THE DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) OF HALTON REGION, ONTARIO An annotated checklist 2017 First prepared by Carl J. Rothfels for the Halton NAI 2006 Updated by Brenda Van Ryswyk 2017 INTRODUCTION Jones & Holder 2000); A Preliminary Annotated List of the Odonata of Northern Bruce County The Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) of including Bruce Peninsula National Park (Catling Halton Region have been historically under- et al. 2000b); the surveys of Sandbanks Provincial surveyed, especially when compared with both Park (Catling et al. 2000a; Bree 2001); the surveys odonate work in nearby areas (in 2000 Peel Region of Bon Echo Provincial Park (Bree 2000); and the had 71 documented species, Metropolitan Toronto surveys of Petroglyphs Provincial Park (Bree 2002; had 81, while Halton had only 49 [Catling & Bree 2004b). Brownell 2000]), and with work within Halton on other groups (e.g. birds). Fortunately, Halton was None of these regional and sub-regional works is well positioned to take advantage of the recent within or adjacent to Halton Region, concentrating renaissance in Ontario odonate study, particularly instead on the southern Carolinian Zone and the since 2000. This surge in interest culminated in the southern edge of the Canadian Shield. Since the inclusion of Odonata as one of the fauna groups distribution of odonates can vary significantly surveyed for during the Halton Natural Areas between regions, it is particularly important to fill Inventory (HNAI) in 2003 and 2004. this hole in our current understanding of Ontario odonate distributions. This checklist was first the result of the HNAI field surveys and has since been updated and expanded. It is hoped that this document will aid in the This original checklist was the first annotated work understanding of an important component of our for an Ontario municipality to provide status and local biodiversity, promote further study and occurrence lists for its complete known odonate interest in these organisms, and provide a fauna, with a goal of informing planning and foundation for conservation and planning conservation decisions. As such it builds on the decisions. As such, it is strongly modelled upon tradition of the Dragonflies and damselflies The Butterflies of Hamilton, Ontario , by (Odonata) of Peterborough County (Jones 1999; Wormington and Lamond (2003). Jones et al. 2001), the Odonata of Essex County, Ontario (Pratt 2002a), An Annotated Checklist of Local knowledge of Odonata is particularly the Odonata of Renfrew County, Ontario (Jones et important since this is a relatively unknown group al. 2000) and A Preliminary Annotated List of the of organisms with a high proportion of provincially Odonata of Lanark County, Ontario (Catling et al. rare species (Oldham et al. 2000). Odonates, being 2001). The Essex checklist assigns odonate confined to aquatic habitats for their larval life species a county status of common, uncommon, or stages, can be particularly sensitive to water rare, but is not annotated and does not supply quality, and thus can be used as indicators of occurrence data. The Renfrew and Lanark aquatic ecosystem health (e.g. Catling 2003). Some checklists are well annotated, but do not present a groups in particular require specific conditions, and systematic treatment of regional abundance data are very sensitive to habitat alteration (Catling for non-odonatists. 2000; 2001). It is important to consider these sensitivities in conservation and planning Other important inventories include Pratt’s decisions. Regional Lists of Ontario Odonata (2002b), which contains present/absence lists for the southern Included in this document are the regional, Ontario counties of Essex, Kent, Lambton, Elgin, provincial, and global status for each species, a list Middlesex, Huron, Grey, and Bruce; the of occurrences for locally rare and uncommon Dragonflies and Damselflies of Algonquin Park species, information on flight times, and additional and its subsequent amendments (Holder 1996; annotations. Despite the extensive recent surveys, our knowledge of the dragonflies and damselflies The summer of 2002 marks the beginning of Royal of Halton is very incomplete. Additional records Botanical Gardens’ (RBG) odonate program. Carl are always appreciated, and can be sent for Rothfels concentrated on documenting the odonate inclusion in the Ontario Odonata Database via the fauna of RBG properties, with occasionally forays Natural Heritage Information Centre elsewhere in Halton, joined by G. Barrett, K. (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.cfm ): Barrett, A. Kloc, G. Lewer, P.G. O’Hara, S.R. 300 Water Street, 2nd Floor, North Tower Spisani, J.L. Sylvester, I. Vaithilingam, and K. P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5 VanWyck. The RBG odonate surveys became Tel.: (705) 755-2159 Fax: (705) 755-2168 more systematic with the development of the first Odonate Count for the region (Rothfels 2003) . Significant provincial records and new regional records should be documented with a specimen or Additional sources of data utilized in the 2017 photograph. For information on the ethical and update include the Ontario Odonata email list, the effective collection of odonates, see Paulson Hamilton Odo and leps email list as well as other (2002). websites like BugGuide and iNaturalist. Interesting or noteworthy records were gleaned from these sources and added to the checklist. There may be, INFORMATION SOURCES and likely is, additional data that the author is unaware of and has not incorporated here. Those The data used in this checklist come from the with additional data are encouraged to send records Ontario Odonate Database (OOD, 2005) stored at (both noteworthy and common species) to the the Natural Heritage Information Centre, and from Ontario Odonata Database (maintained by Colin records generated during the HNAI. The OOD Jones at the NHIC) to help further our knowledge contains most of the HNAI data, except those from of the odonata in Ontario. the 2004 field season. At the end of this checklist update, the records of The vast majority of the records contained in the the combined database (totaling some 7000 unique HNAI database are the result of the field surveys in records) will be distributed back to both the OOD 2003 and 2004, conducted by Robert Curry and and the Conservation Halton Biodiversity Alan Wormington. These records are Database. complimented with select observations from the HNAI Ecological Land Classification crew: K.Cain, L.Dick, A.Garofalo, B.Jamison, and B. NOMENCLATURE Van Ryswyk. Brenda Van Ryswyk, in particular, spent considerable energy photo-documenting Nomenclature follows Paulson (2017). The significant odonate records during the course of the common names derive from a standardized list for HNAI. North American species formulated by the Dragonfly Society of the Americas (DSA) and The Ontario Odonata Database is more diverse; it published by Paulson (2017). This list is is the result of an ambitious effort to consolidate all occasionally updated through additions to the fauna provincial odonate records in a single location. Its of North America, or through decisions of the first Halton records are from specimens collected DSA’s Common Names Committee (for example, by the legendary E.M. Walker (first in 1935), and the decision to change Sympetrum vicinum from by the likes of P.G. Mason and R.W. Cameron, and Yellow-legged Meadowhawk to Autumn stored in the insect collections of the Royal Ontario Meadowhawk). Museum and the University of Guelph. Bill and Irene McIlveen, two of our most significant Most odonate field workers are comfortable with contemporary local enthusiasts, start contributing both the common and scientific names. While records in the early 1990s; their records are soon knowledge of the common names is sufficient for joined by those of visiting odonatists, including communication of records (and odonate common D.A. Sutherland, N.W. Godfrey, A. Godfrey, M. names are often very evocative), learning the King, D.D. Beadle, J.B. Falls, C.D. Jones, M. scientific names is a worthwhile exercise, for their Oldham, R. Oldham, K. Brodribb and J. beauty, clarity, and because they contain Nancekivell. information about species’ relationships often lost in the common names. For those reasons, both common and scientific names are included in this Nevertheless, the placement of species in residency checklist. classes is a valuable exercise, and one that will become more useful as our knowledge of local odonate ecology increases. It would be particularly SPECIES ACCOUNTS FORMAT useful to have information on the distribution of larval odonates (“nymphs” or “naiads”), since the Species are included under the main species presence/absence of larvae is key for establishing accounts if they have been documented in the residency. region either with a specimen or a photograph. Species that are reported with only sight records Each species listed is placed in one or more of the are listed after the main accounts in the “Excluded following residency classes: Species” section. These species may well occur in the region, and a special effort should be made to Permanent Resident document them. Exceptions to this criterion are These are species with long-term populations in noted under specific species. Halton, and which over-winter, locally, as larvae. They are thus dependent, year-round, on Additional unreported species, which may occur in local aquatic habitats, although the adults may the region (due to their documented presence in disperse widely.