DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE ANIMAL SPECIES OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Great Tiger Moth (Arctia caja) photo by Stephen P. Hall Compiled by Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Vertebrate Zoologist John T. Finnegan, Conservation Information Manager Stephen P. Hall, Landscape Ecologist Andrea J. Leslie, Freshwater Ecologist Judith A. Ratcliffe, Freshwater Ecologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, & Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE ANIMAL SPECIES OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Compiled by Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Vertebrate Zoologist John T. Finnegan, Conservation Information Manager Stephen P. Hall, Landscape Ecologist Andrea J. Leslie, Freshwater Ecologist Judith A. Ratcliffe, Freshwater Ecologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as further data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate. The list is published periodically, generally every two years. Further information on these species may be obtained by contacting the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601, or by contacting the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1722 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1722. Additional information on rare species, as well as a digital version of this rare animal list, can be obtained from the Natural Heritage Program's website at www.ncnhp.org. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 LIST FORMAT .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 STATUS OF ANIMAL TAXA ON NHP RARE ANIMAL LIST ................................................................................ 12 MAMMALS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 13 BIRDS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 REPTILES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23 AMPHIBIANS .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 FRESHWATER FISHES ................................................................................................................................................. 31 MOLLUSKS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 37 FRESHWATER BIVALVES ................................................................................................................................. 37 FRESHWATER AND TERRESTRIAL GASTROPODS ................................................................................... 43 ARACHNIDS .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 CRUSTACEANS .............................................................................................................................................................. 52 INSECTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 55 MAYFLIES ................................................................................................................................................................ 55 STONEFLIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 57 CADDISFLIES .......................................................................................................................................................... 58 DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES ................................................................................................................. 60 BUTTERFLIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 63 MACRO-MOTHS ..................................................................................................................................................... 68 GRASSHOPPERS AND KATYDIDS ..................................................................................................................... 76 BEETLES ................................................................................................................................................................... 78 TRUE BUGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 79 NORTH CAROLINA ANIMAL WATCH LIST ........................................................................................................... 80 MAMMALS ............................................................................................................................................................... 82 BIRDS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 84 REPTILES ................................................................................................................................................................. 87 AMPHIBIANS ........................................................................................................................................................... 88 FRESHWATER FISHES ......................................................................................................................................... 89 MOLLUSKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 91 FRESHWATER BIVALVES ..................................................................................................................... 91 FRESHWATER AND TERRESTRIAL GASTROPODS ....................................................................... 92 ARACHNIDS ............................................................................................................................................................. 94 CRUSTACEANS ....................................................................................................................................................... 95 INSECTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 97 MAYFLIES .................................................................................................................................................. 97 STONEFLIES .............................................................................................................................................. 99 CADDISFLIES .......................................................................................................................................... 101 DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES ................................................................................................ 106 FLIES ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 BUTTERFLIES ......................................................................................................................................... 110 MACRO-MOTHS ..................................................................................................................................... 112 GRASSHOPPERS AND KATYDIDS ..................................................................................................... 119 BEETLES .................................................................................................................................................. 121 EXTIRPATED ANIMALS IN NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................................................. 123 MAMMALS ............................................................................................................................................................. 123 BIRDS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 123 FRESHWATER FISHES ....................................................................................................................................... 123 i MOLLUSKS ..........................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Insect Survey of Four Longleaf Pine Preserves
    A SURVEY OF THE MOTHS, BUTTERFLIES, AND GRASSHOPPERS OF FOUR NATURE CONSERVANCY PRESERVES IN SOUTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA Stephen P. Hall and Dale F. Schweitzer November 15, 1993 ABSTRACT Moths, butterflies, and grasshoppers were surveyed within four longleaf pine preserves owned by the North Carolina Nature Conservancy during the growing season of 1991 and 1992. Over 7,000 specimens (either collected or seen in the field) were identified, representing 512 different species and 28 families. Forty-one of these we consider to be distinctive of the two fire- maintained communities principally under investigation, the longleaf pine savannas and flatwoods. An additional 14 species we consider distinctive of the pocosins that occur in close association with the savannas and flatwoods. Twenty nine species appear to be rare enough to be included on the list of elements monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (eight others in this category have been reported from one of these sites, the Green Swamp, but were not observed in this study). Two of the moths collected, Spartiniphaga carterae and Agrotis buchholzi, are currently candidates for federal listing as Threatened or Endangered species. Another species, Hemipachnobia s. subporphyrea, appears to be endemic to North Carolina and should also be considered for federal candidate status. With few exceptions, even the species that seem to be most closely associated with savannas and flatwoods show few direct defenses against fire, the primary force responsible for maintaining these communities. Instead, the majority of these insects probably survive within this region due to their ability to rapidly re-colonize recently burned areas from small, well-dispersed refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometro
    Contributions Toward a Lepidoptera (Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, Thyrididae, Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, & Noctuoidea) Biodiversity Inventory of the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab Hugo L. Kons Jr. Last Update: June 2001 Abstract A systematic check list of 489 species of Lepidoptera collected in the University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Lab is presented, including 464 species in the superfamilies Drepanoidea, Geometroidea, Mimalonoidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea, and Noctuoidea. Taxa recorded in Psychidae, Yponomeutidae, Sesiidae, Cossidae, Zygaenoidea, and Thyrididae are also included. Moth taxa were collected at ultraviolet lights, bait, introduced Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), and by netting specimens. A list of taxa recorded feeding on P. notatum is presented. Introduction The University of Florida Natural Area Teaching Laboratory (NATL) contains 40 acres of natural habitats maintained for scientific research, conservation, and teaching purposes. Habitat types present include hammock, upland pine, disturbed open field, cat tail marsh, and shallow pond. An active management plan has been developed for this area, including prescribed burning to restore the upland pine community and establishment of plots to study succession (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/natl.htm). The site is a popular collecting locality for student and scientific collections. The author has done extensive collecting and field work at NATL, and two previous reports have resulted from this work, including: a biodiversity inventory of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea & Papilionoidea) of NATL (Kons 1999), and an ecological study of Hermeuptychia hermes (F.) and Megisto cymela (Cram.) in NATL habitats (Kons 1998). Other workers have posted NATL check lists for Ichneumonidae, Sphecidae, Tettigoniidae, and Gryllidae (http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/insect.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory
    2010 Season Summary Index NEW WOFTHE~ Zone 1: Yukon Territory ........................................................................................... 3 Alaska ... ........................................ ............................................................... 3 LEPIDOPTERISTS Zone 2: British Columbia .................................................... ........................ ............ 6 Idaho .. ... ....................................... ................................................................ 6 Oregon ........ ... .... ........................ .. .. ............................................................ 10 SOCIETY Volume 53 Supplement Sl Washington ................................................................................................ 14 Zone 3: Arizona ............................................................ .................................... ...... 19 The Lepidopterists' Society is a non-profo California ............... ................................................. .............. .. ................... 2 2 educational and scientific organization. The Nevada ..................................................................... ................................ 28 object of the Society, which was formed in Zone 4: Colorado ................................ ... ............... ... ...... ......................................... 2 9 May 1947 and formally constituted in De­ Montana .................................................................................................... 51 cember
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of the Natural Areas of Dare County, North Carolina
    AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 Cover photograph: Buxton Woods, Maritime Shrub Swamp (Dogwood Subtype) taken by Bruce A. Sorrie. AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 ABSTRACT This inventory of the natural areas, biological communities, and rare species of Dare County was funded by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund. The inventory identifies the most significant natural areas in the county, describes their features, and documents all natural communities and rare species of plants and animals associated with them. Habitat conditions, natural processes, and threats are also described. The inventory is intended to provide guidance for land use decisions by county, state, and federal governments, conservation and land management organizations, and interested citizens. Field work was carried out by Bruce A. Sorrie of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program during 2012 and 2013. The inventory identifies 34 areas of outstanding ecological significance as determined by criteria established by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and agencies contributed to the planning, progress, and completion of this inventory. Jame Amoroso, Misty Buchanan, John Finnegan, Harry LeGrand, Janine Nicholson, and Linda Rudd reviewed the draft report and maps and assisted in the production of the final copy.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Checklist of the Orthopteroid Insects (Blattodea, Mantodea, Phasmatodea,Orthoptera) of Texas
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Insecta Mundi Florida March 2001 Preliminary checklist of the orthopteroid insects (Blattodea, Mantodea, Phasmatodea,Orthoptera) of Texas John A. Stidham Garland, TX Thomas A. Stidham University of California, Berkeley, CA Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi Part of the Entomology Commons Stidham, John A. and Stidham, Thomas A., "Preliminary checklist of the orthopteroid insects (Blattodea, Mantodea, Phasmatodea,Orthoptera) of Texas" (2001). Insecta Mundi. 180. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/180 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Systematic Entomology, Gainesville, Florida at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Insecta Mundi by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. INSECTA MUNDI, Vol. 15, No. 1, March, 2001 35 Preliminary checklist of the orthopteroid insects (Blattodea, Mantodea, Phasmatodea,Orthoptera) of Texas John A. Stidham 301 Pebble Creek Dr., Garland, TX 75040 and Thomas A. Stidham Department of Integrative Biology, Museum of Paleontology, and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, Abstract: Texas has one of the most diverse orthopteroid assemblages of any state in the United States, reflecting the varied habitats found in the state. Three hundred and eighty-nine species and 78 subspecies of orthopteroid insects (Blattodea, Mantodea, Phasmatodea, and Orthoptera) have published records for the state of Texas. This is the first such comprehensive checklist for Texas and should aid future work on these groups in this area. Introduction (Flook and Rowell, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Fauna of the Middle Portion of the Sauk River, Stearns County, Minnesota, 2010
    Evaluation of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Fauna of the Middle Portion of the Sauk River, Stearns County, Minnesota, 2010 . Submitted to: Sauk River Watershed District 524 Fourth Street South Sauk Centre, Minnesota 56378 Submitted by: Lake Superior Research Institute University of Wisconsin-Superior 801 North 28 th Street Superior, Wisconsin 54880 Principal Investigator: Kurt L. Schmude, Ph.D. Senior Scientist April 28, 2011 INTRODUCTION The Sauk River Watershed District (District) entered into a Joint Powers Agreement under which the District would provide physical assessments, chemical monitoring, and aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment of aquatic habitats for the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The project is known as the Upper Sauk River Water Quality Assessment Project. The District worked in cooperation with the Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) at the University of Wisconsin-Superior in 2008 and 2009 to provide professional training to its staff in the collection of samples of aquatic macroinvertebrates, and to use these organisms to evaluate the water quality of the upper portion of the Sauk River (Schmude 2010). In the fall of 2010, the Sauk River Watershed District conducted a similar assessment for the middle reach of the Sauk River. The current report provides an evaluation of the water quality of the middle portion of the Sauk River for 2010 based on the aquatic macroinvertebrates. METHODS District personnel sampled six sites along the middle portion of the Sauk River in Stearns County on October 13, 2010. More sites would have been sampled, but high water in this section of the river prevented access to additional sites. The sites listed below are arranged in order from the most upstream site to the most downstream site.
    [Show full text]
  • The Acoustic Behavior of the Katydid Amblycorypha Parvipennis and the Function of Acoustic Interaction in Sexual Selection
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1993 The coua stic behavior of the katydid Amblycorypha parvipennis and the function of acoustic interaction in sexual selection Patrick LeRoy Galliart Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Galliart, Patrick LeRoy, "The ca oustic behavior of the katydid Amblycorypha parvipennis and the function of acoustic interaction in sexual selection " (1993). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 10232. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10232 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Sustainability Will Probably Always Be Limited by Its Small Size and Fragmented Condition (See Section 3.5)
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service May 2011 Terrestrial Species Viability Evaluation for The Uwharrie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Requirements in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) ............................. 1 3.0 Ecosystem Diversity ..................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Spatial Scales for Ecosystem Diversity ................................................................... 4 3.2 Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity ................................................................... 7 3.3 Range of Variation .................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Current Condition and Trend of Ecosystem Characteristics and Status of Ecosystem Diversity ..................................................................................................... 15 3.5 – Risks to Selected Characteristics of Ecosystem Diversity ................................... 20 3.6 Recommended Forest Plan Components ............................................................... 21 3.7 Assessing effects of Forest Plan alternatives on viability ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community Wind Collaborative – Town of Wellfleet
    Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Town of Wellfleet SITE FEASIBILITY STUDY B&V Project Number 135720.1200 Funded by the Community Wind Collaborative of the Renewable Energy Trust August 2008 Black & Veatch Corporation 230 Congress Street Suite 802 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 451-6900 www.bv.com Principal Investigators: Ryan Jacobson, Project Manager Steve Block, Renewable Energy Specialist Justin Ray, Wind Energy Specialist Jason Fields, Wind Energy Specialist Sean Tilley, Wind Energy Specialist © Copyright, Black & Veatch Corporation, 2008. All rights reserved. The Black & Veatch name and logo are registered trademarks of Black & Veatch Holding Company Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Community Wind Collaborative – Town of Wellfleet Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Results ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 List of Recommendations .................................................................................... 1-2 2.0 Introduction................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Objective.............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]