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
Sculthorpe, C. D. 1967. The biology of aquatic vascular plants. Edward Arnold,
London. 610 p. Tilden, J. W. 1957. Taxonomic history and distribution of OModes yuma. Lepid.
News 11: 151-152. ----------. 1961. Studies in the genus Ochlodes Scudder. II. The type material of the
North American species (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Entom. News 72: 37-45.
BIZARRE CAPTURE OF A BUTTERFLY BY AN AMBUSH BUG
Pyle (1973, J. Lepid. Soc. 27: 305-307) reported the communal feeding of ambush bugs (Hemiptera: Phymatidae: Phymata sp.) upon a single adult silver bordered fritillary, Boloria selene Denis & Schiffermiiller (Nymphalidae). He stated that due to the small size of the ambush bugs relative to the butterfly that the "means of actual capture. . .baffled me." Personal observation of a similar situation has revealed a possible mode of capture.
On 11 November 1968 at the Brackenridge Field Laboratory of the University of Texas at Austin (within Austin), I observed the capture of a dogface butterfly, Colias (Zerene) cesonia Stoll (Pieridae), by an ambush bug, Phymata fasciata (Gray), on an inflorescence of cowpen daisy, Verbesina encelioides Cav. (Gray) (Compositae). C. cesonia is common in this area at this season and frequently visits inflorescences of V. encelioides for nectar. One particular butterfly was observed to visit several inflorescences in rapid sequence (very little time is spent at a single inflorescence). Upon approaching one inflorescence, the butterfly quickly dipped down to the plant but did not rise immediately to fly to another. Instead, a rapid beating of the wings ensued with the body of the butterfly remaining stationary. Shortly, the butterfly ceased movement but later began beating its wings again.
Investigation of the inflorescence revealed that the butterfly was being held by its proboscis which was caught fast in one of the foretibia of the bug. This impasse (butterfly unable to escape, bug unable to consume a meal) continued for at least fifteen minutes, after which time observations ceased. Possibly the bug could have maneuvered its beak into position to pierce the body of the butterfly. Great strength and elasticity of the proboscis as illustrated by C. cesonia would indicate that the proboscis probably would not break (permitting freedom but in a mutilated condition). Body length of the bug was about 10 mm while that of C. cesonia averages about 23 mm.
Raymond W. Neck, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, John H. Reagan Building, Austin, Texas 78701.