DOCSLIB.ORG

Papilio (New Series) #12, Some O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Papilio (New Series) #12, Some O (NEW Dec. 3, PAPILIO SERIES) 2008 GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION AND NEW TAXA OF WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLIES, ESPECIALLY FROM COLORADO By James A. Scott & Michaels. Fisher, with some parts by David M. Wright, Stephen M. Spomer, Norbert G. Kondla, Todd Stout, Matthew C. Garhart, & Gary M. Marrone Introduction and Abstract Michael Fisher is currently updating the 1957 book Colorado Butterflies, by F. Martin Brown, J. Donald Eff, and Bernard Rotger (Fisher 2005a, 2005b, 2006). This project has emphasized the necessity of naming certain butterflies in Colorado and vicinity that are distinctive, but currently have no name, as part of our goal of applying correct species/ subspecies names to all Colorado butterflies. Eleven of those distinctive butterflies are named here, in the genera Anthocharis, Neominois, Asterocampa, Argynnis (Speyeria), Euphydryas, Lycaena, and Hesperia. New life histories are reported for species or subspecies of Neominois & Oeneis & Euphydryas & Lycaena that were recently described or recently elevated in status. Lycaena jlorUs differs in hostplant, egg morphology, and somewhat in a seta on 151 -stage larvae. We also report the results ofresearch elsewhere in North America that was needed to determine which of the current subspecies names should be applied to other butterflies in Colorado, in the genera Anthocharis, Neominois, Apodemia, Callophrys, At/ides, Euphilotes, PlebeJus, Polites, & Hylephila. This research has added additional species to the total of Colorado butterflies. Nomenclatural problems in Colorado Lycaena & Calloph1ys are settled with lectotypes and designations of type localities and two pending petitions to suppress toxotaxa. Difficulties with the ICZN Code in properly applying names to clines are explored, and new terminology is given to some necessary biological solutions. Anthocharis "sara" group, Especially in Colorado and Vicinity, by J. Scott & M. Fisher (with New Research from Todd Stout) (one Ssp. Coauthored by Norbert G. Kondla) (Todd Stout will publish a regular paper on Anthocharis "sara" in The Taxonomic Report eventually, but has contributed some research here, in pursuit of our goal of determining the proper name for Colorado butterflies.) Colorado Anthocharis were previously considered to be A. sara, but actually there are two species in the state, A. sara near thoosa/inghami, and A. Julia Julia. This section discusses why there are two species, characterizes the known ssp., names three new ssp., and discusses their intergradation and problems with their taxonomic placement. We examined specimens from Colorado and other states in our collections and in Colorado museums, to determine proper Rames. Clearly there are two species (not just one )--A. sara and A. Julia--because the two are sympatric or nearly so at many sites. H. Geiger & A. Shapiro (1986, J. Res. Lepid: 25: 15-24) found A. sara sara very near the higher-altitude A.Julia stella at several sites on the top and W side of Sierra Nevada (stella occurs at Donner Pass 2100m where A. sara has been found as a stray 3 times; stella is a resident at Castle Peak 2750m where sara was found as a stray twice; and both were found as strays at Lang Crossing in Nevada Co. 4-5 times), and they found both near each other on the E side of the Sierras (stella at Truckee 1800m and sara 40 km Nat Sierra Valley [Sierraville?] 5000'=1500m, Sierra Co. Calif., April 10, 1988; stella at Yuba Pass in Sierra Co. 14 km from Sierra Valley [Sierraville?] sara), and both were found in the Trinity Alps and Ball Mtn. in N Calif., where stella was at higher altitude thansara; but they found no strict sympatry of resident populations. They also claimed to find electrophoretic differences between sara & stella, though these claims have not been repeated/verified. And Dennis Sorg caught sara and stella on Sierra Buttes Rd. above Packer Lake (in Yuba River drainage NNW of Sierra City), 7100',Sierra Co., June 22, 2002 (2002 Season Summary ofLepid. Soc.). And Ken Davenport and Jim Brock found both sara and stella in close proximity E of Bass Lake and in Fresno Dome region in Madera Co. in the SW Sierra Nevada (stella occurs at Beasore Rd., Madera Co. L May-M July, 500 feet higher in altitude and 1-3 road miles farther up than sara wh~ch flies Apr.-E June near Bass Lake)( cited by Ken Davenport 2004, Taxonomic Report of Int. Lep. Survey 5:17, and Davenport, pers. comm.). Brock found stella near Fresno Dome (June 6, 2002), and sara at lower levels of the Fresno Dome Road area (Scenic Road 10). Davenport (pers. comm.) found both sympatric at Big Sandy Cgd. (a small stream & meadow running into Bear Creek, Madera Co. Calif., May 29-30, 2007), where 6m1f stella and 3m large 2nd-generation sara were found; only stella was found below Fresno Dome Camp. Thus A. sara sara and A. julia stella are barely sympatric on the W side of the Sierra Nevada. Also, A. sara pseudothoosa and A. julia stella are actually sympatric at several sites on the E side of the Sierra Nevada in Mono Co. (from Green Can. N to the Walker area N of Sonora Jct., June-M July, Bruce & Bret Boyd, also cited by Davenport in Tax. Rept. 5:17). Also, Todd Stout has found A. sara thoosa and A. julia browningi sympatric at 3 sites in Utah. And our new records show that A. julia julia and A. sara ssp. interdigitate ranges in SW Colorado and N New Mexico, and will surely be found to be strictly sympatric there as well at least at the overlapping altitudinal limits of their ranges (they are known ~2 miles apart in La Plata Co. and 9 miles from each other in Garfield Co., and not far apart in Delta Co., and will probably be found to be completely sympatric in those counties plus Montrose & Archuleta Cos.). Todd Stout also found differences between larvae of sara (from Siskiyou Mts.)-thoosa-inghami compared to stella- browningi-julia-flora. Larvae of the former have the white lateral band more-or-less abruptly contrasting with the subdorsal and dorsal ground color, whereas the latter have the white lateral band gradually blended dorsally into the dorsal ground color. Larvae and pupae have a fairly simple color pattern, so all are somewhat similar (other than the blending), as shown by color photos of larvae of A. sara sara (Monroe & Monroe 2004, from Anza Borrego Desert State Park in S Calif.; Allen et al. 2005), the mature larva and pupa paintings by Charles Dammers of S Calif. A. sara sara (b/w drawing in Emmel & Emmel 1973 Butt. So. Calif.), the color photo of larvae of A. sara thoosa and A. julia browningi reared by Todd Stout (on utahlepsociety.org website), the color photos of larva (from BC) and pupa (from NW Ore.) of A. julia flora (in Guppy & Shepard 2001 Butt. BC), and color photos of larva and pupa of A. julia julia (from Lyons, Boulder Co. Colo., reared from egg/1st stage larva found on Arabis fendleri by Lynn & Gene Monroe). Larvae of all are fairly-dark green, with a whitish lateral band (extending onto the head) edged below by a darker green line, the uns darker green. The lateral band is mostly white, but may be yellowish-white (Emmel & Emmel 1973, from C. Dammers) due to a narrow band of yellow along the top of the band (as in the photos of sara in Allen et al. 2005 and flora in Guppy & Shepard 2001). The pupa is green or light-brown, and has the same white lateral band that extends from cone tip to cremaster, although it is edged dorsally (not ventrally) by a thick darker line. The ssp. sara pupa was described as light-brown, but pupae of ssp. sara do vary in color, as one from Strawberry Can. near Berkeley Calif. (photo from Paul Opler) is light-brown, while one from Alpine Lake Marin Co. Calif. (photo Opler) is green. The julia pupa is green, and flora varies from light-brown to dark- green. Thus, pupae seem to be individually variable in color. The thoosa larva looks dark-green, while the browningi larva is medium-green. The ssp. julia larva and pupa look more bluish-green dorsally than ventrally, and both are a lighter shade of green than the medium-green in the flora photos. And the white band is narrower on the head of julia than flora (the ssp. sara band is wide in Allen et al. 2005 [photo by T. J. Allen, but location not stated] but narrow in Monroe & Monroe 2004, and narrow on some photos by Todd Stout), while the white band is narrow on head and A10 of thoosa but wider on browningi. A larva of ssp. sara from Lagunitas Creek Calif. (slide from Paul Opler, reared by John Emmel) is dark-green, with the white band fairly wide on the head (the uns darker green). The species A. sara in general may have darker ground color. Todd Stout notes that the lateral white stripe is narrower on thoosa and inghami than on browningi & julia. However, the main difference between A. sara ssp. larvae and A. julia ssp. (including flora) larvae seems to be that above the lateral white band on the body, the ground color is whiter on A. julia as the band blends dorsally for 1-2 mm into the green ground color on top of larva, whereas in A. sara the larva is dark greenish above the white lateral band which is not blended into the green color. This blending occurs on all the julia and browningi and flora larva photos mentioned above, is evidently on a larva sent to Stout by the Monroes in 2006 from Boulder Co., and is lacking on the drawing and on all the photos of A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Celtis Tenuifolia) in Ontario
    Photo: Allen Woodliffe Dwarf Hackberry (Celtis tenuifolia) in Ontario Ontario Recovery Strategy Series Recovery strategy prepared under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 2013 Ministry of Natural Resources About the Ontario Recovery Strategy Series This series presents the collection of recovery strategies that are prepared or adopted as advice to the Province of Ontario on the recommended approach to recover species at risk. The Province ensures the preparation of recovery strategies to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada. What is recovery? What’s next? Recovery of species at risk is the process by which the Nine months after the completion of a recovery strategy decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated a government response statement will be published species is arrested or reversed, and threats are which summarizes the actions that the Government of removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of a Ontario intends to take in response to the strategy. species’ persistence in the wild. The implementation of recovery strategies depends on the continued cooperation and actions of government agencies, individuals, communities, land users, and What is a recovery strategy? conservationists. Under the ESA a recovery strategy provides the best available scientific knowledge on what is required to For more information achieve recovery of a species. A recovery strategy outlines the habitat needs and the threats to the To learn more about species at risk recovery in Ontario, survival and recovery of the species. It also makes please visit the Ministry of Natural Resources Species at recommendations on the objectives for protection and Risk webpage at: www.ontario.ca/speciesatrisk recovery, the approaches to achieve those objectives, and the area that should be considered in the development of a habitat regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Caterpillars Moths Butterflies Woodies
    NATIVE Caterpillars Moths and utter flies Band host NATIVE Hackberry Emperor oodies PHOTO : Megan McCarty W Double-toothed Prominent Honey locust Moth caterpillar Hackberry Emperor larva PHOTO : Douglas Tallamy Big Poplar Sphinx Number of species of Caterpillars n a study published in 2009, Dr. Oaks (Quercus) 557 Beeches (Fagus) 127 Honey-locusts (Gleditsia) 46 Magnolias (Magnolia) 21 Double-toothed Prominent ( Nerice IDouglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D, chair of the Cherries (Prunus) 456 Serviceberry (Amelanchier) 124 New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus) 45 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus) 19 bidentata ) larvae feed exclusively on elms Department of Entomology and Wildlife Willows (Salix) 455 Larches or Tamaracks (Larix) 121 Sycamores (Platanus) 45 Redbuds (Cercis) 19 (Ulmus), and can be found June through Ecology at the University of Delaware Birches (Betula) 411 Dogwoods (Cornus) 118 Huckleberry (Gaylussacia) 44 Green-briar (Smilax) 19 October. Their body shape mimics the specifically addressed the usefulness of Poplars (Populus) 367 Firs (Abies) 117 Hackberry (Celtis) 43 Wisterias (Wisteria) 19 toothed shape of American elm, making native woodies as host plants for our Crabapples (Malus) 308 Bayberries (Myrica) 108 Junipers (Juniperus) 42 Redbay (native) (Persea) 18 them hard to spot. The adult moth is native caterpillars (and obviously Maples (Acer) 297 Viburnums (Viburnum) 104 Elders (Sambucus) 42 Bearberry (Arctostaphylos) 17 small with a wingspan of 3-4 cm. therefore moths and butterflies). Blueberries (Vaccinium) 294 Currants (Ribes) 99 Ninebark (Physocarpus) 41 Bald cypresses (Taxodium) 16 We present here a partial list, and the Alders (Alnus) 255 Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya) 94 Lilacs (Syringa) 40 Leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne) 15 Honey locust caterpillar feeds on honey number of Lepidopteran species that rely Hickories (Carya) 235 Hemlocks (Tsuga) 92 Hollies (Ilex) 39 Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron) 15 locust, and Kentucky coffee trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of Ontario & Summaries of Lepidoptera
    ISBN #: 0-921631-12-X BUTTERFLIES OF ONTARIO & SUMMARIES OF LEPIDOPTERA ENCOUNTERED IN ONTARIO IN 1991 BY A.J. HANKS &Q.F. HESS PRODUCTION BY ALAN J. HANKS APRIL 1992 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION PAGE 1 2. WEATHER DURING THE 1991 SEASON 6 3. CORRECTIONS TO PREVIOUS T.E.A. SUMMARIES 7 4. SPECIAL NOTES ON ONTARIO LEPIDOPTERA 8 4.1 The Inornate Ringlet in Middlesex & Lambton Cos. 8 4.2 The Monarch in Ontario 8 4.3 The Status of the Karner Blue & Frosted Elfin in Ontario in 1991 11 4.4 The West Virginia White in Ontario in 1991 11 4.5 Butterfly & Moth Records for Kettle Point 11 4.6 Butterflies in the Hamilton Study Area 12 4.7 Notes & Observations on the Early Hairstreak 15 4.8 A Big Day for Migrants 16 4.9 The Ocola Skipper - New to Ontario & Canada .17 4.10 The Brazilian Skipper - New to Ontario & Canada 19 4.11 Further Notes on the Zarucco Dusky Wing in Ontario 21 4.12 A Range Extension for the Large Marblewing 22 4.13 The Grayling North of Lake Superior 22 4.14 Description of an Aberrant Crescent 23 4.15 A New Foodplant for the Old World Swallowtail 24 4.16 An Owl Moth at Point Pelee 25 4.17 Butterfly Sampling in Algoma District 26 4.18 Record Early Butterfly Dates in 1991 26 4.19 Rearing Notes from Northumberland County 28 5. GENERAL SUMMARY 29 6. 1990 SUMMARY OF ONTARIO BUTTERFLIES, SKIPPERS & MOTHS 32 Hesperiidae 32 Papilionidae 42 Pieridae 44 Lycaenidae 48 Libytheidae 56 Nymphalidae 56 Apaturidae 66 Satyr1dae 66 Danaidae 70 MOTHS 72 CONTINUOUS MOTH CYCLICAL SUMMARY 85 7.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Campbell Et Al. 2020 Peerj.Pdf
    A novel curation system to facilitate data integration across regional citizen science survey programs Dana L. Campbell1, Anne E. Thessen2,3 and Leslie Ries4 1 Division of Biological Sciences, School of STEM, University of Washington, Bothell, WA, USA 2 The Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, NJ, USA 3 Center for Genome Research and Biocomputing, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA 4 Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA ABSTRACT Integrative modeling methods can now enable macrosystem-level understandings of biodiversity patterns, such as range changes resulting from shifts in climate or land use, by aggregating species-level data across multiple monitoring sources. This requires ensuring that taxon interpretations match up across different sources. While encouraging checklist standardization is certainly an option, coercing programs to change species lists they have used consistently for decades is rarely successful. Here we demonstrate a novel approach for tracking equivalent names and concepts, applied to a network of 10 regional programs that use the same protocols (so-called “Pollard walks”) to monitor butterflies across America north of Mexico. Our system involves, for each monitoring program, associating the taxonomic authority (in this case one of three North American butterfly fauna treatments: Pelham, 2014; North American Butterfly Association, Inc., 2016; Opler & Warren, 2003) that shares the most similar overall taxonomic interpretation to the program’s working species list. This allows us to define each term on each program’s list in the context of the appropriate authority’s species concept and curate the term alongside its authoritative concept. We then aligned the names representing equivalent taxonomic Submitted 30 July 2019 concepts among the three authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis
    Wright State University CORE Scholar Browse all Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2017 Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis Danielle Marie Thiemann Wright State University Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all Part of the Biology Commons Repository Citation Thiemann, Danielle Marie, "Impacts of Invasive Alliaria Petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis Midea and Pieris Virginiensis" (2017). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 1849. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1849 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Browse all Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IMPACTS OF INVASIVE ALLIARIA PETIOLATA ON TWO NATIVE PERIDAE BUTTERFLIES, ANTHOCHARIS MIDEA AND PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science By DANIELLE MARIE THIEMANN B.S., University of Dayton, 2014 2017 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL April 20, 2017 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Danielle Marie Thiemann ENTITLED Impacts of Invasive Alliaria petiolata on Two Native Pieridae Butterflies, Anthocharis midea and Pieris virginiensis BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Science. ____________________________________ Donald F. Cipollini, Ph.D. Thesis Director ____________________________________ David L. Goldstein, Ph.D., Chair Department of Biological Sciences Committee on Final Examination ___________________________________ Donald F. Cipollini, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of San Bernardino County, California
    Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail
    [Show full text]
  • Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449
    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
    Volume 7 1 February 2010 Number 3 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY TIPS ON COLLECTING AND REARING IMMATURES OF 375 BUTTERFLY AND SKIPPER TAXA JACQUE WOLFE 459 East 2700 South Apt 16, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 JACK HARRY 47 San Rafael Court, West Jordan, UT 84088 TODD STOUT 1 1456 North General Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 ABSTRACT: Rearing techniques are discussed for 375 different butterfly and skipper taxa from Utah and beyond. Additional keywords: ova, larvae, pupae, over wintering, obtaining and caring for immatures INTRODUCTION The authors of this paper, Jacque Wolfe, Jack Harry, and Todd Stout, with contributions from Dale Nielson have over 100 years combined experience collecting and rearing butterflies. This publication includes natural and lab host plants. We hope that this information will help you avoid some of the mistakes and losses we have experienced. We also hope that this publication will encourage someone who has only collected adults to give rearing a try. For those new to rearing we encourage starting small. Not only can rearing provide perfect specimens but also provide knowledge regarding the life histories of butterflies, which includes how to find caterpillars or how to entice live females to lay eggs. The advantages justify the time and effort it requires. Another advantage of rearing is that some species, like Papilio indra and Megathymus species, are difficult to collect as adults. Therefor, rearing them can be much easier. For example, collecting larvae or netting a single live female can result in obtaining a nice series of perfect specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Vendor List by City
    Revised 2/20/14 Vendor List by City Antimony Otter Creek State Park 400 East SR 22 435-624-3268 Beaver Beaver Sport & Pawn 91 N Main 435-438-2100 Blanding Edge of the Cedars/Goosenecks State Parks 660 West 400 North 435-678-2238 Bluffdale Maverik 14416 S Camp Williams Rd 801-446-1180 Boulder Anasazi State Park 46 North Hwy 12 435-335-7308 Brian Head Brian Head Sports Inc 269 South Village Way 435-677-2014 Thunder Mountain Motorsports 539 North Highway 143 435-677-2288 1 Revised 2/20/14 Cannonville Kodachrome State Park 105 South Paria Lane 435-679-8562 Cedar City D&P Performance 110 East Center 435-586-5172 Frontier Homestead State Park 635 North Main 435-586-9290 Maverik 809 W 200 N 435-586-4737 Maverik 204 S Main 435-586-4717 Maverik 444 W Hwy 91 435-867-1187 Maverik 220 N Airport Road 435-867-8715 Ron’s Sporting Goods 138 S Main 435-586-9901 Triple S 151 S Main 435-865-0100 Clifton CO Maverik 3249 F Road 970-434-3887 2 Revised 2/20/14 Cortez CO Mesa Verde Motorsports 2120 S Broadway 970-565-9322 Delta Maverik 44 N US Hwy 6 Dolores Colorado Lone Mesa State Park 1321 Railroad Ave 970-882-2213 Duchesne Starvation State Park Old Hwy 40 435-738-2326 Duck Creek Loose Wheels Service Inc. 55 Movie Ranch Road 435-682-2526 Eden AMP Recreation 2429 N Hwy 158 801-614-0500 Maverik 5100 E 2500 N 801-745-3800 Ephraim Maverik 89 N Main 435-283-6057 3 Revised 2/20/14 Escalante Escalante State Park 710 North Reservoir Road 435-826-4466 Evanston Maverik 350 Front Street 307-789-1342 Maverik 535 County Rd 307-789-7182 Morgan Valley Polaris 1624 Harrison
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Pinon Canyon Invertebrate Survey Report
    "- - 70.096 60.096 50.096 40.096 30.096 20.096 10.096 0.0% Fig. 1 Most abundant Apiformes species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Apiformes in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. 04% 1 j 0.391> 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Fig. 2 Least abundant Apiformes species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Apiformes in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008.7 Fig. 3 Most abundant Carabidae species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Carabidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 4 Least abundant Carabidae species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Carabidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 5 Asilidae species abundance calculated as a proportion of the total abundace of Asilidae in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Fig. 6 Butterfly species abundance calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of butterflies in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 7 Most abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 8 Moderately abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period. Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, 2008. Fig. 9 Least abundant Orthoptera species calculated as a proportion of the total abundance of Orthoptera in the collection period.
    [Show full text]