Howdy, Bugfans, Viceroy Butterflies (Limenitis Archippus) Are Found in the Family Nymphalidae, the Brushfoot Butterflies. This

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Howdy, Bugfans, Viceroy Butterflies (Limenitis Archippus) Are Found in the Family Nymphalidae, the Brushfoot Butterflies. This Howdy, BugFans, Viceroy butterflies (Limenitis archippus) are found in the Family Nymphalidae, the Brushfoot butterflies. This group is often called the “four-foot” butterflies because they carry their short front legs tucked up against their body. Viceroys are famous for being mimics of Monarch butterflies, of previous BOTW fame. Monarch caterpillars eat only milkweed foliage, and that makes them both bitter and toxic. After their first experience with Monarchs, birds generally leave them – and, by association, Viceroys – alone (of course, some butterflies die so that birds may learn). Back to that in a minute. As Pyle points out in The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Butterflies, Viceroys seek protection in each life stage by disguising themselves as something else. Eggs resemble galls on willow leaves. There are at least two generations of Viceroys per summer (depending on your/their latitude); the early broods live out their life cycles in a few months, but the larvae of the final brood of summer will overwinter as tiny caterpillars, wrapped in leaves of one of their food plants (willow is favored, but they’ll also eat poplar, aspen and some apple/plum/cherry leaves). Donald W. Stokes, in A Guide to Observing Insect Lives, describes how the caterpillar shapes a leaf into its hibernaculum, according to pre-programmed specifications. It eats the leaf from the tip down, sparing the midrib. Then it rolls the remaining bit of leaf into a cylinder a half-inch long and an eighth-inch wide, securing it with silk. It lines the inside of the leaf with silk, and, although the leaf is still attached to the shrub, it wraps silk around the leaf stem (petiole) and secures it with a band around the twig so the leaf will not fall in autumn. The caterpillar that emerges in spring has catkins and new leaves to feed on. As it molts and matures over the next few weeks, it looks increasingly like a blob of bird poop. For another champion bird-poop mimic, Google the “Beautiful wood nymph moth” (remember the quotation marks; the BugLady is not responsible for the sites you’ll get to if you forget the quotation marks.) The chrysalis continues the bird-poop theme. Viceroys are closely related to the Red-spotted Purple/White Admiral butterfly (Limenitis arthemis) (the Purple and the Admiral species have beeen “lumped” and are sometimes called the “Red-spotted Admiral.”). Its caterpillars overwinter in the same fashion as the Viceroy’s, are also bird-poop mimics, and are so similar to Viceroy caterpillars that only their mamas can distinguish them for sure. Viceroys have a jagged black “C-shaped” line through their hind wing that is lacking in the larger Monarchs. Monarchs tend to flap and soar, holding their wings up in a wide “V,” while Viceroys fly with faster wingbeats, and when they soar, their wings are held more horizontally. Viceroys enjoy shrubby and open fields and wet meadows where they feed on nectar from a variety of flowers. According to The Butterflies of Illinois, the diet of adults changes as the season progresses, and they chow down on ripe fruit, sap flows, carrion, poop, and aphid honeydew. Males bask on leaves, scanning their horizons for females, and they will chase intruding males for considerable distances up into the sky. The theory has always been that Viceroys have enjoyed a Lepidopteran “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free” card due to their resemblance to Monarchs. Recent research suggests that Viceroys may also be distasteful, probably because willow leaves are very bitter. In that case, Monarchs and Viceroys are mimicking each other. As mimics go, the Viceroy is a flexible one. Monarchs do not occur in the far southeastern or southwestern United States during the summer. There, Viceroys’ upper wings are a rich brown, mirroring a close Monarch kin, the resident Queen butterfly. The BugLady .
Recommended publications
  • Monarch Butterfly, Danaus Plexippus Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Danainae)1 Andrei Sourakov2
    EENY-442 Monarch Butterfly, Danaus plexippus Linnaeus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Danainae)1 Andrei Sourakov2 Introduction The monarchs, Danaus plexippus Linnaeus, are among the best known of the world’s butterflies due to their remark- able ability to migrate, wide distribution, and charismatic appearance. The last Pleistocene glaciations in North America instigated migration to Mexico in the east and to the Californian coast and deserts in the west. In the western U.S., the overwintering colonies are smaller and more numerous, while in Mexico, they are few but more spectacular, with billions of butterflies concentrating in one spot. Distribution Danaus plexippus is found throughout the Americas and Australia, with individuals reported in New Guinea and Western Europe. Sedentary populations that are found in Mexico, and Central and South America (including the Caribbean islands) are somewhat different from migratory Figure 1. Adult monarchs, Danaus plexippus Linnaeus, from Gainesville, populations of D. p. plexippus found in North America. Florida. Several subspecies, such as M. p. megalippe (Mexico, Credits: Andrei Sourakov, Florida Museum of Natural History southern U.S.) and M. p. menippe (South America) have Description been described. Monarchs fly from sea level up to 2,500 meters. Orange-and-black warning coloration of monarchs is noticeable, and its memorable pattern is directed at Some of the D. p. plexippus reach Cuba instead of Mexico, repelling insectivorous birds. Experiments conducted with where they mix with the resident population of D. p. captive blue jays showed that monarchs indeed are toxic megalippe, from which they noticeably differ in behavior (Brower et al. 1968). Being distasteful due to ingestion by and wing length and shape (Dockx 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of the Finger Lakes National Forest
    The Finger Lakes National Butterflies of "... the first precaution Forest comprises 16,000 acres of the of intelligent tinkering federally owned land between Cayuga and Seneca Lakes in Finger Lakes is to keep every cog and New York State. The Forest is wheel ... " managed for multiple uses to ~~Mut provide a variety of goods and ~Aldo Leopold services to a diverse public. Different programs include a This list compiled through the work of livestock grazing program, a Charles R. Smith, Ph.D. Department of Natural Resources small scale timber management Cornell University program, diverse habitats for And Donald Bright-Smith, Ph.D. wildlife and fish, and Department of Pathobiology recreational opportunities for TexasA&M multiple user groups. And made possible through the generosity New York State Chapter of the For more information about the Finger Lakes Wild Turkey Federation National Forest contact: Hector Ranger District 5218 State Route 414 United States Forest Eastern ~~1~ .. ~ Department of Service Region New York State Chapter Hector, NY 14841 Agriculture NWTF (607) 546-4470 Family Papilionidae: Swallowtails Family Hesperiidae: Skippers 0 Papilio polyxenes, Black Swallowtail 0 Epargyreus clarus, Silver-spotted 0 Pap ilia cresphontes, Giant Swallowtail Skipper 0 Papilio glaucus, Eastern Tiger Family Nymphalidae: Brushfoots 0 Erynnis ice/us, Dreamy Duskywing Swallowtail 0 Speyeria cybele, Great Spangled Fritillary D Erynnisjuvenalis, Juvenal's Duskywing 0 Pap ilia troilus, Spicebush Swallowtail 0 Boloria selene, Silver-bordered Fritillary
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Butterfly Gardening Tips & Tricks Gardening for Butterflies Is Fun, Beautiful, and Good for the Environment
    Butterfly Gardening Tips & Tricks Gardening for butterflies is fun, beautiful, and good for the environment. It is also simple and can be done in almost any location. The key guidelines are listed below: NO PESTICIDES! Caterpillars are highly susceptible to almost all pesticides so keep them away from your yard if you want butterflies to thrive. Select the right plants. You will need to provide nectar sources for adults and host plants for caterpillars. See the lists below for inspiration. Keep to native varieties as much as possible. Plants come in lots and lots of varieties and cultivars. When selecting plants, especially host plants, try to find native species as close to the natural or wild variety as possible. Provide shelter. Caterpillars need shelter from the sun and shelter from cold nights. Adults need places to roost during the night. And protected areas are needed for the chrysalis to safely undergo its transformation. The best way to provide shelter is with large clumps of tall grasses (native or ornamental) and medium to large evergreen trees and/or shrubs. Nectar Sources Top Ten Nectar Sources: Asclepias spp. (milkweed) Aster spp. Buddleia spp. (butterfly bush) Coreopsis spp. Echinacea spp. (coneflower) Eupatorium spp. (joe-pye weed) Lantana spp. Liatris spp. Pentas spp. Rudbeckia spp. (black-eyed susan) Others: Agastache spp. (hyssop), Apocynum spp. (dogbane), Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey tea), Cephalanthus occidentalis (button bush), Clethra alnifolia, Cuphea spp. (heather), Malus spp. (apple), Mentha spp. (mint), Phlox spp., Pycanthemum incanum (mountain mint), Salivs spp. (sage), Sedum spectabile (stonecrop), Stokesia laevis (cornflower), Taraxacum officinale (dandelion), Triofolium spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Prudic 2019.Pdf (956.7Kb)
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0303-z OPEN Mimicry in viceroy butterflies is dependent on abundance of the model queen butterfly Kathleen L. Prudic1,2, Barbara N. Timmermann3, Daniel R. Papaj4, David B. Ritland5 & Jeffrey C. Oliver6 1234567890():,; Mimics should not exist without their models, yet often they do. In the system involving queen and viceroy butterflies, the viceroy is both mimic and co-model depending on the local abundance of the model, the queen. Here, we integrate population surveys, chemical ana- lyses, and predator behavior assays to demonstrate how mimics may persist in locations with low-model abundance. As the queen becomes less locally abundant, the viceroy becomes more chemically defended and unpalatable to predators. However, the observed changes in viceroy chemical defense and palatability are not attributable to differing host plant chemical defense profiles. Our results suggest that mimetic viceroy populations are maintained at localities of low-model abundance through an increase in their toxicity. Sharing the burden of predator education in some places but not others may also lower the fitness cost of warning signals thereby supporting the origin and maintenance of aposematism. 1 School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. 2 Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. 3 Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. 4 Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. 5 Department of Biology, Erskine College, Due West, SC 29639, USA. 6 Office of Digital Innovation & Stewardship, University Libraries, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Somerset's Ecological Network
    Somerset’s Ecological Network Mapping the components of the ecological network in Somerset 2015 Report This report was produced by Michele Bowe, Eleanor Higginson, Jake Chant and Michelle Osbourn of Somerset Wildlife Trust, and Larry Burrows of Somerset County Council, with the support of Dr Kevin Watts of Forest Research. The BEETLE least-cost network model used to produce Somerset’s Ecological Network was developed by Forest Research (Watts et al, 2010). GIS data and mapping was produced with the support of Somerset Environmental Records Centre and First Ecology Somerset Wildlife Trust 34 Wellington Road Taunton TA1 5AW 01823 652 400 Email: [email protected] somersetwildlife.org Front Cover: Broadleaved woodland ecological network in East Mendip Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy and Legislative Background to Ecological Networks ............................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Government White Paper on the Natural Environment .............................................. 3 National Planning Policy Framework ......................................................................... 3 The Habitats and Birds Directives ............................................................................. 4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inter-Specific Hybridization Between Limenitis Arthemis
    278 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY INTER-SP ECIFIC HYBRIDIZATION BETWEEN LIMENITIS ARTHEMIS ASTYANAX AND L. ARCHIPPUS (NYMPHALIDAE) AUSTIN P. PLATT University of Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, Maryland and JOSEPH C. GREENFIELD, JR. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina The Nearctic genus Limenitis (Nymphalidae) contains five common, geographically widespread forms, all of which are polytypic, and exhibit tendencies toward hybridization (Edwards, 1879; Scudder, 1889; Field, 1904; Gunder, 1934; Remington, 1958, 1968; Gage, 1970). Four of the forms are mainly allopatric in their distributions, occupying adjacent re­ gions, and coming in contact only along certain margins of their ranges (Hovanitz, 1949). Included among these are two conspecific eastern forms: the banded purple (L. arthemis arthemis Drury) and the red­ spotted purple (L. arthemis astyanax Fabricius) , an unbanded mimic of the blue swallowtail (Hattus philenor L.). In addi,tion, thcre are two western disruptively banded species: Weidemeyer's admiral (L. weide­ meyel'ii Edwards) and Lorquin's admiral (L. lOl'quini Boisduval). These four forms are closely allied, and conform well to Mayr's (1963) definition of a "super-species." Thc two subspecific eastern butterflies exhibit "fr.ee-interbreeding" and complete intergradation within the north­ castern United Statcs and southern Ontario (Edwards, 1877; Field, 1910; Hovanitz, 1949; Platt and Brower, 1968; Hcmington, 1968; Platt, Frearson, and Graves, 1970), whereas, the two western species exhibit "suturing" and "intense" interbreeding in certain restricted localities, often associated with mountain passes (Brown, 1934; Perkins and Perkins, 1966; Perkins and Perkins, 1967; Hemington, 1968). The fifth form is the predominantly orange-colored Viceroy (L. arch­ ippus Cramer).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Animal Species of Concern
    MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM Animal Species of Concern Species List Last Updated 08/05/2010 219 Species of Concern 86 Potential Species of Concern All Records (no filtering) A program of the University of Montana and Natural Resource Information Systems, Montana State Library Introduction The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) serves as the state's information source for animals, plants, and plant communities with a focus on species and communities that are rare, threatened, and/or have declining trends and as a result are at risk or potentially at risk of extirpation in Montana. This report on Montana Animal Species of Concern is produced jointly by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). Montana Animal Species of Concern are native Montana animals that are considered to be "at risk" due to declining population trends, threats to their habitats, and/or restricted distribution. Also included in this report are Potential Animal Species of Concern -- animals for which current, often limited, information suggests potential vulnerability or for which additional data are needed before an accurate status assessment can be made. Over the last 200 years, 5 species with historic breeding ranges in Montana have been extirpated from the state; Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), Pilose Crayfish (Pacifastacus gambelii), and Rocky Mountain Locust (Melanoplus spretus). Designation as a Montana Animal Species of Concern or Potential Animal Species of Concern is not a statutory or regulatory classification. Instead, these designations provide a basis for resource managers and decision-makers to make proactive decisions regarding species conservation and data collection priorities in order to avoid additional extirpations.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCALIZED INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDIZATION BETWEEN MIMETIC LIMENITIS BUTTERFLIES (NYMPHALIDAE) in FLORIDA Interspecific Hybrids Are O
    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Soctety 44(3), 1990, 163-173 LOCALIZED INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDIZATION BETWEEN MIMETIC LIMENITIS BUTTERFLIES (NYMPHALIDAE) IN FLORIDA DAVID B. RITLAND Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 ABSTRACT. Viceroy and red-spotted purple butterflies (Umenitis archippus and Limenitis arthemis ustyanax) are broadly sympatric in the eastern United States, but very rarely interbreed in most areas. However, the butterflies hybridize relatively fre­ quently in northern Florida and southern Georgia; I recorded seven hybrid individuals in a 13-month period in 1986-87, as well as two mating pairs of viceroy and red-spotted purple. I propose that this elevated hybridization is due to a unique combination of ecological and biogeographic (genetic) factors, which interact to locally weaken the premating reproductive barrier between viceroys and red-spotted purples. First, habitat overlap (and therefore encounter rate) between the two species of butterflies is unusually high because they share a larval foodplant. Second, red-spotted purples may be less discriminating in mate choice because of their comparative rarity (viceroy: red-spotted purple ratio is 9:1), which must affect the economics of mate choice. Finally, viceroys in northern Florida also may be prone to mismating because they represent intraspecific hybrids between two geographic races (L. a. archippus and L. a. floridensis), the latter of which is largely allopatric from red-spotted purples and may not have evolved effective pre-mating isolating mechanisms. This combination of ecological and genetic factors apparently creates a unique conduit of gene flow (introgression) between red-spotted purples and viceroys. Additional key words: Limenitis archippus, Limenitis arthemis astyanax, Salix car­ oliniana, introgression, mate choice.
    [Show full text]
  • January 2016 the Plight of the Monarch Conservation Legacy
    CONSERVATION LEGACY MAKING A DIFFERENCE The Plight of the Monarch Article and Photos by CLINTON FAAS (Writer's note: TWA’s Conservation Initiatives promote landscape-level conservation of habitat and species as well as address current issues affecting landowners in Texas. Through monitoring and working with state, federal and non-governmental organizations, TWA aims to provide relevant and up-to-date information for its members regarding these topics. The Monarch Butterfly represents one such topic that allows land managers to come together with many focus groups to reach a common conservation goal in the management of a declining species.) t’s an iconic species — one that doesn’t require a background in entomology to identify. The orange andI black wing pattern is easily recognizable to anyone that has ever watched a butterfly flutter past. Although there are imitators, the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) is one of the most well known butterflies in the United States. It brings back a sense of nostalgia for many of us: thoughts of insect collections as a kid and mason jars with holes poked in the metal lids, the coming of fall and the arrival of spring and, even if unknowingly, a connection to wildlife in a busy, urbanized world. But where have they gone? And, some may ask, “Why does it even matter?” As recently as the 1990s, an estimated one billion monarchs made the migration south, through Texas and into Mexico. A 2013 count revealed that the long-term average number may have declined up to 90 percent in the last 20 years, leaving the total United States population at around The iconic Monarch butterfly is easily recognizable with its black and orange wing pattern.
    [Show full text]
  • BUTTERFLIES of the Trails and Fields at Rice Creek Field Station State University of New York at Oswego
    SNEAK A PEEK INSIDE... A Guide to the BUTTERFLIES of the Trails and Fields at Rice Creek Field Station State University of New York at Oswego Michael Holy - August 2010 Compton Tortoise Shell (Nymphalis vau-album) Nymphalidae Description: [L] Various shades of brown with black and white markings above. Compton Tortoise Shell Underside is a dark gray with a silver comma on its hindwing. (Nymphalis vau-album) Interesting Fact: This species is known to aestivate (“hibernate”) during the hottest Nymphalidae weeks of summer. Best Observed: Area around Herb Garden, wooded Red Trail between the upper field and parking lot. Milbert’s Tortoise Shell (Nymphalis milberti) Nymphalidae Description: [M] Orange bands across black wings above with blue spots along edge of hindwing. Milbert’s Tortoise Shell Interesting Fact: In flight this species is easily mistaken for a Comma or Question (Nymphalis milberti) Nymphalidae Mark despite its wing colors. Best Observed: Herb Garden, Beaver Meadow on Green Trail, and open fields nectaring Milkweed, Joe-pye Weed, and Purple Loosestrife, June through August. Mourning Cloak (Nymphalis antiopa) Nymphalidae Description: [L] Wings above are a rich brown black color bordered with blue spots and a pale yellow band. Mourning Cloak Interesting Fact: A true hibernator, this species can be observed in wood settings on (Nymphalis antiopa) Nymphalidae warm early spring days with snow still on the ground. Best Observed: Woods in spring, fields and all trails in summer, April through early November . White Admiral ( Limenitis arthemis) Nymphalidae Description: [L] White bands interrupt a black/brown wing color. White Admiral Interesting Fact: A variant, the Red-spotted Purple, lacks the white wing bands, (Limenitis arthemis) Nymphalidae substituting a blue green metallic hue.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Traits Affect Phenological Responses to Climate Change in A
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Species traits afect phenological responses to climate change in a butterfy community Konstantina Zografou1*, Mark T. Swartz2, George C. Adamidis1, Virginia P. Tilden2, Erika N. McKinney2 & Brent J. Sewall1 Diverse taxa have undergone phenological shifts in response to anthropogenic climate change. While such shifts generally follow predicted patterns, they are not uniform, and interspecifc variation may have important ecological consequences. We evaluated relationships among species’ phenological shifts (mean fight date, duration of fight period), ecological traits (larval trophic specialization, larval diet composition, voltinism), and population trends in a butterfy community in Pennsylvania, USA, where the summer growing season has become warmer, wetter, and longer. Data were collected over 7–19 years from 18 species or species groups, including the extremely rare eastern regal fritillary Speyeria idalia idalia. Both the direction and magnitude of phenological change over time was linked to species traits. Polyphagous species advanced and prolonged the duration of their fight period while oligophagous species delayed and shortened theirs. Herb feeders advanced their fight periods while woody feeders delayed theirs. Multivoltine species consistently prolonged fight periods in response to warmer temperatures, while univoltine species were less consistent. Butterfies that shifted to longer fight durations, and those that had polyphagous diets and multivoltine reproductive strategies tended to decline in population. Our results suggest species’ traits shape butterfy phenological responses to climate change, and are linked to important community impacts. Phenological changes are among the most noticeable responses by plants and animals to anthropogenic climate change1–3. Although some taxa may fail to respond, or respond in ways that are maladaptive4, others may undergo evolutionary change or respond via phenotypic plasticity 5.
    [Show full text]