January/February 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Taxonomic Overview of the Greater Fritillary Genus Speyeria Scudder
INSECTA MUNDI A Journal of World Insect Systematics 0090 Taxonomic overview of the greater fritillary genus Speyeria Scudder and the atlantis hesperis species complexes, with species accounts, type images, and relevant literature (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) James C. Dunford McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida PO Box 112710, Gainesville, FL 326112710, USA Date of Issue: September 26, 2009 CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY, INC., Gainesville, FL James C. Dunford Taxonomic overview of the greater fritillary genus Speyeria Scudder and the atlantis hesperis species complexes, with species accounts, type images, and relevant literature (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) Insecta Mundi 0090: 174 Published in 2009 by Center for Systematic Entomology, Inc. P. O. Box 141874 Gainesville, FL 326141874 U. S. A. http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org/ Insecta Mundi is a journal primarily devoted to insect systematics, but articles can be published on any nonmarine arthropod taxon. Manuscripts considered for publication include, but are not limited to, systematic or taxonomic studies, revisions, nomenclatural changes, faunal studies, book reviews, phylo genetic analyses, biological or behavioral studies, etc. Insecta Mundi is widely distributed, and refer- enced or abstracted by several sources including the Zoological Record, CAB Abstracts, etc. As of 2007, Insecta Mundi is published irregularly throughout the year, not as quarterly issues. As manuscripts are completed they are published and given an individual number. Manuscripts must be peer reviewed prior to submission, after which they are again reviewed by the editorial board to insure quality. One author of each submitted manuscript must be a current member of the Center for System- atic Entomology. -
Phylogenetic Relationships of Phyciodes Butterfly Species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): Complex Mtdna Variation and Species Delimitations
Systematic Entomology (2003) 28, 257±273 Phylogenetic relationships of Phyciodes butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): complex mtDNA variation and species delimitations NIKLAS WAHLBERG*, RITA OLIVEIRA* andJAMES A. SCOTTy *Metapopulation Research Group, Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Helsinki, Finland, and yLakewood, Colorado, U.S.A. Abstract. Mitochondrial DNA variation wasstudied in the butterfly genus Phyciodes (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) by sequencing 1450 bp of the COI gene from 140 individuals of all eleven currently recognized species. The study focused on four species in particular that have been taxonomically difficult for the past century, P. tharos, P. cocyta, P. batesii and P. pulchella. A cladistic analysis of ninety-eight unique haplotypesshowedthat Phyciodes formsa monophyletic group with P. graphica as the most basal species. Of the three informal species groupsdescribed for Phyciodes, only one (the mylitta-group) isunambiguously monophyletic. Within the tharos-group, seven well supported clades were found that correspond to three taxa, P. tharos, P. pulchella and a grade consisting of P. cocyta and P. batesii haplotypesinterdigitated with each other. None of the clades is formed exclusively by one species. The patterns of haplotype variation are the result of both retained ancient polymorphism and introgression. Introgression appearsto be mostcommon between P. cocyta and P. batesii; however, these two species occur sympatrically and are morphologically and ecologically distinct, suggesting that the level of current introgression does not seem to be enough to threaten their genetic integrity. The results indicate that mitochondrial DNA sequences must be used with great caution in delimiting species, especially when infraspecific samples are few, or introgression seems to be rampant. -
Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council. -
Papilio Series) @17 2006
(NEW April 28 PAPILIO SERIES) @17 2006 PROPOSALS FOR A NEW INSECT STUDY, COMMERCE, AND CONSERVATION LAW THAT DEREGULATES DEAD INSECTS, AND PROPOSALS FOR FIXING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AS APPLIED TO INSECTS By Dr. James A. Scott, 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Colorado, 80226 (Ph.D. in entomology, University of California, Berkeley) Why Do We Need New Insect Laws? The current laws regulating insects (and plants) in the U.S. are very bad. They were made for deer, and are only incidentally being applied to insects, because no legislators ever thought to make laws specifically targeted at insects that are not agricultural pests. These laws are not serving the conservation of insects well, and the laws are retarding the taxonomic study of insects, and are making criminals out of harmless hobbyist insect collectors. Basically, large animals like deer and Bighorn Sheep can be managed by controlling the numbers hunted using bag limits and exclusion areas etc., and roping and corraling them and transporting them to new sites. Large animals tend to have low population numbers, so might need to be protected from hunting (after all, at the end of the shooting spree in the late 1800s, the U.S. reached a low of population numbers for Bison and deer and nearly every other large animal, and their numbers have gradually recovered since). But insects are tiny by comparison, and their population sizes are huge by comparison. The average insect may be a thousand or a million times more numerous than your average deer'. Insect population sizes cannot be "managed" like deer, because population sizes vary hugely mostly depending on the weather and other uncontrollable factors, and their survival depends on the continued survival of their habitat, rather than useless government intervention. -
Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’ -
List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa -
Dieteria [Machaeranthera] Cansecens
HOARY TANSYASTER Dieteria (Machaeranthera) canescens (Pursh) Nutt. Asteraceae – Aster family Corey L. Gucker & Nancy L. Shaw | 2018 ORGANIZATION NOMENCLATURE Dieteria canescens (Pursh) Nutt. until recently Names, subtaxa, chromosome number(s), hybridization. (2010) was known as Machaeranthera canescens (Pursh) A. Gray (ITIS 2017; USDA NRCS 2017). This species belongs to the Astereae tribe of the Asteraceae family (Morgan Range, habitat, plant associations, elevation, soils. 2006) and will hereafter be referred to by its common name, hoary tansyaster. NRCS Plant Code. MACA2 (USDA NRCS 2017). Life form, morphology, distinguishing characteristics, reproduction. Subtaxa. The Flora of North America (Morgan 2006) recognizes ten varieties of hoary tansyaster: Dieteria canescens var. Growth rate, successional status, disturbance ecology, importance to canescens, ambigua, aristata, glabra, incana, animals/people. leucanthemifolia, nebraskana, sessiliflora, shastensis, and ziegleri. Current or potential uses in restoration. Synonyms (Morgan 2006). Dieteria canescens: Machaeranthera canescens (Pursh) A. Gray; Aster canescens Seed sourcing, wildland seed collection, seed cleaning, storage, Pursh testing and marketing standards. D. c. var. ambigua: M. canescens (Pursh) A. Gray var. ambigua B.L. Turner D. c. var. aristatus: A. canescens Pursh var. Recommendations/guidelines for producing seed. aristatus Eastwood; M. canescens (Pursh) A. Gray var. aristata (Eastwood) B.L. Turner; M. rigida Greene D. c. var. canescens: M. divaricata (Nuttall) Recommendations/guidelines for producing planting stock. Greene; M. laetevirens Greene; M. latifolia A. Nelson; M. pulverulenta (Nuttall) Greene; M. viscosa (Nuttall) Greene D. c. var. glabra: M. canescens (Pursh) A. Gray Recommendations/guidelines, wildland restoration successes/ var. glabra A. Gray; A. canescens Pursh var. failures. viridis A. Gray; M. linearis Greene D. -
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report
Otay Ranch Proctor Valley Village 14 & Preserve Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report May 13, 2016 Prepared for: Prepared by: Jackson Pendo Development Company HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. for GDCI Proctor Valley, LP 7578 El Cajon Boulevard 2245 San Diego Avenue, Suite 223 La Mesa, CA 91942 San Diego, CA 92110 Otay Ranch Proctor Valley Village 14 & Preserve 2016 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represent our work: Erica Harris Amy Mattson Jasmine Bakker TE-778195-12.2 TE-778195-12.2 TE-778195-12.2 Darin Busby Diana Saucedo Erik LaCoste TE-115373-3 TE-811615-6.1 TE-115373-3 Gretchen Cummings John Lovio Melanie Rocks TE-031850-4 TE-065741-3 TE-082908-1 Melissa Busby Monica Alfaro Natalie Brodie TE-080779-2 TE 051242–3 TE-135948-2 Renee Owens Garrett Huffman John Dicus TE-799569-5 TE-20186A-1 TE-839960-6 Melanie Dicus Alicia Hill Travis Cooper TE-049175-4 TE-06145B-0 TE-170389-5 Chez Brungraber Andrew Borcher Nicole Kimball TE-14231A-1 TE-092162-2 TE-053598-4 Brenna Ogg Brian Lohstroh Crysta Dickson TE 134338-3 TE-063608-5 TE 067347-5 Brian Parker TE-797665-9 Otay Ranch Proctor Valley Village 14 & Preserve Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................... -
Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. -
Butterflies, Birds and Blossoming Plants … a Continuing Study of Populations on Boulder County Parks and Open Space with a Look at Herptiles
Butterflies, Birds and Blossoming Plants … A Continuing Study of Populations On Boulder County Parks and Open Space With A Look at Herptiles Cover Photos by Jan Chu: Woodland Skipper, Sage Thrasher, Fence Lizard By Janet Chu December 12, 2013 ii Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments .......................................................................................... 1 II. Abstract ........................................................................................................... 1 III. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 IV. Objectives ....................................................................................................... 2 V. Research Methods .......................................................................................... 2 VI. Discussion of the Butterfly Records for 2013 ................................................ 3 A. Southeast Buffer ....................................................................................... 3 B. Anne U. White-Fourmile .......................................................................... 3 C. Heil-Geer Watershed ................................................................................ 4 D. Heil-Plumely Canyon ............................................................................... 4 E. Heil-North, Red Gulch.............................................................................. 5 F. Walker Ranch-Meyer’s Homestead Trail ............................................... -
Butterflies and Moths of San Bernardino County, California
Heliothis ononis Flax Bollworm Moth Coptotriche aenea Blackberry Leafminer Argyresthia canadensis Apyrrothrix araxes Dull Firetip Phocides pigmalion Mangrove Skipper Phocides belus Belus Skipper Phocides palemon Guava Skipper Phocides urania Urania skipper Proteides mercurius Mercurial Skipper Epargyreus zestos Zestos Skipper Epargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper Epargyreus spanna Hispaniolan Silverdrop Epargyreus exadeus Broken Silverdrop Polygonus leo Hammock Skipper Polygonus savigny Manuel's Skipper Chioides albofasciatus White-striped Longtail Chioides zilpa Zilpa Longtail Chioides ixion Hispaniolan Longtail Aguna asander Gold-spotted Aguna Aguna claxon Emerald Aguna Aguna metophis Tailed Aguna Typhedanus undulatus Mottled Longtail Typhedanus ampyx Gold-tufted Skipper Polythrix octomaculata Eight-spotted Longtail Polythrix mexicanus Mexican Longtail Polythrix asine Asine Longtail Polythrix caunus (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) Zestusa dorus Short-tailed Skipper Codatractus carlos Carlos' Mottled-Skipper Codatractus alcaeus White-crescent Longtail Codatractus yucatanus Yucatan Mottled-Skipper Codatractus arizonensis Arizona Skipper Codatractus valeriana Valeriana Skipper Urbanus proteus Long-tailed Skipper Urbanus viterboana Bluish Longtail Urbanus belli Double-striped Longtail Urbanus pronus Pronus Longtail Urbanus esmeraldus Esmeralda Longtail Urbanus evona Turquoise Longtail Urbanus dorantes Dorantes Longtail Urbanus teleus Teleus Longtail Urbanus tanna Tanna Longtail Urbanus simplicius Plain Longtail Urbanus procne Brown Longtail -
The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
Volume 7 1 February 2010 Number 3 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY TIPS ON COLLECTING AND REARING IMMATURES OF 375 BUTTERFLY AND SKIPPER TAXA JACQUE WOLFE 459 East 2700 South Apt 16, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 JACK HARRY 47 San Rafael Court, West Jordan, UT 84088 TODD STOUT 1 1456 North General Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 ABSTRACT: Rearing techniques are discussed for 375 different butterfly and skipper taxa from Utah and beyond. Additional keywords: ova, larvae, pupae, over wintering, obtaining and caring for immatures INTRODUCTION The authors of this paper, Jacque Wolfe, Jack Harry, and Todd Stout, with contributions from Dale Nielson have over 100 years combined experience collecting and rearing butterflies. This publication includes natural and lab host plants. We hope that this information will help you avoid some of the mistakes and losses we have experienced. We also hope that this publication will encourage someone who has only collected adults to give rearing a try. For those new to rearing we encourage starting small. Not only can rearing provide perfect specimens but also provide knowledge regarding the life histories of butterflies, which includes how to find caterpillars or how to entice live females to lay eggs. The advantages justify the time and effort it requires. Another advantage of rearing is that some species, like Papilio indra and Megathymus species, are difficult to collect as adults. Therefor, rearing them can be much easier. For example, collecting larvae or netting a single live female can result in obtaining a nice series of perfect specimens.