DOCSLIB.ORG

W Il L Ia M S O N Ia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
W Il L Ia M S O N Ia A publication of the M ichigan O donata Survey Volume 8 Issue 3 W il l iam s o n ia Summer 20 0 4 Epitheca costalis (Stripe-w inged Baskettail) in M ichigan: U pdate By M ark O ’Brien M useum of Z oology, U niversity of M ichigan, A nn A rbor, M I 48109 Last year, I alerted M O S m em bers to the possibility of finding Epi- theca costalis in M ichigan, since N ick D onnelly reported speci- m ens that w ere either true costalis or intergrades betw een costalis and E. cynosura (C om m on Baskettail) in O hio. I sent N ick a box of specim ens to see if there w ere any possible E. costalis from southeast M ichigan. A t first, N ick felt that m ost w ere cynosura w ith a few possible intergrades. A fter som e re- exam ination of the data, N ick sent m e an e-m ail listing E. Stripe-winged Baskettail? This costalis that he identified from low er M ichigan: unidentified Epitheca, photo- graphed by Steve Habbel in Bear Creek Twp., Emmet Co., shows one Mark - I continue to go over the Epitheca. I now think that sev- fairly distinctive characteristic of E. eral of your specimens are costalis. The problem I had was that costalis — a narrowed abdomen at your specimens were at the very north edge of the range and segment 3. thus varied somewhat from more southern specimens. Because (Continued on page 2) Subarctic Darner, A eshna subarctica – a historical oddity? By M ark O ’Brien M useum of Z oology, U niversity of M ichigan, A nn A rbor, M I 48109 Earlier this year, I w as assisting the D N R in determ ining the status of species of O donata that m ay be of special concern w ithin M ichigan (see page 9). There are not m any aeshnids on this list, and one of them is questionable. Subarctic D arner (Aeshna su- barctica) w as reported from M ichigan early in the last century, and the records from the U M M Z C ollection are from a few spots in the U pper Peninsula and Isle R oyale. Keweenaw Co. Isle Royale 16 Aug 1905 Adams MOS0006820 Chippewa Co. Whitefish Point 31 Aug 1916 A.F. Combs MOS0006564 Keweenaw Co. Isle Royale 5 Aug 1905 Adams MOS0006352 Keweenaw Co. Isle Royale Gleason MOS0016796 Keweenaw Co. Isle Royale Gleason MOS0016727 Keweenaw Co. Isle Royale Aug 1905 C.C. Adams UMMZODO-3333 MOS Records of Aeshna subarctica from the UMMZ Insect Collection. (Continued on page 2) W illiamson ia P age 2 Stripe-w inged Baskettail, cont. (Continued from page 1) it occurs in Williams Co., OH, it is not surprising to find it in Michigan. Note that Kormondy essentially omitted the counties where it is most common! If only he had gotten to Sanilac and Tuscola counties! I ended up with four "intergrade" specimens. Two have spotted wings and fit well with cynosura and two have clear wings and fit with costalis. I am not confident that they represent intergrades. For the moment, pending further study, it seems best to call them costalis. I hope to discuss all this in Iowa. Sanilac Co. 5-Jul-97 Obee Rd, ponds on W side, T.V. Healy Sanilac Co. 5-Jul-97 Obee Rd, ponds on W side, T.V. Heatley Tuscola Co. 17-Jun-02 Mayville, 2158 West Saginaw Rd, M. Willard Washtenaw Co. 7-Jun-99 Pittsfield Twp, Sec 26, Peplau's Pond, M. O'Brien Bay Co. 11-Jun-02 Hampton Twp, Knight Rd at Bay Quanicasse SWA, M. Willard Washtenaw Co. 7-Jun-99 Pittsfield Twp, Sec 26, Peplau's Pond, M. O'Brien Lenawee Co. 20-May-98 Onsted SGA, One Mile Lk & Cleveland Lk, M. O'Brien et al Monroe Co. 15-Jul-97 London Twp, T5S R7E S18, across Wanty Rd Rod & Gun Club, J. Farmer Specimens in the UMMZ collection that are E. costalis (first four) or E. costalis/cynosura intergrades. So, it now seem s that w e should add Epitheca costalis to the state list of species, based upon N ick’s analysis. O f course, additional m aterial is w elcom e, especially from the southeastern part of the state. This once again underscores the need to collect speci- m ens and not rely solely on visual records. W ithout the actual specim en, there is no w ay that N ick could have done his analysis. N ote that all the records are recent, perhaps indicating a recent incursion into M ichigan by Epitheca costalis. This also under- scores the need to recheck recently collected sites and to exam ine carefully for specim ens that look a bit different. Epitheca cyno- sura is a com m on species across M ichigan, so m any collectors get one at a site and go on from there. Since it is too late in the season to collect m ore Epitheca, I w ill try and have a com parison chart ready for next spring’s issue of W illiam sonia to show the critical differences betw een E. costalis and cynosura. Perhaps w e’ll be able to add m ore localities and add to our know ledge of this species in M ichigan. Subarctic D arner, cont. (Continued from page 1) The six records (five adults and tw o larvae) are quite old, and in the years since 1916, w e have had num erous collections m ade in the U P (substantial collections have been m ade in A lger, G ogebic, M arquette, O ntanogan, M ackinac, C hippew a, and Schoolcraft counties), yet no m ore A. subarctica have been reported. K orm ondy (1958) cited Byers (1927) as listing A. subarctica from G ogebic C o. H ow ever, there are no specim ens to substantiate Byers’ identification. Byers (1927) also listed A. subarctica from H oughton C o., and I have not been able to find those specim ens. It is certainly possible that he m isidentified som e Aeshna specim ens at that tim e. This species is H olarctic, and know n from areas w ith bogs, m uskeg pools, or deep fens (W alker 1958, C annings and C annings 1997). There are a few records from the eastern U S, but m ost N orth A m erican records are north of the U .S. border and from the Pacific N orthw est (C annings and C annings 1997, D uBois et al. 1999, N ikula et al. 2001, D onnelly 2004). W alker (1958) de- scribed it as flying w ith Aeshna juncea, Som atochlora m inor, Leucorrhinia hudsonica, Coenagrion resolutum and C. interrogatum . This leads m e to w onder if the species should no longer be listed for M ichigan, but classified as a historical record. O bviously, our list of O donata should reflect m ore than just a list of species recorded for the state, but act as a list of species that are know n to occur. This species has turned up in the N ortheast and in W isconsin (D uBois et al. 1999, N ikula et al. 2001), so there is alw ays the possibility that sm all populations have escaped our nets in the U pper Peninsula, or they m ay recolonize the area once again in the future. There is the possibility that A. subarctica is still present on Isle R oyale, though none have turned up in the several other collections m ade there in the past 99 years. I certainly recom m end that the U .S. N ational Park Service support an effort to (Continued on page 3) W illiam sonia age 3 Subarctic Darner, cont. (Continued from page 2) sam ple the rem ote island for m arginal species. The first Common O f course, the question is “w hy?” Perhaps the species used to occur across the U p- Green Darner (Anax per Peninsula, but by the tim e it w as collected in 1905, it w as on its w ay out due to junius) of 2004 was environm ental changes caused by logging practices that greatly affected the conif- erous forests of M ichigan and associated riparian areas. A nother possibility is apparently found by that it w as never really established, but the few specim ens collected m erely reflect Steve Ross at Hay- a few individuals that w ere blow n in from C anada and established a short-lived marsh State Game presence. Area in Mecosta Co. on 16 April, when Populations of living things contract and expand over tim e, and given the dra- the temperature m atic changes in the G reat Lakes R egion over the past 8,000 years, and just as there was 77°F. significantly, the past 150 years, w e should expect that som e species that w ere on the edge of the boreal forest w ill no longer be found in M ichigan. A s w e have not seen any M ichigan Aeshna subarctica since 1916, it should probably have its status changed – to a historical record only. In contrast – Z igzag D arner, Aeshna sitchensis and Sedge D arner, A. juncea, w hich w ere also found in early collections from the U P, have both been collected throughout the last century and during the last 10 years, and are therefore not his- torical species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Williamsonia P Age 2
    A publication of the M ichigan O donata Survey V olu me 9 Issu e 1 W i l l i a m s o n i a Winter 20 0 5 C anada D arner w ith unusual thorax pattern Julie C raves University of M ichigan-D earborn jac@ rrbo.org fter attending an ornithological m eeting in G rayling (C raw ford C o.) on 28 Aug A 2004, I had a little bit of tim e to hunt for odonata before heading back hom e. C onsulting a m ap, I chose to explore H ow e’s Lake, a sm all sandy lake north of M -72 w est of G rayling. There w asn’t a lot actually plying the lake itself, but the w et, grassy depressions near the lake shore had several species of Lestes, Saffon-w inged M eadow haw k (Sym petrum costiferum , a county record), and quite a few Aeshna’s pa- trolling lazily or ovipositing in the shallow w ater. I netted a few C anada D arners (Aeshna canadensis), and som e Black-tipped D arners (A. tuberculifera, county record). It appeared that all the blue darners at the site w ere these tw o species, until I netted one w ith broken thoracic stripes, w hich I took to be a V ariable D arner (A. interrupta). W hen I returned hom e to sort through the speci- m ens, I turned this specim en over, I found that the other side of the thorax w as the standard C anada D arner pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware's Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    CHAPTER 1 DELAWARE’S WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED CHAPTER 1: Delaware’s Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regional Context ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Delaware’s Animal Biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 10 State of Knowledge of Delaware’s Species ................................................................................................... 10 Delaware’s Wildlife and SGCN - presented by Taxonomic Group .................................................................. 11 Delaware’s 2015 SGCN Status Rank Tier Definitions................................................................................. 12 TIER 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 TIER 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan
    2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species Assessments Appendix 1.1A – Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Jason Hill, PhD) Assessment of eBird data for the importance of Pennsylvania as a bird migratory corridor (Andy Wilson, PhD) Appendix 1.1B – Mammals A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Mammals, Utilizing NatureServe Ranking Methodology and Rank Calculator Version 3.1 for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 (Charlie Eichelberger and Joe Wisgo) Appendix 1.1C – Reptiles and Amphibians A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Herpetofauna Appendix 1.1D – Fishes A Revision of the State Conservation Ranks of Pennsylvania’s Fishes Appendix 1.1E – Invertebrates Invertebrate Assessment for the 2015 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Revision 2015-2025 Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan Appendix 1.1A - Birds A Comprehensive Status Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Avifauna for Application to the State Wildlife Action Plan Update 2015 Jason M. Hill, PhD. Table of Contents Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Species Selection ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prioritizing Odonata for Conservation Action in the Northeastern USA
    APPLIED ODONATOLOGY Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA Erin L. White1,4, Pamela D. Hunt2,5, Matthew D. Schlesinger1,6, Jeffrey D. Corser1,7, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3,8 1New York Natural Heritage Program, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 USA 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301 USA 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, Maine 04401 USA Abstract: Odonata are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change, and the northeastern USA (Virginia to Maine) is a hotspot of odonate diversity and a region of historical and grow- ing threats to freshwater ecosystems. This duality highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conser- vation assessment of the region’s 228 resident odonate species. We offer a prioritization framework modified from NatureServe’s method for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern USA. We calculated the R-rank based on 3 rarity factors (range extent, area of occupancy, and habitat specificity), 1 threat factor (vulnerability of occupied habitats), and 1 trend factor (relative change in range size). We combine this R-rank with the degree of endemicity (% of the species’ USA and Canadian range that falls within the region) as a proxy for regional responsibility, thereby deriving a list of species of combined vulnerability and regional management responsibility. Overall, 18% of the region’s odonate fauna is imperiled (R1 and R2), and peatlands, low-gradient streams and seeps, high-gradient headwaters, and larger rivers that harbor a disproportionate number of these species should be considered as priority habitat types for conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland December 2016 Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Larry Hogan, Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Wildlife & Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building, E-1 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 410-260-8540 Fax 410-260-8596 dnr.maryland.gov Additional Telephone Contact Information: Toll free in Maryland: 877-620-8DNR ext. 8540 OR Individual unit/program toll-free number Out of state call: 410-260-8540 Text Telephone (TTY) users call via the Maryland Relay The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with disability. Cover photo: A mating pair of the Appalachian Jewelwing (Calopteryx angustipennis), a rare damselfly in Maryland. (Photo credit, James McCann) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Maryland Department of Natural Resources would like to express sincere appreciation to the many scientists and naturalists who willingly share information and provide their expertise to further our mission of conserving Maryland’s natural heritage. Publication of this list is made possible by taxpayer donations to Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay and Endangered Species Fund. Suggested citation: Maryland Natural Heritage Program. 2016. List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 580 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401. 03-1272016-633. INTRODUCTION The following list comprises 514 native Maryland animals that are among the least understood, the rarest, and the most in need of conservation efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Biological Traits Database
    USGS_Citations_v1.txt Citation_title Citation_complete (Part 1) Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) "Berner, L. 1940. Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) (Part 1). The Florida Entomologist 23(3):33-62." (Part 2) Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) "Berner, L. 1940. Baetine mayflies from Florida (Ephemeroptera) (Part 2). The Florida Entomologist 23(4):49-62." A check list of the Trichoptera (caddis flies) of New Hampshire. "Morse, W. J. and R. L. Blickle (1953). ""A check list of the Trichoptera (caddis flies) of New Hampshire."" Entomological News 64: 68-73; 97-102." A checklist of caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Massachusetts. "Holeski, P. M. (1979). ""A checklist of caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Massachusetts."" Entomological News 90(4): 167-175." A checklist of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia. "Kondratieff, B. C. and J. R. Voshell (1979). ""A checklist of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia."" Entomological News 90(5): 241-246." A comparative study of the North American species in the caddisfly genus Mystacides "Yamamoto, T., and G. B. Wiggins. 1964. A comparative study of the North American species in the caddisfly genus Mystacides (Trichoptera: Leptoceridae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 42:1105-1126." A contribution to the biolgoy of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools. "Wiggins, G. B. (1973). ""A contribution to the biolgoy of caddisflies (Trichoptera) in temporary pools."" Life Sciences Contributions, Royal Ontario Museum 88: 1-28." A description of the female of Hydroptila jackmanni Blickle with biological notes "Huryn, A. D. 1983. A description of the female of Hydroptila jackmanni Blickle (Trichoptera: Hydroptilidae), with biological notes. Entomological News 94(3):93-94." A description of the immature stages of Paduniella nearctica with notes on its biology "Mathis, M.
    [Show full text]
  • Dragonfly and Damselfly Checklist
    Dragonf ly There are over 160 dragonfly and damselfly species found in Ohio. The Oak Openings is a & Damself ly premier location for finding many of these fascinating and beautiful insects. Dragonfly and damselfly larvae are completely aquatic; Checklist therefore, these animals are excellent indicators of water quality. The adults are often brilliantly colored, and they are fun to observe as they engage in acrobatic maneuvers while hunt- ing. Their ability to fly in any direction, swiftly change direction, and fly at lightning speed (the fastest have been clocked at 60 miles per hour) makes them one of nature’s most amazing flying machines. These insects are carnivorous and voracious predators. Their prey is hunted on the wing (in mid-air) and can range from small flies and mosquitoes to other dragonflies. One key feature for differentiating dragonflies and damselflies is the spacing of their eyes. While damselflies have eyes spaced widely apart, eyes on dragonflies touch or are only slightly separated. Also, when perching, dragonflies hold their wings straight out to the sides. Most damselflies, with the exception of the spreadwings, press their wings together over their backs. Photos by Rick Nirschl Cover photo: Blue-faced Meadowhawk (Sympetrum ambiguum) 5100 West Central Ave. Toledo, Ohio 43615 MetroparksToledo.com This odonata checklist includes historical records for Lucas County, Ohio as well as documented sightings. 2000 07/17 BROAD-WINGED DAMSELS – CALOPTERYGIDAE __ Midland Clubtail - Gomphus fraternus __ Ebony Jewelwing - Calopteryx
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata in the Northeastern US
    A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States Erin L. White1, Pamela D. Hunt2, Matthew D. Schlesinger1, Jeffrey D. Corser1, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3 March 2014 1New York Natural Heritage Program, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, NY, US 12233-4757 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401 Cover photo: Ringed boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri) by Michael Blust 2007 Suggested citation: White, Erin L., Pamela D. Hunt, Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, and Phillip G. deMaynadier. 2014. A conservation status assessment of Odonata for the northeastern United States. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. ii Executive Summary Odonates are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change. Approximately 18% of odonates in the US are considered rare and vulnerable to extirpation or extinction. Northeastern North America hosts a rich and ancient odonate fauna, especially for a temperate region. Recognition of northeastern North America as both a hotspot of odonate diversity, and a region of historical and growing threats to freshwater ecosystems, highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conservation assessment of the Northeast’s resident odonate species. Here, we develop and apply a prioritization framework for 228 species of dragonflies and damselflies occurring in the northeastern US (Virginia to Maine). Specifically, we offer a modified version of NatureServe’s methodology for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single, regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern US.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States
    A Conservation Status Assessment of Odonata for the Northeastern United States Erin L. White1, Pamela D. Hunt2, Matthew D. Schlesinger1, Jeffrey D. Corser1, and Phillip G. deMaynadier3 March 2014 1New York Natural Heritage Program, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, NY, US 12233-4757 2Audubon Society of New Hampshire, 84 Silk Farm Road, Concord, NH 03301 3Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401 Cover photo: Ringed boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri) by Michael Blust 2007 Suggested citation: White, Erin L., Pamela D. Hunt, Matthew D. Schlesinger, Jeffrey D. Corser, and Phillip G. deMaynadier. 2014. A conservation status assessment of Odonata for the northeastern United States. New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, NY. ii Executive Summary Odonates are valuable biological indicators of freshwater ecosystem integrity and climate change. Approximately 18% of odonates in the US are considered rare and vulnerable to extirpation or extinction. Northeastern North America hosts a rich and ancient odonate fauna, especially for a temperate region. Recognition of northeastern North America as both a hotspot of odonate diversity, and a region of historical and growing threats to freshwater ecosystems, highlights the urgency of developing a comprehensive conservation assessment of the Northeast’s resident odonate species. Here, we develop and apply a prioritization framework for 228 species of dragonflies and damselflies occurring in the northeastern US (Virginia to Maine). Specifically, we offer a modified version of NatureServe’s methodology for assessing conservation status ranks by assigning a single, regional vulnerability metric (R-rank) reflecting each species’ degree of relative extinction risk in the northeastern US.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Inventory of Odonata at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit Final Report, Challenge Cost Share MOA #2007CCS-98
    Baseline Inventory of Odonata at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit Final Report, Challenge Cost Share MOA #2007CCS-98 Julie A. Craves Rouge River Bird Observatory Environmental Interpretive Center University of Michigan-Dearborn Dearborn, MI 48128 This report summarizes a baseline inventory of Odonata (damselflies, suborder Zygoptera, and dragonflies, suborder Anisoptera) at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, Humbug Marsh Unit, Trenton and Gibraltar, Wayne County, MI (hereafter referred to as “Humbug”). Methods In their paper recommending biodiversity inventories for invertebrates, Rohr et al. (2007) advise that baseline data emphasize relative abundances. Accordingly, this inventory was designed to summarize the Odonata taxa present at Humbug, including relative abundance, status (e.g., breeding resident), and habitats (Kremen et al. 1993, Hawking and New 2002). The site was visited 14 times in 2007: 3 times each in June, July, and August; twice in September for adults and once for larval sampling; and once in October for adults and once for larval sampling. Adult surveys were only done on days with appropriate weather (mostly sunny, warm, without high winds) (Schmidt 1985, Chovanec and Waringer 2001, Hornung and Rice 2003) and at peak flight times (10:00 to 16:00) (Bried et al. 2007). Adult surveys took place along three transects and in two areas searches. One east-west transect was as parallel as possible to a man-made ditch known as Monguagon Creek1, beginning where it empties from an underground pipe, and extending approximately 525 m to the Detroit River (Trenton Channel). A second transect ran north-south parallel to the Detroit River shoreline for approximately 185 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals of Maryland
    RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED ANIMALS OF MARYLAND December 11, 2007 Prepared by Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Natural Heritage Program Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 260-8563 INTRODUCTION The following report identifies those native Maryland animals that are among the rarest and most in need of conservation efforts as elements of our State's natural diversity. It includes species occurring in Maryland that are listed or candidates for listing on the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, species currently on the State's Threatened and Endangered Species List, and additional species that are considered rare by the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Service. The purpose of this report is to inform the public of which species are rare, to provide an indication of their degree of rarity, to solicit additional information on the status and distribution of these species, and to promote an interest in their protection. Compiled by Wildlife and Heritage Service staff, this list of rare species is a result of over 20 years of data gathering from numerous sources, such as museums and private collections, scientific literature, unpublished documents, reports from biologists and amateur naturalists, and from field work conducted by Wildlife and Heritage Service ecologists. The original version of this list was included in the Department of Natural Resources' 1984 publication Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Maryland, which also contained detailed information on the distribution and status of Maryland's rare species known at that time. Since 1984, our knowledge of Maryland's fauna has grown steadily.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Animals, Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07, February
    COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals Compiled by: Steven M. Roble, Zoologist Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. February 2016 NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA: RARE ANIMALS FEBRUARY 2016 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE 600 EAST MAIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804) 786-7951 List Compiled by Steven M. Roble Staff Zoologist Cover illustrations (left to right) by Megan Rollins Indiana Myotis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Regal Fritillary This report should be cited as: Roble, S.M. 2016. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals. Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 56 pp. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 LIST FORMAT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PRIMARY SOURCES OF COMMON NAMES ................................................................................................................ 7 PART ONE. RARE ANIMAL LIST ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]