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.
292
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
found one live pupa in a broken-off "chimney," and one female ovipositing on different plants. At a third site he observed three unopened "chimneys," plus 10 eggs on yucca leaves. At the final site he found two "chimneys." All sites are within a few miles of each other in Calloway County, Kentucky.
The Yucca Giant-Skipper has not been published as occurring in Illinois (U.S.G.S. state lists) or Missouri (J. R. Heitzman pers. com.). Leroy C. Koehn (pers. com.) reported that he has found colonies in western Tennessee, but these data have not been formally published.
These colonies represent the northern-most known occurrence of a breeding colony of M. yuccae along the Mississippi River. On the East Coast it extends northward to southeastern Virginia at about the same latitude as the Calloway County site; and farther west it is found in Kansas and westward also at about the same latitude (Opler & Malikul 1998).
Interestingly, Yucca has been so widely introduced and adventive populations have spread so readily beyond it's historic range that it is not completely clear how far north natural populations of this plant occur (J. N. N. Campbell pers. com.). According to Medley (1993), the species is not native to Kentucky. However, with populations of the plant seemingly well estab-
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 56(4), 2002, 292-295
Additional key words: genitalia, identification, subspecies.
Two similar species, Everes amyntula (Boisduval, 1852) and Everes comyntas (Godart, [1824]) (Ly-caenidae: Polyommatinae), are broadly sympatric and may fly together in parts of the western United States and adjacent Canada (Scott 1986, Stanford & Opler 1993, Layberry et al. 1998, Guppy & Shepard 2001). The former is widespread while E. comyntas apparently occurs in scattered populations west of the Rocky Mountains, but, at times, the latter may be the only or most abundant species at some locales. Although a number of wing traits have been implicated as useful in separating these species (e.g., Klots 1951, Downey 1975, Fisher 1981, Pyle 1981, Opler 1999), individual, seasonal, and geographical variation confound their identity. This variation has not been thoroughly investigated and it may be that superficial differences will have to be elaborated at the local level. Males have
lished, it appears that the Yucca Giant-Skipper may now be established along with its host plant. These small colonies are vulnerable to habitat destruction, over collecting and other dangers. We hope to investigate protection of these sites and to seek other colonies in the area.
We thank Loran D. Gibson for the use of his photographs of the live Yucca Giant Skipper.
Literature Cited
Medley, M. 1993. An annotated catalog of the known or reported vascular flora of Kentucky. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Louisville, Kentucky. 2595 pp.
Opler, P. & V. Malikul. 1998. A field guide to the butterflies of eastern North America. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston. 486 pp.
Charles V. Covell Jr., Dept. of Biology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky 40292-0001, USA; William R. Black Jr., 201 Friedman Ave., Paducah, Kentucky 42001-4744, USA; and Brainard L. Palmer-Ball Jr., Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, 801 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403, USA
Received for publication 1 September 2001; revised and accepted 10 July 2002.
demonstratively different genitalia, most readily seen in the shape of the uncus (Bethune-Baker 1913, Johnson 1972, Dornfeld 1980, Fisher 1981, Scott 1986, Guppy & Shepard 2001). Females generally have not been distinguished except by association with males and superficial characters of apparently limited value. One character that has not been mentioned, but may useful in separating females of the two species, is in the submargin of the dorsal hindwing. All female E. amyntula examined from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah (n = 265) had a row of usually several pale submarginal macules. Everes comyntas from Arizona and California (n = 54), however, lacks these macules except on apparent short-day phenotypes having considerable dorsal blue (e.g., Field 1938, Shapiro 1974a). It thus seems that individuals without pale submarginal macules on the dorsal
FEMALE NORTH AMERICAN EVERES HUBNER, [1819] AND THE IDENTITY OF LYCAENA SISSONA W. G. WRIGHT, 1905 (LYCAENIDAE)
Volume 56, Number 4
hindwing are E. comyntas; those with macules could be either species (e.g., see Howe 1975, wherein all three possibilities are illustrated). Over 100 female Everes (76 E. amyntula, 42 E. comyntas) from the United States and northern Mexico have been dissected and a difference was detected between the genitalia of taxa commonly placed within E. comyntas and E. amyntula. The genital plate (sterigma) of E. comyntas is small and rounded (Figs. 1-12), while that of E. amyntula is comparatively larger, more triangular, and some (Figs. 17, 18, 21, 22) exhibit a notch at its posterior edge (Figs. 13-24). These exhibit some variation within both species, locally (e.g., Figs 1-4; 19-22) and perhaps geographically, but their overall gestalt remains, including that of an E. comyntas from Veracruz, Mexico.
Wright (1905) illustrated, named, and briefly described Lycaena sissona based upon a single female from "Sisson, Cal." (now the city of Mt. Shasta);. The holotype, spread with the ventral surface upward and housed at the California Academy of Sciences (Tilden 1975), has the following labels: small, white, handwritten - / 400 /; red, printed - / HOLOTYPE 9 / Lycaena / sissona Wright / Det. J. W. Tilden 1975 /; white, printed and handwritten - / W. G. WRIGHT / Plesio-type No. 400 / Illustrated in his / Butterflies of / the West Coast / Calif. Acad. Sci. Coll. /; white, printed and handwritten - / California Academy / of Sciences / Type / No. 4319 /; white, printed and handwritten - / Cenitalic Vial / GTA - 12243 /. The specimen appears to be in the same condition as when it was originally photographed (Wright 1905).
Lycaena sissona has largely been treated as a synonym of Everes comyntas comyntas (Comstock 1927, McDunnough 1938, dos Passos 1964, Miller & Brown 1981, 1983), but was placed as a synonym of E. amyntula amyntula "based upon Wright's illustration" by Ferris (1989). As far as can be determined, the type has not heretofore been critically examined. Wright s (1905) illustration is of the ventral surface and, as noted above, the only potentially useful characteristic to separate females of the two species is on the dorsal hindwing. The dorsal surface of the type is uniformly brown except for a vague orange macule proximad to a vague black marginal spot in hindwing cell CuAj-CuA9. The absence of submarginal macules and the configuration of its genital plate (Fig. 6) clearly identifies the specimen as an E. comyntas.
Western E. comyntas, specifically those in California, have not been elaborated. Dornfeld (1980), Em-mel et al. (1998), and Guppy and Shepard (2001) have all considered E. comyntas comyntas to embrace populations in the western United States and south-
293
^ A)
Figs. 1-12. Dorsal view of the genital plate of female Everes comyntas (numbers following data are GTA genitalic vial numbers). 1-4. CA: Sutter Co.; Sutter bypass, Hwy. 20, E of Meridian, 29 May 1989 (11541, 11542, 11543, 11221), 5. CA: Colusa Co.; Ca 20 at Ca 45, W of Meridian, 29 May 1989 (11544), 6. holotype of Lycaena sissona (12243), 7. CT: Hartford Co.; New Britain (7129), 8. MS: Nachez Trace, 8 mi. S of Tupelo, 13 June 1972 (7139), 9. MN: Itasca Co.; Deer River, 29 June 1971 (7130), 10. WI: Iron Co.; Rt. 2, 29 June 1971 (11219), 11. AZ: Santa Cruz Co.; Sycamore Canyon, 22 June 1983 (11551), 12. AZ: Santa Cruz Co.; Sycamore Canyon, 9 July 1980 (11552).
western Canada. These have a paler and grayer venter than that of populations from the eastern United States and thus the white halos around the black discal macules are less distinct. The submarginal row of macules on the ventral forewing is less complete and less well-defined on individuals from California as are the
294
Ftcs. 13-24. Dorsal view of the genital plate of female Everes amyntula (numbers following data are GTA genitalie vial numbers). 13. NV: Mineral Co.; White Mts., road to Sugarloaf, 5.1 mi. S of Montgomery Pass, 1 July 1991 (11212), 14. NV: Nye Co.; Toiyabe Mts., Jett Canyon, 17 May 1990 (7142), 15. NV Clark Co.; Moapa Valley, California Wash, 18 June 2000 (11181), 16. CA: Nevada Co.; S Fork of Yuba River, N of Nevada City, 13 May 1985 (11546), 17. CO: Garfield Co.; White River Plateau, Coffee Pot Springs, 10100', 27 June 1963 (11353), 18. NV Elko Co.; Jarbidge Mts., Bear Creek
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
marginal macules on the ventral hindwing. Also on the ventral hindwing, the orange macule or macules towards the tornus are notably paler in California, not bright orange. These characters conform with the holotype of Lycaena sissona and indicate that populations in California and perhaps elsewhere in western North America should be treated as a recognizable subspecies, Everes cornyntas sissona (W. G. Wright, 1905), new combination.
In comparison with Californian populations of E. amyntula amyntula, E. corny ntas sissona has a more rounded fore wing termen (this appears as a useful character throughout the distribution of both species, contra Downey 1975), has less dorsal blue (usually without, except on the short-day form), the ventral hindwing orange is usually more prominent, and the ventral forewing macules are usually further from the submar-ginal macules and form a straighter row (usually more sinuate on E. amyntula). The male has a broader black margin on the dorsal forewing (usually very thin on E. amyntula) and usually has at least one orange macule on the dorsal hindwing (usually absent on E. amyntula). The female of E. comyntas has no submarginal pattern on the dorsal hindwing (again, except on the short-day form); these are nearly always prominent on E. amyntula. Most male E comyntas from throughout the species' distribution have a thin line of black scales at the distal end of the forewing discal cell whereas this was not seen on examined E. amyntula. Females of both species often have a similar and sometimes broader black mark in the discal cell. This is most readily seen on extensively blue individuals.
In California, E. comyntas apparently mostly inhabits lowlands, frequently along ditches and other waterways (Opler & Langston 1968, Shapiro 1974a, 1974b, but see Garth & Tilden 1963); E. amyntula is largely montane (Comstock 1927, Emmel & Emmel 1962, Shapiro et al. 1979). In Oregon, the two species fly sympatrically and synchronically at several sites in the Coast Range (fide A. D. Warren). Everes comyntas has a long flight season and may have two to five broods annually (Opler & Langston 1968, Shapiro 1974a) whereas E. amyntula are apparently univoltine or bi-
<—
Summit, 7 Aug. 1980 (7160), 19. NV White Pine Co.; Schell Creek Rauge, Timber Creek, 5.6 mi. E of Nv 486, 15 July 1981 (7157), 20. NV: White Pine Co.; Schell Creek Range, Rerry Creek, 2.3-5 mi. E of Nv 486, 16 July 1981 (11555), 21. NV White Pine Co.; Snake Range, Raker Creek Campground, 16 July 1980 (7159), 22. NV White Pine Co.; Steptoe Valley, Warm Springs, 24 June 1987 (7154), 23. NV: Washoe Co.; Carson Range, Tahoe Meadows, 10 July 1990 (11214), 24. NV Carson City; Carson Range, Nv 28, 2.0 mi. S of Washoe Co. line, 1 July 1985 (7128).
Volume 56, Number 4
295
voltine (Emmel & Emmel 1962, 1973, Shapiro et al. 1979). Both species use a variety of legumes (Fabaceae) as larval hostplants (Emmel & Emmel 1962, 1973, Shapiro 1974a, 1974b, Shapiro et al. 1979), including alien taxa (Shapiro 2002). Whether there are any hostplant preferences for either species, except those imposed ecologically, has not been reported in California. In Colorado, E. comyntas uses larval hostplants occupying more mesic sites than those of E. amijntula (Scott 1992).
1 thank Norman D. Penny at the California Academy of Sciences for loaning and permitting dissection of the type of Lycaena sissona. Chuck Hageman and Sterling O. Mattoon graciously led me to populations of E. comyntas in California and allowed examination of specimens in their collections. Andrew D. Warren read a draft of the manuscript and made useful comments.
Literature Cited
Bethune-Baker, G. T. 1913. Everes comyntas and amijntula (Lepid.). Ent. News 24:97-103.
COMSTOCK, J. A. 1927. Butterflies of California. Los Angeles: publ. by author. 334 pp.
Dornfeld, E. J. 1980. The Butterflies of Oregon. Forest Grove, OR: Timber Press. 276 pp.
DOS Passos, C. F. 1964. A synonymic list of the Nearctic Rhopalo-cera. Lepid. Soc. Mem. 1:1—145.
Downey, J. C. 1975. Genus Everes Hiibner, pp. 350-351 in W. H. Howe (ed.), The Butterflies of North America. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 633 pp.
Emmel,J. F,T. C. Emmel & S. O. Mattoon. 1998. A checklist of the butterflies and skippers of California, pp. 825-836 in T. C. Emmel (ed.), Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Gainesville, Florida: Mariposa Press. 878 pp.
Emmel, T. C. & J. F. Emmel. 1962. Ecological studies of Rhopalo-cera in a high Sierran community—Donner Pass, California. 1. Butterfly associations and distributional factors. J. Lepid. Soc. 16:23-44.
Emmel, T. C. & J. F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of southern California. Nat. Hist. Mus., Los Angeles Co., Sci. Series 26:1-139.
Ferris, C. D. (ed.). 1989. Supplement to: A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of Mexico. Lepid. Soc. Mem. 3:1-103.
Field, W. D. 1938. New forms and subspecies of North American Libytheidae and Lycaenidae. J. Kansas Ent. Soc. 11:124-133.
Fisher, M. S. 1981. Subfamily Polyommatinae Swainson, 1827. Pp. 200-223 in C. D. Ferris & F M Brown (eds.), Butterflies of the Rock)/ Mountain States. Norman: Univ. Oklahoma Press. 442 pp.
Garth, J S. & J W. Ttlden. 1963. Yosemite butterflies. J. Res. Lepid. 2:1-96.
Guppy, C. S. & J. H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia, including western Alberta, southern Yukon, the Alaska Panhandle, Washington, northern Oregon, northern Idaho, northwestern Montana. Vancouver: UCB Press. 414 pp.
Howe, W. H. 1975. The butterflies of North America. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 633 pp.
Johnson, K. 1972. The butterflies of Nebraska. [. Res. Lepid. 11:1-64.
Klots, A. B. 1951. A field guide to the butterflies of North America, east of the Great Plains. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 349 pp.
Layberry, R. A., P W. Hall & J. D. Lafontaine. 1998. The butterflies of Canada. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. 280 pp.
McDunnough, ] H. 1938. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part 1. Macrolepi-doptera. Mem. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1:1-273.
Miller, L. D. & F M. Brown. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of Mexico. Lepid. Soc. Mem. 2:1-280.
Miller, L. D. & F M. Brown. 1983. Lycaenidae, pp. 53-57 in R. W. Hodges (ed.), Check list of the Lepidoptera of America north of Mexico. London: Classey. 284 pp.
Opler, P. A. 1999. A field guide to Western butterflies. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 540 pp.
Opler, P. A. & R. L. Langston. 1968. A distributional analysis of the butterflies of Contra Costa County, California. J. Lepid. Soc. 22:89-107.
Pyle, R. M. 1981 The Audubon Society field guide to North American butterflies. New York: A. A. Knopf. 916 pp.
Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America, a natural history and field guide. Stanford, California: Stanford Univ. Press. 583 pp.
Scott, J. A. 1992. Hostplant records for butterflies and skippers (mostly from Colorado) 1959-1991, with new life histories and notes on oviposition, immatures and ecology. Papilio (new series) 6:1-171.
Shapiro, A. M. 1974a. The butterfly fauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. J. Res. Lepid. 13:73-82, 115-122, 137-148.
----------. 1974b. Butterflies of the Suisun Marsh, California. J. Res.
Lepid. 13:191-206.
----------. 2002. The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent
on alien plants. Diversity Distr. 8:31-40.
Shapiro, A. M., C. A. Palm & K. L. Wcislo. 1979. The ecology and biogeography of the butterflies of the Trinity Alps and Mount Eddy, northern California. J. Res. Lepid. 18:69-152.
Stanford, R. E. & P. A. Opler. 1993. Atlas of Western USA butterflies, including adjacent parts of Canada and Mexico. Denver and Ft. Collins: publ. by authors. 275 pp.
TlLDEN, J W. 1975. An analysis of the W. G. Wright butterfly and skipper plesiotypes in the collection of the California Academy of Sciences. Occ. Pap. Calif. Acad. Sci. 118:1-44.
Wright, W G. 1905. The Butterflies of the West Coast of the United States. San Francisco: publ. by author. 257 pp.
George T. Austin, Nevada State Museum and Historical Society, 700 Twin Lakes Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89107, USA
Received for publication 28 May 2002; revised and accepted 14 August 2002.