Inside - Yale Universityimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2010/2010_v52_n2.pdf · consulting Cramer’s illustrations, Turner & Parnell concluded that J. evarete represented

Volume 52, Number 2 Summer 2010

Inside:The Status of Junoniaevarete and J. genovevaThe BiogeographicalCase Against ButterflyReleasesNew Terminology forDescribing Mate-Locating Behavior ofLepidopteraProposed ConstitutionalAmendmentsDigital Collecting: TheState of the ArtField Museum’sCastniidae CollectionNow OnlineThe John BurroughsAssociationMembership Update,Metamorphosis,Marketplace…

…and more!

The Lepidopterists’ Society is a non-profiteducational and scientific organization. Theobject of the Society, which was formed inMay 1947 and formally constituted in De-cember 1950, is “to promote internationallythe science of lepidopterology in all itsbranches; to further the scientifically soundand progressive study of Lepidoptera, to is-sue periodicals and other publications onLepidoptera; to facilitate the exchange ofspecimens and ideas by both the professionalworker and the amateur in the field; to com-pile and distribute information to other or-ganizations and individuals for purposes ofeducation and conservation and appreciationof Lepidoptera; and to secure cooperation inall measures” directed towards these aims.(Article II, Constitution of The Lepidopter-ists’ Society.)

The News of the Lepidopterists’ Society(ISSN 0091-1348) is published quarterly byThe Lepidopterists’ Society, c/o Los AngelesCounty Museum of Natural History, 900 Ex-position Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007-4057,USA., and includes one or two supplementseach year. The Season Summary is pub-lished every year as Supplement S1 and ismailed with issue 1 of the News. In even num-bered years a complete Membership Direc-tory is published as Supplement S2 and ismailed with issue 4 of that volume of theNews. Please see the inside back cover for in-structions regarding subscriptions, submis-sions to, and deadline dates for, the News.

Periodicals Postage paid at Los Angeles, CAand at additional mailing office (Lawrence,KS).

POSTMASTER: Please send addresschanges to News of the Lepidopterists’Society, c/o Los Angeles County Museumof Natural History, 900 Exposition Blvd., LosAngeles, CA 90007-4057.

Copyright © 2010 by The Lepidopteris ts’Society. All rights reserved. The statementsof contributors do not necessarily representthe views of the Society or the editor and theSociety does not warrant or endorse prod-ucts or services of advertisers.

ContentsVolume 52, Number 2

Summer 2010

The Identities of Papilio evarete Cramer and Papilio genovevaCramer (Nymphalidae), with Notes on the Occurrence of Junoniaevarete in Florida

John V. Calhoun. .............................................................................................. 47Proposed Amendments to the Lepidopterists’ Society Constitution . 51Digital Collecting: The State of the Art

David Horner. .................................................................................................. 52Conservation Matters: Under Their Own Steam: The

Biogeographical Case Against Butterfly ReleasesRobert Michael Pyle. ........................................................................................ 54

New Terminology for Describing Mate-Locating Behavior of Butterflies(and Moths), with Examples in Colorado

James A. Scott. ................................................................................................ 58Flaiting Behavior on Hilltops in Day-Flying Alypia species

(Noctuidae, Agaristinae) that form a Mimicry Complex withAnania funebris (Pyralidae) and Bumblebees

James A. Scott. ................................................................................................ 63Membership Update and Metamorphosis Julian Donahue . .............................................................................................. 65New Membership Directory Notice Julian Donahue . .............................................................................................. 65The Marketplace. ............................................................................................... 66Less Common Butterflies of the Rocky Mountains George Krizek . ................................................................................................. 69The Mailbag. ........................................................................................................ 69John Burroughs Association

Gary Noel Ross. ............................................................................................... 70Parasitic Mite Larvae (Acari) on an Adult Strymon acis bartrami

(Lycaenidae)Mark H. Salvato and Holly L. Salvato. ........................................................ 71

Computerization of the Field Museum of Natural History GiantButterfly Moth Collection (Castniidae)James H. Boone, Jorge M. Gonzalez, Gracen M. Brilmyer

and Daniel Le. ................................................................................................. 72Executive Council/Season Summary Zone Coordinators. .............. 74, 75

Issue Date: May 30, 2010 ISSN 0091-1348

Front Cover:Bramble Hairstreak (Callophrys dumetorum), Charlton Flats, Angeles NationalForest, Los Angeles County, CA, April 1, 2007. Photo by David Horner.

Summer 2010 News of the Lepidopterists’ Society

Volume 52, Number 2 47

The Identities of Papilio evarete Cramerand Papilio genoveva Cramer

(Nymphalidae), with Notes on theOccurrence of Junonia evarete in Florida

John V. Calhoun

977 Wicks Drive, Palm Harbor, FL 34684 [email protected]

The true identities of Papilio evareteand Papilio genoveva have long beendisputed. Now placed in the genusJunonia Hübner, they were originallydescribed by the Dutch naturalistPieter Cramer (1721-1776) in hismultivolume publication (completed byCasper Stoll) on the butterflies of Asia,Africa, and America. Cramer’s typespecimens are lost, but he providedhand-colored engraved illustrations ofeach species (Pl. 203, figs. C & D andPl. 290, figs. E & F) (Cramer [1779],[1780]). These names were sub-sequently used to recognize seasonalforms and subspecies. They were evencombined into the subspecies J. evaretegenoveva (see Schwartz 1989 for areview of their usage). Uncertainty alsoplagued other aspects of their status.Miller & Brown (1981) mentioned thatthe type locality of P. genoveva was “notstated” and “probably West Indian,” yetCramer indicated that both species werefrom “Suriname” (South America).The identities of these taxa are ofparticular interest to those who studythe butterflies of the southern UnitedStates and Latin America.

A key investigation by Turner &Parnell (1985) confirmed that evareteand genoveva act as separate species inJamaica, which corroborated theobservations of Clench & Bjorndal(1980) in the Bahamas. Afterconsulting Cramer’s illustrations,Turner & Parnell concluded that J.evarete represented the speciescommonly known as the MangroveBuckeye, while J. genoveva denoted theTropical Buckeye. Most subsequentauthors followed this usage, but theapplication of these names remained

irregular. For his book on thebutterflies of North America, Scott(1986) elected to follow thenomenclature of Clench & Bjorndal(1980), who applied these names to theopposite species (J. Scott pers comm.).This enduring doubt caused someauthors (e.g. Opler & Malikul 1992) totranspose facts about each species.Based on an anticipated arrangementof Junonia by Lamas (2004), Opler andWarren (2002) also reversed the namesof these species relative to Turner &Parnell (1985). This nomenclature wasadopted for other publications,including the popular field guide byBrock & Kaufman (2003). Despite thistrend, only anecdotal evidencesupported its validity and onlineLepidoptera talk groups continued todebate the issue. These conflictinginterpretations left lepidopteristswithout a clear concept on which tobase identifications of evarete andgenoveva. This changed in 2008 withthe publication of the second volume ofthe comprehensive series of guidebooks, The Butterflies of Venezuela, byAndrew Neild. In fact, the nomen-clature employed by Opler & Warren(2002) and Lamas (2004) was based onNeild’s unpublished research.

To better understand the status of J.evarete and J. genoveva, Neild (2008)“dedicated a disproportionate amountof time to Venezuelan and continentalJunonia in an attempt to unravel theperceived enigma.” Because Cramerpurportedly based his descriptions andfigures on specimens from “Suriname,”Neild compared numerous specimensfrom that region of South America withthe original drawings that served as the

basis of Cramer’s publishedillustrations. Rendered by the Dutchartist Gerrit Wartenaar Lambertz(1747-1803), these illustrations aregenerally more detailed than theirengraved counterparts. AlthoughTurner & Parnell (1985) stated thatthey consulted the “original drawingsof Cramer,” it does not appear that theyexamined the drawings by Lambertz,but rather used this phrase in referenceto the published engravings. Neild(2008) also argued that severalcharacters used to separate thesespecies in Jamaica are “of limited or novalue for specific distinction of thecontinental populations.” He foundthat some of the characters used toidentify these species in Jamaica applyto the opposite species in the vicinity ofSuriname. Based on this evidence,Neild (2008) designated neotypes, whichobjectively defined these nominalspecies as Papilio evarete=TropicalBuckeye and Papilio genoveva=Mangrove Buckeye. This actionoverturned the interpretation of Turner& Parnell (1985). Although many ofCramer’s references to “Suriname” areerroneous, the similarity of his Junoniaillustrations to the butterflies of thatregion strongly supports Neild’sconclusions. To help familiarize otherlepidopterists with his research, AndrewNeild kindly granted me permission towrite this brief article and includerelevant images in a comparative format(Figs. 1-12). The original figures byLambertz have not previously beenpublished.

Neild (2008) asserted that males of J.evarete and J. genoveva can generallybe separated by the color of the ventral

News of the Lepidopterists’ Society Volume 52, Number 2

48 Summer 2010

1

1

B

C

1

2

4

2

3

4



4

2

4

1

4

677

1) dorsal engraving of Papilio evarete from Cramer ([1779]). 2) original dorsal drawing of P. evarete by G. W. Lambertz*.3) male neotype of P. evarete (dorsal) from Suriname. 4) ventral engraving of P. evarete from Cramer ([1779]). 5) originalventral drawing of P. evarete by Lambertz*. 6) male neotype of P. evarete (ventral) from Suriname. 7) dorsal engravingof Papilio genoveva from Cramer ([1780]). 8) original dorsal drawing of P. genoveva by Lambertz*. 9) female neotype ofP. genoveva (dorsal) from French Guiana. 10) ventral engraving of P. genoveva from Cramer ([1780]). 11) original ventraldrawing of P. genoveva by Lambertz*. 12) female neotype of P. genoveva (ventral) from French Guiana. 13) dorsalengraving of J. evarete zonalis from Sloane (1725). 14) ventral engraving of J. e. zonalis from Sloane (1725). 15) earliestknown specimen of J. evarete (dorsal) from Florida. (*© The Natural History Museum, London). 16-18) Junonia evaretezonalis, Miami-Dade Co., Florida: 16) dorsal male. 17) dorsal female. 18) ventral male.

surface of the antennal club. In evareteit is usually pale and similar in colorto the ventral shaft, while that ofgenoveva tends to be dark brown orbrownish-black, contrasting with thecolor of the shaft. In female evarete theventral club is variable in color, yet theextreme distal tip is usually pale. Theventral club of female genoveva isusually like that of the male. Turner& Parnell (1985) did not discuss thegenders of Cramer’s figured specimens.Pelham (2008) identified both as males,but Neild (2008) concluded that theywere likely females, though the figuresof evarete possess some malecharacteristics. Despite thisassessment, a male specimen wasselected to serve as the neotype ofevarete, as Cramer’s written descriptionwas based on both sexes and the ventralantennal club of female evarete isoccasionally darker, resembling that ofgenoveva (A. Neild, pers. comm.).Antennal coloration is seeminglyreliable in most areas, but this andother diagnostic features reportedlybreak down in parts of Mexico (A.Warren pers. comm.) and possiblyelsewhere. Hafernik (1982) suspectedthat these species are involved in acomplex pattern of interrelationshipsthat may not easily be reconciled

through conventional taxonomiccategories. Phylogenetic studies of thegenus Junonia by Kodandaramaiah &Wahlberg (2007) support the separationof evarete and genoveva (at leastbetween some West Indian andBrazilian populations), but evidencesuggests that additional subspecies and/or species await description within thisgroup (Brévignon 2004, Lamas 2004,Neild 2008). Images of these speciesfrom various geographic locations areavailable on the valuable website,Butterflies of America (Warren et al.2010).

Junonia evarete (Tropical Buckeye)ranges throughout much of theNeotropics northward to thesouthwestern United States andFlorida. Populations in southwesternNorth America are extremely variableand include the melanistic subspecies J.e. nigrosuffusa Barnes &McDunnough, whose status remainsunclear (it may involve multiplespecies). Florida populations areconsidered to represent the subspeciesJ. e. zonalis (C. Felder & R. Felder).Neild (2008) designated a male lectotypeof Junonia zonalis from among threesyntypes that were collected in Cubaduring the mid-19th century byJohannes (Juan) Gundlach (1810-

1896). These specimens were mentionedin the original description of zonalis byFelder and Felder (1867). The firstauthor to document this butterfly wasSloane (1725), who figured a specimenfrom Jamaica (Figs. 13, 14). Sloaneused no name, but described the speciesas “A small dark brown colour’dButterfly, with black spots like Eyesand some rusty marks.” He alsoremarked, “’Tis to be met withplentifully in the Savannas where itfrisks up and down taking no longFlight.” Butterflies recognized as J.genoveva (Mangrove Buckeye) arefound over a large portion of theNeotropics northward to Florida andTexas. It occurs locally in Floridaalong the coast of the central andsouthern peninsula in association withits hostplant, black mangrove(Avicennia germinans (L.)L.,Avicenniaceae). Populations in Texasare confined to the southern coast neartracts of black mangroves, but thesebutterflies are poorly understood andoften confused with phenotypes of J.evarete. Hybridization in this regionbetween these taxa and J. coeniacomplicates their identification.Northern populations of J. genovevaare not taxonomically defined.

Andrew Neild has contributed much to

Junonia evarete and J. genoveva: Past and Present


50 Summer 2010

our basic understanding of J. evareteand J. genoveva. Additional studies ofNeotropical Junonia will undoubtedlyreveal more surprises. Visitwww.thebutterfliesofvenezuela.com formore information about The Butterfliesof Venezuela. A glowing review of thesecond volume of this book waspublished recently by Penz (2010).

Junonia evarete in Florida. DuringNovember and December of 1981, J.evarete was found at several locationsin the Florida Keys and in the vicinityof Homestead on the Florida mainland(Baggett 1982a, 1982b, pers. comm.).This was thought to be first documentedoccurrence of this species in Florida.However, I discovered in the Universityof Michigan Museum of Zoology a singlemale of this species from Key Largo,collected on 16 August 1961 by ThomasE. Pliske (Fig. 15). It is possible thatJ. evarete has long occurred in Floridaas an irregular colonist, most likelyfrom Cuba, but overlooked because ofits similarity to J. genoveva andespecially the abundant J. coenia. The1961 specimen was found among aseries of J. genoveva, thus otherFlorida specimens of J. evarete may bemisidentified in collections. It is alsoconceivable that purported Floridahybrids between J. coenia and J.genoveva (Remington 1968, Scott 1986)include specimens of J. evarete. Theindividual of J. evarete found in 1961was thought to be such a hybrid (T.Pliske, pers. comm.) and I initiallymistook individuals of this species to behybrids when I encountered them onPlantation Key in 1981. Rutkowski(1971) observed on Big Pine Key whathe believed were “copulating pairsrepresenting various intergradations”between J. coenia and J. genoveva.Despite this potential confusion,Marcus (2007) confirmed that the DNAof J. genoveva and J. evarete fromFlorida show evidence of hybridizationwith J. coenia.

Junonia evarete remains restricted inFlorida to the extreme southernpeninsula and Keys, where it inhabitsweedy disturbed habitats in associationwith its hostplant, blue porterweed

(Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L.)Vahl;Verbenaceae). Several locations in theKeys where J. evarete occurred havebeen lost to development. This speciesis now most frequent along the grassymargins of drainage canals in westernand southern Miami-Dade County. Itis multivoltine and adults can be foundthroughout the year. They are mainlyactive during mid-afternoon, when theyperch and bask beside low levees thatparallel the larger canals (Figs. 16-18).Adults routinely settle on the ground,but are extremely wary and take flightat the slightest provocation. Thebutterflies briefly visit flowers,especially beggerticks (Bidens alba(L.)DC). In late afternoon I haveobserved both sexes retreating tobrushier areas, presumably to rest forthe evening. The origin of Floridapopulations remains underinvestigation (J. Marcus pers comm.).

AcknowledgementsThanks are extended to Andrew Neild for hismeticulous research, as well as for generouslysharing his evidence and supporting this article.He also offered helpful comments on an earlydraft of the manuscript. Rienk de Jong grantedpermission to reproduce images of the P. evareteneotype. Mark O’Brien photographed the 1961Florida specimen of J. evarete and ThomasPliske recalled its capture. Linda Cooperprovided the photos of living J. evarete. NickGrishin, Jeffrey Marcus, Charlie Sassine,James Scott, John Shuey, and Andy Warrendiscussed their experiences with Junonia.Beverly Pope and John Heppner assisted inobtaining literature. Thanks also to MarkSalvato for directing me to areas in southernFlorida where J. evarete was recently observed.

Literature CitedBaggett, H. D. 1982a. Report on the 1981

Homestead meeting. So. Lepid. News 3:19-23.

_____. 1982b. 1981 season summary: Florida.News Lepid. Soc. No. 2 (Mar/Apr):26-27.

Brévignon, C. 2004. Description de deuxnouvelles sous-espèces guadeloupéennes dugenre Junonia Hübner, 1819 (Lepidoptera,Nymphalidae, Nymphalinae) Lambillionea104 (1): 72-80.

Brock, J. P. & K. Kaufman. 2003. Butterfliesof North America. Houghton Mifflin, NewYork, New York. 383 pp.

Clench, H. K. & K. A. Bjorndal. 1980.Butterflies of Great and Little Inagua,Bahamas. Ann. Carnegie Mus. 49:1-30.

Cramer, P. [1779]. De Uitlandsche kapellenvoorkomende in de drei waereld-deelen Asia,

Africa en America [Papillons exotique destrois parties du monde l’Asia, l’Afrique etl’Amerique]. Vol. III. S. J. Baalde; Utrecht,Barthelemy Wild., Amsterdam. 1-128, pls.193-264.

_______. [1780]. De Uitlandsche kapellenvoorkomende in de drei waereld-deelen Asia,Africa en America [Papillons exotique destrois parties du monde l’Asia, l’Afrique etl’Amerique]. Vol. IV. S. J. Baalde; Utrecht,Barthelemy Wild., Amsterdam. 1-28, pls. 289-304.

Felder, C. & R. Felder. 1867. Reise derÖsterreichishischen Fregatte Novara um dieerde in den jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unterden befehlen des Commodore B. VonWüllerstorf-Urbair. Zoologischer theil.Zweiter band. Zweite abtheilung:Lepidoptera. Rhopalocera. 3:379-536, pls. 48-74.

Hafernik, J. E., Jr. 1982. Phenetics and ecologyof hybridization in buckeye butterflies(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Univ. Calif.Publ. Entomol. 96:i-vii, 1-109.

Kodandaramaiah, U. & N. Wahlberg. 2007.Out-of-Africa origin and dispersal-mediateddiversification of the butterfly genusJunonia (Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae). J.Evol. Biol. 20:2181-2191.

Lamas, G. (ed.). 2004). Checklist: Part 4A:Hesperioidea – Papilionoidea. In Heppner, J.B. (ed.), Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera.Vol. 5A. Assoc. Tropical Lepid.; Sci. Publ.,Gainesville, Florida.

Marcus, J. M. 2007. A history of invasion andhybridization in the buckeye butterflies(genus Junonia) of Florida. Presentationabstract. Pp. 15, In Program of the 58thAnnual Meeting of the Lepidopterists’ Society.Bakersfield, California.

Miller, L. D. & F. M. Brown. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America northof Mexico. Lepid. Soc. Mem. No. 2. vii+280pp.

Neild, A. F. E. 2008. The butterflies ofVenezuela. Part 2: Nymphalidae II(Acraeinae, Libytheinae, Nymphalinae,Ithomiinae, Morphinae). A comprehensiveguide to the identification of adultNymphalidae, Papilionidae, and Pieridae.Meridian Publ., London. 276 pp, 84 pl.

Opler , P. A. & V. Malikul. 1992. A field guide toeastern butterflies. Houghton Mifflin,Boston, Massachusetts. xvii+396 pp.

Opler, P. A. & A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterfliesof North America. 2. Scientific names listfor butterfly species of North America, northof Mexico. Contrib. C. P. Gillette Mus. Arth.Biodiv., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins,Colorado. 79 pp.

Pelham, J. P. 2008. A catalogue of thebutterflies of the United States and Canada,with a complete bibliography of thedescriptive and systematic literature. J. Res.Lepid. 40:i-xiv, 1-652.

Penz, C. 2010. Book review: the butterflies ofVenezuela, Part 2: Nymphalidae II(Acraeinae, Libytheinae, Nymphalinae,Ithomiinae, Morphinae), by Andrew F. E.



Competitor and matesignaling in satyrines

Neild. J. Lepid. Soc. 64:51-51.Remington, C. L. 1968. Suture-zones of hybrid

interaction between recently joined biotas.Evol. Biol. 2:321-428.

Rutkowski, F. 1971. Notes on some southFlorida Lepidoptera. J. Lepid. Soc. 25:137-139.

Scott, J. A. 1986. Butterflies of North America:a natural history and field guide. StanfordUniv. Pr., Stanford, California. xv+583 pp.,64 pl.

Sloane, 1725. A voyage to the islands Madera,Barbadoes, Nieves, St. Christophers, and

Jamaica; with the natural history of the herbsand trees, four-footed beasts, fishes, birds,insects, reptiles, &c. of the last of thoseislands. To which is prefix’d, an introduction,wherein is an account of the inhabitants, air,waters, diseases, trade, &c. of that place; withsome relations concerning the neighbouringcontinent, and islands of America. Illustratedwith the figures of the things described, whichhave not been heretofore engraved. In largecopper-plates as big as the life. Vol. II. Author,London, England. xviii+499 pp., pls. 157-274.

Schwartz, A. 1989. The butterflies of

Hispaniola. Univ. Florida Pr., Gainesville,Florida. xii+580 pp.

Turner, T. W. & J. R. Parnell. 1985. Theidentification of two species of JunoniaHübner (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): J.evarete and J. genoveva in Jamaica. J. Res.Lepid. 24:142-153.

Warren, A. D., K. J. Davis, N. V. Grishin, J. P.Pelham, E. M. Stangeland. 2010. Butterfliesof America. Interactive listing of Americanbutterflies. Website: http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com.

X

Proposed Amendment A

Add to Article III Section 7 at the end of the last sentence:

“, except that election of Charter Members, defined inSection 3 of this Article, shall not be limited by thismaximum.”

Add to Article V Section 3 at the end of the last sentence:

“except that election of Charter Members may exceed thestated limit of two in one year.”

Proposed Amendments B

Article VII section 1 shall be amended as follows: In thefirst sentence delete: “in affiliation with the InternationalCongress of Entomology or the annual meeting of theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science orat such other” and replace with “at such time and place asthe Executive Council may determine.”

Article IX, Section 1 shall be amended to include the WebEditor as part of the Editorial Board.

Article XI shall be amended to include the following newsections:

Section 3. The Archivist shall be appointed by theExecutive Council. The Archivist shall serve for three years,or until a successor shall have been appointed.

Section 4. the Archivist shall have charge of the archivesof Society and shall coordinate with the Librarian withrespect thereto.

All uses of masculine pronouns in the Constitution shallbe amended to include the feminine as well, i.e. referencesto “he” shall become “he or she,” references to “him” shallbecome “her or him,” etc.

Proposed Amendment C

Article VII of the Constitution shall be amended as follows.

Delete the current Section 2 and replace with the following:

Section 2. The Executive Council may conduct business ofthe Society between meetings. Actions and decisions of theExecutive Council shall be made available to the Society assoon as practicable, but in no event later than the annualmeeting following the actions or decisions.

Section 3. A quorum of the Executive Council shall consistof a majority of the active members of the Executive Council.

Section 4. In addition to the annual meeting of the ExecutiveCouncil, meetings of the Executive Council may be heldremotely via conference calls in lieu of in-person meetings.Between meetings, the Executive Council may take actionsor make decisions by mail or electronic means, provided: ifany member of the Executive Council requests that the matterto be decided or acted upon be put over to a meeting of theExecutive Council, it shall not be decided or acted upon untilthe next meeting of the Executive Council.

Section 5. Whenever a matter is to be decided or acted uponby the Executive Council between meetings, there shall beseven days for discussion of the matter followed by seven daysfor the votes of the members of Executive Council to be cast.If a member of the Executive Council does not cast a voteduring the seven day voting period, it shall be deemed anabstention.

Proposed Amendments to theLepidopterists’ Society Constitution

The following three amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Lepidopterists’ Society have been proposed bythe Executive Council. A complete copy of the Constitution and By-Laws can be found in the 2008 Membership Directory.If any member has questions or concerns about the proposed amendments they should direct them to the members of theExecutive Council. Mailing and email addresses for the Executive Council can be found in this issue on page 75.


52 Summer 2010

Digital Collecting:

Like many young boys I enjoyedexploring the woods, ponds andmeadows on the fringes of a growingsuburb, looking for any critters I couldget my hands on. I brought homegarter snakes, salamanders and evensome Monarch caterpillars that weresuccessfully raised in a large glass jarin our backyard. But my interest in thestudy of Lepidoptera came by accidentdecades later out of a simple butpressing need to organize a rapidlygrowing collection of digitalphotographs. For years I carried acamera and macro lens with me as Ihiked the temperate rain forests ofcoastal British Columbia but I neverhad a particular subject in mind. WhenI first explored Southern California Istruggled to interpret this newenvironment through my lens beforestumbling onto a large colony ofEuphydryas chalcedona in the SanGabriel Mountains. Surrounded byhundreds of butterflies each intricatelypatterned and coloured, I found myinspiration and it quickly became theprimary subject of my photography.

Occasionally I find myself having toexplain why I drove hundreds of milesto find an insect the size of a postagestamp, and it’s in these moments I’mglad I take pictures. Nothing explainsan obsession with butterflies quite likea well-executed photograph. Its appealis universal.

The truth is butterfly photographershave it rough. If you’re carrying a netor binoculars, you’re up against awhole lot less. If we want to come homewith decent photos we need to get upclose and personal with our subjects. Ishoot butterflies with a Digital SLRand have adapted various tools and

David Horner

655 Copeland Ct. Apt. D, Santa Monica, CA 90405 [email protected]

Butterfly Photography andthe State of the Art

techniques but my single most valuablegadget in the field is an angle finder. It’sa little inverted periscope that attachesto the eyepiece and is responsible formore than half of my successful images.It allows me to approach from theground up and work effectively mereinches above the earth and rocks wheremost of my subjects live. Of course thefirst thing I bought after the angle-finder was a pair of knee-pads… Onceyou have this ability a whole new worldopens up photographically but it’s acruel place for grown-up knees. WhenI’m shooting Metalmarks for example,I shuffle through the hot gravel on mypads while cradling the camera in myhands, curled over the eyepiece. Thiscreates one solid mass moving slowlytowards the insect with no limbs orgiant camera moving into theirairspace. This is about ten times moreeffective than coming in from above andstretching out my hand. If I can pullthis off and move like the wind, I canbecome a portrait photographer insteadof a paparazzo. Since I won’t have theopportunity to view this specimen on aspreading board I want to record themost detailed and complete viewpossible.

The angle finder lives on a strap aroundmy neck and makes me look like a filmdirector. However, as gadgets go, it’s notexactly hi-tech. On the other hand, myGPS unit has no less thanrevolutionized my digital collection. Ithangs off my backpack and all I haveto do is turn it on, then connect it tomy computer when I get home. Now Ican click on an image I shot years agoand within seconds I’m printing outdirections in Google Maps. I’ve evenused this data to program proximity

alarms into the GPS. Now when I’mtraveling one of those long mountainroads where everything starts to lookthe same, I’ll hear a beep and see“Plebejus podarce cilla” flashing inbright yellow as it counts down theyards. If you’ve ever lost track of a littlespot you visited some time ago you’lllove it as much as I do. Truth is Iusually know where I’m going to stopbefore it beeps but I still think it’s coolwhen it does…and it’s saved me enoughtimes to earn it’s keep.

In fact Geotagging is just one kind ofmetadata that makes digital collectingexciting. There are endless possibilitiesfor encoding valuable information, andwith the right software tools you cancustomize this to your needs. I’ve re-tasked some of the database cellsintended for press photographers tostore common names, scientific names,gender and plant names. Now I thinkof it, I could make some to filter larvaeand adults since they share the samename… The point is, it’s up to me todecide what’s important informationand how to organize, retrieve andcollate the data. The current trend insoftware design is so-called “SmartFilters” and I’m crazy about them. InAdobe Lightroom I have smartcollections for each species by scientificname. As soon as I label a group ofphotos they automatically populatethose collections. Since I’m mostly aweekend warrior I have my butterflyphotographs tagged with a weeklynumber from 1 to 52. Before I head outnext Sunday I can see what’s been flyingthis week in previous years along withthe locations and species photographed.With a couple mouse clicks I can bring

Continued on p. 71



1) Sierra Nevada Blue (Plebejus podarce cilla), Sherman Pass, CA,June 28, 2009; 2) White-lined Sphinx (Hyles lineata), HomewoodCanyon, CA, April 13, 2009; 3) Dainty Sulpher (Nathalis iole), LittleHell Canyon, AZ, September 8, 2007; 4) Mormon Fritillary (Speyeriamormonia), Sherman Pass, CA, July 26, 2009; 5) Mormon Metalmark(Apodemia mormo cythera) Grizzly Flat, Angeles National Forest, LACo. CA, July 27, 2008. All photos: David Horner. See back cover formore photos.

1

2

3

4

5


54 Summer 2010

Who among us cannot recall a butterflyencountered where we least expected tofind it? A range extension, a county ormaybe even a state record, a speciesfound way outside our experience of itshabitat, elevational limits, or flightperiod? Such anomalous findings arenot only exciting, intriguing, and fun,they are the very stuff of biogeography:the science of what occurs where, andwhy, or if it doesn’t, why not. Nobranch of biology is more critical thesedays to conservation, interpretation ofclimate change and its impacts, and theoverall response of organisms to adynamic world, than biogeography.And few activities are less helpful tobiogeographical studies than thedeliberate shifting of animals andplants from hither to yon.

We who study butterfly distributionlabor today under the thoroughlyunhelpful and disruptive practice ofcommercial butterfly releases. In thisactivity, mercantile breeders rearlivestock to sell for release by schools,at weddings, funerals, and otherceremonies, and the like. Such releasesare represented as educational and“green”’ to unwitting customers. Forexample, Anderson (2008) quotedEsther Novis of The Young ScientistsClub, “a company that makes a varietyof nature kits,” as saying “Childrenwant to be more involved with ‘savingtheir earth.’” In the same source,Vanessa Toews, the suitably namedrepresentative of Insect Lore, the majorshipper of painted lady butterflies, says:“After the metamorphosis has occurredinside the habitat (indoors) [sic], weencourage our customers to release the

Conservation Matters:Contributions from the Conservation Committee

Under Their Own Steam: The BiogeographicalCase Against Butterfly Releases

Robert Michael Pyle

Swede Park, 369 Loop Road, Gray’s River, Washington 98621-9702 [email protected]

insect into a natural environment.”Never mind that the naturalenvironment might not be suitable forsuch releases.

Butterfly releases have long beencontroversial and generally ill-receivedby both amateur and professionalstudents of Lepidoptera. In an early actof resistance, the presidents of theLepidopterists’ Society, the XercesSociety, and the North AmericanButterfly Association collaborated towrite a letter protesting this practice.Their letter was ultimately edited byNABA, posted on its website, andaugmented with additional discussion(Glassberg et al, 2005). Subsequently,Xerces Society staff members and thiswriter studied the issue in detail andpromulgated a new policy on releases,which also summarizes the breedingtrade and the overall topic (Pyle et al,2010). While both of these statementsrefer to potential genetic, disease,ethical, and other considerationspertaining to releases, the Xerces policyrecognizes that the primary problem isbiogeographical confusion. This essayconcerns only that aspect of the issue.

Proponents of butterfly releases, chieflythose engaged in the activitycommercially, argue that theiropponents lack data to back up theircomplaints. They say there is noevidence to prove our contentions. Inthe case of genetic disruption ordiseases, such evidence would entaildamage already done, so perhaps theprecautionary principle should apply.But when it comes to interference withour understanding of butterflydistribution, the evidence is empirical,

ipso facto, and irrefutable: when youtake a butterfly from point A andrelease it at point B, our perception ofwhich butterflies normally occupy pointB is automatically skewed: this pointcannot logically be argued against: ifyou want to know what flies where, youdon’t mess with it.

This has nothing to do with anymoralistic view of “natural” vs.“unnatural” distribution. Everythinghumans do affects the existence of otherorganisms, and in one important sense,if we consider ourselves part of thebiological community, all we do is partof natural history. That doesn’t meanthat everything we do is acceptable, bystandards we establish for ourselvesout of our sense of what is good forsociety and its individuals, and what isnot. My argument is that when weknowingly manipulate animals’whereabouts, we lose the opportunityto understand where they occur on theirown; and that this has potentialconsequences worth considering (Pyle,1998).

USDA policy permits nine species(Agraulis vanillae, Danaus plexippus,Heliconius charitonius, Papiliocresphontes, Papilio polyxenes,Nymphalis antiopa, Vanessa atalanta,V. cardui, V. virginiensis) to be releasedacross state lines, according to aspecified matrix that is supposed to keepspecies within their native ranges(Wehling, 2003). But some of thepermitted, so-called “native” territorylies at or beyond the edge of normaldistribution of the species involved, soreleases there may confuse strays,vagrants, and colonists with resident



“natives.” Furthermore, while a speciesmay indeed have been historicallyrecorded from the release destination,that does not mean it occurs there atthe time of release: biogeography has atemporal dimension as well as a spatialone, and this is often ignored orforgotten. For example, several yearsago a spate of very rare gulf fritillaries(Agraulis vanillae) turned up in Ohio(J. Peacock,. pers. comm.), causinggreat excitement among butterflyrecorders. Did they get there on theirown, or did they have help? The USDAmatrix permits gulf frit release in Ohio.It is easy to see how releases couldperturb butterfly monitoring transects,annual butterfly counts, our society’sSeason’s Summary, and many othermeasures of presence and absence.

The breeders contend that the vastproportion of their trade involves onlytwo species, the monarch (Danausplexippus) and the painted lady(Vanessa cardui). That fact fails tocomfort me. Let’s look first atmonarchs. In 1996, I showed that acertain proportion of monarchs foundwest of the Continental Divide actuallymigrate into Mexico, against fifty-plusyears of received wisdom to thecontrary (Pyle, 1999; Brower and Pyle,2004). Subsequent studies with wildmonarchs have confirmed this (ChrisKline, pers. comm.), showing that thewestern monarch picture (and thus theoverall monarch conservation picture)is much more complex than longimagined: we must consider the entireNorth American migratory monarchphenomenon as an integrated system.Where did that long-held yet erroneousshibboleth of the Continental Divide asBerlin Wall for monarchs come from,anyway? From releases! As shown inUrquhart (1977), it was largelyCalifornia monarchs, transferred,tagged, and released in BritishColumbia, and recovered back inCalifornia, that gave rise to the notionthat all western monarchs winter onthe California coast. Urquhart, a greatmonarch pioneer, ignored otherrecoveries of wild Idaho monarchs thatpointed toward Mexico, while

overvaluing those fictive West Coastrelease recoveries (Pyle, 1999). To thisday, certain of his former collaboratorsfail to grasp the straightforward factthat a monarch taken from A, releasedat B, and recovered at C, says nothingabout what wild monarchs originatingat B might actually do, or where theyreally go.

One of the sensible aspects of USDArelease policy disallows mixture ofeastern and western monarchs, thanksto a paper by key monarch scientists(Brower et al, 1995). Some have triedto use my results to break down thatsmart legal barrier. But just becausesome western monarchs go to Mexicodoes not mean that the entire East andWest monarch kingdoms are panmictic!Clearly, they maintain substantiallydifferent evolutionary patterns, and tomix them willy-nilly could bedisastrous. At a time when the entirefuture of the North American migratorymonarch phenomenon is morethreatened than ever (lowest winternumbers ever recorded in both Mexicoand California (Monarch Watch), illegallogging in Mexico (Brower et al, manypapers), Roundup-Ready soy and BTcorn in the North, development andspraying of milkweed stands(Cherubini, pers. comm.), prolongeddrought, climate change, and on andon), it has become crucial for us tounderstand their continental move-ments—under their own steam!

When celebrants are misled intothinking that they are doing somethingecologically acceptable, even positive,by tossing monarchs into the void attheir events, they are in fact party toscientific vandalism; rather than acting“green,” they are helping to undermineour ability to correctly interpret theresponse of wild monarchs to all thechallenges they face. This isparticularly true in the West, wheremonarchs are fewer, more scattered,and far less well understood in theirmigration than in the Midwest andfarther east. For just one example,consider the Willamette Valley ofOregon. Showy milkweed (Asclepiasspeciosa) is indigenous north to about

Salem. A vigorous program to restoremilkweed stands has been underway, atwineries and other open space reserves,to receive summer monarchimmigrants. But how can those incharge gain any clear idea of how theirefforts are faring, when weddingmonarchs are dumped into the environsof Eugene, Salem, and Portland? Forall these reasons, it is my strongopinion that monarch transfer andrelease beyond their county of naturalorigin should be illegal.

So what about painted ladies? Manypeople, even among those who despisereleases in general, see little harm in theindustrial painted lady trade, since“they occur everywhere.” But really,they don’t. Painted lady immigrations(from a U.S./Canada standpoint,emigrations from a Mexican view) areevents of great subtlety and wild annualfluctuations. Most years, painted ladiesare absent to uncommon in most places,while other years they close freewayswith their sheer numbers. I contendthat Vanessa cardui comprises one ofthe great scientific mysteries inAmerican biology, with a great deal stillto be learned—except that the systemhas been utterly compromised by therelease of millions of ladies each yearby schoolchildren. Eric Metzler (pers.comm.) informs me that inAlamogordo, NM, every year at theEarth Day celebration, hundreds (ifnot thousands) of painted ladies arereleased by the local schoolchildren,who reared them for the purpose.Though on a lesser scale, this activityis mirrored across the country. Thisremarkable migrant and scientificallyfecund organism has been reduced to anindustrial animal, like Bombyx mori orGallus gallus domesticus. Unlike silkmoths or chickens, there are still wildpainted ladies; but how to tell them inthe field from domestic stock, blithelytossed around like so many beads atMardi Gras? We have, in effect, lostthis animal to biogeographical science.

But what I consider a loss to science,others consider a gain in classroomterms. Do the educational benefits ofindustrial V. cardui make up for their


56 Summer 2010

sacrifice in the wild? The answer seemsto lie in the eyes of the beholder. I havevisited many second-grade classroomswhere children loved their paintedladies, and have seen their smiles formyself. But I have seen their tears, too,when disappointed by butterfly deathand morbidity from inbreedingdepression and disease; and I’ve heardteachers tell of painted ladies thrashedback and forth on windshield wipers inMarch sleet after planned butinfelicitous release events. I alsoquestion the quality of the educationalexperience. Caterpillars arriving in abox, feeding on agar, pupating indoors,then released at a time and place theymay not belong—is this any optimalway to learn about leps? It strikes meas a sadly second-rate take on butterflylives, compared to local animalssubsisting on real plants.

It is indeed harder for teachers to bringwild insects indoors than it used to be:habitats have retreated, administratorsdiscourage field trips, their time istaken with standard tests, and so on.And yet, as Richard Louv shows in LastChild in the Woods (1995), children’sdirect contact with the more-than-human in the out-of-doors isdramatically declining, with balefulconsequences (hence our society’sOuternet Project). “No child leftbehind” should be no excuse to give upon “no child left inside.” I knowteachers who learn the local fauna wellenough to expose their pupils to allstages of metamorphosis withoutresorting to spending scarce districtdollars on virtual lab clones maskingas butterflies. It may be up to NABAchapters and Lep Soc volunteers, butwe should not give up on wild, plant-eating Lepidoptera in our classroomsand schoolyards in place of commercialsimulacra, whenever possible. Localwooly bears work fine!

In the meantime, industrial paintedladies may be better than nothing,especially in the city. Respectedlepidopterists who subscribe to most ofthe precepts in this piece believe that V.cardui kits furnish valuable exposurefor students to butterfly life cycles (D.

Wagner, F. Sperling pers. comm.).Maybe so. But would it not be possibleto utilize them so, without releasingthem? Of course the act of release iscathartic and sentimentallyrewarding—I have experienced itmyself, and I understand its appeal. Forsome adults, rearing a butterflywithout release is tantamount to coitusinterruptus. But for kids, keeping themindoors until they die naturally wouldbe a far better lesson than releasingthem into inhospitable conditions, orreinforcing that it’s OK to plunkcritters here and there—bullfrogs outof range, anyone? Should we releaseclassroom koi and cichlids into localponds? After all, if it is okay to releaseladies where we will, why noteverything else? It seems to me thatsetting painted ladies free far from theirpoint of origin just reinforces the ideathat animal chess is A-OK. Surelychildren should learn to respect bioticintegrity as a matter of course.

Another good reason to resist transfersof vanessids is that they may be highlyinstructive of climate change. Onerecent, mild February, Thea Pyle foundan American painted lady along theColumbia River estuary in Washington,and Mike Patterson recorded a V. carduiacross the river in Oregon: the firstNorthwest winter records for both.Overwintering red admirals are alsoincreasing in incidence. All three ofthese highly vagile species can beexpected to advance to the north aswinters ameliorate. But to what availtheir monitoring for such change, inview of releases? When I saw a paintedlady in 2008 at Coldfoot, Alaska, on theway to the North Slope, did it get thereon its own? (Ken Philip, pers. comm.,has very few Alaskan records, andtrusts none of them.) The painted ladymay already be lost, and I am not naiveenough to think the industry based onit will be constrained. I would like tourge responsible teachers, however, notto release them, and to use thatdecision as a teachable moment in theirclassrooms.

John Calhoun (pers. comm.) shared acompelling example of the “falsified

distribution” that can result fromreleases, involving Dryas iulia inFlorida. During a meeting inGainesville, he and Lee Miller observeda Julia longwing feeding on flowers. Asthe species is extremely rare innorthern Florida, Calhoun captured itwith his hands. Later they sawanother Julia flying around the presentsite of the McGuire Center. Soon theydiscovered that someone had releasedsome butterflies prior to the meetingthat “may have included somejulias.” Challenged on it, the personargued that “the species occurred inFlorida, so he didn’t see why it wassuch a big deal.” As Calhoun wrote,“Had we not been aware of this release,these specimens would surely be pinnedin the McGuire Center and consideredto be valuable captures.” And whatabout the cluster of queens thatappeared at Tri-Cities, Washington,along the Snake River, not long ago—vanguards of expansion, or merereleases? Such edge-of-range records, ifgenuine, may sign responses towarming trends. They hold thecapacity to teach us a great deal aboutour shifting climate—unless well-meaning but misguided people manglethe available data through releases.

One misconception often trotted out isthat the number of released individualslikely to be recorded must be so low asto be statistically insignificant. Google“butterfly releases,” then tell mewhether you think the chances ofspotting one are “insignificant.”Regardless, this attitude belies anignorance of basic biogeographicalpractice: biological distribution is nota statistical condition. The basic unitof biogeography is the dot on the map.When the reliability of any one datumis suspect, then no datum can be fullytrusted. Thus, every single instance ofa released butterfly apprehended means“garbage in” to the data base. Ergo,all releases potentially matter.

Jonathan Pelham, author of the Catalogof the Butterflies of the United Statesand Canada and co-coordinator of theNorthwest Lepidoptera Survey, will nolonger accept any records of monarchs



from Washington because of theirfundamental unreliability thanks toreleases. That fact alone should makethe case. If not, consider the integrityof our state butterfly surveys, whichserve as cornerstones of naturalheritage programs and conservationplanning. The release of songbirds hasbeen illegal for decades; many feel it ishigh time to accord equal regard for ourbutterflies and their unmonkeyedranges. One breeder told me that sinceplants are already so mixed up, why notbutterflies? Why not indeed? Do wereally want our butterfly fauna to sufferthe same tossed-salad treatment thatour native flora has withstood? If so,release away. The plain fact is, we donot respect and promote theunderstanding of our native fauna andflora by moving them about like pawnson the landscape map.

Of course, legitimate releases forconservation and reestablishmentpurposes do occur. These includeOregon Zoo’s rearing program for thethreatened Oregon silverspots, andendangered mission blue reintro-ductions in San Francisco. But suchexercises will always be rare, wellplanned, carefully controlled, and fullydocumented exercises, conducted withfull knowledge of the historical rangeof the species. John Calhoun (pers.comm.) intercepted a nature center’splans to “re”introduce Eumaeus atalain a county where it had never actuallybeen known to occur. The project wasaborted, but not without expense andembarrassment for the planners Morethan thirty years ago, the JointCommittee for the Conservation ofBritish Insects adopted a policy againstinsect introductions, unless carefullyresearched, planned, and recorded. Itis far past time to adopt a similar policyhere; but so far, IBBA seems to haveUSDA’s ear more than NABA, Xerces,or the Lepidopterists’ Society. Thatmoney talks should be no surprise, butthat scientific opinion should be ignoredis unfortunate. At the very least, avigorous and open-minded dialogueshould ensue, and USDA policies bethoroughly revisited.

In an editorial based largely (andadmittedly) on information furnishedby commercial butterfly suppliers, theprominent Australian insectconservationist T. R. New (2008) wrote,“there seems to be little confirmedconservation concern arisingfrom...ceremonial releases ofbutterflies.” I hope the present essaysuggests to my colleague, friend, andsometime co-author that this statementof his was off the mark. Appliedbiogeography is one of the greatesttools of conservation, and as such, anyactivity that interferes with it, asreleases do, is a serious concern.

I do not demonize the butterfly breedersand releasers, some of them admiredfriends. In fact, I am going willinglyinto the lion’s maw this fall, during mybook tour for Mariposa Road, to speakto the International Butterfly Breeders’Association on the subject of commonground. As well as sharing with mesome of the above viewpoints, thepresident of IBBA, Dale McClung (pers.comm.) has also indicated his and hiscolleagues’ willingness to discussmutual concerns. Perhaps there areways we can work together, by makingsure all their stock is raised from trulylocal, wild sources and not shippedoutside the county of origin, as theXerces policy suggests; or maintainedindoors in schools. While somebreeders are merely in it for the moneyand might as well be peddling widgets,I believe most of them really lovebutterflies, as we do. But most did notbegin as collectors, and therefore lackour sense of excitement based onbutterflies’ natural whereabouts. Ibelieve they simply fail to understandthe real concerns their activities raise.

Speaking of Mariposa Road, when Iundertook the first Butterfly Big Yearacross the USA throughout 2008, itmattered very much to me whether eachbutterfly I encountered could be trustedto have landed where it was, under itsown steam. I believe it should matterto us all.

References cited:Anderson, Kari. 2008. Insects, ants, and plants:

Why this category is coming alive. edplayDecember, p. 16-18.

Brower, L.P. and 14 co-authors. 1995. On thedangers of interpopulational transfers ofmonarch butterflies. Bioscience 45: 540-44.

Brower, Lincoln P. and Robert M. Pyle. 2004.The interchange of migratory monarchsbetween Mexico and the western UnitedStates, and the importance of floral corridorsto the autumn and spring migrations. InConserving Migratory Pollinators andNectar Corridors in Western NorthAmerica. Edited by Gary Paul Nabhan,Chapter 8, pp. 144-166. Tucson: Universityof Arizona Press.

Glassberg, Jeffrey, Paul Opler, Robert M. Pyle,Robert Robbins, and James Tuttle. There’sno need to release butterflies—they’re alreadyfree. http://www.naba.org/weddings.html

Louv, Richard. 1995. The Last Child in theWoods: Saving Our Children From NatureDeficit Disorder. Chapel Hill: AlgonquinBooks.

New, T. R. 2008. Are butterfly releases atweddings a conservation concern oropportunity? Journal of Insect Conservation12: 93-95.

Pyle, Robert Michael. 1998. The Biogeographyof Hope: Why transporting butterflies is abad idea. Monarch News 8 (6): 6-7.

Pyle, Robert Michael. 1999. Chasing Monarchs:Migrating with the Butterflies of Passage.Boston: Houghton Mifflin company.

Pyle, Robert M., Sarina J. Jepsen, ScottHoffman Black and Mia Monroe. 2010.Xerces Society Policy on ButterflyReleases. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/xerces-butterfly-release-policy.pdf

Urquhart, F. A. and N. R. Urquhart. 1977.Overwintering areas and migratory routesof the monarch butterfly (Danaus p.plexippus, Lepidoptera: Danaidae) in NorthAmerica, with special reference to the westernpopulation. The Canadian entomologist 109:1583-89.

Wehling, Wayne. 2003. USDA-APHIS-PPQButterfly Environmental Release DecisionChart.www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/butterflies/index.html


58 Summer 2010

Mate-locating behavior is an important,but poorly-reported, subject. Effectivemate-locating behavior allows butterflyspecies to exist at a low density thatwould lead them to extinction withoutit. So it is key to the existence of mostof the 17000 butterfly species on earth.Yet mate-locating behavior of most ofthose species is still unknown.

Because of confusion in current namesfor mate-locating behavior, newunambiguous, simple, and practicalnames are required. The new names areused here to describe new mate-locating-behavior for some Coloradobutterflies, and then are used todescribe interesting new mate-locatingbehavior in some day-flying moths thatseem to be involved in mimicry.

Following are the new names fordescribing mate-locating behavior, firstproposed by Scott (2006).

RAIT—males rest (land), wait, andwatch at a genetic mating site forfemales to arrive at that rendezvoussite for mating, where males fly out toinvestigate passing individuals to see ifthey are receptive females.

FLAIT—males fly around a smallgenetic mating site (and mayoccasionally land), to wait for femalesto arrive at that rendezvous site formating.

FLEEK—males fly farther (asubstantial portion of the habitat) tosearch for receptive females for mating.Males of both these types investigateindividuals they see while flying.

FLENT—males in most moths fly(often far) to find a scent (pheromone)that the female emits to lure the malefor mating. (In Hepialidae, the females

New Terminology for Describing Mate-Locating Behavior of Butterflies (andMoths), with Examples in Colorado

James A. Scott

60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 USA [email protected]

flent to find the pheromone-emittingmales.)

These new names are based on simplecombinations of words (Rest to awAITfemales=RAIT; FLy to awAITfemales=FLAIT; FLy to sEEKfemales=FLEEK; FLy to locate thefemale by scENT=FLENT). Eachname can be used as adjectives, nouns,or verbs: one can discuss raiting species(or flaiting, fleeking, flenting species)or raiting etc. behavior. Species doingthat behavior are raiters (others areflaiters, fleekers, flenters), or one cansay that those species or their malesrait (while others flait, fleek, flent).

Moths are important too!, as butterfliesare just day-flying Ditrysia moths. Mostmoths flent, as the female emits a scent(pheromone), usually at night, whenthe male flies around (across the windto first pick up the scent) to detect thescent, then he zigzags upwind throughthe scent plume (using the “stereo”scent-detection capability of his twoantennae) until he reaches the female,whereupon he releases anotheraphrodisiac pheromone to convince thefemale of his conspecificity, and matingensues. Day-flying males likeHemileuca flent to locate females, andcan be lured to cages containing virginfemales.

These four new words cannot beconfused with other words because noneare in Webster’s unabridged englishdictionary, and none are in german orfrench or spanish or latin dictionaries.So these words are unambiguous,precise, simple, and practical, and willprovide a good system for describing themate-locating behavior of butterfliesand other insects, without the

ambiguity that now plagues theliterature.

But a complete description of the mate-locating behavior of a species includesTHREE parts: the method used to bringthe sexes together described by theabove words (do males rait, flait, fleek,or flent?), where in the habitat they doit, and when they do it. Where do thesexes come together?, on hilltops?, ingulches?, on top of the hostplantbushes?, on rocks at the bottom of acliff?, for example. When do the sexescome together?, in early morning?, allday?, or late afternoon-evening? Todetermine these three parts, one mustwatch males, especially when the malesinvestigate or chase other butterflies orother animals or objects, and note whatthe male was doing before theinvestigation (resting or flying?) andwhere he did it and when.

Why do we need new names?Existing names have problems. Ipublished two papers in 1974 and 1975aon mate-locating behavior of butterfliesthat introduced names for mate-locating behaviors, and used thosenames on butterfly species mostly fromColorado. Some other people used thosenames in print. Unfortunately, I gavenames to the main behaviors—“perching” and “patrolling”—thatproved unfortunate, because thosenames have other dictionary meanings,causing great confusion as many peoplenow use those names for differentbehaviors. And those words are dull,leading many lepidopterists to ignorethose names and seek out and use morecharismatic words taken fromvertebrate behavior that are generallyinappropriate for insects (such asterritoriality, leks, etc., see below).



The term “perching behavior” wasproposed in 1974 for male butterfliesthat wait at certain sites for females toarrive, and fly out to investigatepassing butterflies to see if they arereceptive females. But many people usethe word “perching” for merely resting(Webster’s Dictionary gives half adozen meanings for “perch”, and“vantage point” is only part of one ofthem), so they use the word “perch” forany insect that sits or rests on asubstrate. Or they use the word perchmerely to describe the resting substrate(such as a leaf), without intending anydescription of mate-locating behavior atall. Considerable confusion hasresulted, as one does not know whatpeople mean when they write the word“perch”.

The term “patrolling behavior” wasproposed in 1974 for male butterfliesthat continuously fly considerabledistances to actively seek out receptivefemales. Again, many people use theword “patrolling” for merely flying(Webster defines “patrol” mainly for asecurity guard’s route, such as a rifle-toting guard walking around his campperimeter to repel vandals, or an armysoldier traveling his route to eliminaterevolutionaries). Much confusionresulted, as many people considerpatrolling to be merely flying, or theycould even use patrolling for a femalelooking for flowers.

Also, those two terms failed to providea word for species whose males flycontinuously about a small area, wherethey wait for females to arrive (forinstance Papilio eurymedon, notedbelow). One author of several booksaggravatingly claims that males ofmany species patrol to find females,when the male was really just flyingabout a tiny rendezvous site as does P.eurymedon, or he was just doingraiting behavior to await females andthen just flew around a bit beforesettling down to await more passerbys.The new word flaiting provides aprecise word for this behavior to avoidconfusion with raiting and fleeking.

So those 1974 words perching and

patrolling were a failure, because theyconfusingly have multiple meanings, sothey fail to unambiguouslycommunicate the actual behavior, andmany people have looked elsewhere forwords to describe what they see,creating chaos.

In my 1986 book (Scott 1986) I tried tofix the words, by phrasing them “perchto await females” and “patrol to seekfemales” to explain them better, butthat fix was not enough, as theconfusion continued unabated in theliterature.

Perching and patrolling words wronglymake it seem that only males areinvolved in mate-locating. Raiting,flaiting, fleeking, and flenting correctlydescribe the entire process of locatingmates, which involves the males ANDthe females in a highly-evolvedchoreographed procedure. In raitersand flaiters, females genetically fly toplaces where males mate-locate in orderto quickly mate so that they can get onwith the time-consuming ovipositionprocess. Whole species can be describedas raiters, flaiters, fleekers, or flenters.

Another problem with the wordsperching and patrolling is that they aredull, so they don’t excite people intostudying or reporting mate-locatingbehavior. People are naturally drawnto charismatic words, so many peopleignore those words and prefercharismatic words such as“territoriality” to describe butterflies,even though such words apply best toanimals with actual fighting capability,as noted below.

Unfortunately, most lepidopteristscompletely ignore the study of mate-locating behavior, so a set of simpleprecise unambiguous interesting wordsare needed to encourage its study. Mate-locating behavior has not been reportedin European butterfly books, evidentlybecause the old perch and patrol wordsdid not excite Europeans, and did nottranslate to their languages well. Thenew words—which should be usedunaltered in other languages—willenable precise unambiguous reportingof mate-locating behavior worldwide.

The distraction of “territoriality”.The word territoriality has been adistraction that has preventedlepidopterists from properly reportingbutterfly mate-locating behavior. Backin 1974-1975, I argued that butterfliesshould not be called territorial, becausethey lack offensive weapons with whichto fight, and they are not “pugnacious”or “aggressive” as some people write.And despite a hundred papers since thenthat either claim butterflies areterritorial or use the word to describetheir behavior, I still object to theword’s use on butterflies.

The basic job of a male butterfly is toapproach other objects and determineif they are a receptive female, and thenmate with those females. The approachof the male toward a passing individualis basically an investigative maneuverto determine whether it is a receptivefemale or not (male butterflies need toapproach closely because their visionfor shapes is not great and they needto get close to use odor especially foridentification). The male has nointention of being fierce, he just wantsto mate. Obviously, butterflies are notmorphologically equipped for any kindof physical attack or defense, with theirfragile wings, easily broken-off legs andpalpi, long proboscis rather than jaws,non-pinching claspers, weak antennae,etc. Of all the animals on earth, abutterfly is about the least-equipped tofight. If the butterfly even brushesagainst a tough leaf or twig, scales flyoff and part of the wing breaks off, a legpops off, or a labial palp breaks off.Butterflies have to avoid contact to keepfrom falling apart. After flying for a fewweeks the average butterfly is a wreck,and if it lives for 3-4 weeks its wings arebattered stumps. In contrast, realterritorial vertebrates have lots ofweapons for fighting, including beaks,spurs, feet, big bodies, hard heads,horns, claws, strong tails, trunks,tusks, teeth, venom, poisonous spines,loud noises, etc.

Any statement that mate-locatingbehavior of butterflies (such asterritoriality) is like that of vertebrates


60 Summer 2010

such as bull elephant seals isridiculous, because there are manydifferences. A 2000-pound bull elephantseal lumbering down the beach tointercept interloping males that try tomate with females in his harem, andviciously biting them, is obviouslyactively defending his territory and hisfemales that live there too. The malebutterfly is waiting for his female anddoesn’t have any females there.Butterflies are small in size and haveweaker vision, and most of their mate-locating behavior serves to bring theminto areas of the habitat where matingsuccess is better than random, whichis actually a form of cooperation, unlikethe vertebrate system of deliberateinterference and competition amonglarge animals that can see and hearwhere their competitors are and whatthey are doing. Scott (1974) showedhow the behaviors that have beeninterpreted as territorial (pursuits,vertical flights, raiting males returningto the same spot after a chase,previously-present males remaininglonger than new males, etc.) havesimpler explanations in terms of mate-locating behavior, such as desire tomate, flight inertia, genetic site choice,predator-avoidance behavior, learnedresting site, etc. Many papers claimthat if a raiting male butterfly spendsmore time interacting with anothermale of his species than with anotherspecies, that means they are territorial;but there are simpler explanations forthat too. The literature lacks carefulstudy of the details of visual and odorcommunication when butterflies comeclose to each other. For example,scientists who claimed Papiliomachaon-group males are territorialfailed to identify and study theperfumelike male pheromone (whichfemales presumably like, whereas amale that smelled that pheromonewould not know whether if it was fromhis own wings so could not use it todistinguish male from female).

Some people have even used the “lek”word on butterflies, which means thatthey think that butterfly behavior issimilar to that of Prairie Chickens or

ungulates such as the African Kob, inwhich males pick an arena and fight tosee who can be in the best centralposition, where the females go to mate.I don’t see much similarity betweenthose animals and butterflies either.Those vertebrates are large so theywatch each other easily and fight andjockey for position, and the females cansee all the males and compare them, inwhat amounts to a thinking game ofstrategy. Vertebrates have long lives,and are comparatively intelligent, sothey become involved in a game ofstrategy and intimidation and conquestwith others they can see and identify asdistinct individuals, who understandand play the same game. Butterfliescan’t see others of their species too wellbecause they are small and their visionfor pattern and shapes is inferior to thevertebrate eye, and they have shortlives and their brainpower is ratherweak, so they do not recognize eachother as distinctive individuals, they aretrying to minimize the time it takes tofind a mate, they are not trying to winthose vertebrate games.

Anthropomorphism is a problem inmate-locating behavior, as people whowrite about butterflies naturally assumethat butterflies have the same motivesas humans. That’s why we need namesfor mate-locating behavior that apply toinsects, and are not inappropriatelylifted from vertebrates.(Anthropomorphism plagues all aspectsof entomology, as insect conservation isregulated by inappropriate deer lawsthat misapply hunting limits to punishcollectors rather than provide theinsects with the land that they reallyrequire to survive.)

Of course, if someone’s definition ofterritoriality is so loose—permittingcooperative avoidance or slight time-and-motion interference to substitutefor active fighting defense of aterritory—then butterflies do qualify asbeing territorial under that loosedefinition. However, readers of paperswill not know what is meant by theword “territorial” when the definitionof it varies so much from that weakbutterfly extreme to the bull elephant

seal, so the “territorial” word conveysalmost no useful information.

There is another problem with the wordterritoriality in butterflies: The wordterritoriality is not practical forbutterflies, because a laborious mark-recapture study is required to prove it.It is not “operational”. A casualobserver could call all the raiting species“territorial”, but mark-recapture studyshows that many of these are NOTterritorial even with the most liberaldefinition of the word. When I markedand released butterflies of eleven raiting“perching” species and fleeking“patrolling” species, I found thatpopulation movements of the raitingspecies differed, and in some specieswere as great as some fleeking species(Scott 1975b). Rutowski et al. (1988,1991, 1997) found that the raitingbutterfly Asterocampa leilia looksterritorial at first glance but the malesstay at one spot only ~30 minutes. Soto label a butterfly territorial, you mustnot only show that males rait or flaitto await females, you must also do alaborious mark-resighting study toactually prove that the males stay inone spot. Mark-recapture studies werepopular in the 1970s and 1980s, but arerarely done now. A very loose definitionof territoriality would be required tolabel a male as “territorial”, when hethen flies dozens or hundreds of metersaway and repeats the same “territorial”behavior there.

In contrast, the words raiting, flaiting,fleeking, and flenting are practical andoperational, as well as precise andunambiguous, so are easily applied tobutterflies with minimal fuss. Onemust merely observe males in natureand watch them investigate/chase/pursue others, and note whether themale was resting or flying prior to theinteraction, and note the locationwhere they did that, and the time of daywhen they did it. It doesn’t take weeks;it may take just a day or two if bugs arecommon and weather is good. The mostdifficult part of the complete descriptionof a species’ mate-locating behavior isdetermining the time of day of mate-locating behavior, because afternoons



might be cloudy or too hot to observenormal behavior for instance, so it maytake time to accumulate suitableobservations during all parts of the day.(Some butterflies such as Vanessa andPolygonia only mate-locate late in theday and early evening, while otherssuch as Neominois and Poladryas andNotamblyscirtes only mate-locate inmorning.)

There is another practical reason whythe use of the word “territorial” onbutterflies is objectionable. Many of thepeople who use this word on butterfliesmanage to describe in their publicationhow males look for females (now termedraiting, flaiting, or fleeking), but theyoften fail to describe where in thehabitat they do it, and they usually failto state the hours during the day whenthe butterflies mate-locate. Theseauthors are so focused on proving theexistence of territoriality, that they failto give an adequate description of mate-locating behavior. So the wordterritoriality seems to be a definitedistraction, an impediment to properreporting.

Thus the word territoriality as used invertebrates very doubtfully applies tobutterflies in an informative way, istotally impractical to use so can’t bepart of regular lepidopterologicalpractice anyway, and frequentlydistracts from the proper reporting ofmate-locating behavior. If you want todo a mark-recapture study to provewhat you consider to be territoriality,great. But don’t let it be just adistraction; make sure that you reportthe basics of butterfly mate-locatingbehavior: the method used (raiting,flaiting, or fleeking), where they do it,and when they do it.

Examples of these mate-locatingbehaviors in Colorado butterflies,including new findings. Scott(1975a, 1986) reported mate-locatingbehavior for most Colorado species.Interesting phenomena were found, forinstance several dozen pairs ofsympatric species are known in whichone butterfly species mates on hilltops,and the close relative mates in gulches,

which speeds mate-location and avoidsmating interference. Neominoisridingsii ridingsii males rait on smallridgetops in early morning, and Irecently named Neominois ridingsiiwyomingo, which also raits in earlymorning but does it in swales (thesebutterflies overlap in range by 500 milesso are often considered species, thoughthey fly two months apart so there isno evidence of reproductive isolation).Also, Oeneis chryxus recently proved tobe two separate species: chryxus raitson hilltops all day, and females ovipositon twigs above sedge turf beneath trees,whereas the new butterfly I recentlynamed altacordillera raits in swales allday and females oviposit on meadowgrasses/sedges; altacordillera rangesthroughout the Rocky Mountainssympatrically with O. chryxus. Thesenew taxa were discovered in no smallpart because of their distinctive mate-locating behavior.

Flaiting behavior has proven to betypical of some species, proving that wereally do need this flait word. Theclassic example in Colorado is Papilioeurymedon, whose males flait in littleforest lanes among trees on ridgetopsand hilltops. The males fly all dayapproximately 2 m above ground,slowly, about little clearings amongPonderosa Pine/Douglasfir trees, andwait for females to arrive there formating. Pyrgus communis often raitson low vegetation in low weedy spotsall day in Colorado, but most oftenseems to flait 5-15 cm above ground atthose spots, whereas in the SacramentoValley California, Shapiro (2007)describes them as raiting well aboveground up to waist height; thisdifference is intriguing, in a confusingspecies perhaps containing theuncertain-status taxon albescens(which Shapiro notes has non-concordant mtDNA similar to SierraNevada communis).

Fleeking behavior is typical of many ormost butterflies. Most Pieridae fleek,including Colias scudderii which fleeksrapidly about open valleys with shrubwillows and Vaccinium all day, andPontia beckeri which fleeks in gulches

all day, whereas P. callidice occidentalisfleeks on hilltops/ridgetops all day.Nearly all blues (Polyommatini) fleekabout the habitat near their hostplants.However, Plebejus glandon rustica israther uncommon in the foothills of theFront Range in Colorado, where atTinytown males generally rait all daynear the ground in slight depressionson the lower end of open slopes wheretheir host Androsace septentrionalisoccurs. Similarly, Plebejus melissa andP. atrapraetextus sublivens often fleekabout the host, but males often(frequently in the latter) rait near theground in tiny gulches in valleybottoms (sometimes on hillside trails)all day. And Leptotes marina males fleekabout their host in alfalfa fields etc., butalso rait on ~70 cm tall plants in asmall valley bottom meadow all day inWheatridge Colorado (every year I canfind a male there, when no others canbe found). And Cupido “Everes”amyntula males fleek about theirhabitat, but also rait near the groundin small depressions in valley bottoms,all day.

In most fleeking species, males searchthroughout the habitat near thehostplants. But many species fleek ingulches, for example Papiliomulticaudata and Anthocharis sara (&A. julia) fleek in gulches all day. Papilioglaucus rutulus fleeks high about thecanopy of riverside Salix and Populushost trees, and fleeks about north-facing slopes where Populustremuloides grows, but it thenfrequently arrives at the hilltop above,and there it flies slowly in a smallwooded lane or along a line of trees fora time before departing downslope(fleeking behavior rather than flaitingas it soon departs)(P. glaucus glaucushas been reported to hilltop like this alsoin eastern U.S.); thus its behaviorshows hints of the behavior of bothPapilio eurymedon (which flaits inridgetop/hilltop forest clearings) and P.multicaudata.

Raiting (and flaiting) species generallychoose rather specific sites in thehabitat to mate-locate, because thatstrategy genetically places males in


62 Summer 2010

those special sites and then sends virginfemales to the same spots to mate,increasing mate-location efficiency. Thesites chosen may be hilltops, orgulches, or tall treetops, or specialnooks in vegetation or topography thatmay be highly characteristic of thespecies yet difficult to describe in words.

Hilltopping has gotten a lot of publicityas a mating site, while other matingsites have been unfairly ignored.Actually, for every butterfly mating onhilltops there are others that mate inother sites such as gulches. Forexample Phyciodes pallida, Paratrytonesnowi, Hesperia juba and H. viridis raitin gulches all day (the similar H.nevada and H. pahaska rait on hilltops)as do all the true Amblyscirtes (Irenamed “Amblyscirtes” simius asNotamblyscirtes, because it raits onhilltops from 7:40-10:50, and has manyother huge differences from realAmblyscirtes). Epargyreus clarus malesrait in gulches (and backyard clearings)from 7:30-13:15, then later in afternoonthey just hang from leaves of bushes tosave energy. Hilltopping is an acceptedword, so analogous words such as“gulching” should be used also.

Hilltops are the preferred mating sitesfor many butterfly species, especiallyraiters, and for some flaiters andfleekers also. But a few of the raitersmate-locate not on the very top, butjust off the top: Papilio indra males raitpreferably on rocky places just belowthe hilltop or mesa top (frequently onthe side or below a cliff) all day.Similarly, Aglais milberti raits usuallyon rocky places just below a hilltop,from late morning to 17:00 (if there areno rocky places both species will choosethe middle of a clearing off the hilltop).Thorybes pylades raits all day amongshrubs or small trees typically a fewmeters off the very top of the hill.Stinga morrisoni males rait all day onhilltops, but not on the very top,generally near the ground next toshrubs or trees near the hilltop.

Some hairstreaks rait on top ofprominent trees (on hilltops whenavailable), such as Atlides halesus from

~12:00-19:30, Erora laeta quaderna atleast in afternoon, and Callophrysspinetorum all day. Tropical workerscomplain that most hairstreaks thereare rare; probably most of the males areraiting on top of the tallest nearbytrees, frequently late in the day, and onewould need a giant crane to see them.Strymon melinus males rait on smalltrees & shrubs especially on hilltopsfrom 13:00 to dusk. Satyriumcalifornica males rait on top of trees onhilltops from 14:00 to dusk, while itsrelative S. sylvinus males rait on lowplants near their hosts (and seldompatrol about their hosts) in valleybottoms from 9:50-15:00. Otherhairstreaks fleek: Hypaurotis crysalusmales fleek over the canopy of their oakhostplants from 14:00-18:30, mostly incloudy conditions, and look for theviolet-ultraviolet color of baskingfemales. Phaeostrymon alcestis fleekover the canopy of their host trees fromabout 14:00-18:00, mostly in sunnierconditions, looking for their drabfemales.

The Papilio machaon group species(polyxenes, zelicaon, machaon bairdii,etc.) rait and flait on hilltops all day;they usually flait if there are frequentdisturbances/chases, when males are inflight most of the time.

Nymphalis antiopa generally raits ingulch (or backyard) clearings, from latemorning to late afternoon, but malesalso rait in little clearings in woods justN of a hilltop (maybe such sitespartially resemble a gulch on the hilltopside).

Apodemia nais males mate-locate fromabout 8:50 to 14:30, by raiting in smallgulch mouths & hillside depressions,and also fleek about the host Ceanothusbushes. Erynnis pacuvius & E.martialis usually rait on hilltops all day,but where hillside forest has burned andhost Ceanothus and butterflies arecommon, they fleek about the host.

Finally, Atrytone arogos is a peculiarspecies, because it is nearly alwaysobserved looking stupified clinging andsucking on flowers such as Asclepiasand alfalfa. Many days of effort finally

revealed that males rait on short (10cm) vegetation at the gently-slopingbases of hillsides covered with the hostAndropogon gerardi, only in lateafternoon (13:20-17:45) in cloudyweather, when they vibrate their wingsto get warm and their investigativeflights are astonishingly fast (usuallytoo fast to follow with the eye).

Literature CitedRutowski, R. L., G. W. Gilchrist. 1988. Male

mate-locating behavior in the DesertHackberry Butterfly, Asterocampa leilia(Nymphalidae). J. Res. Lepid. 26:1-12.

Rutowski, R. L., J. L. Dickinson, B. Terkanian.1991. Behavior of male Desert Hackberrybutterflies, Asterocampa leilia(Nymphalidae). J. Res. Lepid. 30:129-139.

Rutowski, R. L., B. Terkanian, O. Eitan. 1997.Male mate-locating behavior and yearlypopulation cycles in the Snout ButterflyLibytheana bachmanii (Libytheidae). J.Lepid. Soc. 51:197-207.

Scott, J. A. 1974. Mate-locating behavior ofbutterflies. Amer. Midland Naturalist91:103-117.

Scott, J. A. 1975a. Mate-locating behavior ofwestern North American Butterflies. J. Res.Lepid. 14:1-40. (Delete the sentence inparagraph three “In patrolling species,interactions occurred predominantly whenresting males investigated moving objects.”)

Scott, J. A. 1975b. Flight patterns among elevenspecies of diurnal Lepidoptera. Ecology56:1367-1377.

Scott, J. A. 1986. The butterflies of NorthAmerica. A natural history and field guide.Stanford Univ. Press., Stanford, Calif. 583p.

Scott, J. A. 2006. A serious discussion ofterritoriality in butterflies, and new mate-locating terminology. Papilio (New Series)#14:70-74.

Shapiro, A. M. 2007. Field guide to butterfliesof the San Francisco Bay and SacramentoValley regions. California natural historyguides. University of California Press,Berkeley. 346 p.



Flaiting Behavior on Hilltops in Day-FlyingAlypia species (Noctuidae, Agaristinae) that

form a Mimicry Complex with Ananiafunebris (Pyralidae) and Bumblebees

James A. Scott

60 Estes Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254 USA [email protected]

Abstract. Alypia langtoni & A. ridingsimales flait on hilltops in Colorado toawait females, by flying slowly overbushes (mostly Juniperus) on the verytop of the hill, in late morning throughafternoon in A. langtoni; in early to lateafternoon in A. ridingsi. In contrast,Alypia octomaculata males flait overspecial bushes at the side of a gulch, orfleek over the hostplant in valleybottoms. These species seem to beinvolved in a mimicry complex with beesthat have pollen baskets on their hindlegs, and with Anania funebris(Pyralidae).

During 50 years of observing butterflies,mostly in Colorado, I have studieddozens of butterfly species and a fewspecies of flies etc. that mate-locate onhilltops. But only a few moths wereobserved to do so, specifically severalsmall day-flying white-and-blackAgaristinae. The behavior of these isdiscussed here, along with theirpossible participation in mimicry withbees and a Pyralid moth.

Improved mate-locating terminology isused (see the previous note, and Scott2006): raiting behavior involves malesresting at characteristic sites and flyingout at passing objects to see if they arefemales, while females fly to thoserendezvous sites to mate; flaitingbehavior involves males flying aboutsmall characteristic sites to see if theyare females, while females fly to thoserendezvous sites to mate; fleekingbehavior involves males flying about alarger area to seek females for mating.No matings were seen of these moths,but chases between males were observedfor all Alypia species. Times are 24-hour

standard time. Samples of these mothswere collected for identification anddeposited in the Gillette Museum ofArthropod Diversity, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Alypia langtoni Couper is a smallblack moth with large spots, which areyellowish on the forewing and whitishon the hindwing. Twenty-six A.langtoni were collected: May 15-July 22(mostly in June) in Jefferson Co. Colo.(Mt. Lindo near Tinytown, CrawfordGulch, Mt. Falcon, Indian Gulch,Eldorado Mtn.); Hideaway Park, GrandCo. Colo., July 2, 1996; Rabbit EarsPass, Routt Co. Colo. July 7, 1989 1f;Coffee Park, Sioux Co. Neb. June 25,1994. About 50 or more A. langtonimales were observed in flaitingbehavior in Jefferson Co. Colo. Malesflew over the canopy of bushes on thetop of hilltops, usually Juniperusscopulorum, but sometimes overJuniperus communis, Quercusgambelii, or a combined Q. gambelii/Prunus virginiana bush (growingtogether), except three males flew nearthe ground on the hilltop, one of themunder a Pinus ponderosa tree. Likebutterflies that choose small sites formate-locating, the peculiar choice ofpreferred bushes seems to be a geneticcharacteristic of the species. Forinstance the same Juniperusscopulorum bush was chosen overmany years on Mt. Lindo. The A.langtoni males performed this flaitingmate-locating behavior from latemorning through afternoon (recordedtimes were 11:30, 11:32, 12:20-13:43,12:27, 12:31, 12:52, 13:00, 13:00-15:00,13:43, 13:50, 14:13, 14:25, 14:47). A.

langtoni was seldom seen doing otherbehavior. A male was observed on ayellow Aletes acaulis flower on ahilltop. A male was observed associatedwith Parthenocissus inserta in IndianGulch, perhaps a hostplant? (Vitisriparia also occurs in that gulch). Afemale was observed flying around aPrunus virginiana bush in a gulch atTinytown. Hostplants are Epilobium(Covell, 1984).

One male tentatively identified asperhaps A. langtoni? was found flyingover a Juniperus bush in the town ofBoulder, Colo., May 3, 1993.

Alypia octomaculata Fabricius isvery similar in appearance to A.langtoni, although the yellowish spotsare larger on the forewing, and theyellowish tegulae are larger. Thisspecies has large orange leg segmentsthat resemble the pollen basket of a beeor bumblebee, presumably in BatesianMimicry to avoid being eaten. Males ofthis species were observed to flait overspecial bushes in valley bottoms. AtIndian Gulch, Jeff. Co., June 18, 1994,numerous males were observed flaiting,as they flew over the canopy of a smallflat-topped Celtis reticulata tree on theS-facing side of the gulch bottom about4 m from the gulch bottom, and chasingeach other there, from 12:15 to 14:00.They seemed to like just this one treeand I learned to place myself on theslope just above that tree in order tofinally catch a few for identification. AtWheatridge, Jeff. Co., I found severaladults July 11-14, including onenectaring on a Cirsium arvense flower.A hostplant, Vitis riparia, occurs atboth these sites. In a valley bottom E


64 Summer 2010

of Ralston Res., Jeff. Co., June 13,1991, numerous adults of both sexeswere fleeking over a Vitis riparia plantgrowing on a fence, plus Humuluslupulus and Clematis plants alsogrowing on a fencerow. Similarbehavior was seen in Nebraska (I-80 SECozad, Dawson Co.), where malesfleeked over two Vitis riparia vines andan adjacent Salix exigua bush on afencerow at 15:30. (The word fleekingis used rather than flaiting, on thepresumption that males fly on to othersuch hostplants in the habitat [thoughsuch movements have not been studied],and the flaiting behavior noted abovewas apparently a genetic site for mate-location and not a host.) Grapes (Vitis)and Parthenocissus quinquefolia arereported to be hosts (Covell, 1984), butI have never found it on the latter,which is a common vine growing onfences and poles and bushes andbuildings in metropolitan Denver, Colo.

Alypia ridingsi Grote looks roughlysimilar to A. octomaculata, but all thewing spots are whitish, and the threeforewing spots are crossed by blackveins. Nearly 100 were seen mate-locating, and 35 were caught foridentification (at Tinytown, Mt. Falcon,and ridge E of Crawford Gulch, allJefferson Co. Colo., from May 11-June26 [mostly mid May-early June]; atJarre Can., Douglas Co. Colo. Apr. 30,1981; and Rush Creek, 4300’, WashoeCo. Nev., May 25, 1974). Like A.langtoni, A. ridingsi males flaited overthe canopy of small trees on the top ofhilltops in Colo., usually over Juniperusscopulorum, but over Juniperuscommunis on Mt. Falcon, and over aPrunus virginiana bush just N of ahilltop cliff (next to the top) E ofCrawford Gulch. The mate-locatingperiod of A. ridingsi is clearly shorterthan A. langtoni, early to late afternoonfrom 12:10-14:40 (based on 16 recordedtimes: 12:13-14:40, 12:10-14:40, 12:13,12:20-13:43, 12:14, 12:13, 14:19, 14:04,12:48, 12:30-13:10, 13:54, 14:30, 13:02,12:13, 14:36), except for one anomalousrecord of a male flying over J. communison Mt. Falcon at 10:15 (which perhapswas not mate-locating behavior). About

six males were seen to nectar on pinkRibes cereum flowers near a hilltop.Two females were found, one in a gulchbottom, the other flying erratically ina meadow.

Androloma maccullochii Kirby(Agaristinae) is similar to A. ridingsi,but the hindwing spots (as well as thoseon the forewing) are also crossed byblack veins. Six males were found (3in a gulch at Tinytown in Jeff. Co. May11-26, 1984-89; 3 on a flat area E ofBuffalo Pass, Jackson Co. Colo., July12, 1996), but none were seen mate-locating. One was on a yellow Barbareaorthoceras flower at Tinytown.Hostplants are fireweed (now calledChamerion by some botanists) and otherEpilobium (Covell, 1984).

Mimicry with Bees and the PyralidAnania funebris. The legs of A.octomaculata resemble the legs ofbumblebees that have conspicuouspollen baskets on their hindlegs (thebasket consists of several comblike rowsof setae into which the bees stuff pollencollected by their anterior legs, in orderto store it to transport it back to theirnest), which suggests that adults ofthese moths may be involved in somekind of Batesian mimicry complex withpollen-collecting bees. All four of theAgaristinae species herein are similarin wing appearance, but that might bedue to close taxonomic relationship.Their wing pattern evidently serves ascamouflage in flight, because the wingbeats of these moths are fairly rapid,which together with the black-and-white coloration seems to make thesemoths fairly difficult to see when theyare flying in tortuous paths just abovethe canopy of the trees and bushes. Asa result, they are not easy to catch witha net.

I caught a dozen other species of smallpartially-white moths in the foothills ofthe Front Range during the daytime inColorado, but the appearance and sizeand habitat of most of these is notsimilar enough to the Agaristinae tosuggest there is any kind of mimicry.

However, one of the commonest of thesemoths is Anania funebris glomeralis

(Wlk.)(Pyralidae), which is fairlycommon in the gulches of the FrontRange in late May-June. It is black withpale-yellowish-white spots, and looksalmost exactly like Alypia langtoni andoctomaculata, and even has whitetegulae and white hindlegs similar tothe latter! This total wing & bodysimilarity suggests some kind ofmimicry of Alypia and the bees. Ananiahas a fairly weak flight, and many ofthe adults I have seen were foundsipping mud in gulch bottoms. 32adults were collected (at Tinytown &Mother Cabrini Shrine & Apex Gulch[seen] in Jefferson Co. Colo. from May26-July 13 [mostly June], and Hayden,Routt Co. Colo. July 15, 1985). Onewas found on a yellow Barbareaorthoceras flower, and one on a pinkRibes inerme flower. Its hostplant isSolidago (Covell, 1984).

This evident mimicry complex should beinvestigated, and possible poisonouscompounds in the hostplantsdetermined. But the close similarity ofthese moths and their apparent mimicrywith bees seems to represent goodcircumstantial evidence that they formsome kind of mimicry complex.

ReferencesCovell, C. V., Jr. 1984. A field guide to the

moths of eastern North America. PetersonField Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Co.,Boston. 496 p.

Holland, W. G. 1968 [original book 1903]. TheMoth Book. A popular guide to a knowledgeof the moths of North America. Dover Publ.,N.Y. 479 p.

Scott, J. A. 2006. A serious discussion ofterritoriality in butterflies, and new mate-locating terminology. Papilio (New Series)#14:70-74.



Membership Update...

Metamorphosis...

Julian Donahue

“Lost” Member(publications returned: “temporarilyaway,” “moved,” “left no address,” or“addressee unknown”):

Yanek, The Ven. John, D.D. (SantaBarbara, California)

New and Reinstated Members:members who have joined/renewed/been found/or rescinded their request tobe omitted since publication of the 2008Membership Directory (not included inthe 2008 Membership Directory; all inU.S.A. unless noted otherwise)

Allen, Robert T. (Ph.D.): 417 East OldShakopee Road, Apt. 107, Bloomington,MN 55420-4955.

Ballenger, C.E., III (M.D.): 714Otrento Road, Trenton, NC 28585-6336.

Davis, Nicky: 601 Stokes Avenue,Draper, UT 84020-9238.

Davis, Richard G.: 3928 Las VegasDrive, El Paso, TX 79902-1729.

Martineau, Jason: 752 SumnerStreet, Sheridan, WY 82801-5150.

Maton, Ian: 90 Sierra Morena CloseSW, Calgary, Alberta T3H 3G2, Canada.

Mihuc, Janet (Ph.D.): Paul Smith’sCollege, P.O. Box 265, Routes 30 & 86,Paul Smiths, NY 12970-0265.

Paris, Thomson: 1559 SW 63rdAvenue, Gainesville, FL 32608-5401.

Silveira Prestes, Andersonn (Mr.):Rua das Araras, 1411, Canoas, RioGrande do Sul 92320820, Brazil.

Strothkamp, Kenneth (Ph.D.): 5006SW Julia Court, Portland, OR 97221-2951.

Suman, Theodore W. (Dr.): [addressomitted on request]

Trahan, Jeff (Ph.D.): 505 AmericanaDrive, Shreveport, LA 71105-4813.

Vaughn, Jack C. (Ph.D.): 10 Bull RunDrive, Oxford, OH 45056-2011.

Wallstrom, Gunnel K. (Ms.):[address omitted on request]

Watson, Adam: [address omitted onrequest]

Williams, Thomas S.: 1320 Boulevardof the Arts, Apt. 205, Sarasota, FL34236-4983.

Young, Orrey P. (Ph.D.): 9496 Good

Lion Road, Columbia, MD 21045-3947.

Address Changes(all U.S.A. unless noted otherwise)

Goodden, Robert Crane: WordwideButterflies Ltd., Compton House, OverCompton, Sherborne, Dorset DT9 4QN,England.

LaBar, Caitlin (Ms): 2700 AllenStreet, Apt. D103, Kelso, WA 98626-5489.

Lafontaine, J. Donald (Ph.D.): 89Burnbank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2G0H5, Canada.

Lawrie, David D. (Ph.D.): 10523 68Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 2B5,Canada.

Leski, Michael (Ph.D.): 301 NorthRiverwalk Drive, Apt. 606, BuffaloGrove, IL 60089-1895.

Mazry Jacob, Pedro A. (Dr.):Independencia 571, Linares, Chile.

Shuey, John A.: The NatureConservancy, 620 East Ohio Street,Indianapolis, IN 46202-3811.

William D. Hartgroves, of Charles Town, West Virginia, from throat cancer at the age of 77,on 21 October 2009. Mr. Hartgroves had been a member of the Society since 1973. [info fromJean K. Hartgroves]

The Society publishes a newMembership Directory every twoyears. Production of the 2010 editionwill begin (and end) in October 2010.If your interests, address (includinge-mail address), or phone numberhave changed recently, don’t forget to

NEW MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY NOTICEnotify me soon, so that your entry inthe Membership Directory will be asaccurate as possible. Our presentmembership software allows me to sendmembers a “screenshot” of their recordfor review; we hope to have newsoftware by October, and I’m not certain

that I will be able to provide ascreenshot in the future. Stay tuned.Julian P. Donahue,[email protected]

This update includes all changesreceived by 27 May 2010.

X

X


66 Summer 2010

The aim of the Marketplace in the News ofthe Lepidopterists’ Society is to be consist-ent with the goals of the Society: “to promotethe science of lepidopterology...to facilitate theexchange of specimens and ideas by both theprofessional worker and the amateur in thefield,...” Therefore, the Editor will print no-tices which are deemed to meet the above cri-teria, without quoting prices, except for thoseof publications or lists.

No mention may be made in any advertise-ment in the News of any species on any fed-eral threatened or endangered species list. Forspecies listed under CITES, advertisers must pro-vide a copy of the export permit from the coun-try of origin to buyers. Buyers must bewareand be aware.

Only members in good standing may placeads. All advertisements are accepted, inwriting, for two (2) issues unless a singleissue is specifically requested.

Note: All advertisements must berenewed before the deadline ofthe third issue following initialplacement to remain in place.

All ads contain a code in the lower right corner(eg. 481, 483) which denote the volume andnumber of the News in which the ad. firstappeared. Renew it Now!

Advertisements must be under 100 words inlength, or they will be returned for editing.Ads for Lepidoptera or plants must include fulllatin binomials for all taxa listed in youradvertisement.

Send all advertisements to theEditor of the News!

The Lepidopterists’ Society and the Editor takeno responsibility whatsoever for the integrityand legality of any advertiser or advertisement.

Disputes arising from such notices must beresolved by the parties involved, outside of thestructure of The Lepidopterists’ Society. Ag-grieved members may request informationfrom the Secretary regarding steps which theymay take in the event of alleged unsatisfac-tory business transactions. A member may beexpelled from the Society, given adequateindication of dishonest activity.

Buyers, sellers, and traders are advised to con-tact your state department of agriculture and/or PPQAPHIS, Hyattsville, Maryland, regardingUS Department of Agriculture or other per-mits required for transport of live insects orplants. Buyers are responsible for being awarethat many countries have laws restricting thepossession, collection, import, and export ofsome insect and plant species. Plant Traders:Check with USDA and local agencies for per-mits to transport plants. Shipping of agricul-tural weeds across borders is often restricted.

The MarketplaceIMPORTANT NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS: If the number following your advertisement is “521” then you mustrenew your advertisement before the next issue! Remember that all revisions are required in writing.

Books/VideosNew book on American butterflies: R.R.Askew &P.A. v.B. Stafford: Butterfliesof the Cayman Islands. Hardback,24x17cm., 172 pages incld. 6 color platesand 119 color photos. Maps and otherfigures. US $69.50. Also available:Larsen: Butterflies of West Africa.Hardback 28x21cm.865 pages in twovolumes. 125 color plates depicting1,400+specimens. US $276.00.Monastyrskii: Butterflies of Vietnam,softcover, 21x15cm., Vol. 1: Satyrinae.199 pages incl. 35 color plates, US$64.00. Many others available. Visitwebsite: www.apollobooks.com orcontact Peder Skou, Apollo Books,Kirkeby Sand 19, DK-5771 Stenstrup,Denmark, or ask for a copy of our 2009-10 catalogue. 514

For Sale: High quality criticallyaclaimed book, The Butterflies ofVenezuela, Pt. 2 (Pt. 1 also in stock).1451 photographic figs.(84 color plates)display all 196 species (355 subspecies)of Venezuelan Acraeinae, Ithomiinae,

Libytheinae, Morphinae, andNymphalinae. 8 new species, 91 newsubspecies. Laminated hardback.Details/reviews, sample plates at:www.thebutterflies ofvenezuela.comPrice GBP £110 (+ p&p). Pleasecontact the author/publisher, AndrewNeild: 8 Old Park Ridings, London N212EU, United Kingdom; tel: +44(0)208882 8324; email: [email protected] 522

For Sale: Butterflies of SouthernAmazonia, a photographic checklist. Aspiral bound book with 350 colorpages, 8 photos/page, of almost 1,350species from southeast Peru andRondonia and Mato Grosso, Brazil.Mostly live photos but includes somespecimens too. $98 plus shipping $7.50in the US or $16 international. You canorder it with a credit card or by paypalat www.neotropicalbutterflies.com, orcontact Kim Garwood [email protected], or mail a UScheck to Kim Garwood, 721 N BentsenPalm Dr #40, Mission TX 78572. Wealso have Butterflies of Northeastern

Mexico, for the states of Tamaulipas,Nuevo Leon and San Luis Potosi,Mexico. This includes over 600 species,one third of the Mexican species. Thecost is $30 plus shipping. 522

SpecimensFor Sale: Eggs: Saturnidae: Automerisamanda tucanmana, Copaxa flavolla,Syssphinx molina plus other Saturnidsfrom Argentina. Papered specimens ofbutterflies (all families), Saturnidae orSphingidae, alsom some beetles. For alist of all Argentina species, please writeor email to Nigel South, Mis Montanas,Los Robles 1818, Villa Los Altos, RioCeballos 5111, Cordoba, Argentina. Alsocollecting trips in Argentina fromSeptember to May. Contact Nigel Southfor further details. Email: [email protected] 514

For Sale or Trade: Very rarePropomacrus davidi (China) YoshiakiFurumi, 97-71 Komizo, Iwatsuki-Shi,Saitama-Ken, 339-0003 Japan 514

Wanted: Want to purchase butterflycollections U.S./non-U.S., common/



rare. Contact: Brad Black, 2777Carrington Street NW, North Canton,OH 44720-8163. email: [email protected] 514

For Sale or Trade: Very rare Parnassiusa. przewalskii, i. imperatrix,Propomacrus davidi (China). YoshiakiFurumi, 97-71 komizo, Iwatsuki-Shi,Saitama-Ken, 339-0003 Japan 522

ResearchMaterial needed for research project ongeographic differences in Lophocampamaculata. Eggs, larvae (all instars) oradults useful. Will pay for shipping.Please contact Ken Strothkamp,Chemistry Dept., Lewis & ClarkCollege at kgs.lclark.edu 514

Seeking egg masses of the CatalpaSphinx, Ceratoma catalpa (Sphingidae)for research on the chemical ecology ofthis species. Please contact DeaneBowers at: [email protected] (303) 492-5530. I am happy toreimburse for express shipping. Send to:Deane Bowers, Dept. of Ecology andEvolution, Ramaley N122, UCB 334,University of Colorado, Boulder, CO80309. 514

The Ecoinformatics lab of Dr. JeremyKerr at the University of Ottawa isconducting an analysis of mobility forbutterflies in Canada. In the absence ofexperimental mobility data for the vastmajority of species, I will rely on thecumulative knowledge of Canada’slepidopterists to construct a mobilityindex. I am distributing a survey topeople with field experience withbutterflies and skippers of Canada.Surveys of lepidopterists in the UK andFinland have produced mobilityestimates remarkably similar to thoseobtained from field experiments. If youhave field experience with Canadianbutterflies then I hope you will take thetime to complete my survey. Visit:www.science.uottawa.ca/~jfitz049/survey.html for more information onthis project and to download the survey.Email me: [email protected] withany questions or comments you mayhave. 514

EquipmentA new Light Trap with Plastic orAluminum Vanes: 12 VDC or 120 VACwith 15 Black Light or the new 36 WattCF Twin Tube plasma UV. Rain Drainand Beetle Screens, PhotoelectricSwitch are optional. New Self BallastMercury Vapor Lights 250 Watt, 500Watt and 750 Watt. New Tropics BaitTraps: 12 inch diameter 42 inches inheight with a six inch cone top.Mosquito netting in Forest Green,Camouflage or White. A Plasticplatform is suspended with plastic eyebolts and S hooks. Available in Tropicalstyle for butterflies and flat bottom stylefor moths. Traps weigh less than 6ounces. Excellent for travel to thetropics. For more information, visit ourweb site at: www.leptraps.com, orcontact Leroy C. Koehn, Leptraps LLC,3000 fairway Court, Georgetown, KY40324-9454: Tel: 502-542-7091 522

LivestockFor Sale: Captive bred Philippinebutterfly pupae, year round. ImogeneRillo, P. O. Box 2226 Manila 1099Philippines email:[email protected] 522

Announcement

Announcement

The Lep Course: A comprehensiveIntroduction to LepidopteraIdentification and ClassificationAugust 7 - 14, 2010.

Held at the SouthWest ResearchStation in the Chirichahua Mountainsin SE Arizona (a 2 1/2 hour drive fromTucson), the focus of the lep course isto train graduate students, post-docs,faculty, and serious citizen-scientists inthe classification and identification ofadult lepidoptera and their larvae.

Topics to be covered include anextensive introduction into adult andlarval morphology with a focus ontaxonomically-important traints,extensive field work on both adults andlarvae, collecting and curatoraltechniques, dissection and preparation,larval classification, use (and abuse) ofDNA bar coding, and general issues inlepidopteral systematics, ecology, andevolution. Course is limited to 16students. Tuition is $900 for studentsand $1,000 for non-students. Forfurther details go to:www.lepcourse.org

Announcement

The 6th International Conferenceon the Biology of Butterflies will beheld at the University of Alberta,Edmonton, Canada from June 29through July 2, 2010. This meeting hasbeen held at irregular intervals since1981 and recognizes the role that thestudy of butterflies has played in ourunderstanding of both evolutionarybiology and ecology. The meeting willinclude Symposia, Contributed Papers,Posters, Banquet and Field Trips.

For those wishing attend this meeting,and anyone wishing to present aContributed Paper or a Poster, pleaseview the Conference webpage at:

h t tp : / /www.b io l ogy.ua lber ta . ca /biobutterfly2010

Lepidoptera of the Northeast:Taxonomy, Ecology, andBiomonitoring of Butterflies andMoths with Brian Scholtens

Descriptions of seminars may be foundat http://www.eaglehill.us/programs/nhs/nhs-calendar.shtml

Information on lodging options, meals,and costs may be found at http://www.eaglehill.us/programs/general/application-info.shtml

There is an online application form at

http://www.eaglehill.us/programs/general/application-web.shtml

Syllabi are available for these and manyother fine natural history trainingseminars on diverse topics. For moreinformation, please contact theHumboldt Institute, PO Box 9, Steuben,ME 04680-0009.

Online general information may befound at http://www.eaglehill.us


68 Summer 2010

1 2

3 4

5 6Less Common Butterflies of the Rocky Mountains1) Colias meadii, male, Wolfcreek Pass, Colorado; July 21, 2008. 2) C. meadii, same data as fig. 1. 3) Colias hecla, male,Denali National Park, Alaska; August 1, 1998. 4) Polygonia gracilis, Kebbler Pass, Crested Butte, Colorado; July 23,2007. 5) Coenonympha haydenii, Jackson Hole, Curtis Canyon, Wyoming; July 21, 1996. 6) Erebia theano, Clay Butte,near Beartooth, Wyoming; July 22, 1996. (Images 7 - 10 on p. 73) 7) Limenitis weidemeyerii, without white dot onforewing, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, July 20, 2008. 8) L. weidemeyerii, with white dot on forewing, same data as fig. 7.9) Erebia callias, dorsal view, Clay Butte, Beartooth area, Wyoming, July 22, 1996. 10) E. callias, ventral view. Same dataas fig. 9. All photos: George Krizek.



4

5 6Continued on p. 72

1

2

4

One of the “good prizes” for theexhausted photographer of livebutterflies, (who is exhausted due to thehypoxia and High Mountain sickness)is without any doubt Colias meadiiEdwards (Pieridae). It’s flight is“deceivingly fast, with quick wingbeats,making adults difficult to follow over thesteep terrain” (J. P. Brock and KennKaufman). This glacial relict-needingtwo years for its development due to coldtemperature — erratic in its movements,only seldom lands on some flowers orthe ground. I succeeded, after almostgiving up any hope of making a picture,to photograph two individuals on July21, 2008 at the “Lobo overlook” (elv.11,760’) above the Wolfcreek Pass insouthern Colorado.

Our first picture catches a male takingnectar from Tetraneuris grandiflora(Asteraceae), where the crypic undersidehelps it to blend with the blossom, whilethe other male sits (lateral basking?) onthe ground. This species lives above thetimberline, and seldom descends lower.

Another jewel, this time of thecircumpolar arctic tundra, is Colias

George O. Krizek

2111 Bancroft Pl., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20008

Less Common Butterflies of theRocky Mountains

hecla Lefebre. I took the shownpicture on 1 August, 1998 at theDeNali National Park, Alaska, on theslopes of Mt. McKinley, on the shoreof a wild river. In those areas it islucky to meet both the butterfly andthe acceptable weather and not besurprised by a snow storm. Coliashecla most probably is hybridizingwith Colias nastes Boisduval. Bothare sympatric in much of the ArcticCircle (C. hecla is the only Coliasliving in Greenland). Colias boothiiCurtis may be the offspring of suchhybridization.

I would like to present two“specimens” of Limenitis weidemeyeriiEdwards (Nymphalidae); both areinvolved in dorsal basking on theground, in the area south of PagosaSprings, Colorado. One has a tinywhite spot in the lateral part of theforewing cell, while the other one lacksthis spot. The pictures were taken on20 July, 2008.

Another interesting Nymphalid isPolygonia gracilis (Grote & Robinson).It is considered to be the “rarest and

smallest” of the Polygonias. Ourpicture is from Kebbler Pass aboveCrested Butte, Colorado, taken on July23, 2007.

Finally, I would like to show some of theSatyrs from the high mountains. Oneis Coenonympha haydenii (Edwards), asmall ringlet with a restricted area.Typical are “bold marginal eyespots” onhindwings (J. P. Brock). This species isvery close to palearctic Coenonymphaoedippus (Fabricius).

From the genus Erebia we candemonstrate Erebia theano (Tauscher).It is considered to be very local. Thephoto shows the underside of both wingsis characteristic with submarginal rowsof ochraceous spots and was taken atClay Butte in the Beartooth area,Wyoming on 22 July, 1996.

From the same locality is the Erebiacallias Edwards, shown here with boththe dorsal and lateral views. PalearcticErebia tyndarus (Esper) is practicallyindistinguishable, but differ markedly inchromosome numbers (T. C. Emmel).

The Mailbag...Letters to the Editor:

Corrections, please!Dale, I heartily thank you for theinclusion of my entire, lengthymanuscript and for your splashy layoutof my photos in my recent article I titled“Caterpillars, Ants and PopolucaIndians: An Adventure in RemoteMexico” (NEWS, Spring 2010, Vol. 52,No. 1). I hope readers enjoyed mynostalgia and that fledglinglepidopterists were inspired to considerfieldwork in relatively obscure areas(yes, there are still some such places).

Unfortunately, there was an editorialglitch: The word “Popoluca” wasmisspelled as “Populuca” in the fiveprominent title areas that required aneditor- composed heading: “Cover,”“Contents,” title of article, and thetwo head captions for the photos onpages 41 and 44. (The word, however,IS spelled correctly throughout thearticle.) It is easy to imagine how sucha transposition of similar vowels couldoccur when an unfamiliar word isbeing retyped during the formatting ofa publication. Simple mistakes such asthis occur all the time—not only inscientific media but also in highlyproofed commercial/popular

magazines. But because the wordPopoluca denotes both a unique cultureand language, what may seem like atrivial misspelling to most readers isnow a personal embarrassment as Ishare extra issues of this NEWS withthe John and Royce Lind family(affiliates of the Summer Institute ofLinguistics/Wycliffe BibleTranslators, dedicated mentors to thePopoluca, my hosts during my research,and my lifelong friends) and literatePopoluca acquaintances. makingmatters worse, the word PopulucaDOES exist. It is actually an Aztec/Nahuatl word that probably means


70 Summer 2010

9

12

13

13

14

4

John Burroughs (1837-1921) occupiesa permanent place in Americanliterature. Though he was a leadingliterary critic in his day, he was also apioneer in the new school of naturewriting and the most popular writer ofhis period in the field he made his own.Burroughs’s influence on ourappreciation of nature is so pronouncedthat he is often regarded as the “Fatherof Recreational Nature Study.” Unlikemany who are not appreciated duringtheir lifetime, John Burroughs washonored during his latter decades.Included among the famous naturalist/writer’s friends were PresidentTheodore Roosevelt, John Muir, HenryDavid Thoreau, Walt Whitman, AndrewCarnegie, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford,and Harvey Firestone. On the day of hisdeath in 1921, the New York Senateadjourned in Burroughs’s honor. Afterhis death, The John BurroughsAssociation (JBA) quickly formed.Headquartered in the AmericanMuseum of Natural History (AMNH),New York City, the association aims tofoster a love of nature as exemplified byBurroughs’s life and work, and topreserve the places associated with hislife. To this end, the association ownsand maintains SLABSIDES (JohnBurroughs’ log cabin in the CatskillMountains of New York) as a NationalHistoric Landmark and the adjoiningJohn Burroughs Sanctuary near WestPark. Additionally, since 1926 JBA hasbeen publicly recognizing exceptionalnatural history publications bybestowing literary awards at a specialluncheon held in the AMNH after theassociation’s annual meeting on the

first Monday of April. A permanentexhibit about John Burroughs is in theAMNH. The association keepsmembers informed through Wake-Robin, a distinguished newsletterpublished three times each year andnamed after Burroughs’s first volumeof nature essays (1871).

Over the years many outstandingnature writers have been honored witheither a GOLD MEDAL (for a book) ora CERTIFICATE FOROUTSTANDING PUBLISHEDNATURE ESSAY; in addition, theassociation acknowledges a LIST OFNATURE BOOKS FOR YOUNGREADERS. Winning writers haveincluded William Beebe, Paul Brooks,Archie Carr, Rachel Carson, JohnDaniel, Loren Eiseley, Joseph WoodKrutch, Aldo Leopold, JeffreyLockwood, Peter Matthiessen, RogerTory Peterson, Michael Pollan, RobertM. Pyle, Scott Russell Sanders, ErnestThompson Seton, John Terres, GeeratVermeij, and Ann Zwinger. Twolepidopterists—Robert M. Pyle andyours truly—have been recipients.Furthermore, I am a periodiccontributor to Wake-Robin.

On April 5, 2010, the 2009 GOLDMEDAL AWARD went to MichaelWelland for “Sand: The Never-EndingStory”(University of California Press),and the OUTSTANDING PUBLISHEDNATURE ESSAY AWARD went to ScottRussell Sanders for his “Mind in theForest” (Orion, Nov./Dec. 2009.) Thisis the second time Sanders has won theessay award.

As stewards of the environment, mostof us revel in the intellectual, personal,and unhurried style of storytelling thatJohn Burroughs fathered. And intoday’s dot com society, it is refreshingto know that there is an organizationthat still supports this nearly extinctgenre. But JBA needs to increase itsfinancial base to continue its programs;hence, the organization is activelysoliciting new members. Contactinformation is below. (It is worth notingthat all personnel of the organizationare non-salaried; ergo 100 percent ofyour contribution goes to theassociation’s programs.)

Yearly Membership, from April to April:

Student/Senior: $15.00Annual: $25.00Family: $35.00Patron: $50.00Benefactor: $100.00Life: $500.00

Tax-deductible check or money ordercan be made payable to JBA.

Send to:

Secretary, The John BurroughsAssociation, Inc.15 West 77th StreetNew York, New York 10024-5192

e-mail: [email protected]

internet: http://research.amnh.org/burroughs

John Burroughs AssociationGary Noel Ross

6095 Stratford Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 [email protected]

X



Callophrys augustinus in Florida 7

The Bartram’s hairstreak, Strymonacis bartrami (Huntington &Comstock) (Lycaenidae), occurs locallywithin the pine rocklands of southernFlorida and the lower Florida Keys(Minno and Emmel 1993, Smith et. al1994). Hennessey and Habeck (1991)and Worth et al. (1996) described manyaspects of S. a. bartrami naturalhistory. Salvato and Hennessey (2004)and Salvato and Salvato (2008) alsodiscussed S. a. bartrami ecology andprovided a review of known predatorsand parasites for the species.

On 1 May 2010 we observed andphotographed larval mites (n = 2)attached to the outer forewing of anadult S. a. bartrami (Fig 1, p. 73) in theLong Pine Key region of EvergladesNational Park (Miami-Dade County,Florida). We were unable to capture thebutterfly to obtain the mite specimens.However, after examining the photos,

these individuals appear to be parasiticmite larvae, most likely in the FamilyErythraeidae, a group known tofrequently attach to the wings ofbutterflies. Treat (1975) reportedparasitic mite larvae from severallycaenid species as well as otherLepidoptera. However, to ourknowledge this is the first observationof mite association with S. a. bartrami.Further studies are required to verifywhich mite species are involved in thenatural history of S. a. bartrami.

AcknowledgementsWe thank Dr. Cal Welbourn (FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and ConsumerServices, Gainesville, Florida) forexamining photos and proving informationon parasitic mites. We also thank DennisOlle for assistance in the field.

Literature Cited:Hennessey, M. K. & D. H. Habeck. 1991. Effects

of mosquito adulticides on populations of

non-target terrestrial arthropods in theFlorida Keys. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand the Univ. of Florida Cooperative WildlifeResearch Unit (Unpublished Final Report).Gainesville, Florida. 76 pp.

Minno, M. C. & T. C. Emmel. 1993. Butterfliesof the Florida Keys. Scientific Publishers,Gainesville, Florida. 168 pp.

Salvato, M.H. & M. K. Hennessey. 2004. Noteson the status, natural history and fire-relatedecology of Strymon acis bartrami. J. Lepid.Soc. 58: 223-227.

Salvato, M. H. & H. L. Salvato. 2008. Noteson the feeding ecology of Strymon acisbartrami and Anaea troglodyta floridalis.Fla. Scient. 71: 323-329.

Smith, D. S., L. D. Miller & J. Y. Miller. 1994.The Butterflies of the West Indies and SouthFlorida. Oxford University Press, New York.264 pp. 32 pl.

Treat, A. E. 1975. Mites of Moths andButterflies. Cornell University Press.London. 362 pp.

Worth, R. A., K. A. Schwartz & T. C. Emmel.1996. Notes on the biology of Strymon acisbartrami and Anaea troglodyta floridalisin south Florida. Holarctic Lepid. 3:52-65.

Mark H. Salvato and Holly L. Salvato

1765 17th Ave SW, Vero Beach, Florida, 32962, USA, [email protected]

Parasitic Mite Larvae (Acari) on an AdultStrymon acis bartrami (Lycaenidae)

up all the females of a particularsubspecies from Secret Canyon and ifthey have two broods I can easilycompare those too. The best part is Ican keep building this dataset, fine-tuneit as my needs and interests change andadapt quickly to taxonomicrealignments. If someone publishes apaper and a butterfly gets moved to anew species or genus I can re-label all100 images in about 5 seconds. Try thatwith a dozen specimen drawers!

While I tease my collector friends, Ihave to admit that as photographers wehave certain limits and photos willnever compete with a pinned specimen.Indeed some images can never bereliably identified. The point is thatphotographs, or rather digital images,

are proving to have increased value andpotential in the study of Lepidoptera aswell as the dissemination of knowledge.The simple reason is that we now haveprolific tools for integrating high qualityimages into databases of all kinds frompure research to public education. Theimages and data can come fromanywhere and anyone, but withqualified editors it’s exciting to thinkof the possibilities.

I’ll admit I have a vivid imagination butI’ve lived through two digitalrevolutions, one in my career as anaudio engineer and later as aphotographer. I can tell you no one hadany idea what was coming and when Ilook back at what the technology hasspawned and how limitless it still feels,it stimulates that imagination. Considerthe technology that currently exists,some that’s just around the corner and

more that’s simply possible byextrapolation: Start with the softwareused for fingerprint analysis or facialrecognition. Add an image database ofpinned specimens. Now throw in wing-pattern analysis software developed bya grad student at your local university.Plug that into quantum computers onloan from the government and teraflopnumber-crunching for six straight days.Just imagine for a moment. As silly asit might seem now, I bet there’ssomething useful in your life you takefor granted that’s the product of wilderfantasies than this. In the meantime Iwant to unchain myself from thiscomputer and find a nice meadow, apond and some really amazing crittersto bring home with me.

X

Continued from p. 52Digital Collecting


72 Summer 2010

Computerization of the Field Museum ofNatural History Giant Butterfly Moth

Collection (Castniidae)James H. Boone1, Jorge M. González2, Gracen M. Brilmyer1 and Daniel Le3

1. Division of Insects, Zoology, Field Museum, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois

60605-2496, USA. [email protected], [email protected]

2. Texas A&M University, Department of Entomology, College Station, Texas 77843-2475, USA. (Research associate,McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity) [email protected]

School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 7 West Madison, Chicago, Illinois 60602, USA. [email protected]

The Field Museum of Natural History(FMNH) giant butterfly moth(Lepidoptera: Castnioidea: Castniidae)collection is comprised of over 45 speciesand 118 specimens contained in eightinsect drawers. This pantropical familyis represented by species from theNeotropical and Australian Regions.Most giant butterfly moths at theFMNH originally belonged to theHermann Strecker collection, thoughseveral were added after its acquisitionin 1908 including specimens fromindividual collections such as those ofAdolf Mares and Borys Malkin.

As part of the ongoing FMNHArthropod Collection databasinginitiative, the giant butterfly mothswere recently entered into the databaseaccording to genus, species and

subspecies (if applicable). Specimenrecords include current taxonomicclassification and all data associatedwith the specimens as well aszoogeographical region (Nearctic,Neotropical, and Australian).Highlights of the database are the highresolution images of each specimen(dorsal and ventral habitus) and theiraccompanying labels.

The FMNH database is availablethrough the Field Museum’s website at:http: / /emuweb.f ie ldmuseum.org/arthropod/Query.php. The Lepidoptera“Quick Browse” link to the right leadsto the Lepidoptera search page, whichprovides background information onthe Lepidoptera collection andassociated data.

To view the giant butterfly mothrecords, enter “Castniidae” in thefamily field of the search form and, ifdesired, choose a region from the drop-down list. Once the list of recordsappears click on any name to displaythat individual record with thumbnaillinks to images of the specimen and itslabels (Fig. 1). Clicking on thethumbnail image displays a largerimage of the specimen (Figs. 2 and 3)and its labels (Fig. 4). Click on theimage one more time and it will resizeto fit your computer screen. Use yourinternet browser “back button” toreturn to the list of records.

Giant butterfly moths from the FMNHinsect collection, like other Lepidoptera,are available for loan by contacting thefirst author.

The MailbagContinued from p. 69

“mumbler” or “foreigner” and thereforea derogatory name. And to furthercomplicate matters, yet another closespelling, Popoloca, refers to an entirelydifferent language group in the state ofPuebla, Mexico.) Perhaps in the future,editorial policy could include anauthor’s ”proof” of text that has to bealtered or created? I realize that thiswould require extra lead time, but anauthor’s proofing could prevent anothersuch sensitive incident. Your thoughts?

Gary Noel Ross

[email protected]

Gary, I do apologize for this unfortunateand embarrassing error. My anxietylevel climbs whenever I ship off eachissue to the publisher, fearing that I’vedone something just like this. Whilethis is hardly my first mistake in thenearly five years I’ve been editor, itdefinitely ranks as the biggest blunderin my eyes. I like your suggestion ofgiving contributors a “final look” attheir submissions before it goes topress, something that can easily be donewith an emailed PDF file.

Not the circumstances that I wanted tobring back The Mailbag, but hopefullythis will get other members to send intheir comments and suggestions on what

they are seeing in the NEWS or on anyother topic as it relates to Lepidoptera.

Dale Clark, Editor

[email protected]



Images from the FieldMuseum’s giantbutterfly moth databaseFig. 1. Screen shot of catalog record FMNH-INS 41487, Castnia eudesmia Gray, 1838. Fig.2. Dorsal habitus of C. eudesmia. Fig. 3. Ventralhabitus of C. eudesmia. Fig. 4. Labelsassociated with this C. eudesmia specimen.

Two parasitic mite larvae (likely erythraeid mites) on the outer forewing of an adult Strymonacis bartrami in Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park on 1 May 2010 (Photo Credit: H.L. Salvato). See article on p. 71.

1

2

3

4

7 8

9 10Less Common Butterflies of the Rocky MountainsSee article and photo data on p. 69.


74 Summer 2010

MembershipThe Lepidopterists’ Society is open tomembership from anyone interested inany aspect of lepidopterology. The onlycriterion for membership is that you ap-preciate butterflies or moths! To becomea member, please send full dues for thecurrent year, together with your cur-rent mailing address and a note aboutyour particular areas of interest in Lepi-doptera, to:

Kelly Richers,Assistant Treasurer,The Lepidopterists’ Society9417 Carvalho CourtBakersfield, CA 93311

Dues RateActive (regular) $ 45.00Affiliate (same address) 10.00Student 20.00Sustaining 60.00Contributor 100.00Institutional Subscription 60.00Air Mail Postage for News 15.00

Students must send proof of enrollment.Please add $ 5.00 to your Student orActive dues if you live outside of theU.S. to cover additional mailing costs.Remittances must be in U.S. dollars,payable to “The Lepidopterists’ Soci-ety”. All members receive the Journaland the News (each published quar-terly). Supplements included in theNews are the Membership Directory,published in even-numbered years, andthe Season Summary, published annu-ally. Additional information on member-ship and other aspects of the Societycan be obtained from the Secretary (seeaddress inside back cover).

Change of Address?Please send permanent changes of ad-dress, telephone numbers, areas of in-terest, or e-mail addresses to:

Julian P. Donahue, Assistant Secretary,The Lepidopterists’ Society,Natural History Museum of Los Ange-les County, 900 Exposition Blvd.,Los Angeles, CA [email protected]

Our Mailing List?Contact Julian Donahue for informa-tion on mailing list rental.

Missed or DefectiveIssue?Requests for missed or defective issuesshould be directed to: Ron Leuschner(1900 John Street, Manhattan Beach,CA 90266-2608, (310) 545-9415, [email protected]). Please be certainthat you’ve really missed an issue bywaiting for a subsequent issue to arrive.

MemoirsRequests for Memoirs of the Societyshould be sent to Publications Mana-ger, Ken Bliss (address opposite).

Submissions of potential newMemoirs should be sent to:

Lawrence E. GallComputer Systems Office, PeabodyMuseum of Natural History, P. O. Box208118, Yale University, New Haven,CT [email protected]

Journal of theLepidopterists’ SocietySend inquiries to:

Brian G. Scholtens(see address opposite)[email protected]

Book ReviewsSend book reviews or new book releasesfor the Journal to:

P. J. DeVries,Dept. Biological Sciences, University ofNew Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148,[email protected]

Send book reviews or new book releasesfor the News to the News Editor.

WebMasterJohn A. SnyderDept. of Biology, Furman University,Greenville, SC 29613-0001, (864) 294-3248, [email protected]

Submission Guidelinesfor the NewsSubmissions are always welcome!Preference is given to articles writtenfor a non-technical but knowledgableaudience, illustrated and succinct(under 1,000 words). Please submitin one of the following formats (inorder of preference):

1. Electronically transmitted file andgraphics—in some acceptable format—via e-mail.

2. Article (and graphics) on diskette,CD or Zip disk in any of the popularformats/platforms. Indicate whatformat(s) your disk/article/graphicsare in, and call or email if in doubt.Include printed hardcopies of botharticles and graphics, a copy of thearticle file in ASCII or RTF (just incase), and alternate graphics formats.Media will be returned on request.

3. Color and B+W graphics should begood quality photos or slides suitablefor scanning or—preferably—elec-tronic files in TIFF or JPEG formatat least 1200 x 1500 pixels for interioruse, 1800 x 2100 for covers. Photosor slides will be returned.

4. Typed copy, double-spaced suitablefor scanning aand optical characterrecognition. Original artwork/mapsshould be line drawings in pen andink or good, clean photocopies. Colororiginals are preferred.

Submission DeadlinesMaterial for Volume 52 must reachthe Editor by the following dates:

Issue Date Due 3 Autumn Aug. 15, 2010 4 Winter Nov. 15 2010Reports for Supplement S1, the Sea-son Summary, must reach the respec-tive Zone Coordinator (see most re-cent Season Summary for your Zone)by Dec. 15. See inside back cover forZone Coordinator information.



Season Summary Zone CoordinatorsExecutive CouncilTreasurerKelly M. Richers9417 Carvalho Court,Bakersfield CA 93311,(661) 665-1993 (home)[email protected]

Assistant TreasurerRon Leuschner1900 John Street,Manhattan Beach, CA90266-2608, (310) 545-9415ron [email protected]

Publications ManagerKenneth R. Bliss28 DuPont AvenuePiscataway, NJ 08854-435(732)[email protected]

Editor, News of theLepidopterists’ SocietyDale Clark1732 South Hampton Rd.,Glenn Heights, TX 75154-8530, (972) [email protected]

Editor, Journal of theLepidopterists’ SocietyBrian G. ScholtensBiology DepartmentCollege of Charleston66 College StreetCharleston, SC 29424-0001(803)856-0186 [email protected]

Editor, Memoirs of theLepidopterists’ SocietyLawrence F. Gall(see Memoirs opposite)

WebMasterJohn A. Snyder(see WebMaster opposite)

Members-At-LargeStephanie Shank, Charles Harp,Todd Stout, Richard Brown,Charles V. Covell, Jr., DanRubinoff, Todd Gilligan, PeterJump, Bruce Walsh.

PresidentJohn Shuey1505 N. Delaware St., Suite 200Indianapolis, IN [email protected](317) 951-8818

Past PresidentJohn Acorn132 Walsh Crescent, Edmonton,Alberta T5T 5L7 [email protected](403) 489-0423

Vice PresidentsDavid LohmanDept. of Biological Sciences,National University ofSingapore, 14 Science Drive 4117543, [email protected]

Jeffrey MarcusDept. of Biology, WesternKentucky University1906 College Heights Blvd.,#11080, Bowling Green,Kentucky [email protected]

Olaf MielkeDept. of Zoologia, CienciasBiologicas, UniversidadeFederal do Parana, CaixaPostal 19020, 81531-980Curitibia, Parana, Brazil

SecretaryMichael ToliverDivision of Math and ScienceEureka College, 300 E. CollegeAvenue, Eureka, [email protected]

Assistant SecretaryJulian P. DonahueNatural History Museum, 900Exposition Boulevard, LosAngeles, CA 90007-4057,(213) 763-3363 (office), (213)746-2999 (fax)[email protected]

Refer to Season Summary for Zone coverage details.

Zone 6, Texas:Charles BordelonTexas Lepidoptera Survey,8517 Burkhart Road,Houston, TX [email protected]

Zone 7, Ontario AndQuebec:Jeff Crolla413 Jones Ave.,Toronto, OntarioCanada M4J 3G5(416) [email protected]

Zone 8, The Midwest:Leslie A. Ferge7119 Hubbard AvenueMiddleton, Wisconsin 53562-3231(608) [email protected]

Zone 9, The Southeast:Brian G. ScholtensBiology DepartmentCollege of CharlestonCharleston SC 29424-0001(803) [email protected]

Zone 10, The Northeast:Mark J. Melloc/o Lloyd Center,430 Potomska RdDartsmouth, MA [email protected]

Zone 11, Mexico & theCaribbean:Isabel Vargas FernandezMuseo de Zoologia,Facultad de Ciencias,Univ. Nacional Autonoma, Mexico,Apartado Postal 70-399,Mexico 04510 D.F., [email protected]

Chief Season SummaryCoordinator And EditorJim Tuttle57 Inkerman StreetSt Kilda 3182Victoria [email protected]

Zone 1, The Far North:Kenelm W. PhilipInstitute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of AlaskaP.O. Box 75700Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7000(907) [email protected]

Zone 2, The PacificNorthwest:Jon H. ShepardR.R. #2, S.22, C.44Nelson, British ColumbiaV1L 5P5 Canada(250) [email protected]

Zone 3, The Southwest:Ken Davenport8417 Rosewood AvenueBakersfield, CA 93306(661) 366-3074 (home)[email protected]

Zone 4, The RockyMountains:Chuck Harp8834 W. Quarto Ave.Littleton, CO 80128-4269(720) [email protected]

Zone 5, The Plains:Ronald Alan RoyerDivision of Science,Minot State University.Minot, North Dakota 58707-0001,Office: (701)858-3209,FAX: (701)839-6933,[email protected]

M X


76 Summer 2010

Top: Sara Orangetip (Anthocharis sara), Solstice Canyon, Malibu, CA, April 18, 2010. Bottom: Yucca Giant Skipper(Megathymus yuccae martini)Kelso Valley, CA, April 16, 2010. Photos: David Horner. See article on p. 52.

Documents

Inside - Yale Universityimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2010/2010_v52_n2.pdf · consulting Cramer’s illustrations, Turner & Parnell concluded that J. evarete represented