DOCSLIB.ORG

Williamsonia P Age 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Williamsonia P Age 2 A publication of the M ichigan O donata Survey V olu me 9 Issu e 1 W i l l i a m s o n i a Winter 20 0 5 C anada D arner w ith unusual thorax pattern Julie C raves University of M ichigan-D earborn jac@ rrbo.org fter attending an ornithological m eeting in G rayling (C raw ford C o.) on 28 Aug A 2004, I had a little bit of tim e to hunt for odonata before heading back hom e. C onsulting a m ap, I chose to explore H ow e’s Lake, a sm all sandy lake north of M -72 w est of G rayling. There w asn’t a lot actually plying the lake itself, but the w et, grassy depressions near the lake shore had several species of Lestes, Saffon-w inged M eadow haw k (Sym petrum costiferum , a county record), and quite a few Aeshna’s pa- trolling lazily or ovipositing in the shallow w ater. I netted a few C anada D arners (Aeshna canadensis), and som e Black-tipped D arners (A. tuberculifera, county record). It appeared that all the blue darners at the site w ere these tw o species, until I netted one w ith broken thoracic stripes, w hich I took to be a V ariable D arner (A. interrupta). W hen I returned hom e to sort through the speci- m ens, I turned this specim en over, I found that the other side of the thorax w as the standard C anada D arner pattern. A closer exam ination revealed that this w as in- Top: The side of the thorax with the broken stripes. Bottom: The side deed canadensis in all other characters, except that one side of the thorax. with typical A. canadensis pattern. W hile I’ve found little on this phenom ena in the literature, it is apparently not w ithout precedent. For m e it under- scores the im portance of actually collecting specim ens – or in the least netting them and carefully exam ining them in the hand – in order to verify the identity. Even if I had seen this individual perched, I w ould have m isidentified it had I only seen the one side (V ariable D arner w ould have been a county record). This interesting specim en is in m y per- sonal reference collection. INSIDE: 2004 dragonflying in M ecosta C o. Twin-spotted Spiketail: Stephen Ross sight record for W ayne Co. Rodney, M I seross@ tucker-usa.com ID of Epitheca costalis o say the least, dragonflying in M ecosta C ounty during 2004 T w as BO R -ring. It seem s this w as a fairly m iserable year statew ide. M y date range ran from April 16 for the first C om m on G reen D arner (Anax junius) and ended Novem ber 9 w ith the last few Autum n (Yellow -legged) M eadow haw ks (Sym petrum vicinum ) succum bing to the cold. This w as the first year w ith- out m y finding a county record since I began w orking the county in 1998. The closest to a record w as col- (Continued on page 2) Williamsonia P age 2 M ecosta C o., cont. (Continued from page 1) finding sixteen species, w ith several being conspicuously lacking. W hile w e found m ost of the usual suspects, both of lecting the first adult C yrano D arner (N asiaeschna pentacantha) us rem arked on how few of each species w ere present. I also for the county. O ne had been photographed in June 1998 and canoed the sam e sections on July 23 w ith Pat C ady and found a larval record w as collected in 1999. the stream odonate fauna rem arkably lacking, finding only a few individuals of each of ten species. A trip dow n the M us- kegon from Paris to Big R apids on July 20 found only sm all I visited the tw o R inged Boghaunter (W illiam sonia lintneri) num bers of six species of dam sels. The only dragonfly w as sites four tim es in late April and early M ay on the few w arm one D ragonhunter (H agenius brevistylus). Several G om phids, days that occurred during that tim e. None w ere found, nor M acrom ia, and Stylurids should have been observed. w ere any in 2003. D ip netting for larvae here produced only a few underdeveloped Libellulids. I’m not sure enough is know n about W . lintneri to be w orried that these sites have In the UP, I had som ew hat better luck, during m y third sur- lost their populations; perhaps they are just cyclical and can vey of the O ttaw a National Forest for the Forest Service. This arrest developm ent until conditions are right. year I w as w orking the Three C orners V egetative M anage- m ent Project w here O ntonagon, Iron, and G ogebic counties com e together. Through the haze of deerflies, m osquitoes, Though the lakes w ere periodically good, for the m ost part, and the ticks craw ling through m y clothes, I found tw o of the they seem ed lacking and the hatches later than expected. eight target species. O ne, the M idland C lubtail (G om phus frat- H anna Lake, w here I logged 26 species in about tw o hours in ernus), seem ed to be at peak of em ergence, w ith about 150 2003, w as quite disappointing this year on three visits, eleven observed in roadside and open ar- species being the highest num ber found. The one exception eas along the O ntonagon R iver. w as a July 21 visit to Tow nline Lake w here an em ergence of Five O cellated Em eralds Enallagm as w as going on. E. carunculatum , E traviatum , E. hageni, (Som atochlora m inor) w ere also and E. gem inatum w ere found good num bers. O therw ise, I found am ong the alders and sedge found lake and nearby open areas around the county to be m eadow s of M cG inty C reek. I also significantly dim inished from past visits. caught several Subarctic Bluets (Coenagrion interrogatum ) a county The stream s, such as the M uskegon and Little M uskegon record for Iron C ounty and one of R iver, and a m odest stream I visit in C olfax Tow nship, w ere the few tim es this species has been seem ingly devoid of odes this year. The county experienced captured in the UP. considerably m ore rain than usual this spring, and tem pera- In case you were wonder- ing, “Where in the heck is tures w ere cool, resulting in stream s over their banks w ell Though butterfly collecting during Mecosta Co.?” into June. I agree w ith M ark O ’Brien’s contention that m uch this year seem ed to be w orse than of the stream odonate fauna m ay have been w ashed dow n- dragonfly collecting, I located eight lep records for the UP stream , killed in the process or becam e food for fish. w hile doing m y odonate survey. These w ere C anada Sw al- low tail (Papilio Canadensis), Little W ood Satyr (M egisto cy- C arl Freem an and I canoed the Little M uskegon on June 18, m ela), Silvery C heckerspot (Chlosyne nycteis), Inornate R inglet (Coenonym pha tullia inornata), M onarch (D anaus plexippus), H o- bom ok Skipper (Poanes hobom ock), D ream y D uskyw ing (Erynnis icelus), and Taw ny-edged Skipper (Polites them istocles). C loser to hom e, I participated in the BioBlitz at C hippew a Nature C enter on Septem ber 18. D ragonflies w ere also con- spicuously absent here, especially Aeshnids, despite very good habitats for ode hunting. The best find w as a county record of a C alico Pennant (Celthem is elisa) w hich w as also a significantly late record. The area of the confluence of the Pine and C hippew a R ivers did hold a num ber of Am erican R ubyspots (H etaerina am ericana) and Pow dered D ancers (Argia m oesta). W illiam sonia P age 3 T w in-spotted Spiketail: N ew sight record for Wayne C ounty and a record late date Allen C hartier am azilia1@ com cast.net he Tw in-spotted Spiketail (Cordulegaster m aculata) has been recorded from m ost of the UP and northern LP T counties in M ichigan, and from about a third of the southern LP counties (14), including six in the southeast (M O S w ebsite). O n the cool m orning (58° F, ~9:00 AM EST) of 22 Aug 2004, w hile checking m ist nets at m y bird banding station in a closed area of Lake Erie M etro Park, W ayne C o., I encountered a Tw in-spotted Spiketail hunting over an open grassy field surrounded by shrub, hedgerow , and w oodland. Initially, I thought it w as the C anada D arner (Aeshna canadensis) that I had seen a short tim e earlier. But, w hen it landed near m e I im m ediately saw the paired yellow triangular spots on the abdom en and I suspected it w as a Cordulegaster instead, but I w asn’t sure w hich species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritizing Odonata for Conservation Action in the Northeastern USA
    APPLIED ODONATOLOGY Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA Erin L. White1,4, Pamela D. Hunt2,5, Matthew D. Schlesinger1,6, Jeffrey D. Corser1,7, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3,8 1New York Natural Heritage Program, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 USA 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 USA 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine 04401 USA Abstract: Odonata are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change, and the northeastern USA (Virginia to Maine) is a hotspot of odonate diversity and a region of historical and grow- ing threats to freshwater ecosystems. This duality highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conser- vation assessment of the region’s 228 resident odonate species. We offer a prioritization framework modified from NatureServe’s method for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern USA. We calculated the R-rank based on 3 rarity factors (range extent, area of occupancy, and habitat specificity), 1 threat factor (vulnerability of occupied habitats), and 1 trend factor (relative change in range size). We combine this R-rank with the degree of endemicity (% of the species’ USA and Canadian range that falls within the region) as a proxy for regional responsibility, thereby deriving a list of species of combined vulnerability and regional management responsibility. Overall, 18% of the region’s odonate fauna is imperiled (R1 and R2), and peatlands, low-gradient streams and seeps, high-gradient headwaters, and larger rivers that harbor a disproportionate number of these species should be considered as priority habitat types for conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland December 2016 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. Cover photo: A mating pair of the Appalachian Jewelwing (Calopteryx angustipennis), a rare damselfly in Maryland. (Photo credit, James McCann) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. Suggested citation: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401. 03-1272016-633. INTRODUCTION The following list comprises 514 native Maryland animals that are among the least understood, the rarest, and the most in need of conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Biological Traits Database
    USGS_Citations_v1.txt Citation_title Citation_complete (Part 1) Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) "Berner, L. 1940. Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) (Part 1). The Florida Entomologist 23(3):33-62." (Part 2) Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) "Berner, L. 1940. Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) (Part 2). The Florida Entomologist 23(4):49-62." A check list of the Trichoptera (caddis flies) of New Hampshire. "Morse, W. J. and R. L. Blickle (1953). ""A check list of the Trichoptera (caddis flies) of New Hampshire."" Entomological News 64: 68-73; 97-102." A checklist of caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Massachusetts. "Holeski, P. M. (1979). ""A checklist of caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Massachusetts."" Entomological News 90(4): 167-175." A checklist of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia. "Kondratieff, B. C. and J. R. Voshell (1979). ""A checklist of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia."" Entomological News 90(5): 241-246." A comparative study of the North American species in the caddisfly genus Mystacides "Yamamoto, T., and G. B. Wiggins. 1964. A comparative study of the North American species in the caddisfly genus Mystacides (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 42:1105-1126." A contribution to the biolgoy of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools. "Wiggins, G. B. (1973). ""A contribution to the biolgoy of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools."" Life Sciences Contributions, Royal Ontario Museum 88: 1-28." A description of the female of Hydroptila jackmanni Blickle with biological notes "Huryn, A. D. 1983. A description of the female of Hydroptila jackmanni Blickle (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae), with biological notes. Entomological News 94(3):93-94." A description of the immature stages of Paduniella nearctica with notes on its biology "Mathis, M.
    [Show full text]
  • W Il L Ia M S O N Ia
    A publication of the M ichigan O donata Survey Volume 8 Issue 3 W il l iam s o n ia Summer 20 0 4 Epitheca costalis (Stripe-w inged Baskettail) in M ichigan: U pdate By M ark O ’Brien M useum of Z oology, U niversity of M ichigan, A nn A rbor, M I 48109 Last year, I alerted M O S m em bers to the possibility of finding Epi- theca costalis in M ichigan, since N ick D onnelly reported speci- m ens that w ere either true costalis or intergrades betw een costalis and E. cynosura (C om m on Baskettail) in O hio. I sent N ick a box of specim ens to see if there w ere any possible E. costalis from southeast M ichigan. A t first, N ick felt that m ost w ere cynosura w ith a few possible intergrades. A fter som e re- exam ination of the data, N ick sent m e an e-m ail listing E. Stripe-winged Baskettail? This costalis that he identified from low er M ichigan: unidentified Epitheca, photo- graphed by Steve Habbel in Bear Creek Twp., Emmet Co., shows one Mark - I continue to go over the Epitheca. I now think that sev- fairly distinctive characteristic of E. eral of your specimens are costalis. The problem I had was that costalis — a narrowed abdomen at your specimens were at the very north edge of the range and segment 3. thus varied somewhat from more southern specimens. Because (Continued on page 2) Subarctic Darner, A eshna subarctica – a historical oddity? By M ark O ’Brien M useum of Z oology, U niversity of M ichigan, A nn A rbor, M I 48109 Earlier this year, I w as assisting the D N R in determ ining the status of species of O donata that m ay be of special concern w ithin M ichigan (see page 9).
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonfly and Damselfly Checklist
    Dragonf ly There are over 160 dragonfly and damselfly species found in Ohio. The Oak Openings is a & Damself ly premier location for finding many of these fascinating and beautiful insects. Dragonfly and damselfly larvae are completely aquatic; Checklist therefore, these animals are excellent indicators of water quality. The adults are often brilliantly colored, and they are fun to observe as they engage in acrobatic maneuvers while hunt- ing. Their ability to fly in any direction, swiftly change direction, and fly at lightning speed (the fastest have been clocked at 60 miles per hour) makes them one of nature’s most amazing flying machines. These insects are carnivorous and voracious predators. Their prey is hunted on the wing (in mid-air) and can range from small flies and mosquitoes to other dragonflies. One key feature for differentiating dragonflies and damselflies is the spacing of their eyes. While damselflies have eyes spaced widely apart, eyes on dragonflies touch or are only slightly separated. Also, when perching, dragonflies hold their wings straight out to the sides. Most damselflies, with the exception of the spreadwings, press their wings together over their backs. Photos by Rick Nirschl Cover photo: Blue-faced Meadowhawk (Sympetrum ambiguum) 5100 West Central Ave. Toledo, Ohio 43615 MetroparksToledo.com This odonata checklist includes historical records for Lucas County, Ohio as well as documented sightings. 2000 07/17 BROAD-WINGED DAMSELS – CALOPTERYGIDAE __ Midland Clubtail - Gomphus fraternus __ Ebony Jewelwing - Calopteryx
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata in the Northeastern US
    A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States Erin L. White1, Pamela D. Hunt2, Matthew D. Schlesinger1, Jeffrey D. Corser1, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3 March 2014 1New York Natural Heritage Program, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, NY, US 12233-4757 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401 Cover photo: Ringed boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri) by Michael Blust 2007 Suggested citation: White, Erin L., Pamela D. Hunt, Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, and Phillip G. deMaynadier. 2014. A conservation status assessment of Odonata for the northeastern United States. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. ii Executive Summary Odonates are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change. Approximately 18% of odonates in the US are considered rare and vulnerable to extirpation or extinction. Northeastern North America hosts a rich and ancient odonate fauna, especially for a temperate region. Recognition of northeastern North America as both a hotspot of odonate diversity, and a region of historical and growing threats to freshwater ecosystems, highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conservation assessment of the Northeast’s resident odonate species. Here, we develop and apply a prioritization framework for 228 species of dragonflies and damselflies occurring in the northeastern US (Virginia to Maine). Specifically, we offer a modified version of NatureServe’s methodology for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single, regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern US.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States
    A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States Erin L. White1, Pamela D. Hunt2, Matthew D. Schlesinger1, Jeffrey D. Corser1, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3 March 2014 1New York Natural Heritage Program, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, NY, US 12233-4757 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401 Cover photo: Ringed boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri) by Michael Blust 2007 Suggested citation: White, Erin L., Pamela D. Hunt, Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, and Phillip G. deMaynadier. 2014. A conservation status assessment of Odonata for the northeastern United States. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. ii Executive Summary Odonates are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change. Approximately 18% of odonates in the US are considered rare and vulnerable to extirpation or extinction. Northeastern North America hosts a rich and ancient odonate fauna, especially for a temperate region. Recognition of northeastern North America as both a hotspot of odonate diversity, and a region of historical and growing threats to freshwater ecosystems, highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conservation assessment of the Northeast’s resident odonate species. Here, we develop and apply a prioritization framework for 228 species of dragonflies and damselflies occurring in the northeastern US (Virginia to Maine). Specifically, we offer a modified version of NatureServe’s methodology for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single, regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern US.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Inventory of Odonata at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit Final Report, Challenge Cost Share MOA #2007CCS-98
    Baseline Inventory of Odonata at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit Final Report, Challenge Cost Share MOA #2007CCS-98 Julie A. Craves Rouge River Bird Observatory Environmental Interpretive Center University of Michigan-Dearborn Dearborn, MI 48128 This report summarizes a baseline inventory of Odonata (damselflies, suborder Zygoptera, and dragonflies, suborder Anisoptera) at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit, Trenton and Gibraltar, Wayne County, MI (hereafter referred to as “Humbug”). Methods In their paper recommending biodiversity inventories for invertebrates, Rohr et al. (2007) advise that baseline data emphasize relative abundances. Accordingly, this inventory was designed to summarize the Odonata taxa present at Humbug, including relative abundance, status (e.g., breeding resident), and habitats (Kremen et al. 1993, Hawking and New 2002). The site was visited 14 times in 2007: 3 times each in June, July, and August; twice in September for adults and once for larval sampling; and once in October for adults and once for larval sampling. Adult surveys were only done on days with appropriate weather (mostly sunny, warm, without high winds) (Schmidt 1985, Chovanec and Waringer 2001, Hornung and Rice 2003) and at peak flight times (10:00 to 16:00) (Bried et al. 2007). Adult surveys took place along three transects and in two areas searches. One east-west transect was as parallel as possible to a man-made ditch known as Monguagon Creek1, beginning where it empties from an underground pipe, and extending approximately 525 m to the Detroit River (Trenton Channel). A second transect ran north-south parallel to the Detroit River shoreline for approximately 185 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED ANIMALS OF MARYLAND December 11, 2007 Prepared by Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 260-8563 INTRODUCTION The following report identifies those native Maryland animals that are among the rarest and most in need of conservation efforts as elements of our State's natural diversity. It includes species occurring in Maryland that are listed or candidates for listing on the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, species currently on the State's Threatened and Endangered Species List, and additional species that are considered rare by the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service. The purpose of this report is to inform the public of which species are rare, to provide an indication of their degree of rarity, to solicit additional information on the status and distribution of these species, and to promote an interest in their protection. Compiled by Wildlife and Heritage Service staff, this list of rare species is a result of over 20 years of data gathering from numerous sources, such as museums and private collections, scientific literature, unpublished documents, reports from biologists and amateur naturalists, and from field work conducted by Wildlife and Heritage Service ecologists. The original version of this list was included in the Department of Natural Resources' 1984 publication Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Maryland, which also contained detailed information on the distribution and status of Maryland's rare species known at that time. Since 1984, our knowledge of Maryland's fauna has grown steadily.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Animals, Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07, February
    COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals Compiled by: Steven M. Roble, Zoologist Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. February 2016 NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA: RARE ANIMALS FEBRUARY 2016 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE 600 EAST MAIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804) 786-7951 List Compiled by Steven M. Roble Staff Zoologist Cover illustrations (left to right) by Megan Rollins Indiana Myotis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Regal Fritillary This report should be cited as: Roble, S.M. 2016. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals. Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 56 pp. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 LIST FORMAT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PRIMARY SOURCES OF COMMON NAMES ................................................................................................................ 7 PART ONE. RARE ANIMAL LIST ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]