Amateurs" because I meant it as a plea to some of them, who may not realize that the study of the moth, less glamorous perhaps than the study of the butterfly, is in the long run more rewarding. But, to the enthusiasm of the amateur, let the professional add the support of his knowledge. Let him give us the guide we need, let him stake out the road to lead us into the strange but wonderful world of the humble moth.

CAPTURE OF A HYBRID LIMENITIS ARTHEMIS ASTYANAX X L. ARCHIPPUS (NYMPHALIDAE) IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA On 22 September 1974 a recently emerged male hybrid between Limenitis arthe­ mis astyanax (Fabricius) and L. archippus (Cramer) (form rudidus Strecker) was captured near Fort Jackson, Savannah, Chatham Co., Georgia. Limenitis archippus was abundant in the area, but L. a. astyanax was not observed. The specimen (Fig. 1) is presently in the author's collection. Platt & Creenfield (1971, .I. Lepid. Soc. 25: 278-284) reported the capture of a similar interspecific hybrid in North Carolina and listed 12 previously known records of such hybrids. An additional North Carolina specimen was reported by Green­ field & Platt (1974, J. Lepid. Soc. 28: 72-75). The individual captured at Savannah and the two from North Carolina are apparently the only known records of this form from the southeastern U.S.A.

RICHARD T. ARBOGAST, 114 Monica Blvd., Savannah, Georgia 31406.

Fig. 1. Male L. arthemis astyanax X L. archippus collected near Fort Jackson, Savannah, Georgia, on 22 September 1974 by R. T. Arbogast. Left: dorsal surface; right: ventral surface. VOLUME 30, NUMBER 1 5

NEW HESPERIIDAE RECORDS FOR TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES

WILLIAM W. MCGUIRE P.O. Box 29884, San Antonio, Texas 78229 AND

MICHAEL A. RICKARD 4628 Oakdale, Bellaire, Texas 77401

The Rio Grande Valley of Texas, located in the extreme southern section of the state and encompassing areas of essentially neotropical habitat, offers a unique opportunity for the study of Lepidoptera in the U.S.A. The authors have had the good fortune to collect this area rather frequently during the past several years and during that time some inter­ esting and important new records of Hesperiidae have been obtained. During 1972-1974 specimens of several rare Hesperiidae, previously known in the U.S.A. hom only a few examples, were taken: Aguna asander (Hewitson), Aguna claxon Evans, Typhedanus undulatus (Hew­ itson), Polythrix mexicanus Freeman, Proteides mercurius (Fabricius), Urbanus doryssus Swainson, Panoquina fusina evansi (Freeman), As­ traptes gilberti Freeman, C arrhenes canescens (R. Felder), Gorgythion begga pyralina (Moschler) and Lerema ancillaris liris Evans. In addition 12 species of Hesperiidae were taken that represent apparent new U.S.A. records, another that is at least a new Texas record, and two others that substantiate previous but !itle known Texas records. Nomenclature and arrangement follows that of Evans (1952, 1953, 1955) and determina­ tions, unless otherwise indicated, were made by Rickard.

Epargyreus exadeus cruza Evans. Fig. 1. McGuire collected 1 <;> in McAllen, Hidalgo County on 18 October 1973 as it fed on blossoms of Queen's Crown, Antigonon leptopus H. and A. (Polygonaceae). Previous records for this species are confusing: Holland (1931), p. 330, listed E. exadeus (Cramer) as "a straggler in southem California, New Mexico and Arizona." However, Evans (1952) stated that what Holland illustrated was E. exadeus cruza rather than exadeus exadeus (Cramer), and noted other distribution for cruza as Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama (transitional to exadeus exadeus). This is the first known record of this skipper for Texas. Aguna metophis (Latreille). Fig. 2. Rickard took a worn <;> in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Hidalgo County, 6 September 1969, det. H. A. Freeman. Other Texas records include Mission, Hidalgo County, 10 September 1972, 1 <;> (Roy O. Kendall); Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, Hidalgo County, 10 and 27 October 1973, 1 8 each date (Rickard); Loop 374 west of Mission, Hidalgo County, 18 October 1973, 1 8, and 19 October 1973, 1 <;> (McGuire) and 26 6 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

Figs. 1-5. 1, Epargyreus exadeus cruz a Evans, "', ventral, McAllen, Texas, 18 October 1973; F 28 mm. 2, Aguna metophis (Latreille), "' , ventral, Loop 374, Mission, Texas, 19 October 1973; F 23 mm, tail 10 mm. 3, Codatractus alcaeus alcaeus (Godman & Salvin), "', ventral, McAllen, 19 October 1973; F 26 mm. 4, Urbanus pronta Evans, ~, ventral, Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, Mexico, 24 De­ cember 1973; F 23 mm, tail 5 mm. 5, Urbanus esmeraldus Butler, ~, ventral, McAllen, 18 August 1972; F 20 mm, tail 10 mm.

October 1973, 1 ~ (Rickard); Galveston, Galveston County, 7 August 1973, a worn Cjl (McGuire). Distribution noted by Evans (1952) includes Mexico, Nicar­ agua, Panama, Venezuala, Matto Grosso and South Brazil. Codatractus alceaus alceaus (Godman & Salvin). Fig. 3. The first record for this species in Texas was given by Freeman (1951) as a single specimen from the Davis Mountains, no data. A single worn specimen was collected and reported VOLUME 30, NUMBER 1 7

Figs. 6-10. Astraptes egregius egregius Butler, ~, dorsal, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Texas, 18 October 1973; F 24 mm. 7, Astraptes alardus latia Evans, 6, ventral, San Fernando, Tamaulipas, Mexico, 23 October 1973; F 28 mm. 8, Achalarus jaZapus (PlOtz), 6, ventral, Sullivan City, Texas, 31 July 1972; F 25 mm. 9, Bolla clytius (Godman & Salvin), 6, dorsal, Abrams, Texas, 18 October 1973; F 15 mm. 10, Sostrata bifasciata nordica Evans, 6, dorsal, Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park, 26 October 1973; F 15 mm. by J. Richard Heitzman (1970) from Boca Chica, Cameron County, 27 June 1968. On 19 October 1973 McGuire collected 1 6 at Penitas and 1 ~ at McAllen, both Hidalgo County. Obviously uncommon in Texas, it is at times abundant at Ciudad Valles, San Luis Potosi, Mexico (H. A. Freeman, pers. comm.) which is about 500 8 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY mi south of the Texas border and was recorded by Evans (1952) from Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, as well as Mexico. Urhanus pronta Evans. Fig. 4. Rickard took a g along a railroad track near Madero, Hidalgo County on 19 October 1969. It was visiting blossoms of Lantana horrida H. B. K. It was papered as U. proteus (Linnaeus) and the true identity not discovered by the author until September 1973. Previous distribution records are from throughout Mexico and Central America south to Paraguay (Evans, 1952). Urbanus esmeraldus Butler. Fig. 5. A single specimen of this species was found by McGuire among his Urhanus material following Rickard's discovery of U. pronta. The specimen is a fresh ~, collected 18 August 1972 at McAllen. This species is rather widespread from Mexico south to Paraguay (Evans, 1952) and at times rather common in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico, within 350 mi of the Texas border. Astraptes egregius egregius Butler. Fig. 6. A g was taken by McGuire, 18 October 1973 in Bentsen State Park. The usual habitat of this species is central Mexico south to the Amazons (Evans, 1952) and this record, as confirmed by Mr. H. A. Freeman, represents a Significant range extension as well as a new United States record. Astraptes alardus latia Evans. Fig. 7. Rickard took three specimens in 1973: Bentsen State Park, 16 June (1 worn g) and 10 October (1 fair g), and Santa Ana Refuge, 1 September (1 fresh (l;). All were collected in wooded areas as they rested under large leaves. This distinctive Astraptes has been recorded from Central America and Colombia by Evans (1952), and found rarely by McGuire in Ta­ maulipas, Mexico, within 200 mi of Texas. Achalarus ;alapus (PlOtz). Fig. 8. A fresh ~ was taken by McGuire, 31 July 1972 near Sullivan City in western Hidalgo County. Roy O. Kendall collected (and det.) 1 g on 8 September 1972 and 1 (1; on 9 September 1972 in Mission, Hidalgo County. In 1973, Rickard took 2 ~ ~ at McAllen, 23 September and 20 October, and John B. Vernon collected 1 g at the same location on the latter date. This species has probably been often confused with the more common A. toxeus (Plotz), from which it can be distinguished by the presence of the lobed hindwing in ;alapus. Recorded by Evans (1952) from Mexico (Jalapa; Granahl; Guada­ lajara), Guatemala, Honduras and Columbia, it is not uncommon 300 mi south of Texas (McGuire). Bolla clytius (Godman & Salvin). Fig. 9. On 18 Octobcr 1973 McGuire collected 2 (1; (1; and 1 g southwest of Mission near the village of Abrams, Hidalgo County; these were all taken along a wooded canal as they visited Aster blossoms. Determi­ nation of these specimens prompted the authors to contact Mr. J. W. Tilden, who had previously reported Bolla hrennus from the Rio Grande Valley (Tilden, 1971) and ask that he recheck his Bolla specimens. This was done and Tilden confirmed his earlier determination of B. hrennus, thus establishing the presence of two species of Bolla in Texas and the U.S.A. Evans (1953) records this species from only Mexico and Honduras. So strata hifasciata nordica Evans. Fig. 10. Rickard took 2 (l; (l; in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park on 26 October 1973. They were patrolling small patches of light in a wooded area late in the afternoon. This species has also been found rather commonly by McGuire in the Ciudad Victoria area of Mexico, and is recorded from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica by Evans (1953). Heliopetes arsalte arsalte (Linnaeus). Fig. 11. McGuire collected a pair of fresh specimens at Boca Chica, east of Brownsville, Cameron County, late in the evening of 20 October 1973; both were flying about in open chaparral in company with Heliopetes laviana (Hewitson) and H. macaira (Reakirt). McGuire had previously collected this species within 200 mi of the Texas border, near Ciudad Victoria; Evans (1953) lists distribution throughout Mexico, Central and South America, and Trinidad. VOLUJ\1E 30, NUMBER 1 9

Figs. 11-15. 11, Heliopetes arsalte arsalte (Linnaeus), g, ventral, Boca Chica, Texas, 20 October 1973; F 16 mm. 12, Piruna microsticta (Godman), g, ventral, Sullivan City, 20 October 1973; F 10 mm. 13, Corticea corticea corticea (Plotz), (!;, dorsal, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, 3 September 1972; F 12 mm. 14, Rhinthon osca (Plotz),

Piruna microsticta (Godman). Fig. 12. Evans (1955) recorded 1 (!; from Texas as well as specimens from Mexico. Holland (1931), p. 361 noted the species as occurring in northern Mexico and "reported as having been taken in Arizona near the Mexican border." After finding specimens in arrid terrain in southern Tamau­ Iipas, Mexico, a search of similar habitat near Sullivan City, Hidalgo County, led to McGuire's capture of 1 g on 20 October 1973, which reinforces Evans' earlier record for Texas. Corticea corticea corticea (Pliitz). Fig. 13. We have taken a number of examples of this rather common Mexican species to date. Rickard collected 1 (!; at Madero on 4 November 1973 and 2 g

Ana National Wildlife Refuge, 9 November 1968, Rickard (1 (IJ, 1 «). These speci­ mens had been mislabeled N astra julia (Freeman). The obscure appearance and superficial resemblance to N. julia has doubtless caused other collectors to overlook or mislabel corticea. The species in widely distributed throughout Mexico, Central America and South America as far south as Argentina (Evans, 1955). Rhinthon osca (Plotz). Fig. 14. Rickard captured a fresh « in a wooded area along Loop 374 west of Mission, Hidalgo County, on 20 October 1973; he collected a second « in good condition south of Mission near the village of Madera, Hidalgo County, 26 October 1973 as it visited blossoms of Eupatorium odoratum L. Pre­ viously, R. osca has been considered a subspecies of the Antillean R. cuhana Herrich-Schaffer), but the authors are advised by H. A. Freeman (pers. comm.) that it should be accorded specific status. McGuire has previously collected specimens as far north as Ciudad Mante, Tamaulipas, Mexico, and Evans (1955) notes distribution from Mexico south to Ecuador. Conga chydaea (Butler). Fig. 15. McGuire collected specimens in Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park on 15 July 1972 (1 (IJ, 1 «) and 2 September 1972 (1 (IJ ); Rickard collected 2 « « on 25 October 1973 as they visited blossoms of Queen's Crown along a canal in McAllen. This species is relatively common in Mexico to the south of Ciudad Mante, and noted by Evans (1955) to be recorded as far south as Argentina.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Interpretations and Exhibits Branch, for per­ mits making possible Lepidoptera research in Santa Ana National Wild­ life Refuge and Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, respectively. Additionally, the authors wish to thank the personnel at Santa Ana and Bentsen for their assistance and cooperation; Mr. H. A. Freeman for confirming determinations, rendering advice and clarifying certain points relative to these Hesperiidae; Mr. Roy O. Kendall for his continuing support and aid in thc ongoing study of Texas Rhopalocera and his critical review of this manuscript; and to Dr. C. E. Hall of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas for the photographs used in this article.

LITERATURE CITED EVANS, W. H. 1952. A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classi­ fication and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum. Part II. Pyrginae, Sec. 1, London: British Museum, 178 p., pIs. 10-25. ---. 1953. A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classifica­ tion and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum. Part III. Pyrginae, Sec. 2, London: British Museum, 246 p., pIs. 26-53. ---. 1955. A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classifica­ tion and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum. Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. London: British Museum, 449 p., pIs. 54-88. FREEMAN, H. A. 1951. Ecological and systematic study of the Hesperiidae of Texas. So. Meth. Univ. Studies, 6: 1-64. VOLUME 30, NUMBER 1 11

HEITZMAN, J. R. 1970. A new U.S. butterfly record and a migration of Eunica monima in Texas (Nymphalidae). Mid-Continent Lepid. Series, 12: lO-l1. HOLLAND, W. J. 1931. The butterfly book. Rev. ed. New York: Doubleday Doran and Co., Inc., 424 p., 77 pis. TILDEN, J. W. 1971. Aguna claxon (Hesperiidae) new to the United States. J. Lepid. Soc.: 25: 293.

HAPALIA NIGRISTRIATALIS A SYNONYM OF UVEA ANGUSTALIS (PYRALIDAE: PYRAUSTINAE) In my recent paper on the Udea angustalis group (Munroe, 1974, Can. Ent. lO6: 139-142), I did not consider Hapalia nigristriatalis Hampson (1918, Ann. Mag. Nat. Rist. 9 ( 2 ): 395), described from a single male from San Antonio, Colombia, collected by Palmer. Examination of a photograph of the holotype, made by me at the British Museum (Natural History) in 1958 (Fig. 1), shows that H. nigristriatalis should be transferred to Udea Guenee, 1844, where it becomes Udea nigristriatalis ( Hampson), new combination, and falls as a synonym of Udea angustalis (Dognin, 1905), already known to range from southern Mexico to Bolivia. EUGENE MUNROE. Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Fig. 1. Hapalia nigristriatalis Hampson, 1918, holotype, male, San Antonio, West Colombia, Palmer, British Museum (Natural History). Black and white print from Kodachrome transparency. Wingspan of specimen 22 mm. The type-label was made by Hampson before he began to use the name Hapalia Hubner for the collective genus he had for many years called Pionea Guenee.