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.

Volume 44, Number 2

95

Table 1. Growth of £. gillettii larvae from a single population on alternative host-plants. Second instar larvae were raised on each of the 3 possible hostplants, with 9 replicates per plant and 5 larvae per replicate, for 6 days. Methods follow those of Williams and Bowers (op. cit.). Analysis by one-factor ANOVA.

used by each Euphydryas species is as follows (references: Higgins, L. G. 1950, Trans. Roy. Ent. Soc. Lond. 101:435-499; Higgins, L. G. & N. D. Riley 1970, A field guide to the butterflies of Britain and Europe; White, R. R. & M. C. Singer 1974, J. Lepid. Soc. 28:103-107; Howe, W. H. 1975, The butterflies of North America): E. anicia (Double-day)—2(5), E. aurinia Rottemburg—7(7), E. chalcedona (Doubleday)—4(7), £. colon (Edwards)—1(3), £. cynthia Schiffermuller—2(2), £. desfontainii Godart—3(3), £. ed-itha (Boisduval)—5(13), £. maturna L.—3(3), and £. phaeton (Drury)—3(3). Other Eurasian species appear too little known to evaluate their dietary breadth.

I suggest that £. gillettii is like other members of its genus in hostplant choice; more than one plant species is a potential host, but host specificity and host rank order (Singer, M. C. 1982, Oecologia 52:224-229) vary among species and among populations within a single species. In spite of its past reputation, £. gillettii is oligophagous, though it may have greater host specificity than most other Euphydryas (i.e., a larger gap in preference between the first and second host choices). As a result, there are populations, though infrequent, in which plant species other than L. involucrata are used. I expect that additional hostplants will be reported for £. gillettii as more populations are studied. The above evidence also provides support for Singer's (op. cit.) model of hostplant preference.

Meredith Lane kindly identified Lonicera caerulea and deposited voucher specimens at the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University of Wyoming. Deane Bowers made helpful comments on a draft of the manuscript.

Ernest H. Williams, Department of Biology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York 13323.

Received for publication 12 June 1989; revised and accepted 27 February 1990.

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 44(2), 1990, 95-96

NATURAL INTERGENERIC MATING IN LYCAENIDAE

Additional key words: Fixsenia favonius, Calycopis cecrops, Florida.

Documented natural matings between distantly related species of butterflies are rare. Most published reports of intergeneric and interfamilial matings involve species of Ly-caenidae and Nymphalidae (e.g., Downey, J. C. 1962, J. Lepid. Soc. 16:235-237; Frechin, D. 1969, J. Lepid. Soc. 23:115; Jae, R. J. 1972, J. Lepid. Soc. 26:28; Arnold, R. A. 1986,

96                                                 Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society

Fig. 1. Intergeneric mating between Fixsenia favonius (left) and Calycopis cecrops.

J. Lepid. Soc. 40:238-239). I observed an additional intergeneric mating between species of Lycaenidae in central Florida.

On 17 April 1990, a male Fixsenia favonius (J. E. Smith) and a female Calycopis cecrops (Fabricius) were observed in copula at McKethan Lake, Hernando County, Florida. The pair (Fig. 1) was flushed into flight and ultimately came to rest approximately 0.5 m above the ground on the sunlit leaves of a nearby laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia Michx., Fagaceae). The habitat consisted of a narrow powerline easement that bisected an ecotone between turkey oak (Quercus laevis Walt., Fagaceae)-wiregrass (Aristida stricta Michx., Poaceae) scrub and mesic hardwood hammock. The pair was first encountered at about 1430 h EDT and was observed for several minutes. The female C. cecrops was more worn than the male F. favonius. While I was adjusting my camera, the pair flew away and was not relocated.

This report is particularly interesting because a similar pairing involving a male F. favonius and a female C. cecrops was observed at the same location on 25 April 1982 (H. D. Baggett, pers. comm.). Baggett also witnessed the bobbing courtship flight of the male F. favonius prior to coupling. Arnold (op. cit.) proposed that such pairings may be the result of a breakdown in a premating reproductive isolating mechanism.

The observation of two matings between F. favonius and C. cecrops at the same location suggests that such intergeneric matings may be more frequent than previously believed (at least locally).

John V. Calhoun, 3524 Old Village Way, Oldsmar, Florida 34677.

Received for publication 2 May 1990; accepted 29 June 1990.