DOCSLIB.ORG

Blackwood Creek Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Chapter V - Blackwood Creek Restoration Project Written in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and Kathi L. Borgmann1, Julie Groce2, and Michael L. Morrison2 _______________ 1Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Natural Resources, 325 Biological Sciences East, the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721. Email: [email protected] 2Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, 210 Nagle Hall, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Chapter V – Blackwood Creek Restoration Project 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 13 PROJECT GOALS ....................................................................................................................... 14 Specific project goals and objectives ................................................................................ 14 PLANNED RESTORATION ACTIONS ..................................................................................... 14 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIRED SPECIES CONDITIONS ....................................................... 15 CONTROL SITE DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................................. 16 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING METHODS ......................................................................... 16 PRE-RESTORATION OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED WILDLIFE METRICS, METHODS, AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 17 Butterflies .......................................................................................................................... 17 Reptiles and amphibians ................................................................................................... 17 Songbirds .......................................................................................................................... 18 Owls .................................................................................................................................. 19 Bats ................................................................................................................................... 20 Small mammals ................................................................................................................. 20 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 21 Butterflies .......................................................................................................................... 21 Reptiles and amphibians ................................................................................................... 24 Songbirds .......................................................................................................................... 26 Owls .................................................................................................................................. 31 Bats ................................................................................................................................... 32 Small mammals ................................................................................................................. 33 RECOMMENDED VEGETATION OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 36 GENERAL MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 37 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ 37 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 38 Chapter V – Blackwood Creek Restoration Project 2 LIST OF TABLES 5.1. Number of individual owls detected during nocturnal broadcast surveys at Blackwood Creek and McKinney Creek, 2004, 2006, and 2007. The table includes detections of common nighthawks and common poorwills .................................... 32 5.2. Relative frequency of use by desired condition bat species detected at Blackwood Creek and McKinney Creek, 2004, 2006, and 2007 .......................................... 33 5.3. Relative abundance of desired condition small mammal species trapped at Blackwood Creek and associated control site, McKinney Creek, during the summers of 2004, 2006, and 2007 ........................................................................................ 34 LIST OF FIGURES 5.1. Number of butterfly species detected at Blackwood Creek and the control site (McKinney Creek) in 2004, 2006, and 2007. Species richness increased from 2004 to 2007 at both Blackwood and McKinney Creek ........................... 23 5.2. Richness of desired condition butterfly species detected at Blackwood and McKinney Creek (Control site) in 2004, 2006, and 2007. Richness of desired condition butterfly species increased from 2004 to 2007 ...................................... 24 5.3. Abundance of desired condition butterfly species per ha (adjusted for size of meadow surveyed) at Blackwood Creek (3.75 ha) and the control site, McKinney Creek (3.75 ha) ................................................................................................. 24 5.4. Songbird species richness at Blackwood Creek and the control site (McKinney Creek) in 2004, 2006, and 2007 ...................................................................... 26 5.5. Richness of desired condition songbird species at Blackwood Creek and the control site (McKinney Creek) ........................................................................................... 28 5.6. Abundance (±SE) of desired condition songbird species at Blackwood Creek and the control Site (McKinney Creek) ............................................................................. 28 5.7. Daily nest survival of Wilson’s warblers (a), dusky flycatchers (b), and warbling vireos (c) at Blackwood Creek and the control site (McKinney Creek). The number above the bar indicates the number of nests monitored ................... 30 5.8. Percent of Wilson’s warbler (a) and dusky flycatcher (b) nests parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds at Blackwood Creek and the control site (McKinney Creek). The number above the bar indicates the number of nests monitored ................................................................................................................... 31 5.9. Relative abundance of (a) voles (Microtus spp.) and (b) shrews (Sorex spp.) trapped at Blackwood Creek and associated control site, McKinney Creek, in the summers of 2004, 2006, and 2007 ........................................................................... 35 Chapter V – Blackwood Creek Restoration Project 3 5.10. Relative abundance of chipmunks (Tamias spp.) trapped at Blackwood Creek and associated control site, McKinney Creek, in the summers of 2004, 2006, and 2007 ......................................................................................................... 36 APPENDICES 5.1. Location of survey points and survey areas at Blackwood Creek relative to expected project proposed actions ....................................................................................... 40 5.2. Site locations of two areas of restoration interest. Site A (along reach 6) covers approximately 40 ha. Site B (along reach 1) covers approximately 20 ha ......................... 41 5.3. Desired condition butterfly species that were detected at Blackwood Creek and potentially beneficial restoration activities based on habitat preferences. Up arrows suggest that restoration could focus on increasing the abundance of host plants. Species were selected based those that have specific host-plant preferences and are generally restricted to wet meadow and riparian communities ......................................................................................................................... 42 5.4. Reptile and amphibian representative of desired ecological conditions that were detected at Blackwood Creek and potentially beneficial restoration activities based on habitat preferences. Up arrows suggest that restoration could focus on increasing or creating specified condition and down arrows suggest that restoration could focus on decreasing specified condition .................................................. 44 5.5. Potentially beneficial management and restoration activities for bird species representative of desired ecological condition, Partners in Flight (PIF), riparian habitat joint venture focal bird species (RHJV), USDA Forest Service Management Indicator Species (MIS), and USDA Forest Service Species At Risk (SAR), at Blackwood Creek. Up arrows suggest that restoration could focus on increasing or creating specified condition and down arrows suggest that restoration could focus on decreasing specified condition ........................................... 46 5.6. Mammal species representative of desired ecological conditions and USDA Forest Service Management Indicator Species (MIS) that were detected at Blackwood Creek and potentially beneficial restoration activities based on habitat preferences. Up arrows suggest that
Recommended publications
  • Appendix F.7

    Appendix F.7

    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
  • Rationales for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern, Sequoia National Forest

    Rationales for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern, Sequoia National Forest

    Rationales for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern Sequoia National Forest Prepared by: Wildlife Biologists and Biologist Planner Regional Office, Sequoia National Forest and Washington Office Enterprise Program For: Sequoia National Forest June 2019 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
  • Ts Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports

    Ts Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports

    DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE REPORTS DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE & SCIENCE OF NATURE DENVER MUSEUM NUMBER 16, OCTOBER 11, 2019 SCIENCE.DMNS.ORG/MUSEUM-PUBLICATIONS Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports 2001 Colorado Boulevard (Print) ISSN 2374-7730 Denver, CO 80205, U.S.A. Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (Online) ISSN 2374-7749 REPORTS • NUMBER 16 • OCTOBER 11, 2019 • NUMBER 16 OCTOBER Cover photo: Oreas Anglewing (Polygonia oreas nigrozephyrus Scott, 1984), Gregory Canyon, Boulder County, Colorado, USA, 2 October 1973, leg. Michael G. Pogue. Photo: Bob Livingston. The Denver Museum of Nature & Science Reports (ISSN Frank Krell, PhD, Editor and Production 2374-7730 [print], ISSN 2374-7749 [online]) is an open- access, non peer-reviewed scientifi c journal publishing papers about DMNS research, collections, or other Program and Abstracts Museum related topics, generally authored or co-authored 30th Annual Meeting by Museum staff or associates. Peer review will only be arranged on request of the authors. of the High Country Lepidopterists October 11–12, 2019 The journal is available online at science.dmns.org/ Museum-Publications free of charge. Paper copies Denver Museum of Nature & Science are available for purchase from our print-on-demand publisher Lulu (www.lulu.com). DMNS owns the copyright of the works published in the Reports, which are Frank-Thorsten Krell (Ed.) published under the Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial license. For commercial use of published
  • Book Review, of Systematics of Western North American Butterflies

    Book Review, of Systematics of Western North American Butterflies

    (NEW Dec. 3, PAPILIO SERIES) ~19 2008 CORRECTIONS/REVIEWS OF 58 NORTH AMERICAN BUTTERFLY BOOKS Dr. James A. Scott, 60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 Abstract. Corrections are given for 58 North American butterfly books. Most of these books are recent. Misidentified figures mostly of adults, erroneous hostplants, and other mistakes are corrected in each book. Suggestions are made to improve future butterfly books. Identifications of figured specimens in Holland's 1931 & 1898 Butterfly Book & 1915 Butterfly Guide are corrected, and their type status clarified, and corrections are made to F. M. Brown's series of papers on Edwards; types (many figured by Holland), because some of Holland's 75 lectotype designations override lectotype specimens that were designated later, and several dozen Holland lectotype designations are added to the J. Pelham Catalogue. Type locality designations are corrected/defined here (some made by Brown, most by others), for numerous names: aenus, artonis, balder, bremnerii, brettoides, brucei (Oeneis), caespitatis, cahmus, callina, carus, colon, colorado, coolinensis, comus, conquista, dacotah, damei, dumeti, edwardsii (Oarisma), elada, epixanthe, eunus, fulvia, furcae, garita, hermodur, kootenai, lagus, mejicanus, mormo, mormonia, nilus, nympha, oreas, oslari, philetas, phylace, pratincola, rhena, saga, scudderi, simius, taxiles, uhleri. Five first reviser actions are made (albihalos=austinorum, davenporti=pratti, latalinea=subaridum, maritima=texana [Cercyonis], ricei=calneva). The name c-argenteum is designated nomen oblitum, faunus a nomen protectum. Three taxa are demonstrated to be invalid nomina nuda (blackmorei, sulfuris, svilhae), and another nomen nudum ( damei) is added to catalogues as a "schizophrenic taxon" in order to preserve stability. Problems caused by old scientific names and the time wasted on them are discussed.
  • Appendix H: Invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe Basin

    Appendix H: Invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe Basin

    APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN Erik M. Holst and Matthew D. Schlesinger Table H-1—Documented and potential invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe basin. Species endemic to Lake Tahoe are noted with an “X”. Reliability codes: 1 = high-documented occurrence; 2 = moderate-potentially occurring based on at least two sources or identified in areas adjacent to the basin; 3 = low-potentially occurring based on a single source. Sources consulted: Frantz and Cordone (1966, 1996), Kimsey (pers. comm.), Manley and Schlesinger (in prep), NAMC (1999), and Storer and Usinger (1963). Other sources: H = Hampton (1988); S = SFSU (1999a); USFW = USFWS (1999) Basin Storer & Frantz- Manley & Other Phylum Class Order Family Scientific name Common name endemic Reliability Kimsey Usinger Cordone Schlesinger NAMC sources Annelida Clitellata Haplotaxida Haplotaxidae Haplotaxis 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Arcteonais lomondi 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Uncinais uncinata 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Ilyodrilus frantzi typica 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus brevidentus X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus sodalis 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Spirosperma beetoni X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Varichaetadrilus minutus X 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Kincaidiana freidris 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Rhynchelmis rostrata 1 X Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella punctata 1 X Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Helobdella stagnalis 1 X Rhynchobdellida
  • Butterflies of North America 3.4 Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California (Revised)

    Butterflies of North America 3.4 Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California (Revised)

    Butterflies of North America 3.4 Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California (Revised) Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America. 3.4 Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California (Revised) *Annotated Checklist of Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California *Field Collecting and Sight Records for Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California *Butterflies of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties, California by Ken Davenport¹ 8417 Rosewood Ave. Bakersfield, California 93306 1Museum Associate, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1177 January 25, 2014 1 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: San Emigdio Blue (Plebejus emigdionis) near Onyx, Kern County, California, May 23, 2002. This is a very uncommon lycaenid butterfly endemic to a small area of southern California (see text). The type locality is in Kern County. 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, Colorado 80523-1177 2 Annotated Checklist of Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California INTRODUCTION The information presented here incorporates data from collecting, scientific papers, published articles on butterflies, field guides and books, letters from lepidopterists and butterfly watchers. My purpose is to give an updated and annotated checklist of the butterflies occurring in Kern and Tulare Counties, California. This revised publication now includes specific records for all the species and subspecies known to occur in the region.
  • The Systematics of Polyommatus Blue Butterflies (Lepi

    The Systematics of Polyommatus Blue Butterflies (Lepi

    Cladistics Cladistics (2012) 1–27 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2012.00421.x Establishing criteria for higher-level classification using molecular data: the systematics of Polyommatus blue butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) Gerard Talaveraa,b, Vladimir A. Lukhtanovc,d, Naomi E. Piercee and Roger Vilaa,* aInstitut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-UPF), Passeig Marı´tim de la Barceloneta, 37, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; bDepartament de Gene`tica i Microbiologia, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; cDepartment of Karyosystematics, Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Science, Universitetskaya nab. 1, 199034 St Petersburg, Russia; dDepartment of Entomology, St Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7 ⁄ 9, 199034 St Petersburg, Russia; eDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Accepted 11 June 2012 Abstract Most taxonomists agree on the need to adapt current classifications to recognize monophyletic units. However, delineations between higher taxonomic units can be based on the relative ages of different lineages and ⁄or the level of morphological differentiation. In this paper, we address these issues in considering the species-rich Polyommatus section, a group of butterflies whose taxonomy has been highly controversial. We propose a taxonomy-friendly, flexible temporal scheme for higher-level classification. Using molecular data from nine markers (6666 bp) for 104 representatives of the Polyommatus section, representing all but two of the 81 described genera ⁄ subgenera and five outgroups, we obtained a complete and well resolved phylogeny for this clade. We use this to revise the systematics of the Polyommatus blues, and to define criteria that best accommodate the described genera within a phylogenetic framework.
  • An Inventory and Baseline Monitoring of the Butterfly Fauna of the Carson Range, with Emphasis on the Lake Tahoe Basin Nevada State and Adjacent Lands

    An Inventory and Baseline Monitoring of the Butterfly Fauna of the Carson Range, with Emphasis on the Lake Tahoe Basin Nevada State and Adjacent Lands

    FY 2007 LAKE TAHOE LICENSE PLATE PROGRAM BUTTERFLY INVENTORY PROJECT An Inventory and Baseline Monitoring of the Butterfly Fauna of the Carson Range, with Emphasis on the Lake Tahoe Basin Nevada State and Adjacent Lands DRAFT REPORT Principal Investigators: T. Will Richardson, PhD. and Dennis D. Murphy, PhD. Department of Biology University of Nevada, Reno Contact: Will Richardson 16810 Glenshire Dr. Truckee, CA 96161 530.412.2792 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 4 Focal sites........................................................................................................................ 4 Sampling methods:...................................................................................................... 4 General collection ........................................................................................................... 6 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................... 6 The Carson Range Butterfly Fauna ................................................................................. 6 Focal Site Sampling .......................................................................................................
  • (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Folia Biologica (Kraków) 64: 267-273

    (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Folia Biologica (Kraków) 64: 267-273

    ISSN 0015-5497, e-ISSN 1734-9168 Folia Biologica (Kraków), vol. 64 (2016), No 4 Ó Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, PAS, Kraków, 2016 doi:10.3409/fb64_4.267 On the Generic Position of Polyommatus avinovi (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)* Nazar SHAPOVAL and Vladimir LUKHTANOV Accepted September 15, 2016 Published December 2016 SHAPOVAL N., LUKHTANOV V. 2016. On the generic position of Polyommatus avinovi (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Folia Biologica (Kraków) 64: 267-273. Polyommatus avinovi (Stshetkin, 1980), an enigmatic taxon from Tajikistan has been considered in the literature either as a member of the genus Polyommatus, or a taxon belonging to the genus Rimisia. None of the conclusions on taxonomy and nomenclature of P. avinovi were supported by molecular or cytological data, therefore the problem of identity and phylogenetic position of this taxon has remained unsolved. Here we use the barcoding fragment of the COI gene as a molecular marker to demonstrate that none of these hypotheses are true. Phylogenetic analysis revealed P. avinovi to be strongly differentiated from both Polyommatus and Rimisia. Instead, it formed a separated, well supported monophyletic clade within the genus Afarsia Korb & Bolshakov, 2011. Thus, we propose the following new combinations for this butterfly: Afarsia avinovi comb. nov. and Afarsia avinovi dangara comb. nov. Key words: Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Polyommatina, phylogeny, Afarsia avinovi comb. nov., Afarsia avinovi dangara comb. nov., DNA barcode. Nazar SHAPOVAL, Vladimir LUKHTANOV, Department of Karyosystematics, Zoological Insti- tute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg 199034, Rus- sia; Department of Entomology, Faculty of Biology, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab.
  • Updating Emmel and Emmel's 1973 Butterflies of Southern California

    Updating Emmel and Emmel's 1973 Butterflies of Southern California

    Lepidoptera of North America 15 Butterflies of southern California in 2018: updating Emmel and Emmel’s 1973 Butterflies of southern California By Ken Davenport Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University 1 2 Lepidoptera of North America 15 Butterflies of southern California in 2018: updating Emmel and Emmel’s 1973 Butterflies of southern California by Ken Davenport 8417 Rosewood Avenue Bakersfield, California 93306-6151 Museum Associate C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1177 April 20, 2018 3 Front cover: Ford’s Swallowtail, Papilio indra fordi J.A. Comstock and Martin Image courtesy of Chuck Harp, LepNet project, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity (www.LepNet.org) ISSN 1084-8819 This publication and others in this series are open access and may be accessed and downloaded at no cost at https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/discover/contributions of the c.p.Gillettemuseum Copyright 2018© 4 The purpose of this paper and progress made in the study of butterflies of southern California since 1973. It has now been more than 44 years since Thomas C. Emmel and John F. Emmel’s The Butterflies of Southern California was published on November 30, 1973. The Emmels’ provided a history of previous leaders in gathering information on the fauna of southern California butterflies, information on life zones and butterfly habitats and season progression. They also listed areas little visited that needed more field study. They covered 167 species and an additional 64 subspecies or segregates (many of those have since been elevated to species status or removed as segregates for not being all that distinct since 1973) known from southern California based on the boundaries they set and provided a list of rarely recorded or doubtful records, ten color plates, and literature cited.
  • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon

    Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon

    RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF OREGON OREGON NATURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION CENTER May 2004 Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center Institute for Natural Resources Oregon State University 1322 SE Morrison Street Portland, OR 97214-2531 (503) 731-3070 http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/ With assistance from: Native Plant Society of Oregon The Nature Conservancy Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Compiled and Published by the staff of the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center: Jimmy Kagan, Director/Ecologist Eric Scheuering, Zoology Data Manager Sue Vrilakas, Botany Data Manager John Christy, Wetlands Ecologist, Bryologist Eleanor Gaines, Zoologist Jon Hak, GIS Program Manager Cliff Alton, Data Output/IS Manager Claudine Tobalske, GIS Analyst Fern McArthur, Botany Data Handler Annie Weiland, Zoology Data Assistant Kuuipo Walsh, GIS Analyst Theresa Koloszar, Office Manager/Grants Specialist Cover Illustration: Pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora) by Diane Bland. Bibliographic reference to this publication should read: Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2004. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, Oregon State University, Portland, Oregon. 105 pp. CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................................................1
  • Systematic Bibliography of the Butterflies of the United States And

    Systematic Bibliography of the Butterflies of the United States And

    Butterflies of the United States and Canada 497 SYSTEMATIC BIBLIOGRAPHY an Society 33(2): 95-203, 1 fig., 65 tbls. {[25] Feb 1988} OF THE BUTTERFLIES ACKERY, PHILLIP RONALD & ROBERT L. SMILES. 1976. An illustrated list OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA of the type-specimens of the Heliconiinae (Lepidoptera: Nym- (Entries that were not examined are marked with an asterisk) phalidae) in the British Museum (Natural History). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History)(Entomology) 32(5): --A-- 171-214, 39 pls. {Jan 1976} ACKERY, PHILLIP RONALD, RIENK DE JONG & RICHARD IRWIN VANE-WRIGHT. AARON, EUGENE MURRAY. 1884a. Erycides okeechobee, Worthington. Pa- 1999. 16. The butterflies: Hedyloidea, Hesperioidea and Pa- pilio 4(1): 22. {[20] Feb 1884; cited in Papilio 4(3): 62} pilionoidea. Pp. 263-300, 9 figs., in: N. P. Kristensen (Ed.), AARON, EUGENE MURRAY. 1884b. Eudamus tityrus, Fabr., and its va- The Lepidoptera, moths and butterflies. Volume 1: Evolu- rieties. Papilio 4(2): 26-30. {Feb, (15 Mar) 1884; cited in Pa- tion, Systematics and Biogeography. Handbuch der Zoologie pilio 4(3): 62} 4(35): i-x, 1-487. {1999} AARON, EUGENE MURRAY. [1885]. Notes and queries. Pamphila bara- ACKERY, PHILLIP RONALD & RICHARD IRWIN VANE-WRIGHT. 1984. Milk- coa, Luc. in Florida. Papilio 4(7/8): 150. {Sep-Oct 1884 [22 Jan weed butterflies, their cladistics and biology. Being an account 1885]; cited in Papilio 4(9/10): 189} of the natural history of the Danainae, a subfamily of the Lepi- AARON, EUGENE MURRAY. 1888. The determination of Hesperidae. doptera, Nymphalidae. London/Ithaca; British Museum (Nat- Entomologica Americana 4(7): 142-143.