inside - yale universityimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2010/2010_v52_n4.pdf · hardy...

Volume 52, Number 4 Winter 2010

Inside:Achalarus tehuacana:New United StatesRecord from S. TexasConservation Matters:Support of ESAProtection forPhilotiella leonaThe Biodiversity Crisis,Charitable Giving, andEstate GiftingStatus of Anaeatroglodyta floridalis onBig Pine KeyLiving with the PopolucaAnother Adventure inRemote MexicoNathalis iole Host in theDelta National ForestMembership Update,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 © 2010 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 52, Number 4

Winter 2010

Achalarus tehuacana (Hesperiidae: Eudaminae): a New UnitedStates Record from Southern Texas

Dan Hardy, Michael A. Rickard, Andrew D. Warren and Nick V. Grishi. ....................................................... 107Young (and Not So Young) Ones Celebrate LepSoc 2010 in

Washington State!David G. James. ............................................................................................. 113

Dainty Sulphur (Nathalis iole) Host in the Delta National Forest Paulette Haywood Ogard. ............................................................................. 114Digital Collecting: Photographing Butterflies Digitally - Movie Making John Banks. ................................................................................................... 115Metamorphosis Julian Donahue. ............................................................................................. 117Living With the Popoluca: Another Adventure in Remote Mexico Gary Noel Ross . ............................................................................................. 118Membership Update Julian Donahue. ............................................................................................. 12760th Annual Meeting of The Lepidopterists’ Society, 23-26 June, 2011

Yale University, New Haven Connecticut. .......................................... 128Conservation Matters: Letter of Support for Endangered Species Act

Protection for Leona’s little blue butterfly (Philotiella leona)The Conservation Committee. ....................................................................... 129

The Mailbag. ...................................................................................................... 130From The Editor’s Desk. ................................................................................ 131The Marketplace. ............................................................................................. 132Nominations for Karl Jordan Medal 2011 Jacqueline Y. Miller. ....................................................................................... 133Announcement: 2011 Meeting of the Pacific Slope Section of the

Lepidopterists’ Society. ............................................................................ 133Announcement: 2012 Annual Meeting of the Lepidopterists’ Society.133The Biodiversity Crisis, Charitable Giving, and Estate Gifting David L. Wagner, Scott Miller, Larry Gall, and Kelly Richers. ................. 134Wedge Entomological Research Foundation Ronald W. Hodges, David L. Wagner, and Oliver Dominick. .................... 136Notes on the status of Anaea troglodyta floridalis on Big Pine Key Mark H. Salvato and Holly L. Salvato. ....................................................... 139Kisutam syllis (Godman & Salvin, 1887) (Lycaenidae: Theclini) New

to Texas and the United States Mike A. Rickard. ............................................................................................. 141Membership Information, Dues Rates, Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society,

Change of Address, Our Mailing List, Missed or Defective Issue, BookReviews, Submission Guidelines for the News. ......................................... 142

Executive Council/Season Summary Zone Coordinators. ................. 143

Issue Date: December 8, 2010 ISSN 0091-1348

Front Cover:Anaea troglodyta floridalis on 26 February 2010 in Long Pine Key, EvergladesNational Park (Miami-Dade County, Florida). Photo: Holly L. Salvato

Winter 2010 News of the Lepidopterists’ Society

Volume 52, Number 4 107

Achalarus tehuacana (Hesperiidae: Eudaminae):a New United States Record from Southern Texas

Dan Hardy1, Michael A. Rickard2, Andrew D. Warren3 and Nick V. Grishin4

2001 Plumbrook Dr., Austin, TX 78746 [email protected];1

411 Virgo Street, Mission, TX 78572 [email protected];2

McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, P. O.Box 112710, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710 [email protected];3

Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75390-9050 [email protected]

Historically, reports of new UnitedStates records for Lepidoptera specieshave been based on specimens. Suchvouchers of the first occurrence of aspecies in the United States arefrequently deposited in majorinstitutional collections to be readilyavailable for future studies. In the lastseveral decades, many public naturelocalities have placed variousrestrictions on insect collecting, so insome cases, researchers are left withinsufficient quality photographs ofspecies that may potentially be new forthe United States. Sometimes theidentity of the photographed species isclear and unambiguous (e.g., Dauphinet al. 2005, Bordelon and Knudson2006), however on many occasionssuch photos pose challenges even forthe experts. Some of these morechallenging species are poorly knownand at present can be unambiguouslyidentified only through genitalicexamination. These possible and yetunconfirmed records based onphotographs alone include Calephelisstallingsi McAlpine, 1971, Rekoastagira Hewitson, 1867, and Urbanusevona Evans, 1952. Experts andhobbyists will argue about the identityof these photographs for years to come.

On the other hand, a photograph is avoucher for the live individual, and itcan be preserved and made availablefor scrutiny by researchers. No matterhow poor an image is, it may offerimportant identification clues and leadto unambiguous determination of thespecies photographed. Such

determination may be far from trivial,and diligent analysis may be requiredto build up a convincing case for someof the new national records.

Here, we present photographic evidencefor the first occurrence of Achalarustehuacana (Draudt, 1922) in the UnitedStates (Texas, Hidalgo Co.) andsupport this identification with adetailed analysis of A. tehuacana wingpattern characters, detailing differencesbetween it and its apparent closestrelative, Achalarus casica (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869). We believe thatphotographs shown here offerunambiguous determination of A.tehuacana and establish it as a speciesrecorded from the United States. SinceA. tehuacana is not widely discussed inthe literature and is not well known tomost butterfly enthusiasts, we use thisopportunity to review availableliterature sources and characters usefulfor identification, some of which aresuggested here for the first time (andmay require additional field testing tonote possible exceptions).

On August 2, 2010, Butterfly DocentRickard was guiding visitor Hardythrough the butterfly gardens of theOld Hidalgo Pumphouse World BirdingCenter, in Hidalgo, Hidalgo Co., Texas.Hardy called to Rickard for help inidentifying a skipper he had spottedseeking nectar on some floweringshrubs. As they began takingphotographs of the skipper (collectingis prohibited in the park), they debatedthe identity of the individual. Hardy

believed it to be Achalarus casica whileRickard believed it to be something else,possibly a Cogia. After about tenminutes the butterfly departed, andsubsequent searches by others failed toturn it up again. Back at the car, fieldguides were consulted and it becameapparent that A. tehuacana, unrecordedfrom the United States, was also apossibility. Rickard was unfamiliarwith this species, but Hardy hadencountered it in the PicachosMountains, north of Monterrey, inNuevo León, Mexico. Internet sourcesalso seemed to point to A. tehuacana,so photos were sent to Grishin andWarren for confirmation.

A. tehuacana was described by Draudtin Seitz Volume V (1922), being placedin the genus Rhabdoides Scudder, 1889(a synonym of Autochton Hübner,1823); ventral wings were illustrated onplate 196 (row b) in the same volume.The description was short and largelycomparative to its closest congener, A.casica, for which ventral wings werealso illustrated. These illustrations areshown here as Fig. 4 (A. casica) and 5(A. tehuacana) along with specimenphotographs of both species (Figs. 3, 6)to facilitate comparison between them.The original description of A.tehuacana reads:

“R. tehuacana sp. nov. (169 b) I as yetconsider to be a distinct species, sincethere are also typical casica before mefrom the same district. It greatlyresembles casica above, but it is of asomewhat duller, greyer tone, with

News of the Lepidopterists’ Society Volume 52, Number 4

108 Winter 2010

1

1

B

C

1

2

4

2

3

4



4

2

4

1

4

677

Figure legendsWing patterns. 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14 - Achalarus tehuacana female, USA: TEXAS: Hidalgo Co., Hidalgo, 2-Aug-2010, firstUS record; 3, 4, 9, 11 - A. casica; 5, 6, 10, 12 - A. tehuacana; 1, 2 - original unmodified photos by MAR; 5 - originalillustration of A. tehuacana from Draudt (1922); 4 - A. casica illustration from Draudt (1922) for comparison; 7, 8, 13,14 - digitally modified images of right (7, 13) and left (8, 14) wings of A. tehuacana from Texas. Left wings are shown asa mirror image and are digitally expanded; 3, 11 - female, USA: TEXAS: Brewster Co. Big Bend National Park, upperGreen Gulch bridge, ex ovum, emerged 21-Jul-2004 [NPS]; 6 - female, MEXICO: OAXACA: 8 km N of Nejapa, 12-Aug-1971 [MGCL]; 9 - female, USA: ARIZONA: Cochise Co., Garden Canyon, 19-May-2007; 10 - male, MEXICO: OAXACA:Distrito Miahuatlán, Mpio. San Ildefonso Amatlán, cañon Sto. Domingo-Yocuela, elev. 1,800 m., 7-Jul-2007; 12 - male,MEXICO: OAXACA: 8 km N. of Nejapa, 12-Aug-1971 (Genit. slide M2380, genitalia of this specimen are shown on Fig.16) [MGCL]. Genitalia. Male (15, 16) and female (17, 18) genitalia of A. casica (15, 17) and A. tehuacana (16, 18). Malegenitalia (15, 16) are drawn from photographs in Steinhauser (1974). On each panel (15 and 16), ventral view of uncusand tegumen, left lateral view of genital ring (uncus, gnathos, tegumen, vinculum, saccus) and inner view of the rightvalva are shown from left to right above the aedeagus. 15. EL SALVADOR: AHUACHAPAN: Rio El Molino, 600m, 22-Apr-1971 (H1306). 16. MEXICO: OAXACA: 8 km N. of Nejapa, 12-Aug-1971 (H1564, slide M2380, wings of this specimenare shown on Fig. 12). Female genitalia (17, 18) are drawn from Austin & Warren (2002). 17. MEXICO: MICHOACAN:Mpio. Uruapan, Cerro de la Cruz, 2000m, 23-Aug-1997 (GTA #10438). 18. MEXICO: COAHUILA: km 214, CuatroCienegas, San Pedro de las Colonias, 19-Mar-1996 (GTA #10440). All preparations are currently at MGCL.

smaller, partly almost extinct hyalinespots. On the hindwing beneath thewhite marginal area is much broader,proximally convex, almost without anyblack dashes, the other space of a pureashy-grey without the jet-blacktransverse bands which are merelyindicated, and near the proximalmargin with 2 whitish spots. The

forewing is somewhat more tapering atthe apex. From Tehuacan (Puebla).”

Maybe partly due to Draudt’ssomewhat tentative assessment of A.tehuacana as a species (“yet consider tobe a distinct species”, “greatlyresembles casica”), and the lack oflarger specimen series in the BMNH,Evans (1952) treated A. tehuacana as

a subspecies of A. casica. According toEvans, both A. casica and A. tehuacanadiffer from other Achalarus species bya combination of small white, separatedhyaline spots on the forewing, lack ofa costal fold in males (though A.albociliatus (Mabille, 1877) also lacksa costal fold), and checkered whitefringes. Evans distinguished A.


110 Winter 2010

techuacana from A. casica by its smallersize with male forewing about 22mm(vs. 24mm forewing length), forewingspots reduced to dots (conspicuous inA. casica) and broader white border ofthe ventral hindwing. Evans listed only2 specimens, both males fromGuatemala, in the BMNH and did notillustrate their genitalia, so it is notsurprising that characters he listed forA. tehuacana are somewhat vague andthe taxon was regarded as a subspecies.It is widely known today that Evans’classification was quite conservative,frequently lumping many species assubspecies or synonyms of others (e.g.,Steinhauser 1989, 1991, Burns 2000,Austin & Warren 2002, Austin 2008).

To further assess the identity of A.tehuacana, Steinhauser (1974) analyzedand illustrated male genitalia of A.casica (from El Salvador) and A.tehuacana (from Oaxaca, Mexico), anddiscussed profound genitalic differencesbetween the two taxa. These differencesare quite dramatic (see below), and arecomparable in magnitude to thosebetween Thorybes bathyllus (J. E.Smith, 1797) and T. confusis E. Bell,1923, thus establishing that A.tehuacana and A. casica are distinctspecies-level taxa as suggested byDraudt (1922). Austin and Warren(2002) further confirmed the specificstatus of A. tehuacana by providing ananalysis and illustration of the femalegenitalia, which also differ in a wayconsistent with the two Achalarus beingseparate species. Recently, pinnedspecimens (male and female) and liveindividuals of A. tehuacana werefigured by Warren et al. (2010).

Draudt (1922) mentioned that A. casicaand A. tehuacana are sympatric inPuebla, Mexico. At present, it is knownthat the distributions of the two speciesoverlap in eastern and southernMexico, as well as possibly Guatemalaand El Salvador. Available records ofA. casica are from the USA (southeastAZ, southwest NM, west and centralTX), Mexico (Chiapas, Chihuahua,Coahuila, Colima, Durango, Guerrero,Jalisco, México State, Michoacán,Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo León, Oaxaca,

Puebla, Sonora, Tamaulipas,Veracruz), and El Salvador (Rio ElMolino, Ahuachapan). Records of A.tehuacana are from Mexico(Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango,Guerrero, México State, Morelos,Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Puebla,Querétaro) and Guatemala. Here weestablish the first United States recordof A. tehuacana.

Analysis of 134 specimens of A. casicaand 83 specimens of A. tehuacana fromUSNM, AMNH, BMNH, MGCL,TAMU and several private collectionsreveals the following wing patterndifferences, illustrated on Figs. 9-14:

1. A. tehuacana is characterized by abroader and convex white marginal areaon the ventral hindwing distad of themedian dark band. In A. casica, thiswhite area has better developed darkstriations and is concave basally. In A.tehuacana, the dark median band onventral hindwing generally does nothave the well-defined darker distalboundary of A. casica. This feature ismost prominent in cells M2 and M3,where scales forming the darkboundary in A. casica are still presentin A. tehuacana but are arranged intodark crescents surrounded by lightscales on both sides. In particular,lighter areas are developed basad ofthese dark crescents, giving theappearance that the light marginal areainvades the dark median band on A.tehuacana, whereas the light marginalarea stops just distad of the band in A.casica. More specifically, in A. casica,these dark crescents form the distalboundary of the median dark band;white scales are present only distad ofthe band and dark scales are situatedbasad. These dark crescents withlighter areas basad in cells M2 and M3are probably the most prominentdiagnostic features of A. tehuacana,and were noted by Draudt in theoriginal description (1922).

2. Reduced opaque spots on dorsalforewing of A. tehuacana, as stated byDraudt (1922) and Evans (1952).

The remaining three characters werenot mentioned by other workers and

thus seem to be new, but they appearconsistent in the series of specimens weexamined:

3. Dark apex on the ventral forewingnear the fringe in A. tehuacana, withlight scales present only along the wingmargin. In A. casica, the ventralforewing apex mostly contains lightscales.

4. Postmedian opaque macules inforewing cells Cu1 and Cu2 (one in eachcell) are further apart in A. tehuacanathan in A. casica.. In particular, themacule in Cu2 is more offset basad fromthe macule in Cu1 in A. tehuacana thanin A. casica. This character can beseen on both wing surfaces, but issomewhat variable.

5. Apical opaque spots on the ventralforewing of A. casica are surrounded byscales darker than the background andthese darker borders are usually quiteprominent, appearing as an intricate“web” forming frames around theopaque spots (although some of theopaque spots, especially those in cellsR5 and M1, may be highly reduced orabsent). In A. tehuacana, apical spotsare frequently reduced in size andusually developed only in cells R3, R4and R5; they are surrounded byuniformly dark background scales, andare not prominently darker just aroundthe spots. The ventral forewing cell M2of A. tehuacana usually does notcontain the postmedian opaque spot ofA. casica framed by dark scales, but asmall yet prominent macule of darkscales is present instead.

Characters 1 and 3 appear to work bestfor separating the two species. Indeed,the darker vs. paler apex of the ventralforewing is usually immediatelynoticeable even on worn specimens andlive individuals. The character of widermarginal ventral hindwing whitish areais also generally reliable, but issometimes less clear on worn specimensor heavily marked individuals of A.tehuacana. Character 2 may not beparticularly reliable, as darkindividuals of A. casica with reducedopaque spots exist. Generally, weobserved significant variation of wing



Competitor and matesignaling in satyrinespatterns in A. casica, however, thosecharacters on A. tehuacana are muchmore consistent and seem to be lessvariable.

Male genitalic differences, largely basedon Steinhauser (1974), include thefollowing (Figs 15,16):

1. Uncus arms are convergent,touching each other in A. tehuacana (asin T. confusis, see Scott (1986) forillustration), but are widely divergentin A. casica (compare to T. bathyllus);

2. Ampulla is small, short and narrowin A. tehuacana (as in T. confusis) butis much broader and protruding in A.casica (as in T. bathyllus);

3. Valvula is well separated from theampulla, more massive (again, compareto T. confusis) and is strongly curvedin A. tehuacana, while in A. casica it isclose to ampulla, more hooked (as in T.bathyllus) and armed with a shortserrated caudal process;

4. Sacculus is longer and narrower inA. tehuacana compared to that of A.casica;

5. Gnathos is short and squared off inA. tehuacana, but is longer and pointedin A. casica;

6. Aedeagus has two bundles of manyshort spines as cornuti in A. tehuacanawhile A. casica has a single large knife-like cornutus.

Female genitalia differences, per Austinand Warren (2002) are (Figs 17,18):

1. Lamella postvaginalis is narrower inA. tehuacana than in A. casica;

2. Lamella antevaginalis is lobate in A.tehuacana, and is largely straight, butis only slightly concave in A. casica;

3. Anterior portion of the ductus bursaeis bulbous in A. tehuacana, but isnarrower and not expanded in A. casica.

We note that the shape of the corpusbursae in our illustrations, appearingnarrower for A. tehuacana and morerounded for A. casica, changes muchwith preparation and handling as thecorpus bursae is softer and experiencesexpansion and shrinkage, thus notoffering a reliable way to separate the

two species. Since most of thesegenitalic characters are external (uncusand distal part of valvae in males andlamella in females), their inspectiondoes not require full dissection.Brushing the scales off the end ofabdomen will make them accessible forinspection in most cases.

While A. tehuacana might be poorlyknown to most butterfly observers, itis a common species in parts of easternMexico and occurs in a variety of desertand semi-arid habitats, generally below1800 m elevation. Males perch in drywashes from at least 10:30 to 15:00 hrs.,under sunny conditions, and vigorouslychase similarly-sized hesperiids passingnearby. Males repeatedly return to thesame rocky perches after short sorties,and while engaged in perching behavior,show no interest in feeding. Becauseof their predictable behavior along drywatercourses, which are often the onlyeasily navigable routes through theirdesert thornscrub habitats, thisskipper is a prominent member of thebutterfly community in areas where itis common. Warren has found thespecies most abundantly west of thetown of Peñamiller, in westernQuerétaro, in March and September;this habitat was illustrated in detail byWarren et al. (2008). This species hasalso recently been found in abundanceat many sites in the Cuicatlan-Tehuacan Biosphere Preserve insouthern Puebla and northern Oaxacaby field surveys coordinated by theMuseo de Zoología, Facultad deCiencias, Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, in Mexico City.Northern Mexican sites for A.tehuacana include the Cuatro Ciénegasarea of Coahuila, 10 mi E of Parral,Chihuahua, and west-central NuevoLeón (e.g., 3 mi E Galeana Junction).Thus, given its wide distribution innorthern Mexico not far from theUnited States border, the occurrence ofA. tehuacana in south Texas is not toounexpected. In fact, we would not besurprised if a temporary or permanentpopulation of A. tehuacana is discoveredin southern Texas, especially betweenWebb and Brewster counties.

Careful analysis of the wing patterns onthe photographs of the individual fromTexas shows that all 5 characters agreewith A. tehuacana, and none agreeswith A. casica. While the photographedindividual is quite worn and the imagesare not of the best quality (Figs. 1, 2,13, 14), some might argue that thewhiter area of the ventral hindwingmight be simply due to wear of darkerscales. However, inspection of themagnified images does reveal whiterscales basally of the darker crescents incells M2 and M3 on both wings, despitethe missing part of the left hindwing,and the Texas individual clearly showsthe dark apex of A. tehuacana, coveredin scales and not showing significantwear. Apparently, these photographsare inconsistent with all the A. casicacharacters. Thus, despite our inabilityto study genitalia of this femaleindividual, we believe that thephotographs are only consistent withA. tehuacana and firmly establish thisspecies as new for US. We hope thatfuture observations will reveal more A.tehuacana strays or even temporary orpermanent populations, so more workcan be done on this interesting andrarely discussed species.

AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to Edward G. Riley (AssociateCurator, Texas A & M University insectcollection), Donald J. Harvey (MuseumSpecialist, US National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian Institution), Robert K.Robbins (Curator of Lepidoptera, US NationalMuseum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution), Suzanne Rab Green (CuratorialAssistant, American Museum of NaturalHistory), Blanca Huertas (Curator ofLepidoptera, The Natural History Museum,London, UK), Jorge Llorente-Bousquets,Armando Luis-Martínez and Isabel Vargas-Fernández (Museo de Zoología, Facultad deCiencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico, Mexico City) for granting access tocollections and permission to photographspecimens in their care. Warren thanksThomas W. Ortenburger, Jose Luis SalinasGutiérrez and Blanca Claudia Hernández-Mejía for help with fieldwork in Querétaro. Weare indebted to the United States National ParkService and the personnel of Big Bend NationalPark for assistance (in particular, to WildlifeBiologist Raymond Skiles), and continuingsupport with research permits (BIBE-2004-SCI-0011, BIBE-2005-SCI-0006, BIBE-2007-

Continued on p. 125


112 Winter 2010

59th Annual Lepidopterists’ Society Meeting

The women show off their butterfly attire....and a newtadition: butterfly tattoos! Photo: Ranger Steve Mueller.

A smaller group of men show their lepidoptera graced tiesand shirts. Photo: Ranger Steve Mueller.

Andy Warren, Vernon Covlin, and John Peacock make plansfor one of the field trips. Photo: Ranger Steve Mueller.

Charlie Covell presents the Alexander B. Klots award toAkito Kawahara. Photo: Ranger Steve Mueller.

Markku Savela focuses on a subject during a field trip. Photo:Ranger Steve Mueller.

Members, new and experienced, search the meadow. Photo:Don Rolfs.



During July 8-10 2010, 187lepidopterists from around the US,South America, Canada, Europe andJapan alighted in the gorgeousBavarian-themed alpine village ofLeavenworth in central WashingtonState. The occasion?, the 59th AnnualMeeting of the Lepidopterists’ Societyaka LEPSOC 2010: The Young Ones!

Despite many nervous moments beforeand during the conference, this ‘meetingmartyr’ as Bob Pyle most aptlychristened me, is very happy indeedthat LEPSOC 2010 has joined the longlist of successful lepsoc meetings. Thefirst meeting to be held in WashingtonState, our theme was immatureLepidoptera and young lepidopterists.From the moment 4 year old RhiannonVanessa rang the Swiss cow bell tobring the meeting to order and 6 yearold Jasmine Vanessa welcomed us all toLeavenworth, eggs, larvae, pupae andyoung lepidopterists were our focus.

Twenty two invited presentations in thetwo symposia (Research on ImmatureStages, Youngling Research) domi-nated proceedings with a further 18contributed oral presentations and 9posters. I was thrilled that two 14 yearolds, Alexandra Sourakov and MeganMcCarty agreed to present theirresearch on butterflies in the‘Youngling’ symposium. Both gavemasterful talks that I hope willspringboard them onwards andupwards as lepidopterists andscientists. The standard of all thepresentations was exceptional and Iwarmly congratulate all of the speakersand poster presenters for theircontributions.

The Washington Butterfly Association(WBA) held their meeting jointly with

Young (and not so Young) Ones CelebrateLepSoc 2010 in Washington State!

David G. James, LepSoc 2010 Organizer

Department of Entomology, Washington State University, 24106 North Bunn Road, Prosser, WA [email protected]

ours and their interaction with out ofstate participants was invaluable inmaking them feel welcome. This wasparticularly the case with theorganization and conduct of field tripsand I thank all of the WBA members fortheir roles in ensuring all aspects of themeeting ran smoothly. I particularlythank Don Rolfs for his hours of pre-conference work and attention to detailensuring the field trips and mothexperience ran exceptionally well andencountered a terrific diversity ofspecies! Dave Nunnallee, Caitlin LaBar, David Droppers, Bob Hardwick,John Davis and Peter Smytheman wereexcellent field trip leaders withunsurpassed local knowledge.

A reception, a rousing barbeque at alocal farm and the traditional banquetprovided great opportunities forinformal interactions, lubricated by adecent selection of Cascadianmicrobrews! If you enjoyed the beer, youshould try the ones we wanted to get!

Following President John Shuey’saddress on butterfly conservation, ourkeynote speaker and skilled raconteurRobert M Pyle, better known as‘Butterfly Bob’, Santa or perhapsKenny Rogers, read entertainingexcerpts from his new book ‘MariposaRoad’. This is an account of Bob’s ‘bigbutterfly year’ when he travelled far andwide in this great land seekingbutterflies, so it was not surprisingthat his vignettes often featured peopleat the banquet!

The Enzian Inn proved to be anexcellent venue for the conference withgreat facilities and unique touches likebeing serenaded by alpenhorn atbreakfast! The weather was excellent,a little hot perhaps in the village but

perfect in the butterfly-laden mountainmeadows.

Naturally, there are many people tothank beyond those mentioned abovebut I particularly want to credit LarryWright my former technician atWashington State University for doingmuch of the lead up work. I also thankAshfaq Sial and Jeremy Buchman fortheir sterling work at the registrationdesk, also Joyce Bergen of WBA. I thankmy Department Chair Steve Sheppardand the WSU Department ofEntomology for sponsorship.

Finally, there would have been noLEPSOC 2010 without the help of mywife Tanya who dealt with all theregistrations and a lot of the preconference organization and I thankher from the bottom of my heart. Ithank my other girls, Jasmine (6) andRhiannon (4) for playing importantroles in opening the proceedings, taking‘official’ photographs and generallybeing social butterflies….

Finally, I thank all the LepidopteristSociety, Pacific Slope Branch andWashington Butterfly Associationmembers whose participation made themeeting the success it was!


114 Winter 2010

Most references indicate that DaintySulphurs (Nathalis iole) utilize plantsin the Aster family as their larval hostchoice. In mid-September, whilevisiting the Delta National Forest(north of Vicksburg, Mississippi), SaraBright and I observed Dainty Sulphursovipositing on Green Carpetweed(Mollugo verticillata), a mat-formingmember of the Carpetweed family(Molluginaceae). Scott indicates thatoviposition on non-Asteraceae mayindicate “oviposition error,” and listsM. verticillata in this category. It wasclearly not an error in the two sites weobserved Dainty Sulphurs inMississippi.

We initially spotted eight DaintySulphurs flying along the sides ofForest Route 709. The butterflies wereclustered in two areas that we laterdiscovered corresponded to the locationof the carpetweed. We saw two femalesovipositing on these plants, some ofwhich had been so severely sheared byroadside mowing that they were almost

unrecognizable. Distribution waslimited to dry, sandy road edges wherecompetition with grasses and otherweedy plants was less intense. Inaddition to eggs, we discoveredcaterpillars representing three differentinstars, including one fully maturelarva.

The second site was the boat launch onthe Little Sunflower River. Because ofextremely dry conditions, the banks ofthe river had receded, leaving anexpanse of parched, cracked earth thatsupported early succession plantgrowth. Here the carpetweed grewvigorously and was much moreabundant: we observed approximatelytwo-dozen Dainty Sulphurs in itsvicinity. Several were ovipositing, andvirtually every clump of carpetweed wasdotted with eggs. One basal rosettecontained sixteen ova.

Green Carpetweed was formerlyincluded in the Fig-Marigold or IcePlant family (Aizoaceae). It is nativeto the tropics and considered an

Dainty Sulphur (Nathalis iole) Host in theDelta National Forest

Paulette Haywood Ogard

4407 Briar Glen Circle, Birmingham, AL 35243 [email protected]

adventive or nearly-naturalized plantthroughout its range in the UnitedStates. Its prostrate growth habitat,whorled leaves, and miniscule red seedsare diagnostic. In addition, GreenCarpetweed bears small greenish-whiteflowers that served as a nectar sourcefor some of the Dainty Sulphurs weobserved.

ReferencesMohlenbrock, Robert H. 2001. Flowering

Plants: Pokeweeds, Four-o’clocks,Carpetweeds, Cacti, Purslanes, Goosefoots,Pigweed, and Pinks. Southern IllinoisUniversity Press, Carbondale, IL

Murphy, Tim R. 1990. Weeds of Southern TurfGrasses. Circular- ANR 616. AlabamaCooperative Extension Service. AuburnUniversity, AL

Opler, Paul A. and Vichai Malikul. 1992. AField Guide to Eastern Butterflies (PetersonField Guide Series). Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston, MA

Scott, J.A. 1986. The Butterflies of NorthAmerica. Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA

USDA, NRCS. September 2010. The PLANTSDatabase (http://plants.usda.gov). NationalPlant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA

1) Egg on Green Carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata) flower bud; 2) Final instar caterpillar eating carpetweed flower; 3)Green Carpetweed (M. verticillata) growing near the Little Sunflower River boat launch. Photos: Sara Bright.

2 31



Digital Collecting:

John Banks has been capturingbutterflies on film – still and movie - fornearly 50 years. Here he offers sometips to those who love butterflies butalso appreciate a challenge. Why nothave a go at filming them?

Planning & preparingI often remember a sombre Russianproverb “Life is not crossing a field”because it applies so well to filmingbutterflies.

You certainly need what Prime MinisterHarold Macmillan referred to as ‘cool,calm, deliberation’ before setting out.Try to think about what kind of endproduct you would like, and who it isfor, if anyone other than yourself.

That may help you decide whatequipment you need or can carry, onyour back or your budget. Early on, Iused a Bolex shoulder pod, until I wastold by a friend in the BBC ‘you mustuse a tripod’. These days a lot of hand-held shots are used in published films,but wobbly close-ups make hard viewingand must be mixed in with good steadyimages. Find a good sturdy, adaptable,tripod; put a good strong tilt-head onit – mine is an Italian Manfrotti; andtake them everywhere.

My friend also said, somewhatmysteriously, ‘You must use thegrammar of the camera’. That was in1968 when zoom lenses were only justcoming in. But he had a point,especially relevant to working withbutterflies: not all takes should be slowzooms. (I had a German customer whocomplained I had too many in mysecond film “Diversity in theRainforest”. I think he was justjealous.)

Photographing Butterflies Digitally –Movie Making

John Banks BA FRSA FRES

Cinebutterflies, 28 Patshull road, London NW5 2JY, UK [email protected]

But it is very important: you must getas many different kinds of shots as youcan. If you do that, you should find thatyou end up, at the edit stage, with asurprisingly wide range of takes:zooms, medium distant shots, near-close-up stills, close-ups, feeding atflowers, basking, ‘puddling’, walking,courting, mating, and even flying (moreon that in a moment).

So, remember, this advice is free: do usethe ‘grammar of the camera’.

But which camera? There are so manymarvellous ones to choose from thesedays it is impossible to generalise whichwill be best for you. My wife, Pat, and Ihave always used Canons: currently theXL2 and XM1 (see photos). Whicheveryou go for, you’ll need plenty of optical(“telephoto”) magnification – digitalmagnification is not much good foranything - but 20 times optical comespretty standard these days. You can adda converter (“extension tube”) to somecameras and get more than the zoomlens alone gives you. You can also fit aclose-up lens on the front, for filmingdetails of the head, wings etc of abutterfly. Happily these two both use thesame type of battery, of which you willneed, say, three each (biggish ones).

The XL2 – see photo - is very heavy butit works like a dream. With its tilt-headand tripod, it weighs about 18lbs (7kg)but can be taken apart and fitted into asmall rucksack to go as cabin luggageon a plane, and you can carry it on itstripod on your shoulder all day withoutproblems. The (smaller) XM1 has noexternal Automatic Exposure (AE)control - more on that below - but isvery light (merely 3lbs without a tripod)and the lens is stunning. It works well

for filming butterflies in flight; keepboth your eyes open, and follow thebutterfly with the left one as the otherlooks through the viewfinder, and havethe camera about half zoomed up; takespractice, but can produce surprisinglywatchable results.

Camera weight, and manoeuvrability,are obviously important. In the field,you need to be quick, and ready toshoot. A lot will depend on the camera’sautomatic exposure and focus systemsif you are to get good close-ups, in focus,and steady, before the butterfly moveson. As to exposure, aim to underexposeone stop; and ideally that means havingan Automatic Exposure control on theoutside of the camera, so you can varythe exposure slightly from moment tomoment as you shoot. Don’t forget youcan use very high shutter speeds (onmany cameras) to get clear images ofmovement if you are filming fluttering,settling, taking-off, landing, or mating,sequences.

Should you record on to tape or disc?In the digital age, after years using16mm film and then Hi-8 analoguevideo, I have used only Mini DV tape,with memory embedded, which givesexcellent results, and dollar for dollar,better quality, I believe, than disc. Youneed memory tape because it recordsthe date and time, frame count andexposure details, all of which areimportant when you begin to edit.

Sound is also important. You’llautomatically capture ‘wild’ sound asyou film, and become, well, sensitive topeople chattering idly nearby as youconcentrate on your subject, crouchingpainfully still and holding yourbreath…But the sound track can be


116 Winter 2010

altered in the edit stage so as to use thebest parts.

But don’t be shy of enriching your filmby capturing nice bird song; butterfliesmay not sing but that’s no reason notto record good birds standing in forthem – cuckoos especially. It’s ever somuch better than having to add somerecorded pop music as background,which beginner film-editors tend to do.And if they are around, cicadas andfrogs also sound good as background -and, again, no copyright problems.

In the fieldTo begin with, choose a familiar spotwith plenty of butterflies, and get somepractice. Shoot everything in sight thatyou can get up to, and learn your way.You want plenty of butterflies around,and fresh ones, not beat-up. Your aimshould be to film everything, until youare sure you are repeating yourself, soto speak. In filmmaking of all kinds,choice means quality; you need as manydifferent views of each butterfly as youcan take; one classic shot, good as itmay seem to you in the field, ‘is notenough’ (as Nurse Edith Cavellmemorably said of patriotism beforebeing shot by the Germans in 1915).

Make an early start. Shots of butterfliesbasking can be very atmospheric; low,strong sun; dew on leaves; fresh,glistening wings stretched out nicely;‘revving-up’ - only by Hesperids? . Onthe edge of tropical forests, Metalmarksfly about before the sun appears. An 8o’clock start can repay you. They flitso attractively from leaf to leaf, wellwithin range of both lens - and yourpatience. All these are good easymaterial. By mid-morning filming, evenmore than taking stills, gets steadilymore difficult.

You want to use bait? Smelly prawns,over-ripe bananas, urine, water,cigarette packets, animal and birddroppings? Well, of course. But bewarethe intrusion of flies into your view, andthe noise they make on your soundtrack. And if your aim, as mine, is tofilm nature naturally, there are limits.You are better off hunting along

streambeds, another natural centre ofattraction for many species; mixedgroups from several Families make goodcontrastive movie. The water gives nicebackground sound depth.

Later on, as you go further afield,perhaps abroad, you really need to asklocal help in finding good locations.Because filming butterflies takes abouttwice as long as getting good stills ofthem, if you have not researched theseason and location, you may be veryfrustrated. Ideally try to take 4-6 weeks,at the right time of year, in a good richlocation and get a mass of takes, fromwhich you can spend happy hours andweeks editing your favourites into agloriously rich and edifying movie.

Well, anyway, let’s be realistic: take asmuch time as you can afford, or yourspouse will allow…Just remember:filming is much, much slower than stillphotography.

Back home; the editTime was when I used to spend two daysin a well set-up studio with Avidsoftware, doing an ‘off-line’, and thenan ‘on-line’, edit, helped by enthusiasticyoung editors. It was great. But thesedays, life is even better: you can doeverything yourself at home.

This is the stage where forethoughtabout aims and audience, and aboutgetting plenty of variety of takes, payyou dividends. After sorting through themass of tapes (it might be 15 or sohours, we hope) you have broughthome, you must identify what you haveshot, so that you have a well-recordedlibrary of the material.

Identifying species from film is not easy,and you must be prepared to accept itslimitations. A butterfly ‘set’ and pinnedin a museum drawer is unlike a livingone in many respects, especially itsshape (unnaturally posed) and colour(sometimes painfully lost by pigmentaldeterioration). And the photos inGuidebooks are also so fallible. Photoguidebooks are a bit better in someways (good colour, pose) but worse thantraditional guides in others, if theauthor was not skilful in bringing out

the distinctive characteristics of eachspecies and its range of variation.

Editing a finished film may take daysor weeks. Like any computer job, it willcertainly take twice as long as originallyplanned! Probably ten times. Along theway, here are some thoughts whichshould help save a few hours, on yourApple (I hope; few people in the mediaworld use PCs) as you wrestle withFinalCutPro and DVDStudioPro,getting gradually from raw takes to afinished edited DVD.

Go through the whole raw material andpick the ‘must-use’ takes – give themtheir ‘3-star’ rating, and put them toone side in their own file or ‘bin’ in thelingo of editing. Making that set ofartistic-scientific judgements at theoutset will simplify handling so manyfiles of material.

With those visual gems at the back ofyour mind, try to write the story of themovie, in one simple paragraph. Thenwrite a fuller version, and record theCommentary of the film on to tape, soyou can capture it in Final Cut in shortclips and lay it in the Timeline as yougo along.

‘Trial and error’ is the route forbeginners (and pros and elders too) indeciding what works on the screen.There is no short cut – that I have everdiscovered. See if the images and thewords match up by laying them andthen watching critically. If they don’t,be ruthless, and try another set orchange the words to fit. It’s so easy onthe computer. Keep trying newcombinations. If you are not sure, getadvice.

It will help to think in chapters, orsections. Maybe some of them can haveminimal commentary - or none even.Variety makes the world go round, anda film too.

Don’t leave the sound track to the end.It’s a very significant part of the film-viewer’s experience, and you need to beaware of it early on. Pro filmmakersoften spend as long on developing thesound track in the studio, in thepostproduction stage, as they have done



shooting the pictures. You should beselecting 3-star clips of sound as you goalong, and then working it up morewhen you are close to the end of theedit. Finally, ‘grading’ the sound(including any recorded music) and theCommentary, so they are nicelybalanced will be one of the last jobs tobe done.

Be sparing about introducing recordedmusic. It’s so easy these days to access‘songs’ and pop them into the soundtrack. If you have a friend who couldwrite and play some music special to thefilm, splendid. But for authenticity, whynot depend as far as possible on yourrecorded ‘wild’ sound, and let it be thebackground to your words?

Words can heighten, or deepen, feelingsaroused by the images in many ways;at one level, just by telling the story ofhow (with what skill, pain, patience)you did the job in the field; or telling aquite different kind of story, about thehistory, geography, zoogeography, socialbiology, behaviour, or uniqueness of thebutterflies you have so lovingly broughtto the screen. As a filmmaker you have

an opportunity to explain dramaticallyand with living images how butterflieslook in the field or forest, and why youthink they are so deserving of wonderand admiration, as examples ofwhatever passionate specialism youhave developed about ‘your’ butterflies– maybe about the world too!

Last wordsSo now, have a go, and here are 4starter field tips to set you on your way:

FEET: plant your feet and the tripodfirmly in position.FRAME: line up your picture in theviewfinder.FOCUS: check the camera is focusingon the butterfly, and not on thebackground.FIRE: take the shot, keeping theexposure at optimum underexposure byadjusting the AE.

Good luck!

You can learn more about John Banks’story, and send him any queries, byvisiting his websitewww.cinebutterflies.com

Julian Donahue

Metamorphosis...

Adams, Eleaner Ruth of Liberty, Missouri, on 4 October2010 at the age of 77. Eleaner earned degrees in bacteriologyfrom KU, and art/biology/chemistry from William Jewell.She was a medical technologist and worked for severaldoctors and hospitals. From 1974-1999 she and husbandWill taught ballroom dancing to approximately 3500 people.Eleaner was past president of the Idalia Society ofMidwestern Lepidopterists, and had been a member of TheLepidopterists’ Society since 2004. Survivors include herhusband of 57 years, Dr. Will Adams, two sons, Dr. WilliamAdams III, wife Dr. Barbara Demmig-Adams, Superior, COand children Robert and Melanie; and Dr. James Adams, wifeKathy Parker-Adams, Calhoun, GA and children Patrick andSamantha. Memorial contributions may be made to theMartha Lafite Thompson Nature Sanctuary, 407 N. LafrenzRd., Liberty, MO 64068.

The Society has learned of the deaths of the following members. Our condolences to their families...

Mrs. Adams had been a member of the Society since 2004, agift from her son Dr. James K. Adams, who informed us ofher unexpected passing. Mrs. Adams was his faithful andenergetic companion on numerous field trips, andaccompanied him to many meetings of The Lepidopterists’Society, the Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, and theSouthern Lepidopterists’ Society. [James has prepared a morelengthy remembrance of his mother, with photos, availablefrom him on request.]

Doyle, L.F. Boker of Katonah, New York, earlier in 2010.Mr. Doyle was a Life Member of the Society, having firstjoined in 1962.

Habeck, Dale H., Ph.D., of Gainesville, Florida. ProfessorEmeritus, Department of Entomology and Nematology,

Continued on p. 138

Canon XL2, with tilthead and BemboTripod.

The Little Canon XM1.

X


118 Winter 2010

[The reader is referred to “Caterpillars,Ants and Populuca (sic) Indians: AnAdventure in Remote Mexico” (Ross,2010a, b) for a prequel to this essay.]

During the 1960s, I conducted researchon the butterflies of the Sierra de losTuxtlas (“Los Tuxtlas”). The sierra isan isolated volcanic range (thevolcanoes are dormant) rising from theGulf coast of southeastern Veracruz,Mexico. The range is essentially an“island” surrounded by the Gulf ofMexico and steamy lowlands, thehomeland of the ancient Olmec culture(1500-400 B.C.), Mesoamerica’s firstpowerhouse civilization. Much of LosTuxtlas was still cloaked in what hasbeen noted as the northern limit of theEvergreen Tropical Rainforest orNeotropical Moist Forest. Nothingcomparable existed for nearly 200 milesto the southeast. My research totaled15 months during 1962, 1963, and1965. Of this, nine months were spentin the eastern and most poorly knownsector of the Sierra, Volcán Santa Marta(most current maps cite the elevationas 5,250 feet). I was the guest of thePopoluca (Sierra Popoluca or Popolucade la Sierra)—an indigenous culture ofapproximately 12,000 speakers whoanthropologists theorize aredescendents of the Olmec.

My residency with the Popoluca wasofficiated by John and Royce Lind andtheir children—Cindy, Michael, Lauraand Juanita (in 1963, Christina becamethe fifth child). The Linds resided in thesmall village of Ocotal Chico (“LittlePiney Ridge”). Located at 18° 18’N, 94°47’W, the village is perched on a red clayridge at an elevation of 1,700 feet on theleeward slope of the volcano. As itsname implies, the village was clearedfrom pine forest, a unique vegetation

Living with the PopolucaAnother Adventure in Remote Mexico

Gary Noel Ross

6095 Stratford Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70808 [email protected]

zone for Los Tuxtlas. For hundreds ofyears, Ocotal Chico, like the volcano onwhich it rested, had been in a state ofslumber—a place where time moved ata different pace. The 300 or so villagerscalled themselves Nuntajýypýc(“straight-speaking-ones”). Theidiosyncratic language, however, waspurely verbal, unwritten. John andRoyce were missionary linguists/anthropologists who were members ofthe affiliated Summer Institute ofLinguistics (SIL) (Oklahoma) andWycliffe Bible Translators (WBT)(California). These dedicated folks hadcome to Ocotal Chico in 1961 with twomain goals: To translate the NewTestament of the Bible into Popolucaand to prepare materials to help peoplelearn to read and write their ownlanguage.

Ocotal Chico was not easy to access—not easy at all. In fact, my researchpartner, Robert Andrle, and I were thefirst biologists to record and samplethis unique ecosystem in Los Tuxtlasin 1962. My initial visit to “Little PineyRidge” lasted just 10 days. I residedwith the Linds in their mud wattle,concrete floor, and corrugated andgalvanized tin-roof house located in thecenter of the village. There was noelectricity and no running water. TheLinds did employ, however, a smallgasoline-powered generator for a fewhours each night to provide light. Acistern associated with the metal roofprovided water for washing dishes. Fordrinking, Mike hauled pure springwater in plastic drums strapped to hispet donkey, “Eeyore.” I slept in theliving room in a hammock draped withnetting to guard against mosquitoesand potential malaria. I dined with thefamily in their kitchen equipped with a

small propane stove and a propanerefrigerator—all brought up to thevillage on the backs of mules. Asubstantial latrine—the only suchconvenience in the village—was locatedbehind the house. Every four to sixweeks the family would travel the 27miles to Acayucan by foot, horseback,or part way by truck for majorsupplies—especially flour, powderedmilk, potatoes, and fresh meat. Thesewere packed in cardboard boxes andstrapped to mules for transport. Freshstaples such as eggs, beans, fruits, andsome vegetables were available fromNahua (Aztec) traders who periodicallywalked into the village from their homeslower on the volcano. In addition,because most villagers had little or nocash, the villagers often bartered fooditems—especially eggs and fruits—forsimple medicines (aspirin, antibiotics,vermicides, anti-amoeba medicine, andvitamin B injections) that the Lindskept on hand.

In 1963 and 1965 I was graced with theluxury of sharing Mike’s newlyconstructed “bachelor pad”—aPopoluca-style hut consisting of asingle, windowless room, thatch roof,slab sides with “Dutch door,” andpacked earth floor. The structure waspositioned about 50 feet north of themain house. Although small, the roomwas spacey enough to accommodatetwo mosquito-draped cots, two smalldesks, and a small table to support abasin and bucket of water for personalhygiene. A Coleman lantern providedlight at night. To bathe, each afternoonwe hiked through a coffee grove, downa 400 foot ravine to a boulder-strewnstream of clear, cool mountain water.The path was often so slippery from rainthat a video (not yet invented at the



time) of our slipping and sliding wouldnow qualify for “America’s FunniestVideos.” Another routine was a weeklyhike to Soteapan for mail service.

Mike soon became an excellent sidekickand friend (Mike, 14 and myself, 23were not that different in age). Mikeoften doubled up on his school work onrainy days in order to accompany mein the field. This relationship proved ofinestimable value because Mike wasknown throughout the village and wasfluent in the Popoluca dialect. WhenMike was unavailable or unsure of theterrain, I was able to arrange with ayoung Popoluca father, Pablo, toaccompany me to remote areas of thevolcano. And so I never felt unsafe orever lost—for long, that is.

The greatest hindrance to field workwas rainy weather. Except during themonths of spring, Los Tuxtlasexperiences a pronounced rainy seasonthat dumps as much as 80-100 inchesof rain each year. This meant that Ispent a lot of time close to the villageso that I could easily retreat to my hut.This was not all that bad, though.Because the village was small andperched atop a red-dirt ridge, the pineand mixed oak forests were at hand.Likewise, the more “tropical”communities that occurred within thenumerous ravines were equally close;these harbored a great many species ofbutterflies—called meme in Popoluca.(As a term of endearment, I becamereferred to as meme pixiñ “butterflyman.”) Moths, on the other hand, werereferred to as mêmtútsài “butterflies ofthe night.” Finally, most village houseswere surrounded by trees—coffee,coconut, citrus, plantain, papaya,avocado, mango, bread fruit, andguava—that provided shade andseasonal fruits. Because of the extensivegreenery, a large number of showybutterflies often flew within the villageproper. Foremost species include theblue morpho (Morpho montezumapeleides) (Popolucas singled out thisspecies as cawaj meme “horsebutterfly” because its flight—typicallyalong trails—resembles the gallop of ahorse), the owl butterfly (Caligo

telamonius memnon), swallowtails(papilionids) as well as several speciesof longwings (heliconians) andclearwings (ithomiines). Philaethriadido, a heliconian endowed withunusual light green wing panes, wascommon during fall months and wasparticularly attracted to the freshbright foliage of mango and citrus treesas well as the flowers of marigolds oftencultivated in old cans and set outsideof villagers’ huts. Crackers(Hamadryas) were ubiquitouslycommon; their lackluster appearancemade them virtually indiscernible whenat rest on lichen-encrusted treestrunks—their favorite perches. Buttheir unique cracking sounds when theyflew gave them away, and providedamusement not only for me but villagersas well.

Although field work was my coreresponsibility, I did undertake somephotography. For this, my first forayinto research photography, I hadpurchased a new MIRANDA 35 mmSLR camera equipped with a 55 mmlens, accessory extension tubes (nomacro, no telephoto, and no wide anglelenses), a small hand-held flash unit,and a tripod for close-up work. I usedfine grain film: KODACHROME 25 forslides and KODAX PANATOMIC-X (32ASA) for black and white prints.(Fortunately, all photos survive to thisday.)

One of the joys of being based in OcotalChico is that I could sample many of thevolcano’s stratified ecosystems withinbut a day’s walk. For example, as Iascended the 3,500 feet in altitude to thecrater of Santa Marta I wouldencounter six distinct vegetation zones.These were: (1) Pine-Oak Woodland(Pinus oocarpa, Quercus conspersa,and Q. ghiesbrechtii); (2) OakWoodland (dominated by Q.peduncularis, Q. oleoides and Q.ghiesbreghtii); (3) Oak-Gum forest(dominated by Liquidambar styracifluaand Q. ghiesbrechtii); (4) UpperMontane Rainforest or Cloud Forest(dominated by Engelhardtia mexicana,Q. skinneri, and Rheedia edulus);within this zone tree ferns such as

Cyathea sp. and Alsophila schiedeanawere common; (5) Montane Thicket(dominated by Podacarpus oleifolius,Thouinidium decandrum, and E.mexicana); and (6) Elfin Woodland(dominated by dwarf Q. ghiesbrechtii,Clusia salvinii, P. oleifolius, Myricacerifera, and Viburnum acutifolium).

While it is not my intent here to describeeach vegetation zone with its associatedbutterflies (see Ross, 1975-1977), Iwould like to single out three stratathat were relatively restricted in LosTuxtlas and best represented on VolcánSanta Marta. These are: (1) Pine-OakWoodland, the base for my extensivework on the life history of what wasthen considered to be an undescribedspecies of myrmecophilous metalmark(Riodinidae) later named Anatole rossiin 1964, but eventually reclassified—apparently—as Lemonias caliginea (seeRoss 2010a,b); (2) the Gum-Oak Forest,the preferred zone for coffee cultivationby the Popolucas, and the exclusivedomain of the showy Heliconius sapholeuce; and (3) the Elfin Woodland—athicket composed of specialized dwarftrees and shrubs festooned withepiphytes, and found only on tropicalmountain tops where clouds arecommon. On Santa Marta, this“fairyland” vegetation was restricted toa narrow band surrounding the summitand inside the crater proper wheremoisture from clouds was commonthroughout much of the year. Ferns,lichens, selaginellas, mosses, clubmosses, orchids, and bromeliads weregalore. Even exposed roots werecovered in spongy greenery. Manybutterflies characteristic of this zonewould “hilltop,” that is, sail in circlesabove a promontory and even out intothe crater—adrift on thermals. Themost common species: Papilionidae—Graphium c. calliste, Papilio androgeusepidaurus; Pieridae:Dismorphiinae—Dismorphia euryope, D. nemesis, D.jethys; Lycaenidae:Theclinae—Eumaeus debora (observed to ovipositclusters of eggs on fresh fronds ofCeratozamia mexicana, a cycadattaining a height of 3-4 feet andcommon in the Upper Montane


120 Winter 2010

Rainforest below the Elfin Woodland),Callophrys a. agricolor, C. nr. longula,Thecla laothoe; Lycaenidae:Polomnatinae—Celastrina argiolusgozora; Riodinidae—Euselasia chelesaurantiaca; Nymphalidae: Heli-coniinae—Dione moneta poeyii,Heliconius hortense; Nymphalidae:Nymphalinae—Vanessa virginiensis,Limenitis leuceria, Hypanartia dione;Nymphalidae:Charaxinae—Anaeaproserpina; Nymphalidae: Morphiinae—Morpho theseus justiciae, M.polyphemus luna; Nymphalidae:Satyrinae—Pedaliodes pisoniacircumducta, Dioriste tauropolis;Nymphalidae:Ithomiinae—Greta anetta.

Although I spent most of my timewithin the enigmatic Pine-OakWoodland, the summit of the volcanoreally lit up my radar. For here was abeguiling, surreal world. But to reachit I had to begin my hike shortly afterdawn on a day that I gambled wouldremain rainless. My route followed arudimentary trail cleared eachDecember when Popolucan men weresearching for palm fronds and theinflorescences of bromeliads to be soldas Christmas decorations to tradersfrom the lowlands. The trail wasoccasionally used to hunt wildlife forthe cooking pot, also.

Because of the steep terrain, the climbwas arduous. Often I had to scrambleon hands and knees, griping treebranches and roots as handholds. Atsuch times my mind screamed “STOP!TOO DANGEROUS! TURNAROUND!” Not easily stymied,however, I eventually reached theeastern rim of the crater. And imposingit was: not really round but oval inshape, about one and a half miles inlength, and about 500 feet in depth. Thesides were precipitously steep except fora partial opening to the north, which Icould not access. Tired, hungry anddrenched with sweat, I would locate asunny outcrop on which I could restwhile devouring my simple lunch—twopeanut butter/jelly sandwiches, a pieceof fruit, a chocolate bar, and a canteenof water. From this vantage point I hada panoramic view of the great expanse

of greenery that extended down thewindward slope of the volcano to theblue waters of the Gulf far below.

Lunch finished, I continued myinterlude by stretching out on my back.The thick forest resounded with thehypnotic, saw-blade shrills of cicadas.These were punctuated with themelodious and sonorous warbling of theslate-colored solitaire (Myadestesunicolor), a bird that I heard only inthe upper forests. (Popolucas aptly referto the bird as “marimba bird.” For arecording, visit www.xeno-canto.org/species.php?query=sp:3017.00).Closing my eyes I would let my minddrift into the solitude. The fact that Iwas seemingly on top of the world andisolated from the rest of humanityinfused me with a palpable sense ofserenity as I had never beforeexperienced. For the moment, I, nature,and the cosmos were one—the way itwas before there was anyone else in theworld. This nirvana restored mystamina and senses.

Although the astounding landscape wasmy “Happy Place,” this was a toughneighborhood! The vegetationsurrounding the crater was virtuallyimpenetrable, unforgiving. Worse, thematted roots were covered in slipperygreenery (no terra firma here). Withperils at every step, I had to search foropen windswept areas that had beencreated by recent mini landslides.There I could rock hop along themargin of the thicket. And although theinterior of the ancient caldera wastantalizing, I was not intrepid enoughto attempt a descent. Auspiciously,most lepidopterans concentrated theiractivities within the sunny areas alongthe rim.

In this “theater of the wild,” atitillating tableau usually played outabout 100 feet below the actual ElfinWoodland. Here the trail ran along atreeless, knife-edge crest. The slopes,though, were covered in virgin cloudforest. From my vantage point I couldsee that the white morpho (Morphopolyphemus luna) commonly flew abovethe verdant lushness of the canopy. This

butterfly was magnificent. Superlativesinclude a wingspan of 6-8 inches (thelargest of the three subspecies of M.polyphemus as well as the largestbutterfly in Los Tuxtlas), translucentand opalescent white in color with aflight that consisted of graceful,deliberate and deep-flapping strokes—reminiscent of an albatross in slowmotion. While this butterfly wasrelatively common in the higher foreststhroughout Los Tuxtlas, its aerialhabits precluded any chance of it beingnetted. (I had encountered my firstwhite morphos on Volcán San MartínTuxtla in 1962, where initially Imistook them for birds! To secure avoucher specimen, I had to shoot thequarry down using a 12 gauge shotgunloaded with hand-packed “dust shot”—see Ross, 2009c.)

On Santa Marta, though, the whitemorphos were tricked by topography.Here’s the thing: An individual morphowould insistently fly up the northeastslope of the ridge, over the bald crest,and then down the opposite slope. Butduring this feat to gain altitude, thebutterflies had to labor so hard that bythe time they reached the crest of theridge, they were no more than a few feetabove the ground. This brought thenormally elusive butterfly within easyrange of my net. As a result, I was ableto collect a series of excellentspecimens. Often I would simply sit andmarvel as the morphos maneuvered soclose to my head that I could hear theponderous flapping of their goliathwings.

In order to devote as much time aspossible to exploration, I wouldpostpone my descent until about 3:30PM. Then it was imperative that Iengage my warp speed. After about two-and-a-half hours of bounding andjogging, I would arrive in Ocotal Chicojust before dark. The next day my legs—particularly knees—would beincredibly sore. This was no greatinconvenience since I needed to sit atmy desk in order to prepare my cacheof specimens. [I placed fresh specimensin glassine envelopes. These werenumbered and recorded in a notebook



along with field data. The envelopeswere placed in a large plastic bagcontaining silica gel for drying and tokeep the ubiquitous, tiny, pesky ants atbay. After a week or so, I removed theenvelopes and stacked them inside metalarmy ammunition boxes containingmoth crystals (to prevent mold). I usedarmy duffle bags for transport back tothe U.S.]

The most exciting times were during thedry season. With weather lesscapricious, I could plan extended hikes.I usually was accompanied by Mike,Pablo, and often my host, John.Destinations included: (1) the craterrim of Santa Marta; (2) the classicallyround crater of San Martín Pajapan(3,750 feet), a nearby volcano cloakedin relatively undisturbed MontaneRainforest accessible from the village ofOcotal Grande (near the crater werediscovered an ancient Olmecsculpture that had not yet beenrelocated by the Mexican governmentfor exhibition (the sculpture nowresides in the Museo de Antropologia deUniversidad Jalapa); (3) recentPopoluca settlements on the Gulf-facingslope of Santa Marta; and (4) a smallPopoluca settlement—Zapoapan—onthe narrow strip of Gulf coast on thewindward side of the volcano.

During these excursions, I wasfortunate to see some larger wildlifecharacteristic of Neotropical forests.Once, while sleeping in my hammockatop Volcán Santa Marta, a jaguar(Panthera onca) sniffed the bottom ofmy hammock but quickly disappearedinto the darkness after I turned on myflashlight. Other striking wildlifeincluded great curassow (Crax rubra),tayra (Eira barbara), white-lippedpeccary (Tayasau pecari), coatimundi(Nasua narica), tapir (Tapirus bairdii),lowland paca or tepezcuintle(Cuniculus paca nelsoni), Mexicanlowland white-tailed deer (Odocoileusvirginianus thomasi) and kinkajou(Potos flavus). By far, however, themost common mammals weremonkeys—principally spider (Atelesgeoffroyi) and to a much lesser extent,the howler (Alouatta palliata).

“Spiders” or changos were often shotby Mexicans for food, but Popolucasconsidered the animal’s hands sosimilar to those of humans, that theanimals were taboo. Changos werewhimsical acrobats—although crankymost of the time. They usually becameriveted to any activity on the forestfloor. Whenever I was spotted, forinstance, a troupe would congregatedirectly overhead. The monkeys wouldthen rigorously shake branches. If thisnoise failed to convince me to move on,they would urinate and toss their fecesat me. Now that grabbed my attention!

By any measure, the most dangerousanimal I encountered was a reptile: thefer-de-lance (Bothrops asper), a speciesresponsible for the most serpent-relateddeaths within the American tropics. Ihad close calls with this serpent onthree occasions: once around LagoCatemaco (see Ross, 2009a, b) and ontwo occasions on Santa Marta. I carrieda simple snakebite kite at all times, andmy hosts kept a supply of antivenin onhand since villagers are frequentlybitten by the snake. Three othervenomous snakes were known to occurwithin the area, but I am delighted tostate that they and I never crossedpaths.

Popolucas traditionally weresubsistence farmers of corn, squash,and beans. Many families grew coffeeand some owned cattle—mainly to sellfor cash. The culture was non-acquisitive, and because of its longisolation had little knowledge ofscientific research or the value ofcollections. Villagers, however, werenot opposed to me residing in theirvillage and collecting specimens. ButPopoluca culture is steeped inmythology, superstition, and primalfear. A particularly illuminating caseinvolves my (and Mike’s) firstovernight trip up the volcano. WhenMike and I returned to the village aboutfour days later, just about everyone ranonto the main trail to cheer us—muchas Americans do for a parade. Turnsout that a bedrock belief of the indigenesis that the forests atop Santa Marta arethe home of malevolent night spirits.

During our expedition, severalconcerned women let it be known toRoyce that Mike and I probably wouldnever be seen again. And so, when Mikeand I were spotted on our return to thevillage, everyone was jubilant.

Too, as is so often the case withindigenous cultures, butterflies per sewere opined as magical, spiritualcreatures. Understandably, manyvillagers presumed that I cravedbutterflies to engage in witchcraft. Johnspent considerable time trying todismiss this conviction. John’s offhandexplanation? Because my homelandlacked showy insects, I wanted to sharemy experiences in the Popoluca landswith my family “across the big water.”That seemed to suffice. However, thelocal shaman, who I suspect didn’t buythe explanation, always went out of hisway to avoid me. But I must say that Inever had any indication that he meantme any harm.

Children, on the other hand, thoughtthat I was hunting butterflies for foodto ship to my hungry relatives. Theyoungsters were bemused by my anticsand so would often follow me about.Sometimes they would beat down aspecimen or two with a small branch,pull off the insect’s wings, and then popthe wriggling body into their mouths.At other times they would offer me someof these hapless specimens. At thispoint I had to solicit assistance onceagain from John. He explained thatneither I nor anyone in my family atebutterflies, and that the removal of thewings from the insects destroyed thebeauty that I was trying to share. Notto stymie the children’s curiosity aboutthe natural world, I demonstrated theassiduous way to handle a butterfly. Thenext day, I noticed that severalenterprising little guys were craftingnets from small branches that theylaced with spider silk. And believe it ornot, most of the butterflies from thesesimple nets proved unsullied andperfectly usable as vouchers.

Children also enjoyed snacking withgusto on hairless, plump caterpillars.Prime fare was the glossy, brilliant


122 Winter 2010

cherry colored larvae of Eumaeusminyas (the color reminded me ofcherry-flavored hard candy). Adults,which are related to the south Floridaatala (E. atala), were abundant aroundthe village. The host plant was thecycad Zamia loddigesii var.angustifolia, a small plant commonthroughout the pine-oak forest. Thecycads put on new growth only towardsthe end of the dry season (April-May)following the passage of ground fires.These fresh fronds were the targets offemale butterflies, which laid smallclusters of eggs. But usually, thenascent leaves were not sufficient tosustain the caterpillars throughouttheir various molts. Propelled byhunger, the would-be butterflies wouldabandon their hosts and crawl along theground in search of an intact cycad. Itwas during these wanderings that theconspicuous “gusanos” (Spanish for“worms”) would become easy pickingsfor Popolucan children.

Butterflies were not the only creaturesI was gifted. Prior to my trips, severalentomologists in the U.S. had askedthat I collect a sample of arthropods,particularly ants, springtails(collembola), millipedes, scorpions andwhip scorpions. After noting myinterest, villagers soon began gifting mewith miscellaneous specimens.Scorpions and whip scorpions, however,had their pernicious tails chopped off—“to protect me from getting stung.” Ofcourse, I expressed my appreciation,but I asked John to explain that Ineeded the bodies intact so that myfriends and relatives could appreciatejust how dangerous the creatures were.After that, some of the adroit villagesbrought live specimens in old tin cans.(I preserved these in vials of alcohol.)

Evenings and rainy days wereparticularly enjoyable and poignant.Village elders frequently would visitwith the Linds in their main room.While Popoluca men were masterfulstorytellers, many conversationscentered on my seemingly “quirky”activities. Of course, John and Royce(and their children) were fluent inPopoluca. (To me the language sounded

choppy. This, according to my linguisthosts, was because Popoluca containsglottal stops.) Of course, I didn’tunderstand a single word. Mercifully,however, John would translate. Fromthese bilingual interactions, I learneda great deal—not only about thesurrounding forests and theirinhabitants but likewise about thePopoluca culture—past and present.For me, an upstart with no experiencewith exotic cultures, one of the moreinteresting aspects of the language wasthat it was difficult to express courtesyconcepts such as “please,” “thank you,”and “may I.” However, my hosts werequick to point out that Popolucas oftenexpress these concepts by physicalactions. For example, in response tosome form of kindness, a Popolucareciprocates by sharing food, supplies,or perhaps even time and labor. Thiscaused me to reflect on the poignantAmerican adage: “Actions speak louderthan words.” I was so impressed withthe Popolucan custom, that I have triedto incorporate this simple concept intomy daily life ever since. (As an aside, Ifound it interesting that the Popolucasassociated us gringos with the odor ofmilk. Since Popolucas did not use milkother than mother’s milk to nurseinfants, the odor of powdered cow’smilk was unfamiliar. As explanation,the villagers likely smelled the cookingof our daily breakfast pancakes.)

From a linguistic/anthropologicalperspective, Popoluca culture had beenexperiencing significant changes. Forinstance, by the 1960s the vast majorityof Popolucas had given up theirtraditional dress ( although a few menstill wore white cotton pants and shirtsand less than a handful of women stillwore a plain wrap-around skirt with noblouse). Weaving, pottery and basketmaking were all but lost, too, althoughthe senior man in the village still wovesplit-oak baskets. Over the yearsvillagers simply found it easier topurchase everyday necessities fromMexican or Nahua traders. As a result,simple clothing and household itemswere utilized way beyond their intendedlifespan. Ipso facto, from an outsider’s

perspective, the Popolucas appeared tobe extremely poor and living within animpoverished economy.

Day-to-day village life was never boring,blasé. Late in the dry season, Popolucamen would set fire to many of the pine-clad ridge crests and upper slopessurrounding the village. These annualfires were never infernos. Rather, thefires simply spread rapidly through thesparse tinder along the ground. Thefires were set to encourage the newgrowth of grass once the summer rainsbegan. The tender grasses provednutritious fodder for the villagers packanimals. From an entomologicalperspective, annual firings werebeneficial, too, in that they encouragedthe new growth of various forbs, manyof which were used as host or nectarplants for butterflies. Examples: Crotonrepens, a fire-dependant low-growingplant (Eurphorbiaceae) was theexclusive host of the unusualmetalmark that occupied much of mystudy time in 1963. And Calliandragrandiflora (“Angel’s hair”), a shrubby,fire-dependent legume featuringplumose red flowers, demonstrated tobe an irresistible nectar source for mostbutterfly species.

And then there were the swarms ofants—two distinct species. First, armyants (Eciton). Once during the eveningmeal we noticed that a meter-wideplatoon of army ants was invading thekitchen. Terrorized of nasty bites andstings, we practically catapulted intothe main trail to wait out the raid—usually no more than 20 minutes.(When all was said and done, weexpressed our relief in that the invasionhadn’t taken place while we weresleeping.) Second, leafcutter ants (Atta).The leafcutters didn’t attack but simplyswarmed about noon a day or two afterthe first rain of the season. Myriadlarge, plump winged males and femalesthickened the air as they took theirnuptial flight. After the insects fell backto earth, they were eagerly collected androasted for high-quality protein snacksto supplement typical bland diets ofcorn tortillas and beans (meat wasalways a luxury).



Volcán Santa Marta (elevation 5,250 feet) from the lowlands ofsoutheastern Veracruz.

Volcán Santa Marta (elevation 5,250 feet) from the lowlands ofsoutheastern Veracruz.

Trail into Ocotal Chico, a Popolucan village of about 300.

Hut or “bachelor pad” of teenager Mike Lind. The simple structureserved as the home and laboratory of the author during hisextended visits in 1963 and 1965.

Popoluca children using their hand-crafted nets of twigs and spiderwebs assisting with the author’s collection of butterflies. The crudenets were quite effective. Butterflies and caterpillars weresometimes consumed as “snacks.”

Typical Popolucan house in Ocotal Chico.


124 Winter 2010

Finally, uniformed government workersfunded by the World HealthOrganization would occasionally trekinto the village. Their purpose was thecontrol of mosquitoes, ergo, malaria.The protocol consisted of spraying theinterior of every house with the DDT,in the 1960s, a commonly used whitepowdery insecticide that was mixedwith water. When the sprayers arrived,our protocol was to cover everythingwith plastic. Villagers, however, didn’ttake precautions so that just abouteverything within their houses woundup coated with a potentially dangerouswhite powder. DDT was known tocontrol human head lice, also. Afterspraying houses, the governmentworkers corralled as many children asthey could into the main trail. With eyesprotected, each child received a full-body spraying. The youngsters jumpedwith glee as their skins were renderedtalcose white. For the rest of the day,these raccoon-eyed “Caspers”scampered about the village spookingtheir smaller siblings as well as everydog that crossed their paths.

To conclude this essay, I can think ofno more appropriate words than thoseI penned in my prequel:

“My several visits with the Popoluca inOcotal Chico proved mutuallybeneficial. I, for example, managed towrite both a master’s thesis anddoctoral dissertation from my ecologicalstudies of the butterfly fauna. [Icollected a total of 3,893 butterflyspecimens representing 359 species,excluding skippers (Hesperiidae), fromthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas. Of this total,1,795 specimens were collected on theslopes of Volcán Santa Marta. Allspecimens are in the collections of theMcGuire Center for Lepidoptera andBiodiversity, Florida Museum ofNatural History, University of Floridain Gainesville.] As a side project, I wasable to produce a 16 mm, 55-minute,color and sound motion picture of theculture—which I dedicated to the Lindsand which was later shown in Soteapan.For their part, the Popolucas learned alittle bit more about themselves and thesmall creatures that inhabit their unique

realm. But just as valuable, we alllearned to appreciate the similaritiesand differences between our cultures—the dignity of human kind. And today,some forty-plus-years later, thatelemental meeting of the minds remainsmy most cherished memory. (I evenremember a few Popoluca words!)”

UPDATE: What was is no more. Nolonger can Los Tuxtlas be consideredpart of the Mexican frontier. Over thelast several decades, humanencroachment with its inevitabledeforestation has been heavy dutythroughout the region. Mexicanscientists have calculated that theannual rates of deforestation from1967-1986 have averaged just over 3.5percent per year. The current estimateis that between 85-90% of the originalforest is gone. In an effort to combatthis, in 1998 the Mexican governmentestablished Los Tuxtlas BiosphereReserve (“Reserva de la Biosfera LosTuxtlas”) to protect sections of thethree primary volcanoes—primarilyland above 1,000 feet in elevation. Thereserve encompasses 155,122 hectares(363,151 acres, 600 square miles)divided principally between thefollowing: (1) 9,805 hectares (24,216acres or less than 40 square miles) onVolcán San Martín Tuxtla—including644 hectares (1,591 acres) of “LaEstación de Biología Tropical LosTuxtlas,” which is administered byUniversidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico, (2) 18,032 hectares (32,539acres or less than 70 square miles) onVolcán Santa Marta, and (3) 1,883hectares (3,651 acres or 7.3 squaremiles) on Volcán San Martín Pajapan.(Remaining hectares occur mainly inbuffer lands or “amortiguamiento.”)But frankly, the quoted figures are onlyformalities on paper. Because 90percent of these lands are not federallyowned but are instead under communal(ejido) ownership, federal enforcementof conservation policies is extremelydifficult. In fact, only about 24,421hectares (60,320 acres or 483 squaremiles)—16 percent of the total—arevaguely patrolled by two assignedrangers. Consequently, Los Tuxtlas

Biosphere Reserve is classified as“critically threatened” and consideredto be one of the most threatened“protected” areas in Mexico. (SeeInternet: www.catemaco.info/biosphere/areas.html.)

The oft voiced reason for deforestationin developing countries is run-awayhuman population. Los Tuxtlas is noexception. Mexican, Popoluca, andNahua populations throughout thearea have been increasing significantlyover the past few decades.Understandably, additional peoplerequire additional lands for farming andranching, additional wood forconstruction and cooking, andadditional wild meat and fish to lessencash drain. With a lack of fieldpersonnel to monitor accruingincremental human activities,remaining forested areas continue to bestripped of their trees and animals; also,water resources are becomingincreasingly exhausted and polluted.

And Ocotal Chico? No longer is “LittlePiney Ridge” a far-flung village,drowsing village—an anachronism inthis New Millennium. And no longerare the Popolucas stay-at-homes. Anall-weather road now accesses thevillage. Electricity, clean spring water(thanks to an innovative systemdesigned by John), and septic tanks forindoor toilets and showers are readilyavailable. In nearby Soteapan,Popolucas have access to modernmedicine and a variety of food stuffsand household furnishings. The numberof people residing in Ocotal Chico isapproximately 1,000—because ofemigration, lower than one mightexpect. The total number of Popolucaspeakers is estimated to be 30,000scattered within 45 villages and towns.

All is not gloom and doom for theenvironment, however. Because ofVolcán Santa Marta’s long-termisolation, the region has beeninfluenced less by human designs andexpansionist ways than have othervenues within Los Tuxtlas.Furthermore, no longer does nationalpolicy discourage indigenous



languages. Today “linguistic peace”reigns throughout Mexico and thecountry’s minority peoples are nurturedas assets. This turnabout has produceda dramatic transformation in theculture. Present-day Popolucas, forinstance, are imbued with a new senseof dignity and respect for themselvesand their ancestral homeland. Just asimportant, thanks in large part to thelife-long work of the John Lind familyand to new government programs aimedat education, most Popolucas are nowliterate in both their own language andSpanish. Armed with the formidable “4R’s”—reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmatic, andreligion—the Popolucas are nowcodifed with self-dignity, that is, freeingthemselves from long-establishedshackles. For the first time in centuries,the outside world no longer is viewedas alien, hostile. With heads held highalongside their Mexican neighbors, the“straight-speaking-ones” are at last“somebody.”

The widespread high morale andbilingual literacy, too, allows manyPopolucas to work in jobs outside thevillage to increase family earnings.Some ambitious men have joined thethrongs of migrant laborers in theUnited States to acquire heretoforeunimaginable amounts of cash topurchase unimaginable worldly items:pick-up trucks, televisions and evenlaptop computers and cell phones.Upping the ante again, local villagersare more willing than outsiders to workfor the low wages offered by thegovernment for the implementation ofits reforestation programs on VolcánSanta Marta. The bottom line is this:With increased access to cash from bothlocal and outside sources, there is lessincentive for villagers to clear new landsfor agriculture and pasturage.

All in all, I believe that the future of theland of the Nuntajýyipýc will not echothe devastation experienced in mostother sensitive areas throughout thetropics. Better yet, with this newcultural pride, the Popoluca could evenopt for what several indigenous tribesin the United States are doing (seeBowden, 2010): Take matters into their

own hands to restore the resources oftheir tribal lands.

Hyperbole? Maybe, maybe not.Popolucas have always had apronounced respect for their naturalsurroundings. (One gentleman in OcotalChico, for example, could recite thenames and reproduce the calls of atleast 50 different birds.) John and RoyceLind, who know the Popolucas betterthan anyone, are convinced that the“straight-speaking-ones” wouldconsider the loss of their once inviolateenvironment a grievous diminution.Therefore, if Popolucas so rally tostewardship, then the uniquelandscapes of Volcán Santa Marta mayremain one of the culture’s salientlegacies to “Spaceship Earth.”

Nevertheless, caution is prudent:Volcán Santa Marta is a time bomb.Dormant volcanoes often have theuncanny habit of unexpectedly breakingtheir slumber. And although there is nohistoric record of volcanic activity forSanta Marta, there were several smalleruptions on Volcán San Martín Tuxtlain 1664 and 1793, and a venting in1829. (As a possible indication of thevolcano’s instability, I remember thatduring my residency in Ocotal Chico,the village experienced no less than adozen minor earth tremors.) Patently,Santa Marta may not be in a deep sleep.A major eruption could provedevastating—even apocalyptic—toplant, animal, and human life alike.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to express special thanks to thefollowing: John and Royce Lind (now livingin Pearce, Arizona but still active in the livesof the Popoluca) and their children—Cindy,Mike, Laura, Juanita, and Christina—fortheir hospitality and close friendship not onlyduring my initial research during the 1960sbut through all these intervening years, andfor providing valuable input during thepreparation of this manuscript; thePopolucas—especially the residents of OcotalChico—who shared their world with me; Dr.Robert F. Andrle (and family) of Eden, NY forincluding me as his research partner in 1962;and Dr. Murray S. Blum (Athens, GA) andthe Department of Entomology, LouisianaState University, for financial support andguidance during my graduate student years.

REFERENCESAndrle, R.F. 1964. A biogeographical

investigation of the Sierra de Tuxtla inVeracruz, Mexico. Unpublished dissertation.Louisiana State University. 236 pp.

Andrle, R.F. 1967. Birds of the Sierra de Tuxtlain Veracruz, Mexico. The Wilson Bulletin79(2): 163-187.

Bowden, C. 2010. Native lands. NationalGeographic (August) 218(2): 80-97.

Callaghan, C.J. 1981. Notas sobre un caso desinonimia entre las riodinidae Mexicanas.Rev. Soc. Mex. Lep. VI(2): 41-42.

Clench, H.K. 1964. A new species of riodinidaefrom Mexico. Journal of Research on theLepidoptera 3(2): 73-80.

De la Maza Ramírez, J. 1987. MariposasMexicanas. Fondo de Cultura Económica,S.A. de C.V. México, D.F. 302 pp.

Dirzo, R. and M.C. Garcia. 1992. Rates ofdeforestation in Los Tuxtlas, a neotropicalarea in southeast Mexico. ConservationBiology 6(1): 84-90.

Dirzo, R., González Soriano, E. and R. C. Vogt.1997. Introducción General (pages 3-6). IN:Historia natural de Los Tuxtlas. GonzálezSoriano, E., R. Dirzo, and R.C. Vogt(Editors). Universidad Nacional Autónomade México. México, D.F. 647 pp.

Elson, B.F. and D. Gutiérrez G. 1999.Diccionario Popoluca de la Sierra Veracruz.Vocabularios Indígenas Número 41.Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, A.C. Mexico,D.F. 190 pp.

Hepburn, H.R. and G.N. Ross. 1964. Collembolafrom Mexico. Entomological News LXXV(8):219-220.

Hoffman, C.C. 1940. Catálogo sistemático yzoogeográfico de los lepidópteros Mexicanos.Primera Parte; Papilionoidea. Anales delInstituto de Biología. XI(1): 640-739.

Lamas, G. (editor). 2004. Atlas of neotropicallepidoptera. Vol. 5A. Checklist: Part 4A:Hesperioidea-Papilionoidea. Association forTropical Lepidoptera: Scientific Publishers. Gainesville, FL. 439 pages.

Raguso, R.A. and J. Llorente-Bousquets.1990(1991). The butterflies (Lepidoptera) ofthe Tuxtlas Mts., Veracruz, Mexico,Revisited: Species-richness and habitatdisturbance. Journal of Research on theLepidoptera 29(1-2): 105-133.

Ross, G.N. 1963. Evidence for lack ofterritoriality in two species of Hamadryas(Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on theLepidoptera (2(4): 241-246.

Ross, G.N. 1964. Life history studies on Mexicanbutterflies. I. Early stages of four papilionidsfrom Catemaco, Veracruz. Journal ofResearch on the Lepidoptera 3(1): 9-18.

Ross, G.N. 1964. Life history studies onMexican butterflies. II. Early stages ofAnatole rossi, a new myrmecophilousmetalmark. Journal of Research on theLepidoptera 3(2): 81-94.

Ross, G.N. 1964. Life history studies onMexican butterflies. III. Nine rhopalocera


126 Winter 2010

A cracker butterfly, Hamadryas februa, in characteristic restingposition. Butterflies within this genus are noted for making loud,cracking sounds when flying.

Camp site in Upper Montane Rainforest on upper slopes of VolcánSanta Marta. Army jungle hammocks were used at night for sleeping.

Author preparing daily catch of specimens in Mike Lind’s “bachelorpad.” A total of 3,893 specimens (1,795 from Volcán Santa Marta)were collected during 15 months of field work in 1962, 1963, and1965. This represented 359 species—excluding skippers (Hesperiidae).

Mike Lind using a flashlight equipped with red cellophane toinvestigate night activity of myrmecophilous metalmark caterpillars(then thought to be a new species and named Anatole rossi, but nowthought to be Lemonias caliginae) common in the pinelandssurrounding Ocotal Chico.Popoluca family drying corn to make the staple of diet, tortillas.

A family compound in Ocotal Chico. Many species of butterflies oftenflew within the village because of its proximity to healthy habitat.



(Papilionidae, Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae)from Ocotal Chico, Veracruz. Journal ofResearch on the Lepidoptera 3(4): 207-229.

Ross, G.N. 1964. Life-history studies onMexican butterflies. IV. The ecology andethology of Anatole rossi, a myrmecophilousmetalmark (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae).Annals of the Entomological Society ofAmerica 59(5): 985-1004.

Ross, G.N. 1975-77. An ecological study of thebutterflies of the Sierra de Tuxtla inVeracruz, Mexico. Journal of Research onthe Lepidoptera 14(2): 103-124, (3): 169-188,(4): 233-252; 15(1): 41-60, (2): 109-128, (3):

Cont. from p. 111

Achalarus tehuacanain Texas

SCI-0007, BIBE-2008-SCI-0044) that wereneeded to rear and illustrate A. casica from thepark.

Literature Cited:Austin, G. T. 2008. Hesperiidae of Rondônia,

Brazil: Taxonomic comments on “night”skippers, with descriptions of new genera andspecies (Lepidoptera, Eudaminae). InsectaMundi 0029:1-36.

Austin, G. T. & A. D. Warren. 2002. Taxonomicnotes on some Neotropical skippers(Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae): Pyrrhopyginaeand Pyrginae. Dugesiana 9(2):15-49.

Bordelon, C. W., Jr. & E. Knudson. 2006. Threenew USA butterfly records (Pieridae,Nymphalidae) from the Lower Rio GrandeValley of Texas. News of the Lepidopterists’Society 48(1):3-6.

Burns, J. M. 2000. Pyrgus communis andPyrgus albescens (Hesperiidae: Pyrginae) are

185-200, (4): 225-240; 16(1): 87-130.Ross, G.N. 1985. The case of the vanishing

caterpillar. Natural History 94(11): 48-55.Ross, G.N. 1994. Winged Victory. Wildlife

Conservation 97(4): 60-67.Ross, G.N. 1997. Lemonias rossi. IN: Historia

natural de Los Tuxtlas. Parte IV.Invertebrados:Insecta (pages 323-328).González Soriano, E., R. Dirzo, and R.C. Vogt(Editors). Universidad Nacional Autónomade México. México, D.F. 647 pp.

Ross, G.N. 2009a. My scarest moment in thefield. Southern Lepidopterists’ News31(1):16-19.

separate transcontinental species withvariable but diagnostic valves. Journal ofthe Lepidopterists’ Society 54(2):52-71.

Dauphin, J., D. Dauphin, E. Knudson & C. W.Bordelon, Jr. 2005. Three butterflies new tothe United States from south Texas. Newsof the Lepidopterists’ Society 47(2):43, 46.

Draudt, M. 1917-1924. Die AmerikanischenTagfalter. Lycaenidae and Grypocera, Vol.5, 744-999. In Seitz, A. (Ed.).Grossschmetterlinge der Erde. AlfredKemen, Stuttgart.

Evans, W. H. 1952. A Catalogue of theAmerican Hesperiidae indicating theclassification and nomenclature adopted inthe British Museum (Natural History). PartII. Pyrginae. Section I. London, BritishMuseum. 178 pp. + pls. 10-25.

Scott, J. A. 1986. Butterflies of North America,a natural history and field guide. Stanford;Stanford University Press: xv + 583 pp., 64pls., 71 figs. 2 tbls., maps.

Steinhauser, S. R. 1974. Notes on NeotropicalNymphalidae and Hesperiidae withdescriptions of new species and subspeciesand a new genus. Bulletin of the AllynMuseum No. 22:1-38.

Steinhauser, S. R. 1989. Taxonomic notesand descriptions of new taxa in theNeotropical Hesperiidae. Part I. Pyrginae.Bulletin of the Allyn Museum No. 127:1-70.{22 May}

Steinhauser, S. R. 1991. Taxonomic notesand descriptions of new taxa in theNeotropical Hesperiidae. Part II,Heteropterinae and Hesperiinae, Viniusgroup. Bulletin of the Allyn Museum No.132:1-79. {14 Jun}

Warren, A. D., K. J. Davis, N. V. Grishin, J. P.Pelham & E. M. Stangeland. 2010.Interactive listing of American butterflies.[14-X-2010] http://www.butterfliesofamerica.com/

Warren, A. D., S. R. Steinhauser, C. Hernández-Mejía & N. V. Grishin. 2008. Notes on thegenus Celotes, with the description of a newspecies from Mexico (Lepidoptera:Hesperiidae: Pyrginae: Pyrgini). Zootaxa1926:27-40.

X

This update includes all changesreceived by November 30, 2010.

Corrections to entry in 2010Membership Directory:Purdum, David A.: correct homephone is (904) 962-2880

New and Reinstated Members:Members who have joined/renewed/been found/or rescinded their request tobe omitted since publication of the 2010Membership Directory (not included inthe 2008 Membership Directory; all inU.S.A. unless noted otherwise)

Cock, Matthew J.W. (Ph.D.): CABIBioscience Centre Switzerland, 1 Ruedes Grillons, CH-2800 Delémont,Switzerland.

Detore, Jon P.: 2400 52nd StreetNorth, Saint Petersburg, FL 33710-3547.

Fagua, Giovanny: Carrera 28 No. 46-31, Apartamento 603, Bogotá 1111111,Colombia.

Geisler, Bubba (Mr.): P.O. Box 97,Wheatley, AR 72392-0097.

Planalto, Ernest: [address omitted byrequest]

Shaak, Steven: 2 Breezy Drive,Erwinna, PA 18920-9209.

Torres, Diego: Carrera 12 No. 2-80,Buga, Valle del Cauca 45450, Colombia.

Address Change:Dimock, Thomas E.: 6250 TelegraphRoad, #604, Ventura, CA 93003-4336.

Ross, G.N. 2009b. Dark walk on the wild side.Wake-Robin 43(1):13-15.

Ross, G.N. 2009c. White morphos, shotguns,and “evil women.” News of theLepidopterists’ Society Vol. 51(2): 67, 70-71.

Ross, G.N. 2010a. Caterpillars, ants andPopuluca (sic) Indians: An adventure inremote Mexico. News of the Lepidopterists’Society Vol. 52(1): 34-41, 44.

Ross, G.N. 2010b. Corrections, please! IN: TheMailbag…Letters to the Editor. News of theLepidopterists’ Society Vol. 52(2): 69, 72.

Membership Update...

X

Julian Donahue


128 Winter 2010

The Entomology Division of the Peabody Museum of NaturalHistory and the Connecticut Butterfly Association inviteyou to attend the 60th annual meeting of The Lepidopterists’Society, to be held in New Haven, Connecticut. New Havenis on the shoreline in south-central Connecticut, about 70miles NE of New York City and 30 miles SW of Hartford.The weather in late June is generally fair, with hightemperatures around 75-85 and lows around 55-65 degreesF. Lepidoptera are diverse in the state at that time, withgood observing and collecting sites close by.

Home base for the meeting will be in the “Science Hill”complex of buildings on the main campus of Yale University.For those who attended the 50th Anniversary Meeting ofthe Society at Yale in 1997, the venue will likely be familiar,but much has also changed, most notable being the new100,000 square foot building (the Class of 1954Environmental Science Center) that now houses most ofthe Peabody’s collections, including those for theEntomology Division.

The Executive Council will meet during the day on Thursday23rd in the Marsh Room at the Peabody Museum, and theopening reception will take place that evening in the GreatHall of Dinosaurs at Peabody. On Friday 24th during theday, paper sessions and other activities will take place inthe main lecture hall in nearby Osborn Memorial Laboratory.Later Friday afternoon will feature a tour of and barbequeat Yale’s new “West Campus” facilities, located a few milesdown the road. Events on Saturday 25th will again be atOsborn, with a return to the Peabody’s Great Hall ofDinosaurs for the evening banquet, talk, and awardsceremonies. The conference will finish in Osborn on Sunday25th with additional papers and the annual businessmeeting.

Collecting and observing trips are planned for before andafter the meetings, and details for these will be posted onthe Society’s website as they become finalized. TheLepidoptera (and other) collections in the EntomologyDivision will be open for perusal during the meeting dates.Anyone wishing to spend more time in the collections beforeor after the meeting is welcome, and should contact LarryGall (203-432-9892, [email protected]) as soon asfeasible.

60th Annual MeetingThe Lepidopterists’ Society

23-26 June 2011Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut,

USAhttp://www.lepsoc.org/2011_meeting.php

Meeting registration, housing reservations, ticketsfor box lunches, the barbeque and banquet shouldall be obtained online via the Society website. Yale’sConference & Events Services is managing the online activitiesand if you need assistance you can reach them at 203-432-0465. Regular registration is $115/person and studentregistration $95/person, through 20 May 2011 (after that daterates are $150/person and $125/person). Registration coversthe daily events, coffee breaks and reception. Barbeque ticketsare $37/person and banquet tickets $48/person, and arepurchased separately (food/dietary choices are online). Boxlunches can be purchased either Friday and/or Saturday for$13.50/person per day (although there are other lunch optionsin the area, the box lunches will save time). A block of roomshas been reserved at the Omni Hotel in downtown New Haven($129/night, single or double occupancy) as well as in Yaledormitory housing ($85/night, single room in two-personsuite). Dorm reservations are made online via the Societywebsite; Omni reservations should be made directly with thehotel by calling 1-800-THE-OMNI and noting you are withThe Lepidopterists’ Society. Both the Omni and the dormsare about a 15-20 minute walk to Science Hill, with the dormsbeing closer.

For those presenting paper, please submit your title &abstract (125 words or less) by 20 May 2011 online via theSociety’s website, to guarantee inclusion in the meetingprogram. Each paper is a total of 15 minutes; allow 12minutes to talk and 3 minutes for questions. Limit is onepresented paper per person.

Air travel to New Haven is most economical throughKennedy, LaGuardia, Newark and/or Westchester Countyairports in the New York City area. Amtrak and MetroNorth both provide rail service to New Haven. To drive tothe Peabody: take Exit 3 (Trumbull Street) off Interstate 91,go straight (west) through the first stop light (OrangeStreet) and turn right (north) at the second stop light ontoWhitney Avenue. The museum is two blocks north at thenext stop light (170 Whitney Avenue), at the intersection ofWhitney Avenue and Sachem Street. Osborn MemorialLaboratory and the Environmental Science Center arelocated on Sachem Street just west of the Peabody Museum.Hope to see you in June!



Conservation Matters:Contributions from the Conservation Committee

26 August 2010

Trisha RoningerFish and Wildlife BiologistUS Fish and Wildlife Service1936 California Ave.Klamath Falls, OR 97601

Dear Ms. Roninger:

RE: Support for Endangered Species Act protection for Leona’s little blue butterfly (Philotiella leona)

We the undersigned support the petition of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Dr. David V. McCorkle andOregon Wild to protect Philotiella leona under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA).

In reviewing the petition we find that it presents substantial evidence that this species meets all of the criteria forEndangered Species Act protection. The taxonomy of Philotiella leona is uncontested. This butterfly is likely limited toa single population found in the Antelope Desert in Klamath County, Oregon. This highly endemic species occupies aspecialized niche within a volcanic pumice and ash ecosystem on private timberland and a small portion of the Fremont-Winema National Forest.

Lepidopterist Dana Ross surveyed the Antelope Desert and estimates that there are only approximately 2,000 butterfliesin this population. Therefore a single event – such as a catastrophic wildfire or a pesticide used indiscriminately – couldlead to the extinction of Philotiella leona.

There are also multiple threats to the long term survival of this species. Philotiella leona is threatened by coniferencroachment, catastrophic and controlled fire, cinder pit mining, insecticide and herbicide use, excessive logging andlogging related activities, and livestock grazing. Without protection under the ESA, this species is likely to go extinct.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service should provide protection for this species under the ESA. The Service should alsodevelop a comprehensive plan for the management and recovery of this species. This should include research into the lifehistory and management needs of this species. The Service should also work with the multiple landowners that will beimpacted by this listing to ensure that the management of the butterfly’s habitat is consistent with its survival andrecovery.

Thank you for your efforts to conserve this species.

Sincerely,

John ShueyPresident, Lepidopterists’ SocietyChair, Conservation Committee

Members of the Conservation CommitteeDana RossRobert PyleDale SchweitzerDave WagnerDoug TaronEric MetzlerErnest WilliamsJaret DanielsJens RolandJohn CalhounKeith BrownNeil BjörklundPat DurkinThomas Simonsen


130 Winter 2010

The Mailbag.....

6 December 2010

Dear Editor:

As a student of the behavior ofbutterflies and other insects (e.g.Rutowski 1991, 2003), I read withinterest James Scott’s article (“NewTerminology for Describing Mate-Locating Behavior of Butterflies (andMoths), with Examples in Colorado”)in the Summer 2010 Newsletter. Mypurpose in this letter is to providesome thoughts and resources thatreaders might find of value inevaluating Scott’s proposals and ideas.

First, as Scott points out, since themid-1970’s he and Suzuki (1976) havepromulgated the view that few if anybutterflies are properly described asterritorial. What he does not point outin his article is that studies datingback to the 1980’s have given butterflyterritoriality a critical look andpresented clear evidence thatterritoriality is a relevant, valuable,and powerful concept forunderstanding the mate-locatingbehavior of males of a variety ofbutterflies (e.g. Wickman and Wiklund1982; Lederhouse 1982). Since then,this view has prevailed, although thereare still many interesting questions toaddress (for a recent review, see Kempand Wiklund 2001). Royce Bitzer hasprovided a balanced and well-referenced summary of this debateabout butterfly territoriality at thisURL: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mariposa/contests.htm

Second, I do not know to what extentstudents of mating system diversity ininsects will find useful the new termsScott proposes here and in a previousarticle (Scott 2006). For this tohappen, Scott will need to be cleareras to the empirical evidence that willbe needed to decide which term bestfits what is observed in a given species.

Take for example the tactic “rait” (restand wait) defined as “males rest (land),wait, and watch at a genetic mating sitefor females to arrive at that rendezvoussite for mating where males fly out toinvestigate passing individuals to see ifthey are receptive females.”Notwithstanding the odd idea that anenvironmental location can be genetic,what evidence would be needed todemonstrate this preference? Also,many literature reports show thatarriving females and even mating pairsat such sites are only very rarelyobserved, so how many would need tobe observed to conclude that females arewhat males are waiting and watchingfor? Finally, when a male leaves hisperch to approach and chase anotherbutterfly, how do we objectivelydetermine that his goal is to“investigate passing individuals to seeif they are receptive females?” Theseare tough questions to answerquantitatively and butterfly behavioralecologists continue to grapple withthem (e.g. Kemp and Wiklund 2001).Mark-resighting studies, althoughdescribed by Scott as often a“distraction,” will continue to be ourbest tool for moving the study of thecauses of mate-locating behaviorbeyond the realm of anecdotes andassertions.

Finally, Scott’s article might have moreappropriately been submitted to andpublished in the Journal. Appropriatematerial for the News is described as“short manuscripts covering new staterecords, current events, and notices.”Scott’s contribution proposes a novelsystem of naming some behaviorpatterns of butterflies and other insects.This system and its presentation wouldhave benefited from the more rigoroussystem of multiple peer evaluation usedby the Journal.

Sincerely,

Ronald L. RutowskiSchool of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempe, AZ 85287-4501

REFERENCES CITED

Lederhouse RC (1982) Territorial defense andlek behavior of the black swallowtail butterfly,Papilio polyxenes. Behavioral Ecology andSociobiology 10: 109-118

Kemp DJ, Wiklund C (2001) Fighting withoutweaponry: a review of male-male contestcompetition in butterflies. BehavioralEcology and Sociobiology 49: 429-442

Scott JA (1974) Mate-locating behavior ofbutterflies. The American MidlandNaturalist 91:103-117

Scott JA (1986) The Butterflies of NorthAmerica. Stanford University Press,Stanford

Scott JA (2006) A serious discussion ofterritoriality in butterflies, and new mate-locating terminology. Papilio (New Series)14: 70-74.

Suzuki Y (1976) So-called territorial behaviourof the small copper, Lycaena phlaeas aimioSeitz (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Kontyû 44:193-204

Wickman P-O, Wiklund C (1983) Territorialdefence and its seasonal decline in thespeckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria).Animal Behaviour 31: 1206-1216

XArticle used in school.Dale: I am delighted to report to youand all readers that my past article“Caterpillars, Ants and PopolucaIndians: An Adventure in RemoteMexico” that appeared in NEWS(Spring 2010, Vol. 52, No. 1) reached awider audience than you and Ianticipated. Turns out that LauraLind, the daughter of John and RoyceLind, my host family in the 1960s whenmy initial research was done, nowteaches at a small, rural school (AshCreek Elementary School) in Sunizona(Cochise Co.), Arizona. The school has



about 40 students and is one of severalthat receives funds from SoutheasternArizona Arts in Academics—anorganization that is dedicated to“establishing a creative, innovative andintense learning model designed tobring quality research basedprofessional development in artsintegration to rural schools.” Theproject is funded through the U.S.Department of Education Office ofInnovation and Improvement,Professional Development for ArtsEducators Program. It has receivedfurther support through the DanaFoundation in collaboration withBorderlands Theater in Tucson, AZ(www.saaa.schoolinsites.com/).

As a new project for her 11 students ingrades 6-8, Laura decided to use the“Caterpillars…” article in NEWS as thebasis for her fall curriculum involving

the development of reading skills inEnglish and science, writing, art,social/cultural studies, and geography(the article will be used in a unit onphotography during the springsession). Each student received a copyof the article, which was then readseveral times and discussed at lengthover a period of weeks. The culminatingproject was a play, based on thecaterpillar-ant interactions as well asmy part in the discovery of therelationships. The play—written,prepared, and acted by the students—was performed in the school’sauditorium on the night of October 27,2010 to approximately 100 parents andfriends. A video was made of the playand Laura believes that she will beinvited to have the students perform theplay in spring 2011 during a regionalmeeting in Phoenix.

X

As a consummate lepidopterist andeducator as well as a lifelong memberof THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY,I am always gratified when someresearch or writing of mine inspiresothers—particularly youngsters whohave formative minds. Furthermore, Iam equally delighted that TLS has aperiodical such as NEWS thatencourages members to write in arather non-technical format about theirpersonal adventures in the world oflepidoptera. So, thanks, Dale, forpublishing the lengthy manuscript withits large number of photographs.

Gary Noel Ross6095 Stratford AvenueBaton Rouge, LA [email protected]

From the Editor’s DeskDale Clark

A Fond Farewell...How quickly five years flies by. Itdoesn’t seem possible that I’ve beenlucky enough to be the editor of theNews of the Lepidopterists’ Society forhalf a decade. I remember vividly howexcited I was getting this position, andwhile that new found enthusiasmeventually was tempered by the rigorsof the job, I’ve certainly never regrettedthe decision.

This is my last issue as editor. It’s beena great ride but it is time to move on toother projects and pass the torch off tosomeone else.

I’d like to thank everyone who hassubmitted their articles, photos,opinions and suggestions to me over theyears. The News comes about becauseof YOU, not because of the editor. Theeditor is just the “worker bee” that

pulls it all together. One of the reasonsthis Society has had such longevity isbecause everyone can have as active apart in it as they choose. That’s howan amateur lepidopterist like myselfwas allowed to get in here and take partin the workings of the Society: the dooris open for anyone. It’s been a greatpleasure and honor to be able to “rubelbows” with some of the people I’velooked up to in this field all my life. Noone has every made me feel anything butwelcome.

I won’t lie and say it’s always been fun.There have been times, running upagainst a deadline, that I’ve wanted topull out what remaining hair I have.And there have been fumbles on mypart: forgetting to run a photo; losinga file; insulting an entire culturebecause of a typo, to name a few. But Iwouldn’t trade the experience foranything.

James Adams will be taking up theduties starting with the next issue andI feel quite certain he’ll do a fantasticjob sitting in this chair. He has mygratitude for stepping up to the plate.So help make it easy on him and sendin those articles, photos and letters oremails.

Thanks for a great time!

Dale Clark


132 Winter 2010

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/VideosNew book on American butterflies: R.R.Askew &P.A. v.B. Stafford: Butterfliesof the Cayman Islands. Hardback,24x17cm., 172 pages incld. 6 color platesand 119 color photos. Maps and otherfigures. US $69.50. Also available:Larsen: Butterflies of West Africa.Hardback 28x21cm.865 pages in twovolumes. 125 color plates depicting1,400+specimens. US $276.00.Monastyrskii: Butterflies of Vietnam,softcover, 21x15cm., Vol. 1: Satyrinae.199 pages incl. 35 color plates, US$64.00. Many others available. Visitwebsite: www.apollobooks.com orcontact Peder Skou, Apollo Books,Kirkeby Sand 19, DK-5771 Stenstrup,Denmark, or ask for a copy of our 2010-11 catalogue. 523

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 newsubspecies. 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] 524

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 somespecimens 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 Northeastern

Mexico, 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



The Karl Jordan Medal is an award thatmay be given by the Society bienniallyat the Annual Meeting in recognitionof original published research ofexceptional quality on the morphology,taxonomy, systematics, zoogeographyand “natural history” of Lepidoptera.The criteria (J. Lep. Soc., 26:207-209)emphasize that the work may be basedon a single piece of research or on aseries of interrelated works and mustbe at least three but not more than 25years old. The former is to assure thatthe awarded work has been used bylepidopterological community and stood

Nominations for Karl Jordan Medal 2011Jacqueline Y. Miller,

McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History,

P. O. Box 112710, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710

the test of time. The Jordan Medal isnot intended to be a career award forservice rendered to the study ofLepidoptera inasmuch as theLepidopterists’ Society already has twosuch awards, the Honorary LifeMember and the William D. WinterService Award. In addition, thenominee does not have to be a memberof the Society. A list of the previous KarlJordan Medal Award honorees isavailable on the Society website.

Formal nominations for the KarlJordan Medal will be accepted from anymember of the Lepidopterists’ Society

and should be sent to Dr. JacquelineY. Miller, Chair, Jordan MedalCommittee, McGuire Center forLepidoptera and Biodiversity,University of Florida, P. O. Box112710, Gainesville, FL 32611-2710 orvia email ([email protected]).Please include a list of specificpublications for which the candidate isnominated, a support letter outliningthe significance of the work(s), and acopy of the curriculum vitae, ifpossible, no later than 1 March 2011.

Announcement

2011 Meeting of thePacific Slope Section of

the Lepidopterists’Society

The 2011 Pacific Slope Section meetingof the Lepidopterists’ Society will beheld in Prescott Valley, AZ, 80 miles NWof Phoenix from 22-24 July, 2011. Thisvenue is ideally located for quick accessto many good collecting or watchingsites representing diverse habitats inthe Prescott National Forest andelsewhere nearby.

Papers submitted on any aspect ofLepidoptera will be accepted by KellyRichers by June 10, 2011, who iscoordinating the presentations for thismeeting. Interested parties shouldcontact Kelly at [email protected] Call for Papers registration form willbe mailed out with the Pacific Slope infoand registration package.

The meetings will take place Saturdayand Sunday at the Comfort Suites inPrescott Valley, 2601 North CrownPoint Dr. and rooms are available thereat $75/night single King or $85/nightdouble Queen. There are other motels

in the area and three RV parks as wellas camping nearby.

There will be a Friday night receptionwith burgers, slideshows, and lightingfor moths at The University of Arizona,Yavapai County Cooperative Extensionoffices located at 840 Rodeo Dr.,Prescott, about 11 miles from PrescottValley. The Saturday night “Banquet”and Comstock Award presentation willbe held there as well. The dinner willbe a chuckwagon style BBQ to fit therich local history.

Interested members can contact:

Dave Wikle at [email protected][by phone: (714) 747-9609] or

Stephanie Shank at [email protected][by phone (928) 713-0037]

for additional information.

2012 Annual Meetingof the Lepidopterists’

Society

Announcement

X

The 2012 meeting of the Lepidopterists’Society will be held jointly with theSocietas Europaea Lepidopterologica(SEL) at the Denver Museum of Natureand Science in Denver, Colorado.Expanded meeting dates toaccommodate field trips and a longerprogram are July 23-29, 2012. Furtherdetails will be posted on the society website. For information about the areaand its fauna visit www.dmns.org,w w w . d e n v e r . o r g / t o u r i s m ,w w w . C o l o r a d o . c o m ,www.coloradofrontrangebutterflies.com,and www.butterfliesandmoths.org.

Frank Krell, DMNS – chair and localarrangements

Todd Gilligan, Program

Chuck Harp and Jan Chu, field trips

Mary Ann Hamilton – ButterflyPavilion liaison

SEL coordinator – to be named

Evi and Paul Opler, advisors

X


134 Winter 2010

The Biodiversity Crisis, Charitable Giving,and Estate Gifting

We would like to encourageLepidopterists’ Society members toconsider in their charitable giving andestate planning organizations such asthe Lepidopterists’ Society, The WedgeEntomological Research Foundation,the Smithsonian Institution, theCanadian National Collection,universities and natural historymuseums with systematic collections,and other like-minded entities. Theworld is in the midst of a biodiversitycrisis, with many regions (faunas)highly imperiled directly or indirectlyby human activities. According to arecent report by the United NationsFood and Agriculture Organization, anarea roughly the size of Costa Rica isdeforested each year: large portions ofHaiti, Madagascar, and BrazilianAtlantic palm forests have been cut,burned, and converted to agriculture orotherwise developed. Additionally,human-spread exotic plants andanimals threaten native biotasworldwide, and climate change isaccelerating our collective need foraction, and already is threateningcoastal strand, arctic, and sky-islandcommunities.

To maintain, manage, and protectbiodiversity it is imperative that weunderstand the basic taxonomy anddistributions of the components thatmake up that diversity. Systematistsplay quintessential roles in thepreservation of biodiversity by makingand curating collections, describingtaxa and providing the means torecognize them, and calling attention

David L. Wagner, Scott Miller, Larry Gall, and Kelly Richers

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 75 N. Eagleville Rd., Rm. 312, U-43, University of Connecticut,Storrs, Ct. 06268-1712 [email protected]

Office of Under Secretary for Science, Smithsonian institution, MRC 009, P. O. Box 37012,Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected]

Peabody Museum of Natural HistoryP.O. Box 208118, Yale UniversityNew Haven, CT [email protected]

9417 Carvalho Court, Bakersfield, CA 93311-1846 [email protected]

to unique and/or imperiled taxa (andcommunities). Given that moths andbutterflies represent one of the mostspeciose and ecologically successfullineages of macroscopic organisms onthe planet, there has never been a timeof greater need for systematists whocan describe new taxa, preparerevisions, write monographs andcatalogs, construct naturalclassifications, handle pest inquiries,provide identification services, andsupport efforts to conserve imperiledmembers of this beautiful andimportant group of animals.

Basic taxonomy and systematicsprovide the intellectual frameworkupon which many biological disciplinesand inquiries are grounded. The recentrenaissance in systematics and theopportunities made possible byinnovative molecular techniques andmodern taxonomic tools (including on-line taxonomic resources, newphylogenetic inference programs,automated alpha taxonomic software,digital imaging capabilities) have madeit increasingly possible to carry outtimely, state-of-the-art revisionarystudies.

Although there are institutions thathave thriving programs in organismaland systematic biology (with curatorialpositions in their budget lines,coursework in a sweep of “ologies,” andwell-supported collection facilities),there are many more universities andmuseums across the globe in whichsystematic biology and biological

collections are underfunded andunderstaffed. Dedicated endowmentsprovide the only surety that institutionshave to guarantee long-term financialresources and administrativecommitment for the study ofsystematics. Gifts to support studies ofLepidoptera that are tied to positionsfor curators, collection managers,student fellowships, and collectionsoperations are urgently needed—onesuch opportunity that we are endorsingis the creation of an endowment topursue studies of the Geometroidea tofill the void left by several recentretirements and the untimely passingof Douglas Ferguson—see text box onopposite page.

Donations made to the Lepidopterists’Society and like-minded societies andinstitutions are tax-deductible. And,while charitable gifts are neededimmediately to fund biodiversitystudies, we also realize that financialuncertainties across the globe oftenmake it impossible for members to makethe large gifts necessary at this time toensure resources in perpetuity. Estategifting, while not a near-term solution,may be the most viable and universalmeans for all to contribute monetarilyto the science of lepidopterology and thepreservation of the animals that havecome to be the focus of our attentions.Please do find a way to includecharitable gifting in your long-term(estate) planning. To make donationsto the Lepidopterists’ Society contactKelly Richers (661-665-1993 [email protected]).



One of the most important and diverselineages of macroscopic organisms on theplanet is the geometrid moths(inchworms, loopers, and spanworms).More than 12,000 geometrid species havebeen given names, and thousands newto science remain to be described. TheWedge Entomological ResearchFoundation is seeking funds to build anendowment that would support asystematist to carry out revisionarywork on geometrids at the SmithsonianInstitution or a comparable center oftaxonomic excellence.

The Geometridae are the second largestfamily of Lepidoptera (butterflies andmoths) in North America with more than1,400 described species. Although thereare many exceptions, most geometridsfeed on woody perennials, and hence thefamily is well represented in woodlandand forest habitats, and several aresignificant forest pests. Because of theirsheer diversity and abundance,geometrids are integral to properfunctioning of wooded landscapes. Theirlarvae make up a high proportion of thediets of warblers, vireos, and relatedsongbirds. In a recent treatment of insectdefoliators in North American forests,the Geometridae accounted for threetimes as many pest species as any otherlepidopteran family. In addition to theireconomic importance, defoliation eventsare a threat to human safety byincreasing fire risks. A spate of recentpapers has demonstrated the family’sutility in bioassessment studies,especially in tropical ecosystems wheregeometrids exhibit extraordinary speciesdiversity.

Arid areas of the Southwest and Mexicoare home to a diverse and largelyunstudied geometrid fauna. TheNeotropics are extraordinarily rich ingeometrids, both in low-lying rainforests(e.g., sterrhines) and in mountainousregions (e.g., laurentiines). The genusEupithecia alone (arguably the largestmacrolepidopteran genus on the planetwith an estimated 2,000 describedspecies) presents a bewildering andvirtually unstudied array of species in the

Endowed Position in Lepidopteran SystematicsCentral American and Andeancordilleras.

As recently as 15 years ago there werefour active senior geometrid workers inNorth America: William McGuffin(Canadian National Collection),Frederick Rindge (American Museum ofNatural History), Douglas Ferguson(USDA/Smithsonian Institution), andCharles Covell (University ofLouisville). With Ferguson’s untimelypassing and recent retirements, there arenow none, and need could scarcely begreater.

Please consider contributing to a WERFendowment, either through charitable

gifts or your estate planning. For moreinformation, please contact Ronald W.Hodges (541-684-0484 [email protected]).

Although the initial focus of theFoundation will be to raise funds for ageometrid worker, to fill the void left byFerguson’s passing and the retirementsof many of his contemporaries, theposition will not to be tied to any singlegroup of Lepidoptera. Of greaterimportance will be the nature ofresearch: WERF is committed tosupporting research in systematicbiology that will lead to the completionof MONA fascicles and other scholarlymonographic products.


136 Winter 2010

Wedge Entomological ResearchFoundation

Ronald W. Hodges,1 David L. Wagner,2 and Oliver Dominick3

85253 Ridgetop Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405-9535 [email protected]

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 75 N. Eagleville Rd., Rm. 312, U-43, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Ct. 06268-1712 [email protected]

P. O. Box 219, Phippsburg, ME 04562 [email protected]

The Wedge Entomological ResearchFoundation (WERF) is a non-profitorganization dedicated to producingtaxonomic monographs on the mothfauna of the Nearctic Region. TheFoundation’s principle focus is topublish biosystematic treatments onthe estimated sixteen thousand plusspecies of moths found in NorthAmerica in a series of monographs -“The Moths of North America”(MONA). Each MONA fascicle treatsa subset of the Nearctic fauna, i.e.,entire families, subfamilies, tribes, orlarge genera. Volumes containidentification keys, diagnosticdescriptions, information on theimmature stages and their hosts,geographic and temporal data,illustrations of diagnostic characters,colored illustrations of the adults, anda revised synonymic list of includedtaxa. Occasionally, other taxonomictreatments are published by theFoundation, e.g., Jim Tuttle’s “TheHawk Moths of North America: ANatural History Study of theSphingidae of the United States andCanada.”

A brief history of the WERF and theWedge Plantation in South Carolinadescribing the early days of theFoundation appears as front matter ofits first fascicle, that on the Sphingidae

published in 1971 (a digital version canbe accessed on the Foundation website:http://www.wedgefoundation.org/). Inaddition to Richard and TatianaDominick, proprietors of the Wedge andquintessential catalysts for early WERFefforts, key early figures in theFoundation’s development includedEric Classey, Charles Edwards, DouglasC. Ferguson, John G. Franclemont,Basil Harley, Ronald W. Hodges, andEugene G. Munroe.

The WERF website has a complete listof publications, scans of representativeplates, and an order form. Free accessto distributional and other label data isalso being made available on-line, uponpublication of a given fascicle. A briefsynopsis for all recently completedvolumes, with information on thetaxonomic coverage, is provided in the“News” link. (Our thanks to ToddGilligan for designing and maintainingthe website.)

WERF is in the process of digitizing itspreviously published fascicles. A near-term goal will be to make available viathe web low-resolution, fully searchablepdfs of older volumes. As in the past,high-quality print copies will beavailable for purchase. The next fasciclescheduled for publication is Powell andBrown’s revision of the Sparganothini(Tortricidae). Jim Miller is heading

efforts to complete John Franclemont’sunfinished fascicle on theNotodontidae.

WERF’s grants-in-aid program providesup to $5,000/yr to help authors completesystematic work leading directly to thecompletion of MONA fascicles.Activities eligible for funding includemuseum travel, databasing, illustra-tion, equipment, and author stipends.

Current Board Members (and officers)include Ronald W. Hodges (Presidentand Managing Director), J. DonaldLafontaine (Vice-President), Paul A.Opler (Treasurer), Kelly M. Richers(Assistant Managing Director andAssistant Treasurer), Eric W. Metzler,(Secretary), Oliver S. Dominick(Assistant Secretary), John W. Brown,Lawrence F. Gall, Jacqueline Y. Miller,and David L. Wagner.

The Wedge Entomological ResearchFoundation is working to identifypersons, estates, or foundations thatwill help endow a position inLepidoptera biosystematics at theUnited States National Museum(Smithsonian Institution)—see articleon p. 130 on charitable giving and thetext box detailing a current effort to funda geometrid worker to help fill the voidresulting from Douglas Ferguson’suntimely passing.



4

6

1

2

4

Clockwise from upper left: Wedge Plantation, front porch. Dick and Tania Dominick taking images for Sphingidae fascicle (1969). EugeneMunroe about to depart Wedge for Ottawa (circa 1970). Jack Franclemont at work on his Mimallonoidea and Bombycoidea fascicle. Ron Hodgespinning series of recently collected micros. Doug Ferguson at rear of Wedge. Dick Dominick at work in the lab. All images from 1971 unlessotherwise noted.


138 Winter 2010

9

12

13

13

14

4

University of Florida, and Research Associate, McGuireCenter for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, on 17 May 2010,at the age of 79. Dale was a member of the Society from 1970to 1997, served as a Member-at-Large, 1990-91, and was amember of the organizing committee for the 1980 meetingin Gainesville, Florida. He received his B.S. (1953) and M.S(1954) from the University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. (1959)from North Carolina State University. His research involvedthe biology, taxonomy and identification of immature insects,especially Lepidoptera, and the use of insects in biologicalcontrol of aquatic and terrestrial weeds. He taught variousclasses and developed a graduate level course in immatureinsects at the University of Hawaii from 1959-1963, and atthe University of Florida from 1963 to 1996. Along withbuilding an extensive reference collection of preserved larvae,he maintained an active rearing program of the Lepidopteraof Florida and the Southeastern United States. He waspassionate about all caterpillars, but especially the aquaticCrambidae (Acentropinae) as well as Arctiinae. Hiscollection of reared adults and preserved larvae and pupaeis housed at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera andBiodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, Universityof Florida. Dr. Habeck’s research in biological controlallowed him to travel and study larvae in more than 40countries, including a four-month stay in Queensland,Australia, where he worked on aquatic larvae associatedwith Hydrilla. He is the author of more than 138 scientificpublications and was a chair or member of more than 90graduate student committees. He is best remembered bystudents and colleagues for his helpfulness and easy-going,friendly manner. [submitted by Deborah L. Matthews andJacqueline Y. Miller]

Johnson, John Warren of Santa Barbara, California, on26 August 2010, at the age of 96. John was an educator andnaturalist who influenced and inspired thousands of studentsin his long career. In 1938 he earned his B.S. degree inEntomology at the University of California, Berkeley, thenworked in an experimental forest near Mt. Lassen for theForest Insect Investigation Unit of the Bureau ofEntomology and Plant Quarantine of the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture. After earning his teaching credentials, in1942 he became a science teacher at Newport Harbor UnionHigh School in Newport Beach, California. In 1947 he wasgiven the Governor’s Conservation Award for hisoutstanding conservation and biology program. During a

Continued from p. 117

sabbatical in 1961-62 he conducted an ecological study ofthe dune flora of the north spit of Humboldt Bay for his M.A.degree at Humboldt State College in 1963—his study areais now protected as part of the Humboldt Bay NationalWildlife Refuge. John became the first Science DepartmentChairman when Corona del Mar High School opened in 1962,where he taught until his retirement in 1974. He was theOrange County Teacher of the Year in 1968; he was therecipient of the National Audubon Society ConservationAward in 1969; and in 1970 was chosen Newport-MesaDistrict Teacher of the Year. After his retirement he published11 papers on Lepidoptera. He was a member of the Societyfrom 1976 through 1994, with a lapse from 1983 to 1992. In1993 the Pacific Slope Section of The Lepidopterists’ Societypresented him with the John Adams Comstock Award inrecognition of his contributions to the study of Lepidopteraand their hostplant relationships. Catocala johnsonianaBrower, 1976, is named in his honor. [extracted from a moreextensive obituary published on 4 September 2010 in theSanta Barbara News-Press; www.newspress.com]

Wilson, Kent H. of Edmond, Oklahoma, on 2 October2010, at the age of 82. He was a Charter Life Member of theSociety, having first joined in 1947, and later became a LifeMember. Kent Wilson received his B. S. and M. S. in biologyat the University of Idaho and also did additional graduatework at the University of Kansas. At Kansas, Kent metRobert Sokal and worked as his assistant in biometry andnumerical taxonomy which was one of his major scientificendeavors. Kent was part of the group that started the SantaFe Prep School (Santa Fe, NM) where he taught biology andmath. He also taught at the University of CentralOklahoma, Rose State College, and finished his career as ascience teacher at Memorial High School in Edmond in1994. Although he initially collected all butterflies as a child,Kent had a special passion for the swallowtail butterfliesworldwide. Along with Hamilton Tyler and Keith S. Brown,Jr., he published Swallowtail Butterflies of the Americas: AStudy in the Biological Dynamics, Ecological Diversity,Biosystematics, and Conservation (1994). Kent Wilsondonated his collection to the McGuire Center for Lepidopteraand Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History,University of Florida in August, 2009. He is survived byhis wife, Gene, and three children (Beth Siegel, Kirk Wilson,and Gretchen Bretz), and seven grandchildren. [submittedby Jacqueline Y. Miller, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera andBiodiversity]

Metamorphosis...Julian Donahue



Callophrys augustinus in Florida 7

Mark H. Salvato and Holly L. Salvato

1765 17th Avenue SW, Vero Beach, Florida, 32962, USA, [email protected]

Notes on the status of Anaea troglodytafloridalis on Big Pine Key

The Florida leafwing, Anaea troglodytafloridalis F. Johnson and Comstock(front cover, p.105) historicallyoccurred throughout the pine rocklandsof southern Florida and the lowerFlorida Keys (Minno and Emmel 1993,Smith et al. 1994), where it is endemic.However, during the last half centurythe species range has becomeincreasingly localized. For over adecade we have been monitoring theannual and seasonal abundance of A.t. floridalis on Big Pine Key, in thelower Florida Keys (Figs. 2 and 3, p.136).

Our similar studies of A. t. floridaliswithin Everglades National Parkindicates that the species, althoughvariable from year-to-year, is well-distributed throughout the Long PineKey region of the Park (Salvato andSalvato 2010). However, on Big PineKey, the species has shown a precipitousdecline during the past decade. AsFigure 2 illustrates, A. t. floridalisnumbers began to trend sharplydownward after 2001 with our lastobservations of both larvae and adultsoccurring in 2006. In recent years, wehave continued to survey several sitesacross Big Pine Key for signs of A. t.floridalis activity without success. Inresponse to this decline, A. t. floridaliswas declared a candidate for Federalprotection by the United States Fishand Wildlife Service during 2006.

Extensive loss of pine rocklands withinthe lower keys, particularly thosecontaining Croton linearis Jacq., thespecies only known hostplant, has beencited as the primary cause in the declineof A. t. floridalis throughout its range(Hennessey and Habeck 1991, Schwarzet al 1996, Salvato 2001, Salvato andHennessey 2003). In addition, pine

rockland habitat remaining on BigPine and elsewhere in the lower keyshas been inconsistently fire-managedover several decades. Natural firesare an important mechanism inmaintaining pine rocklands andslowing their succession intohardwood hammock. An absence ofnatural fires or regular use ofprescribed burns has greatly reducedmuch of the native vegetation withinthe pine rocklands of Big Pine,including C. linearis.

Beyond habitat loss and firesuppression, a number of factors,including hurricanes, exotic ants andpesticides, among others, may havealso contributed to the demise of A. t.floridalis on Big Pine Key.

During late October 2005 HurricaneWilma caused substantial damages tothe pine rocklands of northwestern BigPine Key. In historical instances whenA. t. floridalis population numberswere larger on Big Pine, such asfollowing Hurricane Georges (1998),the species appeared able to recoversoon after a storm (MHS unpublisheddata). In the Everglades, where A. t.floridalis persists, the species waslittle affected by the 2005 hurricaneseason (Salvato and Salvato 2010).However, on Big Pine, given thesubstantial decline of A. t. floridalisprior to Wilma, it is possible that theimpact of this storm served to furtherhinder and reduce extant populationsof the species on the island.

Forys et al. (2001) found highmortality among immature Papiliocresphontes Cramer from redimported fire ant, Solenopsis invictaBuren predation in experimental trailsand suggested other butterflies insouthern Florida might also be

influenced. Similarly, Cannon (2006)reported high mortality of P.cresphontes and P. a. andraemonHübner eggs from an exotic species oftwig ant on Big Pine Key. Historically,Matteson (1930) recorded ants as apredator of A. t. floridalis eggs inMiami. Hennessey and Habeck (1991)documented an A. t. floridalis pupabeing consumed by ants on Big PineKey. Through our monitoring of A. t.floridalis we have documented highlevels of egg and larval mortality froma variety of parasites (biting midges,trichogrammid wasps, tachinid flies)and predators (ants, mites, spiders,ambush bugs). Although fire ants occurwithin our Big Pine study sites and wesuspected their predation on immaturestages of A. t. floridalis, we did notobserve them in association with thebutterfly when it still occurred on theisland. Further studies of extantbutterfly species in the lower keys mayhelp determine what role exotic ants orother predators might have played inthe ecology of A. t. floridalis on Big PineKey.

Several authors have suggested thedecline of imperiled Lepidoptera withinthe Florida Keys is partially the resultof chemical pesticides used formosquito control. For many years theWatson’s Hammock region of Big Pine,an area of the island where pesticideusage is prohibited, maintained asubstantial A. t. floridalis population.Hennessey and Habeck (1991) andSalvato (2001) theorized that therestriction of chemical pesticides inWatson’s Hammock might explain thegreater numbers of A. t. floridaliswithin this part of the island, asopposed to areas directly treated whichoften had reduced densities of the


140 Winter 2010

species. Watson’s Hammock remaineda stronghold for A. t. floridalis forseveral years of our survey, but as thespecies decline accelerated on theisland, even the population here beganto wane.

We will continue to monitor Big PineKey in the hopes of encountering extantA. t. floridalis activity. In addition, anumber of studies are currentlyunderway to examine several of thefactors discussed above and theirpotential influence on the status andecology of imperiled Lepidoptera in thelower keys.

Literature CitedCannon, P. 2006. Bahamian swallowtails in

the United States: the first reports of theCuban subspecies. American Butterflies. 14(3-4): 4-15.

Forys, E. A., A. Quistorff and C. R. Allen. 2001.Potential fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)impact on the endangered Schausswallowtail (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae).Florida Entomologist. 84: 254-258.

Hennessey, M. K. and D. H. Habeck. 1991.Effects of mosquito adulticides onpopulations of non-target terrestrialarthropods in the Florida Keys. U. S. Fishand Wildlife Service and the Univ. of FloridaCooperative Wildlife Research Unit(Unpublished Final Report). Gainesville,Florida. 76 pp.

Matteson, J. H. 1930. Anaea portia - the leaf-wing and a list of the Rhopalocera of Miami,Florida. American Nature Association,Nature Magazine. 16 pp.

Minno, M. C. and T. C. Emmel. 1993.Butterflies of the Florida Keys. ScientificPublishers, Gainesville, Florida. 168 pp.

Salvato, M. H. 2001. Influence of mosquitocontrol chemicals on butterflies(Nymphalidae, Lycaenidae, Hesperiidae) ofthe lower Florida Keys. Journal of theLepidopterists’ Society. 55: 8-14.

Salvato, M.H. and M.K. Hennessey. 2003.Notes on the historic range and naturalhistory of Anaea troglodyta floridalis.Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 57: 243-249.

Salvato, M.H. and H. L. Salvato. 2010. Noteson the status and ecology of Anaeatroglodyta floridalis in Everglades NationalPark. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society64: 91-97.

Schwarz, K.A., R.A. Worth and T.C. Emmel.1996. Conservation of two threatened southFlorida butterflies and their host plant(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae, Nymphalidae).Holarctic Lepidoptera 3:59-61.

Smith, D. S., L. D. Miller and J. Y. Miller. 1994.The Butterflies of the West Indies and SouthFlorida. Oxford University Press, New York.264 pp. 32 pl.

Fig. 2. Adult and larval A. t. floridalis abundance on Big Pine Key (MonroeCounty, Florida) during 1999 to 2010, based on monthly (1999-2006) andquarterly (2007-2010) surveys of 0.2 hectare transects (n = 6).

Fig. 3. The cumulative number of adult A. t. floridalis observed monthly from1999 to 2006.



Mike A Rickard

411 Virgo St., Mission, Texas 78572 [email protected]

2

Kisutam syllis (Godman & Salvin, 1887)(Lycaenidae: Theclini) New to Texas and

the United States

1) Dorsal view of Kisutam syllis; 2)Ventral view; 3) same specimen feedingon lantana bloom in Mission (HidalgoCo.), Texas on December 31, 2008.Specimen photos: Charles Bordelon.Live photo: Mike Rickard.

On December 12, 2008, as a TexasParks & Wildlife Volunteer Naturalist,I assisted a butterfly walk at EsteroLlano Grande SP in Hidalgo County,Texas. Afterward, while crossing theparking lot to my car, I saw whatappeared to be Electrostrymon hugon(Godart, 1824) on some cultivatedflowers. Suddenly it flew to anotherblossom and I saw blue above! As Imaneuvered to get a photograph(collecting is forbidden in the butterflygardens of Texas state parks, even bypermit), there was a strong gust of windand it was gone. However, there wasto be a sequel to this story, with a moresatisfying ending.

What I had apparently seen was ahairstreak strongly resembling E.hugon ventrally, but with blue aboverather than orange-red; and thusdorsally resembling the very commonCalycopis isobeon (Butler & Druce,1872). I thought I must have imaginedthis, but research in print and on-lineresources led me to a likely candidate –Kisutam (=Ziegleria) syllis.

December 31 was to provide a dramaticending to the year, as my wife and Iphotographed butterflies on someLantana blossoms near Bentsen-RioGrande Valley SP, some 30 miles westof Estero Llano Grande SP. Again anapparent E. hugon was spotted, itselfan uncommon species. Again, thebutterfly moved to another flower, andagain – blue above! While I madeunintelligible noises of excitement, webegan taking photos. A cold front wasmoving through, bringing strong northwinds, overcast skies, and renderingphotography difficult (as reflected inour pictures), so the decision was made

to voucher the specimen. It is now inthe collection of the Texas LepidopteraSurvey.

The original description gave thedistribution of K. syllis as Mexico andCentral America. Mexican recordsseem limited to the states of Vera Cruz,San Luis Potosi, and southward. I’munaware of records from neighboringTamaulipas, but surely it occurs there.The dorsal blue, easily visible in flight,combined with the general ventralsimilarity, make it easy to confuse K.syllis with the regularly encountered C.isobeon. Thus it’s quite possible thatK. syllis has a more frequent existencewithin U. S. borders than is so farknown.

The discovery of this species waserroneously credited in anotherpublication.

Acknowledgements:I’d like to thank Charles Bordelon, NickGrishin, and Andy Warren forconfirming the identity of the specimen.I’d especially like to thank the TexasLepidoptera Survey - Ed Knudson andCharles Bordelon – for mounting andphotographing the specimen, and fortheir continued support.

1

2

X3


142 Winter 2010

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 1 Spring Feb. 15, 2011 2 Summer May 15, 2011 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


144 Winter 2010

Andrei Sourakov and Dan Lindsley enjoying beverages andconversation.

Steven Kohler, Paul Opler, Kelly Thomas, and Richard Brown.

Sangmi Lee, Silvia Richter and Jean-Francois Landry at the banquet. Ray and Kitt Stanford at the banquet.

Nathan Johnson, a “young one” retrieving a capture from a field trip. Megan and Dave McCarty

More Annual Meeting 2010 Photos...

All Photos by Ranger Steve Mueller.

inside - yale universityimages.peabody.yale.edu/lepsoc/nls/2010s/2010/2010_v52_n4.pdf · hardy...

Documents