DOCSLIB.ORG

Estudio Comparativo De Bosques Secundarios De Coníferas De La Reserva De Biosfera Sierra De Las Minas, Guatemala: Con Énfasis En Impactos De Manejo Forestal”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estudio Comparativo De Bosques Secundarios De Coníferas De La Reserva De Biosfera Sierra De Las Minas, Guatemala: Con Énfasis En Impactos De Manejo Forestal” PROGRAMA DE ENSEÑANZA PARA EL DESARROLLO Y LA CONSERVACIÓN ESCUELA DE POSTGRADO “Estudio comparativo de bosques secundarios de coníferas de la Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de las Minas, Guatemala: con énfasis en impactos de manejo forestal” Tesis sometida a consideración de la Escuela de Posgrado, Programa de Educación para el Desarrollo y la Conservación del Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza como requisito para optar por el grado de: Magister Scientiae en Manejo y Conservación de Bosques Tropicales y Biodiversidad Por Lorena Ninel Estrada Chinchilla Turrialba, Costa Rica, 2005 ii DEDICATORIA A mis padres, Héctor Adolfo Estrada Franco y Clara Chinchilla de Estrada. A mis abuelos: Lisandro Antonio Estrada Conde, María Teresa Franco de Estrada, Rita Soto de Chinchilla y Enrique Chinchilla (). A mi hermana Tani. A mi hermano Héctor y su esposa, Alicia. Muy especialmente a mi sobrina Paula. A mis tíos, tías, primos y primas, especialmente a mi prima Nandi, por mantenerme informada sobre la familia. A mis amigos en Guate, que me mantuvieron al tanto de lo que estaba pasando, y me ayudaron a llevar a cabo este trabajo en una u otra forma, especialmente a Silvia, Marlenne, Ana Lucía, Arturo y Mari, Norma y Evelyn. A mis amigos en CATIE: Rosario, Sandrita, Irma, Matt, Rafi, Karim, Jimmy, Fabricio, Ruth, Mariu, Marce, Inty, Nina, Elena, Patty, Maricela, Karla, Jackie y Joel. Los voy a extrañar. A mis paisanos y amigos: Anabella, Titi y Mario, Magaly y Boris, Julio, Paco y Aldo. A la familia Monterroso Barrientos: Erika, Ottoniel, Danielito y Nati por su compañía y apoyo. Por último, dedico este trabajo a mi novio, Christian Hjalmarsson, por todo su amor, comprensión y apoyo durante el tiempo que hemos estado juntos, y a su familia por ser tan linda conmigo. Slutligen vill jag tillägna detta arbete till min pojkvän, Christian Hjalmarsson, för all kärlek, all förståelse och allt stöd under den tid som vi har varit tillsammans. Även till hans familj som har varit så vänlig mot mig. iii AGRADECIMIENTOS A la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), por brindarme la oportunidad de realizar mis estudios de postgrado en CATIE. A mi profesor consejero Bryan Finegan, por compartir sus conocimientos conmigo, y por su apoyo durante dos años de estudios. A Diego Delgado, por su paciencia y sus exhaustivas revisiones, que me hicieron entender el significado de la palabra estrés. ¡Mil gracias Diego! A Fernando Carrera por sus aportaciones a la tesis. A Gabriel Robles, por su oportuna intervención en la realización de este trabajo en Guatemala. A Gustavo López por su ayuda en el área estadística y a Hugo Brenes por su ayuda con la base de datos; a Diego Tobar, por su ayuda en la preparación del anteproyecto. A la Fundación Defensores de la Naturaleza. A la empresa Maderas El Alto, por el apoyo logístico e información brindada para realizar este trabajo, especialmente a Byron Pérez, Lizardo López y Daniel Frot. A don Chico, doña Rosita y familia por toda su ayuda en la Finca La Constancia. Especialmente a Francisco y don Mario, quienes me facilitaron el trabajo de campo. Al Dr. Jack Schuster y al M. Sc. Enio Cano por el préstamo de equipo y uso del Laboratorio de Entomología de la Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, y a la Licda. Cristina Bailey, por su ayuda en la identificación de mariposas. A la Dra. Elfriede de Pöll , Directora del Herbario de la Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, por su ayuda en la identificación de árboles. iv INDICE DE CONTENIDO DEDICATORIA........................................................................................................................................ iii AGRADECIMIENTOS............................................................................................................................. iv INDICE DE CONTENIDO......................................................................................................................... v RESUMEN............................................................................................................................................. viii SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... x INDICE DE CUADROS .......................................................................................................................... xii ÍNDICE DE FIGURAS ........................................................................................................................... xiii ÍNDICE DE ANEXOS ............................................................................................................................. xv LISTA DE UNIDADES, ABREVIATURAS Y SIGLAS.......................................................................... xvi LISTA DE UNIDADES, ABREVIATURAS Y SIGLAS.......................................................................... xvi 1 INTRODUCCIÓN .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objetivos del estudio................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1.1 Objetivos generales.................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Objetivos específicos.................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Hipótesis ................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 JUSTIFICACIÓN............................................................................................................................... 5 3 REVISIÓN BIBLIOGRÁFICA ........................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Certificación forestal.................................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Impactos de la extracción de madera sobre la biodiversidad en bosques secundarios.......................... 10 3.3 Bosques de coníferas ............................................................................................................................. 13 3.4 Monitoreo ecológico................................................................................................................................ 14 3.5 Medición de biodiversidad....................................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Mariposas como indicadores .................................................................................................................. 17 4 LITERATURA CITADA................................................................................................................... 21 ARTÍCULO I. Efecto del manejo forestal sobre la estructura y composición del rodal y sobre la comunidad de mariposas, en bosques de coníferas de la Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de las Minas. .................................................................................................................................................... 24 1 INTRODUCCIÓN ............................................................................................................................ 24 2 MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS .......................................................................................................... 27 2.1 Área de estudio....................................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.1 Reserva de Biosfera Sierra de las Minas (RBSM) ................................................................................................... 27 2.1.2 Fincas que forman parte del área de estudio........................................................................................................... 29 2.1.3 Bosques en el área de estudio ................................................................................................................................. 29 2.2 Metodología ............................................................................................................................................ 32 2.2.1 General..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.2 Diseño de muestreo para la evaluación de los indicadores de filtro grueso ............................................................ 32 v 2.2.3 Evaluación de indicadores........................................................................................................................................ 32 Estructura y composición del rodal ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.4 Evaluación de la comunidad de mariposas .............................................................................................................. 34 2.2.5 Análisis de datos ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 2.2.6 Diversidad y composición de árboles ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biolphilately Vol-64 No-3
    BIOPHILATELY OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE BIOLOGY UNIT OF ATA MARCH 2020 VOLUME 69, NUMBER 1 Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. —Augustus De Morgan Dr. Indraneil Das Pangolins on Stamps More Inside >> IN THIS ISSUE NEW ISSUES: ARTICLES & ILLUSTRATIONS: From the Editor’s Desk ......................... 1 Botany – Christopher E. Dahle ............ 17 Pangolins on Stamps of the President’s Message .............................. 2 Fungi – Paul A. Mistretta .................... 28 World – Dr. Indraneil Das ..................7 Secretary -Treasurer’s Corner ................ 3 Mammalia – Michael Prince ................ 31 Squeaky Curtain – Frank Jacobs .......... 15 New Members ....................................... 3 Ornithology – Glenn G. Mertz ............. 35 New Plants in the Philatelic News of Note ......................................... 3 Ichthyology – J. Dale Shively .............. 57 Herbarium – Christopher Dahle ....... 23 Women’s Suffrage – Dawn Hamman .... 4 Entomology – Donald Wright, Jr. ........ 59 Rats! ..................................................... 34 Event Calendar ...................................... 6 Paleontology – Michael Kogan ........... 65 New Birds in the Philatelic Wedding Set ........................................ 16 Aviary – Charles E. Braun ............... 51 Glossary ............................................... 72 Biology Reference Websites ................ 69 ii Biophilately March 2020 Vol. 69 (1) BIOPHILATELY BIOLOGY UNIT
    [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]
  • Culture Corner Put Aside to Await Hatching, Which Takes 6 to 12 Or So Days at 75° to 80°F
    No.3 May/June 1983 of tht> LEPIDOPTERISTS' snell-TV June Preston, Editor 832 Sunset Drive Lawrenc~ KS 66044 USA ======================================================================================= ASSOCIATE EDITORS ART: Les Sielski RIPPLES: Jo Brewer ZONE COORDINATORS 1 Robert Langston 8 Kenelm Philip 2 Jon Shepard 5 Mo Nielsen 9 Eduardo Welling M. 3 Ray Stanford 6 Dave Baggett 10 Boyce Drummond 4 Hugh Freeman 7 Dave Winter 11 Quimby Hess ===.=========================================================.========================= CULTURING SATYRIDS Satyrids (or satyrines, if you prefer) have always had a special fascination for me, perhaps partly because of their tendency for great geographic variation. In Eurasia satyrids account for a large part of the butterfly fauna, and many of the common species (e.g. Pararge spp.) are multivoltine even in northern Europe. Here the grass-feeding niche seems to be dominated by skippers, and only a very few of the American species north of, say, latitude 40 0 N have more than one generation per season. When rearing satyrids, the key word is PATIENCE. Most species grow very slowly and must be carried over the winter as diapausing larvae. On the other hand, generally they are quite tough and survive well under laboratory culture conditions. There is usually no problem getting eggs. I confine each wild or lab-mated female in a quart jar put on its side and scatter a handful of grass sedge the length of the jar so that the female will flutter on top of it. Females are fed individually each morning on sugar-water-soaked pieces of paper towel in petri dishes, then put into the jars. I cover the open end of each jar with a piece of nylon stocking held with a rubber band, then line the jars up on their sides on a shelf with a fluorescent light with two 40-watt tubes about 8 inches above.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
    2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De­ Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies and Moths of Nayarit, Mexico
    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]
  • Butterflies and Plants: a Phylogenetic Study
    Etoluriotr.52(2).1 991{p. p. .113560 2 BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS: A PHYLOGENETIC STUDY Nrxl,qs J,qNzrR Nn SOnENN yr-rN Departntenrt tf Zoologt',U nit,ersityo J Stockholn,1 06 91 StockholmS, wedert IE -ntail : niklas.jan z.@z .oolog i. su.s e Abstract.-A database on host plant records frorn 437 ingroup taxa has been used to test a number of hypotheses on the interaction between butterflies and their host plants using phylogenetic methods (sirnple character optinrization. concentrated changes test, and independent contrasts test). The butterfly phylogeny was assembled from various s()urces irnd host plant clades were identified according to Chase et al.'s rbcJ--basedp hylogeny. The ancestral host plant appears to be associated within a highly derived rosid clade, including the family Fabaceae. As fossil data suggest that this clade is older than the butterflies, they must have colonized already diversilied plants. Previous studies also suggest that the patterns of association in most insect-plant interirctions are more shaped by host shifts, through colonization and specialization. than by cospeciation. Consequently, we have focused explicitly on the mechanisms behind host shilis. Our results confirm, in the light of new phylogenetic evidence, the pattern reported by Ehrlich and Raven that related butterflies feed on related plants. We show that host shifts have generally been rnore comrnon between closely related plants than between nore distantly related plants. This finding. together with the possibility ofa highertendency of recolonizing ancestral hosts, helps to explain the apparent large-scale conservation in the patterns of association between insects and their host plants, patterns which at the same tinle are more flexible on a more detailed level.
    [Show full text]
  • Part B: for Private and Commercial Use
    RESTRICTED ANIMAL LIST (PART B) §4-71-6.5 PART B: FOR PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL USE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INVERTEBRATES PHYLUM Annelida CLASS Oligochaeta ORDER Haplotaxida FAMILY Lumbricidae Lumbricus rubellus earthworm, red PHYLUM Arthropoda CLASS Crustacea ORDER Amphipoda FAMILY Gammaridae Gammarus (all species in genus) crustacean, freshwater; scud FAMILY Hyalellidae Hyalella azteca shrimps, imps (amphipod) ORDER Cladocera FAMILY Sididae Diaphanosoma (all species in genus) flea, water ORDER Cyclopoida FAMILY Cyclopidae Cyclops (all species in genus) copepod, freshwater ORDER Decapoda FAMILY Alpheidae Alpheus brevicristatus shrimp, Japan (pistol) FAMILY Palinuridae Panulirus gracilis lobster, green spiny Panulirus (all species in genus lobster, spiny except Panulirus argus, P. longipes femoristriga, P. pencillatus) FAMILY Pandalidae Pandalus platyceros shrimp, giant (prawn) FAMILY Penaeidae Penaeus indicus shrimp, penaeid 49 RESTRICTED ANIMAL LIST (Part B) §4-71-6.5 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Penaeus californiensis shrimp, penaeid Penaeus japonicus shrimp, wheel (ginger) Penaeus monodon shrimp, jumbo tiger Penaeus orientalis (chinensis) shrimp, penaeid Penaeus plebjius shrimp, penaeid Penaeus schmitti shrimp, penaeid Penaeus semisulcatus shrimp, penaeid Penaeus setiferus shrimp, white Penaeus stylirostris shrimp, penaeid Penaeus vannamei shrimp, penaeid ORDER Isopoda FAMILY Asellidae Asellus (all species in genus) crustacean, freshwater ORDER Podocopina FAMILY Cyprididae Cypris (all species in genus) ostracod, freshwater CLASS Insecta
    [Show full text]
  • The Signal Environment Is More Important Than Diet Or Chemical Specialization in the Evolution of Warning Coloration
    The signal environment is more important than diet or chemical specialization in the evolution of warning coloration Kathleen L. Prudic†‡, Jeffrey C. Oliver§, and Felix A. H. Sperling¶ †Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and §Interdisciplinary Program in Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; and ¶Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E9 Edited by May R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, and approved October 11, 2007 (received for review June 13, 2007) Aposematic coloration, or warning coloration, is a visual signal that in ref. 13). Prey can become noxious by consuming other organisms acts to minimize contact between predator and unprofitable prey. with defensive compounds (e.g., refs. 15 and 16). By specializing on The conditions favoring the evolution of aposematic coloration re- a particular toxic diet, the consumer becomes noxious and more main largely unidentified. Recent work suggests that diet specializa- likely to evolve aposematic coloration as a defensive strategy tion and resultant toxicity may play a role in facilitating the evolution (reviewed in ref. 13). Diet specialization, in which a consumer feeds and persistence of warning coloration. Using a phylogenetic ap- on a limited set of related organisms, allows the consumer to tailor proach, we investigated the evolution of larval warning coloration in its metabolism to efficiently capitalize on the specific toxins shared the genus Papilio (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Our results indicate that by a suite of related hosts. Recent investigations suggest that diet there are at least four independent origins of aposematic larval specialization on toxic organisms promotes the evolution of apose- coloration within Papilio.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews, New Publica- Tions, Metamorphosis, Announcements
    ________________________________________________________________________________________ Volume 57, Number 4 Winter 2015 www.lepsoc.org ________________________________________________________________________________________ Inside: Butterflies of Bolivia Are there caterpillars on butterfly wings? A citizen science call for action Ghost moths of the world website A conservation concern from the 1870’s Fruit-feeding Nymphali- dae in a west Mexican neotropical garden Fender’s Blue Butterfly conservation and re- covery Membership Updates, Marketplace, Book Reviews, New Publica- tions, Metamorphosis, Announcements ... ... and more! ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Contents ________________________________________________________www.lepsoc.org Species diversity and temporal distribution in a community of fruit- ____________________________________ feeding Nymphalidae in a west Mexican neotropical garden Volume 57, Number 4 Gerald E. Einem and William Adkins. ............................................... 163 Winter 2015 Windows for butterfly nets The Lepidopterists’ Society is a non-profit ed- J. Alan Wagar. ................................................................................... 173 ucational and scientific organization. The ob- Announcements: .......................................................................................... 174 ject of the Society, which was formed in May Zone Coordinator Needed; Season Summary
    [Show full text]
  • Interações Evolutivas Entre Borboletas Da Tribo Troidini (Papilionidae
    Universidade Estadual de Campinas Instituto de Biologia Interações evolutivas entre borboletas da tribo Troidini (Papilionidae, Papilioninae) e suas plantas hospedeiras no gênero Aristolochia (Aristolochiaceae) Karina Lucas da Silva-Brandão Tese apresentada ao Instituto de Biologia da Universidade Estadual de Campinas para obtenção do título de Doutor em Ecologia Orientadora: Profa. Dra. Vera Nisaka Solferini (IB, Depto de Genética e Evolução) Co-orientador: Prof. Dr. José Roberto Trigo (IB, Depto. de Zoologia) Campinas, abril de 2005 i FICHA CATALOGRÁFICA ELABORADA PELA BIBLIOTECA DO INSTITUTO DE BIOLOGIA - UNICAMP Silva-Brandão, Karina Lucas da Si38li Interações evolutivas entre borboletas da tribo Troidini (Papilionidae, Papilioninae) e suas plantas hospedeiras no gênero Aristolochia (Aristolochiaceae) / Karina Lucas da Silva-Brandão. -- Campinas, SP: [s.n.], 2005. Orientadora: Vera Nisaka Solferini. Co-orientador: José Roberto Trigo. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Instituto de Biologia. 1. Aristolochia. 2. Troidini. 3. Interação inseto-planta. 4. Filogenia molecular. 5. Uso de hospedeiros. I. Vera Nisaka Solferini. 11. José Roberto Trigo. lU. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Instituto de Biologia. IV. Título. ii iii iv Ilustração: Dadí ([email protected]) “The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living”. Henri Poincaré, The value of Science v vi Agradecimentos Esta tese não teria existido sem a ajuda de muitos amigos e profissionais que deram sua contribuição ao longo desses quatro anos de trabalho.
    [Show full text]
  • A SKELETON CHECKLIST of the BUTTERFLIES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA Preparatory to Publication of the Catalogue Jonathan P
    A SKELETON CHECKLIST OF THE BUTTERFLIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Preparatory to publication of the Catalogue © Jonathan P. Pelham August 2006 Superfamily HESPERIOIDEA Latreille, 1809 Family Hesperiidae Latreille, 1809 Subfamily Eudaminae Mabille, 1877 PHOCIDES Hübner, [1819] = Erycides Hübner, [1819] = Dysenius Scudder, 1872 *1. Phocides pigmalion (Cramer, 1779) = tenuistriga Mabille & Boullet, 1912 a. Phocides pigmalion okeechobee (Worthington, 1881) 2. Phocides belus (Godman and Salvin, 1890) *3. Phocides polybius (Fabricius, 1793) =‡palemon (Cramer, 1777) Homonym = cruentus Hübner, [1819] = palaemonides Röber, 1925 = ab. ‡"gunderi" R. C. Williams & Bell, 1931 a. Phocides polybius lilea (Reakirt, [1867]) = albicilla (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) = socius (Butler & Druce, 1872) =‡cruentus (Scudder, 1872) Homonym = sanguinea (Scudder, 1872) = imbreus (Plötz, 1879) = spurius (Mabille, 1880) = decolor (Mabille, 1880) = albiciliata Röber, 1925 PROTEIDES Hübner, [1819] = Dicranaspis Mabille, [1879] 4. Proteides mercurius (Fabricius, 1787) a. Proteides mercurius mercurius (Fabricius, 1787) =‡idas (Cramer, 1779) Homonym b. Proteides mercurius sanantonio (Lucas, 1857) EPARGYREUS Hübner, [1819] = Eridamus Burmeister, 1875 5. Epargyreus zestos (Geyer, 1832) a. Epargyreus zestos zestos (Geyer, 1832) = oberon (Worthington, 1881) = arsaces Mabille, 1903 6. Epargyreus clarus (Cramer, 1775) a. Epargyreus clarus clarus (Cramer, 1775) =‡tityrus (Fabricius, 1775) Homonym = argentosus Hayward, 1933 = argenteola (Matsumura, 1940) = ab. ‡"obliteratus"
    [Show full text]
  • Insecta: Lepidoptera)
    Papilionoidea de la Sierra de Huautla, Morelos y Puebla, México (Insecta: Lepidoptera) Mercedes Luna-Reyes1, Jorge Llorente-Bousquets2* & Armando Luis-Martínez2 1. Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza, Av. Guelatao No. 66. Col. Ejército de Oriente. Iztapalapa. México D.F. 09230; [email protected], [email protected] 2. Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM. Apartado Postal 70-399, México D.F. 04510. *Responsable de la publicación; jlb@ hp.fciencias.unam.mx Recibido 04-VIII-2007. Corregido 30-VI-2008. Aceptado 31-VII-2008. Abstract: Papilionoidea from Sierra de Huautla, Morelos and Puebla, México (Insecta: Lepidoptera). The Cuenca del Balsas region has significant biodiversity and endemicity of its herpetofauna, avifauna and vascular plants. Despite this, our knowledge of the Papilionoidea of the region is poor. We analyzed the local and temporal distribution of Papilionoidea at 24 localities in the states of Morelos and Puebla. The study sites are situated between 900 and 1300 m. a. s. l., and are composed of dry tropical forest (dtf). We recorded 8790 individuals of 83 genera and 142 species of Papilionoidea (sensu Kristensen, 1975), over 79 days of field work, with 2-4 days at each of the 24 localities. Twenty five species were newly recorded for the state of Puebla. Our data render Morelos and Puebla among the seven richest Mexican states, in terms of Papilionoidea diversity. Our results show that the Sierra de Huautla has the lowest diversity, but the highest standard abundance, compared to other Mexican regions with similar vegetation. Patterns of diversity and seasonal abundance are atypical, in that individuals of many species are unusually abundant during the wet months.
    [Show full text]