Insideimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2011/2011_v53_n1.pdf · mailed with issue 1 of the News. In even num-bered years a complete Membership Direc-tory is published as Supplement

Volume 53, Number 1 Spring 2011

Inside:Aphrissa neleis inSouthern FloridaThe Society HonorsEight Charter MembersClement W. BakerCollection to McGuireCenterWebsite EnhancesCovell’s Moth BookEbrietas - A NewHesperiid Genus ForThe USANabokov Vindicated!Digital Collecting:How To Share YourPhotosMembership Update,The Mailbag,Metamorphosis,Marketplace…

…and more!

The Lepidopterists’ Society is a non-profiteducational and scientific organization. Theobject of the Society, which was formed inMay 1947 and formally constituted in De-cember 1950, is “to promote internationallythe science of lepidopterology in all itsbranches; to further the scientifically soundand progressive study of Lepidoptera, to is-sue periodicals and other publications onLepidoptera; to facilitate the exchange ofspecimens and ideas by both the professionalworker and the amateur in the field; to com-pile and distribute information to other or-ganizations and individuals for purposes ofeducation and conservation and appreciationof Lepidoptera; and to secure cooperation inall measures” directed towards these aims.(Article II, Constitution of The Lepidopter-ists’ Society.)

The News of the Lepidopterists’ Society(ISSN 0091-1348) is published quarterly byThe Lepidopterists’ Society, c/o Los AngelesCounty Museum of Natural History, 900 Ex-position Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007-4057,USA., and includes one or two supplementseach year. The Season Summary is pub-lished every year as Supplement S1 and ismailed with issue 1 of the News. In even num-bered years a complete Membership Direc-tory is published as Supplement S2 and ismailed with issue 4 of that volume of theNews. Please see the inside back cover for in-structions regarding subscriptions, submis-sions to, and deadline dates for, the News.

Periodicals Postage paid at Los Angeles, CAand at additional mailing office (Lawrence,KS).

POSTMASTER: Please send addresschanges to News of the Lepidopterists’Society, c/o Los Angeles County Museumof Natural History, 900 Exposition Blvd., LosAngeles, CA 90007-4057.

Copyright © 2011 by The Lepidopteris ts’Society. All rights reserved. The statementsof contributors do not necessarily representthe views of the Society or the editor and theSociety does not warrant or endorse prod-ucts or services of advertisers.

ContentsVolume 53, Number 1

Spring 2011

Notes on the Historical Occurrence of Aphrissa neleis in SouthernFlorida, USA (Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Coliadinae)

Andrew D. Warren and John V. Calhoun. ...................................................... 1Lepidopterists’ Society Election Results 2010

Michael Toliver. .................................................................................................. 7The Society Honors Eight Charter Members David L. Wagner. ............................................................................................... 8Website Enhances Use of Covell’s ‘Moths of Eastern North America’ Book John A. Snyder . ............................................................................................... 15Digital Collecting: How To Share Your Photos Kim Garwood. .................................................................................................. 16The Mailbag. ........................................................................................................ 17Membership Update Julian Donahue. ............................................................................................... 21Kudos to Nabokov; Archives to Florida Kurt Johnson. ................................................................................................... 22Announcement: Lepidoptera Course in Arizona August 14-22, 2011. ............................................................... 23The Marketplace. ............................................................................................... 24Ebrietas Godman & Salvin 1896: A New Hesperiid Genus (Pyrginae:

Erynnini) For The USA From South Texas Charles Bordelon and Ed Knudson. ............................................................... 25Clement W. Baker (1886-1959) and the Transfer of His Lepidoptera

Collection to the McGuire CenterJohn V. Calhoun and Andrew D. Warren. .................................................... 26

From The Editor’s Desk. .................................................................................. 29Announcement: IUCN Butterfly Conservation Project Online Survey. ....................................................................... 29LepSoc 2010 - Alpine Lakes Wilderness, Washington Steve Fratello. ................................................................................................... 30Metamorphosis Julian Donahue. ............................................................................................... 33Membership Information, Dues Rates, Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society,

Change of Address, Our Mailing List, Missed or Defective Issue, BookReviews, Submission Guidelines for the News. ........................................... 34

Executive Council/Season Summary Zone Coordinators. ................... 35

Issue Date: June 7, 2011 ISSN 0091-1348

Front Cover:Haetera macleannania, female, Colombia, July 18, 2008, by Kim Garwood. See“How to Share Your Photos” p. 16.

Spring 2011 News of the Lepidopterists’ Society

Volume 53, Number 1 3

Andrew D. Warren1 and John V. Calhoun2

McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,SW 34th Street and Hull Road, P. O. Box 112710, Gainesville, Florida 32611-2710 U.S.A.

[email protected]

977 Wicks Dr., Palm Harbor, Florida 34684-4656 U.S.A.Research Associate: McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History,

University of Florida [email protected]

Aphrissa Butler, 1873 is a Neotropical genus of large, brightpierids, or sulphur butterflies, comprised of about eightspecies (Lamas 2004). The genus is highly diverse in theCaribbean (including central and south Florida), where fourspecies and nine subspecies-level taxa occur (Smith et al.1994, Warren et al. 2011). Hispaniola hosts the greatestnumber of endemic Aphrissa taxa, with A. g. godartiana(Swainson, 1821), A. orbis browni (Munroe, 1947) and A.statira hispaniolae (Munroe, 1947). The other endemicCaribbean Aphrissa are shared variably between Cuba, Islade Juventud, Jamaica, The Cayman Islands, some BahamanIslands and southern Florida, except for A. statirafloridensis (Neumogen, 1891), which is endemic to centraland southern Florida, with strays and temporary colonistsnorthward (Smith et al. 1994).

Until 1973, A. s. floridensis was the sole Aphrissa taxonconfirmed from Florida. That year, a single male A. orbisorbis (Poey, 1832) was collected on Big Pine Key, MonroeCounty, Florida (Bennett & Knudson 1976); this taxon isotherwise endemic to Cuba, Isla de Juventud and theCayman Islands (Smith et al. 1994). While in good condition(figured by Warren et al. 2011), this specimen appears to bea stray from Cuba (or offspring from one), as its occurrencein the Florida Keys or elsewhere in Florida has notsubsequently been documented (Calhoun 1997).

While curating specimens of Aphrissa in early March 2011in the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity(Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,Gainesville [MGCL]), ADW discovered five specimens ofAphrissa neleis (Boisduval, 1836) labeled from southernFlorida (Figs. 3, 4, 10-12). All of these specimens wereintermixed within series of A. statira floridensis originatingfrom the Allyn Museum of Entomology (now MGCL) andthe Florida State Collection of Arthropods [FSCA]. Theoldest known specimen from Florida is a female in very goodcondition (Fig. 3), labeled, / Dade Co., Fla. / Oct. 1 1959 /.No collector’s name is indicated, although the specimenbears a second “FSCA” label. The next oldest specimen is amale (Fig. 10) in good condition, labeled, / FLORIDA: S.

Notes on the Historical Occurrence ofAphrissa neleis in Southern Florida, USA

(Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Coliadinae)

Miami / 5-5-1982 / H. L. King /. This specimen also has a“FSCA” label. Another male of A. neleis in very goodcondition (Fig. 11) is labeled, / 68. FLA: DADE COUNTY /MIAMI: HAVEN SCHOOL / 19 MAY 1985 / F. L. GONZALEZ/. A third male in good condition (Fig. 12) bears the samedata, though its label begins with “66.” Both of these malesbear a second label, / Gonzalez colln. / Allyn Museum / Acc.1995-8 /. Finally, one somewhat flight-worn female (Fig. 4)is labeled, / 139. FLA: DADE: MIAMI: / HAVEN SCHOOL/ 25 MAY 1985 / F. L. GONZALEZ /, with a second accessionlabel identical to that of the males from the same locality,Acc. 1995-8.

Harold (Harry) L. King (1900-1985) (collector of the malein Fig. 10), a commercial artist in Sarasota, Florida, wasan avid collector of Lepidoptera for much of his life. He wasa charter member of the Lepidopterists’ Society and aResearch Associate of the Florida State Collection ofArthropods (Weems 1985). He traveled widely in Floridaand contributed much to our knowledge of the butterfliesand moths of the state. His collection was deposited in theFlorida State Collection of Arthropods (now in MGCL) priorto his death. We have no knowledge of the currentwhereabouts of Fernando L. Gonzalez. When he donatedhis collection to the Allyn Museum of Entomology in 1995,he was a teacher in the Miami area. We don’t know forcertain, but Fernando may have been employed at the formerHaven School for mentally disabled children, which waslocated in the Sunset district of southern Miami. At thattime, he was a member of the Lepidopterists’ Society andlived in Hialeah, Florida (Donahue 1986). Other specimensfrom the F. L. Gonzalez collection at MGCL labeled fromHaven School are common southern Florida species (e.g.,Phoebis agarithe maxima (Neumoegen, 1891)).

Aphrissa neleis is a rare species in collections, and isrelatively unknown to most butterfly enthusiasts. Itsdocumented distribution includes Cuba, Isla de Juventud,North and South Andros, and New Providence Islands inThe Bahamas (reports of A. neleis from the Cayman Islands,e.g., Carpenter & Lewis 1943, Askew 1980, and Schwartz

News of the Lepidopterists’ Society Volume 53, Number 1

4 Spring 2011

1

1

B

C

1

2

4

2

3

4

Figs. 1-8. Females (dorsal left, ventral right for Figs. 1-6) of Aphrissa neleis and A. statira floridensis (all MGCL). 1. A. neleis, Bahamas,N. Andros Is., Small Hope Bay, 24.v.1994. 2. A. neleis, Bahamas, N. Andros Is., Davis Ck., vi.2004. 3. A. neleis, USA, Florida, Miami-DadeCo., 1.x.1959. 4. A. neleis, USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., Haven School, 25.v.1985. 5. A. s. floridensis, USA, Florida, Broward Co., HughTaylor Birch S.P., 28.v.79. 6. A. s. floridensis, USA, Florida, Collier Co., Marco Is., 29.x.1999. 7. Forewing comparison of A. neleis (left) andA. s. floridensis (right), showing size of cell-end spot and extent of darkening at apex. 8. Hindwing comparison of A. neleis (left) and A. s.floridensis (right), showing pink basal spot and well-developed discal-postdiscal spots of the former.

et al. 1987, refer to A. statira; see Askew 1994, Askew &Stafford 2008). Boisduval (1836) described the species fromCuba. Brown (1931) revised Aphrissa, and considered A.neleis to be a “form” of A. statira (Cramer, 1777). However,Bates (1935) continued to treat A. neleis as a separatespecies, as did Torre y Callejas (1954), based on differencesin the male genitalia between A. neleis and A. statira cubanad’Almeida, 1939. Subsequent to Torre y Callejas (1954), A.neleis was mentioned in a number of faunal studies (e.g.,

Torre y Callejas 1971, Riley 1975, Alayo & Hernández 1987,Smith et al. 1994, 1998, Hernández 2004, Fernández-Hernández 2007). Nothing is known about its early stages,but Lysiloma sabieu (Benth.) (Fabaceae) was reported as alarval foodplant for A. neleis in the Bahamas (Emmel 2007).This plant is an exotic, which occurs rarely in disturbedhammock forest in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Wunderlin& Hansen 2003). Hernández (2004) suggested that A. neleispossibly also feeds on Cassia sp. (Fabaceae) or species of



4

2

4

1

4

677

Figs. 9-16. Males (dorsal left, ventral right for Figs. 9-14) of Aphrissa neleis and A. statira floridensis (all MGCL). 9. A. neleis, Bahamas, N.Andros Is., Davis Ck, vi.2004. 10. A. neleis, USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., South Miami, 5.v.1982. 11. A. neleis, USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., Haven School, 19.v.1985. 12. A. neleis, USA, Florida, Miami-Dade Co., Haven School, 19.v.1985. 13. A. s. floridensis, USA,Florida, Broward Co., Hollywood, 2.x.1966. 14. A. s. floridensis, USA, Florida, Lee Co., Bonita Springs, ex-larva emerged 20.vii.1997. 15.Forewing detail, A. neleis (left) and A. s. floridensis (right), showing pale coloration invading into the discal cell on the latter. 16.Hindwing comparison of A. neleis (left) and A. s. floridensis (right), showing pink basal spot and black marginal spots of the former.

Caesalpinaceae, several of which are available in southernFlorida. The overall highly restricted geographicdistribution of A. neleis, combined with the scarcity ofspecimens in collections and the general lack of knowledgeabout this taxon argue against mislabeling of the Floridaspecimens.

While subtle, there are a number of wing characters thatseparate A. neleis from A. s. floridensis. Females of the twotaxa are perhaps most easily separated (Figs. 1-8). The

forewing of A. neleis (n = 11) (Figs. 1-4, 7 left, 8 left) is moreangular (apex more rounded on A. s. floridensis (n = 90),Figs. 5-6, 7 right, 8 right), and the forewing costa of A. neleisis yellow to the apex, with a slight trace of black scaling atmost, near the apex (the forewing costa of A. s. floridensisoften has extensive blackish distad, especially at the apex).Dark scaling at vein ends, along the outer forewing marginabove (black) and below (black point surrounded by violetand/or ochreous scaling), is developed into distinct,


6 Spring 2011

prominent spots on A. neleis, only rarely conjoined by darkscaling between the spots, whereas dark scaling frequentlyforms a continuous border on A. s. floridensis (though thedevelopment of this border is variable), with dark scalingonly slightly swollen at vein ends, which are not marked bya black point. The ventral hindwing of A. neleis bears twopale, rounded, discal-postdiscal spots, variably outlined inpinkish scales (Fig. 8 left), that are often lacking or poorlydeveloped on A. s. floridensis (Fig. 8 right); however, rare,tawnier females of A. s. floridensis tend to have betterdeveloped discal-postdiscal spots with partial or completeborders of pinkish scales (see Warren et al. 2011). Additionaldifferences between females include the small dark spots atvein ends on the dorsal and ventral hindwing of A. neleis(these are absent on A. s. floridensis above, absent or barelydiscernable below), the richer, bright yellow dorsal andventral coloration of A. neleis (coloration of female A. s.floridensis is highly variable from whitish to yellow and rarefemales are orangish, but rarely approaches the rich yellowof fresh individuals of A. neleis), the generally swollenforewing black spot at the end of the discal cell on A. neleis(Fig. 7 left; this is usually smaller and more regularly-shapedon A. s. floridensis, especially above, as in Fig. 7 right).Both sexes of A. neleis differ from A. s. floridensis by thepresence of a subtle, diffused, pinkish spot at the immediatebase of the ventral hindwing (Fig. 8 left, 16 left, and all otherventral images of A. neleis), noted by Boisduval (1836) andAlayo & Hernández (1987), hence the name Riley (1975) usedfor this species, Pink-spot Sulphur (though this spot is alsopresent on A. godartiana and A. orbis).

Males of A. neleis (n = 23) (Figs. 9-12, 15 left, 16 left) differfrom those of A. s. floridensis (n = 110) (Figs. 13-14, 15right, 16 right) in their less rounded, more angularforewings and hindwings, the yellower (sometimes appearinggreenish) marginal areas on the upperside of all wings (thisarea is whiter on A. s. floridensis), the dorsal forewing basalyellow occupying all of the discal cell, as in Fig. 15 left (thedistal fourth of the discal cell in A. s. floridensis has yellowreplaced with whitish on 108 of 110 specimens examined (Fig.15 right), although the extent of whitish scaling within thecell is highly variable), and the small black spots at veinends on the ventral hindwing, as in Fig. 16 left (these areabsent on A. s. floridensis, Fig. 16 right). No males of A.neleis were found with black scaling along the costa, apex,or outer margin of the dorsal forewing, while manyindividuals of A. s. floridensis have some black scaling inthese areas, especially at the forewing apex.

Aphrissa neleis is less likely to be confused with Phoebissennae (Linnaeus, 1758). All but the palest males of P.sennae have prominent discal cell spots on the ventralforewings and hindwings. In extreme male examples of P.sennae, these discal spots may be highly reduced, but arestill more prominent than they are on males of Aphrissa,where they are indicated only by a pale white dot, if at all.

In addition, males and (especially) females of Aphrissa(apparently all except A. orbis) have a distinctive glossysheen to the ventral surface of the wings, most prominentwhen fresh, that is lacking on Phoebis Hübner, [1819].Females of P. sennae and A. neleis further differ in a numberof ventral characters, most notably the complete absence ofdark spots basad of the discal-postdiscal spots on thehindwing of A. neleis, which are almost always present onP. sennae. Both sexes of P. sennae tend to have a pinkishspot at the immediate base of the ventral hindwing, as in A.neleis. However, in P. sennae this spot tends to be moreprominent, often unevenly colored, and better-definedoverall, although in pale individuals it may be reduced asin A. neleis. Finally, A. neleis may be differentiated from P.sennae by the color of the ventral antennal club. In A. neleis(and A. s. floridensis) it varies from pale greenish-yellow toorange-red, while it is orange-brown or brown in P. sennae.

While this note represents the first voucher-based report ofA. neleis from Florida and the United States, Emmel (2007)reported a sight record (with no physical or photographicvoucher) of a fresh female in 2002 on the University ofFlorida campus, Gainesville, Alachua County. In August2009, Marc C. Minno (pers. comm. to JVC) photographed asingle butterfly that he initially identified as A. neleis in thevicinity of Gainesville, Alachua County, but a subsequentanalysis of his photographs revealed that the individual wasa pale P. sennae. We feel that the presence of A. neleis innorthern Florida is unlikely, unless there is a large residentpopulation in southern Florida that has been overlooked.

The current status of A. neleis in southern Florida isunknown. Due to its close resemblance to A. s. floridensis,and because it has not been the focus of any field or museumsearches until very recently, we feel it is possible that A.neleis could be a current resident somewhere in southernFlorida. Certainly, the specimens reported above suggestthat A. neleis has been a resident in southern Florida in thepast, at least in the late 1950’s and early-mid 1980’s in theMiami area. We encourage Lepidopterists to carefully studyall Florida specimens of Aphrissa they encounter, in an effortto better understand the status and distribution of A. neleisin southern Florida and the United States.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank Jacqueline Y. Miller (MGCL) for discussions, help withresearch, and comments on an early draft of this manuscript, andThomas C. Emmel (MGCL) for his critical review of this note.

Literature CitedAlayo, D. P. & L. R. Hernández. 1987. Atlas de las Mariposas Diurnas

de Cuba (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Editorial Cientifico-Tecnica,La Habana. [ii] + 148pp., 49 pls.

Askew, R. R. 1980. The butterfly (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) fauna ofthe Cayman Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 241:121-138.

Askew, R. R. 1994. Insects of the Cayman Islands, pp. 333-356. In:Brunt, M. A. & J. E. Davies, Editors. The Cayman Islands. NaturalHistory and Biogeography. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands. xx + 605pp.



Competitor and matesignaling in satyrinesAskew, R. R. & P. A. van B. Stafford. 2008. Butterflies of the Cayman

Islands. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark. 175pp.Bates, M. 1935. The butterflies of Cuba. Bulletin of the Museum of

Comparative Zoology 78(2):63-258.Bennett, R. & E. C. Knudson. 1976. Additional new butterfly records

from Florida. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 30(3):234-235.Boisduval, J. B. A. D. de. 1936. Suites à Buffon. Histoire naturelle des

Insectes. Spécies general des Lépidoptères. Librairie Encylopédiquede Roret, Paris. 1: 4 + xii + 690 + 6 pp., pls. 1A- 4A, 1B- 12B, 1C-8C.

Brown, F. M. 1931. A revision of the genus Aphrissa. AmericanMuseum Novitates 454:1-14.

Calhoun, J. V. 1997. Updated list of the butterflies and skippers ofFlorida (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). HolarcticLepidoptera 4(2):39-50.

Carpenter, G. D. H. & C. B. Lewis. 1943. A collection of Lepidoptera(Rhopalocera) from the Cayman Islands. Annals of CarnegieMuseum 29:371-396.

Donahue, J. P. 1986. 1986 membership directory. News of theLepidopterists’ Society No. 6 (Nov./Dec.):50.

Emmel, T. C. 2007. A record of Aphrissa neleis in north Florida(Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Tropical Lepidoptera 17(1-2):6.

Fernández-Hernández, D. M. 2007. Butterflies of the agriculturalexperiment station of tropical roots and tubers, and Santa Ana,Camagüey, Cuba: and annotated list. Acta Zoologica Mexicana(n.s.) 23(2):43-75.

Hernandez, L. R. 2004. Field Guide of Cuban – West Indies Butterflies.Ediluz, Maracaibo, Venezuela. 269 + xx pp., 31pls.

Lamas, G. (Ed.). 2004. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Checklist:Part 4A. Hesperioidea – Papilionoidea. Scientific Publishers,Gainesville, Florida. xxxvi + 439pp.

Riley, N. D. 1975. A field guide to the butterflies of the West Indies.Demeter Press, Boston, Massachusetts. 224 pp., 24 pl.

Schwartz, A., F. L. González & R. M. Henderson. 1987. New records ofbutterflies from the West Indies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society41(3):145-150.

Smith, D. S., L. R. Hernández & N. Davies. 1998. The butterflies of theIsle of Pines, Cuba: Eighty years on. Annals of Carnegie Museum67(4):281-298.

Smith, D. S., L. D. Miller & J. Y. Miller. 1994. The Butterflies of the WestIndies and South Florida. Oxford University Press, Oxford. [vi] +264pp.

Torre y Callejas, S. L. de la. 1954-1956. An annotated list of the butterfliesand skippers of Cuba (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Journal of theNew York Entomological Society 62(1):1-25 {29 Oct 1954}, (2):113-128 {5 May 1955}, (3):189-192 {8 Dec 1955}, (4):207-249 {15 Oct1956}.

Torre y Callejas, S. L. de la. 1971. Mariposas diurnas (Lepidoptera,Rhopalocera), colectadas en Cuba hasta el año 1969. Ciencias.Universidad de Habana 4(18):1-47pp.

Warren, A. D., K. J. Davis, N. V. Grishin, J. P. Pelham & E. M. Stangeland.2 0 1 1 . Interactive Listing of American Butterflies. [29-I-11] < http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/ >

Weems, H. V. 1985. In memoriam: Harold LaVerne King. FloridaEntomologist 68(2):361.

Wunderlin, R. P. & B. F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants ofFlorida. Second edition. University Press of Florida, Gainesville,Florida. 787 pp.

Lepidopterists’ SocietyElection Results 2010

There were a total of 456 ballots included in these results.The results are (* indicates elected officials):

President ElectAndy Brower 154

Andy Warren 227*

(write in) Carla Penz 1

Vice-PresidentsGiovanny Fagua 237*

Dave McCorkle 190

Paul Opler 330*

Thomas Simonsen 228

Mamoru Watanabe 230*

(write in) Dan Janzen 1

Executive Council At-LargeMichelle DaCosta 317*

David James 290*

Harry Pavulaan 302*

Stephen M. Spomer 273

(write in) Tom Emmel 1

Jeff Harcus 1

AmendmentsA Yes: 387 No: 21

B part 1 Yes: 403 No: 6



C Yes: 391 No: 13

D Yes: 382 No: 24

Compiled by Michael Toliver [email protected]


8 Spring 2011

Shortly after World War II ended, Charles Remington, agraduate student at Harvard, and Harry Clench, asophomore at Cambridge Junior College, founded theLepidopterists’ Society. In early 1947, they sent out aninvitation letter that laid out the fledgling organization’saims and invited a wide circle of friends, correspondents,and fellow lepidopterists across the United States andCanada to join a Society that would

Promote the scientifically sound and progressive study ofLepidoptera by (1) distributing a periodical on Lepidoptera;(2) facilitating the exchange of specimens and ideas by boththe professional worker and the interested amateur in thefield.

Their letter, in its entirety, is reproduced in the Society’s50th anniversary Commemorative Volume, which alsoincludes a forward by Harry Clench describing the founders’vision for a “society of lepidopterists”:

…we wanted an organization that would appeal to bothbeginner and seasoned veteran, to both amateur andprofessional; we wanted it to set high standards by example(nor were we averse to an occasional bit of preaching); andwe wanted it to be a means for exchanging ideas andinformation among lepidopterists of all degrees of experienceand expertise.

In 2009 the Executive Council of the Society amended theBy-Laws to honor the Society’s Charter Members, eight ofwhom were still alive: David Bauer, Carl Cook, Paul R.Ehrlich, Rudolf H. T. “Rudi” Mattoni, Mogens C. “Mo”Nielsen, Frederick H. Rindge, Edward G. Voss, and KentH. Wilson. (Kent H. Wilson passed away in October 2010.)

In recognition of their foresight, vision, and many years ofservice to the Society, and in honor of their immeasurablecontributions to science and the study of the Lepidoptera,all Charter Members of the Society, as defined in Article III,Section 3 of the Constitution, are recognized asdistinguished members of the Society deserving of admirationand respect. Annual dues are waived for all CharterMembers, but they shall continue to receive all publicationsof the Society and shall enjoy all of the other benefits,privileges, and benefits concomitant with membership in theSociety. [Section 12, adopted 15 October 2009.]

A proposal to extend Honorary Life Membership to each willbe on the next dues notice/ballot. Those receiving approvalby 80% of the membership will be granted Honorary LifeMembership. (All are currently Life Members and FrederickH. Rindge won Honorary Life Membership in the 1997elections.) Their biosketches follow:

David L. Bauer (b. São Paulo, Brazil, 7 May 1923). David’sinterest in insects was apparent by age four and grew steadilythrough his boyhood. Because David’s parents weremissionaries he had many opportunities to travel: as a childand young man he lived in Argentina, Brazil, Texas, andCalifornia. His trips to the Los Angeles County Museum ofHistory, Science, and Art as a freshman at La SierraCollege—where he had an opportunity to meet Lloyd Martinand John Adams Comstock—were greatly influential. Davidcompleted his undergraduate studies at Pacific Union Collegein Angwin, California, and then spent a year at AndrewsUniversity, in Michigan studying history in a master’sprogram. His passion for butterflies grew in northernCalifornia; he became increasingly interested in Melitaeini,describing several new species and subspecies, and a newgenus (Poladryas). Other taxa that are well represented inhis collection include Anthocharinae and Hemileuca. Inaddition to taxonomy, Dave enjoys life history studies andcaterpillar rearing. In years past, Charlotte and David spentlong hours working the gardens that surround their self-built, post-and-beam home in South Lake Tahoe. In 2008,his Lepidoptera were purchased and transferred to theUniversity of Florida (McGuire Center). In addition tobutterflies, David has amassed a collection of more than10,000 land, freshwater, and marine snails, mostly on thosedays too wet for butterflies.

The Society Honors Eight Charter MembersDavid L. Wagner

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06229-3043 [email protected]



Carl Cook (b. 24 December 1925, Green County, Kentucky).From early childhood, Carl was a collector of natural historyobjects—rocks, shells, arrowheads, and insects. As he grew,he found himself drawn most to entomology andarchaeology. He attended the University of Louisville, andafter graduating served in the US Air Force during theKorean War. His early passion for dragonflies and damselflieswas sparked by a chance meeting with Dr. Harrison Garman,a renowned authority on North American dragonflies anddamselflies. Carl was collecting butterflies for a 4-H projectwhen Dr. Garman approached and offered him a reward of10 cents per specimen—a juggernaut was unleashed. Today,Carl’s dragonfly and damselfly collection, contains well inexcess of 100,000 specimens, and is thought to be one of thelargest private collections in the world. While Carl’sprincipal interest is in Odonata, he has collected Lepidoptera,Coleoptera, and other insect groups for almost 80 years. HisLepidoptera collection, held largely in papers, totals morethan 30,000 specimens. He has long enjoyed light trappingand still runs a large, 8-bulb, freezer-equipped, blacklighttrap in his backyard. Carl was the founding member andfirst president of the Dragonfly Society of the Americas,founding editor of Argia, an honorary life member of DSA,and author of a couple dozen research papers. The majorityof his papers either describe new species of gomphids(clubtails) or relate to the group’s higher classification. Hewas the first to discover and report many insect species inKentucky, including the first record of the early hairstreak(Erora laeta). Today, he resides in Center, Kentucky, stillactively collects and exchange specimens, and continues towrite articles on dragonflies. He welcomes visitors to “TheBug Works” an outbuilding that houses his insectcollections, as well as an extraordinary assortment of morethan 5000 arrowheads and other archeological artifacts.

Paul R. Ehrlich (b. 29 May 1932, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania). Paul became interested in Lepidoptera at asummer camp when he was ten-years old. After obtaininghis A.B. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1953 he wentto the University of Kansas to study with Charles Michenerfor both his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees. In 1959, he accepted aposition as an assistant professor at Stanford University.There his career flourished—Paul rose to become the BingProfessor of Population Studies at Stanford University andthe president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology.Dr. Ehrlich has been extraordinarily productive andinfluential, publishing more than 40 books (many co-writtenwith his wife Anne) and 1000 scientific and popular articles.Central themes include overpopulation, human ecology,biodiversity and extinction, resource overexploitation andmanagement, and sustainability. Most famous among these,The Population Bomb (1968) laid out various scenarios thatwould happen to our planet if human population growthwere to continue unchecked. Many of us know him best forhis How to Know the Butterflies (1960), which enjoyed heavyuse by butterfly enthusiasts for two decades. The populationdynamics, evolutionary ecology, and conservation ofEuphydryas have been a career-long research interest. Heand his students published several dozen papers and onebook on Euphydryas (On the Wings of Checkerspots: AModel System for Population Biology). His scholarship,writings, and environmental advocacy have earned him andAnne more than two dozen major prizes and awards,including a MacArthur Fellowship and Crafoord Prize. Heis both a Fellow of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science and a member of the U.S. NationalAcademy of Sciences, Honorary President of ZeroPopulation Growth, and a past president of AmericanInstitute of Biological Sciences. He remains active as ever,


10 Spring 2011

Clockwise from upper left: Fred Rindge working on the Hulst-J. B. Smith collection at American Museum of Natural History (ca. 1954); EdVoss (left) and Mo Nielsen in Ed’s office (2006); Paul Ehrlich chasing Euphrydryas aniia on Cumberland Pass, Colorado (ca. 1970); Ed Vossbotanizing in the Upper Peninsula (2004); Fred Rindge, Suzanne Rab-Green, and Eric Quinter in American Museum office (2002); PaulEhrlich feeding scrub jay at Archbold Biological Station (2009); Mike Singer, Charlotte Bauer, and David Bauer looking for checkerspotcaterpillars near Glen Alpine, California (1995).



Clockwise from upper left: Rudi Mattoni at Palos Verdes Blue preserve site inspecting oviposition cage (2003); Carl Cook (center in blue)outside his self-built Bug Works during the 2006 DSA meeting that he helped host; Kent Wilson with a drawer of swallowtails (2009); PaulEhrlich assessing a checkerspot translocation effort in Gothic, Colorado (2010); Dave Bauer with a drawer of butterflies in Peabody Museum,Yale University (1997); Carl Cook netting a Macromia (river cruiser) over Kentucky’s Green River (2006); Mo Nielsen and compatriots out“bogging” near Paradise, Michigan (ca. 1965).


12 Spring 2011

writing, speaking, teaching, giving interviews to the media,and as circumstances allow, visiting his field sites andswinging a net.

Rudolf H. T. (Rudi) Mattoni (b. 6 October 1927, LosAngeles, California). Rudi’s connection to Lepidoptera datesback to his childhood in Beverly Hills, during the GreatDepression. While an unexpected visit by a western tigerswallowtail to his garden may have triggered his passionfor butterflies, it was the many visits to the library of theLos Angeles County Museum of History, Science, and Artas an early teen that solidified his lifelong interest inLepidoptera. The librarian there, Dorothy Martin, took aliking to Rudi and after learning of his fascination withbutterflies took him upstairs into the collections to meet herhusband Lloyd, and colleague Dr. John Adams Comstock.His commitment to studies of Lepidoptera has run unabatedsince. He obtained his B.S. from Berkeley in entomologyand his M.A. and Ph.D. in zoology from UCLA. He was anassistant professor at California State University at LosAngeles where he taught biology and genetics, and later alecturer at UCLA where he taught biogeography andconservation biology. Rudi started BioMetal Associates, thecompany we now know as BioQuip, managed (with wifeLeona) the Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera afterWilliam Hovanitz passed away in 1977, and played importantroles in the discovery and conservation of blues,checkerspots, and other rare butterflies. Rudi was amongthe first to use mark recapture techniques to study thepopulation demography of rare butterflies (lycaenids). Formore than half a century, he has been a central figure insouthern California lepidopterology and active in numerous

conservation matters concerning the welfare of butterflies.Rudi was a regular at Lorquin Entomological Societymeetings over a span of nearly five decades, especially in theearly days when Comstock, Dammers, Henne, and Martinwere actively attending. He has authored nearly 50 papersand dozens of reports on butterfly taxonomy andconservation. His “Butterflies of Greater Los Angeles,”published in 1990, sold nearly 10,000 copies. Rudi servedon boards for both the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra andthe Long Beach Opera. Recently, he and co-author NancyVannucci, completed work on Garden Butterflies of BuenosAires (English and Spanish versions of the booklet areavailable from BioQuip), and its sequel, Big Moths of BuenosAires, is forthcoming. He currently resides in Argentina,is pondering a move to Uruguay, and is promising to outliveus all, just so he can see how it ends.

Mogens C. “Mo” Nielsen (b. 9 April 1926, Dianalund,Denmark). Mo’s family moved to Detroit when he was three.From his earliest recollections, Mo was curious about allaspects of natural history—amphibians, birds, insects,plants, and rocks. It was a grade school teacher, Mrs.French, who sparked his early interest in Lepidoptera, byexposing her students to cocoons and caterpillars as part oftheir nature studies. Many of his projects in the Boy Scoutsinvolved entomology and various aspects of natural history.Mo enlisted in the Army Air Corps right out of school; afterWWII he entered Michigan State University where hestudied forest management. It was at MSU that he met JohnNewman, one of the state’s premier lepidopterists, whomentored Mo, and helped him to engage in more seriousstudies of butterflies and moths. After graduation, he workedwith the U.S. Forest Service for two years, then took a jobwith the Michigan Department of Natural Resources where



he worked for 37 years as a forester, land appraiser, andhead of the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Program. Thebutterfly and moth fauna of Michigan has been a lifelonginterest of Mo’s. And while butterflies, especially Lycaenidaeand Hesperiidae, have held preeminence, Catocala,Papaipema , and other noctuoids remained a close second.In addition to his 1999 book on Michigan Butterflies andSkippers, Mo has authored a dozen papers on Lepidoptera.Other lifelong interests include life history studies, bogs,Michigan floristics, and biogeography. Over the past fourdecades, he played a central role in the MichiganEntomological Society, serving as the president (1964-1965),chair of the editorial board (1966-1967), executive secretary(1968-1991), and treasurer (1964-2005). His privatecollection, which numbers in excess of 20,000 specimens, ishoused at his home in Lansing. He still works two days aweek as an Adjunct Curator in the entomology collectionat his alma mater MSU, an effort to which he has beensteadfastly committed for some 40 years. This coming fieldseason he will again be headed up to his Quonset hut-bughunting camp in Otsego County, near Gaylord, Michigan,like so many summers before, to collect and enjoy thenorthern Michigan summer with friends and colleagues.

Frederick H. Rindge (b. 1 January 1921, Los Angeles,California). Fred was born a naturalist. He grew uproaming the hills in Malibu, California. He received earlytraining in lepidopterology from Dr. John Adams Comstockand Lloyd Martin at the Los Angeles County Museum ofHistory, Science, and Art. He went to the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley for both his undergraduate anddoctoral degrees. His graduate studies under E. GortonLinsley at Cal were interrupted by WWII. Fred enlisted inthe navy and served in the Pacific Theater, where he rose to

the rank of lieutenant. There are many Lepidoptera in theAmerican Museum of Natural History from his shore leaveson Florida Island in the Solomon Islands. His dissertationresearch and first major publication were on the geometridgenus Drepanulatrix. After obtaining his degree in 1949,Fred accepted a curatorship at the American Museum. Overthe course of his career, he published nearly a hundredrevisionary papers on Geometridae, most of which dealt withgenera of New World Ennominae. In his early days as acurator at the AMNH, he spent summers out West,collecting extensively in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, andWyoming. These trips account for most of the 100,000specimens housed at the AMNH that bear his name. In 1965,Rindge served as our Society’s president. He was awardedthe Karl Jordan Medal in 1986 for his body of work on thesystematics of the Ennominae (Geometridae), and then in2001, received the Association of Tropical Lepidoptera’sJacob Hübner Award for Lepidoptera taxonomy. Fred wasa meticulous curator who single-handedly built the AMNH’sworld renowned collection of butterflies and moths, whichhouses the collections of Henry Bird, Otto Buchholz,William Henry Edwards, Paul R. Ehrlich, Hugh AveryFreeman, L. Paul Grey, George D. Hulst, Alexander B. Klots,Cyril F. dos Passos, John B. Smith, among others. Fred andhis wife, Phyllis, collected antique colored glass, and enjoyedtraveling on weekends to auctions across the Northeast.Fred’s philatelic collection of butterfly stamps is second tonone. He presently resides in Aliso Viejo, California.

Edward G. Voss (b. 22 February 1929, Delaware, Ohio).Ed grew up collecting butterflies, moths, caterpillars, andmost anything else—fossils, shells, rocks and minerals—athis family’s cottage on northern Michigan’s Straits ofMackinac. His interests in Lepidoptera have continued formore than eight decades. As an undergraduate at Denison


14 Spring 2011

University, Ed was advised by the great skipper expert A.W. Lindsey. His undergraduate honors thesis with Lindsey,published in 1952 On the classification of the Hesperiidae,was one of the first in-depth, character-based studies of thefamily. He obtained his Ph.D. in systematic botany from theUniversity of Michigan. His website lists his primaryinterests as taxonomy, identification, phytogeography, andpostglacial history of Michigan’s vascular plants. Voss’ greatcontributions are in floristics. Of particular consequenceare his three landmark volumes of the Michigan Flora. Hestill reigns as the state’s premier botanist. He is a botanicalnomenclature specialist, serving on the editorial committeefor the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1969-1993). Ed chaired the General Committee on BotanicalNomenclature from 1999-2005. Over his long career as atenured professor at Michigan, Ed somehow found time towork up papers on Lepidoptera, among which is a series ofpublications on the butterfly and moth fauna of Emmet andCheboygan Counties, in the northern lower peninsula.Throughout his life he has been interested in the Hesperiidaeand the Lepidoptera of northern Michigan. At 82 he remainsactive as an emeritus curator in the University of Michiganherbarium, working in the collection most winter days. Oncespring arrives, he will take up residence in the Voss cottagewhere he has spent summers for eight decades.

Kent H. Wilson (b. 28 March 1928, Fort Worth Texas).Kent’s lepidopterological epiphany came after he purchasedhis first net for $1.50 from a seven-year-old boy that heencountered collecting butterflies near his home. The next75 years would be a plunge into the world of butterflies, onethat would take him to Africa, Jamaica, Mexico, and allacross North America. He obtained both his B.S. and M.S.degrees in zoology (with a minor in entomology) from theUniversity of Idaho. He then entered graduate school at the

University of Kansas, where he studied numerical taxonomyof Papilionidae under Robert Sokal. He was a lifelong teacherof science and math, first teaching at the Santa Fe PrepSchool (which he helped start), then at the University ofCentral Oklahoma, and finally at Memorial High School inEdmond, Oklahoma. His first love was the swallowtails.Over his life he built one of the world’s premier collectionsof Papilionidae. When Kent donated his Lepidopteracollection to the University of Florida (McGuire Center) itcontained more than 33,000 specimens. His most significantpublication was his co-authored effort on the SwallowtailButterflies of the Americas: A Study in Biological Dynamics,Ecological Diversity, Biosystematics, and Conservation (withKeith Brown, and senior author Hamilton A. Tyler). Kentpassed away in Edmond, Oklahoma on 2 October, 2010. Alengthier biographical sketch is available from the McGuireCenter.

Julian Donahue shepherd many aspects of this effort:encouraging initial conversations, supplying data andimages, and reading drafts of the biosketches. Numerouseditorial suggestions offered by John DeBenedictis wereincorporated into the text. Others that helped push for LifeMembership for our Society’s Charter Members and thepreparation of this article included Larry Gall, JohnMasters, Harry Zirlin, and the Executive Council. JohnMasters, Ernest Williams, and Harry Zirlin spearheaded theBy-Laws and Constitutional changes. David and CharlotteBauer, Carl Cook, Anne Ehrlich, Rudi Mattoni, Mo Nielsen,Fred Rindge, Ed Voss, and Gene Wilson supplied muchinformation. Tom Baione, acting director of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History Library, assembled (anddigitized) materials relevant to Frederick Rindge’s career.Additional biographical details and images were supplied forDavid Bauer by Ray Stanford; for Carl Cook by EllisLaudermilk; for Rudi Mattoni by Julian Donahue and JohnBrown; for Mo Nielsen by Fred Stehr, Ron Priest, JulianDonahue, and Ted Herig; for Frederick Rindge by EricQuinter, Jerry Powell, Jackie Miller, Debbie Matthews, andJulian Donahue; for Ed Voss by Anton Reznicek; and forKent Wilson by Jacqueline Miller. All the images in thisarticle and many others sent by family members andcolleagues will be archived in the Peabody Museum (YaleUniversity) and with the Society archivist (Charlie Covell)(McGuire Center, University of Florida). Moria Robinsonassisted with the figure preparations.



Charles V. Covell’s Field Guide to Moths of Eastern NorthAmerica became an instant and indispensible classic whenit was published in 1984 as part of the Peterson’s Field Guideseries. Replete with clear photos and precise verbalidentifications of the more commonly seen moths, it wasauthoritative as it could only be with such an eminentlepidopterist as Charlie being its author. Sadly, it becamean expensive find in used-book stores after it went out ofprint in 1996. Fortunately, an updated second edition becameavailable, published by the Virginia Museum of NaturalHistory. That edition exactly retains all of the pages of thefirst edition but adds a number of taxonomic revisions tobring it up-to-date as of the publication year of 2005. (Itcan be purchased directly from Charlie, by contacting himat the email address of [email protected].)

The practical restrictions of publishing in hard copy (i.e.,in print) sometimes lead to a less than perfect product. Inthe case of either edition of Moths, only two such weaknesseswill likely be found by a user. First, the index does not listspecies names in alphabetical sequence; you can find familyor genus in order, but must look under the genus name tofind a list of the several included species within that genus.For instance, Eupsilia devia will be listed under the genusname Eupsilia, but not under devia in the ‘D’ section of theindex. Then, as we all know, naming schemes are sometimesrevised to move a species into a different genus; in such acase a user will have a hard time finding the page number(s)where that species is described in the book. For instance,the giant leopard moth, previously named Ecpantheriascribonia, is now Hypercompe scribonia. The book’s indexlists neither scribonia nor its new genus Hypercompe. Manysuch taxonomic revisions will inevitably continue to occurafter publication date.

Soon after the first edition of Moths appeared, HermannFlaschka addressed one of these problems by creating a listcomprised solely of the species names in alphabetical order.He printed this list and freely distributed it to anyone who

requested one. It was a commendable effort in the “pre-website” age, but few of us who use the book still haveFlaschka’s sheets.

Recognizing the problems described above, I have undertakento create a website that addresses them. It is entitled‘Searchable Index for Field Guide to the Moths of EasternNorth America’ and its web address is: eweb.furman.edu/~snyderjohn/field-guide. A user can enter any one of thefollowing sorts of names: family, subfamily, genus, or species.If that name applies to any moth described in the Covellbook, the first page of its use (and any other page where itis found) will be provided. Since the pagination did notchange when the 2005 edition of the book appeared, thewebsite works for either edition. If a taxonomic change hasoccurred, and I am aware of it, both old and new names willbe searchable. All of Covell’s taxonomic revisions for thesecond edition are covered; a user of the first edition can bealerted to such changes by checking at the website.Additionally, I am revising the website whenever I becomeaware of changes that have been accepted since the 2005edition was printed. It is hoped that all who use eitheredition of Covell’s wonderful guide will benefit from theavailability of this website.

Website Enhances Use of Covell’s‘Moths of Eastern North America’ Book

John A. Snyder

Department of Biology, Furman University, Greenville, South [email protected]


16 Spring 2011

Digital Collecting:

One of the best parts of digital photography is the ease ofemailing and sharing your photos with others once you getback home from that great field trip. It’s much easier toprocess, store and share your photos, and transport them,as compared to having drawers of specimens.

In the first place it’s much easier to carry a small thumb orexternal drive with you when you visit a museum or largecollection (plus your laptop computer), so you can workthrough your own photos and compare them to thespecimens. Thumb drives carry 2 to 8 gigs of photos, whichcan be hundreds of photos, and are about the size of a thumb,costing maybe $20 to $50. People often attach them to theirkeychain or carry them on a string around their neck. Icarry a 600 gig drive (about the size of a cigarette pack,about $80) on my trips that carries all my photos, more than50,000, plus plenty of room for all the thousands of newphotos I will take on a trip of a month or two. Hauling arounddrawers of your own specimens is rather difficult, and limitsyou to traveling by your own vehicle. Then you always haveto be concerned about damaging your specimens, but withthe photographs this isn’t a concern. Backups are critical,always have your photos backed up on another media.Imagine storing 50,000 specimens in your home, you hadbetter have a big house. With the photos I don’t have toworry about ants finding my specimens either, a big reliefon a long trip in the jungle. I do carry my drive in a zip lockbaggie, but I’ve fortunately never had any problems withmy computer or drive, even on extended trips of two monthsplus.

Another huge advantage is the ability to email your photosaround and get help with identifications. Putting yourphotos online and available to the world can be lots of funand very instructive. There are several ways to do this. Themost labor intensive is to have your own website. This givesyou total control and you can put up whatever you want.It’s not very expensive, we pay about $100/year for our site,but the time involved can be considerable. Running a bigwebsite can easily take more hours than a full time job.

One of the most impressive websites is Butterflies of America(BOA), www.butterfliesofamerica.com. This site is run byKim Davis and Mike Stangelund, with identifications doneby Andrew Warren. They have done a fabulous job ofphotographing and putting up specimens of most of thespecies, and subspecies, found from Panama north toCanada. This is a huge resource available to all. Kim andMike have spent countless thousands of hours over the last

How To Share Your PhotosKim Garwood

721 North Bentsen Palm Drive, Lot 40, Mission, Texas 78572 [email protected]

several years doing this as a labor of love. Many people aresending in their photos of live butterflies, which are sortedthrough and eventually added to the online photos.

A tricky part of doing your own website is the organizationof your photos. BOA does it in taxonomic sequence, whichis probably the best way to do it if you’re going to cover sucha large group. They have a search engine, where you cantype in the scientific name, genus or species, and it pulls upthe possibilities. They have created all the links so thishappens seamlessly. I like to look at a particular species orgenus on BOA, type in the name then go to the thumbnailswhere you can scroll down very quickly. However, if youdon’t have any idea of what the family is, let alone the genus,it can take longer.

Our website, www.neotropicalbutterflies.com, coversbutterflies from Mexico to Argentina, and also is in generaltaxonomic order. One problem with organizing your ownsite is considering who your audience is. You will have peopleof many different levels of experience looking at your site.Those who are quite knowledgeable and familiar withscientific names won’t have any problems at looking for agenus or species. But others won’t have that level offamiliarity. Many people just have a photo of an orangebutterfly, and want to get a name on it. We have a forumon our site by country where people can post their ownphotos and others can comment on them. One of my favoriteaspects of the forum is getting to know people from othercountries online, then eventually meeting them in theircountry and spending time in the field with them, as theyshow me their favorite butterfly spots. Nothing ever beatslocal knowledge.

A simpler way for most people is to use a service like Flickr,www.flickr.com. Many people send me links to their flickrpages, and ask me to browse through their photos and makecomments. It’s free to register, and others can comment onyour photos. People have to choose how to organize theirphotos, whether by trip or by group. Some folks do all theirPeru photos together, some separate out Lepidoptera andHaemoptera, birds and amphibians, for example. If you wantothers to look through your photos and give their input, ithelps to categorize them somehow so people don’t have towade through all your vacation shots of the pool or the beachor your kids along with the leps. You are asking others tospend their time looking through your photos, so the less

Continued on p. 23



The Mailbag:

Dear Editor:

In Volume 52, number 3, three of my dear friends andcolleagues (David Wagner, Felix Sperling, Bruce Walsh)found it necessary to rebut my “Conservation Matters”column (“Under Their Own Steam”) from Volume 52,number 2. I thought I had already addressed their concernsbased on pre-publication comments, but apparently notsufficiently. Of course, they are welcome to their opinions,and they do make some worthwhile points. The questionis, when are butterfly releases appropriate? While agreeingwith me on the whole that the answer is “seldom,” they feelthat educational benefits justify releases for “some species,”such as painted ladies. I have made recent visits toclassrooms where painted ladies had been reared, released,and loved. Clearly, painted lady kits have allowed manychildren to experience metamorphosis who might otherwisehave missed it, and that has its value. But the kids I metwith became much more excited when we went outside andfound wild butterflies—right in urban Syracuse! Andseveral teachers told me that, due to bad outcomes andwatered-down experiences with kits, they’ve abandonedindustrial painted ladies in favor of local butterflies rearedon actual plants.

The authors misrepresented my argument in favor of usinglocal species in schools by erecting the straw man of“unidentified wild caterpillar hunts.” I said nothing aboutcaterpillar hunts, except that “woolly bears work fine.”What works better yet is to bring gravid females, eggs, orlarvae of locally occurring, known species of butterflies andmoths and their hostplants into the classroom. If there isan element of surprise in timing, all the better: nature isn’talways predictable down to the minute or the day. Timetablesare overrated. So, each to his or her own: if the lazy, lab-animal way is the best you can manage to get metamorphosisto kids, go for it; but many teachers are still committed toproviding their students a richer, deeper experience,employing local livestock and plants that actually come fromand belong in their neighborhood.

The writers also raised some complete non sequiturs, suchas roads in national parks and genetic tools that(realistically) will never be widely available or affordable.But my main argument with my friends is their biogeography,which in one or two places is as poor as their analogies.“The power of such studies,” they contend, “does not arisefrom multiple observations on the same species . . . but rather

from the meta-analysis of observations across a large numberof species. A few ‘outliers’ in one or two species will havelittle effect on a substantive analysis.” Balderdash! Suchan argument may well apply to the genetics of populations,of which these gentlemen are the masters; but it is exactlywrong for biogeography, which was, after all, the subject ofmy essay! “Multiple observations on the same species” areprecisely what species maps are built from, and it is exactlythose “outliers” that comprise the kernel of the work—theadvance guard of colonization, dispersal, and range change.The dot on the map is the very stuff of advanceddistributional studies. The obvious fact that releases makefor bad dots (= corrupted data) cannot be countered by suchgenetic red herrings. I can only suggest, with a wink, thatthe good professors cast about in their own departments fora refresher course in Biogeography 101.

Sad to say, the possibility of our ever achieving a properunderstanding of Vanessa cardui’s subtle mass movementsand population ecology has been lost, sacrificed through therelegation of painted ladies to the status of party favors andsecond grade short-cuts. But that doesn’t mean we have tothrow away the other members of its genus—V. atalanta,annabella, and virginiensis—as subjects of scientificknowledge, let alone gulf fritillaries and giant swallowtails.

Yet as I learned from the butterfly breeders on my pleasantvisit with them during my recent book tour (weconcentrated on our mutual love of butterflies, ignoring ourirreconcilable differences) USDA is considering the completederegulation of all Vanessa releases. That would be veryunfortunate indeed. Our friend, colleague, and fellowmember Wayne Wehling, whose very job revolves aroundthis debate, should pay close attention: I very much doubtthat the majority of lepidopterists want to see all of thesebutterfly ladies (or any other species) given over to ignoranceof their changing ranges, in favor of commerce andconvenience. And the breeders should likewise be aware thatthere is great scope for them in working with schools in theirown areas, to furnish locally appropriate livestock for theclassroom.

Robert M. PyleGray’s River, Washington

X


18 Spring 2011

The Mailbag....

Dear Editor,

I read with much interest comments by Dr. Ronald Rutowskiregarding Dr. James Scott’s new approach and proposedterminology related to mate location behavior in butterflies(the last issue of the Lep Soc News (52:4)). This is a rebuttalto those comments. As background, behavior is not one ofmy particular areas of interest although I am aware suchbehavior can lend to or be valuable in supporting species ortheir separation from one another. I don’t hold a PhD. asdo many in the Society considered to be authorities, manyof which I consider colleagues and friend, mutually orotherwise, despite a separation of achieved academic level.Therefore my comments below may be considered merely amore simpleton view on the subject in general.

I also had some questions when I first read Dr. Scott’s papersas did Dr. Rutowski. In particular, what was meant by a“genetic mating site.” My initial impression was basicallythe same: How can an environmental location be genetic? Icontacted Dr. Scott directly about this several months agoand asked him to clarify the meaning. When this was done,it was then obvious to me I had been trying to read moreinto the meaning than it actually implied and of courseshould have been more well explained. In my own words(no direct quote from Dr. Scott) this is the understanding Ihave in my mind as he intended and it makes perfect senseto me.

If mate location behavior in butterflies is geneticallycontrolled (and I think this is generally thought to be true)there should be no argument with the idea (=fact) that ifthe primary objective of adult butterflies (or any otherinsects for that matter) is to mate and thus assurecontinuing the genetic line of its species. Then as such,that particular butterfly does whatever its specific gene orgenes tell it to do with regard to that behavior in order formating(s) to happen at the place it lives. This must beaccomplished in the most expedient manner possible becausefrom the perspective of nature, this must always be oressentially is under hostile conditions (ie. predation, weatherevents etc.). Thus, the “genetic mating site” is that to whichits genes dictate for it to seek or proceed to in order that itmay accomplish that purpose (its “prime directive”). Thus,the male of some species may establish and wait in a smallarea like a flat field or ravine where it actively flies out inresponse to anything passing through with wings or color(rait) or fly to a hilltop or ridge, establish itself within anarea, usually small in extent with the characteristics itsgenes identify and patiently wait, resting on bushes, rocks,etc. within that area and “watch” for the same, investigatinganything passing by on the wing in order to find a female(flait). This is dictated by its genes because its genes “know”the female is programmed to fly to the same places where

males are waiting and actively looking for them and theycan then be mated. Actively flying through the entire habitat(“the genetic site”) to find females as many species do (fleek)is no different - a response to the gene(s) governing it.

The term “territorial” has often been used to describeaspects of some behavior related to either of the two formerproposed terms (rait or flait). It seems like this is a morecomplicated subject but perhaps it is more simple than whatour brains want us to think. The following information isbased strictly from my own observations - what I have seen- thought - and conclude what takes place (This will beincluded in Butterflies of Colorado - Part 5 I am currentlywriting for publication - see the Gillette MuseumPublications under the supervision of Dr. Paul Opler atColorado State University). What I say here I do not knowif it has been previously explained or reported. I have notread this in any texts but perhaps someone has suggestedthis before (maybe in a “well known” publication on behavior- more to end this below).

I’ll use for my example the large butterflies in the Papiliomachaon complex, classic flaiters by Dr. Scott’s definition(they hilltop and are easily observed ). The word territorialperhaps should be used only in a passive sense for thesebutterflies rather than any active definition as applied tohigher animals and this is why I think it so: The primarypurpose in their behavior is for any one male to mate withany one or more females of the same species. Encountersbetween males (flaiters but probably equally so for raiterstoo) on the surface may appear to represent territorialbehavior because some encounters can be fierce with onemale at that “genetic mating site” chasing another male thatpasses through it, seeming to want to chase it “out of itsterritory.” The investigating male responding to theintrusion but reaches at some point (a “territorial limit” soto say) where it then turns back from this chase and returnsto its “genetic mating site” and resumes its dedication ofwaiting for a female. It is passive I think because this chaseinstead serves a rather important purpose in the success ofthe species and mating successes throughout the entirepopulation and it has nothing to do with protecting aterritory as it would seem on the surface. It spreads themales in the population out over a wider area at thatparticular genetic mating site which greatly increases thechances that females will be more quickly (and successfully)mated within that area. With these swallowtails this alsoseems to function in two additional ways. First, those onthe hilltops can mate with females that reach the hilltops.Secondly, those that are chased from the hilltops by othermales occupying those places likely have no less than anequal chance to mate lower down on the hill because femalesascend from below and each has a chance to encounter afemale away from what we might think is the more primeposition on the hilltop. Thus the entire genetic mating siteis covered to assure a maximum number of matings.



The next thing that comes to mind is that some type of animalbehavior term might also be applied by saying those at ornear the summit are really the most “dominant” or the“strongest” ones but there is probably no such thinginvolved because the genes of each individual tell each oneto do the same thing and thus all are really working togetherto accomplish the same purpose. Dominance can play agreater role in higher orangisms which are long lived butwith insects, brevity of life cannot provide for suchmechanisms. And what about the species that fleek? Thosespecies that “fleek” also confirm this because they really haveno territory other than the entire habitat at “wing” toaccomplish the business of mate location. The males arealready spread out through the “genetic mating site” andwhen they encounter another male it is brief andunsuggestive of any real aggression (my observation -investigating each other to determine if the other is insteada female) and then they are again on their way, doing thesame thing. Besides, where else would any flee if intimidatedby another? They only know where they are supposed tobe! The Two-tailed Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio multicaudatais a good example I think and Dr. Scott used.

One other thing regarding Dr. Rutowski’s commentsconcerning his mention Dr. Scott’s proposals should havebeen more formally presented in the Journal. What if Dr.Scott’s proposals were to have undergone pier reviews inwhich a less than favorable recommendation for publication(for whatever reason) were in the majority? The News is agood, no, perhaps the best means to disseminate informationor ideas, especially novel ones which might not otherwisebe offered to the widest audience possible. I hope you asyour predecessor allowed as well as any future editors tothe News of the Lepidopterists’ Society will not be influencedas to prevent allowing such papers as Dr. Scott presentedfrom being informally published and provided to that wideaudience.

I have great regard for Dr. Scott’s ideas about these mattersbecause I know of no other who could have possibly studiedmore about the behavior of North American butterflies thanhas Dr. Scott. I would bet he has more field observationtime and notes on this subject and could produce suchevidence than does anyone from anywhere. I would strongly,no highly recommend, Dr. Scott’s terminologies be wellconsidered for adoption with regard to mate location behaviorof butterflies. I hopefully have and accurately show howDr. Scott explained his new terms to me, support with anexample from my own observations (and others I couldeasily think of). Anyway, this is how I understand the termsin my own mind and I hope the lepidopterist community ingeneral will give Dr. Scott’s ideas due consideration as theyare well worthy.

Mike FisherCentennial, Colorado

Ron Rutowski (Mailbag, Winter 2010) asks for moredirection on how to determine which species rait, flait, orfleek. The observer must carefully accumulate observationsof males that approach other males and females, and notewhether the male was flying or resting just prior to theapproach, and note where this occurred in the habitat, andthe time of day. Males approach other butterflies generallyfor only one reason, to find receptive females; I havepersonally not found any other reason for the male approach(for instance I have not seen males defending juicy flowerssolely for feeding purposes as hummingbirds do). Byreleasing reared virgin females in front of wild males ofdozens of species (such as Phyciodes tharos and Poladryasminuta to rear F1 and backcrosses) I found that thoseinvestigating males quickly court and mate. Raiters andflaiters generally choose a restricted part of the habitat towait for females, and by comparing those sites with locationsof flowers and hosts etc. and the locations chosen by relatedspecies it is usually obvious that those locations chosen byraiters and flaiters are chosen because of geneticprogramming, which sends the males and females to thoselocations to minimize the time required to find a mate (forexample Hesperia pahaska raits on hilltops, H. viridis inadjacent gulches, even though they share the same flowersand Bouteloua gracilis hostplant, so clearly their brains areprogrammed for different locations for mating). That’s whyI used the term “genetic mating site” to mean the locationwhere their genetic programming sends both males andfemales to mate. I have not found any butterfly species thatraits or flaits throughout the habitat (as many fleekers dosuch as Colias philodice); Hesperia dacotae might raiteverywhere in a habitat if there is a site that is completelyflat, but such sites were plowed long ago, and male dacotaeprefer to rait where a slope begins to flatten out toward themesa top or hilltop.

The use of the word territoriality for butterflies has prevailedamong university researchers as Rutowski notes (which doesnot guarantee correctness, witness prior mistaken theoriesthat came to prevail, such as the sun rotating about theearth, land bridges instead of continental drift, AmericanLycaena phlaeas introduced from Europe, communism,etc.—and note that researchers’ studies have been skewedtoward hilltoppers, as Rutowski’s 1991 Table 1 lists 14studies of hilltopping species versus only one study ofgulching species, even though gulching is more frequentthan hilltopping for mate-location in western NorthAmerican butterflies), but declaring a weaponless butterflyto be territorial has little useful meaning when that behavioris equated to the obvious territoriality of the bull elephantseal biting an intruding male to force him out of the harem.In popular usage the word territoriality does not denote apowerful concept, as the word is now sloppily applied notonly to raiters & flaiters but sometimes even to male fleekerswho encounter each other briefly and one flies quickly away,thus it has become confused in popular usage, and inX


20 Spring 2011

addition the word territoriality is too difficult andimpractical to prove, it has distracted observers fromproperly reporting mate-locating behavior, and the word isnot needed. Territoriality, along with the number of matingsper adult and the fatherhood of each egg and the survival ofthose fathered eggs and numerous other details of thetransmission of DNA from one generation to the next, isnot easily determined by the field observations that mostlepidopterists are willing to contribute, and has to be studiedusing specialized techniques requiring time and money, andthese details are not necessary to report the basics ofbutterfly mate-locating behavior.

We need lepidopterists to watch butterflies in nature andreport how (raiting, flaiting, or fleeking), where (the sitechosen for mate-location), and when (the time of day) eachspecies mate-locates, for nearly 17,000 species of butterflieson earth. To make good progress on this goal, a legion oflepidopterist taxonomists/watchers — the ones who readLepid. News (the Journal publishes mostly moth papers)—will have to watch them and correctly identify them tospecies and report their findings. The new words raiting,flaiting, fleeking, and flenting will facilitate preciseunambiguous reports that properly communicate thosefindings (see Lepid. News, Summer 2010, for full definitionsof those words and examples). These words were developedafter more than 30 years of discussion and carefulconsideration.

The word territoriality is very charismatic, so people don’twant to stop using it, but unfortunately it has becomemisapplied so much that it is next to worthless for butterflies.Here’s a suggestion for people who must have a word forwhat happens when two males meet and the “resident” maleappears to “win” a “contest” to “occupy” a spot and theother “intruding” male departs (the quotes surround wordsthat territoriality-word devotees like to use to describe thisevent, which is considered to be territoriality by manyobservers). Obviously, if one male stays at that spot and theincoming male leaves after a weaponless encounter, it is onlybecause the incoming male left voluntarily to seek anothergood spot and was not forced by weapons to leave (theincoming male left voluntarily because of various possiblereasons, such as he thought flying around another male wasa waste of time and energy, or he thought the other malewas another species or a dragonfly predator, etc.). Thisencounter is accurately described as Weaponless EXclusionBy AGreement, as both males lack weapons with which tofight, the staying of the first male and departure of theincoming male is acceptably close to Webster’s definition ofthe word exclusion, and Webster defines the word agreementas “an arrangement as to a course of action”, as the residentmale agreed to stay and the incoming male agreed to leave.This behavior isn’t territoriality, it’s WEXBAGing, a wordderived from the first (capitalized) letters of the abovephrase that fairly describes the encounter. This word soundsodd, but at least it’s precise and accurate and avoids

unproven presumptions about the participants’ motivation,and definitely can’t be confused with other words! If someonecan devise a better word, tell us about it.

James A. Scott, 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Colorado 80226-1254, [email protected]

XDear Editor:

The first photo in the right column on page 123 of NEWS(Winter 2010)—”Living with the Popoluca: AnotherAdventure in Remote Mexico” by Gary Noel Ross—isincorrectly labeled. The caption that I provided was worded:“Volcán San Martín Pajapan (elevation 3,750 feet) from thepinelands on Volcán Santa Marta.” Somehow the captionfor the photo printed to the left (Volcán Santa Marta) wasrepeated for the photo to its immediate right(Volcán San Martín Pajapan)—an adjacent volcano but aneasy-to-understand oversight. I am calling this to yourattention because the photos and text are of historicimportance: Although ”Los Tuxtlas” of Veracruz, Mexicohas changed drastically since my research there in the mid1960s, the region is still of extreme biological importance.Thanks.

Gary Noel RossBaton Rouge, LA

XGary Noel Ross’s article on the John Burroughs Associationin Volume 52, number 2, was most welcome, as hisentertaining essays always are. As an active life member ofthe association, I would respectfully add a small correctionand a detail or two for the readership’s interest. Gary wrote,“Over the years many outstanding nature writers have beenhonored with either a GOLD MEDAL (for a book) or aCERTIFICATE FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLISHEDNATURE ESSAY.” In fact, the JBA gives no “gold medal.”The Association’s primary honor is the John BurroughsMedal for an Outstanding Book of Natural History Writing.The medal, awarded every year but nine since 1926, hasrecognized “the most distinguished American nature writersof the last seven decades,” according to JBA’s website.Rather than gold, the medal is a heavy, handsome bronze,depicting John Burroughs’s bearded visage on one side, andhis rustic retreat, Slabsides, on the obverse. Since 1993,the JBA has also given the John Burroughs Nature EssayAward to an outstanding essay published during the previousyear. Mr. Ross’s well selected list of prior recipients mingledexamples of both Medal and Essay award winners. Completelists of awardees for each category, plus the John BurroughsList of Nature Books for Young Readers, may be viewed athttp://research.amnh.org/burroughs/awards.html.

Robert M. PyleGray’s River, Washington



Membership Update...Julian Donahue

INCLUDES ALL CHANGES RECEIVED by 25 February2011.

“Lost” Member (publications returned: “temporarily away,”“moved,” “left no address,” or “addressee unknown”):Taylor, Milton D. (Watkinsville, Georgia and/orAlexandria, Virginia)

Additions/corrections to entries in 2010 MembershipDirectory:Gillen, Ellen: name changed to Erin Gillen Haugh (newaddress below)

“Holer,” Nicholas R.: correct spelling of last name is“Holler”

Iwano, Hidetoshi: correct postal code is 252-0880.

Siebert, Margaret Koontz: surname changed back toKoontz-Siebert (as it was prior to October 2004)

McDermott, James: [address omission rescinded] 15478FM 2860, Kaufman, TX 75142-7927.

Oemick, Donald A.: correct home phone is (678) 423-4179.

Purdum, David A.: correct home phone is (904) 962-2880.

Selfridge, Jennifer: last name changed to Frye

Young, James John: correct address is Flat F, 28th Floor,Tower One, Bellagio, 33 Castle Peak Road, Sham Tseng, N.T.,Hong Kong.

New and Reinstated Members:members who have joined/renewed/been found/or rescindedtheir request to be omitted since publication of the 2010Membership Directory (not included in the 2008 MembershipDirectory; all in U.S.A. unless noted otherwise)

Adams, Mark T. (Ph.D.): 2300 Rocky Run, Charlottesville,VA 22901-9562.

Bartholomew, Betsy: 9413 East Leavenworth Road,Leavenworth, WA 98826-9358.

Bolin, Bruce Campbell: 666 Peel Street, Delhi, OntarioN4B 2H1, Canada.

Chouinard, Lee A.: Box 5848, High River, Alberta T1V1P3, Canada.

Hengeveld, James D. (Ph.D.): 6354 South Shore Drive,Unionville, IN 47468-9527.

Holmes, James P.: 1532 Presidential Highway, Jefferson,NH 03583-9321.

Holtrop, Karen (Ms.): [address omitted by request]

Lee, John E.: 2424 South Douglas Blvd., Apt. G, MidwestCity, OK 73130-7168.

Lehnert, Matthew (Ph.D.): [address omitted by request]

Lerner, William: 3104 West Strathmore Avenue, Baltimore,MD 21215-3703.

Losey, Stephen M.: 310 Elm Drive, Mauldin, SC 29662-2232.

Love, Robert D.: 2999 East Ocean Boulevard, Unit 710,Long Beach, CA 90803-2596.

Miller, James S. (Ph.D.): 512 North 63rd Street, Seattle,WA 98103-5624.

Montana, [no first name] (Mrs.): 528 NE 4th Avenue,Apt. A, Gainesville, FL 32601-5479.

Nielsen, Gregory James: KM 13 Via Acacias Finca LasBrisas, Villavicencio, Meta 155, Colombia.

Noggle, Shaina (Mrs.): [address omitted by request]

Osborne, Ken H.: Osborne Biological Consulting, 6675Avenue Juan Diaz, Riverside, CA 92509-6242.

Suedbeck, Alina (Ms.): 3459 J.C. Galloway Road,Greenville, NC 27858-8240.

Tilden, Virginia (Mrs.): 7755 Wertzville Road, Carlisle,PA 17013-9021.

Young, James D. (Ph.D.): 8830 Dove Drive, Perry Hall,MD 21128-9001.

Address Changes (all U.S.A. unless noted otherwise)Boyd, Bret M.: Florida Museum of Natural History,Mammals, Dickinson Hall, University of Florida, P.O. Box117800, Gainesville, FL 32611-7800.

Brussard, Peter F. (Prof.): 1400 Granite Drive, Reno, NV89509-3924.

Chew, Frances S. (Ph.D.): 5 Campbell Park, Somerville,MA 02144-2719.

Deidesheimer, Joseph A.: 3504 Porter Avenue, Muskogee,OK 74403-1837.

Douglass, John F.: P.O. Box 140608, Toledo, OH 43614-0608; new e-mail: [email protected]

Finkbeiner, Susan (Ms.): 7402 Palo Verde Road, Irvine,CA 92617-4358.

Haugh, Erin Gillen (Ms.): 15 Grist Mill Lane, Hampden,MA 01036-9674.

Continued on p. 33


22 Spring 2011

“Nabokov Vindicated”On Jan 26, 2011, The New York Times international issue(front page) reported that Vladimir Nabokov’s long-neglected theory on the trans-Bering Strait origin of theLatin American Polyommatus Blue Butterflies had beenvindicated by an elaborate DNA-based study just publishedin the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Theteam of eleven scientists, working through Dr. NaomiPierce’s Harvard DNA lab using DNA sequencing and state-of-the-art computer modeling, had indicated “Yes”, not onlywas Nabokov correct in his hypothesis put forward in 1945(and long forgotten) but he was also precisely right, in theorder and timing of the events. Dr. Naomi Pierce was quotedas saying “I was blown away”. The following Tuesday’sissue of The New York Times, Science Times (February 1,2011) printed a page-long article about the recent work.Googling “Nabokov Vindicated” will bring up nearly 150,000entries regarding how this development was followed in themedia.

Some ten years after Kurt Johnson, Zsolt Balint and DubiBenyamini’s work (summarized in Johnson and Coates’bestselling book Nabokov’s Blues: The Scientific Odysseyof a Literary Genius [McGraw-Hill 2000]) had finally re-established the correctness of Nabokov’s taxonomic work,his evolutionary and biogeographical views had also beenable to be tested. The team publishing the Royal Societypaper included Pierce along with Johnson, Balint andBenyanimi, lead author Roger Vila, and co-authors CharlesD. Bell, Richard Macniven, Benjamin Goldman-Huertas,Richard H. Ree and Charles R. Marshall. See: http://w w w . n y t i m e s . c o m / 2 0 1 1 / 0 2 / 0 1 / s c i e n c e /01butterfly.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

The paper was entitled “Phylogeny and palaeoecology ofPolyommatus blue butterflies show Beringia was a climate-regulated gateway to the New World” and was chosen byProc. Royal Society to be made available free of charge athttp://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/01/22/rspb.2010.2213.full

Nabokov Archives to University of FloridaI waited for this news to emerge to report, and make publicrecord, that my extensive archives on Nabokov’s work inLepidopterology were donated to the McGuire Center at theUniversity of Florida in 2009. The archives are the mostcomplete, and probably unique, assemblage of materialsregarding Nabokov’s work on butterflies in existence. They

Kudos to Nabokov; Archives to FloridaKurt Johnson

135 Eastern Parkway, Apt. 7G, Brooklyn, New York 11238-6024 [email protected]

are comprised of the contents of five large boxes, includinghundreds of itemized file folders organized in 15 categorizedand labeled redweld containers. For academic study theitemized list of the archives is available either from me([email protected]) or, permanently, from the staffof the McGuire Center. The itemization has also beenpublished on the Nabokov on-line Listserve headquarteredat University of California, Santa Barbara (which serveshundreds of Nabokov literary, and other, scholars).

Additional Archives and SpecimensIt is also important to make public record that, along withthe Nabokov archives, all of Kurt Johnson’s personalscientific archives were also donated to the University ofFlorida. These contain some items of which there shouldalso be published record, including: (1) the only copies ofall the historical collecting data on the butterflies ofNebraska including all the private collections listed in “TheButterflies of Nebraska” J. Res. Lepid. 1972(73): 11(1), 1-64 and the institutional collections of the University ofNebraska (including early Barber and Leussler westernNebraska expedition collections), Ohio State University(Leussler’s personal collection), Chadron State College,Grinnell College, Kearney State College, the University ofNorthern Iowa, and the American Museum of NaturalHistory; (2) hundreds of pages of scored data on variationwithin the Lycaena rubida – ferrisi complex recorded byJohnson and George Balogh; (3) large numbers of tearsheets comprising full papers published over the years inthe Reports of the Museum of Natural History (Universityof Wisconsin, Stevens Point) (provided to Johnson by UWSPupon the retirement of their museum founder); (4) extensivenotes and data compiled on the Agrias-Prepona complex overthe years by Johnson and Dr. H. Descimon, includingphotographs of the entire Robert Aronheim collection(AMNH).

It is unfortunate that I never kept a personal collection andthat my collections were not deposited permanently at oneinstitution. As a result, thousands of specimens collectedor assembled by me are scattered across a number ofcollections, with my last remaining specimens also going tothe McGuire Center in 2009. Particularly, the followingcollections, listed in probable order of numbers of specimens,contain significant numbers of specimens from my years ofwork: American Museum of Natural History, Universityof Florida McGuire Center and Florida State Collection ofArthropods, Carnegie Museum of Natural History,



Hungarian Museum of Natural History and BritishMuseum (Natural History).

Nabokov Legacy RevisitedRecently, Nabokov’s biographer Brian Boyd (VladimirNabokov: The Russian Years; Vladimir Nabokov: TheAmerican Years; Princeton University Press) was asked onthe radio how Nabokov would have reacted to the news ofthe vindication of his lepidopterological work. Boydreminded that Nabokov had often said he valued hisreputation in lepidopterology more than his reputation inliterature (saying in 1943 “I want no other fame”). Boydsaid “he would have wept with joy”.

So perhaps the Nabokov butterfly saga is finally “put tobed”. I would however, like to thank six people, withoutwhose dedication the work on Nabokov would have neverbeen possible: Zsolt Balint and Dubi Benyamini for theirdecades of commitment; Nabokov’s son Dmitri and hisbiographer Brian Boyd who were just as committed to getto the bottom of the legacy; Steve Coates of The New YorkTimes, who helped me tell the story in 1999-2000, and finally,Naomi Pierce, who spent another decade dedicating her labto the furtherance of the task.

of their time you waste the better your chances of someonebeing willing to do it.

For North America there are a number of lep list servs, wherepeople can talk about their sightings or butterflies of aparticular area. An easy way to explore these is throughwww.birdingonthe.net. Click on Mailing Lists, regional/specialty, then scroll down past east, central, west, worldand elsewhere to Butterflies, Bugs where he has 17 differentlist servers on either butterflies or dragonflies. Most listservs don’t allow you to post photos, but people can post alink to their flickr site or their web site if people want tolook at their photos.

Another useful site is for moths of North America, http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/ . This is another sitewhere you can submit your North American moth photosand get lots of good input on what it is.

Before putting your photos online, or emailing them toothers, be sure to crop and reduce your photo from theoriginal huge size. Some good free software I use for cropping,renaming, and many simple photo manipulations is irfanview.You can download this from www.irfanview.com. You canalways attach your photos to an email and send them tosomeone for help, or to brag on what a beautiful species youphotographed. I usually crop them to 640 x 480, the smallestsize, and send them as a jpg, not raw. This works fine on acomputer screen, but it’s too small for printing. That’s awhole different subject.

Continued from p. 16

Digital Collecting

Announcement

Lepidoptera Course in ArizonaAugust 14-22, 2011

The third annual Lepidoptera Course will be held at theSouthwestern Research Station (SWRS) in the ChiricahuaMountains of southeastern Arizona (a 2½ hour drive fromTucson). The focus of the course is to train graduatestudents, post-docs, faculty, and serious citizen-scientists inthe biology, classification and identification of butterflies andmoths. Topics to be covered include an extensive introductionto adult and larval morphology with a focus ontaxonomically-important traits, field work on both adultsand larvae, collecting and curation techniques, genitaliadissection and preparation, use (and abuse) of DNA bar-coding, larval host plant ecology and evolution, Lepidopteradefenses, and general issues in systematics. Days will consistof trips to various habitats, lectures, and nocturnal collectingwith an emphasis on identification to the family and, wherepossible, species level.

Location: Because of its extensive series of Sky-Islandmountain ranges, SE Arizona has the highest diversity ofLepidoptera species in the US. Low desert scrub, oak andmixed oak-pine woodland, lush riparian habitat, juniper,douglas fir, and mountain meadows can all be found withina 40 minute drive of the station, making the SWRS is anideal location for the course.

For 2011, the instructors include: Jim Brock (U of Arizona),John Brown (USDA-SEL, United States National Museum),Richard Brown (Mississippi State), Bill Conner (Wake ForestUniversity), Sangmi Lee (Mississippi State), Jim Miller(American Museum of Natural History), Ray Nagle (U ofArizona), Chris Schmidt (Canadian National Collections),Bruce Walsh (U of Arizona), and Jennifer Zaspel (U ofWisconsin). Hugh McGuiness (The Ross School) will be thecourse curator and P.D. Hulce (SWRS) will assist with thelogistics of the course.

The cost is $1000 for returning alumni as well as for peopleactively enrolled in college or graduate school and $1100 forall others. Tuition covers overhead costs of the workshopand room and board at the SWRS. Course enrollment willbe limited to 20 students. The application deadline is 14 June2011. Full course details and an application form can befound at the SWRS website:

http://research.amnh.org/swrs/education/lepidoptera-courseas well as at www.lepcourse.org.

For additional information you may contact:

Tresa Glore Southwestern Research StationP.O. Box 16553Portal, Arizona [email protected]; 520-558-2396


24 Spring 2011

The aim of the Marketplace in the News ofthe Lepidopterists’ Society is to be consist-ent with the goals of the Society: “to promotethe science of lepidopterology...to facilitate theexchange of specimens and ideas by both theprofessional worker and the amateur in thefield,...” Therefore, the Editor will print no-tices which are deemed to meet the above cri-teria, without quoting prices, except for thoseof publications or lists.

No mention may be made in any advertise-ment in the News of any species on any fed-eral threatened or endangered species list. Forspecies listed under CITES, advertisers must pro-vide a copy of the export permit from the coun-try of origin to buyers. Buyers must bewareand be aware.

Only members in good standing may placeads. All advertisements are accepted, inwriting, for two (2) issues unless a singleissue is specifically requested.

Note: All advertisements must berenewed before the deadline ofthe third issue following initialplacement to remain in place.

All ads contain a code in the lower right corner(eg. 481, 483) which denote the volume andnumber of the News in which the ad. firstappeared. Renew it Now!

Advertisements must be under 100 words inlength, or they will be returned for editing.Ads for Lepidoptera or plants must include fulllatin binomials for all taxa listed in youradvertisement.

Send all advertisements to theEditor of the News!

The Lepidopterists’ Society and the Editor takeno responsibility whatsoever for the integrityand legality of any advertiser or advertisement.

Disputes arising from such notices must beresolved by the parties involved, outside of thestructure of The Lepidopterists’ Society. Ag-grieved members may request informationfrom the Secretary regarding steps which theymay take in the event of alleged unsatisfac-tory business transactions. A member may beexpelled from the Society, given adequateindication of dishonest activity.

Buyers, sellers, and traders are advised to con-tact your state department of agriculture and/or PPQAPHIS, Hyattsville, Maryland, regardingUS Department of Agriculture or other per-mits required for transport of live insects orplants. Buyers are responsible for being awarethat many countries have laws restricting thepossession, collection, import, and export ofsome insect and plant species. Plant Traders:Check with USDA and local agencies for per-mits to transport plants. Shipping of agricul-tural weeds across borders is often restricted.

The MarketplaceIMPORTANT NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS: If the number following your advertisement is “523” then you mustrenew your advertisement before the next issue! Remember that all revisions are required in writing.

Books/VideosFor Sale: Contributions of the C. P.Gillette Museum, Colorado StateUniversity, write or email:[email protected] for a list ofpublications, including the following:Butterflies of Oregon by Andy Warren:$43.00, Butterflies of Colorado, part 4.Lycaenidae and Riodinidae by MikeFisher: $65.00, Studies on BoulderCounty, Colorado butterflies by JanetChu:$33.00, Butterflies of Kern andTulare Counties, California by KenDavenport: $18.50. Send check (madeto “Gillette Publications” or inquire toDr. Paul Opler, Dept. of BioagriculturalSciences, Colorado State University,Ft. Commins, CO 80523-1177 531

For Sale: High quality criticallyaclaimed book, The Butterflies ofVenezuela, Pt. 2 (Pt. 1 also in stock).1451 photographic figs.(84 color plates)display all 196 species (355 subspecies)of Venezuelan Acraeinae, Ithomiinae,Libytheinae, Morphinae, andNymphalinae. 8 new species, 91 new

subspecies. Laminated hardback.Details/reviews, sample plates at:www.thebutterflies ofvenezuela.comPrice GBP £110 (+ p&p). Pleasecontact the author/publisher, AndrewNeild: 8 Old Park Ridings, London N212EU, United Kingdom; tel: +44(0)208882 8324; email: [email protected] 531

For Sale: “Butterflies of CentralAmerica, Vol. 1, Papilionidae, Pieridaeand Nymphalidae”. $79 USShipments; $88 International. 284color plates, 8 photos/plate. CoversOaxaca to Panama. Order atwww.neotrop ica lbutter f l i es . comthrough Paypal, or send a US check toKim Garwood, 721 N. Bentsen PalmDrive, #40, Mission, TX 78572 531

For Sale: Butterflies of SouthernAmazonia, a photographic checklist. Aspiral bound book with 350 colorpages, 8 photos/page, of almost 1,350species from southeast Peru andRondonia and Mato Grosso, Brazil.Mostly live photos but includes some

specimens too. $98 plus shipping $7.50in the US or $16 international. You canorder it with a credit card or by paypalat www.neotropicalbutterflies.com, orcontact Kim Garwood [email protected], or mail a UScheck to Kim Garwood, 721 N BentsenPalm Dr #40, Mission TX 78572. Wealso have Butterflies of NortheasternMexico, for the states of Tamaulipas,Nuevo Leon and San Luis Potosi,Mexico. This includes over 600 species,one third of the Mexican species. Thecost is $30 plus shipping. 524

LivestockFor Sale: Captive bred Philippinebutterfly pupae, year round. ImogeneRillo, P. O. Box 2226 Manila 1099Philippines email:[email protected] 524

EquipmentFor Sale: 20 Schmitt boxes, BioquipNumber 1006. Excellent shape. Fordetails please email:[email protected]



Ebrietas Godman & Salvin 1896: A NewHesperiid Genus (Pyrginae: Erynnini) For

The USA From South TexasCharles Bordelon and Ed Knudson

Texas Lepidoptera Survey, 8517 Burkhart Road, Houston, Texas 77055

On November 30, 2010, the authors received interestingnews about a new USA skipper species that wasphotographed at the National Butterfly Center in Mission,Hidalgo Co., Texas on November 19, 2010. That informationand a photograph were sent by Jim and Susan Hengeveld,faculty members of the Department of Biology, IndianaUniversity, to TLS and other interested parties.

The Hengevelds were visiting south Texas to observe andphotograph some of the unique flora and fauna that occurin the region, and have rather extensive experience in thestudy of natural history in the New World tropics. Duringthe early afternoon of 19 November, Susan found andphotographed an unusual skipper that was unfamiliar toher. She managed to get one shot and no others wereobtained.

The tentative ID was Gorgythion begga pyralina (Moschler,1877), but unsatisfied with that determination, theyconsulted a few field guides, and then the Butterflies ofAmerica website www.butterfliesofamerica.com (Warren et.al. 2011). After that, it became clear that in fact, the speciesin question was most likely a member of the genus Ebrietas,and most likely E. a. anacreon (Staudinger, 1876.)

The photo was also sent to Dr. Andrew D. Warren, and theindividual was indeed confirmed to be of the genus Ebrietas.The photographed individual (shown) is a female, andWarren pointed out that it was either E. anacreon, (mostlikely) or E. sappho Steinhauser, 1974.

Warren also pointed out that a positive determination couldnot be made without a dissected specimen. As shown bySteinhauser (1974) and Warren et. al. (2011), the male andfemale genitalia of the two species are considerably differentand provide the only reliable way to distinguish the two taxa.

Regardless, this photo represents a new genus of theHesperiidae in the USA. Mielke (2004), lists seven speciesof Ebrietas in the New World. Ebrietas is strictly a neotropicalgenus of pyrgine skippers that range from extreme southTexas southward to Argentina. This note is to informcollectors to be aware of the existence of Ebrietas in the USA,and to hopefully secure a specimen for a positive ID fromthe USA in the future.

Since the individual photographed in question could not beidentified to species, it cannot be included in the Texas orUSA species list. It may also be noted here that females of

E. anacreon/sappho could possibly be overlooked quite easilyin south Texas. The common Eantis tamenund (W. H.Edwards, 1871) is quite variable in size and maculation attimes (females), and Ebrietas sp. (females) may beoverlooked since they can somewhat resemble E. tamenund.Any specimens that may be collected in Texas in the futurewill allow us to go into further detail about Ebrietas in theUnited States.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to thank Susan and Jim Hengeveld, IndianaUniversity, for their information and permission to use theirphotograph for this note. The authors thank Dr. Andrew Warren forthe determination to genus, and comments on this note. Photo bySusan Hengeveld. We also wish thank Jim Hengeveld and Nick Grishinfor reviewing this note.

LITERATURE CITEDWarren, A. D., K. J. Davis, N. V. Grishin, J. P. Pelham, E. M. Stangeland,

2010. Interactive Listing of American Butterflies [13-1-11] <http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/>

Evans, W. H. 1953. A Catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicatingthe classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum(Natural History). PART III. Pyrginae. Section II. London, BritishMuseum. 246pp. + pls. 26-53.

Mielke, O. O. H. 2004. Hesperiidae, pp. 25-86. In: Lamas, G. (Ed.)Checklist: Part 4A. Papilionoidea-Hesperioidea, in: Heppner, J. B.,(Ed.). Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Scientific Publishers,Gainesville, Florida. xxxvi + 439pp.

Steinhauser, S.R. 1974. Notes on Neotropical Nymphalidae andHesperiidae with Descriptions of New Species and Subspecies and aNew Genus. Bulletin of the Allyn Museum. 22: 1-8.

Ebrietas sp. photographed by Susan Hengeveld in Mission,Texas on November 19, 2010.


26 Spring 2011

A charter and sustaining member of the Lepidopterists’Society, Clement W. Baker of Waynesburg, Ohio, waspassionate about Lepidoptera. Much of what we know abouthis entomological life was published in two newspaperarticles (Anonymous 1937, 1946). In 1987, the senior author(JVC) visited Baker’s former home at 351 Ross Road inWaynesburg and talked with his daughter, the late DorothyE. Parker. During the 1980s, JVC also enjoyed acorrespondence with Baker’s good friend, Ray W. Bracher(1908-1998). Additional aspects of Baker’s life were revealedin manuscripts recently obtained from his alma mater, theUniversity of Mount Union, Alliance, Ohio. With theexception of some brief biographical remarks by Calhoun(1992), Baker has not received the recognition we feel hedeserves.

For many years Clem Baker (Fig. 1) worked as anaccountant for Whitacre-Greer Fireproofing Company, amanufacturer of bricks and tiles in Waynesburg, Ohio. Healso served during the 1920s as the President of theWaynesburg Board of Education. Encouraged by somenewspaper articles about Lepidoptera, Baker begancollecting butterflies and moths in 1924. Thirteen yearslater, his collection contained 8,000 specimens, whichpurportedly ballooned to 60,000 by 1946 (Fig. 2). Hecollected and reared large numbers of Lepidoptera, usingmany of the resulting specimens to exchange for foreignspecies. His rearing efforts were impressive; he was knownto care for as many as 3,500 larvae at one time. Bakerpurchased numerous specimens from dealers and alsoreceived material from other lepidopterists, including L. PaulGrey of Lincoln, Maine and Salvador L. de la Torre yCallejas of Matanzas, Cuba. Among the butterflies, he wasmost interested in swallowtails (Papilio spp.), and fritillaries(Speyeria spp.). His favorite moths included underwings(Catocala spp.), hawkmoths (Sphingidae), and silk moths(Saturniidae). He also had a predilection for aberrations.Only the smallest of moths eluded his attention. In 1950 hetold Homer Price of Payne, Ohio, that the species mostsought by his correspondents was the butterfly Pieris

Clement W. Baker (1886-1959) and theTransfer of His Lepidoptera Collection to

the McGuire CenterJohn V. Calhoun1 and Andrew D. Warren2

977 Wicks Dr., Palm Harbor, Florida 34684-4656 U.S.A.Research Associate: McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History,

University of Florida [email protected]

McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,SW 34th Street and Hull Road, P. O. Box 112710, Gainesville, Florida 32611-2710 U.S.A.

[email protected]

virginiensis. He wrote, “I have more demand for this speciesthan any other, and just can’t fill requests for them all.”Few people at that time had access to this localized speciesand were willing to part with specimens. To confirm theiridentity, Baker sent specimens of this species to thelepidopterist Cyril F. dos Passos.

Baker preserved his pinned Lepidoptera in a custom-builtwooden cabinet containing 90 glass-topped drawers thatmeasured 16 x 14 inches. The majority of his specimens,however, were papered and stored in dozens of lard tinsmeasuring 12 x 15 inches (Fig. 3). He applied his accountingskills to his collection, meticulously inventorying most ofhis specimens by recording in a notebook their identity,location, and quantity. His last inventory updates werecompleted in 1956. In other notebooks, Baker kept specimenprice lists, photographs, articles, and typewrittenidentification keys of Lepidoptera.

Baker’s greatest contributions were on a local level. Forover thirty years he documented the Lepidoptera ofnortheastern Ohio, particularly in the vicinity ofWaynesburg in Stark and Carroll Counties. Some of thespecies he found no longer occur in that part of Ohio due tohabitat loss. Baker’s enthusiasm is evident in his accountof finding Colias eurytheme during the early 1930s; “whenI saw the first specimen, flitting over the field…I ran aconsiderable distance to get this, the very first one I hadever seen” (Baker 1952) (little did Baker know that thisspecies would soon become one of the most commonbutterflies in eastern North America). Baker sent Ohiobutterflies to Austin H. Clark at the Smithsonian Institution(USNM), who included some of Baker’s observations ofSpeyeria in Clark (1932) and named an aberration of S.aphrodite in Baker’s honor (ab. ‘bakeri’). Among Baker’ssurviving papers are original specimen photos that matchthose published in Clark (1932), suggesting they werereceived from Clark. Baker also donated numerous Ohiospecimens to other museums, including the Ohio StateMuseum (now Ohio Historical Society) and the BritishMuseum (Natural History) in London. Because of his



extensive network of correspondents, specimens collectedand reared by Baker are surely deposited in many additionalcollections.

For several years, Baker wrote a local newspaper columncalled “Here and There,” which later became “NatureChats.” He introduced insects to local school children, whofondly knew him as “Mr. Bugs.” Baker also was a co-founderof the Northeastern Ohio Lepidopterists’ Society and hedistributed a number of articles about Lepidoptera, called“Entomological Bulletins,” to its members. He clearly wasthe heart and soul of that small organization, as well as theirlearned instructor. His numerous communications tomembers were succinctly signed “Baker.” Baker tookmembers of the group to various museums, including theCarnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburg. It wasthere that they met the venerable lepidopterist, William J.Holland, who authored the books upon which theNortheastern Ohio Lepidopterists relied; The Butterfly Book(1898, revised 1931) and The Moth Book (1903). Thisorganization later evolved into the larger Neo-NaturalistsSociety.

Ray Bracher provided JVC some of the only known survivingcopies of Baker’s unpublished articles. They includeannotated lists of butterflies from the vicinity of Waynesburgand Stark County, as well as identification keys to Ohiospecies of Catocala. Baker’s most noteworthy article,written about 1933, recounts the biology and habits of theRegal Fritillary, Speyeria idalia. Although this butterfly hasnot been recorded in Ohio for over 20 years and is all butextirpated from eastern North America, Baker consideredit to be “fairly common” in the vicinity of Waynesburg. Hementioned that he once collected 84 males in a two hourperiod, yet remarked that the species was “not so plentifulthat year.” The species remained locally commonthroughout Baker’s lifetime. He successfully rearedhundreds of S. idalia larvae that he collected in the field.With Ray Bracher, he trapped the mature larvae by coveringareas of violets with newspapers that were held down withrocks and branches. The traps were placed out in theevening and the wandering larvae were gathered fromamong the newspapers the next morning. Baker wrote, “Idid find that they were sparingly represented in traps whichI had placed, and best results were obtained in searchingthru the fine dead grass and among leaves close to the foodplant. Many were found in the same clumps of dead grassin company of Apantesis virgo. A peculiarity was that inno cases did I find any of these larvae nearer to the foodplant than at least half a foot, excepting under such trapsas I had placed, and to my way of thinking that it soughtgreater safety under the protection of the dead grass andleaves somewhat removed from the food plant, than in closeproximity thereto. In one field I visited were several isolatedpatches of violets, surrounded by a healthy growth of alfalfaand timothy and here the larvae had crawled to the bases of

these forage crops where they had concealed themselvesamong these plants, rather than under the protection of theviolets, although the cybele and aphrodite larvae were sooften found among the violets. Even in these two or threescattered patches of violets, I found that they would preferthe bases of the alfalfa and timothy to the traps I had placedfor them.” These observations are consistent with the morerecent findings of Kopper et al. (2001) and support the long-held belief that larvae are largely nocturnal. Baker andBracher reared hundreds of Speyeria cybele and S. aphroditelarvae that they collected in a similar manner.

Clem Baker’s first wife, Alice, died in 1935. He laterremarried, but ultimately divorced and apparently lived theremainder of his days alone. Unfortunately, he became soengrossed in his pastime that he ultimately lost touch withfamily and friends (R. Bracher pers. comm.). Baker died atthe age of 72 and was buried in the Sandy Valley Cemeteryin Waynesburg, Ohio.

After Baker’s death in 1958, his Lepidoptera collection andlibrary were bequeathed to Mount Union College, nowknown as the University of Mount Union. For want ofavailable space, Baker’s tins of papered specimens werestored in an attic above the Dean’s office, while his cabinetwas kept in an adjoining office. In early 1987, JVCaccompanied David C. Iftner and John A. Shuey on a tripto Mount Union to document Baker’s Ohio butterflies.Many of the specimens, especially those pinned in thecabinet, were found to be infested with dermestid beetles.Nonetheless, the college hesitated to part with the collectionat that time. The entire collection was moved in 2003 tothe university’s new Bracey Hall of Science, where thecabinet was housed in an active biology laboratoryclassroom.

In May 2010, JVC contacted Leonard Epp, Professor ofBiology at Mount Union, who had hosted our visit in 1987.After some amenable discussion, the university generouslyagreed to transfer ownership of Baker’s collection to theMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (FloridaMuseum of Natural History, University of Florida), inGainesville, Florida. Mount Union officials recognized thatthe collection deserved a more suitable repository. Aftermuch helpful preparation by members of the Mount UnionBiology Department, we travelled to Ohio in November 2010and personally transported the collection to the McGuireCenter. After driving through the night, constantlyworrying about a persistent “check-engine” light and ahighly temperamental engine of the rented truck, we arrivedin Gainesville about 16 hours after departing Mount Union(Fig. 3). The collection was unloaded directly into theCenter’s walk-in freezer room.

After two rounds of freezing, the collection was unpackedand accessioned in two stages. The first stage involvedcataloguing the contents of each of the 51 lard tins, andtransferring their contents into sealable plastic bags placed


28 Spring 2011

within cardboard boxes, which were labeled and filed for easyaccess to the material. Most of the tins were filled with smallcardboard boxes and each usually contained specimens of asingle taxon, many of which were reared duplicates of Ohiospecies. A few tins contained boxes of pinned specimens,and some others were filled entirely with loose specimenenvelopes. Most specimens that were preserved in the tinsare in good condition, although certain tins had been infestedwith dermestids at some point, but apparently not recently.The papered specimens mostly represent Ohio species thatwere collected in the vicinity of Waynesburg or reared fromregional stock. A total of 27,422 papered specimens werecontained in the 51 tins.

The second stage of unpacking the collection involvedaccessioning the contents of the 71 surviving glass-toppeddrawers. Contents of most drawers were damaged bydermestids, though severity of the damage was highlyvariable. A few drawers, including those containing acollection of central Californian Noctuidae and Geometridae,suffered essentially no damage. Others were almostcompletely devastated. Spread butterflies that remain ingood condition include a wide range of exotic Papilionidae,some Pieridae (numerous European and Asian, includingDelias), and a large number of Nymphalidae (includingmany species of Heliconius, Doxocopa, and Hypolimnas).Surprisingly, labels suggest that some specimens originatedfrom the collections of the renowned entomologists FrederickD. Godman, Osbert Salvin, William C. Hewitson, and HansFruhstorfer (how Baker obtained these specimens isunknown). Many specimens of Speyeria are in goodcondition, including paratypes of taxa received from L. P.Grey, as well as specimens of extinct taxa (e.g., Speyeriaadiaste atossa) and four specimens of S. aphrodite ab.‘bakeri.’ A small number of Lycaenidae, Riodinidae andHesperiidae are also represented. Spread moths includemany exotic Saturniidae and Sphingidae, domestic and exotic

1) Clement W. Baker at age 42, four years after becoming interested in Lepidoptera (D. Parker). 2) Baker at age 60 withpart of his collection (Anonymous 1946). 3) Unloading the Baker collection in Gainesville, showing some of the lard tinsthat contained papered specimens (A. Warren pictured).

Catocala, and specimens from most other “macromoth”families, including a specimen of the extinct JamaicanUrania solanus. There are numerous representatives oflocal Ohio noctuid and geometrid species.

In total, 1513 spread butterflies (865 domestic and 648foreign) and 806 spread moths (712 domestic, 94 foreign)were included in the drawers. Combined with the paperedmaterial, 29,741 specimens were transferred to the McGuireCenter, about half of the number purportedly contained inhis collection in 1946. The lost half of Baker’s collectionsuccumbed to dermestids (and possibly pillaging) over thedecades, affecting the pinned and probably also the paperedmaterial. Baker’s numbering system and notebooks suggeststhat more tins once existed and several drawers were nearlyempty, yet clearly once housed more material. BecauseBaker’s cabinet was capable of holding 90 drawers, 19drawers of material may have disappeared. Although it ispossible that the size of his collection was grosslyoverestimated for the 1946 newspaper article, we found thatthe majority of the pinned specimens pictured in the photosthat accompanied both newspaper articles (Anonymous1937, 1946) (Fig. 2) are no longer contained in the collection.It is also possible that Baker dispersed many specimens priorto his death.

Baker’s surviving specimens include many of historicalrelevance, as well as type specimens, extinct taxa, uniqueaberrations, and examples from populations that have longsince been extirpated. Clement W. Baker dedicated much ofhis adult life to Lepidoptera. His intense passion forbutterflies and moths is vividly reflected in his collection,which represents a valuable addition to the holdings of theMcGuire Center.

AcknowledgementsWe thank the late Dorothy Parker and the late Ray Bracher forinformation about Clem Baker. Leonard Epp, Tom Wise, and other



4

6

1

2

4

members of the Biology Department of University of Mount Uniongenerously agreed to transfer the Baker collection to the McGuireCenter and provided invaluable support and assistance to make ithappen.

Literature CitedAnonymous. 1937. Patience a necessity in butterfly collecting – C. W.

Baker of Waynesburg has spent 13 years on Lepidopter [sic] hobby.Canton [Ohio] Repository. 18 July

______. 1946. Butterfly collecting ‘bug’ has a lasting bite. CantonRepository, 30 June. (reprinted in The Sandy Valley Press[Waynesburg, Ohio], 4 July).

Baker, C. W. 1952. Nature chats. The Sandy Valley Press. 2 October.Calhoun, J. V. 1992. The history of butterfly study in Ohio. Pp. 1-6. In

Iftner, D. C., Shuey, J. A., & J. V. Calhoun, Butterflies and skippers ofOhio. Ohio Biol. Surv. Bull. (n.s.) 9: i-xii, 1-212.

Clark, A. H. 1932. The butterflies of the District of Columbia andVicinity. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. 157: i-ix, 1-337, 64 pl.

Kopper, B. J. 2001. Notes on the behavior of Speyeria idalia (Drury)(Nymphalidae) larvae with implications that they are diurnal foragers.J. Lepid. Soc. 54: 96-97.

In fall of 2010, The International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC) re-formed its Butterfly Specialist Group and named ScottHoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society forInvertebrate Conservation, as the group’s chair. In thiscapacity, Scott will work to bring together scientists andconservationists to facilitate butterfly conservation actionand influence policy worldwide.

In anticipation of this task, we have prepared a short on-line survey with the aim of identifying current butterflyconservation projects, priorities, and needs, and theindividuals and organizations engaged in these efforts. Theresults of this survey will be used to create an action planto prioritize individual species status assessments, surveys,and direct conservation action.

We’d appreciate your help in better understanding what’sbeing done and who is engaged in butterfly conservationacross the world. Please complete this brief survey—itshould take less than 10 minutes to complete. Anyinformation you can give will be of great benefit to the workof the Butterfly Specialist Group. Copy the URL into yourweb browser to access the survey.

h t t p : / / s u r v e y. c o n s t a n t c o n t a c t . c o m / s u r v e y /a07e39t3abkgiro65gp/start

We hope to get this survey out as broadly as possible. Tohelp us do this, once you have filled out the survey, pleaseforward this information and the link to the survey to otherswhose work or experience may be applicable to this specialistgroup. We are especially interested in gathering informationabout butterfly conservation efforts in areas outside NorthAmerica and Western Europe, as the initial aim of thisGroup is to prioritize work in countries and regionsgenerally underserved by butterfly conservationorganizations.

The survey is in English. If this is not your first language,we hope that you will still be able to read and complete thesurvey and that language will not be a barrier to yourparticipation. Unfortunately, the Specialist Group doesn’tcurrently have the capacity to present and analyze thesurvey in other languages.

Thank you for your help in making the Butterfly SpecialistGroup a success.

Sincerely,

Scott Hoffman BlackExecutive Director – The Xerces Society for InvertebrateConservationChair – IUCN SSC Butterfly Specialist Group

Announcement

IUCN Butterfly ConservationProject Online Survey

From theEditor’s

Desk

I’m still here.

Due to some unforeseen circumstances, James Adams willnot be taking over the editorial duties of The News untilthe Autumn issue. That means you are stuck with me forone more issue.

This issue is obviously late. My apologies for that. Too manycommitments made when I thought I was going to have afree and clear calendar. I can promise that the Summer issueis going to be coming to you much faster. In fact, work isalready progressing on that front, so if you have somethingto send please do so immediately.

Congratulations to Leroy Koehn, the new Season SummaryEditor, for getting his first issue out of the computer andinto your hands. As you can tell from this mailing, it hasbeen quite an endeavor. It gets easier with practice, Leroy.

In the five and a half years I’ve been editor, we’ve never hada Mailbag as full as this issue. Hopefully this is a trendthat will continue. So feel free to send your comments tothe Editor for inclusion in the next issue. We all have anopinion...

Dale [email protected]

Dale Clark


30 Spring 2011

9

12

13

13

14

4

Our recent meeting in Leavenworth, Washington was thefifth I attended; like the previous ones I had been to, it wasa very enjoyable affair. During this meeting, I attended myfirst day field trip with fellow members, a collectors’ tripexpertly led by Caitlin LaBar, a young local lepidopterist.Besides the pleasant company of fellow lepidopterists, thehighlight for me was our last of three locales visited – thesummit zone of Red Top Mountain (Elevation 5,361 ft.),located in the Wenatchee Mts., south-southwest ofLeavenworth.

This summit zone is probably characterized as upperCanadian (montane) zone transitioning to Hudsonian(subalpine) zone, conifer forest dominated by fir,interspersed with open meadows, some large and park-like.The meadows and open portions of the forest were ablazewith blossoms, copious in variety and numbers; butterfliesand diurnal moths were, if not abundant, numerous enough.The reddish rock summit, presumed volcanic in origin, hadonly scattered trees. The west side of the peak has asubstantial talus slope; a low growing purplish penstemonprofuse here, exploded with vibrancy under the hot sun. Aswell, the plant is a larval hostplant for a checkerspot(Euphydryas species), as Thea Pyle kindly pointed out to afew of us, showing us a Euphydryas larvae on thispenstemon. The view from this west side – to the north-northeast, the spectacular, jagged snowy peaks of the StuartRange (Mt. Stuart – 9,415 ft.), highest of the WenatcheeMts., and a good distance to the west, the great ice and snowdome of Mt. Ranier loomed afar!

This short excursion to Red Top Mt. was but a tease ofnature’s glories a short time off. In the interim, a few socialfunctions and numerous talks among fellow lepidopteristsback in Leavenworth to attend. As in the previous meetings,I went to most of the lectures, the great majority interestingand informative. As before, as lectures proceeded on, manyso erudite and focused, I started to feel akin to the lecturegoer in Walt Whitman’s outstanding “When I Heard theLearned Astronomer”. The great outdoors was calling, andrather than the erudite and focused, I longed to be in themind and spirit where nature’s beauty, wonder and sublimitywere “Infinite In All Directions” (Dyson, 1985). A week inthe superlative Alpine Lakes Wilderness west ofLeavenworth, hiking and backpacking with my girlfriendDanusia, would more than suffice for this physical/metaphysical transformation.

Ingalls CreekOn the tail ends of a 5 day backpacking trip, two day hikes

LepSoc 2010 - Alpine LakesWilderness, Washington

Steve Fratello

11 First St, West Islip, NY 11795, [email protected]

in the lower reaches of Ingalls Creek were simplyparadisiacal. When I picked this trail for that first day hike,I had somehow momentarily forgotten that I had backpackedthis trail solo a long time ago (1985). I still remember thesteady, inexorable climb from 1,900 ft. at the trail’s start inthe canyon’s lower end to just under 6,500 ft. at LakeIngalls, the creek’s source, a total distance of 16 or so miles.I believe this trip was taken in August, maybe late, andnoteworthy and perhaps a bit embarrassing for alepidopterist, is that I remember not one butterfly seen! Ido remember magnificent conifer forest of great variety thelength of the Ingalls Creek valley, a dozen or so species, forestcommunities changing with elevation as inexorably as theclimb. Many years ago on that backpacking trip, I vividlyremember the trail passing in its first mile or so throughthe scorched scene of a recent forest fire. Though there werestill plentiful dead snags from this fire, the area hadrecovered well with copious vegetation.

These two day hikes were on very hot, nearly cloudless days;both hikes encompassed about 4 miles round trip. The forestagain did not disappoint, Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Firare the main conifer constituents of the lower canyon,including towering old growth trees, and forgotten by me,small to medium-sized Western Redcedar common along thecreek corridor. A scattering of Grand Fir and a few WesternLarch along the creek and on the lower north facing slope,gave scarce indication of their abundance in the middleelevation forests above. I also spied a single Lodgepole Pineand a solitary Englemann Spruce along the creek, this coolermicroclimate a niche for these higher elevation trees. Addingto the array of conifers are plentiful Bigleaf Maples alongthe creek and on the slopes, and also a few, scattered BlackCottonwoods creekside.

Sublime forest, shrubs, wildflowers, grasses and theturquoise water of Ingalls Creek, what a spectacular EasternCascades arena to view its butterfly fauna! I certainlyremember the butterflies this time around; the butterflyshow was superb. Among the highlights: a steady stream oftiger swallowtails of three species, abundant pugnaciousGreat Arctics (Oeneis nevadensis) and some marvelouscheckerspot (Euphydryas and Chlosyne) congregations oncreekside boulders. Western Tiger Swallowtails (Papiliorutulus) and Pale Tiger Swallowtails (P. eurymedon)especially, were plentiful both creekside and on the lowerslopes. Among the yellow tigers, were a few that werenoticibly larger and more yellow; I am fairly certain that athird tiger species was in the mix – the magnificent Two-Tailed Tiger Swallowtail (P. multicaudata).



Callophrys augustinus in Florida 7

Great Arctics were seemingly ubiquitous in the lowercanyon, so many sections of the trail and also nearcreekside, had its resident perching territorial male. The lasttime I had seen this great Oeneis was in the early 1980s,then on a backpacking trip in early June with my brotherCarl in northern California’s Trinity Alps. I rememberseeing a good number in the lower elevation forests there,but simply don’t remember them being pugnacious. AlongIngalls Creek, the perching males flew after not only otherGreat Arctics, but seemingly any and all butterflies thatentered ‘their territory’. A great place to witness thisbehavior was from the rock outcrop where the photo ofIngalls Creek was taken. In the late morning and earlyafternoon, a steady stream of Pale and Western TigerSwallowtails flew past this idyllic spot, invariably headingdownstream. With each passing tiger, the ‘resident’ GreatArctic would leave its perch on boulder or shrub and harrythe interloper downstream. When they reached an invisibleboundary, obviously the edge of the arctic’s territory, thearctic would fly back to one of its perches; it would not belong before the next belligerent encounter.

As the trail was along the canyon’s lower slope, a short waydownslope brought one to the creek’s edge, such as the spotjust mentioned. This spot and another creekside spot visited,were host to surprising checkerspot congregations, a dozenor more in a relatively small area imbibing on minerals fromthe streamside rocks and boulders. Both Chlosyne (palla orhoffmanni) and Euphydryas were present, the Euphydryasmore numerous and with two distinctive phenotypes (onemuch darker), which I surmise represented two differentspecies.

At one of these spots, there were smaller congregations of afew blues, Boisduval’s Blue (Plebejus icarioides) andpresumed Euphilotes species. Besides these smallcongregations, blues overall were less numerous than Iwould have guessed; the same goes for greater fritillaries(Argynnis). Besides a few seen flying, including a brilliantorange species speeding along the creek corridor, a presumedHydaspe Fritillary (A. hydaspe) took nectar from, if memoryis correct, the composite Scouler’s Hawkweed, which wasabundant in the dry open forest of the south-facing slope.Among other butterflies seen were Lorquin’s Admirals(Liminitis lorquini), Mourning Cloaks (Nymphalis antiopa),Field Crescents (Phyciodes pulchella), one or two AniseSwallowtails (Papilio zelicaon), and the only skippers seen,a couple of duskywings (Erynnis), both on flowers.

Adding to this paradise were infinite other aspects, a fewmentioned here. Just downstream from the aforementionedcreekside rocky outcrop, several spectacular, large odonatescruised incessantly in the natural amphitheatre above thecreek environs. Western Tanagers were common in the lowercanyon, gorgeous males in their breeding plumage seen anumber of times. There are abundant shrubs in the openPonderosa Pine-Douglas Fir forest of the canyon’s lowersouth-facing slope, two bloomed profusely during our visit:

a presumed Ceanothus species (probable hostplant of PaleTiger Swallowtails) and the extraordinarily lovely, heavily-flowered Mockorange (Hydrangeaceae), visited by both Paleand Western Tiger Swallowtails. The Mockorange’s large,white, mostly four-petalled blossoms exploded with vibrancyunder the sunlight, and their intoxicating sweet fragranceput one more heavenly touch on this natural paradise.

Lake StuartLake Stuart ranks among the most spectacularly beautifullocales I have been to: the dark waters of a large mountainlake (elevation approximately 5,000 ft.), the snowy andglaciated north face of Mt. Stuart rising approximately 4,500ft. above the lake, stately conifer forest, extensive verdantmeadows, boulder fields, abundant flowering shrubs, aspengroves,... Lake Stuart is the official terminus of the 4.6 miletrail, an easy 9.2 mile backpacking trip for our 5 days, withabundant time to tarry; for us, also including a 3.2 mile sidetrip to subalpine Colchuck Lake, a large, turquoise lake ina tremendous cirque.

The best butterfly locale I saw for our entire backpackingtrip, was an extensive wet meadow (upper Canadian Zone)on Lake Stuart’s north shore, fortuitously, adjacent to ourcamp in an Englemann Spruce/Subalpine Fir grove. Thelocus of this butterfly activity was an especially lush portionof this meadow where Mountain Valerian was abundant anddominant. Endemic to our northwestern mountains,Mountain Valerian’s nectar was avidly sought by Pale TigerSwallowtails, Sara Orangetips (Anthocaris sara), WesternMeadow Fritillaries (Boloria epithore), Great Arctics andprobably a few others. Pale and Western Tigers, here andelsewhere, also visited Crimson Columbine, a stunningcombination; in this meadow, Pale Tigers also visited thedrooping blossoms of the leafy Mountain Bluebell (Mertensiaciliata).

Other butterflies seen either in the Mountain Valeriandominated meadow or the larger wet meadow environsinclude: Chlosyne palla/hoffmanni, Field Crescents, Zephyrs(Polygonia gracilis zephyrus), possibly an Anise Swallowtailand an Arctic Skipper (Carterocephalus palaemon), whichI believe was the only hesperid seen on this trip. A highlightand great surprise was a definite sighting of an IndraSwallowtail (P. indra) flying swiftly over the meadow, thefirst time I have seen this elusive insect. It should not besurprising to see Indra there, as a Lomatium species, thepresumed hostplant, was common on a dry meadow flatnearby and I saw a large patch of Lomatium on the boulder-covered slope which rises above the lake’s north shore; onthis slope were one or two other possible sightings of Indra.

Elderberry and Sitka Mountain-Ash grow abundantly onthis boulder field, Sitka Mountain-Ash in some impressivecopses, and both were in high bloom with their white/creamyblossoms. The somewhat pungent smell of the latter, inplaces, filled the air and could be detected from afar; I wascurious what, if any, butterflies would be attracted to these


32 Spring 2011

strongly-scented flowers. This question was answered whena fairly large Greater Fritillary, presumed Coronis (A.coronis) or Callippe (A. callippe), was observed feeding fromthe flowers of a solitary mountain-ash close to the lake, andwas feeding from this same shrub when passed again wellover a half an hour later. I saw no other butterflies visit themountain-ashes’ piquant flowers.

A very interesting observation entailing mating SaraOrangetips occurred on the extensive wet meadow. In themorning, a number of males were seen traversing thismeadow in rapid flight, never pausing to feed or alight. Ionly recognized this as patrolling behavior, when a coursingmale encountered a slower flying female; after a very briefcourtship flight, they settled low in the meadow vegetationto mate. I thought I had marked the spot well enough tofind them, but such was not the case; their ventral mottledcamouflage was serving them well. I was only able to findthem, when another patrolling male, halted its hurried flightabruptly and investigated the pair. I saw another male repeatthis later. It is simply astounding to me, that discountingolfactory cues, which I believe were not in play, that the visionof these swiftly flying male Saras is so keen, that they coulddetect a motionless, well-camouflaged mating pair low in themeadow vegetation!

Lake Stuart and its magnificent surroundings are adestination, as are any spectacular mountain lake orwaterfall. For the discerning naturalist, every step of thejourney along the way are destinations as well, for beautyand wonder are “Infinite In All Directions” around everystep, not only at that ultimate destination. Such is definitelythe case with the entire 4.6 mile trail to Lake Stuart andthe 1.6 mile trail up to Colchuck Lake. Superb conifer forest,including plentiful old growth, is ubiquitous along thesetrails. Including Subalpine Larch on the slopes above thesetwo lakes, 12 conifer species abide in a relatively shortdistance along with a striking variety of conifer forestcommunities with an ascent of only 1,700 ft. (Lake Stuart)to 2,200 ft. (Colchuck Lake).

The trail to Colchuck Lake starts off in an impressive oldgrwth forest of Engelmann Spruce/Subalpine Fir/DouglasFir with a scattering of Lodgepole Pine. Up higher thereare large open rock outcrops and around the lake a rocky,open forest dominated by Subalpine Fir and Whitebark Pine.For our hike, it was mostly sunny but not hot; though wewere in closed forest quite a bit, it was still surprising thatI saw not one butterfly that day.

From the Colchuck Lake/Lake Stuart trail junction, theLake Stuart Trail is basically level for over a mile, as it liesin a tremendous glacial valley surrounded by serrated peaks.The wide, level valley floor has extensive wet meadows andmarshes surrounding Mountaineer Creek, the trail on thenorth side of the creek near the slope’s edge passing in andout of towering spruce/fir forest in the rich alluvium.Towards the head of this sublime valley, great meadows on

the lower north slope connect with the valley floor meadows,providing wide open vistas of a stupendous mountain scene.All these valley meadows invite lepidoptera exploration;unfortunately I didn’t, as I was backpacking through thearea. If only we had one more day; hopefully otherlepidopterists will follow, if not already. Lake Stuart and themuch more popular Colchuck Lake can be day hikes, butthis venue certainly leaves way too little time to explore andsojourn - 5 days was way too short! Day hike orbackpacking, be prepared for legions of mosquitoes from thetrail junction to Lake Stuart, earthly paradises are almostnever without travails.

The most beautiful and most profound emotion we canexperience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sourceof all science. Albert Einstein

Author’s note: Of course this article is written for allmembers, but especially for those members who are kindredspirits. Members who, though they thrill to see lepidopteraanywhere, find even greater joy when lepidoptera’s beautyis in sublime harmony with pristine and near pristinenatural areas. Also for our younger members, to hopefullyinspire them to visit great natural paradises, as I wasinspired myself countless times. In that vein, hopefully moremembers can someday revel in the sublimity of the IngallsCreek and Lake Stuart Trails in the stellar Alpine LakesWilderness!

References & Literature CitedBrock, J. & Kaufman, K. 2003. Kaufman Field Guide to Butterflies of

North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Brockman, C. & Merrilees, R. 1979. Trees of North America. Golden

Field Guide. New York: Golden Press.Dyson, F. 1988. Infinite In All Directions. New York: Harper & Row.LaBar, C. CHECKLIST OF BUTTERFLY SPECIES: Kittitas & Chelan

counties, Washington.Niehaus, T. & Ripper, C. 1976. A Field Guide To Pacific States Wildflowers.

Peterson Field Guide. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Pyle, R. 1974. Watching Washington Butterflies. Seattle: The Seattle

Audabon Society.Rolfs, D. Butterfly Species of the Leavenworth Area.Rolfs, D. Fifteen Fauna-rich Butterfly Sites (Leavenworth Area).Spellenberg, R. 1979. The Audabon Society Field Guide to North

American Wildflowers, Western Region. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

AcknowledgementsThanks to my fellow Lepidopterists’ Society members for makingthis such an enjoyable meeting. Special thanks to Dr. David James,his family and all others whose hard work and time volunteered,brought forth a great meeting. Thanks to my girlfriend Danusia forbeing a great hiking and backpacking partner in the Alpine LakesWilderness and other great locales in superb Washington state.And above all, Thanks to our Great God, who has created aphysical universe whose sublimity and grandeur, is without doubt,“Infinite In All Directions”.

X



1 2 3

Julian Donahue

Metamorphosis...Allen, Thomas J. of Cape Coral, Florida. Mr. Allen hadbeen a member of the Society since 1982 (2011 dues noticewas returned, marked “deceased.”).

Milner, Paul Frederick, M.D., of Pisgah Forest, NorthCarolina, on 6 February 2010. Born on 7 February 1928 inBristol, Somerset, England, Dr. Miller arrived in Jamaicafrom England to join the Hematology Department of theUniversity Hospital of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica in1961. His chosen research interest was sickle cell anemia.Over the next 10 years in Jamaica and in subsequent yearsat Johns Hopkins University Medical School in BaltimorePaul published his work, usually in collaboration withothers, in numerous prestigious medical journals.

Though always enthusiastic about his groundbreakingresearch, Paul rarely discussed these achievements outsideof medical circles, unless prompted. He needed noprompting, however, to discuss his lifelong hobby ofbutterfly collecting. Paul enjoyed memberships with theXerces Society, where he also served for a time as a boardmember, The Southern Lepidopterists’ Society and TheLepidopterists’ Society (1976-2008). Paul and his wife Annwere not only regular attendees at Lepidopterists’ Societymeetings but participated in the ensuing field trips, as wellas other expeditions, where Paul continued to build hisCaribbean, North, Central and South American collection.

Paul was a meticulous collector, always using a killing jarand avoiding physical contact with his specimens as muchas possible. On a field trip in Arizona he only grudginglyaccepted a metalmark that he had been trying to find, whenI presented one to him that I had “pinched”. His objective,he told me when last I visited his beautiful collection, wasto have a representative of each genus of butterfly found inthe New World. His collection is deposited in the McGuireCenter for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum

of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida. [extracted from amore extensive remembrance submitted by Tom Turner]

Morton, Dr. J.K. of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, in January2011. Dr. Morton had been a member of the Society since2000.

Rice, Harold Edward on 5 December 2010 in Eugene,Oregon, the city where he was born on 21 June 1917. Haroldwas a farmer (a model producer of cannery crops andhazelnuts), outdoorsman, fisherman, sharpshooter, avidadventurer (enduring tularemia, cholera and malaria, butnever a broken bone), and widely respected lepidopterist. Hisworld travels in pursuit of Lepidoptera took him to numerouscountries in South America, Africa, and Australasia. Hiswife of 65 years, Leona Mae Johnson, predeceased him in2005. The couple had two children, four grandchildren, andfive great grandchildren.

Mr. Rice was a charter member of the Oregon EntomologicalSociety (1939), and had been a member of The Lepidopterists’Society since at least 1982 (according to our current records).His legacy includes the Harold E. and Leona M. RiceEndowed Professorship in Systematic Entomology at OregonState University, where the Rice Professor serves as directorof the Oregon State Arthropod Collection (OSAC), where hiscollection is deposited. Memorial donations may be made toOregon State University Foundation/Friends of OSAC, 850SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333-4046. [informationkindly submitted by his daughter, Arlene Rice Dietz]

Swisher, William L. (“Bill”) of Santa Rosa, California, on20 November 2010, at the age of 91. Bill, an active studentof California butterflies, Buprestidae, and Mutillidae, was afrequent and jovial attendee at many Pacific Slope meetings.He had been a member of the Society since 1966. [notificationfrom his widow and companion Vinetta M. Swisher]

Meade, Daniel E. (Ph.D.): Althouse and Meade, Inc., 1602Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446-2117.

Moore, Rex E.: 19 Rebecca Lane, Searcy, AR 72143-7254.

Murphy, Preston V.: c/o Intricon Pte Ltd, 8 AdmiraltyStreet #02-01 Admirax, Singapore 757438.

Nelson, Michael W. (Ph.D.): Natural Heritage &Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division ofFisheries & Wildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA01581-6374.

Patton, Charles D.: 6045 Lexington Park, Orlando, FL32819-4433.

Pianalto, Ernest: 1646 Bronze Knoll Road, Diamond Bar,CA 91765-2609.

Scriber, J. Mark (Dr.): 1233 Waikiki Street, Cheboygan,MI 49721-9227.

Wells, Carrie (Ms.): 180 Elk Ridge Road, Boone, NC 28607-8057.

Williams, Thomas S.: P.O. Box 848, Sarasota, FL 34230-0848.

Wolf, Randall: P.O. Box 112951, Anchorage, AK 99511-2951.

Membership UpdateContinued from p. 21


34 Spring 2011

MembershipThe Lepidopterists’ Society is open tomembership from anyone interested inany aspect of lepidopterology. The onlycriterion for membership is that you ap-preciate butterflies or moths! To becomea member, please send full dues for thecurrent year, together with your cur-rent mailing address and a note aboutyour particular areas of interest in Lepi-doptera, to:

Kelly Richers,Assistant Treasurer,The Lepidopterists’ Society9417 Carvalho CourtBakersfield, CA 93311

Dues RateActive (regular) $ 45.00Affiliate (same address) 10.00Student 20.00Sustaining 60.00Contributor 100.00Institutional Subscription 60.00Air Mail Postage for News 15.00

Students must send proof of enrollment.Please add $ 5.00 to your Student orActive dues if you live outside of theU.S. to cover additional mailing costs.Remittances must be in U.S. dollars,payable to “The Lepidopterists’ Soci-ety”. All members receive the Journaland the News (each published quar-terly). Supplements included in theNews are the Membership Directory,published in even-numbered years, andthe Season Summary, published annu-ally. Additional information on member-ship and other aspects of the Societycan be obtained from the Secretary (seeaddress inside back cover).

Change of Address?Please send permanent changes of ad-dress, telephone numbers, areas of in-terest, or e-mail addresses to:

Julian P. Donahue, Assistant Secretary,The Lepidopterists’ Society,Natural History Museum of Los Ange-les County, 900 Exposition Blvd.,Los Angeles, CA [email protected]

Our Mailing List?Contact Julian Donahue for informa-tion on mailing list rental.

Missed or DefectiveIssue?Requests for missed or defective issuesshould be directed to: Ron Leuschner(1900 John Street, Manhattan Beach,CA 90266-2608, (310) 545-9415, [email protected]). Please be certainthat you’ve really missed an issue bywaiting for a subsequent issue to arrive.

MemoirsRequests for Memoirs of the Societyshould be sent to Publications Mana-ger, Ken Bliss (address opposite).

Submissions of potential newMemoirs should be sent to:

Lawrence E. GallComputer Systems Office, PeabodyMuseum of Natural History, P. O. Box208118, Yale University, New Haven,CT [email protected]

Journal of theLepidopterists’ SocietySend inquiries to:

Brian G. Scholtens(see address opposite)[email protected]

Book ReviewsSend book reviews or new book releasesfor the Journal to:

P. J. DeVries,Dept. Biological Sciences, University ofNew Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148,[email protected]

Send book reviews or new book releasesfor the News to the News Editor.

WebMasterJohn A. SnyderDept. of Biology, Furman University,Greenville, SC 29613-0001, (864) 294-3248, [email protected]

Submission Guidelinesfor the NewsSubmissions are always welcome!Preference is given to articles writtenfor a non-technical but knowledgableaudience, illustrated and succinct(under 1,000 words). Please submitin one of the following formats (inorder of preference):

1. Electronically transmitted file andgraphics—in some acceptable format—via e-mail.

2. Article (and graphics) on diskette,CD or Zip disk in any of the popularformats/platforms. Indicate whatformat(s) your disk/article/graphicsare in, and call or email if in doubt.Include printed hardcopies of botharticles and graphics, a copy of thearticle file in ASCII or RTF (just incase), and alternate graphics formats.Media will be returned on request.

3. Color and B+W graphics should begood quality photos or slides suitablefor scanning or—preferably—elec-tronic files in TIFF or JPEG formatat least 1200 x 1500 pixels for interioruse, 1800 x 2100 for covers. Photosor slides will be returned.

4. Typed copy, double-spaced suitablefor scanning aand optical characterrecognition. Original artwork/mapsshould be line drawings in pen andink or good, clean photocopies. Colororiginals are preferred.

Submission DeadlinesMaterial for Volume 53 must reachthe Editor by the following dates:

Issue Date Due

2 Summer Immediately 3 Autumn Aug. 15, 2011 4 Winter Nov. 15, 2011

Reports for Supplement S1, the Sea-son Summary, must reach the respec-tive Zone Coordinator (see most re-cent Season Summary for your Zone)by Dec. 15. See inside back cover forZone Coordinator information.



Season Summary Zone CoordinatorsExecutive CouncilTreasurerKelly M. Richers9417 Carvalho Court,Bakersfield CA 93311,(661) 665-1993 (home)[email protected]

Assistant TreasurerRon Leuschner1900 John Street,Manhattan Beach, CA90266-2608, (310) 545-9415ron [email protected]

Publications ManagerKenneth R. Bliss28 DuPont AvenuePiscataway, NJ 08854-435(732)[email protected]

Editor, News of theLepidopterists’ SocietyDale Clark1732 South Hampton Rd.,Glenn Heights, TX 75154-8530, (972) [email protected]

Editor, Journal of theLepidopterists’ SocietyBrian G. ScholtensBiology DepartmentCollege of Charleston66 College StreetCharleston, SC 29424-0001(803)856-0186 [email protected]

Editor, Memoirs of theLepidopterists’ SocietyLawrence F. Gall(see Memoirs opposite)

WebMasterJohn A. Snyder(see WebMaster opposite)

Members-At-LargeStephanie Shank, Charles Harp,Todd Stout, Richard Brown,Charles V. Covell, Jr., DanRubinoff, Todd Gilligan, PeterJump, Bruce Walsh.

PresidentJohn Shuey1505 N. Delaware St., Suite 200Indianapolis, IN [email protected](317) 951-8818

Past PresidentJohn Acorn132 Walsh Crescent, Edmonton,Alberta T5T 5L7 [email protected](403) 489-0423

Vice PresidentsDavid LohmanDept. of Biological Sciences,National University ofSingapore, 14 Science Drive 4117543, [email protected]

Jeffrey MarcusDept. of Biology, WesternKentucky University1906 College Heights Blvd.,#11080, Bowling Green,Kentucky [email protected]

Olaf MielkeDept. of Zoologia, CienciasBiologicas, UniversidadeFederal do Parana, CaixaPostal 19020, 81531-980Curitibia, Parana, Brazil

SecretaryMichael ToliverDivision of Math and ScienceEureka College, 300 E. CollegeAvenue, Eureka, [email protected]

Assistant SecretaryJulian P. DonahueNatural History Museum, 900Exposition Boulevard, LosAngeles, CA 90007-4057,(213) 763-3363 (office), (213)746-2999 (fax)[email protected]

Refer to Season Summary for Zone coverage details.

Zone 6, Texas:Charles BordelonTexas Lepidoptera Survey,8517 Burkhart Road,Houston, TX [email protected]

Zone 7, Ontario AndQuebec:Jeff Crolla413 Jones Ave.,Toronto, OntarioCanada M4J 3G5(416) [email protected]

Zone 8, The Midwest:Leslie A. Ferge7119 Hubbard AvenueMiddleton, Wisconsin 53562-3231(608) [email protected]

Zone 9, The Southeast:Brian G. ScholtensBiology DepartmentCollege of CharlestonCharleston SC 29424-0001(803) [email protected]

Zone 10, The Northeast:Mark J. Melloc/o Lloyd Center,430 Potomska RdDartsmouth, MA [email protected]

Zone 11, Mexico & theCaribbean:Isabel Vargas FernandezMuseo de Zoologia,Facultad de Ciencias,Univ. Nacional Autonoma, Mexico,Apartado Postal 70-399,Mexico 04510 D.F., [email protected]

Chief Season SummaryCoordinator And EditorLeroy C. Koehn3000 Fairway CourtGeorgetown, KY 40324(502) [email protected]

Zone 1, The Far North:Kenelm W. PhilipInstitute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of AlaskaP.O. Box 75700Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7000(907) [email protected]

Zone 2, The PacificNorthwest:Jon H. ShepardR.R. #2, S.22, C.44Nelson, British ColumbiaV1L 5P5 Canada(250) [email protected]

Zone 3, The Southwest:Ken Davenport8417 Rosewood AvenueBakersfield, CA 93306(661) 366-3074 (home)[email protected]

Zone 4, The RockyMountains:Chuck Harp8834 W. Quarto Ave.Littleton, CO 80128-4269(720) [email protected]

Zone 5, The Plains:Ronald Alan RoyerDivision of Science,Minot State University.Minot, North Dakota 58707-0001,Office: (701)858-3209,FAX: (701)839-6933,[email protected]

M X


36 Spring 2011

Great Arctic (Oeneis nevadensis), male,perching on creekside boulder, Ingalls Creek,early afternoon, brilliant sunshine. Photo byDanusia Antonowicz

Mating Sara Orangetips (Anthocharis sara), maleon bottom, low herbaceous growth of wet meadow,July 15, 2010, approximately 10:15 AM.

Lower Ingalls Creek, approximately 2,100 ft. elevation: abundant patrolling tiger swallowtails(Papilio rutulus and P. eurymedon) Great Arctics, and spectacular checkerspot congregations.Photo: Steve Fratello.

Alpine Lakes Wilderness, WashingtonSee article p. 30

While checking one of my bait traps on May 31, 2011 in Glenn Heights, Texas, I found a rather strange pairing between a Hackberry Emperor(Asterocampa celtis) and a Tawny Emperor (A. clyton). I’ve found these cross-species matings before, but what was particularly uncommonabout this instance was that they were both males! Both individuals died the next day. Needless to say, no offspring were produced. Dale Clark.

An Unusual Pairing...

Documents

Insideimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2011/2011_v53_n1.pdf · mailed with issue 1 of the News. In even num-bered years a complete Membership Direc-tory is published as Supplement