The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
1952
The Lepidopterists' News
71
BOOK REVIEW
THE BUTTERFLIES OV VIRGINIA. By Austin H. Clark and Leila F. Clark. 'Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 116, no. 7: vii -\- 239 pp., col. frontisp., 30 pis. 20 Dec. 1951. Available from: Division of Publications, Smithsonian Institution, Washington 25, D.C., U.S.A., in paper cover, $2.25.
Collectors of Lepidoptera who reside in one area for several years have the opportunity to provide detailed data on the genuine characteristics of the natural lives of their local species. It is most unfortunate for science that such collectors rarely attempt to keep records of all the minutiae they encounter, of flight periods, behavior, variations in abundance from year to year, foodplants, flower preferences, movements, and many other matters. Still fewer gather together and analyze their records and publish the results. A singular exception is Mr. CLARK, who is not only a distinguished museum zoologist, but also an observant field naturalist whose enthusiasm has never waned. In fact, that enthusiasm has been transmitted to a succession of younger men whose field records have greatly extended the thoroughness of this new book on Virginia butterflies. North American lepidopterists are generally acquainted with Mr. Clark's earlier "The Butterflies of the District of Columbia and Vicinity" (U.S.N.M. Bull. 157; 1932), which has taken a unique position as a superb treatment of a local fauna.
He and Mrs. CLARK have worked on an intensive study of the butterflies of Virginia steadily since 1933. They personally "visited all the 100 counties in the State at least twice, most of them many times". In addition to their personal records from "more than 800 localities", they have been provided with records and specimens from at least ten collectors who each spent much of several years in Virginia localities.
The results reported here undoubtedly provide the fullest information on distribution and flight periods ever published for a New World area of similar size. They will be of great value as a point of reference for comparison with future findings in other parts of North America.
To the reviewer's regret very little else than detailed distribution, local environment, and flight periods is included. There are keys to identification of all the species, original keys utilizing color and superficial structure, which are the best such keys I have ever seen. No attempt is made to prepare a key for female Hesperiinae. The species and subspecies are illustrated in good black-and-white photographs. Eight are also figured in color on the frontispiece.
A rapid check indicates that substantial information on larvae and foodplants is given only for Papilio glaucus, Calpodes ethlius, and Atrytone conspicua.
As expected, the family classification follows the system Mr. CLARK proposed recently for the butterflies of the world (see Lepid. News, vol. 2: p. 73; 1948). But no indication appears anywhere of the characters by which his families Apaturidae, Nymphalidae, Argynnidae, and Danaidae may be distinguished, even in Virginia. This is unfortunate on two counts: first, most users of the book will be utterly unfamiliar with these names as used and require some explanation; second, the paper establishing these extreme splits of the former Nymphalididae did not properly characterize them, little being mentioned other than broad larval structures and certain habits (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 49: pp. 148-149; 1947).
Four very difficult problems of relationship and distribution are discussed at length and much new information is added to the published record.
1. Papilio glaucus is said to have two general forms with all manner of intergrades found at times. One typically is said to have: the blackish female; male with rounder fore wings, broader tails, etc.; larvae living high in trees, especially on Fraxinus, Magnolia, Liriodendron; and principally southern range. The other is contrasted as having: malelike female; male with pointed fore wings, narrow hindwings and tails; larvae mainly on bushes and low limbs of Prunus, Betula, Populus; and primarily occurring from New England northward. The reviewer's records suggest that the distinction of foodplants and larval altitude are not supportable or are an accident caused by the range limits of the plants. Certainly the male-like females in Connecticut are partial to Fraxinus and to very tall Liriodendron (one of the best gathering points I have ever seen for P. glaucus larvae is the pair of giant Liriodendron in the yard of the
/2 REMINGTON: Clarks' Butterflies of Virginia Vol. 6, nos. 4-5
Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University). In Missouri and adjacent Illinois, where P. glaucus is distinctly of type one, larvae were commonly taken on low leaves of Prunus and lilac. The CLARKS note, however, that in almost any region both forms may occur, the difference in proportions being the important point. The population characteristics are given for each part of the wide range of P. glaucus (except for "subspecies rutulus"), and this is one of the most interesting parts of the book. Now it remains for another study to extend the analysis of these populations with data showing precise proportions of types, exact measurements of wing shape and markings, and illustrations in graphic form, as outlined by Prof. Dr. WOHLFAHRT (Lepid. News, vol. 6: pp. 13-27; 1952). The seasonal forms found in P. glaucus, Battus philenor, and Graphium marcellus are described and explained with care.
2. Colias eurytheme and philodice are clearly not well understood. While they are cited as distinct species in their titles (pp. 93,97), eurytheme is repeatedly called a subspecies of philodice (pp. 96, 97), and on page 1 we read "Colias chrysotheme eurytheme". Some interesting notes give the historical occurrance of the two forms in the Virginia vicinity. C. eurytheme is used for any specimen with even a trace of orange on the upperside; C. philodice must be pure yellow. This, though the simplest breeding experiments show that a brood with three pure yellow (philodice) and one orange (eurytheme) grandparents would fall into the Clarks' "eurytheme" category.
3. Limenitis astyanax is treated as a race of L. arthemis, as was recently done by R. L. CHERMOCK and A. B. KLOTS. White-banded specimens in Virginia are called form albofasciata of astyanax because they "are undoubtedly of local origin cannot be directly related to white-banded individuals living farther north from which they are separated by a broad area in which no white-banded individuals occur" (p.50). But then one reads (p.51) "A large female agreeing closely with others from the Adirondacks of New York and with Drury's figure of arthemis was taken at Charlottesville, Albemarle County very worn and appears to have come from a considerable distance, possible from West Virginia or the mountains of Pennsylvania."
4. Danaus plexippus megalippe, the tropical American race, is unhesitatingly reported from several Virginia localities, although not one case of immigration has ever been proven, and the megalippe type of coloration may be part of the variation pattern of plexippus. The Clarks state (p. 68) that if this were so "they should be found in the west". However, the Clarks themselves mention a specimen from Decatur, Illinois, and presumably the six records they give for Virginia megalippe are taken from a much greater number of eastern D. plexippus than they had available from west of the Appalachians. It is widely held that megalippe is not migratory or at least much less so than plexippus. The CLARKS suggest a seaport origin for U.S.A. megalippe, a tempting but still highly speculative idea.
Each of these four cases can be substantially clarified by careful rearing studies. These are some of the exciting problems posed but not solved by this book.
A further point seems to require comment. Once again Anthocharis genutia is reported to be double-brooded with an incomplete second brood immediately following the first. Once again the proof can come only by rearing the second brood from the first under natural conditions and this has never been reported in print to my knowledge. The field collections suggest faintly that a second brood may actually appear, but the grounds are so uncertain that one wishes more equivocal phrasing had been used by the CLARKS. The "second brood" view was established apparently by Prof. SMYTH, but a check of his paper (Ent. News, vol. 11: pp. 465-468; 1900) shows that his only first brood pupae (1898) not only did not immediately emerge the same year, but in fact none emerged until the SECOND early spring (1900)!
A tantalizing sentence tucked into the preface (p.v) holds promise of another fine work still to appear: "We hope later to publish our detailed records, and also our notes on the habits and other attributes of the various species."
C. L. Remington^ Osborn Zoological Lab., Yale University^ New Haven, Conn., U.S.A.