DOCSLIB.ORG

Conservation Assessment for the Swamp Metalmark (Calephelis Mutica Mcalpine)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conservation Assessment for the Swamp Metalmark (Calephelis Mutica Mcalpine) Conservation Assessment for The Swamp Metalmark (Calephelis mutica McAlpine) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region February 4, 2005 James Bess OTIS Enterprises 13501 south 750 west Wanatah, Indiana 46390 This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 1 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY ..................................................................................... 2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES........................................................................................................ 2 DESCRIPTION OF ADULT STAGE........................................................................................ 2 DESCRIPTION OF IMMATURE STAGES.............................................................................. 3 LIFE HISTORY.............................................................................................................................. 3 REPRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 3 ECOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 4 DISPERSAL/MIGRATION ....................................................................................................... 5 OBLIGATE ASSOCIATIONS................................................................................................... 5 HABITAT....................................................................................................................................... 5 RANGE-WIDE........................................................................................................................... 5 Upper Midwest.....................................................................................................................................................5 Ohio Valley..........................................................................................................................................................6 Ozark Mountains..................................................................................................................................................7 NATIONAL FORESTS: HOOSIER NF (PERRY CO., IN)...................................................... 8 SITE SPECIFIC.......................................................................................................................... 9 Hoosier NF: Boone Creek Special Area...............................................................................................................9 Hoosier NF: Clover Lick Special Area ................................................................................................................9 DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE....................................................................................... 10 RANGE-WIDE DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................ 10 STATE AND NATIONAL FOREST DISTRIBUTION.......................................................... 10 RANGE WIDE STATUS ............................................................................................................. 12 POTENTIAL THREATS.............................................................................................................. 15 PRESENT OR THREATENED RISKS TO HABITAT.......................................................... 15 Fire Suppression.................................................................................................................................................15 Grazing...............................................................................................................................................................17 Pasture Development .........................................................................................................................................18 Competition from Introduced Species................................................................................................................19 Over utilization ..................................................................................................................................................20 Disease or Predation...........................................................................................................................................20 Gypsy Moth Outbreaks and Control Efforts ......................................................................................................21 Peat Mining........................................................................................................................................................22 Residential Development ...................................................................................................................................23 Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms...............................................................................................23 SUMMARY OF LAND OWNERSHIP & EXISTING HABITAT PROTECTION ............... 23 SUMMARY OF EXISTING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................... 25 PAST AND CURRENT CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES ........................................................ 26 RESEARCH AND MONITORING ............................................................................................. 27 EXISTING SURVEYS, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH................................................. 27 SURVEY PROTOCOL ............................................................................................................ 27 MONITORING PROTOCOL................................................................................................... 28 RESEARCH PRIORITIES ....................................................................................................... 28 Additional Areas of Potential Swamp Metalmark Research..............................................................................28 Other Rare Species Associated with the Swamp Metalmark .............................................................................29 Conservation Assessment for the swamp metalmark (Calephelis mutica) ii REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 30 APPENDIX................................................................................................................................... 43 LIST OF CONTACTS.................................................................................................................. 43 INFORMATION REQUESTS ................................................................................................. 43 REVIEW REQUESTS.............................................................................................................. 43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The Swamp Metalmark (Calephelis mutica). Clover Lick Special Area, Hoosier National Forest, Perry County, Indiana. Figure 2. Known Distribution of the Swamp Metalmark (Calephelis mutica) and its Foodplants in the Eastern United States. Figure 3. Sample Field Form for Conducting Calephelis mutica Surveys. Conservation Assessment for the swamp metalmark (Calephelis mutica) iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The swamp metalmark (Calephelis mutica McAlpine) is a small, reddish brown butterfly associated with graminoid/cyperoid wetlands in the Upper Midwest, Ohio Valley and Ozark Mountain regions. It is considered rare and local throughout its range; always found in close association with its primary larval food plants, native thistles (primarily Cirsium muticum; but also C. altissimum and C. carolinianum). This butterfly produces one to two broods per year, with the adults appearing in late spring (south) and again in late summer (north and south). Despite the production of multiple broods, the swamp metalmark is almost never common and most records consist of only one or a few individuals. The destruction of the nation's mesic grasslands and graminoid wetlands over the past 200 years has greatly reduced suitable habitat for this and many other species. The few high quality fragments that remain are often small and highly isolated from one another. Therefore, a concentrated, region-wide effort to protect and restore habitat for this species will be needed to ensure its long-term survival. It is recommended that restoration projects (particularly those involving hydric grasslands and graminoid/cyperoid
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • ANOTHER NEW EUPHYES from the SOUTHERN UNITED STATES COASTAL PLAIN (HESPERIIDAE) the Southern Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains Ar
    Journal of the Lepidopteri'ts' Society .50(1 ), 1996, 46- 53 ANOTHER NEW EUPHYES FROM THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES COASTAL PLAIN (HESPERIIDAE) JOHN A. SHUEY The Nature ConselVancy, Indiana Field Office, 1330 West 38th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208, USA ABSTRACT. The taxon Euphyes dukesi calhouni Shuey, new subspecies endemic to FIOlida, is described. This subspecies is amply differentiated from Euphyes dukesi dukesi and the two taxa are allopatric. In northeaste rn F lorida and sout eastern G eorgia, whe re their known ranges closely approach one another, there is almost no evidence of inte r­ gradation. Euphyes dukesi calhouni is limited to swamp habitats that support large stands of the sedge hostplants, various Rhynchospora and Carex specie:; (Cype raceae). Additional key words: biogeography, we tlands, conservation. The southern Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains are rich regions for wetland butterflies, especially for genera such as Euphyes, Poanes, and Problema. For example , as currently known, eight named Euphyes spe­ cies or subspecies occur in the wetlands of these coastal plains. Four of these taxa are restricted to the coastal plain: Euphyes palatka palatka (Edwards), Euphyes palatka klotsi Mille r, Harvey and Miller, Euphyes berryi (Bell), and Euphyes bayensis Shuey. Just as interesting as their limited coastal distributions is the presence in these wetland skippers of well differentiated p eripheral populations, many of which have only recently bee n recognized and described. These peripheral populations are most probably the end result of allopatric diffe rentiation. For example, Euphyes palatka klotsi repre sents its spe­ cies on a few of the lower Florida Keys, separated from the nominate mainland subspecies by just tens of miles.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan
    The Great Lakes Entomologist Volume 16 Number 3 - Fall 1983 Number 3 - Fall 1983 Article 5 October 1983 Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan Mark F. O'Brien The University of Michigan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation O'Brien, Mark F. 1983. "Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan," The Great Lakes Entomologist, vol 16 (3) Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol16/iss3/5 This Peer-Review Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Great Lakes Entomologist by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. O'Brien: Bibliographic Guide to the Terrestrial Arthropods of Michigan 1983 THE GREAT LAKES ENTOMOLOGIST 87 BIBLIOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS OF MICHIGAN Mark F. O'Brienl ABSTRACT Papers dealing with distribution, faunal extensions, and identification of Michigan insects and other terrestrial arthropods are listed by order, and cover the period of 1878 through 1982. The following bibliography lists the publications dealing with the distribution or identification of insects and other terrestrial arthropods occurring in the State of Michigan. Papers dealing only with biological, behavioral, or economic aspects are not included. The entries are grouped by orders, which are arranged alphabetically, rather than phylogenetic ally , to facilitate information retrieval. The intent of this paper is to provide a ready reference to works on the Michigan fauna, although some of the papers cited will be useful for other states in the Great Lakes region.
    [Show full text]
  • Hillside Terrain
    ● Soil & Wetland Studies ● Ecology ● Application Reviews ● Listed Species Surveys ● GPS ● Environmental Planning & Management ● Ecological Restoration & Habitat Mitigation ● Expert Testimony ● Permitting January 20, 2021 Town of Farmington Town Plan & Zoning Commission 1 Monteith Drive Farmington CT 06032 RE: Preliminary Review “Proposed Zone Change & Residential Development” 402 Farmington Ave and Quarry Rd REMA Job #21-2357-FAR48 Dear Chair Brenneman & Commissioners: Rema Ecological Services, LLC (REMA), has been engaged to review the development proposal, principally for the Conservation/Inland Wetlands Commission, but there are also important implications for the planning and zoning commission, from a general ecological perspective that we would like to address. We should note that we have read Dr. Michael Klemens’ Report to your commission, dated January 17, 2021, and concur with all the points in his analysis, and we have reviewed the Milone & McBroom, Inc. (MMI) Wetland Delineation and Impacts Assessment, dated November 2nd, with an accompanying plan set. In several regards, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development project is not consistent with the Farmington Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD, updated 2007, adopted 2008) and the 2018 Addendum. Hillside Terrain Section V1 of the POCD, entitled Hillsides/Ridgelines, on p. 22 and 23 describes the four types of geologic formations found in the town, that result in hilly terrain, including the Rema Ecological Services, LLC ● 164 East Center Street, Suite 2, Manchester, CT 06040 ● 860.649-REMA (7362) ● 860.647.8397 (fax) Farmington Town Plan & Zoning Commission RE: Proposed Residential Development, 402 Farmington Av. & Quarry Rd. January 20, 2021 Page 2 eastern traprock ridge system along Talcott Mountain.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Island Ridge Management Plan
    Pine Island Ridge Conservation Management Plan Broward County Parks and Recreation May 2020 Update of 1999 Management Plan Table of Contents A. General Information ..............................................................................................................3 B. Natural and Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................8 C. Use of the Property ..............................................................................................................13 D. Management Activities ........................................................................................................18 E. Works Cited ..........................................................................................................................29 List of Tables Table 1. Management Goals…………………………………………………………………21 Table 2. Estimated Costs……………………………………………………………….........27 List of Attachments Appendix A. Pine Island Ridge Lease 4005……………………………………………... A-1 Appendix B. Property Deeds………….............................................................................. B-1 Appendix C. Pine Island Ridge Improvements………………………………………….. C-1 Appendix D. Conservation Lands within 10 miles of Pine Island Ridge Park………….. D-1 Appendix E. 1948 Aerial Photograph……………………………………………………. E-1 Appendix F. Development Agreement………………………………………………….. F-1 Appendix G. Plant Species Observed at Pine Island Ridge……………………………… G-1 Appendix H. Wildlife Species Observed at Pine Island Ridge ……... …………………. H-1 Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment for the Kansan Spikerush Leafhopper (Dorydiella Kansana Beamer)
    Conservation Assessment For The Kansan spikerush leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana Beamer) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region January 11, 2005 James Bess OTIS Enterprises 13501 south 750 west Wanatah, Indiana 46390 This document is undergoing peer review, comments welcome This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on the subject taxon or community; or this document was prepared by another organization and provides information to serve as a Conservation Assessment for the Eastern Region of the Forest Service. It does not represent a management decision by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was used and subject experts were consulted in preparation of this document, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if you have information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact the Eastern Region of the Forest Service - Threatened and Endangered Species Program at 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 580 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 1 NOMENCLATURE AND TAXONOMY ..................................................................................... 1 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • You Can Help (PDF)
    SHAPING THE LAKE HURON TO LAKE ERIE CORRIDOR’S FUTURE: YOU CAN HELP Swimming is a popular activity on beaches various citizen activities, such as It might seem like a lone individual’s efforts throughout the Lake Huron to Lake Erie wildlife monitoring and annual bird Corridor. Every summer, thousands flock counts, that help to gather important to the lakes and rivers around the region for relief from the summer heat. data for scientific research. At the same time, you will learn more about the have activities designed to monitor creatures that live in the region. and improve the health of rivers, could not affect the Lake Huron to Lake lakes and streams. • You can play a role in shaping future development in your community. • Help protect significant natural Development comes under the areas in your community by getting authority of your municipal council N O S involved with a local land N or local planning body, depending Erie Corridor’s environment, compared H conservancy or other conservation on where you live. Generally their JO N E organization. R decisions are guided by master A K • Volunteer for ecological projects in (or official) plans, policies and bylaws that are set through public processes. Students help install soil-bioengineering your area. These can include planting practices to improve coastal marsh habitat on trees, managing invasive plants, You and other citizens can have a say Grosse Ile, Michigan. with the powerful forces of nature and collecting seeds and removing litter in development decision-making by and trash from natural areas and attending public hearings and taking along waterways.
    [Show full text]
  • Acronicta Rubticoma Guenee. Black Light; Lakehurst, June 4. Acronicta Dactylina Grote, Melanic Form
    VOLUME 24, NUMBER 1 3 NOcruIDAE Acronicta rubTicoma Guenee. Black light; Lakehurst, June 4. Acronicta dactylina Grote, melanic form. Black light; Lebanon, June 27. A new record for the State. Eurois occulta Linnaeus. Black light; Montague, August 27. Oncocnemis saundersiana Grote. Black light; Lebanon, October 28. Agrotis buchholzi Barnes & Benjamin. Black light, Lakehurst, June 4. Eupsilia morrisoni Grote. Black light; Lebanon, November 18 and 23. Neperigea costa Barnes & Benjamin. Black light; Montague, July 27. A new record for the State. Magusa orbifera, "divaricata" Grote. Black light, Lebanon, August 21. Amolita roseola Smith. Black light; Montague, July 30. A new record for the State. Abrostola urentis Guenee. Black light; Montague, October 10. Catocala maestosa Hulst. Bait trap; Lebanon, August 28. A new record for the State. Zale phaeocapna Franclemont. Black light; Lebanon, April 27. Deter­ mined by genitalic dissection. A new record for the State. Zale metatoides McDunnough. Black light; Montague, June 10. A new record for the State. Gabara pulverosalis Walker. Black light; Lakehurst August 14. A new record for the State. Rivula propinqaZis Guenee. Black light; Lebanon, October 28. I wish to thank C. F. dos Passos and A. E. Brower for determining some of the specimens. A NEW SUBSPECIES OF BREPHIDIUM EXILIS FROM YUCATAN (LEPIDOPTERA: LYCAENIDAE) HARTIY K. CLENCH Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Some years ago Eduardo C. Welling, of Merida, Yucatan, Mexico, sent me a few specimens of a Brephidium he had taken on the north coast of Yucatan. It was obvious, as soon as they had been examined genitalically, that they represented exilis Boisduval, but they belonged to 4 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Milk Thistle
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control BIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF EXOTIC T RU E T HISTL E S RACHEL WINSTON , RICH HANSEN , MA R K SCH W A R ZLÄNDE R , ER IC COO M BS , CA R OL BELL RANDALL , AND RODNEY LY M FHTET-2007-05 U.S. Department Forest September 2008 of Agriculture Service FHTET he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ On the cover: Italian thistle. Photo: ©Saint Mary’s College of California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and Biogeography of Euphyes Scudder (Hesperiidae)
    JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY Volume 47 1993 Number 4 Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 47(4), 1993, 261-278 PHYLOGENY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF EUPHYES SCUDDER (HESPERIIDAE) JOHN A. SHUEyl Great Lakes Environmental Center, 739 Hastings, Traverse City, Michigan 49684 ABSTRACT. The 20 species of Euphyes were analyzed phylogenetically and were found to fall into four monophyletic species groups, each of which is defined by one or more apomorphic characters. The peneia group contains Euphyes peneia (Godman), E. eberti Mielke, E. leptosema (Mabille), E. fumata Mielke, E. singularis (Herrich-Schiiffer), and E. cornelius (Latreille). The subferruginea group contains E. subferruginea Mielke, E. antra Evans, and E. cherra Evans. The dion group contains E. dion (Edwards), E. dukesi (Lindsey), E. bayensis Shuey, E. pilatka (Edwards), E. berryi (Bell), and E. con­ spicua (Edwards). The vestris group contains E. vestris (Boisduval), E. chamuli Freeman, E. bimacula (Grote and Robinson), and E arpa (Boisduval and Leconte). Euphyes ampa Evans could not be placed confidently w .nin this framework. Geographic distribution of each speci~s group suggests that exchange between South America and North America took place at least twice. The two Caribbean Basin species (E. singularis, E. cornelius) share a common ancestor with E. peneia, a species found in Central and South America. This suggests a vicariant event involving Central America and the Greater Antilles. The dion and vestris groups show strong patterns of alJopatric differentiation, suggesting that the isolation and subsequent differentiation of peripheral populations has played an important role in the development of the extant species. Additional key words: evolution, cladistics, wetlands, vicariance biogeography, pop­ ulation differentiation.
    [Show full text]