Atlas of Pennsylvania Butterflies
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Papilio Glaucus, P. Marcellus, P. Philenor, Pieris Rapae, Colias Philo Dice, Antho Caris Genutia, Anaea Andria, Euptychia Gemma
102 REMINGTON: 1952 Central Season Vol.7, nos.3·4 Papilio glaucus, P. marcellus, P. philenor, Pieris rapae, Colias philo dice, Antho caris genutia, Anaea andria, Euptychia gemma. One exception to the general scarcity was the large number of Erynnis brizo and E. juvenalis which were seen clustered around damp spots in a dry branch on April 9. MERRITT counted 67 Erynnis and 2 Papilio glaucus around one such spOt and 45 Erynnis around another. Only one specimen of Incisalia henrici was seen this spring. MERRITT was pleased to find Incisalia niphon still present in a small tract of pine although the area was swept by a ground fire in 1951. Vanessa cardui appeared sparingly from June 12 on, the first since 1947. In the late summer the season appeared normal. Eurema lisa, Nathalis iole, Lycaena thoe, and Hylephila phyleus were common. Junonia coenia was more abundant around Louisville than he has ever seen it. A rarity taken in Louisville this fall was Atlides halesus, the first seen since 1948. The latest seasonal record made by Merritt was a specimen of Colias eury theme flying south very fast on December 7. EDWARD WELLING sent a record of finding Lagoa crispata on June 27 at Covington. Contributors: F. R. ARNHOLD; E. G. BAILEY; RALPH BEEBE; S. M. COX; H. V. DALY; 1. W . GRIEWISCH; J. B. HAYES; R. W. HODGES; VONTA P. HYNES; R. LEUSCHNER; J. R. MERRITT; J. H. NEWMAN; M. C. NIEL SEN; 1. S. PHILLIPS; P. S. REMINGTON; WM. SIEKER; EDWARD VOSS; W. H . WAGNER, JR.; E. C. -
Biological Evaluation
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2018 Biological Evaluation Prospect Hamby Project Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest Cherokee County, North Carolina For Additional Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, North Carolina 28906 (828) 837-5152 2-1 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Species Considered ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, and THREATENED SPECIES ................................................... 3 2.1 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Wildlife Resources ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Effects Determinations for Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species ........................... 14 3.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 Aquatic -
Persius Duskywing
Natural Heritage Persius Duskywing & Endangered Species Erynnis persius Program State Status: Endangered www.mass.gov/nhesp Federal Status: None Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife DESCRIPTION: The Persius Duskywing (Erynnis persius) is a skipper butterfly with a wingspan of 28 to 35 mm (Schweitzer et al. 2011). The forewing is dark brown, almost black, the hind wing also dark brown but not as dark as the forewing. There are small white apical spots on the forewing and pale submarginal spots on the hind wing. The male has raised, white, hair-like scales on the forewing that render a “soft” appearance. The common Wild Indigo Duskywing (Erynnis baptisiae) is so similar in appearance that the Persius Duskywing cannot be reliably identified in the field or from a photograph. However, comparing the males of each species, the Persius Duskywing typically has more raised, white, hair like scales on the forewing than the Wild Indigo Duskywing (but the latter also has a smaller number of Erynnis persius ▪ MA: Plymouth Co. ▪ 19 May 2004 ▪ Photo by M.W. similar scales); many (but not all) Wild Indigo Nelson Duskywings have a brown patch in the distal area of the forewing that is absent on the Persius Duskywing; and Adult Flight Period in Massachusetts many (but not all) Persius Duskywings have white Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec forewing apical spots that are aligned, not offset like the Wild Indigo Duskywing. Female Persius and Wild Indigo Duskywings are even more similar in appearance. The HABITAT: The Persius Duskywing inhabits xeric, open only definitive way to identify the Persius Duskywing is oak woodland, sandplain pitch pine-scrub oak barrens, and to examine the male genitalia under magnification. -
Butterflies of the Wesleyan Campus
BUTTERFLIES OF THE WESLEYAN CAMPUS SWALLOWTAILS Hairstreaks (Subfamily - Theclinae) (Family PAPILIONIDAE) Great Purple Hairstreak - Atlides halesus Coral Hairstreak - Satyrium titus True Swallowtails Banded Hairstreak - Satyrium calanus (Subfamily - Papilioninae) Striped Hairstreak - Satyrium liparops Pipevine Swallowtail - Battus philenor Henry’s Elfin - Callophrys henrici Zebra Swallowtail - Eurytides marcellus Eastern Pine Elfin - Callophrys niphon Black Swallowtail - Papilio polyxenes Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus Giant Swallowtail - Papilio cresphontes White M Hairstreak - Parrhasius m-album Eastern Tiger Swallowtail - Papilio glaucus Gray Hairstreak - Strymon melinus Spicebush Swallowtail - Papilio troilus Red-banded Hairstreak - Calycopis cecrops Palamedes Swallowtail - Papilio palamedes Blues (Subfamily - Polommatinae) Ceraunus Blue - Hemiargus ceraunus Eastern-Tailed Blue - Everes comyntas WHITES AND SULPHURS Spring Azure - Celastrina ladon (Family PIERIDAE) Whites (Subfamily - Pierinae) BRUSHFOOTS Cabbage White - Pieris rapae (Family NYMPHALIDAE) Falcate Orangetip - Anthocharis midea Snouts (Subfamily - Libytheinae) American Snout - Libytheana carinenta Sulphurs and Yellows (Subfamily - Coliadinae) Clouded Sulphur - Colias philodice Heliconians and Fritillaries Orange Sulphur - Colias eurytheme (Subfamily - Heliconiinae) Southern Dogface - Colias cesonia Gulf Fritillary - Agraulis vanillae Cloudless Sulphur - Phoebis sennae Zebra Heliconian - Heliconius charithonia Barred Yellow - Eurema daira Variegated Fritillary -
Lepidoptera of North America 5
Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains, -
Effects of Prescribed Fire and Fire Surrogates on Pollinators and Saproxylic Beetles in North Carolina and Alabama
EFFECTS OF PRESCRIBED FIRE AND FIRE SURROGATES ON POLLINATORS AND SAPROXYLIC BEETLES IN NORTH CAROLINA AND ALABAMA by JOSHUA W. CAMPBELL (Under the Direction of James L. Hanula) ABSTRACT Pollinating and saproxylic insects are two groups of forest insects that are considered to be extremely vital for forest health. These insects maintain and enhance plant diversity, but also help recycle nutrients back into the soil. Forest management practices (prescribed burns, thinnings, herbicide use) are commonly used methods to limit fuel build up within forests. However, their effects on pollinating and saproxylic insects are poorly understood. We collected pollinating and saproxylic insect from North Carolina and Alabama from 2002-2004 among different treatment plots. In North Carolina, we captured 7921 floral visitors from four orders and 21 families. Hymenoptera was the most abundant and diverse order, with Halictidae being the most abundant family. The majority of floral visitors were captured in the mechanical plus burn treatments, while lower numbers were caught on the mechanical only treatments, burn only treatments and control treatments. Overall species richness was also higher on mechanical plus burn treatments compared to other treatments. Total pollinator abundance was correlated with decreased tree basal area (r2=0.58) and increased percent herbaceous plant cover (r2=0.71). We captured 37,191 saproxylic Coleoptera in North Carolina, comprising 20 families and 122 species. Overall, species richness and total abundance of Coleoptera were not significantly different among treatments. However, total numbers of many key families, such as Scolytidae, Curculionidae, Cerambycidae, and Buprestidae, have higher total numbers in treated plots compared to untreated controls and several families (Elateridae, Cleridae, Trogositidae, Scolytidae) showed significant differences (p≤0.05) in abundance. -
Rare Native Animals of RI
RARE NATIVE ANIMALS OF RHODE ISLAND Revised: March, 2006 ABOUT THIS LIST The list is divided by vertebrates and invertebrates and is arranged taxonomically according to the recognized authority cited before each group. Appropriate synonomy is included where names have changed since publication of the cited authority. The Natural Heritage Program's Rare Native Plants of Rhode Island includes an estimate of the number of "extant populations" for each listed plant species, a figure which has been helpful in assessing the health of each species. Because animals are mobile, some exhibiting annual long-distance migrations, it is not possible to derive a population index that can be applied to all animal groups. The status assigned to each species (see definitions below) provides some indication of its range, relative abundance, and vulnerability to decline. More specific and pertinent data is available from the Natural Heritage Program, the Rhode Island Endangered Species Program, and the Rhode Island Natural History Survey. STATUS. The status of each species is designated by letter codes as defined: (FE) Federally Endangered (7 species currently listed) (FT) Federally Threatened (2 species currently listed) (SE) State Endangered Native species in imminent danger of extirpation from Rhode Island. These taxa may meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Formerly considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Federal listing as endangered or threatened. 2. Known from an estimated 1-2 total populations in the state. 3. Apparently globally rare or threatened; estimated at 100 or fewer populations range-wide. Animals listed as State Endangered are protected under the provisions of the Rhode Island State Endangered Species Act, Title 20 of the General Laws of the State of Rhode Island. -
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. -
Superior National Forest
Admirals & Relatives Subfamily Limenitidinae Skippers Family Hesperiidae £ Viceroy Limenitis archippus Spread-wing Skippers Subfamily Pyrginae £ Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus clarus £ Dreamy Duskywing Erynnis icelus £ Juvenal’s Duskywing Erynnis juvenalis £ Northern Cloudywing Thorybes pylades Butterflies of the £ White Admiral Limenitis arthemis arthemis Superior Satyrs Subfamily Satyrinae National Forest £ Common Wood-nymph Cercyonis pegala £ Common Ringlet Coenonympha tullia £ Northern Pearly-eye Enodia anthedon Skipperlings Subfamily Heteropterinae £ Arctic Skipper Carterocephalus palaemon £ Mancinus Alpine Erebia disa mancinus R9SS £ Red-disked Alpine Erebia discoidalis R9SS £ Little Wood-satyr Megisto cymela Grass-Skippers Subfamily Hesperiinae £ Pepper & Salt Skipper Amblyscirtes hegon £ Macoun’s Arctic Oeneis macounii £ Common Roadside-Skipper Amblyscirtes vialis £ Jutta Arctic Oeneis jutta (R9SS) £ Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor Northern Crescent £ Eyed Brown Satyrodes eurydice £ Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris Phyciodes selenis £ Common Branded Skipper Hesperia comma £ Indian Skipper Hesperia sassacus Monarchs Subfamily Danainae £ Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok £ Monarch Danaus plexippus £ Long Dash Polites mystic £ Peck’s Skipper Polites peckius £ Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles £ European Skipper Thymelicus lineola LINKS: http://www.naba.org/ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national -
Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis Persius Persius
COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada ENDANGERED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 41 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge M.L. Holder for writing the status report on the Eastern Persius Duskywing Erynnis persius persius in Canada. COSEWIC also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Environment Canada. The COSEWIC report review was overseen and edited by Theresa B. Fowler, Co-chair, COSEWIC Arthropods Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’Hespérie Persius de l’Est (Erynnis persius persius) au Canada. Cover illustration: Eastern Persius Duskywing — Original drawing by Andrea Kingsley ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2006 Catalogue No. CW69-14/475-2006E-PDF ISBN 0-662-43258-4 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – April 2006 Common name Eastern Persius Duskywing Scientific name Erynnis persius persius Status Endangered Reason for designation This lupine-feeding butterfly has been confirmed from only two sites in Canada. -
Dakota Skipper (Hesperia Dacotae)
Plan for the Controlled Propagation, Augmentation, and Reintroduction of Dakota skipper (Hesperia dacotae) April 30th 2017 Authors: Phil Delphey, Fish & Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN Erik Runquist, Butterfly Conservation Biologist, Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, MN Cale Nordmeyer, Butterfly Conservation Specialist, Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, MN Plan for the Controlled Propagation, Augmentation, and Reintroduction of Dakota skipper 2017 Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 II. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 III. Definitions of Terms Used in this Plan .............................................................................................. 5 IV. Justification for Captive Rearing, Augmentation and Reintroduction .............................................. 6 A. Status of the species ......................................................................................................................... 6 B. Likely Population Trends ................................................................................................................. 10 C. Threats ............................................................................................................................................ 11 D. Contributions to the Species’ Recovery ......................................................................................... -
Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2
Developed for: The State of Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels Department of Natural Resources, Director Kyle Hupfer Division of Fish and Wildlife, Director Glen Salmon By: D. J. Case and Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545 (574)-258-0100 With the Technical and Conservation information provided by: Biologists and Conservation Organizations throughout the state Project Coordinator: Catherine Gremillion-Smith, Ph.D. Funded by: State Wildlife Grants U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 3 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 4 II. Executive Summary The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) working with conservation partners across the state, developed a Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (CWS) to protect and conserve habitats and associated wildlife at a landscape scale. Taking advantage of Congressional guidance and nationwide synergy Congress recognized the importance of partnerships and integrated conservation efforts, and charged each state and territory across the country to develop similar strategies. To facilitate future comparisons and cross-boundary cooperation, Congress required all 50 states and 6 U.S. territories to simultaneously address eight specific elements. Congress also directed that the strategies must identify and be focused on the “species in greatest need of conservation,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues. Throughout the process, federal agencies and national organizations facilitated a fruitful ongoing discussion about how states across the country were addressing wildlife conservation. States were given latitude to develop strategies to best meet their particular needs. Congress gave each state the option of organizing its strategy by using a species-by-species approach or a habitat- based approach.