DOCSLIB.ORG

Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration Submittal Package

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Region 3 Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Transmittal Form U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSFR Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building One Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 Date Received: Date Approval Requested by: Friday, September 25, 2009 (Region 3 FA Date Stamp) Date Submitted: Thursday, August 27, 2009 Project No.: To Be Determined Project Title: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need State Contact: Eric Sink FWS Biologist: Mike Sweet, (612) 713-5129 Telephone Number: (517) 335-1064 e-mail address: [email protected] Track (check one): Routine = 15 day Non-Routine = 30 day Non-Routine = 45 day Type(s): Grant Proposal (GP): GP Renewal: Grant Segment: GP Amend: Segment Amend: USFWS will complete USFWS will complete Obligation Intent: Sub-Account Federal Share Circle or Check if Applicable: WR Regular 5220 $ In-Kind Value Program Income WR Sect 4 Hunter Ed 5210 $ SHPO WR Sect 10 Hunter Ed 523 $ NEPA (EA Letter or EA) Section 7 WL Cons. & Rest. 5511 $ Lobby Certification SFR Regular 9514 $ Other (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below) SFR Aquatic Ed. 9511 $ Needs funding condition (describe in Note/Special Instructions section below) SFR Boat Access 9521 $ COMPETITIVE ( ) or NON-COMPETITIVE ( ) Other : $ 864,020 Competitive SWG Notes/Special Instructions (check): Biologist Fiscal Land Secretary Mike, until we can get the Section 7 consultation and biological opinion documents, can you approve with the caveate that no work is to be done in any occupied habitat until documentation is provided. Chris, please obligate entire amount. WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH RESTORATION State: Michigan CHECKLIST Project #: TBD Proposed start: 9/15/2009 End date: 9/30/2011 Project Title: Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Greatest Conservation Need Key: X = Document Received or Requirement Met NA = Not Applicable 1,2,3,4, = See Notes Section Standard Forms1 X Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424) Narratives2 X Grant Proposal – See Project Statement Information below X Annual Work Plan with Budget Other Materials X Transmittal form X Lobbying Certificate X NEPA documentation, or letter, or explained in narrative X Phase I Section 7 Evaluation Form Other Information as Relevant NA State Clearinghouse/Single Point of Contact Letter3 NA Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Compliance: NA Clearance from State Historic Preservation Officer NA Clearance from Tribal Historic Preservation Officer/Contacts NA Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) NA Program Income - Amount projected and intention of how it will be used and credited NA In-kind match - Source, type, and amount NA Engineering plans, and specifications4 NA Army Corp of Engineering Permit NA Documentation of land control for facilities construction grants and habitat development grants. 1Originals and 2 copies of each form, signed by an authorized State official. 2All documentation follows FA Handbook, 43 CFR Part 12, Program Rule (e.g. 50 CFR 80) 3States exempted are MN (all Federal Aid, January 3, 1984), MO (PR and DJ research, plus Section 6 ESA only June 29, 1987), IA (Section 6 only July 26, 1991), IN (all Federal Aid, March 21, 1990), MI (PR and DJ, Section 6, Natl. Coastal Wetlands, Anadromous Fish, August 24, 1995), OH (Clearinghouse closed 3/10/97), all states for State Wildlife Grants 4Required only when requested by Federal Aid Division. See 522 FW 10.5D and 50 CFR 80.11(a). Submission of preliminary documents will facilitate approval of Grant Agreement. Project Statement Information (refer to www.fws.gov/r3pao/fed_aid/programs/guidelines.htm for guidance) X Needs X Objectives X Expected results and benefits X Approach X Specific procedures to be employed X Schedules or target dates X Locations X Key project personnel and cooperators X List of work items X Cost estimates by year X Compliance (NEPA, ES, NHPA, Floodplains E.O. 11988, Wetlands E.O. 11990, ADA, Relocation, use of chemicals) FOR REGIONAL OFFICE USE ONLY ___ Triage review of grant package completed ___ Lands documentation (refer to Lands Guidelines) ___ Engineering Review Request - sent ___ NEPA Checklist signed by Region 3 biologist ___ Environmental Action Statement (EAS) ___ Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) ___ Record of Decision (ROD) ___ Phase II Section 7 Evaluation Form ___ For SWG – relationship to State CWCS adequately identified ___ Conditional Statement(s) ___ All document approval information entered into FAIMS Notes Completed by: Signature Date: APPLICATION FOR Version 7/03 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. DATE SUBMITTED August 27, 2009 Applicant Identifier 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier Application : Pre-application Michigan Construction Construction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier Non-Construction Non-Construction TBD Including Segment 1 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Organizational Unit: Department: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Organizational DUNS: 805339991 Division: Wildlife Address: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this Street: PO BOX 30028 application (give area code) Prefix: Mr. First Name: Eric City: LANSING Middle Name: County: INGHAM Last Name: Sink State: MI Zip Code: 48909-7528 Suffix: Country: USA Email: [email protected] 6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code) 38-6000134 (517) 335-1064 (517) 373-1547 8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Application Types) New If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es) A. State Government (See back of form for description of letters.) Other (specify): None None Other (specify): 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. DOI - Fish & Wildlife Service 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT’S PROJECT: 15.634 - State Wildlife Grants Prairie Fen and Associated Savanna Restoration in Michigan and Indiana for Species of Other (specify): Greatest Conservation Need 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Southern Michigan and Northern Indiana 13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date: 09/15/2009 Ending Date: 09/30/2011 a. Applicant: Eighth b. Project: Various 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? a. Federal $ 864,020 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON b. Applicant $ 0 c. State $ 320,000 DATE: August 27, 2009 d. Local $ 0 b. NO PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372 e. Other $ 280,421 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW f. Program Income $ 0 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? g. TOTAL $ 1,464,441 Yes If “Yes” attach an explanation. No 18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES. a. Authorized Representative Prefix: Ms. First Name: Mindy Middle Name: S. Last Name: Koch Suffix: b. Title: c. Telephone Number (give area code) Resource Management Deputy (517) 373-0046 Email: Fax Number (give area code) (517) 373-1164 d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Date Signed: August 27, 2009 Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev. 9-2003) Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 3048-0044 SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY Grant Program Catalog of Federal Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget Function Domestic Assistance or Activity Number Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 1. Competitive SWG 15.634 $0 $0 $864,020 $600,421 $1,464,441 2. $0 3. $0 4. $0 5. Totals $0 $0 $864,020 $600,421 $1,464,441 SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES GRANT SEGMENT BUDGET DETAILS Total 6. Object Class Categories (Segment 1) (Segment 2) (Segment 3) (Segment 4) (5) a. Personnel $148,121 $148,121 b. Fringe Benefits $56,286 $56,286 c. Travel $5,000 $5,000 d. Equipment $10,000 $10,000 e. Supplies $50,000 $50,000 f. Contractual $1,150,000 $1,150,000 g. Construction $0 $0 h. Other - Audit - 0.0038 $5,544 $5,544 i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) $1,424,950 $1,424,950 j. Indirect Charges - 0.1932 $39,491 $39,491 k. TOTALS (sum of 6i-6j) $1,464,441 $1,464,441 7. Program Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) SECTION C - NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES (a) Grant Program (b) Applicant (c) State (d) Other Sources (e) TOTALS 8. Competitive SWG $320,000 $280,421 $600,421 9. $0 10. $0 11. $0 12. TOTAL (sum of lines 8-11) $0 $320,000 $280,421 $600,421 SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS Total for 1st Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 13. Federal $288,007 $72,002 $72,002 $72,002 $72,002 14. Non-Federal $200,140 $50,035 $50,035 $50,035 $50,035 15. TOTAL (sum of lines 13 and 14) $488,147 $122,037 $122,037 $122,037 $122,037 SECTION E - BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECT FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (Years) (a) Grant Program (b) First (c) Second (d) Third (e) Fourth 16. Competitive SWG $288,007 $288,007 $0 $0 17. 18. 19. 20. TOTAL (sum of lines 16-19) $288,007 $288,007 $0 $0 SECTION F - OTHER BUDGET INFORMATION 21. Direct Charges: 22. Indirect Charges: 19.32% on Personnel and Fringe Benefits 23. Remarks: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev.
Recommended publications
  • Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii

    Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii

    NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm A DISSRETATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Entomology Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior – Dual Major 2012 ABSTRACT NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm The Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii, is a federally endangered species with protected populations found in Michigan, Indiana, and wherever else populations may be discovered. The conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr began to be called into question when populations of a phenotypically similar butterfly were discovered in the eastern United States. It is unclear if these recently discovered populations are N. m. mitchellii and thus warrant protection. In order to clarify the conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr I first acquired sample sizes large enough for population genetic analysis I developed a method of non- lethal sampling that has no detectable effect on the survival of the butterfly. I then traveled to all regions in which N. mitchellii is known to be extant and collected genetic samples. Using a variety of population genetic techniques I demonstrated that the federally protected populations in Michigan and Indiana are genetically distinct from the recently discovered populations in the southern US. I also detected the presence of the reproductive endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia, and surveyed addition Lepidoptera of conservation concern. This survey revealed that Wolbachia is a real concern for conservation managers and should be addressed in management plans.
  • THE QUARTERLY REVIEW of BIOLOGY

    THE QUARTERLY REVIEW of BIOLOGY

    VOL. 43, NO. I March, 1968 THE QUARTERLY REVIEW of BIOLOGY LIFE CYCLE ORIGINS, SPECIATION, AND RELATED PHENOMENA IN CRICKETS BY RICHARD D. ALEXANDER Museum of Zoology and Departmentof Zoology The Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor ABSTRACT Seven general kinds of life cycles are known among crickets; they differ chieff,y in overwintering (diapause) stage and number of generations per season, or diapauses per generation. Some species with broad north-south ranges vary in these respects, spanning wholly or in part certain of the gaps between cycles and suggesting how some of the differences originated. Species with a particular cycle have predictable responses to photoperiod and temperature regimes that affect behavior, development time, wing length, bod)• size, and other characteristics. Some polymorphic tendencies also correlate with habitat permanence, and some are influenced by population density. Genera and subfamilies with several kinds of life cycles usually have proportionately more species in temperate regions than those with but one or two cycles, although numbers of species in all widely distributed groups diminish toward the higher lati­ tudes. The tendency of various field cricket species to become double-cycled at certain latitudes appears to have resulted in speciation without geographic isolation in at least one case. Intermediate steps in this allochronic speciation process are illustrated by North American and Japanese species; the possibility that this process has also occurred in other kinds of temperate insects is discussed. INTRODUCTION the Gryllidae at least to the Jurassic Period (Zeuner, 1939), and many of the larger sub­ RICKETS are insects of the Family families and genera have spread across two Gryllidae in the Order Orthoptera, or more continents.
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5

    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)

    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)

    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
  • Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015

    Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015

    Wisconsin Entomological Society N e w s I e t t e r Volume 42, Number 2 June 2015 Monitoring and Management - A That is, until volunteer moth surveyor, Steve Sensible Pairing Bransky, came onto the scene. Steve had By Beth Goeppinger, Wisconsin Department done a few moth and butterfly surveys here ofN atural Resources and there on the property. But that changed in 2013. Armed with mercury vapor lights, Richard Bong State Recreation Area is a bait and a Wisconsin scientific collector's heavily used 4,515 acre property in the permit, along with our permission, he began Wisconsin State Park system. It is located in surveying in earnest. western Kenosha County. The area is oak woodland, savanna, wetland, sedge meadow, He chose five sites in woodland, prairie and old field and restored and remnant prairie. savanna habitats. He came out many nights Surveys of many kinds and for many species in the months moths might be flying. After are done on the property-frog and toad, finding that moth populations seemed to drift fence, phenology, plants, ephemeral cycle every 3-5 days, he came out more ponds, upland sandpiper, black tern, frequently. His enthusiasm, dedication and grassland and marsh birds, butterfly, small never-ending energy have wielded some mammal, waterfowl, muskrat and wood surprising results. Those results, in turn, ducks to name a few. Moths, except for the have guided us in our habitat management showy and easy-to-identify species, have practices. been ignored. Of the 4,500 moth species found in the state, Steve has confirmed close to 1,200 on the property, and he isn't done yet! He found one of the biggest populations of the endangered Papaipema silphii moths (Silphium borer) in the state as well as 36 species of Catocola moths (underwings), them.
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists

    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
  • The Evolution of Complex Calls in Meadow

    The Evolution of Complex Calls in Meadow

    THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX CALLS IN MEADOW KATYDIDS _______________________________________ A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri-Columbia _______________________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _____________________________________________________ by NATHAN HARNESS Dr. Johannes Schul, Dissertation Supervisor July 2018 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX CALLS IN MEADOW KATYDIDS presented by Nathan Harness, a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Professor Johannes Schul Professor Sarah Bush Professor Lori Eggert Professor Patricia Friedrichsen For my family Rachel and Mayr have given me so much. They show me unselfish affection, endless support, and generosity that seems to only grow. Without them the work here, and the adventure we’ve all three gone on surrounding it, would not have been possible. They have sacrificed birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, and countless weekends and evenings. They’ve happily seen me off to weeks of field work and conference visits. I am thankful to them for being so generous, and completely lacking in resentment at all the things that pull their husband and dad in so many directions. They have both necessarily become adept at melting away anxiety; I will forever be indebted to the hugs of a two-year-old and the kind words of his mom. Rachel and Mayr both deserve far more recognition than is possible here. I also want to thank my parents and brother and sisters.
  • (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) Species Composition and Size Across Latitude in Atlantic Coast Salt Marshes

    (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) Species Composition and Size Across Latitude in Atlantic Coast Salt Marshes

    Estuaries and Coasts: J CERF (2008) 31:335–343 DOI 10.1007/s12237-007-9026-3 Grasshopper (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) Species Composition and Size Across Latitude in Atlantic Coast Salt Marshes Elizabeth L. Wason & Steven C. Pennings Received: 14 June 2007 /Revised: 5 November 2007 /Accepted: 16 November 2007 /Published online: 16 January 2008 # Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2007 Abstract Although grasshoppers are common salt marsh Geographic variation in species composition and body size herbivores, we know little about geographic variation in of grasshoppers may help explain documented patterns of their species composition. We documented latitudinal geographic variation in plant palatability and plant–herbivore variation in species composition of the tettigoniid grass- interactions in Atlantic Coast salt marshes. Because it can be hopper fauna of Atlantic Coast salt marshes. Tettigoniids difficult to identify tettigoniids to species, we present a guide (N=740 adults) were collected from the Spartina alterni- to aid future workers in identifying the tettigoniid species flora zone of 31 salt marsh sites across a latitudinal range of common in these marshes. 13.19° (Florida to Maine), with an additional 52 individuals collected from the Juncus roemerianus zone of low-latitude Keywords Biogeography. Latitude . marshes for comparative purposes. Eight species were Plant–herbivore interactions . Bergmann’s rule . collected, but some were common only at a few sites or Orthoptera . Spartina alterniflora . Salt marsh rare throughout the entire collection range. The tettigoniid community was dominated by Orchelimum fidicinium at low latitudes and Conocephalus spartinae at high latitudes. Introduction Several factors might explain this shift, including changes in climate, plant phenology, and plant zonation patterns.
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

    CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)

    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
  • Great Lakes Entomologist

    Great Lakes Entomologist

    The GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Vol. 5, No. 2 Summer 1972 The Singing Insects of Michigan RichardD. Alexander, Ann E. Pace and Daniel Otte THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST Published by the Michigan Entomological Society Volume 5 1972 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The singing insects of Michigan Richard D. Alexander, Ann E. Pace and Daniel Otte . .33 COVER ILLUSTRATION The Northern True Katydid, Pterophylla camellifolia (Fabricius) (Orthoptera: Tet- tigoniidae), whose raucus calls of "katydid, katy-did" can be heard from the tops of deciduous trees in the southern part of the Lower Peninsula during the evenings of middle and late summer. THE MICHIGAN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 197 1-1972 OFFICERS President Dean G. DiIlery President-Elect Richard C. Fleming Executive Secretary M. C. Nielsen Editor Irving J. Cantrall The Michigan Entomological Society traces its origins'to the old Detroit Entomological Society and was organized on 4 November 1954 to ". promote the science of entomology in all its branches and by all feasible means, and to advance cooperation and good fellowship among persons interested in entomology." The Society attempts to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information in both amateur and professional circles, and encourages the study of insects by youth. Membership in the Society, which serves the North Central States and adjacent Canada, is open to all persons interested in entomology. There are three paying classes of membership: Student (including those currently enrolled in college or graduate programs) - annual dues $2.00 Active - anriual dues $4.00 Institutional - annual dues $6.00 Sustaining - annual contribution $25.00 or more Dues are paid on a calendar year basis (Jan.
  • Cercopoidea (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha) Depositados En La Colección Entomológica Del Instituto De Ecología Y Sistemática, Cuba

    Cercopoidea (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha) Depositados En La Colección Entomológica Del Instituto De Ecología Y Sistemática, Cuba

    ISSN 2410-7492 RNPS 2403 REVISTA CUBANA DE ZOOLOGÍA http://revistas.geotech.cu/index.php/poey COLECCIONES ZOOLÓGICAS 508 (enero-junio, 2019): 34 - 37 CERCOPOIDEA (HEMIPTERA, AUCHENORRHYNCHA) DEPOSITADOS EN LA COLEccIÓN ENTOMOLÓGICA DEL INSTITUTO DE ECOLOGÍA Y SISTEMÁTICA, CUBA Marta M. HIDALGO-GATO GONZÁLEZ*, María TRUJILLO ANAYA Y Betina NEYRA RAOLA Instituto de Ecología y Sistemática, carretera Varona 11835 e/ Oriente y Lindero, Rpto. Parajón, Boyeros, 11900, La Habana, Cuba. * Autor para correspondencia: [email protected] Resumen: Se listan las especies de la superfamilia y Epipygidae (Hamilton, 2001; Rakitov, 2002; Foieri, 2017). Cercopoidea (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha) que se en- En Cuba hasta el presente solo están representadas en Cuba, cuentran representadas en la colección entomológica del Cercopidae, Aphrophoridae y Clastopteridae y muchas de las Instituto de Ecología y Sistemática. Se ofrecen los datos especies se encuentran sin identificar. Por ello, la existencia que contienen las tarjetas de cada ejemplar: fecha y loca- de colecciones de este grupo es imprescindible para su estu- lidad de recolecta, recolector, así como en algunos casos dio taxonómico y por tanto su identificación. el hábitat y las plantas hospederas. La colección conserva 448 ejemplares pertenecientes a 18 especies y 10 géneros. El presente trabajo brinda información sobre los especíme- Aphrophoridae fue la familia mejor representada con 12 nes de la superfamilia Cercopoidea de la colección entomo- especies, mientras que los géneros mejor representados
  • New Canadian and Ontario Orthopteroid Records, and an Updated Checklist of the Orthoptera of Ontario

    New Canadian and Ontario Orthopteroid Records, and an Updated Checklist of the Orthoptera of Ontario

    Checklist of Ontario Orthoptera (cont.) JESO Volume 145, 2014 NEW CANADIAN AND ONTARIO ORTHOPTEROID RECORDS, AND AN UPDATED CHECKLIST OF THE ORTHOPTERA OF ONTARIO S. M. PAIERO1* AND S. A. MARSHALL1 1School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 email, [email protected] Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 145: 61–76 The following seven orthopteroid taxa are recorded from Canada for the first time: Anaxipha species 1, Cyrtoxipha gundlachi Saussure, Chloroscirtus forcipatus (Brunner von Wattenwyl), Neoconocephalus exiliscanorus (Davis), Camptonotus carolinensis (Gerstaeker), Scapteriscus borellii Linnaeus, and Melanoplus punctulatus griseus (Thomas). One further species, Neoconocephalus retusus (Scudder) is recorded from Ontario for the first time. An updated checklist of the orthopteroids of Ontario is provided, along with notes on changes in nomenclature. Published December 2014 Introduction Vickery and Kevan (1985) and Vickery and Scudder (1987) reviewed and listed the orthopteroid species known from Canada and Alaska, including 141 species from Ontario. A further 15 species have been recorded from Ontario since then (Skevington et al. 2001, Marshall et al. 2004, Paiero et al. 2010) and we here add another eight species or subspecies, of which seven are also new Canadian records. Notes on several significant provincial range extensions also are given, including two species originally recorded from Ontario on bugguide.net. Voucher specimens examined here are deposited in the University of Guelph Insect Collection (DEBU), unless otherwise noted. New Canadian records Anaxipha species 1 (Figs 1, 2) (Gryllidae: Trigidoniinae) This species, similar in appearance to the Florida endemic Anaxipha calusa * Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.