DOCSLIB.ORG

Rare Animals, Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07, February

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rare Animals, Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07, February COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals Compiled by: Steven M. Roble, Zoologist Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. February 2016 NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA: RARE ANIMALS FEBRUARY 2016 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF NATURAL HERITAGE 600 EAST MAIN STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804) 786-7951 List Compiled by Steven M. Roble Staff Zoologist Cover illustrations (left to right) by Megan Rollins Indiana Myotis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Regal Fritillary This report should be cited as: Roble, S.M. 2016. Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals. Natural Heritage Technical Report 16-07. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 56 pp. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 LIST FORMAT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PRIMARY SOURCES OF COMMON NAMES ................................................................................................................ 7 PART ONE. RARE ANIMAL LIST ................................................................................................................................... 9 VERTEBRATES .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 FISH ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 AMPHIBIANS .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 REPTILES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12 BIRDS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 MAMMALS .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 INVERTEBRATES .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 TURBELLARIA (FLATWORMS) ............................................................................................................................... 16 GASTROPODA (SNAILS) ........................................................................................................................................... 16 BIVALVIA (MUSSELS & CLAMS)............................................................................................................................ 17 ANNELIDA (SEGMENTED WORMS) ....................................................................................................................... 18 ARACHNIDA (SPIDERS, PSEUDOSCORPIONS & RELATIVES) .......................................................................... 18 CRUSTACEA (AMPHIPODS, ISOPODS & DECAPODS) ....................................................................................... 19 DIPLOPODA (MILLIPEDES) ...................................................................................................................................... 20 CHILOPODA (CENTIPEDES) ..................................................................................................................................... 21 COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) ............................................................................................................................... 21 DIPLURA (DIPLURANS) ............................................................................................................................................ 22 EPHEMEROPTERA (MAYFLIES).............................................................................................................................. 22 ODONATA (DAMSELFLIES & DRAGONFLIES) .................................................................................................... 22 PLECOPTERA (STONEFLIES) ................................................................................................................................... 24 ORTHOPTERA (GRASSHOPPERS, KATYDIDS, CRICKETS & RELATIVES) ..................................................... 24 HEMIPTERA (TRUE BUGS, CICADAS, LEAFHOPPERS & RELATIVES) ........................................................... 24 COLEOPTERA (BEETLES)......................................................................................................................................... 25 MECOPTERA (SCORPIONFLIES) ............................................................................................................................. 26 TRICHOPTERA (CADDISFLIES) ............................................................................................................................... 26 LEPIDOPTERA (BUTTERFLIES, SKIPPERS & MOTHS) ........................................................................................ 27 DIPTERA (TRUE FLIES) ............................................................................................................................................. 30 HYMENOPTERA (BEES, WASPS, ANTS & RELATIVES) ..................................................................................... 30 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES ................................................................................................................................................ 30 PART TWO. ANIMAL WATCHLIST ............................................................................................................................. 31 PART THREE. ANIMAL REVIEW LIST (TAXA OF UNCERTAIN STATUS) .......................................................... 41 APPENDIX 1. FEDERALLY ENDANGERED AND THREATENED VERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA ....................... 49 APPENDIX 2. FEDERALLY ENDANGERED AND THREATENED INVERTEBRATES OF VIRGINIA ................... 50 APPENDIX 3. EXTINCT AND EXTIRPATED ANIMALS OF VIRGINIA ..................................................................... 51 APPENDIX 4. LIST OF SYNONYMS ............................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX 5. RARE SPECIES SIGHTING FORM .......................................................................................................... 56 NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA: RARE ANIMALS FEBRUARY 2016 INTRODUCTION The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH) was established in 1986 to protect Virginia’s biological diversity. DCR-DNH is the state’s first comprehensive program for conservation of our natural heritage, and includes an intensive statewide biological inventory, field surveys, electronic and manual database management, environmental review capabilities, and natural area protection and stewardship. Through its actions the Division identifies Natural Heritage Resources that are in need of conservation attention while creating an efficient means of evaluating the impacts of balanced economic growth. Natural Heritage Resources are defined in the Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act of 1989 (Section 10.1-209 through 217, Code of Virginia), as the habitat of rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species; exemplary natural communities, habitats, and ecosystems; and other natural features of the Commonwealth. To achieve this protection, DCR-DNH maintains lists of the most significant elements of our natural diversity. These lists focus the Division’s inventory on the Natural Heritage Resources most likely to be lost without conservation action in the near future. Most importantly, these lists are useful not only for DCR-DNH, but can be used by other agencies, organizations, and individuals to assist in the determination of actions in protection and development decision-making. In formulating these lists, the Division uses information from previous studies, museum records, observations and opinions of experts, DCR-DNH staff scientists, and field inventories. The first list included in this report is the Rare Animal List. This list contains information on the legal and biological status of Virginia’s rarest known native animals, including vertebrates, insects, and selected other invertebrate groups, 793 in total (189 vertebrates, 604 invertebrates). This list includes those species that are believed to be sufficiently rare or threatened to merit an inventory of their status and locations. Certain marine species that are listed as federally endangered or threatened are only included in the appendices. Only those species that use discrete habitat patches or can directly benefit from habitat protection are included in the main taxonomic lists. The second list included in this report is the Animal Watchlist. This list contains information on the legal and biological status of 347 additional taxa (74 vertebrates, 273 invertebrates)
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]
  • Iridopsis Socoromaensis Sp. N., a Geometrid Moth (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) from the Andes of Northern Chile
    Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e61592 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e61592 Taxonomic Paper Iridopsis socoromaensis sp. n., a geometrid moth (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) from the Andes of northern Chile Héctor A. Vargas ‡ ‡ Universidad Tarapacá, Arica, Chile Corresponding author: Héctor A. Vargas ([email protected]) Academic editor: Axel Hausmann Received: 02 Dec 2020 | Accepted: 26 Jan 2021 | Published: 28 Jan 2021 Citation: Vargas HA (2021) Iridopsis socoromaensis sp. n., a geometrid moth (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) from the Andes of northern Chile. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e61592. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e61592 ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3D37F554-E2DC-443C-B11A-8C7E32D88F4F Abstract Background Iridopsis Warren, 1894 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Ennominae: Boarmiini) is a New World moth genus mainly diversified in the Neotropical Region. It is represented in Chile by two described species, both from the Atacama Desert. New information Iridopsis socoromaensis sp. n. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Ennominae: Boarmiini) is described and illustrated from the western slopes of the Andes of northern Chile. Its larvae were found feeding on leaves of the Chilean endemic shrub Dalea pennellii (J.F. Macbr.) J.F. Macbr. var. chilensis Barneby (Fabaceae). Morphological differences of I. socoromaensis sp. n. with the two species of the genus previously known from Chile are discussed. A DNA barcode fragment of I. socoromaensis sp. n. showed 93.7-94.3% similarity with the Nearctic I. sanctissima (Barnes & McDunnough, 1917). However, the morphology of the genitalia suggests that these two species are distantly related. The © Vargas H. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [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]
  • Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands
    United States Department of Agriculture Restoring Western Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Ranges and Wildlands Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 3 September 2004 Volume 3 Chapters 24–29, Appendices, Index Abstract ______________________________________ Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. 2004. Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pages 699– 884 plus appendices and index. This work, in three volumes, provides background on philosophy, processes, plant materials selection, site preparation, and seed and seeding equipment for revegetating disturbed rangelands, emphasizing use of native species. The 29 chapters include guidelines for planning, conducting, and managing, and contain a compilation of rangeland revegetation research conducted over the last several decades to aid practitioners in reestablishing healthy communities and curbing the spread of invasive species. Volume 3 contains chapters 24-29 plus appendices and index. Keywords: rehabilitation, revegetation, plant ecology, seed, plant communities, wildlife habitat, invasive species, equipment, plant materials, native plants A B A—Hand-harvesting grass seed. B—Certification tag. C—Native plant propagation in greenhouse. D—Brush machine. E—Flail-vac harvesting needle-and thread grass. Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands Compilers Stephen B. Monsen Volume 3 Richard Stevens Nancy L. Shaw Chapters 24–29, Appendices, Index D C E i The Compilers _____________________________________ Stephen B. Monsen (retired), Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah Richard Stevens, Project Leader (retired), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Great Basin Research Center, Ephraim, Utah Nancy L.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Literature on Lepidoptera
    1965 Joumal of the Lepidopterists' Society 245 RECENT LITERATURE ON LEPIDOPTERA Under this heading are ineluded abstracts of papers and books of interest to lepidopterists. The world's literature is searched systematically, and it is intended that every work on Lepidoptera published after 1946 will be noticed here. Papers of only local interest and papers from this Joumal are listed without abstract. Read­ ers, not in North America, interested in assisting with the abstracting, are invited to write Dr. P. F . Bellinger (Department of Biological Sciences, San Fernando Valley State College, Northridge, California, U.S.A.). Abstractor's initials are as follows: [P.B.] - P. F. BELLINGER [W.H.] - W. HACKMAN [N.O.] - N. S. OBRAZTSOV [I.C.] - I. F. B. COMMON [T.I.] - TARO IWASE [C.R.] - C. L. REMINGTON [W.c.] - W. C. COOK [T.L.] - T. W. LA NGER [J.T.] - J. W. TILDEN [A.D.] - A. DIAKO NOFF [J.M.] - J. MOUCHA [P.V.] - P. E. L. VIETTE [J.D.] - JULIAN DO NAHUE [E.M.] - E. G. MUNROE B. SYSTEMATICS AND NOMENCLATURE Niculescu, Eugen, "Papilionidae" [in Rumanian]. Fauna Republicii Populare Ro­ mine, vol. XI, fasc. 5, 103 pp., 8 pIs., 32 figs. Academy of Sciences, Bucuresti. 1961. [price 6,40 Lei]. In the introductory part the author describes the taxonomy of all genera of Roumanian Papilionidae with remarks on the exotic species also. In the taxonomic part (pp.41-103 ) all spp. which occur in Rou­ mania are described. In this country occur: Papilw machaon, Iphiclides podalirius, Zerynthia polyxena, Z. cerisyi, Pamassius mnemosyne, & P. apollo. [J.
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights in the History of Entomology in Hawaii 1778-1963
    Pacific Insects 6 (4) : 689-729 December 30, 1964 HIGHLIGHTS IN THE HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGY IN HAWAII 1778-1963 By C. E. Pemberton HONORARY ASSOCIATE IN ENTOMOLOGY BERNICE P. BISHOP MUSEUM PRINCIPAL ENTOMOLOGIST (RETIRED) EXPERIMENT STATION, HAWAIIAN SUGAR PLANTERS' ASSOCIATION CONTENTS Page Introduction 690 Early References to Hawaiian Insects 691 Other Sources of Information on Hawaiian Entomology 692 Important Immigrant Insect Pests and Biological Control 695 Culex quinquefasciatus Say 696 Pheidole megacephala (Fabr.) 696 Cryptotermes brevis (Walker) 696 Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Boisduval) 697 Spodoptera exempta (Walker) 697 Icerya purchasi Mask. 699 Adore tus sinicus Burm. 699 Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) 700 Hedylepta blackburni (Butler) 700 Aedes albopictus (Skuse) 701 Aedes aegypti (Linn.) 701 Siphanta acuta (Walker) 701 Saccharicoccus sacchari (Ckll.) 702 Pulvinaria psidii Mask. 702 Dacus cucurbitae Coq. 703 Longuiungis sacchari (Zehnt.) 704 Oxya chinensis (Thun.) 704 Nipaecoccus nipae (Mask.) 705 Syagrius fulvitarsus Pasc. 705 Dysmicoccus brevipes (Ckll.) 706 Perkinsiella saccharicida Kirk. 706 Anomala orientalis (Waterhouse) 708 Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki 710 Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) 710 690 Pacific Insects Vol. 6, no. 4 Tarophagus proserpina (Kirk.) 712 Anacamptodes fragilaria (Grossbeck) 713 Polydesma umbricola Boisduval 714 Dacus dorsalis Hendel 715 Spodoptera mauritia acronyctoides (Guenee) 716 Nezara viridula var. smaragdula (Fab.) 717 Biological Control of Noxious Plants 718 Lantana camara var. aculeata 119 Pamakani,
    [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]
  • MOTHS and BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed Distributional Information Has Been J.D
    MOTHS AND BUTTERFLIES LEPIDOPTERA DISTRIBUTION DATA SOURCES (LEPIDOPTERA) * Detailed distributional information has been J.D. Lafontaine published for only a few groups of Lepidoptera in western Biological Resources Program, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. Scott (1986) gives good distribution maps for Canada butterflies in North America but these are generalized shade Central Experimental Farm Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 maps that give no detail within the Montane Cordillera Ecozone. A series of memoirs on the Inchworms (family and Geometridae) of Canada by McGuffin (1967, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) and Bolte (1990) cover about 3/4 of the Canadian J.T. Troubridge fauna and include dot maps for most species. A long term project on the “Forest Lepidoptera of Canada” resulted in a Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (Agassiz) four volume series on Lepidoptera that feed on trees in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada and these also give dot maps for most species Box 1000, Agassiz, B.C. V0M 1A0 (McGugan, 1958; Prentice, 1962, 1963, 1965). Dot maps for three groups of Cutworm Moths (Family Noctuidae): the subfamily Plusiinae (Lafontaine and Poole, 1991), the subfamilies Cuculliinae and Psaphidinae (Poole, 1995), and ABSTRACT the tribe Noctuini (subfamily Noctuinae) (Lafontaine, 1998) have also been published. Most fascicles in The Moths of The Montane Cordillera Ecozone of British Columbia America North of Mexico series (e.g. Ferguson, 1971-72, and southwestern Alberta supports a diverse fauna with over 1978; Franclemont, 1973; Hodges, 1971, 1986; Lafontaine, 2,000 species of butterflies and moths (Order Lepidoptera) 1987; Munroe, 1972-74, 1976; Neunzig, 1986, 1990, 1997) recorded to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Deadwood and Saproxylic Beetle Diversity in Naturally Disturbed and Managed Spruce Forests in Nova Scotia
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeysDeadwood 22: 309–340 and (2009) saproxylic beetle diversity in disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia 309 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.22.144 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia DeLancey J. Bishop1,4, Christopher G. Majka2, Søren Bondrup-Nielsen3, Stewart B. Peck1 1 Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 2 c/o Nova Scotia Museum, 1747 Summer St., Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 3 Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada 4 RR 5, Canning, Nova Scotia, Canada Corresponding author: Christopher G. Majka ([email protected]) Academic editor: Jan Klimaszewski | Received 26 March 2009 | Accepted 6 April 2009 | Published 28 September 2009 Citation: Bishop DJ, Majka CG, Bondrup-Nielsen S, Peck SB (2009) Deadwood and saproxylic beetle diversity in naturally disturbed and managed spruce forests in Nova Scotia In: Majka CG, Klimaszewski J (Eds) Biodiversity, Bio- systematics, and Ecology of Canadian Coleoptera II. ZooKeys 22: 309–340. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.22.144 Abstract Even-age industrial forestry practices may alter communities of native species. Th us, identifying coarse patterns of species diversity in industrial forests and understanding how and why these patterns diff er from those in naturally disturbed forests can play an essential role in attempts to modify forestry practices to minimize their impacts on native species. Th is study compares diversity patterns of deadwood habitat structure and saproxylic beetle species in spruce forests with natural disturbance histories (wind and fi re) and human disturbance histories (clearcutting and clearcutting with thinning).
    [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]
  • Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Scutelleridae)
    LUCIANA WEILER Morfologia do sistema eferente odorífero metatorácico e filogenia de Pachycorinae (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Scutelleridae) Tese apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Animal, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, como requisito parcial à obtenção do título de Doutor em Biologia Animal. Área De Concentração: Biologia Comparada Orientadora: Dra. Jocelia Grazia Coorientadora: Dra. Aline Barcellos UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL PORTO ALEGRE 2016 Morfologia do sistema eferente odorífero metatorácico e filogenia de Pachycorinae (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Scutelleridae) LUCIANA WEILER Aprovada em ______ de _____________________ de ______. Dr. José Antônio Marin Fernandes Dr. Luciano de Azevedo Moura Dr. Márcio Borges Martins Everything could have been anything else and it would have had just as much meaning. Tennessee Williams AGRADECIMENTOS À professora Jocelia, por todo o tempo que foi orientadora, conselheira e amiga. Por toda a experiência partilhada, por todos os ensinamentos e, principalmente, pela confiança em mim e no meu trabalho durante todos estes anos. Por me provar, sempre com tanta serenidade, que tudo tem jeito na vida. À minha coorientadora Aline Barcellos, por ter me aceitado no seu projeto e por todas as informações e conhecimentos acerca dos escutelerídeos compartilhados comigo. Aos curadores das coleções entomológicas, por terem me emprestado o material para o desenvolvimentos desse estudo; especialmente Joe Eger. À secretária do PPG-BioAnimal, minha parceira, Ana Paula, por toda a ajuda, auxílio, paciência e por ter solucionado tantos problemas meus durante todos esses anos. Pelas trocas de ideias, pela simplicidade e transparência. Valeu, queridona! Ao meu pai e minha mãe. Por toda compreensão e ajuda..
    [Show full text]
  • Basilia: a New Genus to the Albanian Bat Fly Fauna (Diptera: Nycteribiidae)
    Correspondence ISSN 2336-9744 (online) | ISSN 2337-0173 (print) The journal is available on line at www.biotaxa.org/em Basilia: a new genus to the Albanian bat fly fauna (Diptera: Nycteribiidae) TAMARA SZENTIVÁNYI1,2, ELÉONORE GENZONI1, LAURA CLÉMENT1, MARINA RADONJIĆ3, ERVIS LOCE4, PHILIPPE THÉOU4, OLIVIER GLAIZOT2, PHILIPPE CHRISTE1 1Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland 2Museum of Zoology, Place de la Riponne 6, CH-1014 Lausanne, Switzerland 3Public Enterprise for National Parks in Montenegro, Trg Vojvode Bećir Bega Osmanagića, 8100 Podgorica, Montenegro 4Department of Biology, University of Tirana, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Tirana, Albania Received 25 June 2016 │ Accepted 14 September 2016 │ Published online 16 September 2016. There are over 160,000 described dipteran species worldwide (Pape & Thompson 2013) and their role is essential in the ecosystems. Although the European Diptera fauna is quite well known, there are some countries, such as Albania, that are extremely understudied regarding dipterans. According to Pape & Beuk (2013) only 932 species and subspecies have been reported from Albania. Nycteribiidae is a small family within the Hippoboscoidea superfamily and it contains 275 species worldwide (Dick & Patterson 2006). Nycteribiid bat flies are obligate, wingless, blood-sucking ectoparasites of bats and 16 species have been described in Europe so far (Pape et al. 2015). Although the Albanian bat fauna is rich with its 32 recorded species (Sachanowicz et al. 2016), previous works on bat flies in this country are sparse. Seven species and one subspecies have been reported to the Albanian fauna. Namely, Nycteribia latreillii (Leach), N. pedicularia Latreille, N.
    [Show full text]