DOCSLIB.ORG

References Cited

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

References Cited Ballmer, G. and G.Pratt. 1988. A survey of the last instar larvae of the Lycaenidae of California. J. Res. Lep. 27: 1-81. Claibome, W. 1997. Authorities net butterfly poacher at National Park. Washington Post August 2, 1997. Clark, D.L., Finley, K.K. and Ingersoll, C.A. 1993. Status Report for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. Prepared for the Conservation Biology Program, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR. 55 pp. Clarke, S.A. 1905. Pioneer Days of Oregon History Vol. I, pp 89-90. J.K. Gill Co., Portland, OR. Collins, N.M. and M.G. Morris. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail butterflies of the world. IUCN Red Data Book. Gland, Switzerland. 401pp. Cronquist, Arthur. 1947. Revision of the North American species of Erigeron, north of Mexico. Brittonia 6: 173-1 74 Dornfeld, E. J. 1980. Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. Douglas, D. 1972. The Oregon Journals of David Douglas of His Travels and Adventures Among the Traders and Indians in the Columbia, Willamette, and Snake River Regions During the Years 1825, 1826, and 1827. The Oregon Book Society, Ashland, OR. Downey, J. C. 1962. Myrmecophily in Plebejus (Icaricia) icarioides (Lepid: Lycaenidae). Net. News 73:57-66. Downey, J.C. 1975. Genus Pegasus Klux. Pp. 337-35 1 IN W. H. Howe,ed., The butterflies of North America. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. Duffey, E. 1968. Ecological studies on the large copper butterflies, lycaena dispar batayus, at Woodwalton Fen NNR, Huntingdonshire. J. Appl. Ecol. 5:69-96. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 417 pp. Gall, L.F. 1984a. Population, structure and recommendations for conservation of the narrowly endemic alpine butterfly, Baloria cinema (Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae). Biol. Cons. 28: 1 11-138. 1 Gall, L.F. 1984b. The effects of capturing and marking on subsequent activity in Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera:Nymphalidae), with a comparison of different numerical models that estimate population size. Biol. Cons. 28:139-154. Gilpin, M.E. and M.E, Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction. In Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. M.E. Soule, pp 19-34. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. Habeck, J.R. 1961. The original vegetation of the mid-Willamette valley, Oregon. Science 35(2):65-77. Hammond, P.C. 1996. 1995 Study of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Benton, Polk, and Yamhill counties. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25pp. Hammond, P.C. 1994. 1993 Study of the Fender's Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi). Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program and US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 56pp Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. 1993. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly, Unpublished report on file at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office. 66pp. Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. 1992a. Fender's blue butterfly populations: host plant specificity. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 5pp. Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. l992b. Fender's blue butterfly populations: habitat descriptions and threats to survival. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 26pp. Hammond, P.C. and M.V. Wilson. 1992c. Results from the 1990-1992 censuses of the Fender's blue butterfly. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 26pp. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, and J.W. Thompson. 1961. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Vol 3. 592pp Hoekwater, J. 1997. Butterfly poaching for profit in Baxter State Park, Maine. Northeastern Naturalist 4: 145-152. Johannessen, C.L., W.A. Davenport, A. Millet and S. McWilliams. 1971. The vegetation of the Willamette valley. Ann. Assoc. Am Geogr. 61(2):286-302. 2 Kagan, J.S. and S. Yamamoto. 1987. Status report for Erigeron decumbens subsp. decumbens. Report prepared for the Plant Conservation Program, Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Salem, OR. Kuykendall, K. and T.N. Kaye. 1993a. Status Report for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. Draft report to Oregon Department of Agriculture, Corvallis, OR. 71pp. Kuykendall, K. and T.N. Kaye. 1993b. Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii survey and reproduction studies. Draft report to USDI Bureau of Land Management and Oregon Department of Agriculture, Corvallis, OR. 16pp. Lacey, R.C. 1992. The effects of Inbreeding on isolated populations: Are minimum viable population sizes predictable? In Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation and Management, eds. P.F. Fielder and S.K. Jain, pp 277-296. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Lang, H.O. 1885. History of the Willamette Valley. Himes and Lang, Portland, OR. 902 pp. Liston, A., St. Hilaire, K. and M.V. Wilson. 1994. Genetic diversity in populations of Kincaid's lupine, host plant of the Fender's blue butterfly. Unpublished draft, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 17pp. Longcore, T., R. Mattoni, G. Pratt, and C. Rich. 1997. On the perils of ecological restoration: lessons from the El Segundo blue butterfly. IN J. Keeley, ed. 2nd Interface between ecology and land development in California. Occidental College, Los Angeles, California. Macy, R.W. 1931. A new Oregon butterfly (Lepid. Lycaenidae). Ent. News 42:1-2. Meinke, R.J. 1980. Threatened and endangered plants of Ankeny, Baskett Slough and William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuges. Unpublished report on file at the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base, Portland, OR. 352 pp. Mendoza, J. 1995. Memorandum on dispositions in butterfly Case. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Miller, L.P. and F.M. Brown. 1981. A catalogue checklist of the butterflies of America north of Mexico. The Lepidopterist's Society Memoir No. 2, 280 pp. Minto, J. 1900. The number and condition of the native race in Oregon when first seen by white men. Oregon Historical Quarterly Vol. 1:296-3 15. 3 Morris, M.G., N.M. Collins, RJ. Vane-Wright, and J. Waage. 1991. The utilization and value of non-domesticated insects: in Collins, N.M. and J.A. Thomas (eds), The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats, Academic Press, London. pp. 319- 347. Murphy, D.D. 1988. Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? J. Res. Lep. 26(1-4):236-239. Nesom, G.L. 1989. Infragenic taxonomy of the New World Erigeron (Compositae: Astereae). Phytologia 67:67-93. Nuttall, T. 1840. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of the Compositae, etc. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. I1 7:309. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 79 pp. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1996. Biological Conservation Database: Element Occurrence Records for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. Kincaidii. Unpublished reports of the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, Oregon. Orr, E.L., W.M. On: and E.M. Baldwin. 1992. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 254 pp. Phillips, Lyle L. 1955. A revision of the perennial species of Lupinus of North America. Research Studies from the State College of Washington. 23:161 -201. Schultz, C.B. 1996. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Lane County, Oregon: Population Ups and Downs. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 25pp. Schultz, C.B. 1994. Status of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Eugene, Oregon: A species at risk. Unpublished report to the Oregon Natural Heritage Department and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 43pp. Scriber, J. M. and S. Gage. 1995. Pollution and global climate change: plant ecotones, butterfly hybrid zones and changes in biodiversity. Pages 319-344. IN 1. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. Lederhouse, eds. Swallowtail butterflies: their ecology and evolutionary biology. Scientific Publishers. Gainesville, Florida. Siddall, J.L., and K.L. Chambers. 1978. Status report for Erigeron decumbens. Unpublished report on file at Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 11 pp. 4 Singer, M. C. and P. Wedlake. 1981. Capture does affect probability of recapture in a butterfly species. Ecol. Ent. 6:215-216. Smith, C. P. 1924. Studies in the genus Lupinus: XI. Some new names and combinations. Bull, Torrey Club 51 :303-3 10. Smith, J.E. 1949. Natural vegetation in the Willamette valley, Oregon. Science 1 09Al - 42. Strother, J.L. and W.J. Ferlatte. 1988. Review of Erigeron eatonii and allied taxa (Compositae: Astereae). Madrono 35:77-91. Thomas Reid Associates. 1982. Final Report to the San Mateo County Steering Committee for San Bruno Mountain. Endangered Species Survey San Bruno Mountain. Biological Study--1 980-198 1. Thomas Reid Associates, Palo Alto, California. U. S. Department of Justice. 1993. United States of America v. Richard J. Skalski, Thomas V. Kral, and Marc L. Grinnell (indictment by U. S. Attorney's Office for Conspiracy to violate the wildlife laws of the United States including he Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act). San Jose, California U. S. Department of Justice. 1994. Long Beach man receives longest sentence for smuggling and selling over 600 endangered Mexican tarantulas (press release). Los Angeles, California. U. S. Department of Justice. 1995a. Man charged with illegally importing butterflies (press release). Houston, Texas. U. S. Department of Justice. 1995b. Prison for illegal smuggling of endangered and protected species (press release for conviction of a dealer in illegally collected butterflies). Milwaukee, Wisconsin. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Lomatium bradshawii (Bradshaw's lomatiurn) Recovery Plan.
Recommended publications
  • Scientific Support for Successful Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network

    Scientific Support for Successful Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network

    Scientific support for successful implementation of the Natura 2000 network Focus Area B Guidance on the application of existing scientific approaches, methods, tools and knowledge for a better implementation of the Birds and Habitat Directives Environment FOCUS AREA B SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL i IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK Imprint Disclaimer This document has been prepared for the European Commis- sion. The information and views set out in the handbook are Citation those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the Van der Sluis, T. & Schmidt, A.M. (2021). E-BIND Handbook (Part B): Scientific support for successful official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Wageningen Environmental Research/ Ecologic Institute /Milieu guarantee the accuracy of the data included. The Commission Ltd. Wageningen, The Netherlands. or any person acting on the Commission’s behalf cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information Authors contained therein. Lead authors: This handbook has been prepared under a contract with the Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay (Monitoring of species and habitats within and beyond Natura 2000 sites) European Commission, in cooperation with relevant stakehold- Sander Mücher, Gerard Hazeu (Remote sensing techniques for the monitoring of Natura 2000 sites) ers. (EU Service contract Nr. 07.027740/2018/783031/ENV.D.3 Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay, Rene Henkens, Peter Verweij (Access to data and information) for evidence-based improvements in the Birds and Habitat Kris Decleer, Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (Guidance and tools for effective restoration measures for species and habitats) directives (BHD) implementation: systematic review and meta- Theo van der Sluis, Rob Jongman (Green Infrastructure and network coherence) analysis).
  • Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger Tdelger13@Gmail.Com

    Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger [email protected]

    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-18-2018 Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Recommended Citation Delger, Tyrha, "Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco" (2018). Master's Projects and Capstones. 739. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/739 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This Master’s Project Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco by Tyrha Delger is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements or the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted: Received: ……………………………. …………………………….... Your Name Date Allison Luengen, Ph.D. Date Name: Tyrha Delger USF MSEM Master’s Project Spring 2018 Final Paper Table of Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………....1 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….3
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly

    Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly

    Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy); Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\31OCR2.SGM 31OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 63862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Role of Critical Habitat in Actual future consultations that analyze Practice of Administering and impacts to designated critical habitat, Fish and Wildlife Service Implementing the Act particularly those that appear to be Attention to and protection of habitat resulting in an adverse modification 50 CFR Part 17 is paramount to successful conservation determination. Such consultations will actions. The role that designation of be reviewed by the Regional Office prior RIN 1018–AT91 critical habitat plays in protecting to finalizing to ensure that an adequate habitat of listed species, however, is analysis has been conducted that is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife often misunderstood. As discussed in informed by the Director’s guidance. On the other hand, to the extent that and Plants; Designation of Critical more detail below in the discussion of designation of critical habitat provides Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly exclusions under ESA section 4(b)(2), protection, that protection can come at (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus there are significant limitations on the significant social and economic cost.
  • Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia Icarioides Missionensis

    Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia Icarioides Missionensis

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia icarioides missionensis CLASSIFICATION: Endangered Federal Register 41:22041; June 1, 1976 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr99.pdf CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated RECOVERY PLAN: Final Recovery Plan for San Bruno Elfin and Mission Blue Butterflies. October 10, 1984 (This plan is now out of date. Contact us if you need a copy.) 5-YEAR REVIEW: Completed February 2010. No change recommended. www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3216.pdf Mission Blue Butterfly (285 KB) David Wright, USFWS DESCRIPTION The mission blue ( Icaricia icarioides missionensis ) is a small, delicate butterfly in the Lycaenidae (gossamer-winged butterfly) family. Wingspan is about 2.5 to 3.6 centimeters. (1 to 1.5 inch). The upper wing surfaces of the male are iridescent blue and lavender with black margins fringed with long white hair-like scales. There are no spots on the upper surfaces of the wings. In males, the ventral surfaces of the wings are whitish with small circular gray spots in the submarginal areas and larger circular black spots located in post-median and submedian areas of the fore and hind wings. The body of the male is dark bluish brown. Females have dark brown upper wing surfaces marked with blue basal areas. The margins and wing fringe are similar to the male. Female underwings are stone gray with a dot pattern similar to the males'. The adult flight season extends from late March to early July, depending on the location and microclimatic conditions. Females lay eggs throughout the mating flight.
  • Foraging Behaviour and Nectar Use in Adult Large Copper Butterflies, Lycaena Dispar (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

    Foraging Behaviour and Nectar Use in Adult Large Copper Butterflies, Lycaena Dispar (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

    © Entomologica Fennica. 27 May 2010 Foraging behaviour and nectar use in adult Large Copper Butterflies, Lycaena dispar (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) Marek B¹kowski, Agnieszka Filipiak & Zdenek Fric B¹kowski, M., Filipiak, A. & Fric, Z. 2010: Foraging behaviour and nectar use in adult Large Copper Butterflies, Lycaena dispar (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Entomol. Fennica 21: 4957. The foraging behaviour of the endangered butterfly Lycaena dispar Haw. was examined in a wet meadow in Poznañ (western Poland) in the summer of 2003. Observations showed that the males spent more time resting (11.3% compared to 5.9%) and less time nectaring (24.8% compared 35%) compared to females. The mean time of one visit on a flower was almost three times shorter in males than in females. In total, adults visited flowers of nine nectar plant species, the most fre- quentones were Inula britannica, Lychnis flos-cuculi and Cirsium arvense, which were some of themostabundantplantspecies there.We observed differ- ences of nectar plant use between sexes and generations of the butterfly, but did notconfirm preference for theplantcolour. M. B¹kowski, Department of Systematic Zoology, Institute of Environmental Biology, A. Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 89, Poznañ 61-614, Poland; E- mail: [email protected] A. Filipiak, ul. Dêbowa 49/12 Poznañ, Poland Z. Fric, Biology Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomolo- gy, Branisovska 31, CZ-37005 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic Received 27 May 2009, accepted 3 November 2009 1. Introduction 1978, Shreeve 1992). In addition, the differences in colour vision and recognition were repeatedly Butterflies are often considered to be opportunis- recorded even in butterflies of the studied genus tic foragers that visit a wide variety of available Lycaena (Bernard & Remington 1991).
  • Catalogue 294 Recent Acquisitions CATALOGUE 294 Catalogue 294

    Catalogue 294 Recent Acquisitions CATALOGUE 294 Catalogue 294

    ANTIQUARIAAT JUNK ANTIQUARIAAT Antiquariaat Junk Catalogue 294 1 Recent Acquisitions CATALOGUE CATALOGUE 294 Catalogue 294 Old & Rare Books Recent Acquisitions 2016 121 Levaillant Catalogue 294 Recent Acquisitions Antiquariaat Junk B.V. Allard Schierenberg and Jeanne van Bruggen Van Eeghenstraat 129, NL-1071 GA Amsterdam The Netherlands Telephone: +31-20-6763185 Telefax: +31-20-6751466 [email protected] www.antiquariaatjunk.com Natural History Booksellers since 1899 Please visit our website: www.antiquariaatjunk.com with thousands of colour pictures of fine Natural History books. You will also find more pictures of the items displayed in this catalogue. Items 14 & 26 sold Frontcover illustration: 88 Gessner Backcover illustration: 121 Levaillant GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SALE as filed with the registry of the District Court of Amsterdam on No- vember 20th, 1981 under number 263 / 1981 are applicable in extenso to all our offers, sales, and deliveries. THE PRICES in this catalogue are net and quoted in Euro. As a result of the EU single Market legisla- tion we are required to charge our EU customers 6% V.A.T., unless they possess a V.A.T. registration number. Postage additional, please do not send payment before receipt of the invoice. All books are sold as complete and in good condition, unless otherwise described. EXCHANGE RATES Without obligation: 1 Euro= 1.15 USD; 0.8 GBP; 124 JPY VISITORS ARE WELCOME between office hours: Monday - Friday 9.00 - 17.30 OUR V.A.T. NUMBER NL 0093.49479B01 134 Meyer 5 [1] AEMILIANUS, J. Naturalis de Ruminantibus historia Ioannis Aemy- liani... Venetiis, apaud Franciscum Zilettum, 1584.
  • Sagebrush Ecology of Parker Mountain, Utah

    Sagebrush Ecology of Parker Mountain, Utah

    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2016 Sagebrush Ecology of Parker Mountain, Utah Nathan E. Dulfon Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Dulfon, Nathan E., "Sagebrush Ecology of Parker Mountain, Utah" (2016). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 5056. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5056 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SAGEBRUSH ECOLOGY OF PARKER MOUNTAIN, UTAH by Nathan E. Dulfon A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Range Science Approved: _________________ _________________ Eric T. Thacker Terry A. Messmer Major Professor Committee Member __________________ ___________________ Thomas A. Monaco Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2016 ii Copyright © Nathan E. Dulfon 2016 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Sagebrush Ecology of Parker Mountain, Utah by Nathan E. Dulfon, Master of Science Utah State University, 2016 Major Professor: Dr. Eric T. Thacker Department: Wildland Resources Parker Mountain, is located in south central Utah, it consists of 153 780 ha of high elevation rangelands dominated by black sagebrush (Artemisia nova A. Nelson), and mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. subsp. vaseyana [Rybd.] Beetle) communities. Sagebrush obligate species including greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) depend on these vegetation communities throughout the year.
  • Bristlecone Chapter of the California Native Plant Society

    Bristlecone Chapter of the California Native Plant Society

    1 DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA The California Native Plant Society Volume 32 No. 4 July-August 2011 No General Meeting in July The next general meeting will be September 28, 2011. Details will be in the next issue of the newsletter and on the chapter website at www.bristleconecnps.org No Board Meeting in July See the chapter website at www.bristleconecnps.org for information about the next board meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS spring blooms, photos, et cetera. Go here to join: Bristlecone Chapter Goes Social! http://groups.google.com/group/wildflower_hotspots The Bristlecone Chapter now has a Facebook page Once you are a member, you may post your reports – for those of you on Facebook, head on over to and/or photos and view other posts either online or http://facebook.com/bristleconecnps and “like” us. through email. Come sign up! It’s free, easy, and We’ll be sharing links of interest, post timely you can use your normal email address. You may reminders of field trips and other events, and we also see the latest posts from this group on our hope that folks will also share wildflower hotspots website here: and photos and links of interest on our page, or just http://bristleconecnps.org/native_plants/hotspots/group.php stop by to say “hi”! Maggie Riley, Webmaster There are also tabs on our Facebook page, which show recent Wildflower Hotspots posts and FROM THE EDITOR also our Calendar, so you can keep up with everything in one place. Next Newsletter Deadline: August 26, 2011 And if you are not on Facebook, you can Send articles to: [email protected] still see our Facebook updates on our website here: http://bristleconecnps.org/facebook.php.
  • Appendix E Threatened and Endangered Species

    Appendix E Threatened and Endangered Species

    Appendix E Threatened and Endangered Species Table E–1 Special Status Species in Plumas County Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CDFW CA Rare Status Plant Rank Animals – Amphibians Ambystoma macrodactylum southern long-toed salamander None None SSC – sigillatum Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog None Candidate SSC – Threatened Rana cascadae Cascades frog None Candidate SSC – Endangered Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None SSC – Rana muscosa southern mountain yellow- Endangered Endangered WL – legged frog Rana sierrae Sierra Nevada yellow-legged Endangered Threatened WL – frog Animals – Birds Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk None None SSC – Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk None None WL – Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None None FP ; WL – Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk None Threatened – – Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Delisted Endangered FP – Ardea alba great egret None None – – Ardea herodias great blue heron None None – – Charadrius montanus mountain plover None None SSC – Falco mexicanus prairie falcon None None WL – Antigone canadensis tabida greater sandhill crane None Threatened FP – Riparia riparia bank swallow None Threatened – – Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike None None SSC – Larus californicus California gull None None WL – Pandion haliaetus osprey None None WL – Setophaga petechia yellow warbler None None SSC – Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow None None – – Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant None None WL – Melanerpes lewis Lewis' woodpecker None
  • State of Nature Report

    State of Nature Report

    STATE OF NATURE Foreword by Sir David Attenborough he islands that make up the The causes are varied, but most are (ButterflyHelen Atkinson Conservation) United Kingdom are home to a ultimately due to the way we are using Twonderful range of wildlife that our land and seas and their natural is dear to us all. From the hill-walker resources, often with little regard for marvelling at an eagle soaring overhead, the wildlife with which we share them. to a child enthralled by a ladybird on The impact on plants and animals has their fingertip, we can all wonder at been profound. the variety of life around us. Although this report highlights what However, even the most casual of we have lost, and what we are still observers may have noticed that all is losing, it also gives examples of how not well. They may have noticed the we – as individuals, organisations, loss of butterflies from a favourite governments – can work together walk, the disappearance of sparrows to stop this loss, and bring back nature from their garden, or the absence of where it has been lost. These examples the colourful wildflower meadows of should give us hope and inspiration. their youth. To gain a true picture of the balance of our nature, we require We should also take encouragement a broad and objective assessment of from the report itself; it is heartening the best available evidence, and that is to see so many organisations what we have in this groundbreaking coming together to provide a single State of Nature report.
  • Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020

    Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020

    Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020 Slovak Republic 2014 Table of contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Global framework for the protection of biodiversity and its implementation in Slovakia .................................. 3 Biodiversity loss and its consequences........................................................................................................... 4 Failure to meet the target to reduce or halt biodiversity loss by 2010 ............................................................. 5 Setting a new target to be achieved by 2020 on a global and European scale............................................... 5 The role of the Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020 ..................................... 6 2. Long-term vision and further consideration of the Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020 ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Long-term vision for the protection of biodiversity in Slovakia to 2050............................................................ 8 Basis for the Updated National Strategy for the Protection of Biodiversity to 2020......................................... 8 3. Evaluation of the current status of the biodiversity protection in Slovakia......................................................
  • And Mission Blue Butterfly Populations Found at Milagra Ridge and the Mission Blue Butterfly Population at Marin Headlands Are Managed by the GGNRA

    And Mission Blue Butterfly Populations Found at Milagra Ridge and the Mission Blue Butterfly Population at Marin Headlands Are Managed by the GGNRA

    San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Patrick Kobernus: Adult male mission blue butterfly. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California February 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.