DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 159/Wednesday, August 17, 2011/Proposed Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 159/Wednesday, August 17, 2011/Proposed Rules Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50971 4. Verification of Consumer Eligibility Federal Communications Commission. ADDRESSES: You may submit for Lifeline—Sampling Methodology Trent Harkrader, information by one of the following Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. methods: In the 2011 Lifeline and Link Up [FR Doc. 2011–20847 Filed 8–16–11; 8:45 am] (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal NPRM, the Commission proposed to eRulemaking Portal: http:// BILLING CODE 6712–01–P amend § 54.410 of its rules to establish www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword a uniform methodology for conducting box, enter Docket No. [FWS–R8–ES– verification sampling that would apply 2011–0055], which is the docket to all ETCs in all states. The NPRM also DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR number for this action. Then, in the asked commenters to consider two Search panel on the left side of the proposals for modifying the existing Fish and Wildlife Service screen, under the Document Type sampling methodology to more heading, click on the Proposed Rules effectively balance the need for an 50 CFR Part 17 link to locate this document. You may administratively feasible sampling submit a comment by clicking on ‘‘Send methodology with the Commission’s [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0055; MO a Comment or Submission.’’ 92210–0–0008] (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail obligation to ensure that ineligible or hand-deliver to: Public Comments consumers do not receive Lifeline/Link Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2011– Up benefits. We invite additional and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 0055; Division of Policy and Directives comment on this issue. Petition To List the Leona’s Little Blue Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife a. With respect to the Commission’s Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS sample-and-census proposal, could the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. Commission implement it in a way that Interior. We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We would be more easily administrable for will post all information we receive on ACTION: Notice of petition finding and http://www.regulations.gov. This ETCs, particularly ETCs with a small initiation of status review. number of Lifeline subscribers? generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us b. TCA proposes that, if the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a (see the Request for Information section Commission adopts a sample-and- below for more details). census rule, carriers with a small 90-day finding on a petition to list the Leona’s little blue butterfly, Philotiella FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: number of Lifeline subscribers should Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, Klamath be required to sample fewer consumers leona, as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, by than ETCs with a larger number of telephone (541–885–8481), or by Lifeline subscribers. We seek comment 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based on our facsimile (541–885–7837). If you use a on this proposal. Should the review, we find that the petition telecommunications device for the deaf Commission consider a smaller sample presents substantial scientific or (TDD), please call the Federal size for ETCs with a small number of commercial information indicating that Information Relay Service (FIRS) at Lifeline customers in a given state? listing the Leona’s little blue butterfly 800–877–8339. What number of respondents could may be warranted. Therefore, with the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ETCs with a smaller number of Lifeline publication of this notice, we are Request for Information customers feasibly sample in a given initiating a review of the status of the year, keeping in mind that reducing the species to determine if listing the When we make a finding that a required number of respondents could Leona’s little blue butterfly is petition presents substantial result in larger margins of error? warranted. To ensure that this status information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are c. Alternatively, should carriers with review is comprehensive, we are required to promptly review the status a small number of Lifeline subscribers requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding of the species (status review). For the be required to sample only a specified status review to be complete and based percentage of their customer base? What this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the on the best available scientific and would be a reasonable percentage in commercial information, we request such cases? petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as information on the Leona’s little blue This matter shall be treated as a provided in the Act. butterfly from governmental agencies, ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in Native American Tribes, the scientific DATES: To allow us adequate time to community, industry, and any other accordance with the Commission’s ex conduct this review, we request that we interested parties. We seek information parte rules. Persons making oral ex receive information on or before October parte presentations are reminded that on: 17, 2011. The deadline for submitting an (1) The species’ biology, range, and memoranda summarizing the electronic comment using the Federal presentations must contain summaries population trends, including: eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, of the substance of the presentation and section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern not merely a listing of the subjects breeding, and sheltering; Time on this date. After October 17, (b) Genetics and taxonomy; discussed. More than a one or two 2011, you must submit information (c) Historical and current range, sentence description of the views and directly to the Klamath Falls Fish and including distribution patterns; arguments presented generally is Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER (d) Historical and current population required. Other rules pertaining to oral INFORMATION CONTACT section below). levels, and current and projected trends; and written ex parte presentations in Please note that we might not be able to and permit-but-disclose proceedings are set address or incorporate information that (e) Past and ongoing conservation forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s we receive after the above requested measures for the species, its habitat, or rules. date. both. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:31 Aug 16, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1 Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS 50972 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 159 / Wednesday, August 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules (2) The factors that are the basis for personal identifying information, you species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act making a listing determination for a may request at the top of your document was not warranted. We also stated that species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 that we withhold this personal we were required to complete a U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are: identifying information from public significant number of listing and critical (a) The present or threatened review. However, we cannot guarantee habitat actions in Fiscal Year 2010 destruction, modification, or that we will be able to do so. We will pursuant to court orders, judicially curtailment of its habitat or range; post all hardcopy submissions on approved settlement agreements, and (b) Overutilization for commercial, http://www.regulations.gov. other statutory deadlines, but that we recreational, scientific, or educational Information and supporting had secured funding for Fiscal Year purposes; documentation that we received and 2011 and anticipated publishing a (c) Disease or predation; used in preparing this finding is finding in the Federal Register in July (d) The inadequacy of existing available for you to review at http:// 2011. This finding addresses the regulatory mechanisms; or www.regulations.gov, or by petition. (e) Other natural or manmade factors appointment, during normal business affecting its continued existence. hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species Information If, after the status review, we Service, Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife The Leona’s little blue butterfly is a determine that listing the Leona’s little Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION member of the Polyommatini Tribe (a blue butterfly is warranted, we will CONTACT). taxonomic group under family) (Pyle propose critical habitat (see definition 2002, p. 222) of the Lycaenidae family in section 3(5)(A) of the Act) under Background (Mattoni 1977, p. 223; Hammond and section 4 of the Act, to the maximum Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires McCorkle 1999, p.1), and is the largest extent prudent and determinable at the that we make a finding on whether a species in the Philotiella genus time we propose to list the species. petition to list, delist, or reclassify a (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, p. 82). Therefore, we also request data and species presents substantial scientific or The Leona’s little blue butterfly was information on: commercial information indicating that discovered in 1995; the historical range (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or the petitioned action may be warranted. of the species is unknown. The current biological features essential to the We are to base this finding on known distribution of the Leona’s little conservation of the species,’’ within the information provided in the petition, blue butterfly occurs within a 6-square- geographical range currently occupied supporting information submitted with mile (15.5-square-kilometer) area of the by the species; the petition, and information otherwise Antelope Desert, east of Crater Lake (2) Where these features are currently available in our files.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895
    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION to LIST LEONA's LITTLE BLUE BUTTERFLY Philotiella Leona
    PETITION TO LIST LEONA’S LITTLE BLUE BUTTERFLY Philotiella leona AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Leona’s little blue butterfly on its host plant, spurry buckwheat, by Dr. David V. McCorkle Prepared by Blake Matheson, Sarina Jepsen, and Scott Hoffman Black The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation Dr. David V. McCorkle Oregon Wild May 12, 2010 May 12, 2010 Mr. Ken Salazar Secretary of the Interior Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington DC, 20240 Dear Mr. Salazar, The Xerces Society, Dr. David V. McCorkle and Oregon Wild hereby formally petition to list the Leona’s little blue butterfly (Philotiella leona) as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Secretary of the Interior. Petitioners also request that critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(6)(C) and 50 C.F.R. § 424.12, and pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553). Due to the threat of extinction and because of its small population size, restricted distribution, isolation, and the numerous factors threatening the species and its remaining habitat, we request an emergency listing and emergency critical habitat designation pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(7) and 50 CFR 424.20.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook
    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: Causes and Consequences of Uphill Movement Merrill A
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Biology Faculty and Staff ubP lications Biology 1997 Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: Causes and Consequences of Uphill Movement Merrill A. Peterson Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/biology_facpubs Part of the Biology Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Merrill A., "Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: aC uses and Consequences of Uphill Movement" (1997). Biology Faculty and Staff Publications. 46. https://cedar.wwu.edu/biology_facpubs/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty and Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ecology, 78(1), 1997, pp. 167±180 q 1997 by the Ecological Society of America HOST PLANT PHENOLOGY AND BUTTERFLY DISPERSAL: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF UPHILL MOVEMENT MERRILL A. PETERSON1 Section of Ecology and Systematics, Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA Abstract. In the Wenatchee Mountains of central Washington State, populations of the lycaenid butter¯y Euphilotes enoptes occur patchily with their sole host plant, Eriogonum compositum (Polygonaceae). Nearly all courtship and adult feeding occur on the in¯ores- cences of this long-lived perennial. Furthermore, because females oviposit on in¯orescences and larvae feed only on ¯owers and developing seeds, the window of opportunity for exploiting this resource is narrow. I demonstrated that in¯orescence phenology varied according to the aspect and elevation of plant patches, and butter¯ies were most likely to occur in patches nearing full bloom.
    [Show full text]
  • Ts Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports
    DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE & SCIENCE OF NATURE DENVER MUSEUM NUMBER 16, OCTOBER 11, 2019 SCIENCE.DMNS.ORG/MUSEUM-PUBLICATIONS Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports 2001 Colorado Boulevard (Print) ISSN 2374-7730 Denver, CO 80205, U.S.A. Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (Online) ISSN 2374-7749 REPORTS • NUMBER 16 • OCTOBER 11, 2019 • NUMBER 16 OCTOBER Cover photo: Oreas Anglewing (Polygonia oreas nigrozephyrus Scott, 1984), Gregory Canyon, Boulder County, Colorado, USA, 2 October 1973, leg. Michael G. Pogue. Photo: Bob Livingston. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (ISSN Frank Krell, PhD, Editor and Production 2374-7730 [print], ISSN 2374-7749 [online]) is an open- access, non peer-reviewed scientifi c journal publishing papers about DMNS research, collections, or other Program and Abstracts Museum related topics, generally authored or co-authored 30th Annual Meeting by Museum staff or associates. Peer review will only be arranged on request of the authors. of the High Country Lepidopterists October 11–12, 2019 The journal is available online at science.dmns.org/ Museum-Publications free of charge. Paper copies Denver Museum of Nature & Science are available for purchase from our print-on-demand publisher Lulu (www.lulu.com). DMNS owns the copyright of the works published in the Reports, which are Frank-Thorsten Krell (Ed.) published under the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial license. For commercial use of published
    [Show full text]
  • 13 Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region
    13 Sierra Nevada and Cascades Region xtending approximately 525 miles from Enorth to south, the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges form the spine of the California landscape. The mostly volcanic southern Cascades stretch from north of the Oregon border southeastward, merging just south of Mt. Lassen with the northern reaches of the predomi- Tim Palmer nantly granitic Sierra Nevada. To the south, the Sierra Nevada range embraces the Mojave Desert to the east and curves south to link with the Tehachapi Mountains. The region includes the oak woodland foothills on the western slopes of the Sierra and Cascade ranges and, on the east, the Owens Valley and edges of the Great Basin. On the west side, the slope of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades rises gradually from near sea level at the floor of the Central Valley to ridges ranging from 6,000 feet in the north to 14,000 feet in the south, then drops off sharply to the east. In contrast, the east side of the Cascades slopes gradually. As the Sierra elevation increases from west to east, life zones transition from chaparral and oak woodlands to lower-level montane forests of ponderosa and sugar pine to upper montane forests of firs, Jeffrey and lodgepole pine and, above timberline, to alpine plant communities. 291 California Wildlife: Conservation Challenges Federal agencies manage about 61 percent of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades: 46 percent by the Forest Service, 8 percent by the National Park Service, and 7 percent by the Bureau of Land Management. About 2 million acres are wilderness areas, mostly in the eastern and southern Sierra, managed by the Forest Service.
    [Show full text]
  • This Article Appeared in a Journal Published by Elsevier. the Attached
    This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 61 (2011) 237–243 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Short Communication A phylogenetic revision of the Glaucopsyche section (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), with special focus on the Phengaris–Maculinea clade ⇑ L.V. Ugelvig a,c, , R. Vila b, N.E. Pierce c, D.R. Nash a a Centre for Social Evolution, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark b Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-UPF), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003 Barcelona, Spain c Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA article info abstract Article history: Despite much research on the socially parasitic large blue butterflies (genus Maculinea) in the past Received 29 January 2011 40 years, their relationship to their closest relatives, Phengaris, is controversial and the relationships Revised 20 April 2011 among the remaining genera in the Glaucopsyche section are largely unresolved.
    [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]
  • BULLETIN of the ALLYN MUSEUM 3701 Bayshore Rd
    BULLETIN OF THE ALLYN MUSEUM 3701 Bayshore Rd. Sarasota, Florida 33,580 Published By The Florida State Museum University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Number ... 61 16 April1981 Chorionic Sculpturing in Eggs of Lycaenidae. Part I. John C. Downey Biology Department, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa and Research Associate, Allyn Museum of Entomology and Arthur C. Allyn Director, Allyn Museum of Entomology It has long been thought that the egg stage of butterflies has both an actual and. a potential value in determining or understanding the phylogeny and evolution of members of the order (Scudder, 1889; Chapman, 1896a, 1896b). * Within the Ly­ caenidae, several works beginning with Doherty (1886) and as recent as Clark and Dickson's (1956, 1971) excellent research in South Africa, have indicated the taxonomic usefulness of the egg stage. Recently, more life history studies of particular lycaenid genera (Shields, 1973, 1974)+ or species (Nakamura, 1976; Downey and Allyn, 1979) have included scan electron photographs of the egg stage, and provided a new and detailed ultrastructu,ral view. Most of these studies presented only the photographs or descriptions, but did not attempt to analyze similarities or differences of the included eggs with others. In our own ultrastructural studies, we have become increasingly aware of the lack of comparative details in order to assess the importance of observed differences. With this in mind, it was decided to reassess the chorionic sculpturing of available lycaenid eggs by means of scan electron microscopy. As incomplete as such a survey might be, it might still provide a comparative basis against which descriptions of single species in the future might be evaluated.
    [Show full text]
  • Acceptance of Lotus Scoparius (Fabaceae) by Larvae of Lycaenidae
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 45(3). 1991. 188-196 ACCEPTANCE OF LOTUS SCOPARIUS (FABACEAE) BY LARVAE OF LYCAENIDAE GORDON F. PRATT Entomology and Applied Ecology Department, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716 AND GREGORY R. BALLMER Entomology Department, University of California, Riverside, California 92521 ABSTRACT. Larvae of 49 species of Lycaenidae were fed Lotus scoparius (Nutt. in T. & G.) Ottley (Fabaceae). Twentyseven species grew normally and pupated; six others fed but exhibited retarded development. Sixteen species refused to feed, or fed but exhibited no growth. Fourteen of the species reared to adults on L. scoparius are not known to use food plants in the Fabaceae in nature. Additional key words: coevolution, food plant, host shift. The larvae of most butterfly genera feed specifically on either a single genus or family of plants (Ehrlich & Raven 1964, Ackery 1988). The host range of some genera of Lycaenidae is comparatively broad. For example, members of the genus Callophrys Billberg feed on a wide range of plants in the families Convolvulaceae, Crassulaceae, Cupres­ saceae, Ericaceae, Fabaceae, Agavaceae, Pinaceae, Polygonaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rosaceae, and Viscaceae (Powell 1968, Emmel & Emmel 1973, Scott 1986, Ballmer & Pratt 1989b). Some lycaenid species, such as Strymon melinus Hubner, are also extremely polyphagous, whereas others are monophagous or oligophagous. One of us (GFP) observed that Callophrys mcfarlandi (Ehrlich & Clench) which, in nature, is monophagous on Nolina texana var com­ pacta (Trel.) (Agavaceae), could be reared in the laboratory on Lotus scoparius with little or no retardation in development. This plasticity in larval feeding capacity could indicate a broader ancestral host range and might support the theory that ancestral butterflies fed on Fabaceae (Scott 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • Euphilotes Ancilla (Lycaenidae) in the Spring Mountains, Nevada: More Than One Species?
    148148 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 62(3), 2008, 148–160 EUPHILOTES ANCILLA (LYCAENIDAE) IN THE SPRING MOUNTAINS, NEVADA: MORE THAN ONE SPECIES? GEORGE T. AUSTIN McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112710, Gainesville, Florida 32611; email: gaustin@flmnh.ufl.edu BRUCE M. BOYD 476 McBride Way, Henderson, Nevada 89015 AND DENNIS D. MURPHY Department of Biology/314, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada 89557 ABSTRACT. Two independent temporal cohorts of Euphilotes ancilla (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) with different larval host plants occur sym- patrically in portions of the Spring Mountains of southern Nevada. Their diapause intensities (as determined in the laboratory) and flight sea- sons exhibit little or no overlap, but phenotypes of the cohorts appear identical. It is speculated that they arose from changes in the relative phe- nology of their larval host plants in response to climatic alterations subsequent to the Pleistocene. Although these Euphilotes seem to behave as separate biological entities, their taxonomic level remains equivocal. Until more information is forthcoming, they are recognized as separate subspecies: E. ancilla purpura and E. ancilla cryptica n. ssp. Additional key words: conservation, new subspecies, Polyommatinae, sympatric divergence. Euphilotes Mattoni, 1978, a genus of polyommatine confined to western North America (Reveal 1969, Lycaenidae, exhibits an often baffling array of taxa at 1978). More than one taxon of Euphilotes may co- both specific and infraspecific levels. Not only has their occur, either synchronously or not, but most co- genus-level nomenclature experienced numerous occurring species use different host plants (Pratt & upheavals over the years, but their species-level Ballmer 1986; Ballmer & Pratt 1988; Shields & Reveal taxonomy has suffered through chaos dating nearly to 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database
    Occurrence Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Map Index Number: 34038 EO Index: 12605 Key Quad: Merritt (3812157) Element Code: AAAAA01180 Occurrence Number: 384 Occurrence Last Updated: 1996-07-09 Scientific Name: Ambystoma californiense Common Name: California tiger salamander Listing Status: Federal: Threatened Rare Plant Rank: State: Threatened Other Lists: CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_VU-Vulnerable CNDDB Element Ranks: Global: G2G3 State: S2S3 General Habitat: Micro Habitat: CENTRAL VALLEY DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED. SANTA NEED UNDERGROUND REFUGES, ESPECIALLY GROUND SQUIRREL BARBARA & SONOMA COUNTIES DPS FEDERALLY LISTED AS BURROWS, & VERNAL POOLS OR OTHER SEASONAL WATER ENDANGERED. SOURCES FOR BREEDING. Last Date Observed: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Type: Natural/Native occurrence Last Survey Date: 1993-01-31 Occurrence Rank: Unknown Owner/Manager: PVT Trend: Unknown Presence: Presumed Extant Location: SOUTH WEST CORNER OF COVELL BLVD AND LAKE BLVD, IN THE CITY OF DAVIS. Detailed Location: FOUND IN THE PARKING LOT AT THE WILLOWS APARTMENTS. Ecological: Threats: URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL FIELDS AND TWO VERY BUSY ROADS. General: APARTMENT COMPLEX PARKING LOT LOCATED ACROSS LAKE BLVD FROM "WET POND" A CITY OWNED WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA MANAGED BY THE YOLO AUDUBON SOCIETY. PLSS: T08N, R02E, Sec. 07 (M) Accuracy: 80 meters Area (acres): 0 UTM: Zone-10 N4268740 E605722 Latitude/Longitude: 38.56082 / -121.78655 Elevation (feet): 50 County Summary: Quad Summary: Yolo
    [Show full text]