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.
|
|
||||
|
24
|
Kendall: SW Louisiana
|
Vol.17: no.l
|
||
|
|
||||
|
References Cited
Kendall, Roy O., 1960. New larval foodplant for Erynnis zarucco (Hesperiidae)
from Louisiana. Journ. lepid. soc. 14: 176. Lambrtmont, Edward Nelson, 1954. The butterflies and skippers of Louisiana.
Tulane studies in zoology 1: 125-164.
135 Vaughan Place, San Antonio 1, Texas, U. S. A.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF FOODPLANT PREFERENCES IN
THE LYCAENA HELLOIDES COMPLEX (LYCAENIDAE)
IN COLORADO
by Donald S. Chambers
I. Laboratory Studies of helloides — like Populations
The purplish Copper of the Rocky Mountains, described from Alberta as florus by Edwards, has recently been referred to the northeastern Lycaena dorcas Kirby because of their very similar appearance. The range of florus is, however, isolated from that of dorcas and lies in conjunction with the area occupied, at lower altitudes at least, by L. helloides Boisduval, and most writers have considered florus to be a race of helloides. Brown (1955) sees dorcas and helloides as a "well-defined cline", but Clench (1958) believes they are distinct species for the following reasons: first, they have different determined food-plants (dorcas feeds on Votentilla, helloides on "Polygonum and possibly others — but not Fotentilla"); second, the two are sympatric but easily separable throughout a broad zone in the Michigan to Manitoba area; third, "there is no 'perfect intergraduation' across the continent as the authors state, though if large series are not seen it might appear so"; fourth, dorcas is single-brooded while helloides is multi-brooded. The present study is an attempt to determine the food plant(s) of florus and thereby disclose its true affinities.
An oviposition choice situation was presented to three florus females (Group I) collected near Gothic, Gunnison County, Colorado (elevation: 10,000 ft.). Freshly cut, roughly equal-sized sprigs from five plants were placed in moist earth in a flower pot covered by a broad lamp chimney with marquisette netting over the top. The tops of the sprigs were leveled so that all were equally accessible to the females. About three inches of open space were left below the cloth. Throughout this and the following
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1963
|
Journal of the Lepidopterists Society
|
25
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
experiments the females were fed honey water daily and given an artificially lighted day of from ten to fourteen hours. Light and warmth were provided by an incandescent bulb placed about three inches above the cloth. With Linum and Chenopodium serving as; controls, the disposition of eggs the first day was as follows:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Location on Plant
upper leaves and stems all on flowers or fruit not noted
on fruit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
61
After this test, Group I and two new groups of three females each were presented Potentilla fruticosa or Rumex sp. (once both) on successive days. The schedules and results were as follows:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Test Day Group I
|
1
3 4 5 6
|
Potentilla fruticosa 15
12
22 22
|
Rumex
__i
21
25 23
15
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Group II
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
total 21
|
92
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Group III produced no eggs.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1— means plant not offered this day. 2Each* indicates death of one female.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
26 Chambers: Foodplant preferences Vol.17: no.l
The 329 Gothic eggs produced no larvae when kept at room temperature for one month followed by three months at 4.5°C and a return to room temperature. Unless all eggs were infertile or killed in the first few days (which is very unlikely), it must be assumed that they entered diapause but subsequently died.
Five females were collected 25 Aug. 1961 in Gunnison, Gunnison County (elevation 7680 ft.), on or next to Rumex plants growing along an irrigation ditch; these females were at least 30 yards, and probably many times that distance, from the nearest P. fruticosa. They laid 102 eggs when confined with Rumex, and 40 larvae hatched within five days. Twenty-two larvae were placed on Rumex crispus and produced 17 adults about 26 days later.
Most areas near Gothic where the females were found contained both P. fruticosa and polygonaceous plants, but one field surrounded by forest was apparently devoid of P. fruticosa although florus was common.
Thus, there are probably major biological differences between the Gothic and Gunnison populations. It seems certain that the Gunnison population is not a Potentilla feeder, and since many late-August eggs developed immediately and hatched, it is apparently at least double-brooded. It is, therefore, best referred to L. helloides. The Gothic population is certainly single-brooded; there is, however, some indication that, as with the Gunnison population, Potentilla is not the foodplant. More evidence is needed, particularly careful field observation of oviposition choice and perhaps larval survival tests on the possible plants. It may turn out that the high altitude florus is not referable to either dorcas or helloides.
II. A Foodplant of Lycaena nivalis
Two females of Lycaena nivalis browni Field were observed ovipositing on Polygonum douglassii, 7 Aug. 1961 at Gothic, Gunnison County, Colorado. A search of about thirty plants produced five additional Lycaena eggs.
Literature Cited
Brown, F. Martin, et al., 1955. Colorado butterflies. Part III. Libytheidae, Riodinidae and Lycaenidae. Froc. Denver mus. nat. hist., No.5: pp. 113-176, 148 figs.
Clench, Harry K., 1958. Colorado Butterflies. Part HI. Libytheidae, Riodinidae and Lycaenidae. [Review]. Lepid. news 11: 57-60.
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., U. S. A
|
||
|
|
||