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.
22
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
----------. 1972. Coevolution: patterns of legume predation by a lycaenid butterfly.
Oecologia, in press. Brussard, P. F. & P. R. Ehrlich. 1970. Contrasting population biology of two
species of butterflies. Nature 227: 91-92. Dethier, V. G. 1959. Food-plant distribution and density and larval dispersal as
factors affecting insect populations. Can. Entomol. 91: 581-596. Downey, J. C. & W. C. Fuller. 1961. Variation in Plebejus icarioides (Lycaeni-
dae) I. Food-plant specificity. J. Lepid. Soc. 15(1): 34-52. Ehrlich, P. R. & P. H. Raven. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Gilbert, L. E. 1971. The effect of resource distribution on population structure in
the butterfly Euphydryas editha: Jasper Ridge vs. Del Puerto Canyon colonies.
Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Singer, M. C. 1971. Evolution of food-plant preference in the butterfly Euphydryas
editha. Evolution 25: 383-389.
FOODPLANT ECOLOGY OF THE BUTTERFLY
CHLOSYNE L ACINI A (GEYER) (N YMPHALID AE).
I. LARVAL FOODPLANTS
Raymond W. Neck Department of Zoology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712
For several years I have studied field populations of Chlosyne lacinia (Geyer) (Nymphalidae: Melitaeini) in central and south Texas for genetic (Neck et al., 1971) and ecological genetic data. A considerable amount of information concerning foodplants of this species has been collected. Foodplant utilization information is an important base from which ecological studies may emerge. Such information is also invaluable in evaluating the significance of tested foodplant preferences of larvae and adults. Such studies have been under way by other investigators and will be available for comparison with natural population observations.
In addition to personal observations (which cover a four-year period encompassing some 20 generations), an extensive search of the literature reveals numerous, though scattered, previous reports of foodplants. Literature references to populations in central and south Texas are integrated into Table 1 with personal observations. All reports of foodplants outside the study area are discussed separately at the end of the study area foodplant discussion.
Foodplants (see Table 1) are arranged into three basic categories ac-
Volume 27, Number 1
23
cording to their frequency of utilization by C. lacinia: I) major food-plants, II) occasional foodplants, and III) rarely utilized foodplants. Obviously these three groups are arranged in a descending order of importance. Within each group, however, foodplants are not arranged in any particular order of importance.
The first three plants on the list are by far the most important foodplants of C. lacinia in central and south Texas. These three plants are the most prone of all foodplants (except #7 and #10) to form large, nearly monospecific stands. Larval populations of C. harrisii have greater developmental success in dense fields of the foodplant, Aster umbellatus, as a result of smaller inter-plant distances which allow more successful larval movement to fresh plants (Dethier, 1959), rather than as a result of greater foodplant biomass which would increase the number of oviposi-tion sites.
The last group of foodplants is almost negligible in importance and some records should be considered anomalous. These foodplants are included because some "anomalous" foodplants may be utilized at a high level under certain conditions (see foodplant #4). This latter group of plants might not fit the definition of a suitable foodplant given by Remington & Pease (1955) which is as follows: "A full test of the suitability of a plant requires that the larva be reared solely on that plant and that the adults be induced to mate and lay eggs which then hatch." In actuality, however, one plant species need not be the sole foodplant utilized in order to be considered a "full" foodplant (see Discussion).
All foodplant records are the result of adult female discrimination which resulted in oviposition of an egg mass (marked by "O" in Table 1) unless a particular record is cited as being larvae that have switched from another foodplant. Skeletonized leaf damage is typical of the gregarious early-instar larvae. Post-dispersal larvae of the fourth and fifth (final) ins tars chew holes through all leaf layers. Thus, it is quite simple to determine whether leaf damage typical of immature larvae is present. If none is present, the larvae are assumed to have switched from some other plant. In several instances larvae were actually observed while they were switching. This phenomenon of larval foodplant switching will be discussed in more detail elsewhere (Neck, in prep.).
All observations within the study area involve the taxon of C lacinia known as adjutrix Scudder. Some references to populations in the western United States may refer to either adjutrix or crocale (Edwards) or mixed populations of these two phenotypes. Records from Latin America refer to saundersi (Doubleday), a term used to describe a form close to or including adjutrix (Higgins, 1960).
Table 1. Larval foodplants of Chlosyne lacinia within the study area
Plant species
Code1
Tribe2
Range (Texas)
Habitat
Major foodplants
. Helianthus annuus L. Common sunflower
. Ximenesia encelioides Cav. Cowpen daisy
. Ambrosia trifida L. Giant ragweed
. Occasional foodplants
. Verbesina virginica L. Frostweed
. Viguiera dent at a (Cav.) Spreng. Sunflower goldeneye
. Zexmenia hispida (H.B.K.) Gray. Shrub daisy
7. Helianthus cucumerifolius T. & G. Cucumberleaf sunflower
Heliantheae (V) entire state, less com- cleared ground mon in east area dirt piles; vario
but prefers cla
Heliantheae (V) most of state; rare in disturbed sand east area of fields and
banks
Heliantheae (A) entire state seasonally wet
beds or floodpl
A-O
A-O
P-O
P-O Heliantheae (V)
P-O Heliantheae (V)
A-O
I. Rarely utilized foodplants
8. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. A-Common ragweed
9. Parihenium hysterophorus L. A-O False ragweed
Heliantheae (V) eastern and central shaded woodlan
areas thickets
central and western limestone outcro
areas, especially Ed- in cracks almo
wards Plateau of soil
Edwards Plateau, Rio limestone deriv Grande Plains
Heliantheae (V) eastern and central sandy soils areas
Heliantheae (A) all areas but Pan- waste soil in f handle and Trans- or partial shad Pecos
Heliantheae (A) all areas but east disturbed sites
ous soils
Table 1. (Continued)
Plant species
Code1
Tribe12
Range (Texas)
10. Helianthus argophyllous T. & G. Silverleaf sunflower
11. Xanthium strumarium L. Cockleburr
12. Simsia calva (E. & G.) Gray. Bushsunflower
13. Calyptocarpus vialis Less. Prostrate lawnflower
14. Silphium sp. Rosinweed
15. Gaillardia pulchella Foug. Firewheel
16. Heterotheca latifolia Buck. Camphor weed
A- Heliantheae (V)
A-O Heliantheae (A)
P- Heliantheae (V)
P-O Heliantheae
P-O Heliantheae
A-? Heleniae
A-
Astereae
east central and coastal plains
entire state
south, central and
western areas
south and central areas
central sector
all areas but east
all areas
deep, l
moist
dry soi
heavy
limesto
prairie
abando
fallow
ous so
sandy
1 A = annual, P = perennial; O = oviposition recorded under field conditions.
2 (V) = subtribe Verbesiinae; (A) subtribe Ambrosiinae.
26
Journal of the Lepidopterists> Society
Larval Foodplants Within Study Area
The botanical nomenclature of Gould (1969) was followed. All localities, unless otherwise noted, are in central and south Texas. Obviously some plants not on this list may serve as foodplants, but, due to the time spent observing C. lacinia, all major and occasional foodplants utilized in this area are believed to be known. Various sources (Heiser, 1947; Shinners, 1958; Lynch, 1968; Gould, 1969; Correll & Johnston, 1970) were utilized to obtain the information on geographical range (within Texas) and preferred habitats of the various foodplants. This information is summarized in Table 1.
Helianthus annnus L. serves as the major foodplant from spring (first adults are normally seen around April 1 in Austin) until August. By August the great majority of these plants have become senescent due to hot, dry summer weather. The few sunflower plants that survive through summer until September rains occur are often able to survive until early winter. Larval broods have been found on this species as late as November (1971) in central Texas in favorable sites and years. Infestations have been found on H. annuus in deep south Texas (Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge) as late as the last week of December (1970).
Although egg masses have been found on cultivated monocephalic varieties of H. annuus, larval development does not appear to be as successful as on the wild form. Populations would not likely occur in cultivated fields of this species because of insecticidal treatments used against the sunflower moth, Homeosoma electellum (Phycitidae) (Teetes & Randolph, 1968).
Ximenesia encelioides Cav. is by far the major foodplant of C. lacinia from August (Drummond et al., 1970) until the end of the larval feeding period in November or early December. Although this annual germinates in the spring (February), most seedlings grow rather slowly until late summer rains occur (normally in September). These plants then grow rapidly and are able to support huge larval populations.
Ambrosia trifida L. serves as a foodplant only when there is a nearby population of C. lacinia on another foodplant. A. trifida is often found in the moister parts of a field of H. annuus. I have never found a pure, isolated stand of A. trifida to be infested with C. lacinia. Possibly adult females are not particularly attracted to this plant unless they have already been partially stimulated by one of the other two plants listed previously,
Although I have always found limited numbers of larvae on A. trifida, Kendall (1959) reported thousands of larvae in Medina Co. on a mixed stand of H. annuus and A. trifida. He also located another large popula-
Volume 27, Number 1
27
tion which was feeding solely on A. trifida in Kendall Co. This exception may have been the result of 1957 being a particularly good year for C. lacinia (Kendall, 1959). The large populations that year were probably the result of a wet year following the longest Texas drought (1950-56) on record.
Until 1971 the sole record for Verbesina virginica L,? which is a central Texas foodplant for Chlosyne nycteis, was Kendall's (1959) report of a single larva. In autumn 1971 I located three different infestations on this species including one large larval population. Possible reasons for utilization of this plant by C. lacinia in 1971 will be discussed elsewhere (Neck, in prep.).
Xanthium strumarium L. was not recorded as a foodplant for C. lacinia, despite continual checking, until autumn 1971. W. H. Calvert (pers. comm.) has reported difficulty in rearing C. lacinia larvae on this species (i.e., near complete arrest of development). Gaillardia pulchella Foug. was reported (R. O. Kendall, pers. comm.) as a foodplant in the autumn of 1970 during a severe drought when other foodplants may not have been suitable. Some foodplant records (species #'s 8, 10, 12 & 16) consist solely of instances where larvae have switched foodplant species. One of the aforementioned larval switch foodplants, Helianthus argophyllous T. & G. (#10), is known as a foodplant only in the artificial situation of a transplant garden at a field laboratory. No records, as a result of either oviposition or larval switching, are known under natural conditions, despite examination of numerous large stands of this species.
Larval Foodplants Outside Study Area
Cockerell (Edwards, 1893) reported larvae on what "appears to be the common H. annuus" near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Later Cockerell (1900) reported them to be very common on H. annuus in the Mesilla Valley, New Mexico. He also found them on Helianthus ciliaris while a few larvae were found on Xanthium canadense and Palafoxia hookeriana. In southern California, larvae have been commonly found on H. annuus but a few have been found on Viguiera deltoidea var. parishii (Thome, 1962). Comstock (1927) reports the foodplant merely as "sunflower." In Arizona it feeds on H. annuus and Xanthium saccharatum (Gorodenski, 1969). H. annuus is by far the most important foodplant in Arizona. Generally, Xanthium is utilized only in association with the former species, although one large population has been reported on the latter plant (S. A. Gorodenski, pers. comm.). According to Love & Dansereau (1959), the two taxa of Xanthium mentioned above are taxonomic entities of the highly variable species, X. strumarium (foodplant #11).
28
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
The three above states, in addition to Texas, encompass the entire range of C. lacinia in the United States except for occasional strays as far north as Kansas and Nebraska (Klots, 1951). Its range extends southward to Argentina (Bauer, 1951) where it feeds on a composite which Koehler (1927) believed to be a Helianthus. L. E. Gilbert (pers. comm.) has observed larvae on Eupatorium sp. in Trinidad and Baltimora sp. in Guanacaste Province near Canas in Costa Rica.
Ovipositional Mistakes
Ovipositional mistakes by adult females of various lepidoptera have been previously reported (Remington, 1952; Dethier, 1959a). At times mistakes are on exotic toxic species which have native palatable congeners (Straatmen, 1962; Kendall, 1964). Only one mistake has been observed for C. lacinia. A normal-sized egg mass was found on a leaf of Solarium pseudocapsicum (Solanaceae) growing in the transplant garden of the Brackenridge Field Laboratory in the summer of 1971 (A. Hart-gerink, pers. comm.). Unfortunately the egg mass was not discovered until the leaf had been kept in a refrigerator for several days, thus preventing the eggs from hatching. Normally utilized foodplants (H. annuus, A. trifida and Z. hispida) were present nearby in the same garden. Although observing such mistakes is largely a matter of chance, one would not expect a species laying large egg masses, e.g. C. lacinia, to make as many mistakes as a species which lays smaller masses or single eggs as the selective disadvantage would be much greater. Dethier (1959b) recorded no such errors for C. harrisii.
Larval Foodplant Taxonomy
The above larval foodplants, all members of the family Compositae, belong to the tribe Hehantheae (Correll & Johnston, 1970) except Gaillardia and Palafoxia (both Heleniae), Heterotheca (Astereae) and Eupatorium (Eupatoriae). Cronquist (1955) independently derived these last two tribes from the Hehantheae, considered to be the most primitive tribe of the Compositae. He acknowledges, however, the possibility that the Eupatoriae may be related to the Hehantheae through primitive members of the Senecioneae.
He puts the tribe Heleniae into the Hehantheae claiming that the former tribe is a catch-all group for several groups which independently evolved from the basic Hehantheae stock. The phylogenetic arrangement described above would indicate a tight taxonomic relationship among the various foodplants of C. lacinia. It should be mentioned, however, that Cronquist derived all but one of the tribes of the Compositae from the primitive tribe Hehantheae.
Volume 27, Number 1
29
Of the fourteen foodplants which belong to the Heliantheae, all but two belong to the subtribes Ambrosiinae (Ambrosia, Xanthium, and Par-thenium) and Verbesiinae (Helianthus, Viguiera, Simsia, Zexmenia, Ximenesia and Verbesina). Quite far removed from these two groups, and from each other, are Silphium and Calyptocarpus (B. L. Turner, pers. comm.).
The genus Viguiera (see foodplant #5) is very closely related to Helianthus (Heiser, 1969) with generic distinctions breaking down in a few species. Blake (1918) believed that Helianthus evolved from the ancestral stock of Viguiera, an idea which has received recent support from Heiser (1957). Also noteworthy is the fact that some authorities (Correll & Johnston, 1970) place Ximenesia (see foodplant #2) within the genus Verbesina (see foodplant #4).
The three species of Helianthus utilized as foodplants by C. lacinia in central Texas are all members of the section Annui of Helianthus (Heiser, 1969). H. argophyllous is considered to be extremely closely related to H. annuus (Heiser, 1951). The only other species of this genus which is commonly encountered in central Texas is H. maximiliani, a perennial which is not known to be a foodplant. It belongs to the section Divaricati of Helianthus.
Discussion
It appears that although C. lacinia feeds on a relatively large number of plant species, little taxonomic diversity is involved. C. lacinia may, therefore, be considered oligophagous, i.e., feeding on only a few species of many present throughout its geographical range.
Actually, since there has never been a definition of just how many foodplants are a "few," application of this term is somewhat the result of personal discretion. Dethier (1947) argued that the terms monophagous, oligophagous and polyphagous should be based on the number of chemicals which are perceived as attractants. Using this criterion, none of the above terms could be applied to C. lacinia until the chemistry of the foodplant-butterfly relationship has been analyzed. C. lacinia might be considered monophagous if all of the above foodplants were perceived via one chemical or a "group of closely related chemicals confused as one" (Dethier, 1947). Thorsteinson (1960) has presented a more diversified model involving differential relative importances of stimulatory and inhibitory phytochemicals. Plants related to foodplants, but not utilized by C. lacinia, might be distinguished by repellant or inhibitory factors (chemical or physical) not present in foodplants. For the purposes of this discussion, however, C. lacinia will be designated as oligophagous.
30
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
Previously we saw that C. lacinia is oligophagous as a species, i.e., it occurs on a number of foodplants over its geographic range. A single larval population of C. lacinia is most often found infesting several foodplants unless only one is available. This may be due to variance in adult ovipositional behavior or foodplant switching by larvae. Thus, one can say that C. lacinia may be oligophagous as a population and also as an individual. A single colony usually feeds on more than one plant and the same may be true for an individual larva.
This situation in C. lacinia may be contrasted with examples, from the literature, of other butterflies. Plebejus icarioides (Lycaenidae) can be found on numerous species of Lupinus (Leguminosae) although an individual population feeds on only one species, even if several species of Lupinus are available (Downey & Fuller, 1961). Thus, P. icarioides is oligophagous as a species but monophagous as a population and as an individual except in rare cases where ants, which may take the larvae into their nests for the winter, place them on a second Lupinus in the following spring (Downey, 1962).
Singer (1971) reports larvae of Euphydryas editha (which is in the same tribe as C. lacinia) on plants of several families, but many colonies are found on practically only one foodplant species. However, at least one population of E. editha regularly feeds on two different plant species (of two different plant families) in the pre-diapause and post-diapause periods (Singer, 1971). Using the same criteria utilized above, E. editha can be classified as being oligophagous as a species but monophagous or oligophagous as a population. One colony has been found to be regularly oligophagous as individuals. A similar situation occurs in E. maturna in Europe (Higgins, 1950; Higgins & Riley, 1970) and E. phaeton in the eastern United States (Klots, 1951). All of the species discussed in this section are oligophagous, but this oligophagy can be exhibited in various ways.
Singer (1971) reported inter-populational differences in foodplant specificity in E. editha. This phenomenon has not been observed in C. lacinia. Populations of E. editha are genetically isolated from one another, primarily due to the sedentary habits of the adults (Ehrlich, 1961, 1965). C. lacinia adults, while most commonly found in the vicinity of foodplant stands, are quite capable of flying the distance between populations. Such flights probably occur more frequently as a result of nectar source shortages which arise when adult populations become very dense. Dethier & MacArthur (1964), working with C. harrisii, reported an adult emigration which occurred following an increase in the larval population due to artificial stocking. This same phenomenon, i.e., density-dependent dispersal, is believed to occur in C. lacinia.
Volume 27, Number 1
31
There is no significant spatial foodplant polymorphism in C. lacinia (differential foodplant preferences in spatially separated populations) as discussed for E. editha. Rather, C. lacinia exhibits a temporal foodplant polymorphism, i.e., it feeds on H. annuus (spring and early summer) and X. encelioides (late summer and fall) during two roughly separable time periods. Temporal foodplant polymorphism is known for Papilio machaon in desert areas where it feeds on a succession of different foodplants (Buxton, 1923). Tephroclystis virgaureata, a European geometrid moth, has two generations annually, the first of which reportedly feeds on Senecio and Solidago (both Compositae) while the second feeds on Prunus and Crataegus (both Rosaceae) (Klos, 1901).
It is interesting to note in Table 1 that field oviposition has been observed for all major and occasional foodplants (groups I and II). However, field oviposition is not known for some of the rarely utilized food-plants of group III. Force (1966) reported that adults of the three-lined potato beetle, Lema trilineata, were "more fastidious in selecting hosts for feeding and oviposition" than were larvae which attempted to feed on many unsuitable plant species. This is not really unexpected since the more mobile adults can search for other food items whereas the relatively sedentary larvae are normally forced to eat what the adult selects for its young. If the adult selected suitable foodplants, there will be no selection for larval discrimination, because the correct foodplant is always available.
Summary
Sixteen plant species are known as foodplants of Chlosyne lacinia (Geyer) in central and south Texas. All of these plants are in the family Compositae and all except two are in the tribe Heliantheae. What is known of the foodplants outside the study area is reported. The type of oligophagy exhibited by C. lacinia is discussed in relation to oligophagy as exhibited by other butterfly species. A spatial foodplant polymorphism has not been observed, but a temporal foodplant polymorphism is reported.
Acknowledgments
For encouragement, discussion and comments on previous drafts of this paper, I wish to thank G. L. Bush, W. H. Calvert, L. E. Gilbert, F. E. Hanson and R. O. Kendall. This research was supported in part by PHS-Training Grant GM-00337 and a grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences GM-15769.
32
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
Literature Cited
Bauer, D. L. 1961. Tribe Melitaeini, in P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich, How to Know
the Butterflies. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. Blake, S. F. 1918. A revision of the genus Viguiera. Contr. Gray Herb. 54: 1-
205. Brues, C. T. 1924. The specificity of foodplants in the evolution of phtyophagous
insects. Amer. Nat. 58: 127-144. Buxton, P. A. 1923. Animal Life in the Deserts. Edward Arnold, London. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1900. Synchloe lacinia. Entomol. News. 11: 503. Comstock, J. A. 1927. Butterflies of California. Publ. by author, Los Angeles. Correll, D. S. & M. Johnston. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas.
Texas Research Foundation, Renner, Texas. Cronquist, A. 1955. Phylogeny and taxonomy of the Compositae. Amer. Mid.
Nat. 53: 478-511. Dethier, V. G. 1947. Chemical Insect Attractants and Repellants. Blakiston,
Philadelphia. ----------. 1959. Foodplant distribution and density and larval dispersal as factors
affecting insect populations. Can. Entomol. 91(9): 581-596. ----------. & R. H. MacArthur. 1964. A field's capacity to support a butterfly
population. Nature 201: 728-729. Downey, J. C. 1962. Myrmecophily in Plebejus (Icaria) icarioides (Lycaenidae).
Entomol. News. 73: 57-66. ----------. & W. E. Fuller. 1961. Variation in Plebejus icarioides (Lycaenidae).
I. Foodplant specificity. J. Lepid. Soc. 15(1): 34-52. Drummond, B. A. Ill, G. L. Bush & T. C. Emmel. 1970. The biology and laboratory culture of Chlosyne lacinia Geyer (Nymphalidae). J. Lepid. Soc. 24(2):
135-142. Edwtards, W. H. 1893. Notes on a polymorphic butterfly, Synchloe lacinia, Geyer
(in Hub. Zutr.), with description of its preparatory stages. Can. Entomol. 25:
286-291. Ehrlich, P. R. 1961. Intrinsic barriers to dispersal in checkerspot butterfly.
Science 134: 108-109. ----------. 1965. The population biology of the butterfly, Euphydryas editha. II. The
structure of the Jasper Ridge Colony. Evolution 19: 327-336. Force, D. C. 1966. Reactions of the three-lined potato beetle, Lema trilineata
(Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae), to its host and certain nonhost plants. Ann.
Entomol. Soc. Amer. 59(6): 1112-1119. Gorodenski, S. A. 1969. The genetics of three polymorphic larval color forms of
Chlosyne lacinia (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Genet. Res. 14: 333-336. Gould, F. W. 1969. Texas plants—A checklist and ecological survey. Rev. Ed.
Texas Agri. Exper. Sta. MP-585. Heiser, C. B. 1947. Hybridization between the sunflower species Helianthus
annum and H. petiolaris. Evolution 1(4): 249-262. ----------. 1951. Hybridization in the annual sunflowers: Helianthus annuus X H.
argophyllous. Amer. Nat. 85(820): 65-72. ----------. 1957. A revision of the South American species of Helianthus. Brittonia
8(4): 283-295. ----------. 1969. The North American sunflowers (Helianthus). Mem. Torrey Bot.
Club 22(3): 1-218. Higgins, L. G. 1950. A descriptive catalog of the Palearctic Euphydryas (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Trans. Roy. Soc. Entomol. Soc. London 101: 435-489. ----------. 1960. A revision of the Melitaeine genus Chlosyne and allied species
(Lepidoptera:Nymphalinae). Trans. Roy. Entomol. Soc. London 112: 381-
467.
Volume 27, Number 1
33
----------. & N. D. Riley. 1970. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and
Europe. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Kendall, R. O. 1959. More larval foodplants from Texas. J. Lepid. Soc. 13(4):
221-228. ----------. & C. A. Kendall. 1971. Lepidoptera in the unpublished field notes of
Howard George Lacey, naturalist. (1856-1929). J. Lepid. Soc. 25(1): 29-44. Klos, R. 1901. Zur lebensgechichte von Tephrocylstis virgaureata Dbld. Verh.
K. K. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien 51: 785 (referred to in Brues, 1927). Klots, A. B. 1951. A Field Guide to the Butterflies. Riverside, Cambridge, Mass. Koehler, I. P. 1927. Biologia de Chlosyne saundersi Dbl. & Hew. Rev. Soc.
Entomol. Argentina. 1-2: 3-4. Love, D. & P. Dansereau. 1959. Biosystematic studies on Xanthium: taxonomic
appraisal and ecological status. Can. J. Bot. 37: 173-208. Lynch, D. 1968. Plants of Austin, Texas. St. Edward's, Austin. Neck, R. W., G. L. Bush & B. A. Drummond III. 1971. Epistasis, associated
lethals and brood effect in larval color polymorphism of the patch butterfly,
Chlosyne lacinia. Heredity 26(1): 73-84. Shinner, L. H. 1958. Spring Flora of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area Texas. Publ.
by author, Dallas. Singer, M. C. 1971. Evolution of food-plant preference in the butterfly Euphydryas
editha. Evolution 25(2): 383-389. Teetes, G. L. & N. M. Randolph. 1968. Chemical control of the sunflower moth
on sunflowers. J. Eco. Entomol. 61(5): 1344-1347. Thorne, F. 1962. Larval notes on Chlosyne lacinia and C. californica. J. Lepid.
Soc. 16: 61. Thorsteinson, A. J. 1960. Host selection in phytophagous insects. Ann. Rev.
Entomol. 5: 193-218. Tinkham, E. R. 1944. Faunistic notes on the diurnal lepidoptera of the Big Bend
region of Trans-Pecos, Texas, with the description of a new Melitaea. Can.
Entomol. 76: 11-18.
THE COLLECTION OF BUTTERFLIES MADE BY JACK DENNIS AT BEULAH, MANITOBA
John H. Masters Lemon Street North, North Hudson, Wisconsin 54016
During a period of almost 50 years A. J. Dennis, better known as Jack, resided and collected Lepidoptera at Beulah, Manitoba. He engaged in extensive exchange and sale of specimens and, as a result, his materials are distributed throughout the world. His personal collection, now in the possession of the Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature in Winnipeg, is the basis of this paper.
I have not been able to ascertain a great deal concerning Jack Dennis himself. Only three lepidopterists had direct contact with him, Jack May,