DOCSLIB.ORG

At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas David Moynahan | St. Marks NWR At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas National Wildlife Refuge Association Mark Sowers, Editor October 2017 1001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 905, Washington, DC 20036 • 202-417-3803 • www.refugeassociation.org At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Table of Contents Introduction and Methods ................................................................................................3 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................9 Suites of Species: Occurrences and Habitat Management ...........................................12 Progress and Next Steps .................................................................................................13 Appendix I: Suites of Species ..........................................................................................17 Florida Panhandle ............................................................................................................................18 Peninsular Florida .............................................................................................................................28 Southern Blue Ridge and Southern Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................................................39 Interior Low Plateau and Cumberland Plateau, Central Ridge and Valley ...............................................................................................46 Piedmont and South Atlantic Coastal Plain ............................................................................53 Mississippi and North-Central Alabama ..................................................................................60 Lower Mississippi Valley-Interior Highlands (Ozarks, Ouachitas) ..........................................................................................................................66 Caribbean—Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands ...................................................................71 Appendix II: Species not reported on protected areas ................................................74 Appendix III: Species that have been withdrawn from petitions ...............................79 Addendix IV: Species that may be eligible for withdrawal from petitions .................81 Appendix V: Southeastern Partners in Plant Conservation, SePPCon 2016 ...............82 Photo by Alan Cressler | Lindera subcoriacea B.E. Wofford (Bog Spicebush). 2 At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Introduction and Methods Background and Objectives In 2011, the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) began working with states, federal agencies, and other partners on an At-Risk Species Conser- vation Initiative to address nearly 500 animal and plant species that were petitioned for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2011, a legal settlement was reached under which the Service agreed to make listing determinations for the candidate species on the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review and to make 90-day findings for peti- tioned species by the end of fiscal year 2016. On September 1, 2016, the Service released a National Seven Year Work Plan that provided a schedule for making listing determi- nations on 363 species by the end of fiscal year 2023 (another 235 species remain to be scheduled). Approximately half of the remaining listing determinations concern species that occur in the Southeast Region. Many of the petitioned species are locally occurring aquatic species for which there was limited information available on range and popu- lation status. In 2013 and 2014, the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) worked in cooperation with the Service’s Southeast Region on a project that convened biologists and subject matter experts to assess the role that the 129 national wildlife refuges in the Southeast might play in the conservation of at-risk species, including identifying data gaps and inventory or survey needs, examining threats, and identifying Photo by Alan Cressler | Macbridea caroliniana (Walter) Blake (Carolina Birds-in-a-nest). management actions that could enhance habitat on and around refuges to benefit the petitioned species. vide habitat for large numbers of petitioned species, making them an obvious focus of The At-Risk Species Project Phase I consisted of a series of six workshops facilitated by the effort to evaluate petitioned species. Recognizing their important role in at-risk spe- NWRA that focused on national wildlife refuges, and brought together refuge and eco- cies conservation, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) joined the existing partnership between logical services biologists from the Service, state agency biologists, academic experts, and NWRA and the Service through a cooperative agreement and became an additional non-governmental conservation organization (NGO) representatives. Phase I workshops funding partner for Phase II of the project. were determined to be a success in both the level of engagement and the results. Work- Phase II built on the methods established in Phase I, but looked beyond refuges to assess shop participants recommended developing a second phase that would engage other at-risk species occurrences on the land holdings of all federal and state agencies as well as public land agencies in a broader cooperative effort to evaluate species status, design other public and private conservation lands, with a particular focus on national forests. coordinated action steps to address habitat needs, and identify opportunities for joint The objectives of this phase were: agency and landowner efforts. 1. to quantify the role that protected areas are already playing in supporting at-risk spe- National forests cover large expanses of land in the Southeast and were assumed to pro- cies populations 3 At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other Protected Areas Locally occurring is the term we employ for species whose ranges are restricted to a limited geopraphic area. An emphasis was placed on locally occurring species because the occurrence of significant populations of these species on protected areas would offer an important conservation opportunity. Also, their restricted ranges make these spe- cies especially susceptible to habitat loss and degradation. Each of the at-risk species identified as locally occurring was associated with one (or, in a few cases two or three) focal areas identified within the Southeast. Identifying locations with multiple locally occurring species allows conservation attention to more efficiently focus on species status and guide local conservation measures. These focal areas were defined by partners and Service staff at the outset of the project by identifying clusters of locally occurring species whose known ranges were overlapping or contiguous (Figure 1). Focal areas were named according their geographic area (e.g. West Florida Panhandle); a recognized ecoregion or dominant geographic feature (e.g. Southern Blue Ridge, Cumberland Plateau); or, particularly when dealing with primarily aquatic species, a river drainage basin. A full list of locally occurring species by focal area is available at https://www.fws.gov/southeast/ reading-room/?q=At-risk+species. Species of concern are species not currently petitioned for listing, but whose current population status and trends suggest they may be at risk in the near future. These spe- Photo by Jonathan Mays | Aramus guarauna (Limpkin) — adult feeding on apple snail. cies have been recommended by experts as needing surveys and assessment to identify preemptive actions that could prevent these species from being petitioned at a later date. 2. to highlight knowledge gaps regarding at-risk species status and habitat needs and A list of species of concern reported at workshops is available at https://www.fws.gov/ identify opportunities for beneficial management practices and monitoring efforts southeast/reading-room/?q=At-risk+species. 3. to foster cooperation among public agencies, as well as non-government organizations Though the primary focus of this project was the occurrence of at-risk species on public (NGOs) and private landowners on management and monitoring actions to benefit lands administered by federal or state agencies, occurrences on several NGO- or pri- at-risk species. vately-owned sites were also reported by SMEs and included in the dataset. For this reason, we generally use the term protected areas for the various land units discussed Definitions in this document. This aligns with terminology used by the U.S. Geological Survey in In establishing the list of southeastern at-risk species to be evaluated in this project, its Protected Area Database of the United States, which we used to verify the names and partners agreed to include species at any stage of the ESA petition process (petitioned, locations of reported land units. candidate for listing, or proposed for listing) in the Southeast Region at the time the project began. All species on the original list have been retained throughout Phase II, including those species for which listing determinations were made during the course of the project as well as those that were withdrawn from the petition. 4 At-Risk Species Assessment on Southern National Forests, Refuges, and Other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma Forbesi)
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Barrens Darter (Etheostoma forbesi) Version 2.0 Acknowledgements: This Species Status Assessment would not have been possible without the research and assistance of Dr. Richard Harrington, Yale University Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Hayden Mattingly and his students, Tennessee Tech University School of Environmental Studies, Dr. John Johansen, Austin Peay State University Department of Biology, and Mark Thurman, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Biology and Life History ........................................................................................... 4 Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................ 4 Genetic Diversity ..................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Lifecycle .................................................................................................................................. 7 Population Needs ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act 2018
    ▪ Requires regulators to consider potential effects on T&E species during permitting process ▪ Must evaluate whether they are present ▪ If present, will there be any effects? ▪ Each plant or animal type has particular set of rules about when protective measures need to be placed in permit ▪ Terrestrial species typically only require protections when present within footprint of activity or within a buffer zone of habitat features (roost trees, hibernacula, etc.) ▪ Aquatic species require protections if project is within a certain distance upstream and/or if the project disturbs an upstream drainage area greater than a given size Species Scientific Name Eastern cougar Felis concolor cougar* Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Cheat Mountain salamander Plethodon nettingi Diamond darter Crystallaria cincotta Madison Cave isopod Antrolana lira Species Scientific Name Clubshell mussel Pleurobema clava Fanshell mussel Cyprogenia stegaria James spiny mussel Pleurobema collina Pink mucket mussel Lampsilis abrupta Rayed bean mussel Villosa fabalis Sheepnose mussel Plethobasus cyphyus Spectaclecase mussel Cumberlandia monodonta Species Scientific Name Snuffbox mussel Epioblasma triquetra Tubercled blossom pearly mussel Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Guyandotte River crayfish Cambarus veteranus Big Sandy crayfish Canbarus callainus Flat-spired three toothed land snail Triodopsis platysayoides Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Northeastern bulrush Scirpus ancistrochaetus
    [Show full text]
  • CRAYFISH IDENTIFICATION with DICHOTOMOUS KEYS As The
    CRAYFISH IDENTIFICATION WITH DICHOTOMOUS KEYS As the name implies, a dichotomous key includes a series of paired choices called couplets. Each couplet contains alternative identification characteristics that allow you to advance step by step through the key, until you reach an endpoint (species). Once you reach your endpoint, read through the associated species account, and review the range map to make sure it fits what you found. If after reviewing the account and the map, you think you reached the species in error, go back to the key, and think about where you had to make a difficult decision on which way to proceed in the key. Then, try the opposite choice to see if it leads you to a better answer. When starting out, using dichotomous keys can be frustrating. Sometimes the characteristics presented in the key are straightforward, while other times the differences are extremely subtle. Seldom will every characteristic presented in a couplet match your specimen exactly. Be patient, choose the “best” answer, and as mentioned above, be ready to try alternative routes within the key. Keep in mind also that the photo included within a given species account represents a single, clean individual. There will often be variability in color and size depending on the sex and age class of the individual you are attempting to identify. You will see a good example of this when you are using one of the keys where Cambarus latimanus is present. The common name of this species is Variable Crayfish, and the name is fitting. This species is so variable that in some keys it appears in two places.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Name: COOSAWATTEE CRAYFISH Scientific Name: Cambarus (Hiaticambarus) Coosawattae Hobbs Other Commonly Used Names: None P
    Common Name: COOSAWATTEE CRAYFISH Scientific Name: Cambarus (Hiaticambarus) coosawattae Hobbs Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Cambaridae Rarity Ranks: G1/S1 State Legal Status: Endangered Federal Legal Status: none Description: The base color of the Coosawattee crayfish is brownish to olive with a reddish or burgundy coloration on the posterior portion of the carapace and the posterior edge of each abdominal segment. Margins of the rostrum and postorbital ridges are orange to reddish. The claws can be quite large in relation to the body and there is a gap between the fingers of the claw when the claw is closed. There is usually a tuft of setae at the base of the fixed finger of the claw and a single row of flattened tubercles along the mesial margin of the palm. The rostrum tapers anteriorly and appears “pinched” near the middle. The areola is broad with sides that are nearly parallel. Cervical spines are absent. This species reaches a maximum total body length of about 75 mm (3 inches). Similar Species: The Coosawattee crayfish may be found with the similar appearing beautiful crayfish (Cambarus speciosus). The Coosawattee crayfish differs from the latter by the lack of cervical spines and a rostrum that appears pinched in the middle compared to the nearly parallel- sided rostrum of the beautiful crayfish Habitat: Adults are typically found under rocks in relatively fast currents within streams. Juveniles may be found in leaves or woody debris in slower moving water. Diet: No studies of the Coosawattee crayfish are known. Crayfishes are considered opportunistic omnivores and are likely to feed on live and decaying vegetation, aquatic insect larvae, small fishes, and dead animal matter.
    [Show full text]
  • New Alien Crayfish Species in Central Europe
    NEW ALIEN CRAYFISH SPECIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE Introduction pathways, life histories, and ecological impacts DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. rer. nat. der Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften der Universität Ulm vorgelegt von Christoph Chucholl aus Rosenheim Ulm 2012 NEW ALIEN CRAYFISH SPECIES IN CENTRAL EUROPE Introduction pathways, life histories, and ecological impacts DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. rer. nat. der Fakultät für Naturwissenschaften der Universität Ulm vorgelegt von Christoph Chucholl aus Rosenheim Ulm 2012 Amtierender Dekan: Prof. Dr. Axel Groß Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Manfred Ayasse Zweitgutachter: Prof. apl. Dr. Gerhard Maier Tag der Prüfung: 16.7.2012 Cover picture: Orconectes immunis male (blue color morph) (photo courtesy of Dr. H. Bellmann) Table of contents Part 1 – Summary Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Invasive alien species – a global menace ....................................................................... 1 “Invasive” matters .......................................................................................................... 2 Crustaceans – successful invaders .................................................................................. 4 The case of alien crayfish in Europe .............................................................................. 5 New versus Old alien crayfish .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of Crayfish (Decapoda: Cambaridae) Of
    CAMBARUS (TUBERICAMBARUS) POLYCHROMATUS (DECAPODA: CAMBARIDAE) A NEW SPECIES OF CRAYFISH FROM OHIO, KENTUCKY, INDIANA, ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN Roger F Thoma Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology Museum of Biological Diversity 1315 Kinnear Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43212-1192 Raymond F. Jezerinac Deceased, 21 April 1996 Thomas P. Simon Division of Crustaceans, Aquatic Research Center, Indiana Biological Survey, 6440 South Fairfax Road, Bloomington, Indiana 47401 2 Abstract. --A new species of crayfish Cambarus (Tubericambarus) polychromatus is described from western Ohio, Indiana, southern and east-central Illinois, western Kentucky, and southern Michigan areas of North America. Of the recognized members of the subgenus, it is most closely related to Cambarus (T.) thomai, found primarily in eastern Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee and western West Virginia. It is easily distinguished from other recognized members of the subgenus by its strongly deflected rostral tip. __________________________________ Raymond F. Jezerinac (RFT) studied the Cambarus diogenes species complex for two decades. He described one new species and erected the subgenus Tubericambarus (Jezerinac, 1993) before his untimely death in 1996. This paper is the continuing efforts of the senior author (RFT) to complete Ray’s unfinished work. Ray had long recognized this species as distinct, but was delayed in its description by his work on the crayfishes of West Virginia (Jezerinac et. al., 1995). After his death, a partial manuscript was found on Ray’s computer at the Ohio State University Museum of Biodiversity, Columbus, Ohio. That manuscript served as the impetus for this paper. This species first came to the 3 attention of RFJ and RFT in 1978 when conducting research into the Cambarus bartonii species complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Threat Posed by the Crayfish Plague Agent
    Estimating the threat posed by the crayfish plague agent Aphanomyces astaci to crayfish species of Europe and North America — Introduction pathways, distribution and genetic diversity by Jörn Panteleit from Aachen, Germany Accepted Dissertation thesis for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctor of Natural Sciences Fachbereich 7: Natur- und Umweltwissenschaften Universität Koblenz-Landau Thesis examiners: Prof. Dr. Ralf Schulz, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany Dr. Japo Jussila, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Suomi-Finland Date of oral examination: January 17th, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 Zusammenfassung ......................................................................................................................... 5 3. ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 6 4. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Invasive species ............................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Freshwater crayfish in Europe ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tc & Forward & Owls-I-IX
    USDA Forest Service 1997 General Technical Report NC-190 Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere Second International Symposium February 5-9, 1997 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Editors: James R. Duncan, Zoologist, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre Wildlife Branch, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources Box 24, 200 Saulteaux Crescent Winnipeg, MB CANADA R3J 3W3 <[email protected]> David H. Johnson, Wildlife Ecologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA, USA 98501-1091 <[email protected]> Thomas H. Nicholls, retired formerly Project Leader and Research Plant Pathologist and Wildlife Biologist USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN, USA 55108-6148 <[email protected]> I 2nd Owl Symposium SPONSORS: (Listing of all symposium and publication sponsors, e.g., those donating $$) 1987 International Owl Symposium Fund; Jack Israel Schrieber Memorial Trust c/o Zoological Society of Manitoba; Lady Grayl Fund; Manitoba Hydro; Manitoba Natural Resources; Manitoba Naturalists Society; Manitoba Critical Wildlife Habitat Program; Metro Propane Ltd.; Pine Falls Paper Company; Raptor Research Foundation; Raptor Education Group, Inc.; Raptor Research Center of Boise State University, Boise, Idaho; Repap Manitoba; Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada; USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDA Forest Service, including the North Central Forest Experiment Station; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; The Wildlife Society - Washington Chapter; Wildlife Habitat Canada; Robert Bateman; Lawrence Blus; Nancy Claflin; Richard Clark; James Duncan; Bob Gehlert; Marge Gibson; Mary Houston; Stuart Houston; Edgar Jones; Katherine McKeever; Robert Nero; Glenn Proudfoot; Catherine Rich; Spencer Sealy; Mark Sobchuk; Tom Sproat; Peter Stacey; and Catherine Thexton.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
    Louisiana's Animal Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) ‐ Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals ‐ 2020 MOLLUSKS Common Name Scientific Name G‐Rank S‐Rank Federal Status State Status Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina G5 S1 Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 S2 Western Fanshell Cyprogenia aberti G2G3Q SH Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata G4G5 S1 Elephant‐ear Elliptio crassidens G5 S3 Spike Elliptio dilatata G5 S2S3 Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi G2G3 S3 Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena G4G5 S3 Round Pearlshell Glebula rotundata G4G5 S4 Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium G5 S1 Southern Pocketbook Lampsilis ornata G5 S3 Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Fatmucket Lampsilis siliquoidea G5 S2 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata G5 S1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta G4G5 S1 Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli G1 S1 Threatened Threatened Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G2 S1S2 Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria G4 S1 Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 S1 Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G3 S2 Louisiana Pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2G3 S2 Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus G1G2 SH Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax G2 S1 Endangered Endangered Inflated Heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus G1G2Q S1 Threatened Threatened Ouachita Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis G3G4 S1 Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica G3G4 S1 Threatened Threatened Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra G4 S1 Southern Creekmussel Strophitus subvexus
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Io Moth Automeris Io (Fabricius) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Saturniidae)1 Donald W
    EENY608 Io Moth Automeris io (Fabricius) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Saturniidae)1 Donald W. Hall2 Introduction The beautiful Io moth, Automeris io (Fabricius), is one of our most recognizable moths. It is distinctive because of its prominent hind wing eyespots. The Io moth, like many of the other saturniid moths, is less common now in parts of its range. With the exception of Cape Cod and some of the Massachusetts islands, it is now rare in New England where it was once common, and its populations have declined in the Gulf States (with the exception of Louisiana) since the 1970s (Manley 1993). The attractive Io moth caterpillar is also well-known because of its painful sting. Figure 1. Male Io moth, Automeris io (Fabricius). Automeris is a large genus with about 145 species (Heppner Credits: Donald W. Hall, University of Florida 1996). All Automeris species are characterized by large eyespots in the middle of the hind wings. Most species Synonymy are found in Central and South America. There are seven Fabricius (1775, p.560) described the Io moth and named species in the United States. Five of these, Automeris it Bombyx io. Abbott and Smith (1797, p.97) published zephyria Grote (New Mexico and western Texas), Automeris the first account of the Io moth’s life cycle under the cecrops (Boisduval), Automeris iris (Walker), Automeris name Phalaena io. Some early references used the genus patagoniensis Lemaire, and Automeris randa Druce name Hyperchiria (e.g., Eliot & Soule 1902, Lintner 1872, (southeastern Arizona) are found only in the western U.S. Stratton-Porter 1921, Strecker 1872).
    [Show full text]