Click here for the original journal page (in Acrobat pdf format).

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.

256

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society

Remarks. The number of named subspecies of Chlorostrymon simaethis now is four. When specimens are viewed from above, it is difficult to make a positive identification of any subspecies. All are essentially identical, with the possible exception of size, which may or may not be associated with different localities. Subspecific differences from the nominate simaethis are located on the underside of the wings, and concern primarily the differences in the discal lines. Typical simaethis has the post-discal of the forewing bending inward, and that of the hindwing uneven throughout its entire length. The subspecies sarita Skinner (1895, Ent. News, 6: 112, Philadelphia) has the postdiscal of the forewing somewhat straighter, and that of the hindwing curved slightly basad with an obvious "bulge" outward at about the midpoint of the wing. The subspecies jago Comstock & Huntington (1943, Lycaenidae of the Antilles, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. p. 49-130) appears to be a minor variation of typical simaethis; it is considerably larger and the narrow, uneven maculation of the underside is thus magnified. C. simaethis rosario follows this varietal pattern on the underside; the discal line is very straight, very narrow without any 'bulge' and the marginal grey band is rather narrow. As a result, the wing has a greater expanse of green color between the discal band and the marginal band.

The Allyn Museum collection contains series of simaethis and its subspecies from various tropical localities in the hemisphere. Careful scrutiny of the undersides of any series from a single locality reveals an extraordinarily variable insect. The subspecies sarita, found throughout Central and South America from Mexico to Argentina, is the most variable of all. This variability is found within series from any particular locality, and is not correlated with geography.

S. S. NicolaY1, 1500 Wakefield Drive, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455.

1 Research Associate, Allyn Museum of Entomology, 3701 Bay Shore Road, Sarasota, Florida 33580.

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 34(2), 1980, 256-259

OVIPOSITION BEHAVIOR OF REARED ANTHERAEA POLYPHEMUS (SATURNIIDAE)

To improve efficiency in the collection of eggs, we studied oviposition behavior in the giant silkworm moth species we rear. We reported information for Callosamia promethea (Drury) (Miller & Cooper 1977, J. Lepid. Soc. 31: 282-283) and Hyalophora gloveri gloveri (Strecker) (Miller 1978, J. Lepid. Soc. 32: 233-234). Taschenberg & Roelofs (1970, Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 63: 107-111) have reported information for Hyalophora cecropia (Linnaeus). This paper reports oviposition data for a colony of Antheraea polyphemus (Cramer) maintained on various maples (Acer spp.) in Frederick Co., Maryland.

The adults moths in the colony typically emerged in the late afternoon or early evening (1600-1900 hours). If male moths were in the colony, they were placed with the females in indoor mating cages; if males were not available, we placed the females in outdoor mating cages (Miller & Cooper 1976, J. Lepid. Soc. 30: 95-104) to attract wild males for copulation. Only females that mated on the night of or following emergence were included in this study. Mating pairs were observed at frequent intervals

Volume 34, Number 2

257

200 -i

£ 150 -\

L±_

ioo i

50

50

100

150

200

AVERAGE NUMBER OF EGGS OBSERVED BEFORE HATCHING

Fig. 1. Relationship between Antheraea polyphemus egg counts made before hatching and after hatching and larval feeding on shells.

and females were placed in brown paper bags (lunch size) for oviposition as soon as the mated pairs separated. Females were transferred to new paper bags each night until death. We collected eggs from 16 A. polyphemus females.

After a period of time sufficient to allow all eggs to hatch, the bags were opened to record the number of eggs deposited and the number hatched. We observed that larval feeding on egg shells had reduced many egg shells to a very small piece attached to the bag. When larvae hatch in the oviposition bags with foodplants present, they move to the plants and normally do not return to the paper surfaces to consume the egg shells. Allowing the larvae to hatch in bags in the absence of foodplants apparently resulted in more frequent consumption of egg shells. It is thus possible that some eggs might be consumed and lost from the data set. To examine this possibility, we randomly selected 10 oviposition bags. We counted the eggs twice: once before hatching and again after the eggs had hatched and the larvae had fed on the egg shells. The eggs in each bag were counted by each of us before and after hatching.

Fig. 1 shows that the relationship between counts made before and after hatching is linear in our random sample (18-187 eggs per bag). The differences between paired counts averaged less than 1%. We conclude that larval feeding did not adversely affect the accuracy of egg counts made after hatching.

While determining the number and percent hatch of eggs from the 16 females, we observed a very low percent hatch (27.0 and 60.4 percent) for eggs from two individuals that had mated with reared males. Of the 16 females, 8 had mated with reared males and 8 with wild males. To examine the possibility that the type of male was a factor in the number of eggs deposited or the percent hatch, we compared the oviposition and hatching data for these two groups of females (Table 1). Since low percent hatch

258

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society

Table 1. Oviposition and hatching data for eggs from Antheraea polyphemus females mated with reared males or wild males.

1645                            1381                             83.9

Mated with Wild Males

Totals                            3471                            3142                             90.5

was not consistent among females mated with reared males, we conclude it is not attributable to the reared males. It is possible that the two females in question were involved in sibling matings. However, since we do not maintain individual broods separately we cannot determine this. Low percent hatch for eggs from certain females is a characteristic of the colony; determining the cause is not critical to elucidating the oviposition pattern for our purposes. Therefore, we have consolidated the oviposition and hatching data for all 16 females (Table 2) to accurately represent the oviposition

Table 2. Summary of oviposition and hatching data for eggs from reared Antheraea polyphemus females.

Volume 34, Number 2

259

behavior of this A. polyphemus colony. These 16 individuals deposited a total of 3471 eggs over a 9-day period. All females survived for at least 4 days after mating; 3 individuals lived for 8 days. The average longevity after mating was 6.1 days. The maximum number of eggs deposited by a single female that lived for 8 days was 357; the minimum number was 84 for a female that lived for 4 days. The average number of eggs deposited per female was 216.9. Average percent hatch decreased gradually with time after mating of the females, with a marked decrease after the fifth night.

From these observations we conclude: 1) feeding on egg shells by A. polyphemus larvae after they hatch does not adversely affect the collection of oviposition data; 2) whether or not a female A. polyphemus mates with a reared male or a wild male does not appear to influence either the total number of eggs deposited or the percent hatch; and 3) A. polyphemus follows the general pattern reported for other giant silkworm moth species (the optimum period for collecting eggs is during the first three nights after mating).

Thomas A. Miller & William J. Cooper,1 U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research 6- Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland 21701.

1 Entomologist & Research Chemist, respectively; the opinions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of the Army.

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 34(2), 1980, 259-261

NATURAL INTERSPECIFIC PAIRING BETWEEN PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS AND P. NAPI OLERACEA (PIERIDAE)

Recent records for Pieris napi oleracea Harris and its congener P. virginiensis Edw. confirm that although the latter has a more southerly distribution, the geographic ranges of these two species overlap widely in the northeastern United States and upper Great Lakes region (e.g., Forbes 1960, Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states, Part IV, Cornell Univ. Agric. Expt. Sta., Ithaca, New York; Muller 1968, J. New York Ento-mol. Soc. 76: 303-306; Tasker 1975, J. Lepid. Soc. 29: 23; Shull 1977, ibid., 31: 68-70; Wagner & Mellichamp 1978, ibid., 32: 20-36; Drees & Butler 1978, ibid., 32: 198-206). The two species are ecologically as well as morphologically distinct. The univoltine habit of P. virginiensis corresponds well with the vernal phenology of its woodland larval foodplant (Dentaria spp., primarily D. diphylla Michx.), although some potential for polyphenism exists (Shapiro 1971, Ent. News 82: 13-16). P. n. oleracea is usually bi- (sometimes tri-) voltine and occupies a variety of habitats. These include the beech-maple-hemlock woods in which P. virginiensis may be found (where P. n. oleracea also utilizes Dentaria spp. as a larval foodplant) as well as other wooded areas (e.g. tamarack bog, Shull 1977, op. cit.; Thuja occidentalis swamp, Chew 1978, J. Lepid. Soc. 32: 129) and open areas where it exploits several native and naturalized crucifer species as larval foodplants (Chew 1978, Atala 5: 13-19).

Despite the geographic overlap of these species, however, sympatry on a local scale seems to be rather uncommon, with the result that members of these two species do not frequently interact. Known areas of local sympatry are southern Vermont, western Massachusetts (Howe 1975, The butterflies of North America, Doubleday, Garden City, New Jersey; A. B. Klots, in litt.) and northern Michigan (Wagner, in litt. and 1956,