<%BANNER%>

The Genus Speyeria and Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis Complex

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021607/00001

Material Information

Title: The Genus Speyeria and Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis Complex Species and Subspecies Accounts, Systematics, and Biogeography (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (245 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dunford, James C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: argynnini, argynnis, atlantis, biogeography, cladistics, fritillaries, heliconiinae, hesperis, nymphalidae, phylogenetics, speyeria, systematics
Entomology and Nematology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Entomology and Nematology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini) are medium to large butterflies that represent conspicuous members of North American Lepidoptera. Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species, and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies. Long included in the Old World genus Argynnis, they differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic structure and were considered generically distinct from Argynnis in 1945. Varying degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and occasional contact of disjunct populations likely provide developmental processes that produce gradients, thresholds, and wing pattern changes in Speyeria. The Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis species complexes are represented by several widely distributed, geographically variable subspecies. These subspecific taxa have distributions that range from the eastern United States and Canada, west to California, as far north as Alaska, and south to Arizona and New Mexico. Each subspecies occurs more or less sympatrically, either by latitude or elevation, with other members of the group, thus providing useful models for evolutionary studies. Detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25 Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies are compiled. Each diagnosis includes a synonymy, type specimen data and image, taxonomic information and morphological descriptions, distributions, and life history information. Distributional data is gleaned from museum and private collection locality records and databased in order to understand the degree of sympatry of Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis forms. Several errors in the nomenclature, type specimen data, and morphological descriptions for Speyeria are also identified. Phylogenetic analyses are also conducted on the 16 currently recognized species of Speyeria. Investigation of useful external and internal morphological characters was made, including a survey of the genitalia of Speyeria with emphasis on the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis complex. Phylogenetic analyses are based on combined morphological, life history, and genetic data. The genus apparently represents a relatively recent radiation of species, with the only clear divergence being those members of the Semnopsyche clade. Based on combined morphological and molecular analyses, Speyeria represent a monophyletic grouping. This work provides relevant insight into the inter- and intraspecific relationships and evolutionary history of Speyeria, and provides information pertinent to conservation strategies and priorities for this taxon.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James C Dunford.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Miller, Lee D.
Local: Co-adviser: Miller, Jacqueline Y.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021607:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021607/00001

Material Information

Title: The Genus Speyeria and Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis Complex Species and Subspecies Accounts, Systematics, and Biogeography (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Physical Description: 1 online resource (245 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Dunford, James C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: argynnini, argynnis, atlantis, biogeography, cladistics, fritillaries, heliconiinae, hesperis, nymphalidae, phylogenetics, speyeria, systematics
Entomology and Nematology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Entomology and Nematology thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini) are medium to large butterflies that represent conspicuous members of North American Lepidoptera. Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species, and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies. Long included in the Old World genus Argynnis, they differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic structure and were considered generically distinct from Argynnis in 1945. Varying degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and occasional contact of disjunct populations likely provide developmental processes that produce gradients, thresholds, and wing pattern changes in Speyeria. The Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis species complexes are represented by several widely distributed, geographically variable subspecies. These subspecific taxa have distributions that range from the eastern United States and Canada, west to California, as far north as Alaska, and south to Arizona and New Mexico. Each subspecies occurs more or less sympatrically, either by latitude or elevation, with other members of the group, thus providing useful models for evolutionary studies. Detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25 Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies are compiled. Each diagnosis includes a synonymy, type specimen data and image, taxonomic information and morphological descriptions, distributions, and life history information. Distributional data is gleaned from museum and private collection locality records and databased in order to understand the degree of sympatry of Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis forms. Several errors in the nomenclature, type specimen data, and morphological descriptions for Speyeria are also identified. Phylogenetic analyses are also conducted on the 16 currently recognized species of Speyeria. Investigation of useful external and internal morphological characters was made, including a survey of the genitalia of Speyeria with emphasis on the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis complex. Phylogenetic analyses are based on combined morphological, life history, and genetic data. The genus apparently represents a relatively recent radiation of species, with the only clear divergence being those members of the Semnopsyche clade. Based on combined morphological and molecular analyses, Speyeria represent a monophyletic grouping. This work provides relevant insight into the inter- and intraspecific relationships and evolutionary history of Speyeria, and provides information pertinent to conservation strategies and priorities for this taxon.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by James C Dunford.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Miller, Lee D.
Local: Co-adviser: Miller, Jacqueline Y.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021607:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





THE GENUS SPEYERIA AND THE Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis COMPLEX: SPECIES
AND SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS, SYSTEMATICS, AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
(LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE)




















By

JAMES CHRISTOPHER DUNFORD


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2007

































2007 James Christopher Dunford





























To my family, James F. Dunford, Karen and Lee Schwind, and Kim Dunford, as well as my
extended family, Robert Sr., Mary Jane, Robert Jr., Michael, Scott, Jeff and Mark Zukowski, and
George and Rena Dunford, and Carole Parshall; and finally my life long friends, Mitch Adams,
Scott Brady, Stuart Iselin, John Kropp, Walter Schultz, and Greg Smith, who stood by my side as
I pursued my entomological studies. Without their support (and patience), this would not have
been possible. Good scientists surround themselves with great ones, and without the help of the
superb biologists that I have had the great pleasure to work with along the way, I would not have
attained some of my goals in life.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my co-chairs Lee D. Miller and Jacqueline Y. Miller (Florida

Museum of Natural History, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity [MGCL]. Their

guidance, advice, patience and most of all friendship have made this research possible. I would

also like to thank my remaining committee members Thomas C. Emmel (MGCL), Paul Z.

Goldstein (MGCL), John B. Heppner (Florida State Collection of Arthropods [FSCA]), James E.

Maruniak (University of Florida, Entomology and Nematology Department [UF-Ent. & Nem.

Dept.]), Carla M. Penz (University of New Orleans, Biology Department), and Jon Reiskind

(University of Florida, Zoology Department), for providing their time, expertise, and support in

the form of recommendation letters and encouragement. Most of this research would not have

been possible without them. I truly admire the great amount of knowledge my collective

committee has provided to the scientific community, and I hope to someday be as established

and prominent as they are.

A very special thanks goes to the institutions, professional societies, and government

agencies who provided financial support for this research; they are: American Museum of

Natural History [AMNH] (Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Grant), Florida Entomological Society

(mini-grants and scholarships), Florida Museum of Natural History and Paul Goldstein (research

assistantship), United States Navy (Health Services Collegiate Scholarship Program), UF-Ent. &

Nem. Dept. (teaching assistantship), and University of Florida Jack L. Fry Award (teaching

scholarship).

Numerous individuals from around the country and the world provided specimens, images,

specimen locality data, supervision in collections under their care, access to literature in libraries,

and their expertise on topics covered in this project. I am extremely grateful for the time they

spent helping this dissertation come to fruition and I sincerely hope I do not forget to









acknowledge anyone who contributed: Thomas Allen (West Virginia), George Austin (Nevada

State Museum [NSM], MGCL), George Baumgartner (NSM), Barbara Beck (University of

Alberta), Jim Beck (Alberta), James Boone (Field Museum of Natural History), Su Borkin

(Milwaukee Public Museum [MPM]), Brett Boyd (MGCL), Bruce Boyd (Nevada), Craig

Brabant (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Entomology [UWM-Dept. Ent.]),

Colin Brammer (Utah State University Insect Collection [EMUS]), Brian Brown (Natural

History Museum of Los Angeles County [LACM]), Jon Bremmer (MGCL ), Kim Goodger

Buckmaster (British Museum of Natural History [BMNH; now NHM]), Shawn Clark (Monte L.

Bean Museum of Life Science-Brigham Young University), Robert Ekin (Idaho), Clifford Ferris

(Wyoming), Mike Fisher (Colorado), Daniel Glaeske (Saskatchewan), Traci Grzymala (MGCL

volunteer), Crispin Guppy (British Columbia), Wilford Hanson (EMUS), Richard Holland (New

Mexico), Martin Honey (BMNH; now NHM), William Houtz (Pennsylvania), Seungjin Jang

(MGCL volunteer), Joan Jass (MPM), Ted Kirkpatrick (West Virginia), Scott Klette (NSM),

Norbert Kondla (British Columbia), Hugo Kons, Jr. (American Entomological Institute), James

Kruse (University of Alaska-Museum of the North), Robert Lasley (MGCL), Ross Layberry

(Ontario), Deborah Matthews Lott (MGCL Research Associate), Heather Manley (MGCL), Gary

Marrone (South Dakota), Daniel Marschalek (UWM-Dept. Ent.), Sterling Mattoon (California),

Don Miller (Vermont), Paul Opler (C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity, Colorado

State University), Kenelm Philip (Alaska), Ted Pike (Alberta), Beverly Pope (Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Department of Plant Industry Library

[FDACS, DPI Library]), Eric Quinter (AMNH), John Rawlins (Carnegie Museum of Natural

History), Jim Reynolds (BMNH; now NHM), Robert Robbins (National Museum of Natural

History), Don Rolfs (Washington), Richard Romeyn (Wisconsin), Gary Ross (Louisiana),









Ronald Royer (Minot State University), Alice Sanders (FDACS, DPI Library), Dennis Schlicht

(Iowa), James Scott (Colorado), Scott Shaw (University of Wyoming Insect Museum), Jon

Shepard (Washington), Thomas Simonsen (University of Copenhagen, University of Alberta),

Steven Sims (Missouri), Charlie Slater (Colorado), Steve Spomer (University of Nebraska,

Department of Entomology), Ray Stanford (Colorado), David Wagner (University of

Connecticut), Andrew Warren (Oregon State University, Department of Entomology and

FLMNH), Andrew Williams (UWM-Dept. Ent.), Barry Williams (University of Illinois,

Department of Animal Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison Howard Hughes Medical

Institute), and Weiping Xie (LACM). I would also like to thank Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner,

Evgeny Zakharov (Canadian Barcode of Life Network, University of Guelph), and Kevin Nixon

(Diversity of Life, Cornell University) for providing workspace on their web sites and assistance

with molecular analyses and distributional databasing respectively; their web sites are invaluable

tools for modem taxonomic and systematic research and dissemination of these kinds of data.

I am forever indebted to several people who not only provided specimens, images, and

distributional information, but also took the time to entertain and guide me to collecting sites in

various regions of the western U.S. Paul Opler and Evi Buckner-Opler allowed me to stay in

their home while collecting in Colorado. Paul kindly invited me on the 2003 Gilpin Co. Butterfly

Count and took me to several collecting sites in the Speyeria-rich Rocky Mountains. Don Rolfs

took care of me at his home in Washington and showed me a thing or two about hiking in the

Cascades, which were at much higher elevation than my home in Florida. Bob Ekin taught me

how to catch fritillaries throughout the western U.S. with a net in one hand and a beverage in the

other, and Bob Martin took me deep into the Scapegoat Wilderness in Montana and instructed









me on how to deal with grizzly bears. Cliff Ferris graciously allowed me to visit his home in

Laramie, Wyoming to examine his extensive Speyeria collection.

Several faculty, students, and staff in the UF-Ent. & Nem. Dept and FLMNH, McGuire

Center were invaluable informational resources and were always willing to help with my various

teaching and research endeavors, projects and administrative issues over the years. First and

foremost, I would like to thank George Austin at the MGCL. He was not only a source for

important references, but he was also an inspiration to me professionally and personally. I also

thank the following individuals for making research at UF a rewarding and fulfilling experience:

Kathryn Barbara, Marc Branham, Eileen Buss, Lyle Buss, Jerry Butler, Seth Bybee, John

Capinera, Paul Choate, Pete Coon, James Cuda, Jaret Daniels, Aissa Doumbouya, Christine

Eliazar, Thomas Fasulo, John Foltz, Howard Frank, Judy Gillmore, Debbie Hall, Donald Hall,

Sharon Hoopaugh, Nick Hostettler, Pam Howell, Philip Kaufman, Steve Lasley, John

Leavengood, Norman Leppla, James Lloyd, Ale Maruniak, Raquel McTiernan, Jane Medley,

Jason Meyers, Jennifer Meyers, Eugenio Nearns, J. Akers Pence, Leslie Rios, Emily Saarinen,

Nancy Sanders, Mike Sanford, Kelly Sims, Grover Smart, Andrei Sourakov, Ricardo Vazquez,

and Jennifer Zaspel.

Finally, I thank close family and friends: Kim Dunford, James F. Dunford, Karen and Lee

Schwind, Bob, Jeff, Mark, Midge and Scott Zukowski, Mitch Adams, Scott Brady, Stuart Iselin,

Brett Favre, John Kropp, and Greg Smith. A little insanity can go along way, especially when

your interest in an odd topic such as entomology becomes a career. Thanks for rooting for me,

and most of all, treating me like a normal human being.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TABLES ............. ................................. ........ ............ ................ 11

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. 12

ABSTRACT ......... ... ................ .. ............................... .............. 17

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW: RESEARCH BACKGROUND,
JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, AND HYPOTHESES ......................................... 19

Speyeria Butterflies: Introduction and Literature Review..........................................19
Overview and Taxonom ic H history ............................................................................ 19
L ife H isto ry ......................................................................2 7
Research Background and Justification...................... ...... ............................ 36
Taxonom y and System atics .............................................................................36
C o n se rv atio n .............................................................................................................. 4 2
Subspecies and Species C riteria ......................................................................... ... ... 44
O objectives and H ypotheses.......................................................................... .... ........... 49
O bj ectives .............. ............................. .................9
Central and Peripheral H ypotheses ........................................ ........................... 50

2 SPEYERIA DIAGNOSIS AND KEY TO SPECIES, SPECIES ACCOUNTS, AND
SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS SUBSPECIES ACCOUNT S..............51

M materials and M methods ..................................... ... .. .......... ....... ...... 52
Sp ey eria D iag n o sis ........................................................................................................... 5 5
K ey to the Species of Speyeria ............. .................................. ...................................... 59
Species A accounts .............. ... .. ......... ............... ................................61
Speyeria idalia ...................................................................................... .......... ................61
Speyeria diana .... ..... ...................... ................................. 63
Speyeria cybele ................................. ................................. ........ 65
Speyeria aphrodite ........... .. ................. .......... 66
Speyeria nokomis ........................................................ .......... .. ............ 67
Speyeria edwardsii ................................... ..... .. ...... ............... 69
Sp eyeria coronis ................................................................................................... ....... 70
Sp ey eria zeren e ............................ ................................................ .............................. 7 1
Sp ey eria carolae ................. ................. ....................................... ............................... 73
Sp ey eria callipp e ....................................................... 74
Sp ey eria eg leis ........................................................................... 75
Sp eyeria adiaste ...................... ............... .......................................... 76
Sp ey eria atlantis ...............................77.................. ..........


8









Sp ey eria h esp eris ....................................................................................................... 7 9
Speyeria hydaspe ............................... ... ...... ... ......... .........80
Speyeria m orm onia................... ..... .... .. ........................ .............. .............. 81
Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis Subspecies Accounts ...........................................82
Speyeria atlantis atlantis ....................... ..............................................................82
Speyeria atlantis hollandi........................................................................ ................. 83
Sp ey eria atlantis sorocko ........................................................................ .................. 83
Speyeria atlantis pahasapa...................................................................... ................. 84
Sp eyeria hesp eris hesp eris ...................................................................... ..................84
Speyeria hesperis helena ...................... .. .. ........ .......................... ...............84
Speyeria hesperis beani ......... .... ......... ........ ......... .... .... .. ............ 85
Speyeria hesperis brico ............................................ ................... .. ......85
Speyeria hesperis ratonensis .............................................................................. 86
Speyeria hesperis greyi .......... ............ .. ... ........... ........ .. .......86
Speyeria hesperis lurana ...................................................................... ............... 87
Speyeria hesperis irene ................................ ......... .............. .. ...... 87
Sp eyeria hesp eris cottlei ....................... ........................................................ .. 88
Sp ey eria hesp eris hanseni ....................................................................... ..................89
Sp eyeria hesp eris dodge ......... ................. ....................................... .........................89
Speyeria hesperis viola ....................... ............................................. ............. 90
Speyeria hesperis elko ............................................ ... .... ........ ......... 90
Sp ey eria hesp eris tetonia ......................................................................... .................. 9 1
Speyeria hesp eris w asatchia........................................ ................................. ...... 91
Sp eyeria hesp eris chitone ............................................................... ......... ..................92
Sp eyeria hesp eris electa ........................................................................ ....................92
Sp ey eria hesp eris schellbachi............................................ ........................................93
Sp eyeria hesp eris dorothea ..................................................................... ..................93
Sp eyeria hesp eris nausicaa .................................................................... ...................94
Speyeria hesperis capitanensis.............. ............ ................................... ............... 94

3 PH Y L O G EN Y O F SPE YERIA ...................................................................... ...................130

M materials an d M eth od s .............................................................................. ..................... 137
T ax o n S am p lin g ....................................................................................................... 13 9
Character Sampling .................................... .......... .............. 139
P hylogenetic A naly ses............ .............................................................. ....... ............... 139
R results and D discussion ..................................... ........... .......... .. ........ .... 140

4 BIOGEOGRAPHY AND GENITALIC SURVEY OF SPEYERIA WITH EMPHASIS
ON OVERLAPPING SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS
PO PU LA TION S .............................................................................. ............ 164

M materials an d M eth od s .............................................................................. ..................... 170
T ax o n S am p lin g ....................................................................................................... 17 0
P reparation of M material ..................................................................... ....................... 17 1
D atab asking ............................................................................... 172
R results and D discussion ..................................... ........... .......... .. ........ .... 173


9









5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................. ............................ 195

A P P E N D IX ................................................................................................ 2 0 1

COI SEQUENCES FOR 16 SPECIES OF SPEYERIA..................... ....... ................201

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ................. ..........................................................206

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................. ....................245














































10









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1. Checklist of Speyeria species and subspecies treated herein ...........................................96

2-2 L ist of m u seum abbreviations............... ...................................................................... ...... ...97

3-1. List of taxa included in the primary analyses.................... ..... ............ ... 148

3-2. Synopsis of characters and states used for phylogenetic analyses. ...................................... 149

3-3. D ata m atrix for characters. ........................................................................ ....................150

4-1. Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies and associated ventral...............................

hindwing characters ................................ .. ... ... .. ....... ......... 181

4-2. Species and subspecies examined and descriptions of male genitalic armature ................82









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1. Original description for 'Idalia'...... ........ ........................... .................................... 98

2-2. Wing terminology associated with species of Speyeria. ............. ............. ............... 99

2-3. W ing venation and cell scheme e. ............................................ ..........................................99

2-4. Im ages of adult Speyeria diana.. .......................... .................. ............... ................... 100

2-5. Type im ages for Speyeria diana ...................... ......... .............................. ............... 100

2-6. Type im ages for Speyeria cybele ...................... .... ................................. ............... 101

2-7. Type im ages for Speyeria aphrodite ............................................................................ 101

2-8. Im ages of Speyeria idalia life stages...................... .... ............................. ............... 102

2-9. Type im ages for Speyeria idalia...................... .... .................................. ............... 102

2-10. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria idalia ........................................................... 103

2-11. Type im ages for Speyeria nokomis ...................................................................... 103

2-12 Type im ages for Speyeria nokomis ........................................................ ............... 104

2-13. Type images for Speyeria edwardsii ............................ ..........................................104

2-14. Digitus located on left valva, Speyeria edwardsii............... ................................ 105

2-15. Type im ages for Speyeria coronis ..................................................................... 105

2-16. Habitus image of Speyeria zerene (gunderi) .......................................................... 106

2-17. Type im ages for Speyeria zerene........................... ................................. ............... 106

2-18. Type im ages for Speyeria carolae.................................. ........................ ............... 107

2-19. Speyeria callippe (harm onia) ............. ..................... ......... ...................................107

2-20. Type images for Speyeria callippe. ........................................... ............................ 108

2-21. Type im ages for Speyeria egleis.................................. ........ ................................. 09

2-22. Type images for Speyeria adiaste ...................................................... ...............110

2-23. Type images for Speyeria adiaste ...................................................... ...............110



12









2-24. Type im ages for Speyeria atlantis........................................................... ............... 11......

2-25. Type im ages for Speyeria hesperis ......................................................... .................111

2-26. Type im ages for Speyeria hydaspe ........................................................ ............... 112

2-27. Habitus image of Speyeria mormonia (artonis). ............................... .................. 112

2-28. Type im ages for Speyeria mormonia ......... ............................................. ............... 113

2-29. Type images for Speyeria atlantis canadensis ............ ......... ..............114

2-30. Type images for Speyeria atlantis hollandi.............................. ...............114

2-31. Type images for Speyeria atlantis sorocko .............. .............. .............. ............ 115

2-32. Type images for Speyeria atlantis pahasapa .............. .. ..... ................. 115

2-33. Type images for Speyeria hesperis helena ............................ .................................... 116

2-34. Type images for Speyeria atlantis dennisi ........................................................... 116

2-35. Type images for Speyeria hesperis beani ................................ ...................117

2-36. Types images for Speyeria hesperis brico......................................... ...............117

2-37. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis ratonensis.................... .......................... ............... 118

2-38. Type images for Speyeria hesperis greyi ............... .. ...... ....................118

2-39. Type images for Speyeria hesperis lurana.................... .................................... 119

2-40. Type images for Speyeria hesperis irene ..... ............... ..........................119

2-41. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis hanseni ........................................ ......................... 120

2-42. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dodgei.......................... ................121

2-43. Type images for Speyeria hesperis viola............................... ................................. 121

2-44. Type images for Speyeria hesperis elko. ........................................ ........................ 122

2-45. Type images for Speyeria hesperis tetonia....................... .......... ............ .............. 122

2-46. Type images for Speyeria hesperis wasatchia ....................................... ............... 123

2-47. Type images for Speyeria hesperis chitone.................................................................... 123

2-48. Type images for Speyeria hesperis electa.................... ........... .............. 124









2-49. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nikias ..................... .................................... 124

2-50. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis schellbachi ............................................ ............... 125

2-51. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dorothea.............. .. ..... ................. 125

2-52. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nausicaa............... ...... .... ..................... .............. 126

2-53. Type images for Speyeria hesperis capitanensis................................... ......................126

2-54. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby M mountains, Nevada.. ..................................... .....................127

2-55. Hospital Flats, near Mt. Graham, Pinalefio Mountains, Arizona. .....................................127

2-56. View of Pinalefio Mountains in the morning......... .......................... ............... 128

2-57. View of Pinalefio Mountains in the early afternoon ..............................................128

2-58. Open glade in Sandia Mountains, New Mexico. .............. ..........................129

3-1. Intuitive phylogeny of subtribe Argynnina ............................................ ............... 151

3-2. Intuitive phylogeny of Speyeria. .............................................. ............................. 151

3-3. Dendrogram of genetic similarity between 10 Speyeria species............ ...............152

3-4. Phylogenetic interpretation of Speyeria callippe subspecies ...................... ...............152

3-5. Strict consensus tree of Argynnini ........................................................ ............... 153

3-6. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 30 characters. ........ ........................ ......... ............... 154

3-7. Phylogeny of Speyeria generated at Barcode of Life Data Systems..............................155

3-8. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on COI............................................................ .... 156

3-9. Phylogram of Speyeria based on COI. .................................... ............... 157

3-10. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on combined morphology and COI.............................. 158

3-11. Phylogram of Speyeria based on combined morphology and COI .................................159

3-12. Phylogeny of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on COI..............................160

3-13. Phylogram of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on COI. ............................161

3-14 P hylogeny of A rgynnini ..................................................................................... 162

3-15. Phylogeny of Argynnis based on COI.......................................................163










4-1. Illustration and associated terminology of male genitalic armature of Speyeria ............

atlan tis ..... .... ......... ............. ..................................................... ............ .. 84

4-2. Male genitalic armature (Speyeria idalia) and associated terminology ..........................184

4-3. Distributional map of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies.......................185

4-4. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis in the northeastern United States .........................185

4-5. Distribution map for Speyeria hesperis (sample interactive aerial topo map generated.........

at DiversityofLife.org). .......................................... ........................ 186

4-6. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies................ .. ............. 186

4-7. Ventral hindwing images of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies ............187

4-8. Examples of wing vouchers .............................. ........................................ 187

4-9. M ale genitalia of Sp eyeria ..................................................................... ......................188

4-10. M ale genitalia of Sp eyeria .................................................................... .......................188

4-12. Male genitalia of Speyeria cybele (Missouri)............................................... ...............189

4-13. Male genitalia of Speyeria atlantis (West Virginia)............................... ...............189

4-14. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming). ................................................189

4-15. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Wyoming).....................................190

4-16. M ale genitalic arm nature ...................................................................................... ......190

4-17. M ale genitalic arm nature ...................................................................................... ......190

4-18. M ale genitalic arm nature ...................................................................................... ......19 1

4-19. M ale genitalic arm nature ...................................................................................... ......19 1

4-20. M ale genitalic arm nature ........... ... ................ ............................................... 191

4-2 1. M ale genitalic arm nature ......... ................. ........................................ .............................192

4-22. M ale genitalic arm nature ........... ... ................ ............................................... 192

4-23. M ale genitalic arm nature. .......................................................................... .....................192

4-24. Im age of bursa copulatrix. ........................................................................ ....................193









4-25. M ale gentialia of Sp eyeria ........................................................................ ...................193

4-26. M ale genitalic arm nature. .......................................................................... .....................194

4-27. Images of adult Speyeria using ultraviolet light.................................................... ...........194









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE GENUS SPEYERIA AND THE Speyeria atlantis/Speyeria hesperis COMPLEX: SPECIES
AND SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS, SYSTEMATICS, AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
(LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE)

By

JAMES CHRISTOPHER DUNFORD

December 2007

Chair: Lee D. Miller
Cochair: Jacqueline Y. Miller
Major: Entomology and Nematology

Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini) are medium to large

butterflies that represent conspicuous members of North American Lepidoptera. Speyeria is

presently comprised of 16 species, and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies. Long

included in the Old World genus Argynnis, they differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in

genitalic structure and were considered generically distinct from Argynnis in 1945. Varying

degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and occasional contact of

disjunct populations likely provide developmental processes that produce gradients, thresholds,

and wing pattern changes in Speyeria. The Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis species

complexes are represented by several widely distributed, geographically variable subspecies.

These subspecific taxa have distributions that range from the eastern United States and Canada,

west to California, as far north as Alaska, and south to Arizona and New Mexico. Each

subspecies occurs more or less sympatrically, either by latitude or elevation, with other members

of the group, thus providing useful models for evolutionary studies.

Detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25 Speyeria

atlantis-hesperis subspecies are compiled. Each diagnosis includes a synonymy, type specimen









data and image, taxonomic information and morphological descriptions, distributions, and life

history information. Distributional data is gleaned from museum and private collection locality

records and databased in order to understand the degree of sympatry of Speyeria atlantis and S.

hesperis forms. Several errors in the nomenclature, type specimen data, and morphological

descriptions for Speyeria are also identified.

Phylogenetic analyses are also conducted on the 16 currently recognized species of

Speyeria. Investigation of useful external and internal morphological characters was made,

including a survey of the genitalia of Speyeria with emphasis on the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis

complex. Phylogenetic analyses are based on combined morphological, life history, and genetic

data. The genus apparently represents a relatively recent radiation of species, with the only clear

divergence being those members of the Semnopsyche 'clade.' Based on combined morphological

and molecular analyses, Speyeria represent a monophyletic grouping. This work provides

relevant insight into the inter- and intraspecific relationships and evolutionary history of

Speyeria, and provides information pertinent to conservation strategies and priorities for this

taxon.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW: RESEARCH BACKGROUND,
JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, AND HYPOTHESES

Speyeria Butterflies: Introduction and Literature Review

Overview and Taxonomic History

Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini), or greater fritillaries,

are medium to large butterflies that represent conspicuous members of North American

Lepidoptera. The genus was named in honor of a German lepidopterist, Adolph Karl Speyer,

who specialized in butterfly studies (Opler and Krizek 1984; Zirlin 1996; Guppy and Shepard

2001). The origin of the common name fritillariess" is obscure, and one explanation is that the

butterflies resemble the lily genus Fritillaria (Guppy and Shepard 2001). The Latin term

"fritillus" means "dice box", and could also refer to the spotted pattern on the wings (Field

1938). Speyeria, as currently defined, is restricted to North America (absent in southeastern

regions of the United States and most of Mexico) (Elwes 1889; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978).

Morphologically similar genera exist in other temperate parts of the world and together may be

considered the temperate-zone counterpart to tropical Heliconiini (Hammond 1978; Scott

1986b). Recent workers have treated Speyeria as a subgenus of the primarily Palearctic genus

Argynnis Fabricius 1807 (Tuzov 2003; Simonsen 2006c). Until further data can be analyzed and

convincingly corroborated with the recent findings of these phylogenetic studies, the name

Speyeria will be retained herein.

Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species (Opler and Warren 2005), and according to

some authors, over 100 subspecies (dos Passos 1964; McHenry 1964; Hammond 1978; Ferris

and Brown 1981; Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983; Ferris 1989a,b). Speyeria cybele

(Fabricius), S. aphrodite (Fabricius), S. idalia (Drury), and S. atlantis (W.H. Edwards) occur in

the eastern half of North America (east of the Mississippi River), each with distributions or









subspecies occurring in the west, while S. diana (Cramer) of the eastern United States is

restricted to the Appalachian and Ozark Mountains (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler

and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). The remaining species occur in the western regions of

North America. All but three Speyeria species are extremely variable [exceptions include S.

diana, S. idalia, and S. edwardsii (Reakirt)], with the western North American species in

particular fragmenting into numerous geographic races that are often clinally joined with

considerable intergradation or blending occurring.

Adults are more or less orange in color with darker wing veins and spots, often with silver

or cream-white ventral hindwing spots. The silver spots owe their metallic appearance to

refracted light rather than pigmentation (Scott 1988). Determinations are made primarily by

utilizing wing facies and geographical location, and because of this, specific and subspecific

identification is difficult in many taxa due to subtle wing pattern variations. Eye coloration has

been proposed to discern some of the more widespread North American species (Glassberg

2000), although this coloration is usually lost in deceased individuals. Within Speyeria, adult

morphological variation between species and subspecies is by and large the following: overall

size; degree of sexual dimorphism; wings: dorsally by ground color, intensity of black markings,

degree of dark basal suffusion, prominence of marginal band, thickness of veins on the wings;

ventrally by the general ground color of the discal region, size, shape, color and position of spots

on the hindwings, and color and width of submarginal band between the two outer rows of spots

on hindwings.

Speyeria species have been collected and examined in great detail in the past and continue

to be of major interest for professional and amateur collectors. Those who have studied the genus

for years have often contradicted themselves, and competent authors living at some distance









from one another have described the same species under different names. W. H. Edwards

(1863a,b; 1864a; 1869; 1870; 1874a,b; 1878; 1879a,b; 1881; 1883) and J. D. Gunder (1924;

1927; 1929; 1931; 1932; 1934) described numerous Argynnis (=Speyeria) species, subspecies,

and aberrant forms before species limits and clinal patterns were more readily recognized by

subsequent authors. Geographic variation in Speyeria was first studied in detail by Comstock

(1927=1989 reprint), Holland (1898, 1931), and later by Grey (1951), Moeck (1957), Hovanitz

(1967), Howe (1975), and Hammond (1978). The earlier works listed dozens of "species" names

(Holland 1898: 47 species), but subsequent authors realized that most of these "species" were no

more than geographical forms or races associated with a few polytypic species (dos Passos and

Grey 1947; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Miller and Brown 1981; Scott 1986b). C. F. dos

Passos and L. P. Grey, two amateur lepidopterists, played an important role in sorting out species

relationships and geographical variation within Speyeria, and presented methodologies and

substantial collections that have provided a foundation for subsequent studies on Speyeria and

closely related groups (Grey 1964, 1970; Rindge 1987; Wilkinson 1988a, b). Studies conducted

by Guppy (1953) and later by Grey et al. (1963) and Mattoon et al. (1971) elucidated some of the

difficulties of rearing Speyeria. The ability to break natural larval diapause during breeding

experiments was helpful in understanding ecological data and in turn species limits within

Speyeria.

Historically, three Speyeria species (i.e., S. diana, S. cybele, S. aphrodite) have been

recognized as the subgenus Semnopsyche Scudder (1875) based primarily on differences in the

female genitalic armature (dos Passos and Grey 1945a, 1947; Klots 1951; Hammond 1978;

Ferris and Brown 1981). Scudder (1875) first included only S. diana in the Semnopsyche group

based on wing and leg morphology. Miller and Brown (1981) correctly placed Semnopsyche as a









synonym of Speyeria but did not provide a reason for doing so; they likely followed the

recommendation of dos Passos and Grey (1947). Upon further examination of the female

genitalic armature of Speyeria idalia (the generotype of the genus), Grey (1989) discovered a

"secondary" bursal sac similar to those found in the Semnopsyche group, and thus definitively

listed Semnopsyche as a junior synonym for Speyeria. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) prepared an

extensive revision of the group in accordance with the latest concepts of speciation and

systematics at that time and listed 13 species and 96 subspecies. Since then, several additional

subspecies have been described, three subspecies have been elevated to full species status, and

some names have been declared synonyms (e.g., Garth 1949; Moeck 1947, 1950; Austin 1983;

Hammond and Domfeld 1983; Holland 1988; Emmel and Austin 1998; Emmel and Emmel

1998a,b; Emmel et al. 1998d; Gatrelle 1998; Scott et al. 1998; Williams 2001a).

Speyeria, long included in the Old World genus Argynnis (Argynninae) (Elwes 1889;

Snyder 1900; Lehmann 1913; Seitz 1924), differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in

genitalic structure (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Dornfeld 1980). They were considered

generically distinct from Argynnis by dos Passos and Grey (1945a); all North American taxa

named since that time have been described within Speyeria. Nonetheless, Argynnis was retained

in some popular guides and other literature (e.g., Garth 1950; Garth and Tilden 1963; Hovanitz

1962, 1963a,b; Sette 1962). McHenry (1963, 1964) attempted to resurrect the use of Argynnis,

but this has not been followed in North America (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler

and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). However, recent work conducted by Simonsen

(2006a,b,c) and Simonsen et al. (2006) have provided some morphological and molecular

evidence that suggests the remainder of Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is retained as a

separate genus.









Reuss (1922, 1926a,b) erected the subfamily Argynninae based on genitalic and

androconial characters and divided Argynnis into different subtribes and genera. Warren (1944)

conducted a revision of European argynnines based primarily on male genitalia and concentrated

on the genus Boloria Moore. At the same time, dos Passos and Grey (1945a) provided a revision

of the argynnines (primarily Speyeria) utilizing genitalic structures. Warren et al. (1946) divided

the Argynninae and placed Boloria within the Boloriidi, distinguishing the tribe from others in

the Argynnidi (i.e., Speyeria and Argynnis). Grey (1957, 1989) later agreed with some of

Warren's assertions of affinities between Speyeria and genera such as Mesoacidalia, but

criticized the use of one set of characters, those of male genitalia. Ackery (1988) partially

adopted the classification of Warren (1944) and dos Passos and Grey (1945a) but included the

New World genera Yramea Reuss and Euptoieta Doubleday. Ehrlich (1958) included Speyeria

within the Nymphalinae but noted that the heliconian taxa were worthy of subfamilial rank and

appeared to fall in closely with Argynnis and its allies. Scott (1984), based on numerous

morphological and behavioral characters taken mostly from previous studies, noted the close

relationship between the Heliconiini and Argynnini and stated that the two tribes cannot be

sustained on a worldwide basis due to inconsistencies with hostplant use, humeral veins, and

larval head spines, and suggested that they be combined into Heliconiini by priority. The

subfamily Heliconiinae has only been recently delimited as it is now by Harvey (1991), when he

placed the Argynninae (i.e., Argynnis and Speyeria) within the heliconiine tribe Heliconiini

based on adult and larval morphology. Subsequent higher systematic work within the

Nymphalidae has also included Argynnis and/or Speyeria within Heliconiini (Brower 2000b;

Wahlberg et al. 2003b; Freitas and Brown 2004).









Since the precladistic works of Warren (1944, 1955), dos Passos and Grey (1945a), and

Moeck (1957), and early systematic works of Shir6zu and Saigusa (1973) and Hammond (1978),

only a few workers have treated genera within the Argynnini utilizing modern systematic

techniques. Based on adult and larval morphology utilizing phylogenetic analyses, Penz and

Peggie (2003) suggested that Heliconiinae be divided into four groups, and included Speyeria

within the Argynnini. Their study utilized S. aphrodite and S. mormonia, each representing

hypothetically derived and basal Speyeria species, respectively. The argynnines in their study

were the most derived monophyletic group within the Heliconiinae, implying that species

diversification within the group occurred more recently than the emergence of ancestral

neotropical heliconiines. By contrast, however, the fairly recent morphological and molecular

work of Brower (2000c) placed the neotropical taxa as more derived than the argynnine

fritillaries, indicating that there is difficulty in accurately recovering the evolutionary history of

taxa that emerged a long time ago (Penz and Peggie 2003).

The morphological and molecular work of Simonsen et al. (2006) provided evidence of

monophyletic groups for six genera within the Argynnini, reducing Speyeria to a subgenus of

Argynnis. In both of these studies, the European genera Fabriciana Reuss and Mesoacidalia

Reuss [both genera are included in Argynnis in Simonsen et al. (2006)] are hypothetically closely

related to Speyeria. In addition, a fairly well-supported clade comprising all Argynnis species

(including Speyeria) supports the unification of all larger fritillaries in one genus (Simonsen et

al. 2006). Hypothetically closely related heliconiine taxa with distributions in North America

include Clossiana Reuss (=Boloria) and Euptoieta (Harvey 1991; Penz and Peggie 2003).

Present day computer websites such as The Nymphalidae Systematics Group (date last accessed









Aug 2007) and Tree of Life Web Project (date last accessed Aug 2007) follow the taxonomic

works of Simonsen et al. (2006) and utilize Argynnis when listing Speyeria species.

Much of the speciation and subspeciation within Speyeria, as we know it today, probably

came about in the past ten thousand years as a consequence of the last glacial retreat and the

climatic readjustments in its wake (Grey 1951; Hammond 1990). Glacial movements have

indisputably had a major effect on many taxa as species' distributions shifted in response to

climatic fluctuations (Wells 1983; Haslett 1997a,b; Parmesan et al. 1999; Knowles 2001).

Pleistocene glaciations likely promoted speciation in groups such as Speyeria because

divergence among allopatric glacial refugia or founder events during recolonization of

previously glaciated areas would have promoted differentiation (Hammond 1990).

Climatological events, especially in western North America, have resulted in numerous montane

"island" butterfly populations (Howe 1975; Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997; Fleishman

et al. 2001a). Hammond (1990) noted that Speyeria callippe populations have evolved and

spread by a peripheral budding process southward and eastward across much of western North

America. Lowland deserts and high mountain ranges combined with Pleistocene climatic

fluctuations have likely served as isolating barriers during this process. The creation of new,

descendant populations via major ecological shifts into new environments have allowed for

morphological changes in S. callippe.

Speyeria and their larval hostplants Viola L. (Violaceae) have proven to be vigorous

colonizers of ash-pumice habitats in the Cascades where other Lepidoptera species have been

completely excluded from this habitat due to restrictive limitations in their physiology and

ecological adaptations (Hammond 1981). This may have been the case as climate and

environmental changes occurred during glacial and interglacial episodes. Montane faunas









(including several Speyeria species) of the remaining coniferous forests on the Great Plains, such

as those in the Black Hills, apparently represent relicts of former, more extensive populations

that now occur further west and should be considered a distinct area of speciation (Johnson

1975). Varying degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and

occasional contact of disjunct populations likely provide developmental processes that produce

gradients, thresholds, and pattern changes in Speyeria (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Howe 1975;

Hammond 1990).

Many Speyeria also exhibit considerable ecological plasticity and adults frequently invade

the habitats of related species. However, there appears to be a sharp segregation among species

in the types of habitat utilized by the larvae (Hammond 1974, 1981). Speyeria larvae do not

appear to be restricted to any particular species of violet and will feed on any native violet that

happens to be growing in the appropriate habitat. The broad acceptance of many violet species in

the laboratory (Scott 1986b) and in the field suggests that other habitat factors besides hostplant

availability strongly affect the distribution and abundance of Speyeria (Swengel 1997).

Ecological segregation of Speyeria species, which may be occurring at present, is largely the

result of interspecific competition for the larval food plant in various habitats (Hammond 1974,

1981). Adult nectar source distribution and availability may also play a role in selection of

hostplant individuals or even species in habitats where the two are proximal to each other

(Murphy et al. 1984; Ross 2003).

Violets exhibit environmental plasticity (Valentine 1956) and species mirror the habitat

diversity of Speyeria. In western North America, various violet species will grow in wet boggy

meadows, dry or well-drained meadows, mesic forests, and xeric grasslands or mountainsides

(Baird 1942; Hammond 1981). Butterfly biology has been linked to host plant strategies, and









population attributes and geographical distribution may be significantly and substantially

affected by host choice and the strategies of hostplants (Dennis et al. 2004). Ehrlich and Raven

(1964) noted that significant patterns exist in the hostplant relationships of Heliconiini and

Argynnini, and that their diversification may have taken place from a common ancestor

associated with their respective assemblages of plants.

Evolutionarily speaking, Speyeria are prone to local adaptations and show the effects of

genetic drift. At any one point in time, species and subspecies "states" become fixed into

differentiated wing patterns and colors, and workers have responded by describing species or

subspecies. Speyeria species have been the subjects of evolutionary-related studies on

geographical variation and speciation (e.g., Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Grey et al. 1963;

Hammond 1978, 1990; Scott et al. 1998). However, there has not been a comprehensive, modern

cladistic analysis for Speyeria and several questions still need to be addressed: Which species are

basal and which are derived? Which subspecies designations, if any, are valid? Is full species

status warranted for any subspecific taxa and what were/are the pre- and post-isolating

mechanisms of these cryptic species? Present-day phylogenetic approaches utilizing molecular,

morphological and life history traits may provide an additional tool to address some of these

unanswered systematic questions.

Life History

The Argynnini presently comprise over 100 species and six genera as currently defined by

Simonsen et al. (2006). Almost all species are found in temperate, arctic or alpine areas mainly

in Palearctic or Nearctic Regions, although a few species occur in the mountains of South

America and Africa (Seitz 1924; Sbordoni and Forestiero 1998; Smart 1989; Simonsen et al.

2006). Argynnini is also represented in Australia and New Guinea in swampy habitats by the

widely distributed Argynnis inconstans (=hyperbius) Butler (Common and Waterhouse 1972;









Simonsen et al. 2006). Adults frequent open fields, moist meadows, or open woodlands near

streams, while others seem to be restricted to coastal dunes, tallgrass prairies or high mountains

(Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). During the summer

months, they may be abundant in forest clearings, along roadsides, and on flower-rich slopes and

in meadows in mountainous regions. Speyeria often prefer tall nectar sources such as thistles,

wild asters, and sunflowers, as well as penstemons, mint and dogbane (Dornfeld 1980; Scott

1986b). They may not, however, be effective pollen dispersers for some plants. Speyeria cybele

and S. aphrodite were observed to carry many pollinia ofAsclepias exaltata on their legs

(Broyles and Wyatt 1991). However, upon alighting on a flower, they would often grasp the

petals rather than reproductive parts, reducing the chances of both pollinium insertion and

removal (Broyles and Wyatt 1991). Adult Speyeria are strong fliers and can fly many kilometers

(especially in late summer) and are rather long lived (several weeks to 2-3 months from May-

September) (Scott 1986b; Tilden and Smith 1986; Pyle 1995; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and

Wright 1999). All members of the genus are univoltine (Scott 1986b; Opler and Wright 1999).

Scott and Epstein (1987) noted that in temperate climates, the longer the life span (many

Speyeria individuals live longer than a year from egg to the end of adulthood), the longer the

flight period is for adult butterflies.

Adult males typically emerge a week before females, and males patrol for potential mates

(Hammond 1974; Scott 1975, 1986b). Courtship is rather elaborate, and pheromone cues from

both sexes may be a reproductive barrier between species (Hammond 1974; Scott 1986b; Scott et

al. 1998). Speyeria atlantis [as well as other Argynnini (Sellier 1973; Magnus 1958)] adults bear

scent scales that lie along the veins on the dorsal side of the forewings (Grey et al. 1963; Scott

1986b). Males pursue females, draw their forewings forward, and flick the closed wings slightly









open in quick bursts. Each burst of two to five flicks lasts less than a second, wafting

pheromones up to the female's antennae. The tip of the abdomens of female Argynnini

(including Speyeria) contain paired glands normally hidden in the abdomen that aid in courtship

(Scott 1986b). Courting males keep their forewings in a forward position and open and close

them near the resting female to waft pheromones. Unreceptive females will flutter their wings to

reject males.

Copulation and oviposition in Speyeria were examined in detail by Arnold and Fischer

(1977). No true morphological ovipositor or external genitalia are present in female Speyeria,

and the copulatory mechanism is based on the morphology and manipulative maneuverability of

the abdominal segments. The ovipositor is frequently short in Lepidoptera, taking the form of a

pair of broad, setose anal papillae (Scoble 1995). The male's genitalia are everted by the

sequential contraction of pre-genital segments and by the increased pressure exerted by dorsal

and longitudinal muscles located on each segment. The female prepares for the reception of the

male by raising and retracting the apical portion of the abdomen, thus exposing the ostium bursae

making it ready for reception of the intromittent organ of the male. With the extrusion of the

male external genital apparatus, the tegumen is extended and lowered, and the uncus is placed

upon the dorsum of the female's anal papillae [however, Scott (1984) noted that the male's uncus

actually fits beneath the papilla analis during mating in all butterflies]. The male genital valves,

bearing a structure known as the digitus, spread laterally, allowing the anal papillae of the female

to rest in fusiform pouches, thus fixing the position of the female. The phallus (=penis) is then

inserted through the ostium bursae and a spermatophore passes through to the corpus bursae. At

the time of oviposition, a fertilized egg lies in the posterior portion of the common oviduct. An

increase in intra-abdominal pressure, the peristaltic movements of the oviducts, and the









compression and extension of posterior abdominal segments help to squeeze the egg out of the

common oviduct. Eggs are fertilized as they intercept the ductus seminalis.

Females of most species delay egg-laying until late summer or fall and usually oviposit

rather haphazardly near their hostplants rather than carefully placing them on the plant as do

most butterflies (Ritchie 1944; Howe 1975; Scott 1986b; Opler and Wright 1999). Since the

larvae apparently do not discriminate between different species of violets, the female must

discriminate between different habitats in order to prevent interspecific competition between

species (Hammond 1974, 1981). Reproductive diapause has been exhibited in S. coronis and S.

zerene in California during the warm, dry months of the summer flight period (Sims 1984). This

diapausal period delays the onset of oviposition until late summer or early fall and thus decreases

the exposure time of overwintering first instar larvae to desiccating conditions. Fritillaries are

fecund butterflies, with some species capable of laying over 1,000 eggs (Ross 2003; Wagner

2005). They are known to deposit eggs on twigs, leaves, stones and other debris (Scott 1986b;

Allen et al. 2005). Some females will oviposit on the underside of hostplants (Arnold and Fischer

1977; Kopper et al. 2000). Eggs bear camouflage coloration and are slightly rounded, tapering

toward the apex. They are highly sculptured and contain a large amount of lipid, and are likely

adapted to withstand considerable environmental pressures including submergence, frost, ground

dwelling predators and microbes (Hammond 1974; Ross and Henk 2004).

Eclosion occurs two to three weeks after eggs are laid, and first instar larvae will drink

water but will not feed on violets for seven to eight months (Wagner 2005). The eggshell, which

is consumed by the larva, contains a large amount of lipid, which probably serves as an energy

source during larval diapause (Hammond 1974). Few individuals weather winter conditions, but

female biology compensates for this by allowing females to lay hundreds of eggs (Mattoon et al.









1971; Ross 2003; Wagner 2005). Speyeria, like other cold adapted insects, probably survive

adverse environmental conditions through physiological adaptations such as freeze tolerance or

freeze avoidance (Chapman 1998). Freeze tolerant insects can withstand the formation of

internal ice by promoting extracellular ice formation at relatively high subzero temperatures by

synthesizing nucleating agents in the hemolymph, whereas freeze avoiding insects prevent lethal

intracellular ice formation by an extended ability to supercool and by the masking or absence of

ice nucleating agents (Palmer et al. 2004). Speyeria larvae do have the ability to respond to

various stimuli such as light, heat, and mechanical agitation while in captivity, and diapause may

actually prove to be more of a quiescent state (Mattoon et al. 1971). The ability to respond to

these stimuli and seek shelter in nature may also have an important role in larval survival during

adverse environmental conditions. Adult Speyeria in montane habitats have been observed

responding to cool summer evenings and morning dew by shivering their wings and basking in

the sun to control body temperatures (C. Penz, pers. comm.).

Larvae pass through six instars (Scott 1986b), overwintering as first instars and breaking

diapause to complete development the following season (Scott 1986b; Wagner 2005). Edwards

(1880a), however, observed larvae feeding on violet and proceeding to a third molt before the

onset of winter in Illinois, but they were not able to overwinter and later died. Larvae of Speyeria

are generally secretive and feed primarily at night (Scudder 1889; Opler and Wright 1999) (but

see McCorkle and Hammond 1988; Kopper et al. 2001a; Mooreside et al. 2006), typically

returning to hiding places under host leaves or nearby vegetation during the day (Hammond

1974; Ferris and Brown 1981; Opler and Wright 1999; Wagner 2005). Final instars are sizable

insects (e.g., S. cybele= approximately 55 mm in body length) and are capable of consuming two

or more full-grown hostplants (Wagner 2005). Many species are black with lighter markings and









bear three rows of branching spines of various colors on either side of the body (Allen et al.

2005). As with many nymphalid larvae, there are six stemmata on either side of the head capsule

and numerous secondary setae (Stehr 1987). Secondary setae are also present on the thorax and

abdomen. Like other members of the Heliconiinae, they lack mid-dorsal spines, but unlike other

Heliconiinae, lack spines on the head (Scott 1986b; Layberry et al. 1998). Allen et al. (2005) and

Wagner (2005) have provided color images of several species.

Speyeria larvae feed on various violet species (Viola), and in laboratory conditions they are

known to feed on every American violet species tested (Mattoon et al. 1971; Brittnacher et al.

1978; Hammond 1981; Scott 1986b). In many cases, the specific violet utilized by a particular

speyerian species is poorly known in the wild (Hammond 1974; Allen et al. 2005). There are

only a few hostplant records that are not of the genus Viola and some may be dubious records

(Durden 1965; Robinson et al. 2002). Pupation occurs inside a simple tent made of strands of silk

stretched between surrounding surfaces (Allen et al. 2005). The pupa, or chrysalis, is suspended

with the head down as in most other nymphalids and on average in nature lasts approximately 14

days (Mattoon et al. 1971).

There are only a few records of species of Speyeria being attacked by natural or potential

predators. Scudder (1889) reported S. aphrodite adults were found in the crops of the common

nighthawk and chimney swift; larvae were also found in the stomachs of the black-throated

bunting and the towhee. Avian predation of Speyeria mormonia was recorded by Hendricks

(1986). Two individuals were captured, the wings were torn off, and the body was eaten by

nesting water pipits in Wyoming. Three Speyeria [S. diana (males), S. aphrodite, and S. cybele]

were eaten by deer mice in model-mimicry experiments conducted by Brower and Brower

(1961).









Speyeria likely gain protection from potential predators in a variety of ways. Speyeria

diana females have been implicated in a Batesian mimicry complex with a distasteful papilionid

and other nymphalid species (Scudder 1889; Poulton 1909; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1961; Adams

and Finkelstein 2006). In some species, an eversible gland, capable of producing a bad odor, is

located on the dorsum of the adult female abdomen (Clark 1926; Harvey 1991). Larvae also bear

a gland located ventrally just behind the head and before the first pair of legs that is likely used

for defense against predators (Scott 1986b; McCorkle and Hammond 1988). McCorkle and

Hammond (1988) note that Speyeria larvae do posses a fleshy, eversible osmeterium (not

homologous with that of Papilionidae), but the strength of the scent emitted varies. The odor is

stronger in larger species such as S. coronis and S. edwardsii. Other avoidance measures during

the larval stages include taking refuge under leaves during the day and feeding at night. First

instar larvae will also often hibernate inside grass stems (Scott 1986b). Eggs in some species

may also contain phytochemicals used to deter potential predators (Ross 2003; Ross and Henk

2004).

Ackery (1988) reviewed the larval hostplants of nymphalid butterflies and presented a

classification that noted the affinities of related plant families Violaceae and Passifloraceae and

associated host plant use of argynnine and heliconiine species. Viola is the largest genus within

the Violaceae, comprised of 525-600 species worldwide (Ballard et al. 1999). There is an

extensive north-temperate distribution that belies the otherwise tropical affinities of the family.

Viola is distributed throughout most of the frost-free regions of the world, ranging widely across

temperate habitats of the Northern Hemisphere and into higher elevations of mountain systems

towards the equator. Primary centers of morphological and taxonomic diversity reside in the

Alps and Mediterranean region, Himalayas and mountainous regions of eastern Asia and the









South American Andes (Ballard et al. 1999). Secondary centers are the Pacific Coastal region of

the United States, the Appalachian temperate forests and Atlantic Coastal Plain of the eastern

United States, and the mountains of central and northern Mexico (Ballard et al. 1999). Floral

structure is remarkably uniform and species from opposite ends of the world and from highly

disparate habitats exhibit similar prefertilization floral characters, especially those concerned

with attraction and manipulation of pollen vectors (Beattie and Lyons 1975).

Morphological, ecological and cytological studies on Viola have been conducted. Seed

dispersal mechanisms and predator avoidance measures in Viola are primarily those of explosive

seed ejection away from the parent plant, ant exploitation and seed transportation or both

(Beattie and Lyons 1975). Most species combine both systems while a few are purely

myrmecochorous, possibly highly evolved with specific ant species, thus limiting the distribution

of some of the Viola species concerned. Seed predation or consumption by Argynnis (=Speyeria)

larvae as well as other lepidopteran and bird species has been observed, with heavy predispersal

damage of unripe ovaries occurring (Beattie and Lyons 1975). Predispersal and postdispersal

seed predation may have been a selective force in the evolution of dispersal mechanisms in Viola

(Beattie and Lyons 1975).

A diverse group of insect pollinators associated with Viola has provided a sexual system of

systematic cross-pollination simultaneously producing variation and invariance, and this may

have been partially responsible for the success of the genus in temperate regions where there is a

general paucity of pollen vectors (Beattie 1971, 1974). The various activities and morphologies

of these pollinators allow for the deposition of pollen to the stigma in diverse ways, and there is a

spectrum of cross- or self- pollination effects. New genetic recombinants with corresponding

opportunities for adaptation to new or changing environments, or an appropriate strategy in









stable environments by producing offspring similar to the parents can be selected as the need

arises, providing a system of great evolutionary versatility (Beattie 1971). Pollen

heteromorphism is also exhibited in Viola, and several pollen morphs differing in aperture

number can be produced by the same flower (Dajoz 1999; Nadot et al. 2000). Because pollen

tube germination occurs through the aperture, it is hypothesized the aperture number could affect

pollen grain fitness (Nadot et al. 2000). In violets, aperture number apparently increases with

elevation due to polyploid species (which exhibit pollen heteromorphism) being more abundant

at higher elevations. This is likely due to pollinator conditions, as it has been shown that

pollination reliability decreases with elevation (Nadot et al. 2000).

Polyploidy has likely played a role in the evolution of Viola and species hybridize readily.

Cytological studies involving Viola were conducted by Clausen (1927, 1929), Fothergill (1941,

1944) and Harvey (1966). Clausen's work focused on the cytological conditions found in hybrid

European Viola species, namely chromosome numbers, in order to compare chromosome and

morphological relationships. Species delimitations and interspecific relationships involving the

behavior and number of chromosomes indicated that species of the same systematic subgroup

belonged as a rule to the same series of chromosome numbers. Fothergill (1941) investigated the

survivorship of various cytological types and the actions selected upon them in the wild.

Chromosome lengths were later measured by Fothergill (1944) to provide additional descriptions

and classifications of Viola chromosomes. Ballard et al. (1999) used internal transcriber spacer

DNA sequences for 42 widespread Viola taxa in phylogenetic analyses to support an Andean

origin of the genus. The relationships presented based on the nuclear ribosomal data showed

generally a close congruence with relationships indicated by chromosome numbers and

corroborated some previous hypotheses of species relationships and diversification within Viola.









An Andean origin of Viola may have played a role on the separation of Speyeria and Palearctic

groups such as Argynnis

Speyeria and their larval hostplants Viola are amongst the best indicator organisms of

native, undisturbed ecological communities in North America (Hammond 1981, 1995). They are

also among the first organisms to be eliminated from such communities as a result of human-

caused disturbances (Hammond and McCorkle 1984). A few Speyeria have been declining over

the past 200 years, and several have been listed as either federally/state endangered or threatened

[e.g., S. idalia, S. diana, S. nokomis (Edwards), S. zerene hippolyta (Edwards)]. The position of

Speyeria in conservation and land management issues is well known (Hammond and McCorkle

1984; Launer et al. 1994; Kelly and Debinski 1998; Williams 1999, 2002; Swengel 1993, 2004;

Swengel and Swengel 2001; Patterson 2002). Elucidating the inter- and intraspecific

relationships and evolutionary history of Speyeria may provide information pertinent to

conservation strategies and priorities.

Research Background and Justification

Taxonomy and Systematics

Despite the likelihood that wing facies may be rather 'plastic' characters [i.e.,

environmentally influenced (see Hovanitz 1941; Watt 1968, Kingsolver and Wiemasz 1991;

Scoble 1995)] and capable of reverting back to original states depending on fluctuating

contact/isolation with other populations, butterfly species, including Speyeria, are typically

delimited utilizing wing characters (Opler and Krizek 1984; Scott 1986b; Emmel 1998; Opler

and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). The nymphalidd ground plan" was originally proposed

separately in the 1920's by B. N. Schwanwitsch (1924) and F. Suffert (1927) to provide a

general scheme and nomenclature for butterfly wing patterns based on a system of bands and

spots that run from the anterior to the posterior margin of each wing. Pattern elements consist of









a system of homologies that are identifiable across thousands of lepidopteran species, and are

broken down into the following main components: discal spot, central symmetry system, wing

root band, basal symmetry system, border ocelli system, marginal and submarginal bands, and

parafocal element (Nijhout 1991). This plan represents the maximal pattern found in the

nymphalids, but it is not, however, exhibited in its entirety in any one species. The scheme

deviates in each taxon, in which subordinate ground plans for particular taxa are utilized, and

often special (i.e., informal) terminology is employed for these subordinate plans. The plan does

not suggest primitive conditions of butterfly color patterns exhibited within the Lepidoptera, but

may be the basis (by recognizing wing pattern homologies) for which primitive patterns and

evolutionary significance and systematics may be elucidated by further studies on groups such as

Speyeria.

Taxonomically, these patterns have been utilized mainly to distinguish related species.

Sister generic taxa to Speyeria such as Heliconius Kluk exhibit deceptively simplistic deviations

from the nymphalid ground plan, while others such as Agraulis Boisduval and LeConte are

easily derived from the basic plan (Nijhout 1991). The nymphalid ground plan provides an

overall organizing principle that can be used to identify various spots and bands that comprise

these wing patterns.

Species and subspecies of Speyeria are commonly delimited based on banding, discal

coloration, spot coloration and size differences (Dornfeld 1980; Hammond 1978; Ferris and

Brown 1981). In the evolution of Speyeria, wing markings appear to be highly conservative and

reliable diagnostic characters, while wing colors are less stable (Hammond 1990). Pierid and

papilionid butterfly populations in cold climates have much darker, more heavily melanized

ventral hindwings than do populations in warm climates (Watt 1968; Guppy 1986). Habitat may









be important in determining species and subspecies, and the amount of solar radiation (including

factors such as latitude, temperature, elevation, humidity, degree of lack of vegetation, soil type)

on larvae and pupae may play a role in color variation as it does in other lepidopterans (Hovanitz

1941; Moeck 1957; Janzen 1984; Pyle 1995; Layberry et al. 1998; Ellers and Boggs 2004).

Basal, melanic, suffusion of wings is extremely plastic in Speyeria, and subject to repeated

convergence and reversal (Hammond 1990). "Alpine melanism" may be an adaptation to cooler

environments as butterflies at higher elevations and latitudes are often darker than populations at

lower elevations and latitudes (Guppy 1986), and this may play a role in the wing coloration of

northern and montane Speyeria. Deviation from the nymphalid ground plan, and the subordinate

ground plan exhibited within Speyeria traditionally used to recognize species/subspecies and

evolutionary history (while avoiding wing "coloration" where possible), will be the basis for

inference and comparison within the phylogenetic analyses presented later in this treatment.

Genitalic morphology shows peculiar patterns of variation among animal species

(Eberghard 1985; Arnqvist 1997, 1998; Mutanen 2005). Traditionally, species-specificity in

genitalia has been assumed to serve as a mechanical isolation system between species (the lock-

and-key hypothesis) (Amqvist 1998). Most recent studies suggest, however, that such variation

may also be because of sexual selection (Lloyd 1979; Eberhard 1996; Amqvist 1997). These two

hypotheses provide different predictions on genital variation within and between species.

Speyeria genitalia have largely proven to be taxonomically uninformative, and detailed genitalic

examination has largely been ignored in this group (Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981).

Dos Passos and Grey (1945a) conducted a survey of male genitalic structures in Argynninae

(including Speyeria) butterflies and provided detailed illustration of several species, including

the male genitalic armature (=capsule) of S. atlantis. Generic characters for male Speyeria









genitalia include a semi-rectangular plate (=digitus) located near the dorsal lobe of the valvae,

but otherwise the armature is more conventional in type and comparatively unspecialized (dos

Passos and Grey 1945a). It is apparent that genitalic data can conclusively separate the

Semnopsyche group [=S. cybele, S. diana, S. aphrodite] and Callippe group [=S. atlantis,

Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) Speyeria callippe (Boisduval), Speyeria zerene (Boisduval),

Speyeria coronis (Behr), Speyeria egleis (Behr), Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval), Speyeria

mormonia (Boisduval)], but the male armature is otherwise largely homogenous (dos Passos and

Grey 1945a). Their work, however, was based on examination of slide-mounted genitalia and

some structures may have been distorted and difficult to examine.

Significant slide mounted genitalia collections do exist in museums ([i.e., F. H. Chermock

Collection-Allyn Museum of Entomology (now McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and

Biodiversity)], but preliminary examination of closely related Speyeria yields no apparent

taxonomically informative characters (Dunford unpublished data). Recently, however, genitalic

examination of insects including Lepidoptera has improved via better preparatory and illustrative

techniques (Scoble and Kruger 2002; Simonsen 2006a,b; Zaspel and Weller 2006). Utilizing

modern genitalic preparatory and imaging techniques could yield taxonomically informative

characters that have not been identified to date within Speyeria. An attempt to revaluate the

significance of genitalia within Speyeria is critical to provide additional taxonomically and

evolutionarily informative characters.

In general, mitochondrial genes are useful data for evolutionary studies such as species

delimitation, population structure and gene flow, hybridization, phylogeographic histories, and

phylogenetic relationships (Vogler et al. 1993; Brower 1997; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Levy et

al. 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a; Segraves and Pellmyr 2004; Strehl and Gadau 2004;









Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Wahlberg et al. 2005; Memon et al. 2006). Their small size and

relative ease to purify (relative to nuclear genes) (i.e., buoyant density, high copy number in

cells, and location within an organelle) allow researchers to isolate these genes more readily

(Simon et al. 1994). Because of the properties of mtDNA (i.e., various regions evolve rapidly in

base substitutions and sequence length, has a constant initial rate of evolution, is maternally

inherited, and is unlikely to recombine), mtDNA represents an unbiased neutral marker for

maternal ancestry, and is a good tool to help reveal the historical relationships among

populations (Brower 1994a; Simon et al. 1994).

Nuclear genes have also been shown to be useful for phylogenetic studies in butterflies

(Brower and DeSalle 1994, 1998; Brower and Egan 1997). Single copy genes, such as wingless,

have been used in reconstructing species level to subfamily and family level relationships in

nymphalid and riodinid butterflies, respectively (Brower and DeSalle 1998; Brower 2000b;

Campbell et al. 2000). Wingless and other nuclear genes may be phylogenetically informative at

deeper levels than the saturation point (relationship between substitutions and sequence

divergence) of mitochondrial DNA (Brower and DeSalle 1998). Inclusion of other nuclear genes

such as elongation factor lac in phylogenetic studies further resolved relationships among species

groups within the same genus and clades at the subfamily rank and lower in Noctuoidea (Brower

and DeSalle 1994; Mitchell et al. 2000; Pefia et al. 2006).

The rate of evolution of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA and ribosomal RNA in animals

varies among lineages, among genes, and within genes, and thus several different gene regions

have been utilized in phylogenetic analyses (Martin and Pashley 1992; Simon et al. 1994; Soto-

Adames et al. 1994; Templeton et al 1995; Brower and Egan 1997; McCracken and Sheldon

1998; Abraham et al. 2001; Kondo et al. 2003; Yang and Yoder 2003; Omland et al. 2006). COI









and COII protein coding genes have been the most widely used mitochondrial gene regions in

Lepidoptera phylogenetic analyses for some time (Brower 1994b, 1996b; Brown et al. 1994;

Sperling and Hickey 1995; Pollock et al. 1998; Caterino and Sperling 1999; Nice and Shapiro

1999; Wahlberg and Zimmermann 2000; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Caterino et al. 2001;

Monteiro and Pierce 2001; Kruse and Sperling 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a, 2005;

Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Mallarino et al. 2005; Simonsen et al. 2006c). However, controversy

has arisen regarding the utility of DNA to delimit species and species relationships on its own.

Practical and theoretical problems raised by reliance on DNA-based identifications, especially

DNA barcoding of the COI gene region, have been discussed by Sperling (2003), Wheeler

(2003), Will and Rubinoff (2004), Ebach and Holdrege (2005), Brower (2006), and

Dasmahapatra and Mallet (2006). More recent phylogenetic analyses now incorporate multiple

gene regions, morphological, and other life history data (Mitchell et al. 2000; Abraham et al.

2001; Kruse and Sperling 2002; Bitsch et al. 2004; Mallarino et al. 2005; Braby et al. 2006;

Gompert et al. 2006; Simonsen et al. 2006).

Studies on speyerian genetics have been conducted in the past. Chromosome work was

conducted by Maeki and Remington (1960) and Miller and Miller (1966). Chromosome numbers

taken from male testes by Maeki and Remington (1960) for several Speyeria range from 29 to

30, although some counts may have been too high. Miller and Miller (1966) counted 27 for

Speyeria aphrodite ethne (Hemming). Brittnacher et al. (1978) used electrophoresis to study the

body enzymes of California Speyeria and found that five Callippe-group species could not be

distinguished, whereas the other species could be (the enzymes of Speyeria hydaspe and

Speyeria adiaste were also similar). Tebaldi (1982) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six

enzymes to analyze the relationships between three phenotypes of Speyeria atlantis and found









that the phenotypes could only be considered 'semispecies'. Williams (2001a, 2002) examined

the COI and COII gene regions for Speyeria idalia and suggested splitting the eastern and

western United States populations into two subspecific taxa based on 18 parsimony-informative

sites and spot size on the ventral hindwings. Several Speyeria have also been incorporated into

higher-level taxonomic studies, and gene regions and sequences have been databased on the

DNA database GenBank (Martin and Pashley 1992: S. atlantis; Brower and Egan 1997: S.

cybele; Pollock et al. 1998: S. mormonia; Williams et al. 2002: S. idalia).

Conservation

Understanding and appropriately defining biodiversity in order to conserve it is becoming

a significant social and scientific goal (Haney and Power 1996; Lambeck 1997; Wilson 1999,

2002; Blackmore 2002; Pyle 2002; Woese 2004). However, these environmental "values" may

vary depending on experiences with and appreciation for local landscapes (Noss 1990; Hunter

and Brehm 2004). Monitoring, by means of transect counts and various sampling measures, has

historically been utilized to assess the effects of management on local butterfly abundance and

diversity (Owen 1975; Pollard 1982). Until recently, systematics has contributed relatively little

to the theory and practice of conservation and land management (Soltis and Gitzendanner 1999).

However, phylogenetic analyses of conspecific populations and the application of appropriate

species concepts often reveal multiple lineages that can be viewed as evolutionary distinct units

in need of some level of conservation (Hazevoet 1996; Soltis and Gitzendanner 1999). Multiple

characters and diagnostic character states must be examined and the processes that influence

those characters must be understood to accurately delineate species and units for conservation

(Goldstein et al. 2005; Gompert et al. 2006).

Climate and habitat change, whether by natural cause or anthropogenic alterations, is

widely accepted as the most important factor in butterfly decline (e.g., including some members









of Speyeria), as its multitude of important effects include a decrease of breeding sites and

removal of important resources (New 1997; Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Hammond 1995;

Shapiro 1996; Hill et al. 1999a,b; Parmesan et al. 1999; Warren et al. 2001; Hill et al. 2002;

McLaughlin et al. 2002; Dennis et al. 2004; Scott 2006c). There is a great need for well-designed

experiments to reveal the effects of climate and other environmental factors on Speyeria and

other butterfly and invertebrate species (Dornfeld 1980; Thomas 1984; Hammond 1995; Black et

al. 2001; Bossart and Carlton 2002). These kinds of data may lead to a better understanding of

the variability in forms encountered in the field and the effect that these factors have on

population viability. The data may also identify lineages worthy of conservation and help set

appropriate and scientifically valid management priorities (Hazevoet 1996; Soltis and

Gitzendanner 1999). Additionally, it may be wise to be cognizant of the values associated with

species richness and biodiversity in such studies to begin to understand the human dimensions

associated with biological conservation (Jacobson and McDuff 1998; Sapolsky and Ehrlich

2003; Hunter and Brehm 2004).

Are taxonomy and systematics, as they are currently employed for the evolution of

Speyeria, appropriate mechanisms to sort out local degrees of specific 'purities' (see Shapiro

2002)? Varying degrees of geographic and reproductive isolation (pre and post-mating), local

population characteristics (i.e., dispersal capabilities, hostplant preferences, local climatic

conditions) and genetic heritage over time drive speciation mechanisms within Speyeria (Grey

1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978; Williams 2001b). When and where do we warrant

protection for a given species or subspecies? How will comprehensive phylogenetic analyses

affect decisions made for or against protecting these species and their habitats? What is the

overall 'health' of habitats where Speyeria occur? Utilizing phylogenetic analyses,









biogeography, and interpreting but not biasing these data with conservation in mind (Shapiro

2002) will require use of applicable species concepts for Speyeria.

Subspecies and Species Criteria

The question of subspecies and whether or not a subspecies is an 'absolute' or simply a

'prevailing trend' may not be important. Naming a taxon attracts attention, and recognition and

attention can mean the difference between continued survival and extinction of a population or

geographic race. It can even affect the survival of a species, if further study proves a subspecies

is actually a cryptic species. The "subspecies concept" can be important and valid systematically,

and has the potential to enhance our understanding of speciation, dispersal, and geographic

variation (Patten and Unitt 2002). There are examples of mismanaged megafaunaa" [i.e., tuatara

(Sphenodon sp.), dusky seaside sparrow (Ammodramus nigrescens)] because cryptic species

were not recognized or populations/lineages were not conserved, but rather the "species" was

conserved (Meffe and Carrol 1997; Winston 1999). It may be time to reevaluate species criteria

(and conservation paradigms, especially those from the vertebrate perspective), to emphasize the

fact that a given species or subspecies concept works for some taxa but not all (Mishler and

Donoghue 1982; Lloyd 2001; Hunter 2006).

Taxonomists typically name subspecies on the basis of average character differences

between populations (Gillham 1956; Patten and Unitt 2002). A common method for describing

Speyeria subspecies has been to name populations or groups of individuals representing points

along a continuum of geographic variation (or dines). Subspecific taxon names within Speyeria

are assigned to populations occupying various geographic areas based on the author's own

discretion, typically lacking a testable criterion. Because many taxon "names" are arbitrary at the

subspecies level, and given the characters analyzed (e.g., wing coloration) and the way in which

many Speyeria subspecies were described (e.g., lacking testable, intra- or interspecific









comparisons), these subspecies have relatively little biological significance. In other words, they

may not be a single lineage of ancestral-descendant populations that maintains its own identity

from other such lineages but has not lost its ability to breed with another lineage unless under

geographic isolation. Two workers may not agree on species/subspecies delimitations. However,

subspecific trinomials do recognize degrees of variation, and provide a starting point to further

analyze intra- and interspecific relationships in a phylogenetic framework. Taxonomists should

objectively describe the patterns of variation discovered in nature, and then translate them into

subspecies or species level descriptions based on testable hypotheses while avoiding arbitrary

decision-making (Wilson and Brown 1953; Van Son 1955; Gillham 1956; Brower 2000a; Kons

2000). A subspecies of Speyeria, following in part Kons (2000), Patten and Unitt (2002), and

Cicero and Johnson (2006), is defined herein as follows: it is a distinct monophyletic lineage,

allopatric from its closest relatives by having approximately 75% of a population lying outside

99% of the range of other populations for a given, uncontaminated character set, possessing

several identical sclerotized structures (e.g., genitalia) but having differences in wing facies.

These subspecies could be considered valid species or a taxon for conservation purposes,

depending on which working species concept is applied (to be described below).

Since the typological species concept promulgated by Linnaeus in the mid 18th century,

several interpretations of "species" concept have been advanced (Mayr 1942; Wiley 1978;

Paterson 1985; Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Mallet 1995; Van Regenmortel 1997; Baker and

Bradley 2006). The major component to the Biological Species Concept (BSC) is that a species

is reproductively isolated from other species that could potentially come in contact with it (Mayr

1942). The BSC allows for the recognition of interactions within populations in time and space

that create or maintain species. However, the BSC has raised several issues regarding its









application (Sokal and Crovello 1970; Mallet 1995; Hazevoet 1996; Luckow 1995; Gornall

1997). It is difficult to apply this concept to uniparental entities or fossil taxa and it is

operationally difficult to determine reproductive isolation if the related "species" are not

sympatric. It is also impossible to know whether or not members of a "species" are interbreeding

without actually observing individuals in copula. Many species have never actually been

observed mating, so much of what is considered a "species' is actually based on morphological

examination and assumptions (Sokal and Crovello 1970). Incipient and polytypic species are

difficult to define and the BSC applies only to populations viewed in a narrow window of time.

Thus, the BSC is also not evolutionarily meaningful and does not consider a species as an

evolutionary unit. Finally, the BSC allows for nonmonophyletic taxa and does not produce taxa

useful for cladistic analyses (Donoghue 1985).

Recognizing some of the problems mentioned above, additional species concepts were

developed, and portions of the following concepts define the working species concept utilized

herein. The Evolutionary Species Concept (ESC) describes a species as a single lineage of

ancestral descendent populations of organisms which maintains its own identity from other such

lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate (Wiley 1978). Kons

(2000) provided a more concise definition: a species is a monophyletic lineage biologically

capable of reticulating with a different evolutionary lineage; the point at which an evolutionary

lineage loses its ability to merge with another lineage is theoretically and biologically significant

and separates a "species lineage" from an ancestral one.

The Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) allows for the recognition of species in well-

defined monophyletic clades and recognizes the evolutionary potential of these lineages

(Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Hazevoet 1996; Claridge et al. 1997). The PSC also recognizes









synapomorphies within individuals or populations, and thus they are assumed to be more closely

related than individuals or populations lacking those synapomorphies. An evolutionary

hypothesis of true genealogical relationships is represented in a cladogram/phylogram and often

results in a hierarchy of monophyletic groups (Baum 1992; Luckow 1995). A species, as defined

by the PSC, is the smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organisms within which there is a

pattern of ancestry and descent (Cracraft 1982; Nixon and Wheeler 1990). The species is thus an

irreducible, or basal, unit distinct from other such units. Any character unique to a population or

set of populations would diagnose them as "species," even if they interbreed with other species

(Nixon and Wheeler 1990). Because the PSC incorporates history and reflects phylogeny, it is

useful for species delineation and preserving biodiversity (Goldstein et al. 2000; Goldstein et al.

2005; but see Scott 2006a). Whether morphological or molecular (or more importantly both)

synapomorphies are utilized to delimit taxa, applying the PSC would allow analyses to identify

small clades within "species" that comprise one or a few populations from a small geographic

area (Nixon and Wheeler 1990; Goldstein et al. 2005). Geographically distinct populations

containing phenotypically and genetically differentiated, phylogenetically diagnosable "races" or

"forms" (=evolutionary units) could be considered full species (Kons 2000; Brower 2000a).

Phylogenetically based classifications may be required to set conservation priorities and

develop informed conservation strategies. Phylogenetic analyses can help identify population

lineages that may represent biological entities worthy of conservation. Conservation, or the

practice of, has in the past been a reactionary process. If analyses can provide useful hypotheses

for the evolutionary significance of populations, especially those specifically related to

invertebrates, perhaps conservation issues and laws can be addressed long before a species'

existence becomes a "crisis" (Scott 2006c). Utilizing the PSC could alter existing conservation









paradigms and justify the preservation of the evolutionary potential of clades as well as help

identify actively speciating groups.

Species should be natural, monophyletic taxa and bear biologically and evolutionary

significant characteristics that distinguish them from related monophyletic taxa. However,

because evolution is an ongoing process, species criteria must be flexible enough to accept that

there are cases, such as with Speyeria, where lineages are in a state of transition in the speciation

process, and that some taxon delimitations at present will have to be made more arbitrarily. The

phylogenetic work and ultimate conservation goals of this study, in conjunction with the

examined group, require that a combination of species concepts be followed. Favoring any one

species concept over another may bias the interpretation of the results herein. It is difficult to put

a universal "law" or definition on what a "species" is, and as scientific data continue to accrue,

species concepts will also change.

No species concept should be viewed as an absolute criterion for protecting species or

populations, but rather should be viewed as part of the framework from within which

identification of conservation and management goals can be achieved effectively (Goldstein et

al. 2000). Each geographically and hypothetical reproductively isolated Speyeria population,

whether currently recognized as a full species or infraspecific category, may be unique and

maintain its own distinct gene pool and evolutionary potential, thus worthy of conserving.

Utilizing aspects of the BSC, the ESC, and the PSC in this study will appropriately elucidate the

reproductive and evolutionary processes exhibited by Speyeria, while providing a means in

which to address conservation issues. This does not, however, mean that these species concepts

will be applied whenever it conveniently suits the scientific purpose herein. Rather, it is a means









to provide flexibility for prevalent anthropocentric issues and laws relevant to the taxonomy,

systematics, and conservation of invertebrate fauna such as Speyeria.

Objectives and Hypotheses

Accurate species and subspecies identification remains problematic for some Speyeria

taxa, and determinations are often affixed by locality. It is imperative to choose useful characters

and avoid individual aberrations, mutations and characters subject to environmental influences.

Further investigation into use of wing facies to delimit Speyeria taxa is warranted, especially

with regard to the subspecies level. There may be useful morphological and behavioral

characters that have been overlooked in favor of the traditional use of wing patterns and colors in

species and subspecies diagnoses. A suite of useful and environmentally stable characters,

including the external morphologies of adults and immature stages, genitalia, DNA sequences,

and life history traits, is still needed for Speyeria. Beyond the scope of this study, further

ecological (e.g., pheromone testing) studies, examination of wing patterns and coloration under

ultra-violet light, DNA sequences of several gene regions, and rearing and cross breeding studies

are also warranted.

Objectives

* 1. Develop detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25
Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies. Each diagnosis will include synonymies, type
specimen data, taxonomic information and morphological descriptions, distributions, and
life history information.

* 2. Infer a phylogeny and test the monophyly of the 16 currently recognized species of
Speyeria species based on combined morphological, life history, and genetic/sequence
data. Investigation of useful external and internal morphological characters will be made.

* 3. Survey the genitalia within Speyeria the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis complex to
determine if there are evolutionary informative characters for phylogenetic analyses.

* 4. Database distributional data for Speyeria atlantis-hesperis gleaned from museum and
private collection locality records on Diversity of Life web-site.









* 5. Develop Speyeria DNA barcode database for COI gene at Barcode of Life Data
Systems, University of Guelph, for use in future molecular analyses.

* 6. Compile, identify, label, and properly preserve Speyeria specimens for frozen tissue
collection to be utilized for future molecular research at the McGuire Center for
Lepidoptera and Biodiversity.

* 7. Photograph type specimens for 16 Speyeria species and 25 S. atlantis-hesperis
subspecies, and photograph wings on specimens utilized for morphological and genetic
studies.

* 8. Illustrate and photograph internal and external morphological characters utilized in
analyses.

Central and Peripheral Hypotheses

The central hypothesis is the following: If comprehensive species diagnoses, taxonomic

reviews, biogeographical data, and phylogenetic analyses are compiled and conducted, they may

provide a better understanding of the inter- and intraspecific relationships, evolutionary history,

and the accuracy of nomenclature associated with Speyeria. The peripheral hypothesis is the

following: If appropriate species concepts are applied to the results of the phylogenetic analyses

and compilation of biogeographical data, they may provide additional justification for conserving

members of this taxon.









CHAPTER 2
SPEYERIA DIAGNOSIS AND KEY TO SPECIES, SPECIES ACCOUNTS, AND SPEYERIA
ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS

A diagnosis for Speyeria (Scudder 1889), based on the genotypic species Speyeria idalia

(Drury), is included here as baseline for comparative morphology and phylogenetic studies of

members of this genus (Table 1). A key to adult Speyeria, modified from Ehrlich and Ehrlich

(1961), Ferris (1971a), Hammond (1978), and Scott et al. (1998), is also included to aid in

species identifications. I attempted to use the least regionally variable characters in developing

the key, but the key presented here is at best superficial and should be used in conjunction with

color images of adult habitus to aid in the identification of Speyeria. Geographical information is

also included in the key for some species.

To gain a better understanding of nomenclature, taxonomy, life histories, and distributions,

the species and subspecies accounts were compiled based on the available literature, field-work,

and collection data. Diagnoses and life history information primarily pertain to the nominate

taxon for each species unless otherwise indicated. Larval hostplant and adult food records

include those reported in the literature for nominate as well as subspecific taxa. Images of

primary and a few miscellaneous type specimens are also included for many of the taxa

discussed herein. Distributional information for Speyeria was obtained from the literature and

detailed distributional information for Speyeria atlantis (Edwards 1863a) and Speyeria hesperis

(Edwards, 1864a) was also taken from specimen label data available in institutions and private

collections. Errors in nomenclature are identified, and taxonomic and life history information is

also updated and discussed. Compilation of these accounts has also provided baseline data and

characters for systematic work and analyses reported in subsequent chapters.









Materials and Methods

Numerous publications, directly and indirectly relevant to Speyeria species, were reviewed

to compile the following accounts. An attempt to maintain a standard terminology for

morphological and behavioral traits associated with Speyeria in the literature was made;

morphological and behavioral terminology follow primarily that of Hammond (1974; 1978) and

Scott (1986b). Scientific and/or vernacular names for adult and larval food sources included in

each account are written as they appear in the original publication unless otherwise noted (i.e., no

attempt was made to change a vernacular name to a scientific name and vice versa; and no

attempt was made to use the current taxonomy of plant species) unless otherwise noted.

Recognition of nomenclatural errors, synonymies and type information was greatly facilitated by

reference to dos Passos and Grey (1947), McHenry (1964), Brown (1965), Miller and Brown

(1981) and Ferris (1989a,b), but several other taxonomic works were also utilized and are

referenced in the profiles. Type specimen information included herein is primary type data only

(i.e., holotype, lectotype, or neotype); secondary type information is not included in most

accounts. Bracketed authors) and year of publication are references for which the name was first

used as it appears in these accounts. Bracketed text (i.e., sex of specimen) in the Type Label Data

section was included on the original label as a symbol and is included to indicate the sex of the

specimen. Species accounts are presented in order according to Opler and Warren (2005).

However, the type species for the genus, Speyeria idalia (Drury), is presented first in this

treatment. Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis accounts are presented in order following Scott et al.

(1998). Common names associated with Speyeria were taken from Scudder (1889), Miller

(1992), The International Lepidoptera Survey (2007), and original species and subspecies

descriptions when vernacular names were included.









In addition to specific literature cited in the accounts, the following literature was utilized

for life history and distributional information: Acorn (1993), Adams and Finkelstein (2006),

Allen (1997), Allen et al. (2005), Austin (1981), Austin (1985b), Brooks (1942), Brown et al.

(1957), Cary and Holland (1992), Clark and Clark (1951), Cohen and Cohen (1991), Comstock

J. A. (1989-reprint from original publication date of 1925), Comstock W. P. (1940), Covell and

Straley (1973), Davenport (1995), Davenport (1998), DeFoliart (1956), Domfeld (1980),

Douglas and Douglas (2005), Drees and Butler (1978), Dunford (2005), Dunford and Ekin

(2005), Ebner (1970), Ellis (1975), Ely et al. (1983), Emmel (1964, 1998), Emmel and Emmel

(1973), Emmel et al. (1992), Eriksen (1962), Ferge (2002), Ferris (1971b), Ferris (1976a), Ferris

and Brown (1981), Field (1938), Fisher (2005), Fleishman et al. (1997), Fleishman et al. (2001a),

Fleishman et al. (2005), Garth (1950), Garth and Tilden (1963), Garth and Tilden (1986),

Glassberg (2001a,b), Gochfeld and Burger (1997), Gregory (1975), Grey (1972), Guppy and

Shepard (2001), Hardesty and Groothuis (1993), Harris (1972), Heitzman and Heitzman (1996),

Hinchliff (1994), Hinchliff (1996), Holland (1974), Holland (1984), Holland and Cary (1996),

Holmes et al. (1991), Hooper (1973), Hubbard (1965), Irwin and Downey (1973), Johnson

(1972), Klassen (1984), Kohler (1980), Kozial (1994), Lafontaine and Wood (1997), Larsen and

Bovee (2001), Lavers (2006), Layberry et al. (1998), Marrone (1994), Masters (1972), Miller

and Brown (1981), Nelson (1979), Nielsen (1999), North American Butterfly Association

(2001), O'Brien (1983), Opler and Krizek (1984), Opler and Malikul (1998), Opler and Wright

(1999), Orsak (1978), Pavulaan (1990), Pyle (1995), Riotte (1962), Rolfs (2005), Saunders

(1932), Scott (1973a), Scott (1975), Scott (1986a,b), Scott (1992), Scott (2006a,b), Scott et al.

(1968), Scott and Scott (1978), Scott et al. (1998), Scudder (1889), Shapiro and Shapiro (1973),

Shields (1963), Shields (1966), Shields et al. (1970), Shields and Emmel (1973), Shuey et al.









(1987), Shull and Badger (1972), Shull (1987), Simmons (1963), Snyder (1896), Stewart (2001),

Threatful (1988), Tietz (1952), Tilden (1963), Tilden and Huntzinger (1977), Tilden and Smith

(1986), Toliver et al. (2001), Tuttle [Ed.] (1996-2006), Wagner (2005), and Warren (2005).

Coverage of the literature was meant to be as comprehensive as possible, but not all of the

published life history and distributional information currently available for Speyeria is cited.

Additional locality data for S. atlantis and S. hesperis was gleaned from specimen label

data from the following museum and private collections (acronyms for museums primarily

follow the Bishop Museum's Abbreviations for Insect and Spider Collections of the World

(http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/codens/codens-inst.html) (last visited September 2007): Allyn

Museum of Entomology (AME) [currently McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity

(MGCL)-Florida Museum of Natural History (FLMNH)], American Museum of Natural History

(AMNH), Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH), C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod

Biodiversity (CSUC), Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), Clifford D. Ferris, Florida

State Collection of Arthropods (FSCA), McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity-

Florida Museum of Natural History (MGCL-FLMNH), Crispin Guppy, Norbert Kondla,

Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM), Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum (Brigham Young

University-BYU), James A. Scott, Steve Spomer, Utah State University Insect Collection

(EMUS), University of Wyoming Insect Museum (ESUW) and Andrew D. Warren. Abbreviated

records (i.e., state and county information) are included in the subspecies accounts. Locality

records were also exported in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format to personnel at

DiversityofLife.org (DOL) (http://www.diversityoflife.org/) for databasing. Distributional maps

are generated by selecting a given species/subspecies and following the instructions. Maps are

either in road, aerial satellite imagery, or hybrid (i.e., road map and aerial satellite) format. A









navigation and zoom function allows the user to visualize the entire distribution or to focus on

single locality data points.

Type specimen images were taken by the author with an Olympus Stylus six-megapixel

digital camera attached to a six-inch tall camera tripod under the natural lighting present at each

museum. The background included with each specimen was blue-grey card stock. No flash was

utilized to take images in order to reduce the reflection of silver wing scales present on most

species. Enhancement of images (i.e., focus sharpening and color adjustment) included in this

study was completed utilizing Adobe Photoshop CS2 (version 9.0). Color adjustment was made

while comparing the computer image with the actual specimen; however, in some cases true

specimen color is not precisely matched in the images included herein (natural, outdoor lighting

would probably produce the most accurate wing color images). Type specimen images provided

by various museum personnel are indicated; camera and lighting specifics are not known. Table

2 includes a list of the museum names and abbreviations where specimens were photographed.

Species names included in the figure captions are written following the current taxonomy; thus,

they are not always the name associated with the specimen when it was described. Names that

were not given to the species when it was described are preceded by an = sign.

Speyeria Diagnosis

Speyeria Scudder, 1872 p. 23

Genotype: Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Idalia Drury, 1773 p. 1; 1770 p. 25

Argynnis Fabricius 1807 p. ix

Genotype: Papiliopaphia Linnaeus, 1758 p. 481

Semnopsyche Scudder, 1875 p. 258 [treated as a subgenus by dos Passos and Grey, 1947]

Genotype: Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Diana Cramer, 1777 pp. 4, 148

Neoacidalia Reuss, 1926 p. 69









Genotype: Papilio cybele Cramer, 1775 [sic]

The adult description for Speyeria, presented here from Scudder (1889, p. 528), is based on

the genotypic species, Speyeria [Papilio] idalia (Drury, 1773). The following description is

slightly modified to include more recent morphological terminology and excludes some

extraneous descriptive wording, but is in large part verbatim: Head rather large, profusely

covered with moderately long hairs, longest about the base of the antennae. Slightly and broadly

depressed dorsally, broader than high, but not as broad as the eyes; dorsal margin broadly

angular, the apex depressed between the antennae, its lateral margins nearly straight; ventral

margin broadly rounded and depressed only slightly. Vertex of head large and swollen, but

scarcely rising above the upper level of the eyes, twice as broad as long, the posterior margin

broadly rounded and flattened medially, the anterior margin sloping extended forward and

angulate with apex removed. Eyes large, full, and not covered with scales or hairs. Antennae

inserted in deep pits with a transverse channel between them, separated by a space fully equal to

the diameter of the apex of the pedicel; longer than the abdomen, composed of 52 segments, the

last 13 of which form a slightly depressed cylindrical club; each segment flattened ventrally,

suboval in shape, three times as broad as scape, two and a half to three times as long as broad.

Palpi small and thin, approximately half the length of the eye, curving slightly forward, the

apical joint about one-sixth the length of the penultimate segment and thickly clothed with

recumbent scales, the basal two joints with long, coarse, projecting hairs on each side, the third

segment with shorter, scale-like hairs which grow longer in advance of the eyes, curving upward

to partially encircle them.

Prothoracic lobes moderately large, not swollen, slightly flattened anteriorly, the dorsal

surface nearly straight, both ends well rounded, scarcely four times as broad as long, and slightly









higher than long. Paired articulated dorsal plates long and slender, slightly enlarged, more than

three times longer than the widest point, the base moderately broad or nearly square, the

posterior lobe tapering rapidly next to the base, the tip well rounded, the dorsal margin slightly

curved, scarcely sinuate, the ventral margin angulate.

[Note: Wing venation in this study follows the Comstock-Needham system (see Figure 2-

3) for the reasons discussed in Miller (1969); wing terminology included here is presented as it

appears in Scudder (1889)]

Forewing (see Figure 2-1A) seven-eighths as long as broad, the costal margin rather

strongly convex, the medially portion less so, the apical angle well-rounded; outer margin nearly

straight, rounded off toward the angles; inner margin slightly convex in males, slightly concave

in the females. First superior subcostal vein arising beyond the middle of the outer half of the

upper margin of the cell; second vein at the end of the cell, or slightly within the extreme limit of

its upper border, which is pushed outward slightly at this location; this vein at approximately

two-thirds the distance from the apex of the cell to the outer border; the fourth vein is a short

distance beyond it, about halfway between the apex of the cell and the outer border; second

inferior subcostal vein arising two-fifths the way down the cell; the latter slightly more than two-

fifths the length of the wing, three times as long as broad. Last median vein connected with the

vein closing the cell, nearly half as far beyond its base as it is from the base of the first vein.

Hindwing (see Figure 2-1A) very strongly and roundly shouldered next to the base, beyond

which it is slightly (females) or strongly (males) convex, the outer angle broadly rounded. Outer

margin regularly or fully rounded, very slightly at the upper subcostal vein (males) or very fully

rounded, prominent, and roundly angulated at the upper median vein (females); inner margin

broadly and abruptly expanded next to the base, beyond that straight nearly to the tip of the









internal vein, beyond that excised and slightly and roundly emarginated, the angle rounded.

Precostal vein curved strongly outward; first subcostal vein midway (males) or two-thirds

(female) the distance from the branching point of the costal and subcostal veins to the origin of

the second subcostal vein; cell closed. Androconial scent scales (males) ribbon-shaped, equal and

slender, approximately 23 times longer than broad, the basal portion black, the rest transparent,

terminating in a lancet-shaped fringed tip.

Forelegs small, cylindrical, either clothed as the other legs (females) or also with a few

short hairs on either side not projecting greatly (males); tibiae scarcely more than one-third as

long as the hind tibia, the tarsi slightly shorter than the tibia; tarsi composed of either a single

undivided segment with a bluntly conical apex (males), or five segments, visible without

denudation, of which the first segment forms fully three-fifths of the whole tarsus, the second

segment nearly half of the remainder, the fourth is small and the fifth segment is the smallest;

each of the segments except the terminal segment bearing short, rather stout spurs ventrally, all

segments also bear a row of minute spines ventrally on either side (females). Middle tibiae five-

sixths the length of the hind tibiae, bearing a row of long, slender, scarcely tapering, slightly

diverging spines ventrally on either side, the terminal ones developed to very long and slender,

scarcely tapering spurs; the tibiae also bear numerous, short, slender, nearly recumbent spines

dorsally and on the inner margin. Tarsi have four uniformly spaced rows of numerous, short,

stout, slightly curving spines, the apical ones of each segment longer than the rest; similar spines

are located dorsally on all of the segments, scarcely occurring in longitudinal rows. Tarsal claws

long, rather stout, strongly curved at base, beyond the base nearly straight and equal, the apical

third falcate and tapering to a pointed tip; pulvillus minute.









Male genitalic armature (see Figure 2-10) stout, globose, arched, hook (=uncus) large,

strongly compressed, longer than the centrum (=tegumen), somewhat curved and directed

slightly downward, the tip minutely hooked; clasps (=valvae) large, broad and long, more than

twice as long as broad, slightly curved in either direction, the upper process of valvae arising

near the middle of the dorsal margin, several times longer than broad, the basal half nearly equal,

beyond that greatly tapering; main blade of valve expanding roundly at tip and beyond the

middle of the dorsal margin, and especially at the dorsal posterior angle, where a small process

(=digitus) is directed upward and slightly forward and inward.

The type species for Speyeria Scudder, 1872, Papilio idalia Drury 1773, is described in the

three volume monograph entitled: Illustrations of natural history, wherein are exhibited upwards

of two hundred and forty figures of exotic insects, according to their different genera by D.

Drury. The original description contains three hand colored illustrations (Figure 2-1A) and a

fairly brief description of 'Idalia' (Figure 2-1B). Speyeria idalia was described from individuals

taken in New York on 28 June, with no further locality information. The original designation of

Speyeria was monotypic, containing only idalia. Drury's description has been a source of

potential error in that specimens used for the description are presumed lost. Because the type

specimen was apparently lost since the time of Drury's description, dos Passos and Grey (1947)

designated a neotype based on a male specimen labeled 'No. 1349 Coll. J. Angus, West Farms,

New York City' housed at the American Museum of Natural History.

Key to the Species of Speyeria

Abbreviations: VHW=ventral hindwing; DHW=dorsal hindwing;
M=medial wing vein; A=anal wing vein
[see Figures 2-2 and 2-3 for wing terminology; Figure 2-3 follows primarily the Comstock
Needham system, as presented by Miller, 1969 (p. 46)]
1. Female genitalia: bursa copulatrix prolonged and constricted to form a secondary sac
....................................................... ................... ............................. .. 2









1'. Bursa copulatrix simple (ovoid), not constricted to form a secondary sac (partial secondary
sac occurs in S. idalia) .................................... ...... .................. .. ...... 4
2. VHW with basal two-thirds uniform in color, without silver or whitish spots; males and
females sexually dimorphic (males with orange DHW band; females with bluish band on
DHW )(occurs east of the Rocky M ountains)..................................... ...............S. diana
2'. VHW with basal two thirds with silver or whitish spots; males and females with slight sexual
dimorphism (females without bluish band on DHW ).............................. .......................3
3. Males with M1-2A dorsal wing veins appearing widened dorsally due to dark scaling along
them; DHW on females without rosy-tinged patch in median area towards inner margin; both
sexes tending to brownish wing coloration ventrally.............................................S. cybele
3'. Males with scaling of dorsal wing veins thin or absent dorsally (resembling females in this
respect); DHW on females usually with a rosy-tinged patch in median area towards inner margin;
both sexes tending to reddish wing coloration ventrally.................................S. aphrodite
4. Male genitalia with uncus comparatively wide, ventrally excavate near tip.......................5
4'. Male genitalia with uncus more uniformly tapering, not ventrally excavate near tip.............6
5. DHW with one (male) or two (female) rows of whitish spots (occurs east of the Rocky
Mountains)....... ............................ ......... .. ................ S. idalia
5'. DHW not bearing one or two rows of whitish spots (occurs primarily in Rocky Mountain
states and west of the Rocky Mountains)....................................... .................S. nokomis
6. Male genitalia with valva bearing a long process (=digitus), this process three to four times as
long as broad; large, conspicuous silver spots on VHW...............................S. edwardsii
6.' Male genitalia with valva bearing relatively short process (=digitus), this process less than
three times as long as broad; VHW spots smaller, may be silver or unsilvered.....................7
7. DHW spots unsilvered or obsolete (restricted to central California) .......................S. adiaste
7'. DHW spots silver or cream colored [some populations of S. mormonia (e.g., White
M mountains, Arizona) bear obsolete DHW spots]........................... ............ ................8
8. VHW disc dark reddish to maroon in color, usually with conspicuous wash of lavender
overscaling, spots cream or unsilvered (occurs in Rocky Mountains and primarily west of the
Rocky Mountains) ...................................... ........ ... ..............S. hydaspe
8'. VHW disc devoid of conspicuous lavender overscaling [some populations ofS. zerene (e.g.,
Sierra Nevada Mountains) bear lavender overscaling], spots silvered or unsilvered
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
9. VHW disc green, greenish brown, or brown (green scaling also occurs in a few S. coronis, S.
zerene, S. egleis and S. mormonia populations), slender elongate median spots, almost devoid of
yellow submarginal band, discal spots always silver (only occurs west of the Mississippi
River) ..... ........... ..................... .. ... ...................... S. callippe
9'. VHW disc various colors (usually not green), yellow submarginal band usually present,
m edian spots variously shaped.............................. ... .............................. ......... .10
10. VHW disc never with green scaling................ ..................11
10'. VHW disc usually without green scaling, but with some populations having green scales on
disc ........... .................... ................. ... .............. .................................13
11. Occurring in the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada ................. ............S. carolae
11'. Not occurring in the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada ...................................... 12
12. VHW spots always silvered, chocolate-brown to blackish brown disc ..................S. atlantis
12'. VHW spots cream colored, but may be silver, disc usually reddish [a few populations (e.g.,
Raton Mesa, New Mexico and Ruby Mountains, Nevada) bear a brownish disc]........S. hesperis









13. Male with dorsal wing scaling of M1-2A veins "thin" and similar to female; size small on the
average relative to remaining species in key (forewing length 22-26 mm)...........S. mormonia
13'. Male with widened dorsal wing scaling of M1-2A veins compared to those of female; size
on the average larger (forewing length usually greater than 26 mm).............................14
14. VHW disc color not so reddish and tending to brown, may be overscaled with green; discal
spots may be silver, partially silver, or opaque ....................................S. egleis
14'. VHW disc color brownish to greenish or dark red in some populations; discal spots usually
silver ............. .. ...... ....... .... ... ............ .... ...... .......................15
15. Generally larger wingspan than S. zerene, usually with greenish-brown on VHW disc,
varying to dark red-brown in some populations.................................................S. coronis
15'. Generally smaller wingspan than S. coronis, VHW disc with light buff, brown VHW disc to
colors overlapping w ith S. coronis .......................................... ..................S. zerene

Species Accounts

Note: Author names and year of publication appearing in brackets are references for which
the name was first used as it appears in these accounts]
Speyeria idalia (Drury, 1773)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
(Figure 2-8)
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Idalia Drury, 1773 p. 1; 1770 p. 25
Argynnis astarte Fisher, 1858 p. 179
Argynnis Ashtaroth Fisher, 1859 p. 352
Argynnis Idalia-Infumata Oberthuir, 1912 p. 315
Argynnis idalia Drury form dolli Gunder, 1927 p. 286
Argynnis idalia Drury form pallida Eisner, 1942 p. 124
Common names. Regal Fritillary, Regal Silverpot Butterfly, Regal Silver-wing, Ideal
Argynne, Eastern Regal Fritillary, Prairie Regal Fritillary.
Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at American
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-9).
Type locality. See Figure 2-1B for original description. New York. Fixed by dos Passos
and Grey (1947) based on neotype as New York City, New York County, New York.
Type label data. No. 1349, coll. J. Angus, West Farms, New York City.; NEOTYPE, Pap.
Nym. Phal. Idalia Drury.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 68-106 mm. The
forewings in males and females are bright orange-brown with black markings. The veins in the
forewing of the male are thick and dark but there is no basal suffusion. Dorsal hindwings are
black with a postmedian row of white spots and submarginal row of orange (male) or white
(female) spots. The ventral hindwing disc is a deep olive and the spots are large and silver. The
black surface on the dorsal hindwings distinguishes S. idalia from most other Speyeria. The
genitalia is similar to those in the Semnopsyche group. The male has a thick, hooked uncus
(Figure 2-10) and there is a secondary bursal sac in the female. Prior to Williams (2001a,c 2002),
there were no 'subspecific' taxa designated under S. idalia. Based on adult wing morphology and
molecular evidence, Williams separated the western and eastern (Pennsylvania) S. idalia
populations. The name Speyeria idalia occidentalis Williams has been given to the western
populations. Eggs are pale green when newly laid, changing to tan as the larva develops inside.









Larvae (Figure 2-8C) are velvety black with ochre-yellow or dull orange markings and
transverse stripes. The dorsal spines are silver-white with black tips. The top half of the larval
head capsule is bright red-orange. Scudder (1889) described the six larval instars in detail. Pupae
(Figure 2-8B) are approximately 28 mm in length, light brown, tinged with pink, and bear black
spots on the wing cases. There are also yellow transverse bands on the abdomen. Detailed egg,
larval instar, and pupal descriptions are included in Edwards (1879d).
Range. Formerly known from Manitoba south through the plains states to central
Colorado, Kansas, northeastern Oklahoma, and Missouri; in the east from New Brunswick south
to northwest North Carolina. Many colonies, however, have disappeared due mostly to habitat
loss. Scudder (1889) reported S. idalia as far south as northern Georgia (but see Calhoun 2007),
Louisiana (but see Hovanitz 1963a), and Arkansas, and also reported it to be abundant in
Connecticut and Massachusetts. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) listed the following states: Maine,
Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois,
Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota. It has been extirpated from most of New
England except for a few offshore islands (but see Schweitzer 1993; Wagner 1995), and also
extirpated from the mainland of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware (Evers 1994). It has also
been extirpated in many areas in the Great Lakes region (Douglas and Douglas 2005) and is now
rare or absent from many areas east of the Mississippi River (Opler and Wright 1999). Adults
may wander long distances, and many records represent observations of single wandering
individuals (Opler and Wright 1999). Currently, S. idalia are found in good numbers in the Great
Plains states, with fragmented populations in the Midwest, and only a few known populations in
the east (Pennsylvania and Virginia) (Schweitzer 1993; Mason 2001; Williams 2001a;
Mooreside et al. 2006).
Life history. Habitat includes Upper Austral to Transition Zone in wet meadows/fields,
marshlands, and prairie. Open grassy areas, such as mid-grass or tall-grass prairies, are preferred
habitat. Life history studies and land management issues are numerous for S. idalia (Swengel
1993, 2004; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Wagner 1995; Glassberg 1998a,b; Debinski et al. 2000;
Mason 2001; Ferster 2005; Kelly and Debinski 1998; Kopper et al. 2000; Kopper et al.
2001a,b,c; Ross 2001; Shepherd and Debinski 2005; Keyghobadi et al. 2006). Swengel (1997)
reported S. idalia were significantly more abundant in larger midwestern prairies with
topographic diversity and management by haying or grazing. Speyeria idalia are reportedly
sensitive to fire, and management activities should both address the temporal and spatial aspects
of the resource needs of the butterfly (Evers 1994; Swengel 1997; Swengel and Swengel 2001;
Swengel 2004). Eggs are laid singly near hostplants or on hostplants (Scudder 1889) and unfed
first instar larvae hibernate. Oviposition site selection may be influenced by the presence of grass
and forb overstory for protection against solar radiation and harsh overwintering conditions
(Kopper et. al 2000). Females do not lay many eggs until August or early September (Scott
1986b; Kopper et al. 2001c), and a single individual is capable of laying nearly 2,500 eggs
(Wagner 1995). Larvae have been observed feeding on violets during the day (Kopper et al.
2001a; Mooreside et al. 2006). Flight period is from June through early September.
Speyeria idalia is either listed as endangered, threatened, or are of special concern in
several states (Shuey et al. 1987; Evers 1994, Schlicht 1997; Mason 2001; Vaughan and Sheperd
2005a,b). Williams (1999, 2001a, 2001c) suggested that the subspecific status of the eastern
population of S. idalia idalia has important conservation implications and should result in federal
emergency listing for this taxon. Habitat loss, due to development and agriculture, is the likely









cause of the decline of S. idalia in many areas (Vaughan and Sheperd 2005b), but their decline
may also be due to pesticide spraying for gypsy moths control in some regions (Evers 1994).
Larval host plant decline (Kelly and Debinski 1998) and lack of suitable nectar sources (Wagner
1995) may also explain the disappearance of S. idalia. Wagner (2005) reported a nuclear
polyhedrosis virus in captively bred populations, and this may also be a factor in the decline of
some wild populations. Small, isolated populations are vulnerable to local extinction and loss of
genetic diversity unless ovipositing females can find other suitable habitats. Ries and Debinski
(2001) suggested the movements of adults are influenced by the quality of habitat, and that they
are less likely to exit from suitable habitat. It has also been reported that S. idalia is non-
migratory and generally stay within the same local area throughout their lifetime (Scott 1986b).
Keyghobadi et al. (2006) have shown that S. idalia populations in Pennsylvania occupying three,
relatively nearby meadows exhibited restricted gene flow and unique genetic signatures. This
suggests there may be fine-scale genetic subdivision in areas where S. idalia populations have
been largely extirpated. The results presented by Williams et al. (2002) and Williams (2003)
indicated that microsatellite markers have shown increased differentiation and decreased genetic
diversity in the isolated, eastern S. idalia populations. Midwestern populations, which are
presently experiencing the same effects of habitat fragmentation, are also more likely to
experience the associated increase in extinction risk due to both genetic and demographic factors
(Williams et al. 2003).
Larval hostplants. Viola pedatifida, V. papilionacea, V lanceolata, V pedata, V.
sagittata, V. sororia (Swengel 1997; Robinson et al. 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005).
Adult food sources. Common milkweed, butterfly milkweed, swamp milkweed, pasture
and field thistles, alfalfa, butterfly weed, black-eyed Susan, wild bergamont, blackberry,
dogbanes, crown vetch, Deptford pink, spotted knapweed, ox-eye daisy, dotted blazing star,
prairie blazingstar, purple coneflower, black Sampson (Shapiro and Shapiro 1973; Debinski et al.
2000; Ross 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005; Ferster 2005; Shepherd and Debinski 2005; also
see Kopper et al. 2001b for S. idalia and nectar source phenologies).
Speyeria diana (Cramer, 1777)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
(Figure 2-4A male; 2-4B female)
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Diana Cramer, 1777 pp. 4, 148
Common names. Diana Fritillary, Great Smokies Fritillary, Ozark Diana Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype (male) (see Miller and Brown 1981) at The Natural History
Museum, London (Figure 2-5).
Type locality. The original description (Cramer 1977) did not contain a collection date,
sex of specimen, or series data; "en Virginie". Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on
putative holotype (see Miller and Brown 1981) as Jamestown, James City County, Virginia.
Type label data. ex collection Tring Museum, ex collection Felder, ex collection M. J. C.
Sylvius van Lennep.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 88-112 mm. Both
sexes are distinctive and superficially unlike other greater fritillaries. Adults are sexually
dimorphic with the male's general appearance orange and black and the female's blue and black.
A similar sexual dimorphism occurs in western North America with S. nokomis and with
Eurasian Argynnis that range through regions of higher rainfall and higher summer temperatures
(Hovanitz 1963b). Males bear black wing bases and are orange distally while females are black
basally and bluish distally. The veins in the forewing of the male are thick and dark. Speyeria









diana also lacks silver spots on the ventral hindwings, the discal bars are completely obliterated,
and the postmedian and submarginal spots are greatly reduced, distinguishing them from most
other Speyeria. A rare form of the female occurs that has green instead of blue on the hindwings
(Opler and Krizek 1984). No subspecies has been designated for S. diana; however, there is
some variability in individuals, but this is not abundantly apparent at the population level. Clark
and Clark (1951) reported differences in wing facies due to elevational changes in Virginia
populations. Female genitalia in S. diana differ from most other Speyeria by having a secondary
bursal sac, closely allying S. diana with S. cybele and S. aphrodite. In the male the digitus is
distinct, widening distally bearing an abrupt ventral angle with an outline unique to S. diana.
Females are especially fecund with well over a thousand ova recorded (Ross and Henk 2004).
Eggs are light yellow when they are deposited, and turn gray by day four or five, reflecting the
color of the developing larva (Allen 1997; Ross and Henk 2004). Mature larvae are
approximately 65 mm in length, velvety black to purple with rows of black spines that are red to
orange basally. Dorsal spines are proportionately longer than those located laterally. There
occasionally is a double row of white spots located dorsally. The larval head capsule is orange
above and black below, but is more angulate than those of closely related S. cybele and S.
aphrodite. Pupae are approximately 30 mm in length, mottled light brown and red, and bear
tubercles on the abdomen. Duration of the pupal stage is approximately 20 days.
Range. It is currently restricted to the interior highlands of Arkansas, Oklahoma and
Missouri (Carlton and Nobles 1996; Rudolph et al. 2006). It is also known in the southern
Appalachians from western Virginia, West Virginia to northeast Georgia and Alabama (Scott
1986b; Moran and Baldridge 2002). Moran and Baldridge (2002) recorded it from 14 different
Arkansas counties, 11 of these representing county records, indicating that it is more widespread
than previously thought. It was extirpated in southeastern Virginia in about 1951 (Opler and
Krizek 1984; Scott 1986b), and is considered uncommon or extirpated in many other parts of its
range. Historical populations in the Midwest and the Virginia Piedmont were extirpated in the
1800s (Opler and Krizek 1984; Rudolph et. al. 2006). Dos Passos and Grey (1947) listed records
from the following states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Arkansas.
Life history. Habitat is mostly upper austral to transition zone in deciduous and pine
woodland near streams, rich forested valleys and mountainsides. Clark and Clark (1951) noted
that thick undergrowth, usually with alders and rhododendrons, is usually present. Females will
walk on the forest floor, laying single eggs on dead leaves and twigs near Viola spp., mostly in
late summer. Larvae emerge in the late fall and hibernate until the following spring when they
commence feeding on violet leaves and flowers. Adult males begin flying one week earlier than
females and patrol woodland habitats. Females likely mimic Battusphilenor (L.) and Limenitis
astyanax (F.) in various parts of the species range (Scudder 1889; Ehrlich 1961). However,
Hovanitz (1963b) hypothesized that there may an environmental relationship affecting wing
coloration and patterns by noting that they may be correlated to the high humidity and
temperatures where S. diana occurs. Flight period is mid-June through early August, rarely into
September. In Arkansas's Ouachita Mountains, male S. diana emerge as early as late May and
females emerge approximately 7-10 days later (Rudolph et al. 2006). Females have been
observed as late as mid October in northern Georgia (Adams and Finkelstein 2006).
Speyeria diana is of conservation concern and the cause of extirpations and range
contractions are likely due to habitat alteration (Allen 1997), harvest of old growth forests
(Hammond and McCorkle 1983), strip mining (Vaughan and Shepard 2005a), and loss of nectar









plants (Moran and Baldridge 2002; Rudolph et. al. 2006). The Xerces Society currently lists S.
diana as vulnerable (Vaughan and Shepard 2005a).
Larval hostplants. Viola papilionacea, V. cucullata, V. cornuta, V. sororia; partially
reared on Vernonia noveboracensis (Compositae) (Tietz 1972; Scott 1986b; Robinson et al.
2002).
Adult food resources. Reported to visit milkweeds including swamp milkweed and
butterfly weed, ironweed, red clover, dung, carrion, damp soil, wads of grass, vomitus of
coyotes, and human sweat (Opler and Krizek 1984; Krizek 1991; Opler and Malikul 1998;
Rudolph et al. 2006). Rudolph et al. (2006) listed several plant species as primary nectar sources
in Arkansas including Asclepias tuberosa, Monarda fistulosa, Cirisium carolinianum, and
Echinaceapurpurea; Asclepias syriaca was recorded as a nectar source in western Virginia
(Krizek 1991).
Speyeria cybele (Fabricius, 1775)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Cybele Fabricius, 1775 p. 516
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Daphnis Cramer, 1775 p. 89; 1776 p. 152
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Daphnis? Martyn, 1797 p. 7
Argynnis Cybele aberration Baal Strecker, 1878 p. 111
Common names. Great Spangled Fritillary, Cybele Fritillary, Yellow-banded Silver Wing.
Type deposited. Holotype (female) (=neotype of dos Passos and Grey 1947; see Miller
and Brown 1981) at British Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-6).
Type locality. The original description (Fabricius 1775) did not contain a collection date,
sex of specimen, or series data; "Habitat in America". Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947)
based on alleged holotype as New York City, New York County, New York.
Type label data. cybele, Fab., Syst. Ent. P. 516 n. 311 (1775), United States; Papilio
Cybele Fabr. Sp. Ins. No. 477; NEOTYPE, Papilio Nymph. Phalerat. Daphnis? Martyn,
designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947, p. 6.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 65-105 mm. There
are several 'subspecies' included within the S. cybele species complex. The western races show a
sexual dimorphism in which the ground color of the male is bright orange and the female is
yellow with darker scales located near the base. Some, such as Speyeria cybele leto, exhibit
sexual dimorphism with males being bright orange and females being nearly white. Older
literature, as well as contemporary works, treat leto as a distinct species (Holland 1931; Edwards
1864b; Scudder 1875; Howe 1975; Kondla 2004). Eastern and western populations reportedly
intergrade or show mixed wing characteristics where they meet in Alberta and Montana
(Glassberg 2001a). Speyeria cybele bear silver spots on the ventral hindwings, but these spots are
reduced compared to other Speyeria species. The ventral discal area is typically brown and the
submarginal band is wide and yellowish in color. Males have prominent sex scaling on along
forewing veins. The eyes on living adults are yellow-green (Glassberg 2001 a). Female genitalia
in S. cybele differ from most other Speyeria by having a secondary bursal sac, closely allying S.
cybele with S. diana and S. aphrodite. The male genitalic armature bears a hooked uncus,
similar to those in S. aphrodite, S. diana, S. idalia, and S. nokomis. Eggs are light yellow when
first deposited and turn pale brown after 3-4 days. Duration from oviposition to larval eclosion is
reportedly 12-17 days (Edwards 1880b) or 22-23 days indoors (Ross and Henk 2004). Mature
larvae are approximately 51 mm in length, are typically chocolate-brown on the ventral surface,
and bear dorsally black spines that are red-yellow to orange at the base. There is also a row of









gray spots located dorsally. The larval head capsule is orange above and black below. Pupae are
mottled dark brown, occasionally with reddish-orange over the wing cases. The anterior
abdominal tubercles are usually black or black and yellow in color. Duration of the pupal stage is
16 to 20 days in eastern cybele (Edwards 1880b).
Range. The S. cybele species complex extends from the east coast to the west coast in the
United States and Canada, south to northeastern California, New Mexico, and eastward to central
Arkansas (reportedly common in Clay, Greene, and Craighead Counties in northern Arkansas-
Lavers 2006) and the northern portions of Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The range of
nominate S. cybele includes much of the eastern United States, where it is considered common.
Records for S. cybele exist as far south as Mississippi (Lafayette County-Mather 1966) and
Florida (Kimball 1965; Heppner 2003). It was once considered common in areas such as Staten
Island, but was reportedly rare in the early 1970's (Shapiro and Shapiro 1973). Some S. cybele
forms may be declining in western North America because of habitat changes such as the loss of
habitat (Opler and Wright 1999). Howe (1975) reported a decline in eastern Kansas cybele and
noted considerable fluctuations in its numbers from one season to the next.
Life history. Habitat includes Transition to Canadian zone in moist deciduous woods and
moist meadows, conifer forest openings, aspen-lined streams or glades, valleys, prairies, and
along roadsides. Females mate immediately after emerging in May and June but do not
commence oviposition until August or September, strongly suggesting reproductive diapause
(Sims 1984). Eggs are typically laid singly near dead or dying Viola and unfed first instar larvae
hibernate; however, Scudder (1889) noted that eggs are also laid upon the leaves and stalks of
the hostplant. First instars commence feeding the following spring. Adults are swift fliers and
males patrol all day while seeking females; females carry males while mating. Males typically
frequent flower heads more often than females; the females remain hidden and rarely venture out
into the open. Ross (2002, 2004) noted that dead or decoy adult S. cybele placed on nectar
sources attracted additional S. cybele individuals as well as other butterfly species. Flight period
is mid-June through mid-September.
Larval hostplants. Viola rotundifolia, V. paplionacea, V. palustris, V adunca, V. adunca
variation bellidifolia, V. sororia, V. canadensis (Scott 1986b; Swengel 1997; Robinson et al.
2002; Heppner 2003).
Adult food sources. Butterfly milkweed, Asclepias exaltata, common milkweed,
ironweed, thistles, dogbane, knapweed, vetches, red clover, purple coneflower, Joe-Pye weed,
and black-eyed Susan, also occasionally feed on dung (Howe 1975; Scott 1986b; Broyles and
Wyatt 1991; Opler and Malikul 1998; Ross 1998; Foote 2002; Ross 2002; Douglas and Douglas
2005). Rudolph et al. (2006) listed several plant species as primary nectar sources in Arkansas,
including Asclepias tuberosa, Monardafistulosa, Cirisium carolinianum, Echinaceapurpurea,
Carduus nutans, and Liatris squarrosa.
Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius, 1787)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Aphrodite Fabricius, 1787 p. 62
Argynnis cybele Fabricius form Bartschi Reiff, 1910 p. 255
Argynnis aphrodite aberrant bakeri Clark, 1932
Common names. Aphrodite Fritillary, Silverspot Fritillary, Silver-winged Butterfly,
Venus Fritillary, Venus's Argynne.
Type deposited. Neotype (male) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-7).









Type locality. The original description (Fabricius 1787) did not include a collecting date,
sex of specimen, or series data; "Habitat in America meridionali". Fixed by dos Passos and Grey
(1947) based on neotype as New York City, New York County, New York.
Type label data. No. 22, New York City and vicinity. Coll. S. L. Elliot.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-84 mm. Males
are typically orange-brown and there is specialized sex scales along forewing veins. These veins
are as thin as they are on females and this is unique to S. aphrodite as well as S. mormonia.
Another unique wing characteristic, reported by Guppy and Shepard (2001), is the presence of a
faint black circle or "halo" surrounding the black spot located between wing veins M3 and CuA1.
There is frequently little basal suffusion in the male, but the females usually exhibit some basal
suffusion. Females are typically larger and have darker wing bases than do the males. Most S.
aphrodite individuals have silver spots on the underside of the hindwings and the discal area is
cinnamon brown to red-brown. The ventral hindwing submarginal band is narrow and invaded
by disc coloration. Eye coloration in living adults is dull yellow-green (Glassberg 2001a). There
are several known subspecies within S. aphrodite and the complex is geographically variable,
both in immature and adult stages. Eggs are usually reddish brown at maturity. Larvae are
typically brown-black with the spines ochre or brown. The larval head capsule is light orange
above and black below. Pupae are brownish-black with yellow wing cases and gray abdomen.
There are spines or tubercles located on the abdomen.
Range. The range of the S. aphrodite complex extends from the eastern United States the
Appalachians in northern Georgia south to North Carolina, north to Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick in Canada, west to southern and central parts of British Columbia, Nebraska, south to
New Mexico. There is an isolated population in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona [S. a.
byblis (Barnes and Benjamin)]. The range of nominate S. aphrodite includes central New York
and southern Vermont southward to Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.
Life history. Habitats include dry Transition zone to Canadian Zone brushland or open
woods, moist prairies, streamsides, foothills, mountain meadows/slopes, and old fields. Dry
habitat species such as aphrodite delay laying most of their eggs until late August or September
and they usually oviposit in places where the violets have dried up for the year. Eggs are laid
singly near Viola or where Viola will appear next spring (often under shrubs) (Scott 1986b).
Females may be able to detect olfactory cues of the violets' dormant roots (Pyle 1995). In the
Colorado foothills, females lay eggs under mahogany bushes and other places in August and
September where violets have long since senesced (Pyle 1995). Unfed first instar larvae
hibernate. Larvae commence feeding the following spring and eat leaves of violets. Males patrol
most of the day while seeking females. Flight period is late June through mid-September.
Larval hostplants. Viola lanceolata, V. fimbriatula, V. nuttallii, V. paplionacea, V
nephrophylla, V primulifolia variation acuta, V. sagittata, V sororia, V. tricolor, and V. adunca
(Scott 1986b; Scott 1992; Robinson et al. 2002). Tietz (1972) also reported Passiflora incarnata,
Podophyllum peltatum, and Portulaca oleracea as foodplants, all of which are likely erroneous.
Adult food sources. Milkweed, Asclepias exaltata, dogbane, black-eyed Susan, Queen
Anne's lace, hawkweeds, thistles, mints, rabbitbrush, Echium spp. (Broyles and Wyatt 1991;
Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Foote 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005).
Speyeria nokomis (W. H. Edwards, 1863b)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Nokomis W. H. Edwards, 1863b p. 221
Acidalia Semnopsyche nokomis form valesinoides-alba Reuss, 1926 p. 69









Common names. Nokomis Fritillary, Western Seep Fritillary.
Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at American
Museum of Natural History.
Type locality. Rocky Mountains and mountains of California. Neotype (male) (Figures 2-
11) fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Mount Sneffels, Ouray County, Colorado; however,
dos Passos and Grey (1965) reconsidered this designation and Brown (1965) noted that this
locality was an unlikely habitat for nokomis and that the specimen does not fit the original
description. Ferris and Fisher (1971) revised the type locality and designated a lectotype (male)
(Figure 2-12) taken from Colorado for S. nokomis. Ferris and Fisher (1971) discuss the
likelihood that the type locality for S. nokomis nokomis was probably somewhere in eastern
Utah; however, the specimen they designated as lectotype is taken from Mesa County, Colorado
(see below). Grey (1989) later noted that S. nokomis does occur at Mt. Sneffels, based on
collection records located at the AMNH. Although the true type locality and type specimen will
likely remain obscure or missing, the neotype designation provided by dos Passos and Grey
(1947) is reaffirmed by Grey (1989).
Type label data. Taken from dos Passos and Grey (1947): Oslar Sneffels Mts Ouray Co
Col Aug 9000 Ft.; A. nokomis; Ex Coll. Wm. C. Wood Acc 36915; NEOTYPE, Argynnis
Nokomis [male], Edwards.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 63-80 mm. There
are several 'subspecies' included in nokomis complex. Male dorsal wing coloration is orange
with sparse black dots while females are black basally and whitish outwardly with many black
spots. The dorsal submarginal dark chevrons do not touch the black marginal line. Forewings are
pinkish-orange ventrally with white spots. Discal coloration is variable in both sexes depending
on the geographic location. The ventral hindwing disc on males and females is light to dark
brown with submarginal band tan in many regions; females bear a gray-green disc with the
submarginal band yellow-green in California and Nevada populations. Eastward populations
tend to have darker hindwing discs. The hindwings on both sexes have relatively small silver
spots and they typically bear black edges. Most forms of S. nokomis exhibit sexual dimorphism.
The uncus on the male genitalia is hooked and similar to those of S. idalia and the Semnopsyche
group; however, the female has only a single bursal sac. The eye coloration in living specimens
is yellow-green (Glassberg 2001b). The egg is cream colored when laid and becomes tan after a
few days. Detailed egg morphology is included in Scott and Mattoon (1981). Larvae typically
bear a yellow to orange dorsal stripe and yellow to orange transverse stripes with rows of yellow-
orange or black spines. Black patches surround spines dorsally and laterally. Female larvae
typically feed ten days longer than do males (Allen et al. 2005). Detailed larval descriptions,
including setal maps, are included in Scott and Mattoon (1981). Pupae are black with center of
wing cases orange, and bear orange stripes on the abdomen. Pupae vary in coloration throughout
the range of nokomis.
Range. Many populations are declining because of capping of springs and other habitat
modifications caused by human disturbances such as livestock grazing (Hammond and
McCorkle 1984). Speyeria nokomis is presently known from eastern California to western
Colorado, south through eastern Arizona and western New Mexico, with populations as far south
as Mexico. Known localities are widely separated due to restricted habitat.
Life History. Habitats include Upper Sonoran to Canadian Zone moist meadows near
streams, permanent spring fed meadows, marshlands, boggy streamsides, and seeps; can be
found in canyons with pinyon pines and junipers. Britten et al. (1994) studied the isozyme









variability of S. nokomis populations in the Great Basin and noted that there was little gene flow
between populations, further confirming that nokomis is confined to mesic seep habitats with
great expanses of unsuitable, xeric habitat isolating populations. Eggs are laid singly and
haphazardly near hostplants. Unfed first instar larvae hibernate, and some later instars may also
aestivate during drought conditions from April through June (Scott 1986b). Larvae overwinter in
grass stems after emerging (Pyle 1995). Males patrol all day in meadows or along streams
seeking females. This species tends to fly on the average later than most other Speyeria species.
Flight period is usually from late July to mid September or mid August to mid September in the
southern part of its range.
The range of S. nokomis was likely more continuous during moister climatological times.
Populations are now separated by vast desert landscapes. A population [S. nokomis coerulescens
(W.J. Holland)] that once flew high in the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson, Arizona
has not been seen since 1938 and presumably has been extirpated (Glassberg 2001b). Fleishman
et al. (2001b) note that extinction and colonization events for S. nokomis populations in the Great
Basin are related to multiple aspects of habitat quality, such as extreme climatic events and
grazing-mediated availability of nectar. The results from Britten et al. (1994) indicate there is
little gene flow among S. nokomis populations in the Great Basin, and that these populations
have lost genetic variability as the result of small effective populations sizes and genetic drift;
thus, conservation of individual colonies may be important for the evolutionary potential of this
species. Results from mark and recapture studies conducted by Britten et al. (2003) indicate that
suitable but vacant habitat patches should be maintained for potential recolonization by S.
nokomis apacheana in the central Great Basin.
Larval hostplants. Viola sororia (Emmel et al. 1970; Scott and Mattoon 1981; Scott
1986a; Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Thistles (Scott 1986b).
Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt, 1866)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Edwardsii Reakirt, 1866, p. 137
Acidalia Edwardsi montana Reuss, 1926, p. 439
Argynnis edwardsii Reakirt form edonis Gunder, 1934, p. 125
Common names. Edward's Fritillary, Green Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Field
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-13).
Type locality. California; Pike's Peak, Teller County, Colorado Territory. Fixed by dos
Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as Pike's Peak, Teller County, Colorado.
Type label data. A. Edwardsii, Orig. Type, Reak Coll; Lectotype, Argynnis edwardsii
Reakirt, Det. By dos Passos and Grey 1947; "Argynnis edwardsii Reak., Col., Empire city.
Reak.", "Orig. Types Originals of Edwd's figs. In Butt. N.A." Strecker Colln. 13311, Field
Museum Nat. Hist.; Lepidoptera Type Photograph No. 86, Field Museum.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This is one of the larger Speyeria with pointed
forewings. Adult wingspan ranges from 51-85 mm. The dorsal wing surface in both sexes is
bright tawny and dark markings are moderate except along the margin where they are well
marked with chevrons that point toward the wing base. The ventral forewings are bright pinkish
orange at base and shading to yellow toward the distal margin with the same black pattern as
upperside. The ventral hindwings bear oval or elongate silver spots and the disc is mottled with a
dull greenish olive coloration. There are no subspecific names associated with S. edwardsii and









there is little wing variation throughout its range. Speyeria callippe may be superficially similar
in appearance where their ranges overlap, but callippe bears ventral hindwing marginal spots that
are more pointed rather than rounded inwardly as they appear on edwardsii. Speyeria coronis is
also similar but bears large, round median spots on the hindwing disc. The uncus on the male
genitalia is clawed and slender, unlike the previous 5 species discussed above. The digitus
(Figure 2-14) on each valva is long and slender and unlike any other member in the genus (others
have more or less a short, club-like digitus). Eggs are greenish yellow and generally shaped like
the rest of Speyeria. Larvae are dark yellow dorsally, with gray laterally and a black dorsal
stripe. The upper four rows of spines are gray at the base; the lower two rows of spines are
orange at the base. The pupa is approximately 22 mm in length and brown with anterior portions
reddish in color. The wing cases are yellow-brown with dark streaks along the veins. Detailed
egg, larval instar, and pupal descriptions are included in Edwards (1888b).
Range. Speyeria edwardsii is known from southern Alberta east to Manitoba, south to
northern New Mexico, west to the Dakotas and western Nebraska and Oklahoma. They are
seldom found above 10,000 ft in Colorado. Stray records also exist in Kansas (Ely et al. 1983).
Life history. Habitat includes short grass prairie, foothills, meadows, glades, open pine
forests, valleys and roadsides. Individuals are known to migrate into the mountains during the
midsummer months with females moving back into the prairies during the late summer to lay
eggs (Opler and Wright 1999). Flight period extends from mid-May through late October.
Edwards (1888b) noted the egg stage is approximately 10 to 11 days. Larvae, which pass through
five molts after overwintering as a first instar, feed for approximately 45 days before pupating.
The duration of the pupal stage is approximately 15 days. Scott (1986a, 2006b) reports various
oviposition substrates for S. edwardsii.
Larval hostplants. Viola adunca, V nuttallii (Scott 1986a; Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Thistles, coneflowers, Penstemon angustifolius, Penstemon albidus
(Hammond 1995; Pyle 1995).
Speyeria coronis (Behr, 1864)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Coronis Behr, 1864 p. 435
Argynnis californica Skinner, 1917 p. 328
Common names. Coronis Fritillary, Crown Fritillary, California Fritillary.
Type deposited. Putative lecotype (male) (but see Emmel 1998b) designated by dos
Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-15).
Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as
Alma, Santa Clara County, California. However, Brown (1965) questioned this designation and
use of the term lectotype with the specimen dos Passos and Grey examined because type
specimens were likely lost in an earthquake. He stated that the specimen was not of the type
series and was not available for selection as lectotype. The specimen that I examined did not bear
these two labels listed by Brown 1965: a label written by L. P. Grey that he considers this
specimen typical and an identifying label added by Brown. Emmel et al. (1998b) discuss further
this situation and conclude that it was possible that Behr likely described coronis from material
collected by P. Lorquin, including one extant specimen. Therefore, it could be valid for a
neotype specimen. A label indicating that it is the neotype of Argynnis coronis Behr, designated
by W.H. Edwards, 1865, was added to the specimen. This label was also not associated with the
specimen I examined. It is possible that the image included herein is not the lectotype designated









by dos Passos and Grey (1947), or it is unclear where the associated label data mentioned above
was located at the time I visited the CMNH.
Type label data. Coronis Behr's type, Juba B type.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Several forms of this species range from the
Rockies to the Pacific states. Adult wingspan ranges from 49-86 mm. Both sexes are generally
orange to pale orange, and the forewing margins are nearly straight, with wing bases slightly
darkened. The ventral hindwing discs are generally mottled brown and bear rounded inward or
flattened silver spots capped pale green or greenish-brown. Populations in western Colorado and
eastern Utah bear pale and slightly green tinged discs while populations in the Great Basin are
greenish-gray. The submarginal band located on the ventral surface of the hindwings is yellow to
pale buff. Eggs are ribbed and tan in color. Larvae bear black and brown spots with orange or
black lateral spines. The upper four rows of spines are typically black and somewhat lighter at
the base; the lower two rows of spines are typically orange-yellow at the base. Larval coloration
is variable throughout the range of S. coronis. Pupae are whitish, with black markings and
resemble those of S. callippe.
Speyeria coronis is hypothetically closely related to Speyeria zerene and in some locations
they are difficult to separate in the field. Their large size, thin, light veins in the male, and large,
round, silver median spots on the ventral hindwing should distinguish S. coronis from most other
Speyeria. Along the central coast of California, S. coronis and Speyeria callippe are
indistinguishable except that on average, S. coronis is larger and brighter orange dorsally, paler
ventrally, and the hindwing postmedian spots (termed "spangles") show through to a lesser
extent when viewed dorsally. Speyeria carolae, formerly considered an intermediate form
between S. coronis and S. zerene, is known only from mountains in southern Nevada and is
presently considered a distinct species (Emmel and Austin 1998).
Range. Speyeria coronis is known from northern Washington south to northwest Baja
California, northeast throughout the Great Basin and central Rockies to Montana, Wyoming, and
into western South Dakota and Nebraska.
Life history. Speyeria coronis is known from several habitat types, including oak
woodlands, mountain slopes, foothills, mixed conifer forests, meadows, prairie valleys,
chaparral, and sagebrush flats/scrub. This species often congregates on hillsides and meadows
overgrown with rabbitbrush and sage (Domfeld 1980). In forest openings, they often frequent
flowers along mountain streams. Males ofS. coronis may emerge two weeks in advance of
females, and may be on the wing in late May or early June before the arrival of other Speyeria
species. Females diapause (delay oviposition) in California and reappear in late August through
September. Flight period is from late May to October, depending on locality and elevation. This
species is usually found at low to middle elevations. Speyeria coronis forms occur at sea level in
parts of California and up to 9,000 ft. in Colorado.
Larval hostplants. Viola beckwithii, V. douglasii, V. nuttallii, V purpurea (Robinson et
al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Mint, thistle.
Speyeria zerene (Boisduval, 1852)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-16)
Argynnis Zerene Boisduval, 1852 p. 303
Argynnis monticola Behr, 1863 p. 84
Common names. Zerene Fritillary.









Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-17).
Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as
Yosemite Valley, Mariposa County, California. However, Masters (1979) (and also see Grey
1989) disputed this locality because it was unlikely that P. Lorquin collected specimens from
Yosemite Valley before 1856. Masters listed Agua Fria, Mariposa County, as the likely type
locality because Lorquin collected there in 1850-1851. Agua Fria is closest to Yosemite Valley
and is in the same biotic province. However, Agua Fria is no longer in existence but was a gold
camp and the county seat of Mariposa County in 1850. It was located on Aqua Fria Creek just
west of the present town of Mariposa and approximately 35 miles southwest of Yosemite Valley.
Emmel et al. (1998a) dismissed the likelihood of Lorquin traveling to Mariposa County before
1852 based on his travels to the Feather River region during those times, thus re-restricted the
type locality to Hwy 70 at Chambers Creek, North Fork Feather River, Plumas County,
California.
Type label data. Zerene. Bois. Calif. Califomie.; Argynnis Zerene l'un des 2 types.,
Boisduval. Ann. Fr. 1852. p. 303; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection; Type
A zerene Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes Collection.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 48-67 mm. There are several
'subspecies' included within the zerene species complex and wing coloration is highly variable
(see Grey and Moeck 1962; Grey 1972). The upperside ground color of the wings varies from
deep orange to pale yellow or brown to tan and the underside of the hindwings shows great
variability depending on geographic location. The ground color of the inner discal area ranges
from maroon through various shades of reddish-brown through tan (discal coloration is generally
violet-brown in Sierra Nevada Mountains, yellow in Great Basin, and slightly greenish brown in
southern Wyoming and Colorado); the band located outside of the disc runs from lavender to tan
or yellow; hindwing spots are usually silvered but not always (they are yellowish in California
and southern Nevada). The three anterior spots in the median band area are all separate, the
second spot is round and larger, and the third spot is narrower and slanted away from the second.
Speyeria zerene, S. coronis, S. callippe, S. egleis, and S. atlantis are very similar to each other in
some regions. The thin, light veins in the male, and the large round, silver median spots on the
ventral hindwing should distinguish S. zerene from most other Speyeria with the exception of S.
coronis. Variation at the subspecific level is also parallel within these species. Eggs are cream to
pinkish-tan. Larvae are typically black with yellowish to gray-tan dorsal stripes. The top two
rows of spines are generally black, the middle row may be black or yellow, and the bottom row
yellow. Larvae are somewhat variable in coloration throughout the range of S. zerene. Pupae are
similar to those of S. nokomis and hang vertically within leaves tied with silk as in most
Speyeria.
Range. Speyeria zerene forms range from southeastern Alaska, southwestern Canada,
south to central California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, and southwestern Colorado.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed a few subspecific forms as either threatened or
endangered [i.e., S. z. hippolyta (Edwards), S. z. behrensii (Edwards), and S. z. myrtleae dos
Passos and Grey] and some populations along the California coast have been extirpated.
Life history. Depending on geographic location, zerene forms occur in a wide array of
habitats. Several subspecies occur along forest roads and in moist ravines and montane conifer
forests, while some [i.e. S. zerene gunderi (Comstock)] occur in the open expanses of sage and
rabbitbrush. The Behren's Fritillary (S. zerene behrensii) and Hippolyta Fritillary (S. z.









hippolyta) occur in unlikely habitat along the weather-beaten, salt-spray meadow coastline of the
Pacific Ocean. Habitat destruction is the likely cause of the decline of the S. zerene myrtleae and
S. zerene hippolyta (Launer et al. 1994). Speyeria zerene behrensii, S. zerene hippolyta, and S.
zerene myrtleae are presently listed as federally endangered. Several life history studies and land
management discussions occur in the literature for these rare zerene forms (McCorkle 1975;
McCorkle and Hammond 1988; Launer et al. 1994; Patterson 2002; Connor et al. 2002).
McCorkle and Hammond (1988) discuss the life history of S. zerene hippolyta (as well as
Speyeria in general) in detail. Flight period is as early as late June to July, while some (i.e., S. z.
behrensii and S. z. hippolyta) appear on the wing in August and September.
Larval hostplants. Viola adunca, V cuneata, V lobata, V nuttallii, V psychodes, V
purpurea, V. bel, \ ihlii (Scott 1986b; Hammond 1995; Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. As with other Speyeria, there are numerous plant species from
which S. zerene likely nectar on.
Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey, 1942)

[Emmel and Austin 1998]
Speyeria zerene carolae (dos Passos and Grey) [dos Passos, 1961 p. 221]
Speyeria coronis carolae (dos Passos and Grey) [dos Passos and Grey, 1947 p. 11]
Argynnis coronis carolae dos Passos and Grey, 1942 p. 2
Common names. Carol's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype (male) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-18).
Type locality. Charleston Park, Clark County, Nevada.
Type label data. Charleston Park, Clark Co., Nev., 8-9, VII, 1928, 8,000 ft.; ARGYNNIS
C. CAROLAE, C. F. dos Passos and L. P. Grey; J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998; Holotype.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Average wingspan is approximately 56 mm.
Speyeria carolae is generally darker and bears slightly different wing shape and coloration than
those of S. coronis and S. zerene. The dorsal color of both sexes is bright reddish-orange; the
ventral forewing is heavily flushed with reddish-orange anteriorly to or beyond vein M3, and this
is usually more extensive than on S. zerene and S. coronis. The ventral hindwing disc varies from
reddish-brown to brown and the spots are moderately large. The spots range from silvered to
mostly unsilvered. Speyeria carolae has been hypothesized to be an intermediate form between
S. coronis and S. zerene (Scott 1986b). Formerly recognized as a subspecies within the S. coronis
complex (dos Passos and Grey 1942, 1947), and later S. zerene complex by dos Passos (1961)
and Austin (1981), S. carolae was considered a distinct species by Emmel and Austin (1998) and
Austin (1998b) based on differences in wing patterns and chromosome numbers (but see North
American Butterfly Association 2001). The nearest Speyeria population to those of S. carolae is
in southwestern Utah, approximately 225 km to the northeast. The geographic isolation and the
low probability of present-day gene flow and probable, precinctive larval hostplant Viola
charlestonensis support full species status (Emmel and Austin 1998).
Range. Isolated in southern Nevada's Spring Mountains in Clark County. Type material
was taken in the Charleston Range between elevations of approximately 6,000-11,000 ft. It is
regarded as the most restricted Speyeria species in geographical range (Howe 1975; Emmel and
Austin 1998).
Life history. Adults occur in dry forests, hillsides, meadows, and riparian habitats above
6,000 ft. in the Spring Range (Austin 1981; Fleishman et al. 2005).
Larval hostplants. Probably Viola charlestonensis (Emmel and Austin 1998).









Adult food resources. (G. Austin pers. comm.): Erysimum asperum (Brassicaceae),
Apocynum androsaemifolium (Apocynaceae), Rosa woodsii (Rosaceae), Lupinus sp. (Fabaceae),
Angelica scabrida (Apiaceae), Chaenactis sp., Cirsium sp. [latter is principal source]
(Asteraceae).
Speyeria callippe (Boisduval, 1852)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
(Figure 2-19)
Argynnis callippe Boisduval, 1852 p. 302
Common names. Callippe Fritillary, Callippe Silverspot.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-20).
Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as San Francisco, San
Francisco County, California. Although it is now extinct in San Francisco, it likely once flew on
the slopes on Mt. Davidson where Viola pedunculata has been recorded (Emmel et al. 1998a).
Type label data. Calippe. Boisd. Calif. Californie., Argynnis Callippe Boisduval type; EX
MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection; Type callipe Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes
Collection.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 47-74 mm. There are several
geographic forms with variable coloration on the wings. The dorsal wing surface is generally
red-brown to light tawny, depending on geographic location. Dark markings are evenly spaced,
providing a distinctive checkered or lattice appearance. The ground coloring on the ventral
surface varies from reddish to yellowish brown, sometimes with heavy black scaling. The discal
area on the underside is commonly powdered by with green scales (especially in the Plains,
Rockies, and Great Basin) but may be brown (California and southwest Oregon) in some forms,
with spots on the ventral hindwings large and usually silver but may be unsilvered (California
and southwest Oregon) in some forms. A general trend in wing patterning and coloration is
apparent west and east of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada Mountains. Populations east of the
mountains have tan, brown, or red-brown ventral ground coloration with either silvered or
unsilvered spots and a tan submarginal band in the ventral hindwing. Populations in western
North America vary from pale green to deep blue-green ventrally either without a submarginal
band or only a narrow yellow-green band. Speyeria coronis may be confused with S. callippe
(especially along the central California coast) but hindwing marginal spots on S. callippe are
usually triangular shaped and bordered inwardly only by a thin dark border; other Speyeria
species, including S. coronis, usually bear differently shaped spots and darker, wider borders.
The pale median and submarginal spots show through the wings above (termed "spangles") on S.
callippe, especially in females along the Pacific Coast. These spangles provide a two-toned
appearance when viewed from above. Geographical variation for S. callippe has been studied
(Hovanitz 1943; Sette 1962; Arnold 1983, 1985). Hovanitz (1943) studied California populations
and hypothesized that racial or genealogical relationships are more or less the same, and that
subspecific taxa there do not provide clear evidence of divergence. He did recognize several
main divisions of the callippe complex, namely those in the South Coastal Range, western Sierra
Nevadas, and a southern zone of intergradation along the Piute Mountains and Sierra Madre
range. Sette (1962) examined the variation of silvering in the southern zone of intergradation and
hypothesized that there may be a "silvering-gene" present during the pupal stage under optimal
environmental conditions, and speculated guanine was the substance responsible for silvering in
S. callippe. Arnold (1985, 1983) examined the wing characters of 16 subspecies utilizing









principle component analyses and graph clustering techniques to describe variation and
suggested reducing the number of subspecies to three (but see Hammond 1986). Larvae are
mottled brown and black with black (or paler) dorsal stripes and many orange to yellow or black
branching spines. Eggs are pale yellow, becoming pinkish brown. Pupae are whitish, with black
markings similar to S. nokomis.
Range. The S. callippe species-complex extends from the Pacific Coast from southeastern
British Columbia south to northwestern Baja California, northeast through the Great Basin and
Rockies to southern Manitoba, and to western parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, and central
Colorado.
Life history. Speyeria callippe occurs in a variety of habitat types, including grasslands,
oak and pine woodlands, sagebrush, chaparral, valleys, brushy hillsides, and prairie ridges. Dry-
habitat Speyeria species such as callippe delay laying most of their eggs until late August or
September and they usually oviposit in places where the violets have dried up for the year. Eggs
are laid mainly under shrubs where violets will appear the following season (Scott 1986b). In
most areas males patrol hilltops to wait for females, but in California males tend to patrol
grasslands and avoid hillsides (Opler and Wright 1999). Populations with green and brown
ventral hindwings interbreed along the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade
Mountains. Flight period is from April through September, and in many areas, these are the first
greater fritillaries flying each new season. Speyeria callippe callippe is listed as endangered and
nearly extinct in coastal northern California (i.e., San Francisco Bay Area) by the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Hammond and McCorkle 1983, Connor et al. 2002).
Larval hostplants. Viola beckwithii, V douglasii, V nuttallii, V pedunculata, V.
purpurea, V. purpurea quercetorum; Artemisia? (Compositae) (Durden 1965; Hammond 1995;
Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Thistles (Pyle 1995).
Speyeria egleis (Behr, 1862)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Egleis Behr, 1862 p. 174
Argynnis montivaga Behr, 1863 p. 84
Argynnis Astarte Edwards, 1864b p. 435
Argynnis montivaga Behr aberrant mammoth Gunder, 1924 p. 157
Argynnis montivaga Behr form boharti Gunder, 1929 p. 326
Common names. Egleis Fritillary, Great Basin Fritillary, Mountain Rambler, Montivaga.
Type deposited. Neotype (female) designated by Emmel et al. (1998a) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-21).
Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype
[=neotype of Emmel et al. (1998b)] as Gold Lake, Sierra Country, California. However, Emmel
et al. (1998b) have determined the type designated as a lectotype is invalid because it could not
have been one of the original syntypes in front of Behr when he described egleis. Therefore, the
lectotype was redesignated as a neotype for S. egleis. Emmel et al. (1998b) listed the type
specimen as being female, which differs from dos Passos and Grey's purported "male" lectotype.
The image included herein is that of a female (see Figure 21).
Type label Data. Prob. Type egleis Bdv.; Egleis Bdv. California; EX MUSAEO Dris.
BOISDUVAL; Argynnis Egleis, Bdv. [male-sic] Ex typic. specim.; Oberthur Collection; Barnes
Collection. [No date, sex, or series data was provided with the original description (McHenry
1964).]









Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 44-59 mm. There are several
subspecific forms in the S. egleis species complex. The dorsal surface is generally orange to
brown with paler postmedian and marginal spots and most individuals have dark scaling on the
basal half of the wings. Males bear sex scaling on forewing veins. The ventral hindwing disc is
variable depending on subspecies and can be red-brown, brown, tan, or greenish. The
postmedian spots are smaller than most Speyeria species and may be silvered or unsilvered. The
marginal spots are generally slightly triangular to rounded with brown or greenish caps. The
ventral hindwing is yellow and spots are strongly silvered in central Nevada populations but bear
a dull greenish tint in parts of Montana and Alberta. Speyeria egleis can resemble S. atlantis, S.
coronis, S. zerene, S. callippe, and S. mormonia, depending on geographical location. Larval
coloration is variable throughout the range of S. egleis. Speyeria egleis secret dos Passos and
Grey, a less commonly encountered egleis form, very closely resembles members of the Speyeria
hesperis species complex in parts of its range (Remington 1947, 1948; Eff 1956). Larvae are
gray-brown or black with a dark strip inside of yellow band located dorsomedially. The top four
rows of spines are generally black or yellow; the lower two rows of spines are yellow. Pupae are
dark brown with yellow-brown patches, dark wing cases and dark cross stripes on abdomen.
Detailed life history notes and descriptions for the egg, larval instars and pupa of S. egleis is
provided by Edwards (1879c).
Range. Speyeria egleis occurs throughout the Great Basin, from southeastern British
Columbia, western Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana, south to southern California, central
Utah, and northwest Colorado. Nominotypical egleis is found throughout the entire Sierra
Nevada above 6,000 ft. (Emmel and Emmel 1998a).
Life history. Speyeria egleis forms occur in mixed woodlands, open rocky slopes,
meadows and streambanks. They occur at middle to high elevations and are most common in
cooler parts of the Great Basin, California Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountains. Females have
been observed ovipositing on pine cones, sticks, and stones in California (Lembert 1893). Flight
period is from early June through early October.
Larval hostplants. Viola adunca, V nuttallii, V ocellata, V. purpurea, V purpurea
integrifolia, V. purpurea venosa, V. walteri; Festuca ovina (Gramineae); Potentilla (Rosaceae)
(Robinson et al. 2002)
Adult food resources. As with other Speyeria, there are numerous plant species from
which S. egleis likely nectar on.
Speyeria adiaste (W. H. Edwards, 1864)

[Emmel and Emmel 1973]
Speyeria egleis adiaste (W. H. Edwards), 1864b p. 436; [dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Adiaste W. H. Edwards 1864b, p. 436
Argynnis Adiante Boisduval 1869, p. 61
Argynnis Adraste W. F. Kirby 1871, p. 160
Argynnis adianthe Barnes and McDunnough, 1917 p. 8
Common names. Adiaste Fritillary, Unsilvered Fritillary, Lesser Unsilvered Fritillary.
Type deposited. There has been some confusion about the name and authorship of this
insect. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) designated a specimen described by Boisduval as Argynnis
Adiante, housed at the National Museum of Natural History, as a lectotype (Figure 2-22).
However, Brown (1965; see also Emmel et al. 1998a) rejected this designation because
"Adiante" is not recorded from the area where dos Passos and Grey chose as the type locality,
and chose a male specimen described by W. H. Edwards as Argynnis Adiaste, housed at the









Carnegie Museum of Natural History, as the lectotype for S. adiaste (Figure 2-23) (also see Type
Locality and Type Label Data sections below).
Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz
County, California. F. M. Brown (1965) did not fix locality information for the lectotype
designated by him. However, he stated that S. adiaste is not found in the immediate vicinity of
the city of Santa Cruz, but rather approximately 9 miles north of the city near Boulder Creek.
Emmel et al. (1998a) further refined the dos Passos and Grey type locality to 2 miles southeast of
Summit Road along Highland Way, Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Cruz County, California
because no adiaste populations are (or were) known from the city of Santa Cruz.
Type label data. From dos Passos and Grey (1947): Adiante Bd Calif; EX MUSAEO
Dris. BOISDUVAL; Type adiante a/c Hofer; Oberthur Collection; Barnes Collection. From
Brown (1965): Adianthe type; Adiante [female] type sent W. H. E. by Dr Boisduval & figd in
But. N. A.; lectotype Argynnis adiaste [female], W. H. Edwards designated by F.M. Brown '64
also lectotype of adiante Bdv. desig. by dos Passos and Grey '47.
Identification, Taxonomy, and Variation. Adult wingspan 45-57 mm. The dorsal ground
coloring is red brown to pale brown and the ventral surface is reddish orange to pale tan. Males
are bright brick red in Santa Cruz County, California or pale, washed-out tawny in south central
California. Females are larger and paler than males. The ventral hindwing spot patterns are
unsilvered or obsolete and bear delicate lavender-pink reflections. Sims et al. (1979) noted
allozyme characters separated S. adiaste forms from related S. atlantis and S. egleis taxa and
suggested S. adiaste is distinct genetically. Larvae are reportedly similar to S. callippe [mottled
brown and black with black (or paler) dorsal stripes and many orange to yellow or black
branching spines] but with lighter gray sides (Allen et al. 2005). Pupae are similar to S. callippe,
but the wing cases are somewhat lighter in color.
Range. Speyeria adiaste is fairly restricted (see Grey 1989) along coastal and transverse
mountain ranges in central California, from San Mateo County south to San Luis Obispo County,
east to Kern County and northern Los Angeles County. Populations are very local and numbers
may fluctuate from year to year. Some populations in Kern County [Speyeria adiaste atossa (W.
H. Edwards)] have been extinct since 1959 (Orsak 1974; Sims et al. 1979; Hammond and
McCorkle 1983, Garth and Tilden 1986).
Life history. Speyeria adiaste occurs along grassy slopes and openings in redwood forests
(San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties) and in high mountain meadows in Monterey and San Luis
Obispo Counties. In southern California localities, habitat is mixed chaparral and oak woodland
(Hovanitz 1970). The subspecific taxa within adiaste appear to be distributed with their specific
violet hostplants and by the desiccation tolerance of first instar larvae (Sims et al. 1979). Flight
period is from June to early September. It has been hypothesized that the disappearance of
adiaste forms is due to fire suppression and resulting habitat change (Scott 1986b).
Larval hostplants. Violapurpurea quercetorum, V. ocellata? (Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. California buckeye, thistles (Opler and Wright 1999).
Speyeria atlantis (W. H. Edwards, 1863)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Atlantis Edwards, 1863a p. 54
Argynnis atlantis aberrant chemo Scudder, 1889 p. 573
Argynnis atlantis canadensis dos Passos, 1935
Speyeria atlantis canadensis (dos Passos) 1935 [dos Passos and Grey 1947] [synonymized
by Scott et al. 1998] (Figure 2-29)









Common names. Atlantis Fritillary, Mountain Silverspot, Mountain Fritillary, Mountain
Silver-spotted Butterfly
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at American
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-24).
Type locality. Mountainous districts of the northern states and parts of British America.
Fixed by dos Passos (1935) based on lectotype as Hunter, Greene County, Catskill Mountains,
New York. Brown (1965) noted that Holland's 1931 image of atlantis is a much better match of
the atlantis that occurs in the Catskill Mountains than the very dark form dos Passos and Grey
designated as lectotype, but at present the specimen designated by dos Passos and Grey
represents the name bearing type for atlantis.
Type label data. type Atlantis [male] Catskills; lectotype Argynnis atlantis [male], W. H.
Edwards designated by dos Passos 1935.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-69 mm.
Speyeria atlantis forms are widespread and variable. Prior to splitting of the hypothetically
distinct species Speyeria hesperis from S. atlantis, there were over 25 subspecific or
geographical forms associated with the S. atlantis complex (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957). Scott et
al. (1998) (also see Scott 1988) proposed splitting S. atlantis and S. hesperis based on wing
coloration and a few larval characters. However, some authors believe that is may still be
difficult to provide a species assignment for many populations based on ventral hindwing
coloration and silvering of ventral hindwing spots, and because there are several reports of the
two forms interbreeding in various parts of their range (North American Butterfly Association
2001) The nominate, eastern atlantis bears black margins along the forewings and black scaling
along the veins dorsally. The ventral hindwing disc is usually purplish-brown in coloration. The
remaining S. atlantis forms generally bear a black outer margin dorsally and chocolate or
purplish-brown hindwing discs. Ventral hindwing spots are silvered in most individuals (many S.
hesperis forms are cream colored) and the submarginal band is pale and narrow. Adults may be
confused with S. aphrodite in many regions (including eastern North America), but aphrodite
does not have black scaling along the wing veins and usually lacks black marginal bands
dorsally. Speyeria atlantis canadensis (dos Passos), now synonymized under S. atlantis (Scott et
al. 1998), is generally smaller in size. R. Holland (1969) noted that specimens taken from
Hawkes Bay, Newfoundland were even smaller and more red than S. a. canadensis taken at the
type locality, Doyles Station. This variability notes the probable relationship of nominate atlantis
with S. a. canadensis and further corroborates the decision by Scott et al. (1998) to sink the
smaller Canadian atlantis. An atlantis form occurs in the mountains of West Virginia that may
be an undescribed subspecies (Gatrelle 1998). Larvae are generally mottled black and brown
with black-tipped, orange to tan spines with two cream-colored lines located dorsomedially.
Larvae are somewhat variable in coloration throughout the range of S. atlantis (see Scott et al.
1998). Pupae are mottled brown and black, and the wing cases are grayish brown. Scudder
(1889) and Edwards (1888a) provided a detailed description of the life stages.
Range. Widespread in Canada from the Yukon, Maritime Provinces and west to east
central British Columbia; in the northeastern United States south to West Virginia, across the
northern parts of the Great Lake region. Disjunct populations exist in the Black Hills of South
Dakota (see Grey et al. 1963) [S. atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla], central Colorado [S.
atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer], and northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and
Manitoba [S. atlantis hollandi (F. H. Chermock)]. Speyeria atlantis has been tentatively recorded
in northeastern Illinois but is likely not a resident (Bouseman and Sternberg 2001).









Life history. Adapted for cooler climates, it frequents cool open woodlands near water,
(i.e.. bogs, river valleys), open coniferous forests, and old fields with forested borders. Scott
(1988) indicated that the current distribution of wing characters suggests that the dark silvered
forms of atlantis occupied coniferous forests in the northern U.S. and the Rocky Mountain
foothills during the last ice age; they then moved higher in elevation and latitude. The unsilvered
form with a reddish-brown ventral hindwing (i.e., hesperis forms) occupied open forest in the
southern Great Basin lowlands during the last ice age; they then spread north into the mountains,
east to Wyoming and the Black Hills, and south along the Colorado mountain foothills.
Eggs are laid near the base of hostplant. First instar larvae typically do not feed until the
following spring. Males patrol much of the day for available females. Mating behavior is
described by Scott (1986b, 1988). Flight period is mid June to September. The mobility of
western "atlantis" adults was studied by Moeck (1968) in Wyoming. He noted that tagged
individuals were recaptured at least 50% of the time, indicating individuals moved very little
from the study area.
Larval hostplants. Viola septentrionalis, V sororia affinis, V. adunca, V canadensis
(Scott 1986b, Scott et al. 1998). Many records in the literature listed for S. atlantis now pertain to
members of the S. hesperis complex.
Adult food resources. Milkweeds, vetches, mints, mud, dung (Scott 1986b; Douglas and
Douglas 2005).
Speyeria hesperis (W. H. Edwards, 1864)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis hesperis (W. H. Edwards), 1864a p. 502 [dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Hesperis W. H. Edwards, 1864a p. 502
Common names. Hesperis Fritillary, Western Fritillary.
Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by Brown (1965; see also dos Passos and
Grey 1965) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-25).
Type locality. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype (=neotype from
Brown 1965; see also dos Passos and Grey 1965) as Turkey Creek Junction, Jefferson County,
Colorado.
Type label data. Hesperis [male] type Colo; Neotype, Argynnis hesperis [male], W. H.
Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1964.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Formerly considered a subspecies of S. atlantis,
S. hesperis is variable throughout its range and a number of subspecific taxa have been
recognized. Speyeria hesperis and S. atlantis occur together or in close proximity in many areas
of the western North America and in South Dakota. Dos Passos and Grey (1965) noted that
hesperis represented an unsilvered subspecies of S. atlantis along the Front Range in Colorado.
Tebaldi (1982) (also see Ferris 1983) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six enzymes to
analyze the relationships among three phenotypes of Speyeria atlantis and found that the
phenotypes could be considered "semispecies." Scott et al. (1998) divided S. atlantis into a
distinct species based on wing coloration and wing pattern, hesperis having mostly unsilvered or
cream colored ventral hindwing spots and atlantis always silvered. Adult wingspan ranges from
50-68 mm. The ventral hindwing disc is red-brown to orange-brown and can be silvered or
unsilvered. Scott et. al. (1998) split S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms based on wing pattern and
coloration and a few larval characters. Adult eye coloration in living individuals is blue-gray in
some populations, and this may help separate some populations form similar S. aphrodite
populations, which dull, yellow-green eyes (Glassberg 2000). Larvae are generally solid black









and bear orange spines with black tips. There are two brown lines located dorsomedially. The
pupa is similar to S. atlantis in shape, but stouter; the color is brown on the head and wing cases.
The abdomen is brown with some areas yellow-brown. Larval and pupal coloration varies
throughout the range of S. hesperis as it does in adults (see Scott et al. 1998) due to various local
climatic conditions.
Range. Speyeria hesperis ranges from Alaska, central Yukon and southwestern Northwest
Territory, south through Canada east to western Manitoba, and in the western United States
along the Rocky Mountains, to central California, northeastern and central Arizona, and central
New Mexico.
Life history. Speyeria hesperis forms occur in moist meadows, gulches, and along cool
slopes (Scott 1986b). Scott (2006b) observed females laying eggs on pine needles, Quercus
leaves, grasses, and various other plants near Viola spp. Edwards (1888c) described the
morphology of the egg, larval instars, and pupal stage and provided the phenology of each stage.
Flight period is from early June to late October.
Larval hostplants. Viola canadensis var. scopulorum, V adunca, V sororia affinis, V
rydbergii, V. adunca bellidifolia, V. nuttallii, V. purpurea (Scott 1992, 2006b; Scott et al. 1998).
Adult food resources. Yellow composites, mints (Opler and Wright 1999).
Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval, 1869)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
Argynnis Hydaspe Boisduval, 1869 p. 60
Common names. Hydapse Fritillary, Lavender Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-26).
Type locality. Southern California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Yosemite
Valley, Mariposa County, California. Re-restricted by Emmel at al. (1998a) to Gold Lake, Sierra
County, California.
Type label data. Monticola Behr. Hydaspe Bd. Califom.; EX MUSAEO Dris.
BOISDUVAL; Argynnis Hydaspe Bdv Californie; Argynnis Hydaspe [male], Boisduv. ex 2
typic. specim.; Type hydaspe a/c Hofer; Oberthur Collection; Barnes Collection.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 41-58 mm. There are several
subspecific taxa associated with S. hydaspe, but they are fairly uniform in wing patterning and
color. The dorsal wing surface is red-orange with a heavy black pattern, especially at the base.
The ventral surface is purplish brown with hindwing spots relatively round and unsilvered in
most populations (some individuals in the Northwest have silver spots, i.e., Vancouver Island),
cream colored and edged with black. Spots located in median band are large, first three
approximately equal in size, touching or nearly so. The submarginal spots are larger in southern
populations, smaller in the north and occasionally partly silvered. Some Speyeria atlantis
populations in the Pacific Northwest and California Sierra Nevada Mountains resemble S.
hydaspe. Kondla (2001) clarified the taxonomic relationships and nomenclature associated with
hydaspe forms in British Columbia. Eggs are cream colored and somewhat purple in color before
hatching (Pyle 2002). Larvae are mostly black with yellow-orange spines laterally; in some
forms, these spines are black. The upper two rows of spines are typically black; lower four rows
of spines orange-brown to yellow. There are also pale yellow mid-dorsal stripes; these are much
paler than those in Speyeria zerene. Larval coloration is likely variable throughout the range of S.
hydaspe due to various local climatic conditions.









Range. Speyeria hydaspe forms range from central British Columbia and southwestern
Alberta, south in mountainous areas to southern Sierra Nevada in California, northern Utah, and
northern Colorado.
Life history. This species occurs in openings in moist montane coniferous forests, often
near aspens, and in mountain meadows and along roadsides. It also occurs in drier areas in
British Columbia (Layberry et al. 1998). Flight period is from June to September.
Larval hostplants. Viola adunca, V glabella, V. nuttallii, V. orbiculata, V purpurea, V
sheltonii (Scott 1986b, Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Pussypaws, asters, thistles, mints (Pyle 1995, Opler and Wright
1999).
Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval, 1869)

[dos Passos and Grey 1945a]
(Figure 2-27)
Argynnis Mormonia Boisduval, 1869 p. 58
Common names. Mormon Fritillary, Mormonia Fritillary, Mountain Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-28).
Type locality. Oregon. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Salt Lake City, Salt Lake
County, Utah. However, Grey (1974, 1989) discussed the possibility that fixation of the type
locality as "Salt Lake" was a mistake and speculated the type specimen may have been taken
from somewhere in California. However, he felt it would be hard to prove given the subtle
nuances in wing pattern and coloration of Speyeria and also felt no present concepts are
disturbed if the locality remains as fixed. Miller and Brown (1981) later restricted the type
locality to the vicinity of Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Emmel et al. (1998a) further restricted the type
locality to Little Valley, W. of Washoe Lake, Washoe County, Nevada.
Type label data. Mormonia Bd. Lac Sal; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Argynnis
Mormonia [male] Bdv. ex typ. sp.; Oberthur Collection; Barnes Collection.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Speyeria mormonia can be identified by the
smaller size compared to those of other Speyeria (wingspan 38-60 mm); on average it is the
smallest species in the genus. The antennal clubs are relatively expanded compared to other
Speyeria species. There are several subspecific forms included within the mormonia species
complex. The forewings are short and rounded and there is usually some basal darkening. The
dorsal wing surface does not have black scaling on veins but does have a complex pattern of
black spots, bars, and chevrons with a black border. The ventral surface of the hindwing disc is
pale yellow to pale brown, occasionally greenish in hue (in the Cascades of Washington), but
otherwise similar in color to ventral forewing. Black Hills, South Dakota populations have a dark
brown disc. The silvering of the ventral hindwing spots is variable within and among populations
(spots are partially silvered in the California Sierra Nevada Mountains or primarily yellow in the
Great Basin), and spots tend to be smaller than on most Speyeria. Distinct populations occur in
northern Nevada and southeastern Oregon where individuals are unsilvered ventrally with a
yellow ground color and little pattern. A subspecies isolated in the White Mountains of Arizona,
Speyeria mormonia luski (Barnes & McDunnough), is unlike other S. mormonia in appearance
and bears white, unsilveredd' hindwing spots rather than the usual unsilveredd' condition of S.
mormonia forms that have spots filled with brown. Eggs are small and tan-colored (may be
yellowish when oviposited and become purplish-tan later). Larvae are brown to gray, or
yellowish to orange with black spots and lines. Spines are short and paler at the base. Larval









coloration is likely variable throughout the range of S. mormonia due to local climatic
conditions.
Range. Speyeria mormonia occurs along the mountainous regions of western North
America from south-central Alaska south to central California in the Sierras and east-central
Arizona, and north-central New Mexico, and extending east to southwestern Manitoba and the
Dakotas. It occurs at higher elevations and further north than most other Speyeria (Opler and
Wright 1999; also see Eriksen 1962, Kozial 1994). It does occur at sea level in Alaska and to
sagelands and plains in the Great Basin and Black Hills.
Life history. Known to occur in mostly subalpine habitat, including Canadian to lower
Alpine zone meadows, or moist prairie valleys/meadows, and openings in subarctic forests.
Speyeria mormonia forms are the most likely member of the genus to occur in high mountain
habitats. Females lay eggs singly and haphazardly near hostplant. Unfed first instar larvae
hibernate. Flight period is mid July through October in the southern part of its range, July
through August in the northern part. Adults can fly far, especially females, and can stray into
foothills or the Colorado plains. Boggs (1986, 1987a,b, 1988, 1997a,b), Boggs and Jackson
(1991), Boggs and Ross (1993), and Boggs et al. (2004), have provided numerous studies on the
ecology of S. mormonia. Boggs and Murphy (1997) discussed how climate change might affect
S. mormonia individuals by reducing available nectar sources, with consequent effects on
individual reproduction and survival. Montane species such as S. mormonia, not directly
encroached upon by human development, may be among the first victims of long term climate
warming trends.
Larval hostplants. Viola nuttallii, V palustris, V adunca, V. adunca variation bellidifolia,
V. sororia (Scott 1986b; Robinson et al. 2002).
Adult food resources. Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, mud (Scott 1986b; Pyle 1995), alpine
fleabanes and other composites (T. C. Emmel in litt.).
Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis Subspecies Accounts

Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Edwards, 1863)

[dos Passos and Grey 1947]
[see species account for S. atlantis]
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CT: Litchfield; IA: Winneshiek; IL:
Cook; IN: Lake, Vanderburgh; MA: Berkshire, Middlesex, Worcester; MD: Garrett; ME:
Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset,
Washington, York; MI: Antrim, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Delta, Dickinson, Emmet, Gogebic,
Houghton, Iron, Jackson, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Ontonagon, Oscoda, Otsego,
Presque Isle, Schoolcraft; MN: Aitkin, Beltrami, Cass, Cook, Hubbard, Itasca, Koochiching,
Lake, Pine, Sherburne, St. Louis; NH: Carroll, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Rockingham; NJ:
Morris; NY: Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Delaware, Erie, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene,
Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Oneida, Oswego, Tompkins, Ulster, Washington; OH: Delaware;
PA: Allegheny, Berks, Cambria, Cameron, Centre, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Elk, Erie,
Forest, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Potter, Somerset, Sullivan, Tioga, Warren; RI: Providence; VT:
Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Essex, Lamoille, Orleans, Windham, Windsor;
WI: Marquette, Bayfield, Burnett, Door, Douglas, Florence, Forest, Kewaunee, Langlade,
Manitowoc, Marathon, Marinette, Oneida, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Vilas; WV: Grant,
Monongalia, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Randolph, Tucker, Webster. Canadian provincial records









include (some of these records were taken from specimens formerly applied to Speyeria atlantis
canadensis): Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec.
Speyeria atlantis hollandi (Chermock and Chermock, 1940)

[dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Argynnis atlantis Holland Chermock and Chermock, 1940 p. 82
Common name. Holland's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at Canadian National Collection (Figure 2-30).
Type locality. Riding Mountains, Manitoba, Canada.
Type label data. ARG. ATLANTIS. R. HOLLANDI [male] HOLOTYPE F. H. & R. L.
Chermock; HOLOTYPE Arg. atlantis R. Holland No. 4370 F. H. & R. L. Chermock; RIDING
MTS MANITOBA VII-24-34; Can. Dep. Agr. Photo. Specimen No. 4093 24-IV-1986 Negative
No.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-60 mm. The
discal and basal areas located on the ventral forewing and hindwing are deep brown compared to
paler atlantis forms. This subspecies is considered the western terminus of the atlantis cline
(Howe 1975).
Range. Riding Mountains of Manitoba, Peace River region, British Columbia.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. a. hollandi likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include:
Manitoba.
Speyeria atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer, 1998

Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [atlantis] electa
(Edwards) [=Argynnis Cornelia Edwards], S. hesperis [atlantis] nixies (Hermann), or Speyeria
hesperis [atlantis] hesperis (Edwards) in the past (see synonymies for these species).
Common names. Southern Rockies Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-31).
Type locality, near Mt. Judge, Clear Creek County, Colorado.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria atlantis sorocko Scott, Spomer, + Kondla
1997; 1 mi. NE Mt. Judge, Clear Creek Co. Colo. Aug. 5, 1987; collected by James A. Scott.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Cliff Ferris (pers. comm.) states that this
subspecies may be a redecoration of the form known as S. hesperis nixies (which has since been
synonymized under S. hesperis electa by Scott et al. 1998). Adult wingspan is on average 60
mm.
Range. Southern Rockies.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis, V. scopulorum, V canadensis (Scott et al. 1998).
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. a. sorocko likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Locality Data Associated with Specimens Examined. CO: Archuleta, Clear Creek,
Conejos, Custer, Douglas, Fremont, Grand, Hinsdale, Jefferson, Larimer, Las Animas, Ouray,
Rio Arriba, Routt, Saguache, San Miguel, Summit, Teller. NM: Rio Arriba.









Speyeria atlantispahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla, 1998


Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria atlantis lurana dos Passos
and Grey in the past.
Common name. Dakota Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-32).
Type locality. Deerfield Reservoir, Black Hills, Pennington County, South Dakota.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE; Speyeria atlantis pahasapa [male] Spomer, Scott, &
Kondla 1998; SD: Pennington Co. Deerfield Reservoir 13 July 1990 leg. S. M. Spomer.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is similar to S. h. hollandi, but
the hindwing disc is much darker (blackish-brown). ). Adult wingspan is on average 60 mm.
Range. Black Hills, South Dakota.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. a. pahasapa likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. SD: Custer, Lawrence, Meade, and
Pennington.
Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Edwards, 1864)

[Scott et al. 1998]
[see species account for S. hesperis]
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CO: Alpine, Boulder, Clear Creek,
Douglas, El Paso, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Teller.
Speyeria hesperis helena dos Passos and Grey, 1955

[Scott et al. 1998]
Argynnis lais Edwards, 1883 p. 209 [this name was a primary homonym for Argynnis lais
Scudder 1875, and dos Passos and Grey proposed a replacement name (Speyeria atlantis helena)
in 1955] (Figure 2-33)
Speyeria atlantis lais (Edwards, 1883 p. 209) [dos Passos and Grey 1947; synonymized by
Scott et al. 1998]
Argynnis lais form dennisi Gunder, 1927 p. 287 (Figure 2-34)
Speyeria atlantis dennisi dos Passos and Grey, 1947 [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998]
[Gunder (1927) described this subspecies as Argynnis lais transitional form dennisi and dos
Passos and Grey (1947) listed it as Speyeria atlantis dennisi; also see Masters (1973, 1974)]
Speyeria atlantis helena dos Passos and Grey, 1955 pp. 95-96
Common name. Northwestern Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-33).
Type locality. From dos Passos and Grey (1947): Red Deer River, Alberta, Canada; Fixed
by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Type label data. According to dos Passos and Grey 1955, the type of helena bears the
following label data: Lais [male] N. W. Terr type Ged.; lectotype Argynnis lais [male] W. H.
Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Speyeria hesperis helena is pale in color and
bears a red-brown ventral hindwing disc. Adult wingspan ranges from 40-45 mm.









Range. Prairie belts of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. a. helena likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include:
Alberta, Manitoba.
Speyeria hesperis beani (Barnes and Benjamin, 1926)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Dryas atlantis race beani Barnes and Benjamin, 1926 p. 92
Argynnis atlantis beani Barnes and Benjamin form hutchinsi Gunder, 1932 p. 280
Speyeria atlantis hutchinsi dos Passos and Grey, 1947 [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis beani (Barnes and Benjamin, 1926 p. 92) [the race beani has also been
placed within Speyeria electa by Howe 1975]
Common name. Bean's Fritillary
Type deposited. Holotype at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-35).
Type locality. Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Type label data. Dryas atlantis beani Holotype [male] B & Benj; Banff Alberta, Aug. 8-15
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are variable in size, and usually smaller
than most hesperis. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. The ventral hindwing disc is usually
bright red and the spots can silvered, entirely or partially unsilvered.
Range. Northern Washington, northern Idaho, British Columbia and the mountains of
Alberta.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. beani likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include:
Alberta, British Columbia.
Speyeria hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, Spomer, 1998

Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [atlantis] beani
(Barnes and Benjamin) or Speyeria hesperis [atlantis] helena dos Passos and Grey in the past.
Common name. Brico Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at Canadian National Collection (Figure 2-36).
Type locality. Castle Creek Forest Service Road, Cariboo Mountains, near McBride,
British Columbia, Canada.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, + Spomer
1997; KM 23.5, Castle Creek Forest Service Road, S of McBride, B.C. June 18, 1995, Norbert
G. Kondla; 95-6-18 B.B. K 23.5 Castle Cr. FSR N. Kondla; HOLOTYPE in Type coll. CNC No.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies resembles S. h. beani but the
disc is darker red, and the disc extends farther into the pale submarginal band ventrally. It often
occurs sympatrically with S. a. hollandi. Adult wingspan is on average 56 mm.
Range. Northern part of southeastern British Columbia, specifically the interior plateau.
Life history. Speyeria hesperis brico occurs in the Interior Cedar/Hammock bioclimatic
zone and the Englemann Spruce/Subalpine fir zone.









Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. a. brico likely nectar on a wide variety of
plants.
Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include:
British Columbia.
Speyeria hesperis ratonensis Scott, 1981

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis ratonensis Scott, 1981 p. 4
Common names. None.
Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Figure 2-
37).
Type locality. Raton Mesa, Colfax County, New Mexico.
Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen. Scott
(1981) includes the following data: Holotype, male, Raton Mesa, Colfax Co. New Mex. 21 July
1972, J. Scott.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Considered one of the palest atlantis-hesperis
forms, it is similar to S. h. greyi in Nevada. This subspecies always has silver spots on the ventral
hindwings. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.
Range. Limited to Raton Mesa in northeastern New Mexico.
Life history. Speyeria hesperis ratonensis may be a Pleistocene relict related to prairie
dwelling S. hesperis helena in Canada (Scott 1981). The two populations likely inhabited mixed
grassland and aspen forests on the southern plains. When the climate warmed, helena advanced
north while ratonensis move upward.
Larval hostplants. Viola canadensis var. scopulorum (=V. rydbergii) (Scott 1992; Scott et
al. 1998).
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. ratonensis likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CO: Las Animas; NM: Colfax,
Union.
Speyeria hesperis greyi Moeck, 1950

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis greyi Moeck 1950 pp. 61-64 [some authors (e.g., Hodges 1983; Austin
1998; Scott et al. 1998) have inadvertently included parentheses around Moeck, and it has been
perpetuated in the literature; however, greyi was originally described within Speyeria and the
parentheses were in error (see Dunford and Austin 2007)].
Common name. Grey's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-38).
Type locality. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby Mountains, Elko County, Nevada (Figure 2-54).
Type label data. Speyeria atlantis grevi, n. ssp. Holotype [male]; Lamoille Canyon 8-
8500'-July 24, 1949 (Moeck) Ruby Mts., Nevada. [Austin 1998b provided additional type
specimen data].
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes bear alight reddish buff ground
color, similar to S. h. chitone. Their appearance overall is pale, and lacks the red hues of other
hesperis and atlantis forms. Adult wingspan ranges from 45-50 mm.









Range. Restricted to the Ruby Mountains and East Humboldt Range, Elko County,
Nevada.
Life history. I observed adults flying low to the ground in aspen stands located in
Lamoille Canyon, Nevada.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. Like most Speyeria, S. h. greyi likely nectar on a wide variety of
plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. NV: Elko.
Speyeria hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey, 1945

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis lurana dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 8
Common name. Lurana Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-39).
Type Locality. Harney Peak, Black Hills, South Dakota.
Type label data. Holotype Speyeria atlantis lurana Cyril F. dos Passos and L. Paul Grey;
HARNEY PEAK, S. D. [male] 25 VI-39 Col. By A. C. FREDERICK; L. P. Grey.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes are typically unsilvered,
sympatrically occurring, with silvered forms being those of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa (Scott et
al. 1998). Adult wingspan is on average 55 mm.
Range. Black Hills, South Dakota. Also recorded in Wyoming (Grey et al. 1963).
Life history. I observed numerous individuals using creeks as flyways and feeding on
various flowers in Spearfish Canyon, South Dakota.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. lurana likely nectar on a variety of
plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. SD: Custer, Harding, Lawrence,
Pennington, Crook.
Speyeria hesperis irene (Boisduval, 1869)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis irene (Boisduval, 1869 p. 60) [dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Argynnis irene Boisduval, 1869 p. 60
Argynnis cottlei Comstock, 1925 p. 64 [cottlei has been changed from sunk in synonymy
to subspecies status by Emmel et al. 1998c]
Common name. Irene Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (female) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-40).
Type locality. Interior of California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Massack,
Plumas County, California. However, Emmel et al. (1998a) stated that the restriction of the type
locality to Massack, Plumas County is unsatisfactory and note that irene is not found in the
immediate vicinity of Massack. Emmel et al. (1998a) restricted the type locality to Gold Lake,
Sierra County, California, where the irene phenotype is known to occur.
Type label data. Montivaga Behr irene Bd. Calif; Argynnis Egleis [female] (Irene, Bdv.
Lepid. Californie, p. 60) specim-typic.; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection;
Type irene Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes Collection.









Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are similar to S. h. dodge, S. h. hanseni,
S. h. cottlei (see Emmel 1998c) as well sympatrically occurring S. zerene. Ventral hindwing
spots are cream colored. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.
Range. Occurs in the northern Sierra Nevadas of California, south to Yosemite in isolated
colonies.
Life history. Occurs in open, dry meadows
Larval hostplants. Violapurpurea (Emmel et al. 1970).
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. irene likely nectar on a wide variety of
plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El
Dorado, Glenn, Modoc, Mono, Placer, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Tuolumne; NV:
Douglas, Washoe.
Speyeria hesperis cottlei (Comstock, 1925)

[Warren 2005 is the first to use cottlei with hesperis after Emmel et al. 1998c raised it from
synonymy and placed it under atlantis]
Argynnis cottlei Comstock, 1925 p. 64 [see dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Speyeria atlantis cottlei (Comstock, 1925 p. 64) [placed in the 'atlantis' complex by
Emmel et al. (1998c); this species should be placed with former western 'atlantis' forms that
conform to the hesperis subspecies complex listed by Scott et al. (1998)]. This subspecies may
have been referred to as S. hesperis [atlantis] irene (Boisduval) in the past.
Common name. Cottle's Fritillary.
Type deposited. The specimen utilized for description was in the J. E. Cottle collection,
San Francisco (Comstock 1925; dos Passos and Grey 1947). At present, the type specimen
cannot be located (see discussion below) and a neotype designation may be needed.
Type locality. Vicinity of Alturas, Modoc County, California. Dos Passos and Grey (1947)
however synonymized the name with Speyeria atlantis irene and designated a lectotype for irene
taken from Massack, Plumas County, California. Emmel et al. (1998c) resurrected the name
from synonymy based on examination of the type for irene and the distribution of S. cottlei.
Type label data. I have not seen this specimen. According to Emmel et al. (1998c), a
single specimen was used to describe cottlei, but it is not clear where the specimen is currently
located. John Emmel (pers. comm.) stated the following: "riker mounts that Comstock used for
his plates in The Butterflies of California are still stored at L.A. County Museum--however,
specimens that Comstock borrowed, such as Cottle's specimen of Argynnis cottlei, were returned
to the persons who lent them to Comstock. So presumably the type was returned to J. E. Cottle--
where his collection went, I'm not sure. There are some specimens of Cottle's in the American
Museum of Natural History, New York. However, about 15 years ago when I was at the
American Museum I did not see the type of cottlei. Cottle lived in San Francisco, but the type of
cottlei has not turned up at the California Academy of Sciences there. Comstock's illustration
(1927 [1989], The Butterflies of California) of the type of cottlei may be your only source for an
image." A type specimen may need to redesignated for S. hesperis cottlei. At the time, Comstock
treated cottlei as a distinct species but speculated it may have been an unsilvered form of what is
now S. zerene hippolyta.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Closely resembles members of the S. zerene
complex and S. h. irene. There is a complete lack of silver scaling on the ventral hindwings.
Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.









Range. According to Emmel et al. (1998c), S. atlantis cottlei is known from the Warner
Mountains, but blend zones with S. hesperis dodge occur in the Klamath Mountains and Mt.
Shasta region.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. cottlei likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Lassen.
Speyeria hesperis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon, 1998 new combination

[included within hesperis here for the first time]
Speyeria atlantis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon, 1998c p. 152 [described in the
atlantis subspecies complex by Emmel et al. (1998c), this species should be placed with western
'atlantis' forms that conform to the hesperis subspecies complex listed by Scott et al. (1998).]
Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [atlantis] irene
(Boisduval) in the past.
Common name. Hansen's Fritillary
Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Figure 2-
41).
Type locality. Covelo Road, Anthony Peak, Tehama County, California.
Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen. Emmel
et al. (1998c) provide the following data: Holotype male: California, Tehama County; Anthony
Peak on Covelo Road, 4 July 1968, leg. S. O. Mattoon.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Similar to S. h. dodgei and S. h. irene, S. h.
hanseni is slightly duskier appearance dorsally and more pale ventrally due to extensive cream
scaling. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.
Range. This subspecies is known in the North Coast Ranges from Glenn County
northwestward to central Humboldt County (Emmel et al. 1998c).
Life history. Speyeria atlantis hanseni flies from late June to early August, with a peak
flight period during early July.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. hanseni likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Glenn, Mendocino, Tehama,
Trinity.
Speyeria hesperis dodgei (Gunder, 1931)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis dodgei (Gunder, 1931 p. 46) [dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Argynnis dodgei Gunder, 1931 p. 46
Common name. Dodge's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-42).
Type locality. Diamond Lake, Douglas County, Oregon.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] COLLECTION OF JEANE D. UNDER
ARGYNNIS DODGEI [signed by] J. D. Gunder TYPE LABEL; COLLECTION OF JEANE D.
UNDER DIAMOND LAKE, DOUGLAS Co., OREG. JULY 10-1930; J. D. Gunder collection
Ac. 34998; 7/10/30 Diamond Lk, Oreg [male].









Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies bears cream to whitish colored
ventral hindwing spots and a brick red disc. The marginal band along the disc is pinkish rather
than buff. Adult wingspan ranges from 45-55 mm. Speyeria dodge resembles S. hydaspe forms
where these species overlap.
Range. Cascade ranges of Oregon and southern Washington, eastward into Idaho.
Life history. This subspecies is largely confined fir and pine forests and may be seen in
canyons, along creeks, and in small clearings and meadows.
Larval hostplants. Viola bellidfolia (Shields et al. 1969).
Adult food resources. Mint (Dornfeld 1980).
Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Siskiyou; ID: Nez Perce; OR:
Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Grant, Jackson, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn,
Thurston, Umatilla, Wallowa, Wheeler; WA: Yakima.
Speyeria hesperis viola dos Passos and Grey, 1945

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis viola dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 10
Common name. Viola's Fritillary
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-43).
Type locality. Trail Creek, Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho.
Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis viola Cyril f. dos Passos and L. Paul
Grey; J. D. Gunder collection Ac. 34998; Trail Creek Ida. 7400ft. VII.11.31; Col. C. W. Herr.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes are similar to S. h. irene but are
somewhat paler in the disc. Adults are rather small and spots are entirely unsilvered on the
ventral hindwings. Adult wingspan ranges from 45-50 mm.
Range. Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho and eastern Oregon.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. I have observed adults flying
along roadsides nectaring on flowers along with Speyeria hydaspe near Crater Lake, Oregon.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. viola likely nectar on a variety of
plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. ID: Blaine, Boise, Camas, Custer.
Speyeria hesperis elko Austin, 1983

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis elko Austin, 1983 pp. 244-245
Common name. Elko Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at Nevada State Museum (Figure 2-44).
Type locality, ca. 10 miles south of Mountain City, Wild Horse Creek Campground,
Owyhee River Valley, Elko County, Nevada.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE Speyeria atlantis elko Austin
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. The dine involved with S. h. elko is largely
unsilvered and includes S. h. tetonia (Wyoming), S. h. viola (Idaho), S. h. irene, S. h. cottlei, and
S. h. hanseni (California). Speyeria hesperis elko is pale similar to other Speyeria in the Great
Basin (Austin 1983). Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.
Range. Range includes only the type locality: Jarbidge Mountains, Owyhee River Valley,
and Independence Range, Nevada.









Life history. Males patrol the creek bottom along the Owyhee River. Adult flight period
includes late June through mid-August.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. elko likely nectar on a wide variety of
plants (especially mints-G. Austin pers. comm.).
Label data associated with specimens examined. NV: Elko.
Speyeria hesperis tetonia dos Passos and Grey, 1945

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis tetonia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 9
Common name. Teton Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-45).
Type locality. Teton Mountains, Wyoming.
Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis tetonia Cyril F. dos Passos and L. Paul
Grey; Teton Mts. Wyo. VII. 11.31; J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes usually lack silvering on the ventral
hindwing. The discal area is lighter red ventrally than other hesperis. Adult wingspan ranges
from 45-50 mm. This subspecies also closely resemble Speyeria egleis.
Range. Teton Mountain region.
Life history. Adults appear in early July and fly along with similar looking S. egleis in
parts of Teton National Park.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. tetonia likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. ID: Bear Lake, Bonneville, Clark,
Fremont, Madison, Teton; WY: Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, Teton.
Speyeria hesperis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey, 1945

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 9
Common name. Wasatch Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-46).
Type locality. Payson Canyon, Payson, Utah County, Utah.
Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis wasatchia Cyril F. dos Passos and L.
Paul Grey; A. chitone Edw. Det. Gunder; Payson Canyon, Payson, Utah VII.16.32; Col. Pfouts;
J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is similar to S. h. chitone.
Ventral hindwing spots are typically unsilvered but there are silvered forms. Adult wingspan
ranges from 50-60 mm.
Range. Known from a few localities in Utah.
Life history. This subspecies can be encountered at elevations above 7,500 ft. in northern
Utah.
Larval Hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. wasatchia likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. UT: Davis, Box Elder, Cache,
Daggett, Duchesne, Salt Lake, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch.









Speyeria hesperis chitone (Edwards, 1879)


[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis chitone (Edwards, 1879b p. 82) [dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Argynnis chitone Edwards, 1879b p. 82
Common name. Chitone Fritillary.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-47). Brown (1965), however, noted that the specimen
selected by dos Passos and Grey (1947) was not the specimen of Edward's original description.
That specimen is housed in the National Museum of Natural History. Dos Passos and Grey were,
however, at liberty to select any syntype and they chose the only male in the Edwards'
Collection housed at Carnegie.
Type locality. Southern Utah and Arizona. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Cedar
Breaks National Monument, Iron County, Utah.
Type label data. type Chitone [male] So. Utah; lectotype Argynnis chitone [male] W. H.
Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults of this subspecies are generally larger
than S. h. wasatchia and have a heavier black patterning above. The ventral hindwing disc is
either silver or unsilvered. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.
Range. La Sal and Abajo Mountains in Utah. It is also found near Cedar Breaks National
Monument.
Life history. Nothing could be gleaned form the literature.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. chitone likely nectar on a wide variety
of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. UT: Beaver, Duchesne, Emery,
Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier.
Speyeria hesperis electa (Edwards, 1878)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Argynnis Electa Edwards, 1878 p. 143
Argynnis Cornelia Edwards, 1892 p. 106
Speyeria atlantis electa (Edwards, 1878 p. 143) [dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Argynnis nikias Ehrmann, 1917 p. 55 (Figure 2-49)
Speyeria atlantis nikias (Ehrmann, 1917 p. 55) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] [synonymized
by Scott et al. 1998]
Some workers have treated the form 'electa' as a valid species including the subspecies
now placed within the 'hesperis' group (Howe 1975, Bird et al. 1995), but unless further
analyses prove otherwise, it will be treated here within the species hesperis.
Common names. Electa Fritillary, Electa Silverspot, Cinnamon Silverspot.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-48).
Type locality. Colorado. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Rocky Mountain
National Park, Colorado. Brown (1965) considered this locality untenable, and corrected it to
Turkey Creek Junction, Jefferson County, Colorado.









Type label data. type electa [male] Colo. Mead '71; Argynnis comelia [male] Fide W. J.
Holland; Collection W. H. Edwards; lectotype Argynnis electa [male] W. H. Edwards designated
by dos Passos and Grey 1947.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies has been recognized as a
distinct species by some authors (Howe 1975; Bird et al. 1995) and is difficult to distinguish
from nominate atlantis except by locality labels. Adult wingspan ranges from 55-60 mm.
Range. Throughout the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and in the Laramie Range of
southern Wyoming.
Life history. Adults of S. h. electa are on the wing as early as May in Alberta (Bird et al.
1995) and fly well into September.
Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis (Scott 1992).
Adult food resources. Yellow composites (Bird et al. 1995).
Locality data associated with specimens examined. WY: Albany, Carbon. There were
numerous individuals taken from Colorado examined at various museums, but in many cases
they were difficult to discern from Speyeria hesperis hesperis.
Speyeria hesperis schellbachi Garth, 1949

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis schellbachi Garth, 1949 p. 1
Common name. Schellbach's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Figure 2-
50).
Type locality. Neal Spring, north rim of Grand Canyon, Arizona.
Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are bright orange-yellow dorsally and
dark basally. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-60 mm. This subspecies somewhat resemble S. h.
chitone but is always silver on the ventral hindwing spots.
Range. Kaibab Plateau, near the Grand Canyon, Arizona.
Life history. Adult are active in secluded draws along springs.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. Cirisium spp. (Garth 1950).
Locality data associated with specimens examined. AZ: Coconino.
Speyeria hesperis dorothea Moeck, 1947

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis dorothea Moeck, 1947 pp. 73-75
Common name. Dorothy's Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-51).
Type locality. Sandia Peak, Sandia Mountains, Sandoval County, New Mexico,.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria atlantis dorothea A. H. Moeck; Sandia
Peak, Sandia Mts., N. M., July 15, 1946 7,000 ft. (A. H. Moeck).
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Similar in size to S. h. nausicaa, the basal
suffusion is somewhat heavier and black patterning is bolder. The ventral hindwing disc bear
brilliant silver spots. Adult wingspan ranges from 55-70 mm. The genitalia are similar to those of
the "callippe" group (e.g., callippe, atlantis, egleis, adiaste).
Range. Sandia, Chuska, Manzano Mountains, New Mexico.









Life history. Adults in can be observed in open glades in the Sandia Mountains (Figure 2-
58).
Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis (Scott et al. 1998).
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. dorothea likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. AZ: Apache; NM: Bernalillo,
Cibola, McKinley, Otero, San Juan, Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia.
Speyeria hesperis nausicaa (Edwards, 1874)

[Scott et al. 1998]
Argynnis Nausicaa Edwards, 1874b p. 104
Argynnis ?aphrodite form Arizonensis Elwes, 1889 p. 546
Speyeria atlantis nausicaa (Edwards, 1874b p. 104) [dos Passos and Grey 1947]
Common names. Nausicaa Fritillary, Arizona Fritillary, Arizona Silverspot.
Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie
Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-52).
Type locality. Rocky Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona (dos Passos and Grey 1947).
However, Brown (1965) believed that the collection date may have been misread by Edwards,
and states the collector (H. W. Henshaw) was likely at Rock Canyon, Graham County, Arizona.
Type label data. Nausicaa [male] Ariza. Wheeler Ex type; lectotype Argynnis nausicaa
[male] W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is one of the larger ones within
hesperis. Adult wingspan ranges from 60-75 mm. Adults are similar in appearance to S. h.
dorothea, but there is usually some white or grey overscaling discally on the underside of
nausicaa. The forewings are pointed, and the ventral hindwing spots are always silver with the
discal area violaceous in color. Two 'forms' of S. h. nausicaa may occur in Arizona, one form,
darker basally on the dorsal surface of the wings, flies at or above 10,000ft.
Range. Central and western Arizona above the Mogollon Rim. It also occurs in western
New Mexico.
Life history. Adults are active in the mid morning hours in open sunny areas (Figure 2-
55). Afternoon rains during the summer months in the Arizona mountains hinders their activity.
Adults will become inactive fairly rapidly when the sun is covered by clouds (Figures 2-56 and
2-57). Howe (1975) noted that adults settle with their wings horizontal against the ground in the
late afternoon sunshine along dirt roads in the White Mountains of Arizona.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. nausicaa likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated specimens examined. AZ: Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila,
Graham, Grant, Greenlee, Navajo, Yavapai; NM: Catron, Cibola, Dona Ana, Grant, Sierra,
Socorro.
Speyeria hesperis capitanensis R. Holland, 1988

[Scott et al. 1998]
Speyeria atlantis capitanensis R. Holland, 1988 p. 2
Common name. Capitan Mountain Fritillary.
Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-53).









Type locality. Padilla Point, crest of Capitan Ridge, Capitan Mountains, Lincoln County,
New Mexico.
Type label data. HOLOTYPE Speyeria atlantis capitanensis R. Holland; 10.VII.82 leg.
RWH Padilla Pt. 9200' crest of Capitan Mts. Lincoln Co., NM; Figured in Bulletin of the Allyn
Museum Number 113 Fig. 2B+4 Specimen 13664; 13664. RWH S. atlantis ssp.
Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is intermediate phenotypically
from S. h. nausicaa and S. h. dorothea, more closely resembling dorothea. Adult wingspan
ranges from 60-79 mm.
Range. Capitan and Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico.
Life history. I observed adults using roadside flowers for nectar and would use streams as
flyways in the Capitan Mountains (Figure 2-59). Adults were active from mid to late morning
hours through the early afternoon.
Larval hostplants. Viola spp.
Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria, S. h. capitanensis likely nectar on a wide
variety of plants.
Locality data associated with specimens examined. NM: Lincoln, Otero.









Table 2-1. Checklist of Speyeria species and subspecies treated herein.
Speyeria diana (Cramer)
Speyeria cybele (Fabricius)
Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius)
Speyeria idalia (Drury)
Speyeria nokomis (Edwards)
Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt)
Speyeria coronis (Behr)
Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey)
Speyeria zerene (Boisduval)
Speyeria callippe (Boisduval)
Speyeria egleis (Behr)
Speyeria adiaste (Edwards)
Speyeria atlantis (Edwards)
S. atlantis atlantis (Edwards)
S. atlantis hollandi (Chermock and Chermock)
S. atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla
S. atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer
Speyeria hesperis (Edwards)
S. hesperis hesperis (Edwards)
S. hesperis helena dos Passos and Grey
S. hesperis beani (Barnes and Benjamin)
S. hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, Spomer
S. hesperis ratonensis Scott
S. hesperis greyi Moeck
S. hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey
S. hesperis irene (Boisduval)
S. hesperis cottlei (Comstock)
S. hesperis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon
S. hesperis dodgei (Gunder)
S. hesperis viola dos Passos and Grey
S. hesperis elko Austin
S. hesperis tetonia dos Passos and Grey
S. hesperis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey
S. hesperis chitone (Edwards)
S. hesperis electa (Edwards)
S. hesperis schellbachi Garth
S. hesperis nausicaa (Edwards)
S. hesperis dorothea Moeck
S. hesperis capitanensis R. Holland
Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval)
Sveveria mormonia (Boisduval)










Table 2-2. List of museum abbreviations.
AME-Allyn Museum of Entomology (now housed at McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and
Biodiversity)
AMNH-American Museum of Natural History
BMNH (now NHM)-British Museum of Natural History
CMNH-Carnegie Museum of Natural History
CNC-Canadian National Collection
CSUC-C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity (Colorado State University)
FMNH-Field Museum of Natural History
FLMNH-Florida Museum of Natural History
FSCA-Florida State Collection of Arthropods
LACM-Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
MGCL-McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity
MPM-Milwaukee Public Museum
MBSM (BYU)-Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum (Brigham Young University)
NMNH (formerly USNM)-National Museum of Natural History (United States National
Museum)
NSM-Nevada State Museum
UAM-University of Alaska Museum of the North
EMUS-Utah State University Insect Collection
IRCW-University of Wisconsin Insect Research Collection
ESUW-Universitv of Wyoming Insect Museum












Sfe l. I. The female.-Expanding full four
inches.
j' o. II. The male.-Eapanding about three
inches and an half.
VPr-fd. HIE Atesme, are dark brown.
T -The Head and Thars, of a
.dep brown orange.-The Soperir Wings, are of
dark orange, their anterior and external edges
being bordered with black. Near the latter, are
pigbr white Ipots oi r the wings of the female, (but
moron the male.) Absoe thefe, the female has
five, and rhe male fix, round black (pots ; thofe
of the latter bing lmallet. Several black waves
and itrreks, are dTlperlf. on other parts of the
winga.-The b frriar fings, are of a fine dark
H blue, almost black, and are a little dentated; the
superior ones being plain. Near the external
edges, i a row of cream coloured pots, confift-
ing of I"ven, which, in the male, are rie. Above
thefe, is anrwhe r row of the lane j unabcr of cream
eoloured (p:ts, fiLuated near the middle of the
wings. The upper part of rhefe wings, next the
body, is c ered with brown orange coloured

piol w t i n hirdske n f.
Undr-flde. Fer. III.-The Head, Breaqj and
Xret, are dark blue, nearly black.-The Superror
rnim.r, dark orange, with fome triangular filver
pots placed along the external edges; whofe up-
per points are edged with black, and are generally
more dhltn& in the female than the male. The
several black waves and ftreaks feen on the upper-
fide, are here more faint, frome being farce viti-
ble.-The Afserie IWings, are of a dark olive
brown, with twenty-fix different shaped filver
wing, being divided by a fhort black line.
I received them from New York, where they
were taken the 28th of June.
I have not feno them described in any author.
_A_ B


Figure 2-1. Original description for 'Idalia'. A) hand colored illustrations included with original
description, B) text included with original description (taken from Drury 1773).













aplcd bar
dical bars
median band
nrdnamal spst
peatl mun sept

submanergnl apot*

discal rse
mbnir dg bend

neien spots


dorionwle l si
dwrsdclew venur Mew submrgnad spots


Figure 2-2. Wing terminology associated with species of Speyeria. Image by James C. Dunford
and Kelly R. Sims.


Figure 2-3. Wing venation and cell scheme utilized in dissertation (after Miller 1969).



















A B

Figure 2-4. Images of adult Speyeria diana. A) male, B) female. Each image with dorsal (left)
and ventral (right) view. Images by James C. Dunford.














.A B










Figure 2-5. Type images for Speyeria diana, BMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria diana, male, dorsal
view, B) holotype=Speyeria diana, male, ventral view, C) holotype. =Speyeria diana
label data. Images by Kim Goodger Buckmaster.





























A B














Figure 2-7. Type images for Speyeria cybele, BMaphrodite, AMNH.N A) neotype=Speyeria cybele, female,
male, dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria cybelaphrodite, female, ventral view, C) neotype. Images byeria





James C. Dunford.
Figure 2-7. Type images for Speyeria cybeleaphrodite, AMNBMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria cybele, female,











male, dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria aphrodite, male, ventral view. Images by
James C. Dunford.

























Figure 2-8. Images of Speyeria idalia life stages. A) adult on butterflyweed, Crawford County,
Wisconsin, image by James C. Dunford, B) pupa, image by David L. Wagner, C)
larva, image by David L. Wagner.


1E 0T 7 P E
Iai )ra ,


Pap. 97m.P.al
Idalia d


Figure 2-9. Type images for Speyeria idalia, AMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria idalia, male, dorsal
view, B) neotype=Speyeria idalia, male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


1. '.t
































Figure 2-10. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria idalia. Image James C. Dunford.


NZ0TYPZ
Argjanie
Sokcmic d
Zdwvrds


A.. hrlA




Argnnis
Zoaoki= a'


Figure 2-11. Type images for Speyeria nokomis, AMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria nokomis, male,
dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria nokomis, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.



























Figure 2-12 Type images for Speyeria nokomis, AMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria nokomis, male,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria nokomis, male, ventral view. This specimen is no
longer recognized as the name bearing type. Images by James C. Dunford.


1 Or
xto =M l l
W.:!= 12111


Figure 2-13. Type images for Speyeria edwardsii, FMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria edwardsii,
male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria edwardsii, male, ventral view. Images by
James C. Dunford.


~.A-. ~~'.A
Zec"Alywe

/'F. ~~f~


01 11~1


























Figure 2-14. Digitus located on left valva, Speyeria edwardsii. Image by James C. Dunford.



















Figure 2-15. Type images for Speyeria coronis, CMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria coronis, male,
dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria coronis, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.
























Figure 2-16. Habitus image of Speyeria zerene (gunderi), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and
ventral (right) views. Image by James C. Dunford.








Nqii






A B







C

Figure 2-17. Type images for Speyeria zerene, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria zerene, male,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria zerene, male, ventral view, C) lectotype=Speyeria
zerene label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

























- ..l~onP. il
5-AV
OFU %0tnL
im ~ ~: i~'iiS~"


Figure 2-18. Type images for Speyeria carolae, CMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria carolae, male,
dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria carolae, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.


Figure 2-19. Speyeria callippe (harmonia), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and ventral (right)
views. Image by James C. Dunford.









ll1 'I llll 11111 J I'J! II t


V i~
U'"i'' i*ii"ii::
Ii;.. ;~i ~;~;; .B;;;;


Figure 2-20. Type images for Speyeria callippe, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria callippe, male,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria callippe, male, ventral view, C)
lectotype=Speyeria callippe label data. Images by Robert Robbins.






























Figure 2-21. Type images for Speyeria egleis, NMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria egleis, female,
dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria egleis, female, ventral view, C) neotype=Speyeria
egleis label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

































Figure 2-22. Type images for Speyeria adiaste, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria adiaste, female,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria adiaste, female, ventral view, C)
lectotype=Speyeria adiaste label data. This is no longer recognized as the name
bearing type. Images by Robert Robbins.













Figure 2-23. Type images for Speyeria adiaste, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speera adiaste, male,

t-j.
.. .... .......... A.. iB






dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria adiaste, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.
Dunford.

























W 1- LDWARDS --
dilet lid b%


'. H. EDWARDS
designated hi
4Gm*. <5 9a1rj


Figure 2-24. Type images for Speyeria atlantis, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria atlantis, male,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria atlantis, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.


,, Ib 0 1 I en't i "tn: "'

W II F.DWARDS i 4
de-ignamed bhv
,sOW f Pq ___


.r ioitype


W. H E WARDS
dnignnsed hv
(A-l/lnaa r


Figure 2-25. Type images for Speyeria hesperis, CMNH. A) neotype=Speyeria hesperis, male,
dorsal view, B) neotype=Speyeria hesperis, male, ventral view. Images by James C.
Dunford.


OW -- .---- ..
P^^o^
2 "MK ZC





















A B










C

Figure 2-26. Type images for Speyeria hydaspe, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria hydaspe, male,
dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hydaspe, male, ventral view, C)
lectotype=Speyeria hydaspe label data. Images by Robert Robbins.


Figure 2-27. Habitus image of Speyeria mormonia (artonis), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and
ventral (right) views. Image by James C. Dunford.
































Figure 2-28. Type images for Speyeria mormonia, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria mormonia,
male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria mormonia, male, ventral view, C)
lectotype=Speyeria mormonia label data. Images by Robert Robbins.






















,. r -l i'" : .' I -I, I .
_. l', .. -.| r?. :hl' '.> .... '.S...


.A B

Figure 2-29. Type images for Speyeria atlantis canadensis, AMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria
atlantis canadensis, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria atlantis canadensis,
male, ventral view. Now synonymized with Speyeria atlantis (Scott et al. 1998).
Image by James C. Dunford.























Figure 2-30. Type images for Speyeria atlantis hollandi, CNC. A) holotype=Speyeria atlantis
hollandi, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria atlantis hollandi, male, ventral
view. Images by Norbert Kondla.
























,A3 m '
*'.. I ,_". / ;; r.... .) r ev Ctk .- '
^ : r /* '.r*.n't -?L ^ -, r iU?_
I I 1'"L '.


Figure 2-31. Type images for Speyeria atlantis sorocko, AMNH. A) holotype of Speyeria
atlantis sorocko, male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria atlantis sorocko, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


I r.. 1 I g
SO. 5. 1 i1'1.' 1 'in, .


Figure 2-32. Type images for Speyeria atlantis pahasapa, AMNH. A) holotype of Speyeria
atlantis pahasapa, male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa,
male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.






















eI;yy~'-a
.5 a

~.~b~ 1- Er-l A.
h6J


-Zo. %-
i.s/ e Z --


W. II: EDWARDS
desigated by
I y~P~


Figure 2-33. Type images for Speyeria hesperis helena, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria
hesperis helena, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis helena, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.



























Figure 2-34. Type images for Speyeria atlantis dennisi, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria atlantis
dennisi, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria atlantis dennisi, male, ventral view.
Now synonymized with Speyeria hesperis helena (Scott et al. 1998). Image by James
C. Dunford.
C. Dunford.


l--r-



































Figure 2-35. Type images for Speyeria hesperis beani, NMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria hesperis
beani, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis beani, male, ventral view,
C) holotype=Speyeria hesperis beani label data. Images by Robert Robbins.


.;LJ4 -e 0 .%L. 7 L c j


r21:F :': 5


Figure 2-36. Types images for Speyeria hesperis brico, CNC. A) holotype of Speyeria hesperis
brico, male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria hesperis brico, male, ventral view.
Images by Norbert Kondla.


5










LICNM ENT 1614J6


210.0 mm


Figure 2-37. Holotype=Speyeria hesperis ratonensis, male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM.
Image by Weiping Xie.


%see k.f il L


Figure 2-38. Type images for Speyeria hesperis greyi, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria hesperis
greyi, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis greyi, male, ventral view.
Images by James C. Dunford.






















A B

Figure 2-39. Type images for Speyeria hesperis lurana, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis lurana, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis lurana, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


Figure 2-40. Type images for Speyeria hesperis irene, NMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis
irene, female, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis irene, female, ventral
view, C) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis irene label data. Images by Robert Robbins.











LACM ENT 161456

4 f ,


25 mm



Figure 2-41. Holotype=Speyeria hesperis hanseni, male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM.
Image by Weiping Xie.





























J T. ,7-l
-U .- --


rl-1 i AC% .4(5 -, :zLtzcyifo O-

ki ; i t ""
E -c .:: L, o t 3 Si L j^ **i^"-r.l
J^-' .'?/'*../ ^S~


-^ 9/ :9 -J
Sr

"B


Figure 2-42. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dodge, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis dodge, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis dodge, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


j -) G.u.,
C-xlq~t


J. D Cunil
C',I1et tN
.Af. ."9MD


-fla. Crci
td-IO. 741e0pft
i-n.//. I
c* l ,It' J

C"o


Figure 2-43. Type images for Speyeria hesperis viola, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria hesperis
viola, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis viola, male, ventral view.
Images by James C. Dunford.















121
























)#OLOTyr,
4I.i..


Figure 2-44. Type images for Speyeria hesperis elko, NSM. A) holotype=Speyeria hesperis
elko, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis elko, male, ventral view.
Images by George Baumgartner and Scott Klette.


Figure 2-45. Type images for Speyeria hesperis tetonia, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis tetonia, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis tetonia, male,
ventral view. Image by James C. Dunford.


*1 II 'I
III 'd~r


























ij
j r n I S Ni
.b~o. F.J .
LAI T~a"~


Figure 2-46. Type images for Speyeria hesperis wasatchia, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis wasatchia, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis wasatchia,
male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


lcqh PC tfa/j'AR I)
..........
F L 4--1


'~V. ii FIWARDS
d1 LI.. 4..'-
3 Al *5 ri


Figure 2-47. Type images for Speyeria hesperis chitone, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria
hesperis chitone, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis chitone, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


I.,.1 OCct5

















-wr type utyp W. i.
.k,,.,.J c. Dw.,l A~d S Ws -15 I
~ t I4 W 11 FLAARD





Figure 2-48. Type images for Speyeria hesperis electa, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis
electa, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis electa, male, ventral view.
Images by James C. Dunford.


A. l
~3~t~t


A. ?c.a-4r L&...
7,14-e


Figure 2-49. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nikias, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis
nikias, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis nikias, male, ventral view.
Now synonymized with Speyeria hesperis electa (Scott et al. 1998). Image by James
C. Dunford.










LACM ENT 224420


25 mm


Figure 2-50. Holotype=Speyeria hesperis schellbachi, male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM.
Image by Weiping Xie.


A


Figure 2-51. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dorothea, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis dorothea, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis dorothea, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.























I~'
I.rIF iiZ~~S d


II FJI"'.'RD ;
. *'P 7
'4'7


Figure 2-52. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nausicaa, CMNH. A) lectotype=Speyeria
hesperis nausicaa, male, dorsal view, B) lectotype=Speyeria hesperis nausicaa, male,
ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.


,tIlr r, I7s~g ~
,,frt 0..
S -'at I a c. l~r 4,
2..4(


Figure 2-53. Type images for Speyeria hesperis capitanensis, AMNH. A) holotype=Speyeria
hesperis capitanensis, male, dorsal view, B) holotype=Speyeria hesperis
capitanensis, male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.





























Figure 2-54. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby Mountains, Nevada. Image by James C. Dunford.


Figure 2-55. Hospital Flats, near Mt. Graham, Pinalefio Mountains, Arizona. Image by James C.
Dunford.































Figure 2-56. View of Pinalefio Mountains in the morning. Image by James C. Dunford.


Figure 2-57. View of Pinalefio Mountains in the early afternoon. Image by James C. Dunford.

































I~
.A-j A 1


Figure 2-58. Open glade in Sandia Mountains, New Mexico. Image by James C. Dunford.


Figure 2-59. Roadside flowers, Capitan Mountains, New Mexico. Image by James C. Dunford.









CHAPTER 3
PHYLOGENY OF SPEYERIA

Speyeria, (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini) as currently defined, is restricted to

North America (absent in southeastern regions of the United States) (Elwes 1889; Howe 1975;

Hammond 1978). Morphologically similar genera exist in other temperate parts of the world and

together may be considered the temperate-zone counterpart to tropical Heliconiini (Hammond

1978; Scott 1986b). Long included in the Old World genus Argynnis (Argynninae) (Elwes 1889;

Snyder 1900; Seitz 1924), Speyeria differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic

structure (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Domfeld 1980). They were considered generically distinct

from Argynnis by dos Passos and Grey (1945a); all North American taxa named since that time

have been described within Speyeria. Recent workers have, however, treated Speyeria as a

subgenus of the primarily Palearctic genus Argynnis Fabricius 1807 (Tuzov 2003; Simonsen

2006c). Simonsen (2006a,b,c) and Simonsen et al. (2006) have provided some morphological

and molecular evidence that suggests Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is retained as a

separate genus.

Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species (Opler and Warren 2005), and according to

some authors, over 100 subspecies (dos Passos 1964; McHenry 1964; Hammond 1978; Ferris

and Brown 1981; Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983; Ferris 1989a,b). Speyeria cybele

(Fabricius), S. aphrodite (Fabricius), S. idalia (Drury), and S. atlantis (W.H. Edwards) occur in

the eastern half of North America (east of the Mississippi River), each with distributions or

subspecies occurring in the west, while S. diana (Cramer) of the eastern United States is

restricted to the Appalachian and Ozark Mountains (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler

and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). The remaining species occur in the western regions of

North America. Historically, three Speyeria species (i.e., S. diana, S. cybele, S. aphrodite) have









been recognized as the subgenus Semnopsyche Scudder (1875) based primarily on differences in

the female genitalic armature (dos Passos and Grey 1945a, 1947; Klots 1951; Hammond 1978;

Ferris and Brown 1981).

Simonsen (2004) hypothesized that the tribe Argynnini likely originated approximately 35

million years ago (=Oligocene Epoch) in the Eastern Palearctic /Nearctic Region based on

historical zoogeography. Argynnina (including Speyeria and Argynnis) probably originated in

the Eastern Palearctic/Afrotropics Regions and spread into the Western Palearctic Region on

several occasions and the Nearctic Region once. Pleistocene glaciations likely promoted

speciation in Speyeria because divergence among allopatric glacial refugia or founder events

during recolonization of previously glaciated areas would have promoted differentiation

(Hammond 1990). Climatological events and geological history, especially in western North

America, have resulted in numerous montane "island" butterfly populations (Howe 1975;

Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997; Fleishman et al. 2001a).

Geographic variation in Speyeria was first studied in detail by Comstock (1927 [1989

reprint]), Holland (1898, 1931), and later by Grey (1951), Moeck (1957), Hovanitz (1967),

Howe (1975), and Hammond (1978). The earlier works listed dozens of "species" names

(Holland 1898: 47 species), but subsequent authors realized that most of these "species" were no

more than geographical forms or races associated with a few polytypic species (dos Passos and

Grey 1947; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Miller and Brown 1981; Scott 1986b). Species and

subspecies of Speyeria are commonly delimited based on banding, discal coloration, spot

coloration and size differences (Dornfeld 1980; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). In the

evolution of Speyeria, wing markings appear to be highly conservative and reliable diagnostic

characters, while wing colors are less stable (Hammond 1990). Habitat may be important in









"determining" species and subspecies, and the amount of solar radiation (including factors such

as latitude, temperature, elevation, humidity, lack of vegetation, dark or light soil) on larvae and

pupae may play a role in color variation as it does in other lepidopterans (Hovanitz 1941; Moeck

1957; Janzen 1984; Pyle 1995; Layberry et al. 1998; Ellers and Boggs 2004). For example, pierid

and papilionid butterfly populations in cold climates have much darker, more heavily melanized

ventral hindwings than do populations in warm climates (Watt 1968; Guppy 1986).

Since the precladistic works of Warren (1944, 1955), dos Passos and Grey (1945a), and

Moeck (1957), and early systematic works of Shir6zu and Saigusa (1973) and Hammond (1978),

only a few workers have treated genera within the Argynnini utilizing modern systematic

techniques. Based on adult and larval morphology utilizing phylogenetic analyses, Penz and

Peggie (2003) suggested that Heliconiinae be divided into four groups, and included Speyeria

within the Argynnini. Other closely related heliconiine taxa with distributions in North America

included Clossiana Reuss (=Boloria) and Euptoieta. The argynnines in their study were the most

derived monophyletic group within the Heliconiinae, implying that species diversification within

the group occurred more recently than the emergence of ancestral Neotropical heliconiines. By

contrast, however, the fairly recent morphological and molecular work of Brower (2000c) placed

the Neotropical taxa as more derived than the argynnine fritillaries, indicating that there is

difficulty in accurately recovering the evolutionary history of taxa that emerged several thousand

years ago (Penz and Peggie 2003). The morphological and molecular work Simonsen et al.

(2006) provided monophyletic groups for six genera within the Argynnini, reducing Speyeria to

a subgenus of Argynnis. In both of these studies, the European genera Fabriciana Reuss and

Mesoacidalia Reuss [both genera are included in Argynnis in Simonsen et al. (2006)] are

hypothetically most closely related to Speyeria (Figure 3-14). In addition, a fairly well-supported









clade comprising all Argynnis species (including Speyeria) supports the unification of all larger

fritillaries in one genus (Simonsen et al. 2006). Work conducted by Simonsen (2006c) based

primarily on genitalia also indicated a close relationship between that of Speyeria and

Mesoacidalia (Figure 3-5); however, the generic placement of several larger fritillary species

differed from Simonsen et al. 2006.

To date, there has not been an inclusive, cladistic analysis for Speyeria. A few older studies

have utilized multiple Speyeria taxa in evolutionary-related analyses (Brittnacher et al. 1978;

Hammond 1978; Tebaldi 1982), but more recently Speyeria have been used as an outgroup for

phylogenetic inferences of more or less related taxa (Martin and Pashley 1992; Brower and Egan

1997; Pollock et al. 1998; Penz and Peggie 2003; Simonsen 2004, 2006; Simonsen et al. 2006).

Previous evolutionary relationships within Speyeria have been arbitrarily delimited, based

primarily on the genitalic differences exhibited between the Semnopsyche group and the

remainder of Speyeria [=Callippe group (Hammond 1978)], a few immature characters, and by

and large adult morphological variation of the following: overall size, degree of sexual

dimorphism, and the following wing characteristics: dorsally, ground color, intensity of black

markings, degree of dark basal suffusion, prominence of marginal band, thickness of veins on the

wings, and ventrally, ground color of the discal region, size, shape, color and position of spots on

the hindwings, and color and width of submarginal band between the two outer rows of spots on

the hindwings.

In dos Passos and Grey's 1947 revision, Speyeria mormonia is presented as 'derived',

while the Semnopsyche group is presented 'basally' within the Speyeria (Figure 3-1); however,

they realized the arbitrary nature of this arrangement and could only clearly distinguish the

Semnopsyche group from those in the callippe group. Hammond (1978) discussed primitive and









derived characteristics within Speyeria and its close relatives and realized the affinities between

Eurasian Fabriciana aglaja (=Mesoacidalia) and Argynnis. Within Speyeria, he noted that S.

mormonia taxa most closely resemble the wing coloration and ground plan patterns of old

Mesoacidalia aglaja of the Old World. Amongst the 15 Fabriciana and Argynnis taxa he

examined, Argynnis was considered distinct from both Fabriciana and Speyeria in wing

patterning. Argynnis has round submarginal spots on the dorsal wing surface, and the markings

on the ventral hindwings are greatly reduced and obscure. In contrast, both Fabriciana and

Speyeria have crescent shaped submarginal spots and the markings on the ventral hindwing are

distinct. Hammond also considered a Semnopsyche group or 'cybele clade', recognizing the

close affinities of the male genitalia of S. diana, S. idalia, S. aphrodite, S. cybele, and S. nokomis

(Figure 3-2). His analyses provided a more accurate representation of the evolutionary

relationships within Speyeria, although it was based largely on untestable hypotheses.

There have also been regional systematic studies on Speyeria. Brittnacher et al. (1978)

used electrophoresis to study the body enzymes of California Speyeria and found that five

Callippe group species could not be readily distinguished, whereas the other five species could

be (the enzymes of Speyeria hydaspe and Speyeria adiaste were also similar). The Callippe

group species could, however, be distinguished by combining chromosomal, physiological, and

morphological data (see Figure 3-3). For the 10 taxa examined, species that occurred in xeric

habitats clustered into two groups, while mesic inhabiting species (i.e., S. nokomis and S.

mormonia) were most different from each other and from the xeric species (Figure 3-3).

Hammond (1990) provided a cladistic analysis (based primarily on wing patterns) of Speyeria

callippe subspecies (Figure 3-4) and hypothesized that S. callippe was a West Coast isolate of

the Appalachian-type Speyeria atlantis and that Speyeria edwardsii probably evolved from one









of the S. callippe subspecies that became isolated in the Great Plains east of the Continental

Divide. Tebaldi (1982) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six enzymes to analyze the

relationships between three phenotypes of what was considered Speyeria atlantis at the time (i.e.,

electa, nikias, and hesperis) and found that the phenotypes could only be considered

'semispecies', and that electa and nikias were more closely related than either one was to

hesperis. Williams (2001a, 2002) examined the cytochrome oxidase I and II gene regions for

Speyeria idalia and suggested splitting the eastern and western United States populations into

two subspecific taxa based on 18 parsimony-informative sites and spot size on the ventral

hindwings.

While there has been some dispute as to the true evolutionary relationship of Speyeria to

the primarily Palearctic Argynnis for some time (Hovantiz 1962, McHenry 1963; Hammond

1978; Simonsen et al. 2006), recent cladistic analyses (Simonsen 2006a,c; Simonsen et al. 2006)

have only utilized members of the Semnopsyche or Cybele group in those analyses; thus they

may not accurately represent Speyeria as a whole. In another taxonomically-related heliconiine

study, Penz and Peggie (2003) utilized Speyeria mormonia and Speyeria aphrodite

(=Semnopsyche group). Their tree topology exhibited some differences when compared to those

presented in Simonsen et al. (2006); namely, the relationship of Speyeria to that of Argynnis.

Although character usage and the taxa included in their study differed somewhat, it may be an

indication that additional Speyeria taxa should be included in future heliconiine-related studies to

provide clearer resolution of the evolutionary relationships in the group.

In general, mitochondrial genes are useful data for evolutionary studies such as species

delimitation, population structure and gene flow, hybridization, phylogeographic histories, and

phylogenetic relationships (Vogler et al. 1993; Brower 1997; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Levy et









al. 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a; Segraves and Pellmyr 2004; Strehl and Gadau 2004;

Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Wahlberg et al. 2005; Memon et al. 2006). Their small size and

relative ease to purify (relative to nuclear genes) (i.e., buoyant density, high copy number in

cells, and location within an organelle) allow researchers to isolate these genes more readily

(Simon et al. 1994). Because its properties (i.e., various regions evolve rapidly in base

substitutions and sequence length, have a constant initial rate of evolution, are maternally

inherited, and are unlikely to recombine), mtDNA represents an unbiased neutral marker for

maternal ancestry, and is a good tool to help reveal historical relationships among populations

(Brower 1994a; Simon et al. 1994). COI coding genes have been the most widely utilized

mitochondrial gene regions in Lepidoptera phylogenetic analyses for some time (Brower 1994b,

1996b; Brown et al. 1994; Sperling and Hickey 1995; Pollock et al. 1998; Caterino and Sperling

1999; Nice and Shapiro 1999; Wahlberg and Zimmermann 2000; Zimmermann et al. 2000;

Caterino et al. 2001; Monteiro and Pierce 2001; Kruse and Sperling 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a,

2005; Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Mallarino et al. 2005; Simonsen et al. 2006c). Recent work

has also suggested that COI can aid in the resolution of diversity and in discrimination of closely

allied species (Hebert et al. 2003; Hajibabaei et al. 2006; Burns et al. 2007).

Morphological, behavioral, and genetic/sequence data are equally important in

understanding inter- and intraspecific relationships, and there has been a significant amount of

potentially evolutionary informative data reported in the literature for Speyeria (dos Passos and

Grey 1945a; Maeki and Remington 1960; Scott 1973a, 1975, 1979; Hammond 1974, 1978;

Arnold 1975, Ferris 1983, Emmel 1998; Scott et al. 1998). The combined analysis of data from

various sources commonly leads to more robust, or stable phylogenetic hypotheses (Simonsen et

al. 2006), and data from past studies can be integrated with newer findings to provide









comprehensive data sets. In order to examine the specific relationships within Speyeria, a

thorough investigation of the literature is necessary to gain insight into potentially informative

characters and leads to unique and novel characters. In addition to characters previously reported

in the literature, characters recovered from the genitalic analyses, and molecular sequences of the

mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) were utilized to examine the intra-and

interspecific relationships of Speyeria, and to test the monophyly of this genus.

Materials and Methods

Fieldwork and collaboration with nearly 30 lepidopterists in proximity to Speyeria

populations (from Alaska to southern California, east to Maine and south to Georgia) and

outgroup taxa were performed to obtain adult specimens. Information pertaining to morphology

and biology of Speyeria was also obtained from these lepidopterists. Accurate identification was

imperative to this study, and identifications were also sought from regional experts. Specimens

were collected in the field and stored in ethanol for genital and molecular studies. At least five

specimens of each sex for each species/subspecies were obtained, and if possible, a subset of

individuals occurring in different parts of any single species/subspecies range was also obtained.

An effort was made to attain samples in proximity to the type localities for each species of

Speyeria. In addition, Old World taxa and other members of the Heliconiinae (i.e., Boloria,

Euptoieta) were procured for phylogenetic analysis.

The wings of specimens taken in the field or provided by collaborating lepidopterists were

clipped off most specimens and the bodies were place in 95% ethanol. Several specimens were

also kept intact and placed in glassine envelopes. The removed wings were mounted to card

stock (each pair of wings with ventral and dorsal surfaces in view) and photographed to represent

vouchers of specimens utilized for genital and molecular work. A five-digit number was given to

each specimen to be able to track and coordinate each specimen with its respective structures.









Genital dissections were completed using at least five individuals for each species/subspecies,

with selected dissections photographed. Adult male abdomens were removed and prepared using

a 10% solution of KOH and subsequently placed in 70% EtOH. Genital armature (i.e., valves,

uncus, aedeagus) was dissected from the abdominal pelt and the aedeagus was removed for

future genital examination (i.e., vesica version and imaging).

Specimens housed in the American Museum of Natural History, Carnegie Museum of

Natural History, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, and a few private collections

were utilized for morphological examination. Results from morphological work were scored and

analyzed in PAUP 4.0bl0b (Swofford 2002) and MacClade version 4.0 (Maddison and

Maddison 2000). Additionally, the following literature was reviewed to recover potentially

informative morphological, behavioral, and genetic characters: Warren (1944), Warren et al.

(1946), Maeki and Remington (1960), Miller and Miller (1966), Mosher (1969), Scott (1972,

1975, 1979, 1984), Shields and Emmel (1973), Shir6zu and Saigusa (1973), Penz (1999),

Tolman (1997), Penz and Peggie (2003), Simonsen 2005,2006a,c, and Simonsen et al. (2006).

Specimens prepared for molecular analyses were subjected to the following protocols, these

following those implemented by the University of Guelph, Barcode of Life Data Systems

(BOLD) (http://www.barcodinglife.org/views/login.php). A leg or thorax was removed from an

adult and DNA was extracted utilizing glass fiber plate DNA isolation. PCR amplification of

COI DNA was carried out using the forward and reverse primers LepF 1 (5'-

ATTCAACCAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3') and LepR1 (5'-

TAAACTTCTGGATGTCCAAAAAATCA-3'). The thermal cycler profile consisted of 94C for

1 minute, five cycles of 94C for 40 seconds, 45C for 40 seconds, and 72C for 1 minute;

followed by 35 cycles of 94C for 40 seconds, 51C for 40 seconds, and 72C for 1 minute, with









a final extension at 720C for 5 minutes. Sequencing was completed with a Beckman Coulter

Biomek capillary sequencer located at the University of Guelph. Sequences were aligned

automatically by BOLD software and/or by eye using MacClade version 4.0.

Taxon Sampling

In total, 22 taxa were included in the primary analyses (Table 3-1). Sixteen species of

Speyeria and six outgroups were chosen. Six outgroup taxa represent related heliconiine species,

three of which occur in the Old World. Several widely distributed subspecific taxa of Speyeria

were used for the molecular portion of these analyses. Several additional species (i.e., Argynnis

spp., Boloria spp., Euptoieta spp., and Heliconius spp.) were incorporated into a separate COI

phylogenetic analysis (see Figures 3-12 and 3-13).

Character Sampling

In all, 30 morphological/behavioral/genetic characters (summarized in Table 3-2; also see

Table 3-3) and over 600 molecular characters have been established to date. Many of them were

taken from male genital features, followed by wing pattern and behavioral related characters. All

characters chosen were binary, with the exception of five, which contained 3 or 4 states.

Additional characters include immature, behavioral and genetic states. Several additional

characters were accumulated but were deemed clinal, non-discrete characters that could not be

easily defined for a given taxon.

Phylogenetic Analyses

Phylogenetic analyses were executed utilizing PAUP 4.0b O0b (Swofford 2002) and

molecular sequence alignments were made in MacClade version 4.0 (Maddison and Maddison

2000). Morphological, behavioral, and molecular data sets were inferred separately and in

combined analyses. Molecular data were equally weighted and unordered, and other data were

coded by the author. In most cases, unless otherwise noted, analyses were carried out using









maximum parsimony and a heuristic algorithm, along with additional default settings in PAUP.

Heuristic searches were run utilizing several nucleotide substitution or evolutionary models and

are indicated with each tree. A maximum of 1000 trees were searched for each data set followed

by a 50% majority rule, strict consensus of the best fit trees. The tree length, consistency and

retention indices, and the number of parsimonious informative characters are reported in each

tree. Branch support values (e.g., bootstrap and/or Bremer support) were not calculated at the

time of this writing but will be in the future. Molecular sequences are currently stored on the

workspace of the author at the BOLD workbench

(http://www.barcodinglife.org/views/login.php) and will be publicly available there as well as on

GenBank following publication of these results.

Results and Discussion

Based on the morphological and behavioral data set (see Tables 3-2 and 3-3), Speyeria can

be divided into two "groupings," the Semnopsyche/Cybele group (including Speyeria idalia),

and more or less the Callippe group of Hammond (1978) (Figure 3-6), which appear as

unresolved polytomies in Figure 3-6. Speyeria nokomis is placed between these two groupings.

However, Speyeria does not appear monophyletic, with Fabriciana niobe falling within

Speyeria. Other hypothesized outgroups (i.e., Boloria, Euptoieta, and Heliconius) have diverged

where they would expect to relative to Speyeria. It should also be noted that S. hydaspe is sister

to S. adiaste, which concurs with that relationship indicated by Brittnacher et al. (1978). In the

past, S. adiaste was hypothesized to be closely allied to S. egleis (dos Passos and Grey 1947,

Hodges 1983) and S. atlantis (Hammond 1978). While genitalic characters (including the shape

of the uncus, tegumen, and fenestrula, and location of the digitus) between Speyeria and the

European genera Fabriciana, Argynnis, and Mesoacidalia are quite distinct, discrete genitalic

characters for species of Speyeria are few. However, the size and shape of the uncus on the male









genitalic armature should serve to separate members of the Semnopsyche group from others in

Speyeria. In addition, an accessory bursal sac in the females of the Semnopsyche group provides

further evidence of this separation. Intermediate genitalic forms, such as those observed in S.

idalia and S. nokomis, may represent a transition between those Speyeria taxa that bear a

flattened, excavate uncus and accessory bursal sac to those that have a simple uncus and single

bursal sac. Additional informative characters identified in this study include the size and shape of

the digitus, especially for S. idalia and S. edwardsii. The location of this structure on the male

genitalic armature is unique to Speyeria, but it may have been overlooked as an evolutionarily

informative character within the genus and other related taxa. Other characters chosen for this

analysis, namely wing and behavioral characters, may not be evolutionarily informative and

should be reexamined. Homoplasy may obscure synapomorphies, especially in groups with

relatively recent speciation and where retained ancestral polymorphism is still extant. Additional

discrete morphological characters are currently being analyzed and input into data matrices, and

will be included in future publications.

An approximately 650 base pair portion of the COI gene was sequenced for all species

listed in Table 3-1 and for several additional species included in the analyses associated with

Figures 3-12 and 3-13 (Note: editing and alignment in different analyses may have slightly

changed the total number of available COI characters in each tree). A representative (=nominate

subspecies or nearest to the species type locality) COI sequence for each of the 16 species of

Speyeria is included in Appendix A. Because of the fairly rapid evolution of the COI region and

the apparent recent divergence of many Argynnini, COI provided a good marker to infer the

evolutionary relationships of the members of this tribe.









A phylogeny generated with Barcode of Life Data Systems software indicate that Speyeria

is a monophyletic grouping and sister toM. aglaja based on COI (Figure 3-7). Closely related

species, such as S. atlantis and S. hesperis, largely group according to geographical locality.

Trees inferred in PAUP following manual alignment of sequences also indicate Speyeria is

monophyletic (Figures 3-8 and 3-9). In both analyses, members of the Semnopsyche/Cybele

group+Speyeria idalia and Speyeria nokomis appear basal within Speyeria, and most closely

allied to S. adiaste and S. hydaspe. The relationship between the latter two species confirms the

relationship observed in the morphological/behavioral data set. The strict consensus tree (Figure

3-8) suggests Speyeria is most closely related to Argynnis paphia and Mesoacidalia aglaja (M.

aglaja appears more closely related in the phylogram presented in Figure 3-9), with Speyeria

edwardsii appearing derived within the genus. Much of the Callippe group remains unresolved,

but the species tend to group together, especially by locality (Figure 3-7). It should be noted that

eastern Speyeria atlantis forms do not appear sister to western S. atlantis and Speyeria hesperis

forms (Figure 3-7). There also appears to be a close relationship between S. atlantis from Ontario

and Speyeria aphrodite (Figure 3-7). In addition, S. aphrodite does not appear closely related to

members of the Semnopsyche group, for which it has been considered part of in the past based

on genitalic similarities (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). A few anomalies observed in the tree,

namely the placement of one Speyeria diana relative to S. aphrodite and S. atlantis from Ontario

(Figure 3-7) could be due to DNA contamination or misidentification of specimens. The

combined data sets including morphology, behavioral, and molecular characters (Figures 3-10

and 3-11) show similar results to that of the trees inferred from COI alone (i.e., a close

relationship to M. aglaja and A. paphia) with the exception of the placement of the basal

Speyeria taxon (Speyeria nokomis, not S. idalia or S. diana, as indicated by the COI data).









There are observable differences, namely in the male genitalia, between the North

American and Old World Argynnini. Assuming Eurasian argynnine taxa represent a more

ancient lineage due to greater differences in wing and genital morphologies than those within

Speyeria, Mesoacidalia aglaja may most closely represent ancestral Speyeria. The next step in

understanding the true evolutionary relationships within the Argynnini and their relatives is to

combine Speyeria inclusive data sets with those covering other argynnine taxa. A preliminary

analysis of publicly available COI sequence data was conducted here, which included several

additional heliconiine species (Figures 3-12 and 3-13). Speyeria maintains a natural grouping,

with Argynnis (=Fabriciana) niobe appearing most closely related to Speyeria. All Argynnis

included in this analysis appear more closely related to Speyeria than does M aglaja. Simonsen

(2006c) (Figure 3-5) reported M. aglaja sister to Speyeria based on wing and genitalic

morphology but included a different generic treatment of most of the species presented here as

Argynnis.

Recent morphological (wing and genitalic characters) and molecular (COI and two nuclear

genes) studies conducted by Simonsen et al. 2006 suggest Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is

maintained as a separate genus (Figure 3-14). Speyeria [=Argynnis (Simonsen et al. 2006)]

cybele is sister to Mesoacidalia [=Argynnis (Simonsen 2006c)] aglaja and closely related to

Argynnis kamala in this study. Although there are obvious affinities between the

Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups as indicated by the inclusive analyses conducted on

Speyeria herein, members of the Callippe group and the remainder of Speyeria should not be

excluded in phylogenetic analyses relative to the evolution of Argynnini. In addition, it is

apparent from the recent literature that the use of Argynnis and other closely related genera

continue to be used interchangeably when discussing a given species. Taxon inclusion (and









omission) and statistical analyses change tree topologies (and perceived relationships)

considerably. For example, when S. cybele is used as the representative speyerian taxon utilizing

COI without strict consensus criterion, it appears to fall within Argynnis (Figure 3-15) [Argynnis

following Simonsen et al. (2006) (Figure 3-14)]. Thus, the designation of Speyeria as a subgenus

within Argynnis is tentative until more robust data sets can be analyzed; Speyeria should be

retained as a distinct genus until that time.

Percent divergence of COI, calculated at the Barcode of Life Data Systems workbench,

was compared within (from different populations) and between species of Speyeria. Individuals

selected from overlapping and more or less disjunct populations indicate that average percent

divergence follows a trend in increasing percent divergence, as would be hypothesized based on

the evolution of the gene. Percent COI divergence increases within Speyeria populations when

they are more disjunct, and increase on average when they are compared to hypothetical

outgroups. It is evident that species known from a single population will exhibit very low COI

divergence (e.g., 0% for Speyeria carolae in Nevada's Spring Mountains and S. adiaste on the

California coast), while the same species known from disjunct, more or less geographically

isolated populations will show a divergence as high as 4 or 5.33% (e.g., Speyeria zerene from

California and S. zerene from Nevada was 5.01%; Speyeria atlantis from Vermont and S. atlantis

from Wyoming was 4.5%). The divergence within the genus and between species averaged

4.3%, showing the greatest percentage of 8.4%. Speyeria callippe and Speyeria idalia indicated

approximately 8.0% divergence, while S. callippe and S. edwardsii showed only a 0.16%

divergence. Related genera, namely those utilized as outgroups in phylogenetic analyses, showed

on average a 9.2% divergence from Speyeria. The highest divergence for Argynnispaphia was

9.2% when compared to S. idalia, whereas the highest divergence between Mesoacidalia aglaja









and a Speyeria taxon (i.e., Speyeria coronis) was 7.88%. Boloria selene (from North America)

and Clossiana selene (from Europe) both showed divergences as high at 12%. All of these COI

divergence data will be made publicly available at a later time.

Missing data, resulting from limited sample of taxa or only partial information on

characters, can have adverse effects on cladistic results (Miller and Wenzel 1995). Thus,

additional morphological and molecular characters are presently being added to this data set.

Amplification of COI for additional Speyeria taken from various parts of a species range is on-

going. A Speyeria DNA barcode database for the COI gene has also been implemented at

Barcode of Life Data Systems, University of Guelph, for use in future molecular analyses. This

will allow for researcher augment and/or access to the DNA sequences for COI when Speyeria

are critical taxa in phylogenetic analyses. In addition, a large tissue collection of Speyeria now

resides at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity for future molecular research.

Species and subspecies delimitation remains problematic for many taxa within Speyeria,

and determinations are often affixed by locality. Lepidoptera taxa, in particular butterflies, are

often elevated to species rank on the basis of few or slight morphological differences, often

without additional, significant character support (e.g., Scott et al. 1998). It is imperative that

informative characters are chosen while avoiding wing aberrations, mutations and characters

subject to environmental influences. Further investigation into use of wing facies to delimit

Speyeria taxa is needed, especially with regard to the subspecies level. There may be useful

morphological and behavioral characters that have been overlooked in favor of the traditional use

of wing patterns and colors in species and subspecies diagnoses. A suite of useful and

environmentally stable characters, including the external morphologies of adults and immature

stages, genitalia, DNA sequences, and life history traits, will continually be needed for Speyeria.









Beyond the scope of this study, further ecological (e.g., pheromone testing) studies, examination

of wing patterns and coloration under ultra-violet light, DNA sequences of several additional

gene regions, and rearing and cross breeding studies are also warranted to better understand the

evolutionary relationships of Speyeria. Primers for amplification of additional gene regions for

Speyeria are available in the literature (Martin and Pashley 1992; Brower and Egan 1997;

Pollock et al. 1998; Williams 2001a; Williams et al. 2002; Simonsen et al. 2006).

At issue is a growing discontent with an arbitrary taxonomic category, the subspecies,

which often fails to accurately describe infraspecific variation (Arnold 1985). Most subspecies

are named on the basis of one or a few wing characters, often intuitively perceived by the

worker. Within Speyeria, there is often a greater morphological difference between subspecies

than between sympatric species, and workers often call attention to rather fine (wing pattern)

differences within each species. These differences are then named subspecies in order to properly

define and identify the species themselves (Grey 1989). The riddle of species and subspecies,

and an even more intriguing question of evolutionary meaning in local variation in relation to

local environment, may come down to a better understanding of sympatry. There is still a

richness of data afforded by numerous closely related and co-inhabiting 'species', as seen in the

molecular data presented herein. Rather than arbitrarily designating subspecies or following an

attempt at justifying them statistically by percent population overlap, as suggested for birds

(Patten and Unitt 2002; Cicero and Johnson 2006), perhaps a mean COI (or some other gene

region) percent divergence can be utilized. Depending on the working species concept, and there

are many, it may be impossible to 'define' some Speyeria forms in their present state. One might

be better off to let evolution 'run its course' with these potentially 'incipient' entities, and

reexamine these inter- and intra-specific relationships in the [perhaps distant] future. In the









meantime, it may be wise to consider each population as evolutionary significant units, worthy of

further systematic and conservation attention.









Table 3-1. List of taxa included in the primary analyses.
Ingroup taxa
Speyeria diana (Cramer)
Speyeria cybele (Fabricius)
Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius)
Speyeria idalia (Drury)
Speyeria nokomis (Edwards)
Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt)
Speyeria coronis (Behr)
Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey)
Speyeria zerene (Boisduval)
Speyeria callippe (Boisduval)
Speyeria egleis (Behr)
Speyeria adiaste (Edwards)
Speyeria atlantis (Edwards)
Speyeria hesperis (Edwards)
Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval)
Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval)
Outgroup taxa
Boloria selene (Denis and Schiffermiuller) (=Clossiana selene)
Euptoieta claudia (Cramer)
Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus)
Fabriciana niobe (Linnaeus)
Mesoacidalia aglaja (Linnaeus)
Heliconius SDD.









Table 3-2. Synopsis of characters* and states used for phylogenetic analyses.
Male genitalia
(4) uncus with dorsal spines/teeth (0) absent/weak (1) present/strong
(16) bifid uncus (0) absent (1) present
(18) tip of uncus (0) simple (1) excavate
(5) juxta with apical spine(s) (0) absent (1) present
(22) crista (0) absent (1) present
(6) clavate ampulla (0) absent (1) present
(7) ampulla straight (0) or bent downward (1)
(17) digitus (located on distal end of valve) (0) absent (1) present
(19) length of digitus (0) less than 3 to 4 times the width (1) 5 to 6 times longer than the width
(20) dorsal, distal end of digitus (0) rounded and not extended into point (1) extended into
narrow point (1)
(13) proximal end of aedeagus (0) open (1) closed
(21) cornuti on aedeagus (0) absent (1) present
(27) position of harp (=digitus) on valves (0) dorsal/free (1) lateral (2) dorsal/attached (3) none
(29) tegumen/uncus with fenestrula (0) absent (1) present
(30) fenestrula (0) elongate, narrow (1) widest at base (2) triangular anteriorly
Female genitalia
(14) bursa copulatrix with appendix bursa (0) absent (1) present
Wings
(24) male forewing veins (0) "thin" (1) "thick"
(25) "halo" surrounding ventral black median spot between veins M3 and CuA1 (0) absent (1)
present
(26) dorsal submarginal spots (0) round (1) crescent shaped (2) none
(28) silver spots on ventral hindwing disc in at least one form or sex (0) absent (1) present
Behavioral
(2) Male carries female while mating (0) male (1) female (2) either
(3) Mate locating behavior by male (0) perching (1) patrolling (2) pheromones (3) more than 1
behavior
(10) females oviposit on hostplant (0) or not on hostplant (1)
(11) diapausing (overwintering) stage (0) egg/larva (1) pupa/adult
(12) diapausing larval instar (0) 1st (1) 2nd or later
(23) univoltine (0) multivoltine (1)
Pupal Characters
(8) tubercles on dorsal mesal portion of abdomen (0) absent (1) present
(9) carinate mesothorax (0) absent (1) present
Larval Characters
(1) Viola used larval host plant (0) no (1) yes
Genetic
(15) total chromosomes in testes (0) >30 (1) 30 or more
*Numbers in parentheses to the left represent the character number input on data matrix in Table
3-3.










Table 3-3. Data matrix for characters listed in Table 3-2.
Character# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
012345678901234567890
S.diana 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 ? 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
S. cybele 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. aphrodite 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
S. idalia 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 ? 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. nokomis 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. edwardsii 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. coronis 1 ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. carolae 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ? ? 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S.zerene 1 ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S. callippe 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
S.egleis 11 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 11
S. adiaste 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ? 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
S.atlantis 101000011100000010001101011111
S.hesperis 1? ? 0 0 00 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 11
S.hydaspe 11 ? 00 0 1 110 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 01011011
S.mormonia 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
B. selene 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 ? ? 0 1 1 ? ? ? 3 1 1 2
Eclaudia 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? ? 0 ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 1 ? ? ? 30 1 ?
A.paphia 1 2 ? 1 0 0 0 1 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? 1 10 ? ? 0 0 1 1 0
F.niobe 1 2 ? 0 1 0 0 ? ? ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ? 1 1 0 ? ? 1 0 1 1 0
A '. ,,',, 1 2 ? 1 1 0 1 ? ? 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ? ? 1 0 0 ? 1 2 1 1 0
Heliconiussp. 00 ? 0 0 ? ? 1 1 0 1 ? ? 0 ? 0 ? ? ? 0 0 1 ? ? 2 3 0 0 ?


















*S. diana

*S. cybele

S. aphrodite


Argynnis


Argynnina.


Issoria


S. ccronis

* S. carolae

* S. zerwne

S. callippe

S. egiels

*S. adgaste

S. adlandis

S. hespens

S. hydaspo


Intuitive phylogeny of subtribe Argynnina based on the literature



Figure 3-1. Intuitive phylogeny of subtribe Argynnina (Speyeria based on dos Passos and Grey
1947).


Semnopsyche/cybele group


S. coronis


S. serene
Sais

ands nikias



S. callippe S. edwardsii


S. moronia


Mesoacddalia aglaja


Figure 3-2. Intuitive phylogeny of Speyeria (taken and modified from Hammond 1978).

































.76 .80 .84 .88 .92 .96 1.00

I
Figure 3-3. Dendrogram of genetic similarity between 10 Speyeria species (taken from
Brittnacher et al. 1978).


calgariana meadi



harmonia


nevadensis


inornata


edwardsi rupestris



semivirida
--^ ^ \"


macaria


comstocki


juba callippe



elaine liiana


atlantis
Figure 3-4. Phylogenetic interpretation of Speyeria callippe subspecies (taken from Hammond
1990).












Cupha ermar Tinrs
Phalanta phalanta
Agraulis vanillae
Dryas julia
Heliconius charifonia
Vindula arsinoe
CG rnos;a c y ipp
Pandoriana pandora
Argynnis paphia
Damora sagana
Fabriciana kamala
Fabriciana niobe
FabrroaUna ar) rorspfliala
Fabnciana elisa
Fabriciana adippe
Fabriciana nerippe
Fabriciana coredippe
Fabriciana auresiana
Children children
Children zenobia
Mesoacidalia clara
Mesoacidalia ag/aja
Mesoacidalia alexandra
Speyeria idalia
Spe. ena cy) ele
Argyreus hyperbius
Nephargynnis anadyomene
Argyromene laodice
Argyromene rusiana
Brenlthis daphne
Brenthis ino
Brenthis hecate
Brenthis modifi
Issoria lathonia
issor'a smnarag$erai
Issoria gemmata
Issoria altissimrna
Issoria eugenia
Prokuekenthaliefla baumanni
Prokuekenthaliel/a hanningtoni
Yramea cythers
Yramea inca
Boloria pales
Boloria aquilonans
Proclossiana eunomia
Clossiana selene
Clossiana euphrosyne
Euptoieta claudia
Euptoieta hegesia

Figure 4. The strict consensus tree of the three most parsimonius trees with length 417 (Cl = 0.3765. RI = 0.7498).



Figure 3-5. Strict consensus tree of Argynnini (taken from Simonsen 2006c; Figure 4. The strict
consensus tree of the three most parsimonious trees with length 417 (CI=0.3765,
RI=0.7498).












Strict



Semnopsyche/Cybele
group


Speyeria diana

Speyaria cybdl

Spayeria aphradiM

Spayeria idalia

Speyaria nokomis

Spayeria adwardsii

Speyeria coronit

Spayyria Ceranls

SpeyOria Zerne

Speyeria Calippe

Spayera egitri

Speyeria atlantis

Speyeria hesperis

Speyeria mormonia

Fabriciana niib6

Speyeria adiaste

Speyeria hydaspe

Argynnis paphia

MoaacidaIia aglaja

Baloria sslan

EupboBta dcludia

iHiconlius sp.


Strict consensus of 1000 trees
RI= .589; Cl=.772; tree length 44
Parsimonious informative characters: 16


Figure 3-6. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 30 characters (ovals = polytomies).














Boloria selenelJCDO41461654[0n]bplUnited States.Vermont

Speyeria egleisIJCD15179 643[0n]bpDUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria callippeI JCD912451 644[Onbp United States.Nevada
Speyeria callippeIJCD09172 1644[On]bp[United States.Nevada
-Speyeria egleisiJCD24830164210n]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria callippeIJCD972651 650 0n]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria edwardaiilJCD110081644[0nJbplUnited States.South Dakota
Speyeria edwardsiiIJCD779211606 [0nbp United States.Nebraska
Speyeria ej. i..all r' [Onlbp United States.Colorado
Speyeria 1i.::.- .r.'.r..;'-" <[On]bp United States.Colorado
Speyeria zereneIJCD781881655[On]bp United States.Nevada
Speyeria edwardsiiIJCD79936 657[0n]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria callippeIJCD44919 657On]hbp United States.California
Speyeria callippeIJCD609521657IOn]boIUnited States.California
Speyeria coronis[JCD024881643[On]bplIUnited States.Utah
Speyeria egleis JCD584921656[Onlbp United States.Nevada
Speyeria egleis[JCD858281655[OnlbpIUnited States.Nevada
-Speyeria eria ene!JCD33488 642[On]bp]United States.Nevada
Speyeria egleislJCD482351657[On]bplUnited States.California
Speveria zerene1JCD28918|652[0n]bpUnited States.California
Speyeria atlantisJCDZ1382A[64G0n] bplUnited States.West lVrginLa
Speyeria atlantisIJCD02368A[627[On]bplUnited States.West Virginia
--.. Speyeria atlantis I JCD42230 i 639 1On]bp I Canada. Ontario
Speyeria atlantisIJCD27156[643[0n]bpIUnited States.Vermont
SSeyeria atlantis[JCDO272 1646[On]bp United States.Vermont
-- peyeria atlantis[JCD841151644[On]bp United States.Vermont
Speveria hesperis JCD87529 655 [Ln]Y Uni Stted es.Waoming
Speyeria carolaeEJCD61280s65b[unjbp[United states.Nevada
Speyeria carolae[JCD330621655[Onlbp[United States.Nevada
Speyeria carolaeIJCD29334i657[0n]bp[United States.Nevada
Speyeria carolaeIJCD48663 657[On]bp United States.Nevada
S__ peyeria carolaeIJCD12234657[On]bpUnited States.Nevada
S aSpeyeria coronislJCD40961 657[On]bpItUnited States.California
S e Speyeria coronisIJCD058591655[On]bpi ni ted States.California
e Speyeria hesperislJCD139161655[On]bplUnited States.Oregon
Speyeria mormoniaIJCD749521645[0n]bp1United States.California
Speyeria mormoniaIJCD320816 49 [0 bp United States.Wyoming
Speyeria mormonia IJCD36207[655[On]bp]United States.Wyoming
Speyeria mormoniaiJCD625901657[0nibpiUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria mormonia JCD715851657[Onlbp IUnited States. Colorado
-- Several coronis 1JCD315951 630 0nlbo1United States.California
-Speyeria zerene JCDB^3ll b/lUnibplUnited states.Nevada
Speyeria atlantisIJCD150531 627[On]bp Canada.Ontario
Speyeria aphroditelJCD51132i656[On]bplUnited States.Colorado
Speyeria aphrodite IJCD69179 655 (On] bp | United States.Wyoming
Speyeria atlantisIJCD907001656[On]bplCanada.Ontario


reveria achrodite I J t


?peyerra apnroaitel dI LuzaUboL unjDp luniea otates.vermone
[peyeria diana JCD14342 657[0n]bp[United States.West Virginia
Speyeria atlantis|JCD71048O627TOn]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria atlantis JCD52267[656 [On]bp united States.Wyoaing
Speyeria hesperis JCD56S65 653[On]bplUnited States.Arizona
- Speyeria hesperis|JCD85688165240n]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria hesperisIJCD17453 65010n]bplUnited States.New Mexico
Speyeria hesperis JCD53060 655[On]bplUnited States.South Dakota
Speyeria hesperis JCD93093 655[On]bplUnited States.Wyoming
Speyeria hesperis JC0D6243|65 [On]bpjUnited States.Wyoming
__rSpeyeria hydaspelJCD611296643[On]bplUnitted States.California


Speyeria cybele JCDO4734 648 [OnbpIUnited States.California
Speyeria cybeleSCD26384 655 [0n]bplUnited States.California
Speyeria cybeleIJCD600451645[On]bp|United States.Vermont
Speyeria cybelelJCD10480 63 [On]IbpUnited States.Pennsylvania
Speyeria cybeleJCD895791643 [On]bp!United States-West Virginia
pyeia diaa lJCD07972 643 On]bpUtnited States.West Virginia
Speyeria adiastelJCD33703AI656[On]bp]United States.California
Speyeria adiaste JCD90322A1649[On]bp]United States.California
Speeria adiastelJCD09429Ai649iOn]bplUnited States.California
Speyeria adiastelJCD90511AJ656[OnlbplUnited States.California
Speyeria hydaspeiJCD301681651[On]bp United States.California
Speyeria hydaspelJCD902291657[On]hbpUnited States.California
Spyeria hydaspeIJCD00849 656[On]bp]United States.Wyoming
Speyeria hydaspe ICD078561657 On]bo]United States.Wyoming
rSpeyeria diana JCD69014 657 [On]bp lUnited States.Arkansas
'Speyeria dianaiJCD94595 657[On]bpIUnited States.Arkansas
Speyeria nokomislJCD906551655(On]bplUnited States.New Mexico
rpeyeria nokomis JCD47070 1644 0nbp United States.California
Speyeria nokomisIJCD304211646[On]bplUnited States.Nevada
eyeria nokomisIJCD539881653[On]bplUnited States.Colorado
LSpeyeria nkomis IJCD62300 651 [n]bp United States.Colorado
Speyeria idalilaJCD533421616[Dn]bplUnited States.Nebraska
Speyeria idalia JCD569411637[On]bpIUnited States
Speyeria idalia[JCD44947j633 On]bpIUnited States.Missouri
Speyeria idalialJCD368571657[Dn]bpiUnited States.Nebraska


Mesoacidalia aglajalJCD223681629[OnlbplSpain
Argynnis paphia[JCD816471656[OnibpIDenmark
Fabriciana niobelJCD191741548[ln]bp Denmark


Figure 3-7. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 653 characters of the mitochondrial gene COI

(BOLD-Kimura 2 Parameter). Five-digit identifier, number of COI base pairs, and

locality record for each specimen to the right of species name.





155


Speyeria


- -















Strict


epeyeflis



















Strict consensus of 48 trees
RI=.876; CI=.551; tree length 461
Parsimonious Informative Characters: 159


Figure 3-8. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 625 characters of the mitochondrial gene COI.


E Caudoa
asne



U agtla






. noaRrnl


I a a
a. a












asot




ri
Piro
aNorutis







Sam. s
drab ,



ie ressp
fadasre













mpflrjunia
corfio e




serene






ar oin
a. rspos!


camf a










wardsi I
wd watrse



anglers
6. rwTO'n
RII .nfo~


f















I
'














W0JelCotM sgp.


E. clausa

F. A.

aS


Rpoyod a^^













*oa.i s






S' Worani
&,m

S.a
~, C






dan



Cad
I



CPG
t ra l0r







Figure 3-9. Phylogram of Speyeria based on the mitochondrial gene COI.
Z S9f'G




B. nrmrnnl.c
caati
a grr~
5.aiav
cc.ia tis



















Figure 3-9. Phylogram of Speyeria based on the mitochondrial gene COI.













Strict










SpOyI is


Strict consensus of 1000 trees
RI=.869; CI=.542; tree length 526
ParsirnOiuLIs informative characters: 183


S no



na



.C






s. iorts
. OflS
eis

a, a f llO
an is







mormia
, an s
, u na














. coron.
, zaron
reIan a





,ft w a fl
f.a s







. r a asii
. cornoI
. coronets
ft n )a
a caro S _I
ft aj--


Figure 3-10. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 653 characters of combined morphology and the
mitochondrial gene COI.


It
















Hh~igiuse~s~ ap.


Phylogram of strict consensus tree (Figure 3-10). J
TO

Tmo
lnS. maonga
ormonIa




s

















5 changes




Figure 3-11. Phylogram of Speyeria based on combined morphology and the mitochondrial gene
SCOI.s
.car q




a ca a
ca 0

















Strka


Speye~ri




























Strclt consensus of 208 trees
RIl B23, ClJ,-lO. tree length 663
Parsimonious informative characters: 168


frrCDu,, j c -JOru.






1 nor HF:.tna.
: DIr pS r r..lji




i 'Tail icJd I,

ass l, .

O ldauM
fr a nu

kw ,. p D p .ri ,




S rjai po r





ar nl 6mlsh
.nr'n romhuci.
itl cMjrduI

dmna '1FlD ora






at arni anrc












iP' F ij ra|



nrit
:una crVjic
















S*fm"fl rarrim a










mC aun;.rir


Figure 3-12. Phylogeny of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on 647 characters of the

mitochondrial gene COI.





160
















.MB'i Lis rlec.




















Speyi

















Phylograrlr of strict consensus uee (Figure 3


nyslarl










s il
h .9 nans































Orin~ aeg~oei.;
rgl~'baa~LI~U,
C :DeU-s
VINClij










c Sree














II



r~n


5 ftaigew


Figure 3-13. Phylogram of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on the mitochondrial
gene COI.










16 Agraulis vanilla
6,-A0 2_ Dryas iulia
2,,SA o Heliconius
Cethosia
Vindula arsinoe
8 20 F Cupha
-7,,s,4 -4 Phalanta phalantha
I 42 1152 50 Euptoieta claudia jr,etina
Sa Euptoietina
45.-3. 5 !,o6 _6 Euptoieta hegesia Ut
i15 9 87 Yramea cytheris Ira
_15 os, Yramea inca IYrameina
7,4210 2.012 65 Boloria selene
/ 20 18 3,35s,9,8 Boloria euphrosyne
Argynnini r3.7S 4A1 5 Boloria eunomia Boloriina
,, 1A 37 Bo loria pales
y2n,3 -- Boloria aquilonaris
7 26 Issoria eugenia
OZs0 .2.A., 4 4 Issoria lathonia
-2, ~~5 Issoria smaragdifera
-36 ,0 Issoria hanningtoni
10 26 Brenthis hecate
41, 1 5,12, l 5 Brenthis ino
/ 42O3,0 Brenthis daphne
11 rgynnis aglaj
Argynnina 8 17 72 Argynnis cybele
z1- A7,2 _4 2 Argynnis kamal
95s,95.4 -I A0yHinsn niobe
8 45 ,4 Argynnis adippe
3.7-Z 2 Argynnis pandora
71, 23 | Argynnis paphia
5 2,06- Argynnis sagan a
1.7it75A o0 1' 15 Argynnis hyperbius
2 -z2^ Argynnis children
3A-10 7 Argynnis anadyomene
4>4,-1 29 Argynnis laodice
10,13A o Argynnis ruslana
Fig. 4. The combined analysis of all four datasets. The single most parsimonious tree (3724 steps, CI = 0.41, RI =
0.54). The numbers above the nodes are Bremer suppof values, whereas the numbers below the nodes are partitioned
Bremer support values yielded by morphology, COL EF-la and wingless respectively.


Figure 3-14. Phylogeny of Argynnini based on combined morphological and molecular
sequence data [taken from Simonsen et al. 2006c; Figure 4. The combined analysis of
all four datasets. The single most parsimonious tree (3724 steps, CI=0.41, RI=0.54).
The numbers above the nodes are Bremer support values, whereas the numbers below
the nodes are partitioned Bremer support values yielded by morphology, COI, EF-lac
and wingless respectively].














Heliconius heoal
Helicanus hecaBl
Hlelicotius pardafinus
Helicontus elevates
Heliconius numata
Hlalidconius nllas
Haleiconis eIb/li
Eup /aett c/laudia
Eupoieta heges/a
BolorH aunomia
Boloda aquilonaris
Boflod pales
BRoodia soeln
Boloris ouphrosyne
Clossi/at salon
Masoaidalia aglaja
Masoa cidal aglags
Speyede cybele
Speyeria cybeia
Spayeria cybenl
Speyaria cybels
Speyeria eybael
Speyeria cybal
Argynnis kemnal
Fabrdcana nfia c
Argynnis adippe
Fabdriiane nloba
Argynnis anadeyomne
Argynnis childreni
Argynnis laodice
Argynnis ruiman
Argynnis pandara
Argynnis hypeorbus
Argynnis sagana
Argynnis paphia
Argynnis paphia


-Argynnis


Non-strict consensus tree
R1=.718; C1.473: tree Ionglh 494
Parsimonious informative character: 144


Figure 3-15. Phylogeny ofArgynnis (following Simonsen et al. 2006) based on the
mitochondrial gene COI with only Speyeria cybele included in analysis.









CHAPTER 4
BIOGEOGRAPHY AND GENITALIC SURVEY OF SPEYERIA WITH EMPHASIS ON
OVERLAPPING SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS POPULATIONS

The Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) and Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) species complexes are

represented by several widely distributed subspecies (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978;

Dunford 2005). These subspecific taxa have distributions that range from the eastern United

States and Canada, west to California, as far north as Alaska, and south to Arizona and New

Mexico (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978) (see Figure 4-3). W. H. Edwards originally

described S. atlantis from the northeastern United States in 1863 [type locality now fixed in the

Catskills Mountains, in Hunter, Greene Co., New York (dos Passos and Grey 1947)] and S.

hesperis from Colorado in 1864. Since that time, several additional S. atlantis and S. hesperis

'forms' have been described (e.g., dos Passos and Grey 1945b; Moeck 1947, 1950; Austin 1983;

Holland 1988; Emmel et al. 1998c; Scott et al. 1998), and there are a few regions where the two

'species' occur sympatrically and synchronously (Grey et al. 1963; Ferris 1983; Scott et al.

1998).

Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis are presently comprised of 25 subspecies (Emmel et al.

1998c; Scott et al. 1998). Subspecies designation is based primarily on differences in wing facies

[i.e., basal suffusion dorsally, discal coloration and silvering of spots on hindwings (see Figure 4-

7)] and geographical location of populations (Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown

1981). Hammond (1990) noted that wing markings appear to be highly conservative and reliable

diagnostic characters within Speyeria, while wing colors are less stable. Melanic, basal suffusion

of wings is exceedingly plastic in Speyeria, and subject to repeated convergence and reversal

(Hammond 1990). The 'form' hesperis was formerly recognized as a subspecies of Speyeria

atlantis (dos Passos and Grey 1947; Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978) until Scott et al.

(1998) examined adult wing patterns and sympatric occurrence without interbreeding exhibited









by atlantis and hesperis forms in several regions, resurrecting the status of these entities to that

of Edwards' original descriptions (Edwards 1863a; 1864a). Scott et al. (1998) designated

hesperis and atlantis as distinct species based primarily on the silvering of ventral hindwing

spots (and a few larval characters), and placed four silver-spotted forms into the atlantis species

group and 19 primarily unsilvered forms into hesperis species group. However, earlier work by

Scott (1988) indicated that a clear distinction between the two species was obscure, and that the

silvered and unsilvered phenotypes are likely polymorphic forms of one species. Tebaldi (1982)

and Ferris (1983) also attempted to discern the status of atlantis and hesperis in Colorado based

primarily on wing facies and preliminary enzyme electrophoresis studies. Ferris (1983)

suggested 'hesperis' phenotypes might represent a sibling species of 'atlantis' forms. Two

additional subspecies, Speyeria atlantis hanseni Emmel, Emmel and Mattoon and Speyeria

atlantis cottlei (Comstock) (presently listed under S. hesperis by the author), were described and

discussed in Emmel et al. (1998c).

Much of the speciation and subspeciation within Speyeria probably came about in the past

10,000 years as a consequence of the last glacial retreat and the climatic readjustments in its

wake (Grey 1951; Hammond 1990). Pleistocene glaciations likely promoted speciation in groups

such as Speyeria because divergence among allopatric glacial refugia or founder events during

recolonization of previously glaciated areas would have promoted differentiation (Hammond

1990). Climatological events, especially in western North America, have resulted in numerous

montane "island" butterfly populations (Howe 1975; Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997;

Fleishman et al. 2001a). Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis primarily inhabit cool, Canadian life

zone habitats; their life history requirements include either the climatological elements of

northern parts of North America or montane environments in the West (Scott 1986b; Opler and









Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). These subspecies are more or less

isolated, and adaptations to local environmental conditions have allowed for distinct forms,

especially the coloration on the ventral hindwings (see Table 4-1; Note: discal and spot

coloration on hindwings is variable within some populations). In addition, the coloration in

images may be artifacts of the age of the specimens, photograph lighting, and printer and paper

quality (also see Introduction in Chapter 2 for discussion on photography and wing coloration).

Genitalic morphology demonstrates peculiar patterns of variation among animal species

(Eberghard 1985; Amqvist 1997; 1998, Mutanen 2005), and this variation may represent a more

stable, discrete suite of characters than do the wing patterns mentioned above. Genital

characteristics tend to vary greatly between Lepidoptera species, providing useful features for

species delimitation (Porter and Shapiro 1990; Scoble 1995; Mutanen 2005; Simonsen 2006b).

Traditionally, species specificity based on genitalia has been assumed to serve as a mechanical

isolation system between species (i.e., the lock-and-key hypothesis) (Dufour 1844; Porter and

Shapiro 1990; Amqvist 1998). Most recent studies suggest, however, that such variation may

also be due to sexual selection (Lloyd 1979; Eberhard 1996; Arnqvist 1997). These two working

hypotheses provide different predictions on genital variation within and between species.

Genitalia of Speyeria have proven to be taxonomically uninformative, and detailed

genitalic examination has largely been ignored in this group (Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown

1981). Dos Passos and Grey (1945a) conducted a survey of male genitalic structures primarily in

Argynninae (including Speyeria) butterflies and provided illustrations of several species,

including the male genitalic armature (=capsule) of S. atlantis (Edwards) (Figure 4-1). Generic

characters for male Speyeria genitalia include a semi-rectangular plate (=digitus) located near the

dorsal lobe of the valvae (Figure 4-1), but otherwise the armature is more conventional in type









and comparatively unspecialized (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). It is apparent that genitalic data

can conclusively separate the Semnopsyche group [=Speyeria cybele (Fabricius), Speyeria diana

(Cramer), Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius)] and Callippe group [=S. atlantis, S. hesperis

(Edwards), Speyeria callippe (Boisduval), Speyeria zerene (Boisduval), Speyeria coronis (Behr),

Speyeria egleis (Behr), Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval), Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval)], but

otherwise the male armature is largely homogenous (dos Passos and Grey 1945a).

Arnold and Fischer (1977) describe the morphology of genitalia and summarize the

mechanisms of copulation in Speyeria, including those of S. atlantis, in greater detail. The ninth

genital segment in male Speyeria is the main genitalic segment and is highly modified, bearing

the aedeagus and clasping organs. A transverse, sclerotic ring termed the tegumen forms a

supportive structure for the entire genitalic armature (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The tegumen is

heavily thickened for muscle attachment around its anterior edge. The tegumen also gives rise to

the uncus (Figures 4-1 and 4-2), and the uncus is often specifically varied in shape and important

in diagnostic value in grouping related species (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). The ventral portion

of the tegumen gives rise to a large sclerite termed the vinculum (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The

vinculum is greatly expanded midventrally and extended anteriorly to form a trough-shaped

inflection known as the saccus (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Large, flattened, double walled lobes

(=valvae) represent the clasping structures and are articulated with the vinculum. In Speyeria, a

heavily sclerotized dorsal extension located on the valvae is known as the digitus (Figure 4-1 and

4-2) and may also be diagnostically important (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). The valvae are

articulated dorsally at the base with the tegumen and ventrally at the base with the juxta. The

juxta, a sclerite lying on the ventral surface of the anellus, supports the aedeagus. Internally, the

anellus encompasses the aedeagus by acting as an eversible cone and allows for the extrusion of









the genital bulb at the time of copulation. The distal portion of the aedeagus forms an inner tube

known as the vesica. During copulation, the greater part of the vesica is uncoiled and bears small

chitinous teeth (=coruti).

Female Speyeria possess two separate genital openings, as do all ditrysian Lepidoptera,

and do not bear a true morphological ovipositor (Arnold and Fischer 1977). Fusion of the ninth

and tenth abdominal segments apparently gives rise to the papillae anales, and these form a pair

of setiferous lobes, one on either side of the anus and ovipositional opening. The copulatory

opening, the ostium bursae, opens internally into a large sac termed the bursa copulatrix (Figure

4-24B). A secondary bursa, known in the Semnopsyche group (dos Passos and Grey 1945a) and

Speyeria idalia (Drury) (Grey 1989), is considered a taxonomically important structural

character in female Speyeria genitalia (dos Passos and Grey 1945a) (Figure 4-24A). Dilation of

the bursa copulatrix readies the female for reception of the male intromittent organ. When

copulation takes place, the male lowers the uncus and tegumen upon the papillae anales of the

female. The male valvae embrace the anterior portion of the papillae anales and the movement of

the valvae enables the sharply acuminate tip of the uncus to hook into the intersegmental

membrane of the female's eight tergite. There are three points of attachment involving the uncus

and the valvae, and when these are secured, the aedeagus is inserted into the female's bursa

copulatrix, where the vesica are everted as the sperm is introduced.

In order to further examine the relationship of S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms (sensu Scott

et al. 1998) and species delimitations, 13 S. atlantis-hesperis taxa and two members of the

Semnopsyche group [S. diana (Cramer) and Speyeria cybele krautwurmi (Holland)] were utilized

for genitalic comparisons. Several additional species, including Spring Mountain, Nevada isolate

Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey), were also examined. Genitalic dissections were made









on eastern North American S. atlantis atlantis (Edwards), western U.S. atlantis given the name

S. atlantis sorocko by Scott et al. (1998), and S. hesperis [=S. hesperis hesperis and S. hesperis

electa (Edwards)] populations in Colorado and Wyoming. In addition, species from sympatric

populations in South Dakota, Speyeria atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla and Speyeria

hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey, were also examined. Although there are several other

regions where S. atlantis and S. hesperis populations overlap, this preliminary study of male

genitalia may provide a stepping-stone in which to justify further genitalic examination (both

male and female) of other sympatrically and synchronously occurring populations.

Male genitalia were examined in this study because the taxonomic value of these structures

in species and generic level taxonomy and systematic studies is well established in Lepidoptera

(dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Scoble 1995; Scoble and Kruger 2002; Simonsen 2006a,b). It is

also hypothesized that rapid divergent evolution of male genitalia, which could provide some

insight into the relationships of relatively young taxa such as those still considered 'subspecies',

is one of the most general evolutionary trends in animals with internal fertilization, and in many

cases the shapes of genital traits often provides the only reliable characters for species

identification (Eberghard 1985; Arnqvist 1998). An attempt to revaluate the significance of

genitalia within Speyeria is critical to provide additional taxonomically and evolutionarily

informative characters. In recent years, genitalic examination of insects has improved via better

preparatory (i.e., dissection methods) and illustrative techniques (i.e., drawing and imaging

technology) (Scoble and Kruger 2002; Simonsen 2006a,b; Zaspel and Weller 2006) and these

modern techniques may yield taxonomically informative characters that have not been identified

to date. The present study tested whether the characters of the current classification, based

primarily on wing morphology, provide further evidence to support or reject the distinction of S.









atlantis and S. hesperis, and whether mechanical isolation or some form of sexual selection are

active forces in the evolution of these species.

Examination of genitalia within the S. atlantis and S. hesperis complexes is undertaken

herein. The genitalia of individuals occurring in overlapping populations of each species

complex, particularly with respect to the Colorado/Wyoming and South Dakota forms, are

imaged utilizing the Microptics Digital Imaging System. Several additional genitalic morphs,

representing other S. atlantis and S. hesperis subspecies, are also illustrated and discussed. Label

data gleaned from over 5,000 specimens in these two species groups have also been and are

presently being databased at DiversityofLife.org in order to begin to determine the degree of

sympatry of S. atlantis and S. hesperis populations. Museums, private collections, and field-

collected specimens were utilized to generate locality records, and distributional maps are

electronically produced for the 25 S. atlantis and S. hesperis subspecies discussed herein.

Materials and Methods

Taxon Sampling

Specimens utilized for genitalic preparations were obtained from Lepidoptera specialists,

amateur collectors, and fieldwork conducted by the author throughout much of the western

United States. Subspecies identification was confirmed by at least three different Lepidoptera

specialists upon examination of wing morphology and collection locality information. Slide

mounted material was obtained from the F.H. Chermock Collection located at the Allyn Museum

of Entomology (now The McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity). Species/subspecies

chosen for this study include individuals that would embrace nominate S. atlantis and S. hesperis

and two pairs of overlapping subspecies known from these species complexes. Speyeria atlantis

sorocko represents a western atlantis form while S. hesperis electa occurs sympatrically in

Colorado (Figure 4-3). Speyeria a. pahasapa and S. h. lurana are overlapping, isolated









populations located in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Two members of the Semnopsyche group

(S. diana and S. cybele krautwurmi) were also chosen for 'outgroup' comparison. Slide mounted

genitalic material borrowed from the Allyn Museum of Entomology included individuals that

best represented similar (based on adult wing morphology and collection locality information)

species/subspecies to those chosen for the genitalic preparations. For example, because S.

atlantis sorocko was lacking in the slide collection, S. atlantis hollandi was chosen to represent a

western atlantis form.

Preparation of Material

Wings from individuals utilized for genitalic dissections were removed and glued to card

stock providing a dorsal and ventral view. Wing vouchers were then placed into unit trays and

photographed (Figure 4-8). Genitalic dissections were made of at least five individuals for each

species/subspecies, with select dissections photographed. Adult male abdomens were removed

and prepared using a 10% solution of KOH and subsequently placed in 70% EtOH. Genitalic

armature (i.e., valves, uncus, aedeagus) was dissected from abdominal pelt and the aedeagus was

removed and will be utilized later for future genitalic examination (i.e., vesica version and

imaging). Dissection numbers were given to each individual utilized for imaging to track

specimens and associated structures. Ventral, dorsal, and lateral view images of the male and

female genitalic armature were taken utilizing the Microptics Digital Imaging System housed at

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

the Auto-Montage Syncroscopy System housed at the Department of Entomology and

Nematology, University of Florida. Genitalic armature was positioned on top of K-Y Jelly and

submerged in 70% EtOH. Bubbles were removed using insect pins and genitalic preps were

positioned accordingly for desired image. Genitalic structures were then placed in glycerol filled

genitalia vials and maintained together with associated abdominal pelt. The remaining structures









for each individual used for dissections were placed in 95% EtOH and are presently stored in a

freezer for molecular studies.

Slide mounted genitalia borrowed from the Allyn Museum of Entomology were

photographed utilizing the Auto-Montage Syncroscopy System housed at the Florida State

Collection of Arthropods-Department of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida. Touch ups, blemish

removal, and enhancement of images included in this study was completed utilizing Adobe

Photoshop CS. Terminology utilized for genitalic descriptions follows that of dos Passos and

Grey (1945a) (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Select images were chosen to include herein, thus all of the

genitalic images taken have not been provided. The author took all genitalic images unless

otherwise noted.

Databasing

Locality records were taken from specimens housed at the American Museum of Natural

History (AMNH), Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH), C. P. Gillette Museum of

Arthropod Diversity (CSUC-C.P.) (Colorado State University), Milwaukee Public Museum

(MPM), Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and

Biodiversity (MGCL) [includes material from the Allyn Museum of Entomology (AME) and

Florida State Collection of Arthropods (FSCA)], the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum

(MBSM) (Brigham Young University), Utah State University Insect Collection (EMUS), and

University of Wyoming Insect Museum (ESUW) as well as six private collections, and

specimens collected in the field. State and county information, as well as GPS coordinates, were

primarily utilized for mapping species/subspecies distributions.

Locality records were exported in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format to personnel at

DiversityofLife.org (DOL) (http://www.diversityoflife.org/) for databasing. DOL provides

software for a "plug and play" management system for biodiversity data, with tools for mapping









species distributions, image database management and retrieval, morphological data

management, diagnostic key generation, cladogram display and navigation, descriptions,

classifications and nomenclature. This allows for storing, retrieving, and analyzing biodiversity,

systematic, taxonomic, and phylogenetic data. Distributional maps are generated by selecting a

given species/subspecies and following the instructions. Maps are either in road, aerial satellite

imagery, or hybrid (i.e., road map and aerial topo) format. A navigation and zoom function

allows the user to visualize the entire distribution or to focus on single locality data points.

Results and Discussion

Examination of closely related species of Speyeria yields a few apparent taxonomically

informative genitalic characters. The species and subspecies that were examined from the

Chermock collection and newly dissected specimens are listed and select structures are described

in Table 4-2. Both sympatrically occurring Wyoming/Colorado and Black Hills S. atlantis-S.

hesperis populations were compared and key male genitalic features are discussed below.

Several additional species of Speyeria and S. atlantis-S. hesperis subspecies are also briefly

described and/or illustrated.

The digitus, a distinct genitalic character for Speyeria, appears to be variously shaped,

with the apical portion bearing a 'finger-like' extension or projection of different lengths and

orientation. Amongst the taxa included in the dissections, it appears to project dorsally

(=upward) when viewed laterally on S. atlantis sorocko (Figure 4-9A) and projecting posteriad

(=straight back) on S. hesperis electa (Figure 4-9B). The saccus of S. atlantis sorocko also

appears to be distinct from others included in the dissections. The length appears to be shorter

with the apex rounded when viewed laterally (Figure 4-10A). The tegumen of S. atlantis sorocko

appears slightly different than other atlantis/hesperis forms when viewed laterally (Figure 4-11).

The basal margin appears to be convex, whereas on others the margin appears to be vertical with









respect to point of attachment with valvae. This may, however, be an artifact of positioning of

the genitalic prep on the surface of the K-Y Jelly. The digitus is distinctly shaped in many

Speyeria, and phylogenetically informative in Speyeria edwardsii (Figure 4-20B) and S. idalia

(Figure 4-19B). Its function and placement during copulation should be explored.

The uncus appears to taper gently to a ventrad-curved claw without pronounced ventral

excavation in the lateral outline. This was apparent in all of the S. atlantis hesperis taxa dissected

here. Grey (1951) noted that the uncus fails to separate atlantis from its closest relatives

(=Callippe group); however, it is distinctly different in S. idalia, S. nokomis, and in members of

the Semnopsyche group. The uncus of S. cybele is distinct in both size and shape (Figure 4-12),

and this distinction is expected in members of the Semnopsyche group. It appears flattened and

deeply notched at its apex. The tegumen is similar to other Speyeria in shape, with the exception

of the outline of the basal portion, and a clear membranous portion located medially termed the

fenestrula (Figure 4-26A) differs in size and shape from other non Semnopsyche Speyeria

(Figure 4-26B), especially towards the uncus. It should be noted that the tegumen in European

Argynnis is clearly distinct in shape and the fenestrula is diamond shaped (Figure 4-26C). The

dorsal lobes, located on the basal portion of the valvae, are relatively similar in the S.

atlantis hesperis taxa (Figures 4-13A, 4-14A, 4-15A) and only vary slightly (=less pronounced)

in S. cybele. The aedeagus is somewhat similar in the species examined here, with the shape of

its apex the only readily discernable difference (Figures 4-13B, 4-14B, 4-15B). The uncus,

distinct in the Semnopsyche forms and S. idalia, likely fits specifically in the attachment of

females of those species. It may be that females of S. idalia and those of the Semnopsyche group

are not only distinct in bearing an accessory bursa (Figure 4-24A), but also in points of

attachment for a flattened, excavate uncus. A detailed examination of female genitalia, with









respect to the known points of attachment during copulation as listed by Arnold and Fisher

(1977), would be necessary to truly test the lock and key species hypothesis.

The genitalia of Black Hills atlantis and hesperis is quite similar, and this would be

expected as members of the Callippe group bear morphologically similar genitalia (dos Passos

and Grey 1945a; Hammond 1978). However, in the three male specimens examined, the digitus

is somewhat distinct, and this was consistent in all three. The digitus of lurana (Figure 4-25A) is

short and the distal, ventral portion is extended into a short finger-like projection, whereas in

pahasapa (Figure 4-25B), the digitus is about twice the length of the digitus observed on lurana

and the distal, ventral portion does not extend into a point or finger-like projection. Within each

subspecies, however, there were slight variations in overall digitus length. Other structures such

as the size and shape of the uncus and valvae are similar (see Table 4-2 for additional

descriptions).

Upon initial examination using the methodologies presented here, the genitalic structures

of some S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms are distinct; however, additional dissections (including

females) are required to truly test clinal trends and utility of genitalia for species delimitation.

Additional preparatory techniques, such as vesica version, should also be attempted.

Differences in the male genitalia of S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms examined here are not

obvious. However, the images included in this study do provide some detail not described to

date. The distal portion of the digitus, size and shape of the saccus, and tegumen are variable and

should be further examined, especially with regard to the atlantis forms S. a. sorocko and S. a.

pahasapa. Additionally, dissections of S. atlantis occurring in West Virginia should also be

investigated further.

The number of individuals and taxa utilized in this study are inappropriate to provide









confirmation that S. atlantis and S. hesperis are distinct species, and additional individuals

representing different subspecies (=populations) will need to be examined to develop a thorough

data set and subsequent assessment in a phylogenetic framework. Although a few preparations

may exhibit distinctions, they are often nullified when more specimens of a given population or

various subspecies of a wide distribution are examined (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). Additional

species/subspecies taken from different populations would be required to examine the potential

clinal variation in genitalic morphology. Morphometric analyses may also be warranted to

further explore the variation and allometry in S. atlantis and S. hesperis genitalia, to provide

more detailed genitalic descriptions, and to test the lock and key hypothesis.

Speyeria in the Black Hills continue to be forced into close spatial contact by further

drying and warming of this region, and they have been in contact temporally for some hundreds

if not thousands of years (Grey et al. 1963). The question becomes were S. atlantis and S.

hesperis originally separate species, or are they subspecies of one or another that have been

remarkably exempt from the leveling results of intermingling and the directive mechanisms of

ecology, and apparently clinging to their earlier ways of life and "Colorado" facies. Ecological

separation S. atlantis and S. hesperis is apparent in some areas, with hesperis forms occurring in

more cooler, mesic habitats (Grey et al. 1963; Hammond 1974). However, Scott et al. (1998)

noted that the habitat for S. a. pahasapa in the Black Hills is moist meadows, whereas S. h.

lurana occurs in drier, aspen woodland. It may be that each species in the Black Hills was

adapted to wetter or drier conditions and forced into contact as one species either intruded or

retreated following changing climatic conditions. In either event, genital morphology may

provide little to no indication that these two entities are species, especially with regard to a lock

and key hypothesis. It is likely that some other force may be acting to separate these two









"species". Perhaps pheromone profiles (see Scott 1988) or some other form of sexual selection

such as recognition of silvering and or spangles (the appearance of the ventral silvering of

hindwing spots when viewed from above), especially under ultraviolet wave lengths as

visualized by many Lepidoptera (Ferris 1972, 1973; Remington 1973, Scott 1973b; Knittel and

Fielder 2000, 2001; Acorn 2002; Briscoe et al. 2003), is acting to diverge these closely related

entities. Initial examination of S. atlantis pahasapa (Figure 4-27A) and S. hesperis lurana

(Figure 4-27B) males utilizing ultra violet lighting indicated that silver spots are more noticeable,

and perhaps the presence or absence of silver spots along with flight patterns during courtship

(see Scott 1986b, 1988) are used for species recognition.

It is evident in S. atlantis-S. hesperis forms that wing facies vary (see Table 4-1 and

Figure 4-7) (see also Scott et al. 1998), and that the apparent trend is that hesperis forms bear

unsilvered, cream-colored ventral hindwing spots while atlantis forms are silvered. For those

populations that occur sympatrically, perhaps silver spots or lack thereof initially acted as a

selective force within species, and eventually as a visual cue along with olfactory cues between

species. Additional studies of Speyeria mating behavior and the appearance of wings under

ultraviolet light may elucidate some clues as to the distinctness of spangles and/or silvering as an

evolutionary force within Speyeria.

Tebaldi (1982) (also see Ferris 1983) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six enzymes to

analyze the relationships between three Rocky Mountain phenotypes of S. atlantis-S. hesperis

and found that the phenotypes could be considered only "semispecies." Perhaps, in some areas,

especially those within or near the Rocky Mountains where overlapping atlantis-hesperis forms

are prevalent (see Figure 4-3), "species" of Speyeria still have a great ability to come into contact

with one another and gene flow is evident in a menagerie of Speyeria forms. Further unraveling









the true clinal trends between S. atlantis and S. hesperis will fill in the gaps between named

subspecies that are partly or wholly bridged by intermediates, and provide clearer recognition of

those taxa isolated to degree in which evolutionary forces have acted upon to provide distinct

species.

Distributional and clinal trends for Speyeria have been described in detail in the past and

new locality data continues to be compiled (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Grey et al. 1963;

Hammond 1978; Scott et al. 1998). However, the workspace provided on the Diversity of Life

website allows for on-going input of locality data and the ability to map Speyeria distributions as

new locality data are compiled (sample maps generated from the Diversity of Life website are

included Figures 4-4, 4-5, 4-6). In addition, one practical aspect of knowing the distributions of

hostplants such as Viola, is that locality data from herbarium records may also help predict the

distributions of Speyeria (and vice-versa). Herbarium data should also be incorporated with

known Speyeria locality data in the future.

Imaging technology has recently improved via systems such as Microptics Digital

Imaging and Auto-Montage Syncroscopy. Both systems allow for high magnification, high

depth of field images needed for detailed examination of morphological structures such as

genitalia. Use of these imaging techniques allows for continued manipulation of genitalic preps,

whereas slide mounted material is permanently set. In addition, slide mounted material provides

virtually no three-dimensional vantage points, and structures potentially taxonomically

informative are 'flattened' during slide preparation. Slide mounted material can, however, now

be photographed in detail comparable to viewing slides with a compound microscope, providing

a supplement or perhaps replacement for traditional examination and/or illustrative techniques.

Illustration is always subject to the artists' interpretation and ability, and detailed images









produced by a lens are likely more anatomically/proportionally accurate. This study provides a

stepping-stone on which to justify further examination of other sympatrically and synchronously

occurring S. atlantis-hesperis populations using modern imaging technology.

Choosing appropriate and accurately identified individuals for future genitalic research

may prove problematic, and will require careful examination of species descriptions and detailed

locality information. C. Ferris (pers. comm.) states that S. hesperis electa is likely the name

applied to silver populations in the Rockies and Intermountain Region; however, this does not

account for the silvered S. atlantis sorocko described by Scott et. al. (1998). In addition, Ferris

(1983) stated that within central Colorado, there is an unknown isolating mechanism that causes

electa and hesperis to behave as sibling species, and that the electa phenotype belongs with

nominate atlantis, while hesperis perhaps represents a sibling species. This contradicts the

current designation of electa within the hesperis subspecies complex by Scott et al. (1998). In the

absence of carefully controlled rearing experiments or perhaps pheromone profiles, thorough

examination of male and female genitalia may be one way to determine the status of S. atlantis,

S. hesperis, and associated subspecies.

Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis may also be of conservation interest, not necessarily from

human encroachment or habitat mismanagement, but from climatic change and long term

warming trends. Could cold adapted species such as S. atlantis and S. hesperis be affected by

warming temperatures? Will their distributions change? Climate and habitat change, whether by

natural cause or anthropogenic alterations, is widely accepted as the most important factor in

butterfly decline, as its multitude of important effects include a decrease of breeding sites and

removal of important resources, altering historical population distributions (New 1997;

Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Hammond 1995; Shapiro 1996; Hill et al. 1999a,b; Parmesan et









al. 1999). The S. atlantis-hesperis complex provides an opportunity to examine these

evolutionary mechanisms in a widely distributed group restricted to climatically colder latitudes

and isolated boreal 'islands' in mountainous regions. Additional genitalic examination (including

the function of the digitus in mating) in conjunction with other adult and larval characters,

molecular sequences, and life history data analyzed in a phylogenetic framework, will contribute

greatly to our current understanding of the intra-and interspecies relationships within Speyeria.









Table 4-1. List of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies and associated ventral


hindwing characters.
Species
A) S atlantis atlantis
B) S. a. hollandi
C) S. a. pahasapa
D) S. a. sorocko
E) S. hesperis helena
F) S. h. beani
G) S. h. brico
H) S. h. ratonensis
I) S. h. greyi
J) S. h. lurana
K) S. h. hesperis
L) S. h. irene
*S. h. cottlei
M) S. h. hanseni
N) S. h. dodgei
O) S. h. viola
P) S. h. elko
Q) S. h. tetonia
R) S. h. wasatchia
S) S. h. chitone
T) S. h. electa
U) S. h. schellbachi
V) S. h. nausicaa
W) S. h. dorothea
X) S h. canitanensis


HW ventral disc color
reddish to dark-brown (chocolate brown)
dark-brown to blackish-brown (some gray)
blackish-brown (darker than hollandi)
dark reddish-brown (chocolate brown)
red-brown with large tan areas
reddish-brown
reddish-brown (darker red than beani)
brown with gray-tan areas
pale brown (some with green tinge)
red-brown with large tan areas
red-brown usually with pale areas
red-brown with pale tan streaks
reddish-brown
reddish-brown with cream overscaling
red-brown with pale tan streaks
red-brown with pale tan streaks
red-brown with pale tan streaks
reddish-brown
reddish-brown
reddish-brown
red-brown usually with pale areas
reddish-brown with tan areas
red-brown with pale tan or gray areas
reddish-brown with tan areas
reddish-brown with tan areas


HW spots
silvered
silvered
silvered
silvered
silvered
silvered/unsilvered
silvered
silvered
silvered
mostly unsilvered (cream)
mostly unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
unsilvered (cream)
mostly unsilvered (cream)
mostly unsilvered (cream)
mostly silvered
mostly silvered
mostly silvered
mostly silvered
mostly silvered
mostly silvered


(*not pictured-Type Locality: Alturas, Modoc Co., CA)
[See Figure 4-7 for wing images corresponding to letters in table]
[Note: Discal coloration and silver or unsilvered data are averages across populations of a given
subspecies. (List primarily follows the arrangement of Scott et al. 1998)]









Table 4-2. Species and subspecies examined and select descriptions of male genitalic armature.
Dissections examined and photographed:
Speyeria atlantis atlantis Vermont: Addison Co.: digitus-projection distinct, posterad to
dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-
pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
Speyeria atlantis sorocko Colorado: Hinsdale Co. (Figures 4-10A and 4-11): digitus (N)-
projection distinct, dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with
fenestrula; dorsal lobes-slightly pronounced; saccus-laterally short, rounded at apex.
Speyeria atlantis pahasapa South Dakota: No county data: digitus (N)-twice the length of
S. h. lurana, projection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded
vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long,
rounded at apex.
Speyeria atlantis hollandi British Columbia: digitus-projection distinct, posterad to
dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-
pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
S. hesperis hesperis: Wyoming: Albany Co. (Figure 4-15): digitus-projection distinct,
posterad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal
lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, slightly tapered at apex.
Speyeria atlantis greyi Nevada: Elko Co.: digitus-projection distinct, posterad to dorsad;
uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-
pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
Speyeria hesperis lurana South Dakota: Lawrence Co.: digitus (N)-half the length of S. a.
pahasapa, projection not distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded
vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long,
rounded at apex.
Speyeria hesperis electa Wyoming: Albany Co. (Figure 4-14): digitus-projection not
distinct; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-
pronounced; saccus-laterally long, tapered slightly at apex.
Speyeria hesperis schellbachi Arizona: Coconino Co.: digitus-projection distinct,
posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula;
dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
Speyeria hesperis nausicaa Arizona: Graham Co.: digitus-projection distinct, posterad to
dorsad; uncus-tip curved, somewhat expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal
lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
Speyeria hesperis capitanensis New Mexico: Lincoln Co.: digitus-projection distinct,
posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, somewhat expanded vertically; with fenestrula;
dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex.
Speyeria diana West Virginia: No county data.: digitus-projection moderate to extended,
ventrad; uncus-tip curved, expanded vertically, excavate at tip; tegumen with fenestrula;
dorsal lobes-slightly pronounced; saccus-laterally long, tapered at apex.
Speyeria cybele krautwurmi Missouri: Cape Girardeau Co. (Figure 4-12): digitus-
projection moderate, dorsad; uncus-tip curved, expanded vertically, excavate at tip;
tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-slightly pronounced; saccus-laterally long, tapered
at apex.









Table 4-2 cont.
Speyeria carolae Nevada: Clark Co.: digitus (N)-projection distinct and "thumblike",
projecting distinctly dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically, long, extending to
the tip of the digitus; tegumen-basal margin vertical; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-
laterally long, rounded at apex.
Additional slide mounted material examined and photographed:
Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Enfield, Maine) (Figure 4-16A)
Speyeria hesperis irene/dodgei (Diamond Lake, Oregon) (Figure 4-16B)
Speyeria hesperis chitone (Southern Utah) (Figure 4-17A)
Speyeria hesperis nausicaa (Sierra Ancha Mountains, Arizona) (Figure 4-17B)
Speyeria diana (no locality data available) (Figure 4-18A)
Speyeria cybele (Omaha, Nebraska) (Figure 4-18B)
Speyeria aphrodite (Pennsylvania) (Figure 4-19A)
Speyeria idalia (no locality data available) (Figure 4-19B)
Speyeria nokomis (White Mountains, Arizona) (Figure 2-20A)
Speyeria edwardsii (Sioux County, Nebraska) (Figure 2-20B)
Speyeria zerene (California) (Figure 4-21A)
Speyeria callippe (San Francisco, California) (Figure 4-21B)
Speyeria adiaste (Santa Cruz, California) (Figure 4-22A)
Speyeria hydaspe (Big Meadows, California) (Figure 4-22B)
Speyeria mormonia (948) (Menache Meadows, California) (Figure 4-23)



























Figure 4-1. Illustration and associated terminology of male genitalic armature of Speyeria
atlantis (after dos Passos and Grey 1945a).


2 mm


Figure 4-2. Male genitalic armature (Speyeria idalia) and associated terminology.




















antis


Y-,t \
k \


Figure 4-3. Distributional map of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies (taken and
modified from Dunford 2005; original map produced by J. Glassberg).


a ".U. ,-.


-.. ,




.... .
11 V .. .....

.' -
a.. *@.. .............

a.



4- ~


Figre4-. Dstibtin mp orSpeera t/nti i te nrteaten Uitd tats sapl


Figure 4-4. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis in the northeastern United States (sample
interactive road map generated at DiversityofLife.org).









185


- i


r
I


--


sorr
o*c pld.
"'I~"'~





































Iegrnt:
USp~yria bcrpcdi bM5w


Figure 4-5. Distribution map for Speyeria hesperis (sample interactive aerial topo map generated
at DiversityofLife.org).


DISTRIBUTION BASED ONLY ON SPECIMEN RECOnS
ltgcd:
*Sprycrr6.ri, siiei htsrisncl
Spc~crti hwpri [

Figure 4-6. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies (sample interactive topo
map generated at DiversityofLife.org).







.9 B


Figure 4-7. Ventral hindwing images of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies (see
Table 4-1 for letters and corresponding taxon names). Image by James C. Dunford
and Kelly R. Sims.


b~


W W A "4 V B
Figure 4-8. Examples of wing vouchers. A) Speyeria atlantis sorocko, B) Speyeria cybele.


. H,,f*Pq.M



















Figure 4-9. Male genitalia of Speyeria. A) digitus, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado), B)
digitus, Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming).


.5mm


.5mm
B


Figure 4-10. Male genitalia of Speyeria. A) saccus, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado), B)
saccus, Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming).


1mm L


Figure 4-11. Uncus and tegumen, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado).

















1 mm


Figure 4-12. Male genitalia of Speyeria cybele (Missouri). A) male genitalic armature, lateral
view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side.












1mm A B

Figure 4-13. Male genitalia of Speyeria atlantis (West Virginia). A) male genitalic armature,
lateral view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side.


1 mm


Figure 4-14. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming). A) male genitalic armature,
lateral view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side.


-'0 0ll
















1 mm


Figure 4-15. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Wyoming). A) male genitalic
armature, lateral view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side.


A B

Figure 4-16. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Maine), B) Speyeria
hesperis irene/dodgei (Oregon).


1 mm


q B


Figure 4-17. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria hesperis chitone (Utah), B) Speyeria
hesperis nausicaa (Arizona).


IL*

















1 mm


S.. 1 mm


Figure 4-18. Male genitalic armature.
(Nebraska).


A) Speyeria diana (no locality), B) Speyeria cybele












Im I mm
A B


Figure 4-19. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria aphrodite (Pennsylvania), B) Speyeria idalia
(no locality).


1mm


Figure 4-20. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria nokomis (Arizona), B) Speyeria edwardsii
(Nebraska).


F,
V'-


















1 mm


Figure 4-21. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria zerene (Califoria), B) Speyeria callippe
(Califoria).












1 mm
A B

Figure 4-22. Male genitalic armature. A) Speyeria adiaste (Califoria), B) Speyeria hydaspe
(Califoria).


1 mm


Figure 4-23. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria mormonia (Califoria).























Figure 4-24. Image of bursa copulatrix A) Speyeria diana, B) Speyeria carolae.


Figure 4-25. Male genitalia of Speyeria. A) digitus, Speyeria hesperis lurana, B) digitus,
Speyeria atlantis pahasapa.
























N- A B C

Figure 4-26. Male genitalic armature. A) dorsal view of tegumen, Speyeria cybele, B) dorsal
view of tegumen, Speyeria hesperis, C) dorsal view of tegumen, Argynnispaphia.
















Figure 4-27. Images of adult Speyeria using ultraviolet light. A) dorsal surface of Speyeria
atlantis pahasapa, B) dorsal surface of Speyeria hesperis lurana. Images by James
C. Dunford.









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary cladistic analyses and generic review conducted herein and the previous

studies conducted on Speyeria by dos Passos and Grey (1945a, 1947) and Hammond (1978),

suggest that there is a division between the Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups. Genitalic

differences provide discrete evidence that these groups diverged from one another at some point

in time. A few other morphological differences, namely the overall size, degree of sexual

dimorphism, and general reduction of wing patterning in the Semnopsyche/cybele group provide

further evidence of their distinction from the Callippe group. However, potentially informative

characters for Speyeria may be obscured by factors related to climatological conditions. Hot,

humid summers or dry, cooler conditions likely affect local populations, and these conditions

likely influence color and pattern variation of the wings. Thus, it is difficult to systematically

interpret characters related to wings due to the clinal variation that is now obvious for Speyeria

as more population locality gaps are filled.

Members of the Callippe group are nearly identical in many ways, and only under close

inspection can some morphological differences be detected. However, these are not consistent

across or even amongst populations; thus, they are difficult to subject to phylogenetic analyses.

The Callippe group has retained many geographic forms that may represent close evolutionary

links between the species. Each species within this 'clade' is morphologically similar across

various parts of their range; thus, discrete morphological characters for subspecies cannot be

readily discerned. Members of the Semnopsyche/cybele group are more restricted in their ranges

and exhibit relatively fewer geographical linkages; thus, it is not surprising from an evolutionary

standpoint that they have become more distinct morphologically.









It is apparent from these analyses that members of the Semnopsyche group+Speyeria

idalia and Speyeria nokomis represent basal taxa within Speyeria. Assuming Eurasian argynnine

taxa represent a more ancient lineage due to greater differences in wing and genitalic

morphologies than those within Speyeria, Mesoacidalia aglaja most closely represents ancestral

Speyeria; this was confirmed in the phylogenetic analyses conducted herein. However, the

inclusion of additional taxa in the COI data set indicated that Fabriciana niobe may be the sister

taxon to Speyeria, while M aglaja is sister to the Argynnis species utilized in this analysis. The

next step in understanding the true evolutionary relationships within the Argynnini and their

relatives is to combine Speyeria-inclusive data sets with those covering other Heliconiinae.

Recent morphological and molecular studies conducted by Simonsen et al. (2006) suggest

Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is maintained as a separate genus. However, within those

analyses members of the morphologically and molecularly distinct Cybele group are utilized as

representative speyerian taxa; thus they may not accurately represent Speyeria as a whole.

Although there are obvious affinities between the Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups,

members of the Callippe group (+S. mormonia) should not be excluded in phylogenetic analyses

relative to the evolution of Argynnini. The designation of Speyeria as a subgenus within

Argynnis is tentative until more robust data sets can be analyzed; Speyeria should be retained as

a distinct genus until that time.

There are few unique, discrete characters for species of Speyeria. However, the size and

shape of the uncus on the male genitalic armature should serve to separate members of the

Semnopsyche group from others in the genus. An accessory bursal sac in the females of the

Semnopsyche group provides further evidence of this separation. Intermediate genitalic forms,

such as those observed in Speyeria idalia and Speyeria nokomis, may represent a transition









between those Speyeria taxa that bear a flattened, excavate uncus and accessory bursal sac to

those that have a simple uncus and single bursal sac. Additional informative characters identified

in this study include the size and shape of the digitus. The location of this structure on the male

genitalic armature is unique to Speyeria (and differs greatly with respect to related European

taxa), but it may have been overlooked as an evolutionarily informative character within the

genus. In addition, the shape of the tegumen and fenestrula in comparison with those in Argynnis

differ. It is distinctly shaped in many taxa, and quite distinct in Speyeria edwardsii and S. idalia.

Its function and placement during copulation should be explored.

Percent COI divergence increases within Speyeria populations when they are more

disjunct, and increase on average when they are compared to hypothetical outgroups. It is evident

that species known from a single population will exhibit very low COI divergence (e.g., 0% for

Speyeria carolae in Nevada's Spring Mountains and S. adiaste on the California coast), while the

same species known from disjunct, more or less geographically isolated populations will show a

divergence as high as 4 or 5.33% (e.g., Speyeria zerene from California and S. zerene from

Nevada was 5.01%; Speyeria atlantis from Vermont and S. atlantis from Wyoming was 4.5%).

The divergence within the genus and between species averaged 4.3%, showing the greatest

percentage of 8.4%. Speyeria callippe and Speyeria idalia indicated approximately 8.0%

divergence, while S. callippe and S. edwardsii showed only a .16% divergence. Related genera,

namely those utilized as outgroups in phylogenetic analyses, showed on average a 9.2%

divergence from Speyeria. The highest divergence for Argynnispaphia was 9.2% when

compared to S. idalia, whereas the highest divergence between Mesoacidalia aglaja and a

Speyeria taxon (i.e., Speyeria coronis) was 7.88%. Boloria selene (from North America) and

Clossiana selene (from Europe) both showed divergences as high at 12%.









Over 8,000 individual Speyeria atlantis-Speyeria hesperis locality records taken from

specimens housed at museums, private collections, and collected in the field were compiled and

are currently being entered into an interactive database. The web-site located at

DiversityofLife.org is still a work in progress, but many records are already available there from

the present project. Distributional maps are generated by selecting a given species/subspecies

and following the instructions. Maps are either in road, aerial satellite imagery, or hybrid (i.e.,

road map and aerial topo) format. A navigation and zoom function allows the user to visualize

the entire distribution or to focus on single locality data points. Additional records, as they

become known, can be continually incorporated to further realize the sympatric nature of these

two closely related 'species'.

As a result from the present work, a large frozen tissue collection of Speyeria now resides

at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity for future molecular research. In

addition, a Speyeria DNA barcode database for the COI gene has been implemented at Barcode

of Life Data Systems, University of Guelph, for use in future molecular analyses. This will allow

for researcher access to DNA sequences of this gene region whenever Speyeria are critical taxa

in phylogenetic analyses.

Nomenclatural errors were identified after a through review of the literature associated

with Speyeria. The description of Speyeria hesperis greyi Moeck (1950) had been listed as

described within Argynnis. This was perpetuated in the literature for some time and is clarified

here. North American greater fritillaries were considered generically distinct from Argynnis

Fabricius, 1807 as Speyeria Scudder, 1872 by dos Passos and Grey (1945a); all taxa named since

that time have been described within the latter genus. Nonetheless, Argynnis was retained in

some popular guides and other literature (e.g., Garth 1950; Garth and Tilden 1963; Hovanitz









1962, 1963; Sette 1962). McHenry (1964, see also McHenry 1963) attempted to resurrect the

use of Argynnis, but this has not been followed in North America. McHenry (1964) may well

have originally misled compilers of later checklists (i.e., Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983)

by implicating that S. atlantis greyi was named within Argynnis. This treatment was then

followed by several subsequent authors.

Additional discrepancies in the literature, necessary corrections, and current taxonomies

were also identified and discussed herein. The sex of the lectotype specimen for Speyeria egleis,

as indicated in dos Passos and Grey (1947), is that of a male. A specimen bearing the same label

was reported as female in Emmel et al. (1998a), and was verified as such following personal

examination of the purported type specimen herein. Penz and Peggie (2003) reported that female

Speyeria mormonia had an accessory bursal sac, but this has not been reported previously nor

observed here; this may have been erroneously recorded in the appendix of character states. This

character is key in separating members of the Semnopsyche group from other Speyeria. One

recently described taxon, Speyeria atlantis hanseni (Emmel et al. 1998c), should now be

considered Speyeria hesperis hanseni based on Scott et al. (1998); all California taxa formerly

considered atlantis should receive this treatment based on the wing characteristics described by

Scott et al. (1998). The location of the type specimen for Speyeria hesperis cottlei is apparently

unknown. This species was recently raised from synonymy (Emmel et al. 1998c) and a neotypic

specimen may need to be designated.

Primary type specimens for all the currently recognized Speyeria species and S. atlantis-S.

hesperis appear together in color here for the first time. This may be of importance for future

taxonomic studies. Museums are now limited in curatorial personnel and access to major

Lepidoptera collections is now restricted. In addition, presenting quality images of type









specimens reduces the possibility of accidental damage to these taxonomically important

artifacts.

Finally, the position of Speyeria in conservation and land management issues is well

known (Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Launer et al. 1994; Kelly and Debinski 1998; Williams

1999, 2002; Swengel 1993, 2004; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Patterson 2002). Elucidating the

inter- and intra-specific relationships and evolutionary history of Speyeria in this study may

provide information pertinent to conservation strategies and priorities. Additionally, the effects

of climate change (i.e., global warming) on northern and montane species that have not been

considered of conservation interest to date (e.g., S. atlantis and S. hesperis) should be

investigated. Each population of Speyeria, whether classified as a species, subspecies, or

otherwise, should be recognized as a significant evolutionary unit. The habitats in which each

population occurs should be considered invaluable if the genetic diversity of this fascinating

genus and its remarkable evolutionary divergence is to be preserved.









APPENDIX
COI SEQUENCES FOR 16 SPECIES OF SPEYERIA

(Species here=nominate subspecies or nearest to the species type locality)


Speyeria diana (West Virginia: Wyoming Co.; male)
GACttTATATTTTATTTTTGGGATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTAT
TAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCACTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTACA
ATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTATA
ATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGCT
TTCCCCCGTATAAACAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTTA
TTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCCT
CTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC
ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCTTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAGAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTGTGAGCAGTAGG
AATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGACC
CTATTTTATA

Speyeria cybele (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male)
GACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGGATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCACTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAC
AATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT
AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGC
TTTCCCCCGTATAAACAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC
ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCTTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAGAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTGTGAGCAGTAGG
AATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGACC
CTATTTTATA

Speyeria aphrodite (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male)
AAcTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACTGAACTGGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAC
AATACCATTGTAACAGCCCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATCGCACATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTGGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTA
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAT
CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT











Speyeria idalia (Missouri: St. Claire Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGTATAATAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATCCGAACTGAATTAGGAAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AATACTATTGTGACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT
AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAATCCCCTTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAGC
TTTCCCACGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCTCCATCTTTAACTTTAATT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAACAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCCTCCAATATTGCTCATAGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTATCAATTTTTTCATTAC
ATTTAGCGGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATTACTACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTCGATCAAATGCCATTATTTATTTGAGCAGTAGG
AATTACAGCATTACTTCTCTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCGGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGACCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGATC
CCATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria nokomis (Colorado: Ouray Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGAAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT
AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAATTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGC
TTTTCCTCGTATAAATAACATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTTA
TTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGGACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCCT
CTTTCCTCTAATATTGCTCATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCATTAC
ATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATTACTACAATTATTAA
TATACGGATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCCTTATTCGTATGAGCAGTAGG
AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCCATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCCGCAGGAgGAGGAGACC
CTATTTTATACCAACATTT

Speyeria edwardsii (Colorado: Douglas Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGACGATCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGTTTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG
CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTC
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATAGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTGG
GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAc
CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria coronis (California: Monterey Co.; male)









AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACCGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT
AACACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTCGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCTTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTA
CATTTGGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTCTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGTGGAGAT
CCTATTTTATACcaACATTTATT

Speyeria carolae (Nevada: Clark Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACCGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AACACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTCGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCTTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTA
CATTTGGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTGTCTCTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGTGGAGAT
CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria zerene (California: Sierra Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGTACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATGCCAATTA
TAATTGGCGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTCTATCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCCTTA
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCTTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTTTGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACCGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGGGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAT
CCTATTTTATACCAaCaTTTATT

Speyeria callippe (California: Tulare Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAATAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AACACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG









CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTC
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGTAGGAACGGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAT
CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria egleis (California: Tulare Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATCCGAACAGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG
CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTGGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCCAATATTGCACATGGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA
ATATGCGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGGGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGGGGAGAT
CCTATTTTATATCAACATTTATT

Speyeria adiaste (California: Monterey Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAAtTTGGGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG
CTTTTCCCCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATATCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC
ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAATTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTATGAGCAGTAGG
AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGAGGAGATC
CTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria atlantis (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male)
AAcTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGGACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG
CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATATCCCCC
CCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACACGGAGGCTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTG
CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA









ATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTCGATCAAATACCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG
GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT
ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAC
CCTATTTTATA

Speyeria hesperis (Wyoming: Albany Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGTACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGGGATGACCAAATTTAC
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATGCCAATTA
TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTCTATCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC
ATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAATTTTATCACAACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTTTGAGCAGTAGG
AATTACCGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAtC
CTATTTTATACcAaCATTTATT

Speyeria hydaspe (California: Tulare Co., male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTGGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA
TTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT
AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA
TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG
CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT
ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATATCCCCC
TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTTCCTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC
ATTTAGCAGGGATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA
TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTAGG
AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTACCGGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAATA
CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGAGGAGATC
CTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

Speyeria mormonia (Wyoming: Albany Co.; male)
AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGGGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCACTAAGTTT
ATTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTA
TAATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATT
ATAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCTCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATA
GCTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTAC
TTATTTCCAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAGGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCC
CCTCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGTTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTT
ACATTTAGCGGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATT
AATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCATTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTA
GGAATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTGCCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAA
TACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGA
TCCTATTTTATATCAACATTTATT









LIST OF REFERENCES


Abraham, D., N. Ryrholm, H. Wittzell, J. D. Holloway, M. J. Scoble, and C. L6fstedt. 2001.
Molecular phylogeny of the subfamilies in Geometridae (Geometridae: Lepidoptera).
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20: 65-77.

Acorn, J. H. 1993. Butterflies of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Acorn, J. 2002. Assessing ultraviolet reflections of lepidopterans with video and digital cameras.
News of the Lepidopterists' Society 44: 60.

Adams, J. K. and I. L. Finkelstein. 2006. Late season observations on female Diana fritillary
(Speyeria diana) aggregating behavior. News of the Lepidopterists' Society 48: 106-107.

Allen, T. J. 1997. The Butterflies of West Virginia and Their Caterpillars. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Allen, T. J., J. P. Brock, and J. Glassberg. 2005. Caterpillars in the Field and Garden. Oxford
University Press, Inc., New York, New York.

Arnqvist G. 1997. The evolution of animal genitalia: Distinguishing between hypotheses by
single species studies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 365-379.

Arnqvist, G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection.
Nature 393: 784-786.

Arnold, R.A. 1983. Speyeria callippe (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): Application of Information-
Theoretical and Graph-Clustering techniques to analyses of geographic variation and
evaluation of classifications. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76: 929-941.

Arnold, R.A. 1985. Geographic variation in natural populations of Speyeria callippe (Boisduval)
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Pan Pacific Entomologist 61: 1-23.

Arnold, R. A. and R. L. Fischer. 1977. Operational mechanisms of copulation and oviposition
in Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America
70: 455-468.

Austin, G. T. 1981. The montane butterfly fauna of the Spring Range, Nevada. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 35: 66-74.

Austin, G. T. 1983. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) (Nymphalidae) from the
Great Basin of Nevada. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 37: 244-248.

Austin, G. T. 1985a. Nevada butterflies: Preliminary checklist and distribution. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 39: 95-118.

Austin, G. T. 1985b. Lowland riparian butterflies of the Great Basin and associated areas.
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 24: 117-131.









Austin, G. T. 1998b. Type data for butterflies described from Nevada. pp. 629-640. In T. C.
Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press,
Gainesville, Florida.

Austin, G. T. and D. D. Murphy. 1987. Zoogeography of Great Basin butterflies: Patterns of
distribution and differentiation. Great Basin Naturalist 47: 186-201.

Austin, G. T., D. D. Murphy, J. F. Baughman, A. E. Launer, and E. Fleishman. 2003.
Hybridization of checkerspot butterflies in the Great Basin. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 57: 176-192.

Baird, V. 1942. Wild Violets of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley,
California.

Baker, R. J. and R. D. Bradley. 2006. Speciation in mammals and the genetic species concept.
Journal of Mammalogy 87: 643-662.

Baker, A. C., C. J. Starger, T. R. McClanahan, and P. W. Glynn. 2004. Coral reefs: corals'
adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430: 741.

Ballard Jr., H. E., K. J. Sytsma, and R. R. Kowal. 1999. Shrinking the violets: phylogenetic
relationships of infrageneric groups in Viola (Violaceae) based on internal transcribed
spacer DNA sequences. Systematic Botany 23: 439-458.

Barnes, W. and F. H. Benjamin. 1926. Notes on diurnal Lepidoptera, with additions and
corrections to the recent "List of diurnal Lepidoptera." Bulletin of the Southern California
Academy of Sciences 25: 88-98.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:1-2.

Baum, D. A. and M. J. Donoghue. 1995. Choosing among alternative phylogeneticc" species
concepts. Systematic Botany 20: 560-573.

Beattie, A. J. 1971. Pollination mechanisms in Viola. New Phytologist 70: 343-360.

Beattie, A. J. 1974. Floral evolution in Viola. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 61: 781-
793.

Beattie, A. J. and N. Lyons. 1975. Seed dispersal in Viola (Violaceae): Adaptations and
Strategies. American Journal of Botany 62: 714-722.

Behr, H. H. 1862. Our Californian argynnides. Proceedings of the California Academy of
Natural Sciences 2: 171-177.

Behr, H. H. 1863. On Californian Lepidoptera-No. III. Proceedings of the California Academy
of Natural Sciences 3: 84-93.









Behr, H. H. 1864. In Edwards, W. H. Notes on the argynnides of California. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society Philadelphia 3: 434-436.

Bitsch, J., C. Bitsch, T. Bourgoin, and C. D. Haese. 2004. The phylogenetic position of early
hexapod lineages: morphological data contradict molecular data. Systematic Entomology
29: 433-440.

Bird, C. D., G. J. Hilchie, N. G. Kondla, E. M. Pike, and F. A. H. Sperling. 1995. Alberta
butterflies. The Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Black, S. H., M. Shepard, and M. M. Allen. 2001. Endangered invertebrates: the case for
greater attention to invertebrate conservation. Endangered Species UPDATE 18: 42-50.

Blackmore, S. 2002. Biodiversity update-progress in taxonomy. Science 298: 365.

Boggs, C. L. 1986. Reproductive strategies of female butterflies: Variation in and constraints on
fecundity. Ecological Entomology 11: 7-15.

Boggs, C. L. 1987a. Demography of the unsilvered morph of Speyeria mormonia in Colorado.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 41: 94-97.

Boggs, C. L. 1987b. Within population variation in the demography of Speyeria mormonia
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Holarctic Ecology 10: 175-184.

Boggs, C. L. 1988. Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: Effects of sex, size, age and nectar
concentration. Functional Ecology 2: 289-295.

Boggs, C. L. 1997a. Reproductive allocation from reserves and income in butterfly species with
differing adult diets. Ecology 78: 181-191.

Boggs, C. L. 1997b. Dynamics of reproductive allocation from juvenile and adult feeding:
Radiotracer studies. Ecology 78: 192-202.

Boggs, C. L. and L. A. Jackson. 1991. Mud puddling by butterflies is not a simple matter.
Ecological Entomology 16: 123-127.

Boggs, C. L. and D. D. Murphy. 1997. Community composition in mountain ecosystems:
climatic determinants of montane butterfly distributions. Global Ecology and
Biogeography Letters 6: 39-48.

Boggs, C. L. and C. L. Ross. 1993. The effect of adult food limitations on life history traits in
Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecology 74: 433-441.

Boisduval, J. B. A. D. 1852. Lepidopteres de la Californie. Annales de la Societe
Entomologique de France 10: 275-324.

Boisduval, J. B. A. D. 1869. Lepidopteres de la Californie. Annales de la Societe
Entomologique de Belgique 12: 1-28., 37-94.









Bouseman, J. K. and J. G. Sternburg. 2001. Field Guide to Butterflies of Illinois. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

Bossart, J. L. and C. E. Carlton. 2002. Insect conservation in America: biased information and
absence of a clear agenda hinders the integration of entomological data into mainstream
conservation biology research and policy, and limits participation by professional
entomologists. American Entomologist 48: 82-92.

Braby, M. F., R. Vila, and N. E. Pierce. 2006. Molecular phylogeny and systematics of the
Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea): higher classification and biogeography. Zoological
Journal of the Linnean Society 147: 239-275.

Briscoe, A. D., G. D. Bernard, A. S. Szeto, L. M. Nagy, and R. H. White. 2003. Not all
butterfly eyes are created equal: Rhodopsin absorption spectra, molecular identification,
and localization of ultraviolet-, blue-, and green-sensitive rhodopsin-encoding mRNA's in
the retina of Vanessa cardui. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 458: 334-349.

Britten, H. B., P. F. Brussard, D. D. Murphy, and G. T. Austin. 1994. Colony isolation and
isozyme variability of the western seep fritillary, Speyeria nokomis apacheana
(Nymphalidae), in the western Great Basin. The Great Basin Naturalist 54: 97-105.

Britten, H.B., E. Fleishman, G. T. Austin, and D.D. Murphy. 2003. Genetically effective and
adult population sizes in the apache silverspot butterfly, Speyeria nokomis apacheana
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Western North American Naturalist 63(2): 229-235.

Brittnacher, J. G., S. R. Sims, and F. J. Ayala. 1978. Genetic differentiation between species
of the genus Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evolution 32: 199-210.

Brooks, G. S. 1942. A checklist of the butterflies of Manitoba. The Canadian Entomologist 74:
31-36.

Brower, A. V. Z. 1994a. Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the
butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 91: 6491-6495.

Brower, A. V. Z. 1994b. Phylogeny of Heliconius butterflies inferred from mitochondrial DNA
sequences (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3: 159-
174.

Brower, A. V. Z. 1996a. A new mimetic species of Heliconius (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae),
from southeastern Colombia, revealed by cladistic analysis of mitochondrial DNA
sequences. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 116: 317-332.

Brower, A. V. Z. 1996b. Parallel race formation and the evolution of mimicry in Heliconius
butterflies: a phylogenetic hypothesis from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Evolution 50:
195-221.









Brower, A. V. Z. 1997. The evolution of ecologically important characters in Heliconius
butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): a cladistic review. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society 119: 457-472.

Brower, A. V. Z. 2000a. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of cladistics. Cladistics 16:
143-154.

Brower, A. V. Z. 2000b. On the validity of Heliconius tristero Brower and Heliconius
melpomene mocoa Brower, with notes on species concepts in Heliconius Kluk
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington
102: 678-687.

Brower, A. V. Z. 2000c. Phylogenetic relationships among the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera)
inferred from partial sequences of the wingless gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B 267: 1201-1211.

Brower, A.V.Z. 2006. Problems with DNA barcodes for species delimitation: 'ten species' of
Astraptesfulgerator reassessed (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Systematics and Biodiversity
4: 127-132.

Brower, A. V. Z. and R. DeSalle. 1994. Practical and theoretical considerations for choice of a
DNA sequence region in insect molecular systematics, with a short review of published
studies using nuclear gene regions. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 87:
702-716.

Brower, A. V. Z. and R. DeSalle. 1998. Patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA
sequence divergence among nymphalid butterflies: the utility of wingless as source of
characters for phylogenetic inference. Insect Molecular Biology 7: 73-82.

Brower, A. V. Z. and M. G. Egan. 1997. Cladistic analysis of Heliconius butterflies and
relatives (Nymphalidae: Heliconiiti): a revised phylogenetic position for Eueides based on
sequences from mtDNA and a nuclear gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological
Sciences 264: 969-977.

Brower, J. V. Z. and L. P. Brower. 1961. Palatability of North American model and mimic
butterflies to caged mice. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 15: 23-24.

Brown, F. M. 1965. The types of the nymphalid butterflies described by William Henry
Edwards Part I. Argynninae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 91: 233-
350.

Brown, F. M., J. D. Eff, and B. Rotger. 1957. Colorado Butterflies. Denver Museum of Natural
History, Denver, Colorado. 368 pp.

Brown, J. M., O. Pellmyr, J. N. Thompson, and R. G. Harrison. 1994. Phylogeny of Greya
(Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae), based on nucleotide sequence variation in mitochondrial
cytochrome oxidase I and II: congruence with morphological data. Molecular Biology and
Evolution 11: 128-141.









Brown, K. S. 1965. Some comments on Arizona butterflies (Papilionoidea). Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 19: 107-115.

Broyles, S. B. and R. Wyatt. 1991. Effective pollen dispersal in a natural population of
Asclepias exaltata: The influence of pollinator behavior, genetic similarity, and mating
success. The American Naturalist 138: 1239-12249.

Burns, J. M., D. H. Janzen, M. Hajibabaei, W. Hallwachs, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2007. DNA
barcodes of closely related (but morphologically and ecologically distinct) species of
skipper butterflies (Hesperiidae) can differ by only one to three nucleotides. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 61: 138-153.

Calhoun, J. V. 2007. Speyeria idalia in Georgia: An erroneous historical record. News of the
Lepidopterists' Society 49: 82-84, 93.

Campbell, D. L., A. V. Z. Brower, and N. E. Pierce. 2000. Molecular evolution of the wingless
gene and its implications for the phylogenetic placement of the butterfly family Riodinidae
(Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Molecular Biology and Evolution 17: 684-696.

Cary, S. J. and R. Holland. 1992. New Mexico butterflies: Checklist, distribution and
conservation. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 31: 57-82.

Carlton, C. E. and L. S. Nobles. 1996. Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on
conservation. Entomological News 107: 213-219.

Caterino, M. S. and F. A. H. Sperling. 1999. Papilio phylogeny based on mitochondrial
cytochrome oxidase I and II genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 11: 122-137.

Caterino, M. S., R. D. Reed, M. M. Kuo, and F. A. H. Sperling. 2001. A partitioned
likelihood analysis of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae).
Systematic Biology 50: 106-127.

Chapman, R. F. 1998. The Insects: Structure and Function. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom. 792 pp.

Chermock, F. H. and R. L. Chermock. 1940. Some new diurnal Lepidoptera from the Riding
Mountains and the Sand Ridge, Manitoba. The Canadian Entomologist 72: 81-83.

Cicero, C. and N. K. Johnson. 2006. Diagnosability of subspecies: Lessons from sage sparrows
(Amphisipiza belli) for analysis of geographic variation in birds. The Auk 123: 266-274.

Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson. 1997. Practical approaches to species concepts for
living organisms. pp. 1-15. In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson. Species:
the units of biodiversity, Chapman and Hall.

Clark, A. H. 1926. Notes on the odors of some New England butterflies. Psyche 33: 1-5.









Clark, A. H. 1932. The butterflies of the District of Columbia and vicinity. Smithsonian
Institution Bulletin 157. x + 338 pp., 64 pls.

Clark, A. H. and L. F. Clark. 1951. The Butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections Volume 116, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Clausen, J. 1927. Chromosome number and the relationship of species in the genus Viola.
Annals of Botany 41: 677-714.

Clausen, J. 1929. Chromosome number and relationship of some North American species of
Viola. Annals of Botany 43: 741-764.

Cohen, E. and J. Cohen. 1991. A collecting adventure in the George Washington National
Forest. News of the Lepidopterists' Society 1: 3-4.

Common, I. F. B. and D. F. Waterhouse. 1972. Butterflies of Australia. Angus and Robertson
PTY LTD, Sydney, Australia.

Comstock, J. A. 1925. Studies in Pacific Coast Lepidoptera. Eight new races, forms or
aberrations of California butterflies. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of
Sciences 24: 62-68.

Comstock, J. A. 1989. Butterflies of California. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. ix-lviii,
334 pp., 63 plates.

Comstock, W. P. 1940. Butterflies of New Jersey: A list of the Lepidoptera suborder
Rhopalocera occurring in the State of New Jersey; giving time of flight, food plants,
records of capture with locality and date. Journal of the New York Entomological Society
48: 47-84.

Connor, E. F., J. Hafernik, J. Levy, V. L. Moore, and J. K. Rickman. 2002. Insect
conservation in an urban biodiversity hotspot: the San Francisco Bay area. Journal of
Insect Conservation 6: 247-259.

Covell, C. V. and G. B. Straley. 1973. Notes on Virginia butterflies, with two new state records.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 27: 144-154.

Cracraft, J. 1982. Geographic differentiation, cladistics, and vicariance biogeography:
reconstructing the tempo and mode of evolution. American Zoologist 22: 411-424.

Cramer, P. 1775. Papillons exotiques des trios parties du monde l'Asie, l'Afrique et
l'Amerique. Amsterdam, S. J. Baalde. Vol. 1. i-xxx + 1-16, 1-155, 1-96 pls.

Cramer, P. 1777. Papillons exotiques des trios parties du monde l'Asie, l'Afrique et
l'Amerique. Amsterdam, S. J. Baalde. Vol. 2. 152 pp., 97-192 pls.

Dajoz, I. 1999. The distribution of pollen heteromorphism in Viola: ecological and
morphological correlates. Evolutionary Ecology Research 1: 97-109.









Dasmahapatra, K K. and J. Mallet. 2006. DNA barcodes: recent successes and future
prospects. Heredity 97: 254-255.

Davenport, K. 1995. Are there Pamassians in the Greenhorn Mountains? News of the
Lepidopterists' Society 4: 91-92.

Davenport, K. 1998. New observations of three fritillaries (Speyeria sp.; Argynninae) in the
southern Sierra. News of the Lepidopterists' Society. 40: 26-27.

Debinski, D., P. Drobney, and N. Smith. 2000. Regal fritillary and its host plant studied at Neal
Smith National Wildlife Refuge, (Iowa). Ecological Restoration North America 18: 254-
255.

DeFoliart, G. R. 1956. An annotated list of southeastern Wyoming Rhopalocera. The
Lepidopterists' News 10: 91-101.

Dennis, R. L. H. and T. G. Shreeve. 1997. Diversity of butterflies on British islands: ecological
influences underlying the roles of area, isolation and the size of the faunal source.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 257-275.

Dennis, R. L. H., J. G. Hodgson, R. Grenyer, T. G. Shreeve, and D. B. Roy. 2004. Host
plants and butterfly biology: Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status? Ecological
Entomology 29: 12-26.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. Critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a
phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172-181.

Dornfeld, E. J. 1980. The Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. 276 pp.

dos Passos, C. F. 1935. Some butterflies of southern Newfoundland with descriptions of new
subspecies (Lepid. Rhopal.) The Canadian Entomologist 67: 82-88.

dos Passos, C. F. 1961. Taxonomic notes on some Nearctic Rhopalocera. 2. Papilionoidea.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 15: 209-225.

dos Passos, C. F. 1964. A synomic list of the Nearctic Rhopalocera. Memoirs of the
Lepidopterists' Society No. 1.

dos Passos, C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1942. Two new North American subspecies of Argynnis, with
some revisional notes (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). American Museum Novitates 1214. 1-
6.

dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1945a. A genitalic survey of Argynninae (Lepidoptera,
Nymphalidae). American Museum Novitates 1296: 1-29.

dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1945b. A new species and some new subspecies of Speyeria
(Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). American Museum Novitates 1297: 1-17.









dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1947. Systematic catalogue ofSpeyeria (Lepidoptera,
Nymphalidae) with designations of types and fixations of the type localities. American
Museum Novitates 1370: 1-30.

dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1955. A new name for Argynnis lais Edwards (Lepidoptera,
Rhopalocera). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 63: 95-96.

dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1965. Notes on certain lectotypes and neotypes designated by
the authors in their systematic catalogue of Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).
Transactions of the American Entomological Society 91: 351-360.

Douglas, M. M. and J. M. Douglas. 2005. Butterflies of the Great Lakes Region. The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 345 pp.

Drees, B. and L. Butler. 1978. Rhopalocera of West Virginia. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 32: 198-206.

Drury D. 1773. Illustrations of natural history, wherein are exhibited upwards of two hundred
and forty figures of exotic insects, according to their different genera by D. Drury. London,
B. White. Vol. 1 xxvii + 132 pp, 50 pls.

Dufour, L. 1844. Anatomie general des dipteres. Annales des Sciences Naturellesl: 244-264.

Dunford, J. C. 2005. Chasing greater fritillaries: The rise of Atlantis. American Butterflies 13:
14-25.

Dunford, J. C. and R. J. Ekin. 2005. Greater fritillaries at three localities in Humboldt National
Forest, Nevada. American Butterflies 13: 26-32.

Dunford, J. C. and G. T. Austin. 2007. Nomenclatural faux pas for Speyeria atlantis greyi
Moeck, 1950 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Insecta Mundi 17:1-4.

Durden, C. J. 1965. Speyeria callippe and Artemisia, a possible foodplant. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 19: 186-187.

Ebach, M. C. and C. Holdrege. 2005. DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature
434: 697.

Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Animal Genitalia. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 244 pp.

Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 501 pp.

Ebner, J. A. 1970. Butterflies of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI.









Edwards, W. H. 1863a. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the
limits of the United States and British America-No. 2. Proceedings of the Academy of
National Sciences Philadelphia 14: 54-58.

Edwards, W. H. 1863b. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the
limits of the United States and British America-No. 3. Proceedings of the Academy of
National Sciences Philadelphia 14: 221-226.

Edwards, W. H. 1864a. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the
limits of the United States and British North America-No. 3. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society Philadelphia 2: 501-507.

Edwards, W. H. 1864b. Notes on the argynnides of California. Proceedings of the
Entomological Society of Philadelphia 3: 434-436.

Edwards, W. H. 1869. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the
United States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 2: 369-376.

Edwards, W. H. 1870. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in the United
States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 3: 10-22.

Edwards, W. H. 1873. Notes on the early stages of some of our butterflies. The Canadian
Entomologist 5: 223-225.

Edwards, W. H. 1874a. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in North
America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 5: 13-19.

Edwards, W. H. 1874b. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in North
America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 5: 103-111.

Edwards, W. H. 1878. Descriptions of new species of North American Lepidoptera. Field and
Forest 3: 142-144.

Edwards, W. H. 1879a. Descriptions of new species of butterflies collected by Mr. H.K.
Morrison, in Nevada, 1878; also remarks on some errors of synonymy and arrangement.
The Canadian Entomologist 11: 49-56.

Edwards, W. H. 1879b. Descriptions of new species of North American butterflies; also notes
upon certain species. The Canadian Entomologist 11: 81-89.

Edwards, W. H. 1879c. Description of the preparatory stages ofArgynnis egleis, Bois. The
Canadian Entomologist 11: 177-179.

Edwards, W. H. 1879d. Description of preparatory stages ofArgynnis idalia, Drury. The
Canadian Entomologist 11: 217-219.

Edwards, W. H. 1880a. Description of the preparatory stages ofArgynnis alcestis, Edw. The
Canadian Entomologist 12: 69-74.









Edwards, W. H. 1880b. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis cybele, Fabr. The
Canadian Entomologist 141-145.

Edwards, W. H. 1881. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in the United
States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 9: 1-8.



Edwards, W. H. 1883. Descriptions of new species of North American butterflies. The
Canadian Entomologist 15: 209-211.

Edwards, W. H. 1888a. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis atlantis, Edwards.
The Canadian Entomologist 20: 1-3.

Edwards, W. H. 1888b. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis edwardsii, Reakirt.
The Canadian Entomologist 20: 3-5.

Edwards, W. H. 1888c. Description of the preparatory stages ofArgynnis hesperis, Edwards.
The Canadian Entomologist 20: 67-69.

Edwards, W. H. 1892. Miscellaneous notes on butterflies, larvae, etc. Canadian Entomologist
24: 105-111.

Eff, D. 1956. Notes on Speyeria egleis secret (Nymphalidae). The Lepidopterists' News 10:
102-106.

Ehrmann, G. A. 1917. Some new North American butterflies. Lepidopterist 1: 54-56.

Ehrlich, P. R. 1958. The comparative morphology, phylogeny and higher classification of the
butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 34:
305-370.

Ehrlich, P. R. 1983. Summer butterflies in Dinosaur National Monument. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 37: 91-92.

Ehrlich, P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich. 1961. How to Know the Butterflies. Wm. C. Brown
Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

Ehrlich, P. R. and P. H. Raven. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution
18: 586-608.

Ehrlich, P. R. and R. R. White. 1980. Colorado checkerspot butterflies: isolation, neutrality,
and the biospecies. The America Naturalist 115: 328-341.

Eisner, C. 1942. Einige Ergebnisse der Sichtung der Gattungen Melitaea und Argynnis im
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden. Zoologische Mededelingen 24: 116-124.









Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process.
Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York, New
York. 349 pp..

Ellers, J. and C. L. Boggs. 2004. Functional ecological implications of intraspecific differences
in wing melanization in Colias butterflies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 82:
79-87.

Ellis, S. L. 1975. Speyeria nokomis nokomis in Colorado. Atala 3: 11-12.

Elwes, H. J. 1889. A revision of the genus Argynnis. Transactions of the Entomological Society
London. 535-575.

Ely, C. A., M. E. Rolfs, and T. E. Labedz. 1983. New and unusual butterfly records from
Kansas. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 37: 256-257.

Emmel, J. F. and T. C. Emmel. 1998a. A review of the Speyeria egleis complex in California,
with the description of two new subspecies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). pp. 437-442. In
T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press,
Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F. and T. C. Emmel. 1998b. A previously unrecognized subspecies of Speyeria
zerene (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from coastal northern California. pp. 451-454. In T. C.
Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press,
Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S.O. Mattoon. 1998a. The types of California butterflies
named by Jean Alphonse Boisduval: Designation oflectotypes and a neotype, and fixation
of type localities. pp. 3-76. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American
Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998b. The types of California butterflies
named by Herman Behr: Designation of neotypes and fixation of type localities. pp. 95-
114. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa
Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998c. New subspecies of Nymphalidae from
California and a neotype designation for Argynnis rupestris Behr (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae). pp. 139-158. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North
American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998d. A new subspecies of Speyeria zerene
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from the San Francisco Bay Area of California. pp. 455-459.
In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa
Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, J. F., O. Shields, and D. E. Breedlove. 1970 (1971). Larval foodplant records for
North American Rhopalocera, Part 2. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 9: 233-242.









Emmel, T. C. 1964. The ecology and distribution of butterflies in a montane community near
Florissant, Colorado. The American Midland Naturalist 72: 358-373..

Emmel, T. C. [Ed.] 1998. Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press,
Gainesville, Florida. 878 pp.

Emmel, T. C. and G. T. Austin. 1998. What is Argynnis carolae? The cytotaxonomy and
systematic position of a Speyeria relic from Nevada (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). pp. 443-
450. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa
Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, T. C. and J. F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of southern California. Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26: 1-148.

Emmel, T. C., M. C. Minno, and B. A. Drummond. 1992. Florissant Butterflies: A Guide to
the Fossil and Present-Day Species of Central Colorado. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, California.

Eriksen, C. H. 1962. Further evidence of the distribution of some boreal Lepidoptera in the
Sierra Nevada. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 89-93.

Evers, D. C. [Ed.] 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife of Michigan. The University of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Fabricius, J. C. 1775. System entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera,
species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. Flensburg and
Leipzig, Kortii. 832 pp.

Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum, sistens eorum species nuper detectas adiectis
characteribus genericis, differentiis specifics, emendationibus observationibus.
Copenhagen, Christ. Gottl. Proft. Vol. 1, xx + 348 pp.

Fabricius, J. C. 1807. System glossatorum secundum ordines, genera, species adiectis
synonymis locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, descriptionibus. Brunswick, Carolum
Reichard. xii + 13 + 112 pp.

Ferge, L. A. 2002. Checklist of Wisconsin butterflies. Wisconsin Entomological Society
Miscellaneous Publication No. 5.

Ferris, C. D. 1971a. A Key to the Rhopalocera [Butterflies] of Wyoming. Agricultural
Experimental Station Science Monograph 21. University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Wyoming.

Ferris, C. D. 1971b. An Annotated Checklist of the Rhopalocera [Butterflies] of Wyoming.
Agricultural Experimental Station Science Monograph 23. University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming.









Ferris, C. D. 1972. Ultraviolet photography as an adjunct to taxonomy. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 26: 210-215.

Ferris, C. D. 1973. A revision of the Colias alexandra complex (Pieridae) aided by ultraviolet
reflectance photography with designation of a new subspecies. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 27: 57-73.

Ferris, C. D. 1976a. A checklist of the butterflies of Grant County, New Mexico and vicinity.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 30: 38-49.

Ferris, C. D. 1983. Speyeria atlantis phenotypes in the southern Rocky Mountains (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae: Argynninae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 22: 101-114.

Ferris, C. D. 1989a. A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America North of Mexico.
Memoirs of the Lepidopterists' Society No. 2. 280 pp.

Ferris, C. D. 1989b. Supplement to: A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America North
of Mexico. Memoirs of the Lepidopterists' Society No. 3. 103 pp.

Ferris, C. D. and M. Fisher. 1971. A revision of Speyeria nokomis (Nymphalidae). Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society 25: 44-52.

Ferris, C. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain states. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Ferster, B. 2005. Regal fritillaries: News from the eastern front. American Butterflies 13: 5-12.

Field, W. D. 1938. A manual of the butterflies and skippers of Kansas. Bulletin of the University
of Kansas 39: 1-328.

Fisher, J. C. 1858. Description of a new species of Argynnis. Proceedings of the Academy of
Natural Sciences Philadelphia 10: 179-180.

Fisher, J. C. 1859. [Statement]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia
11: 352.

Fisher, M. S. 2005. The Butterflies of Colorado. Nymphalidae-Part 2. The Subfamily
Heliconiinae-The Greater and Lesser Fritillaries (Argynnini), The Longwings (Heliconiini)
and the Subfamily Danainae-The Milkweed Butterflies. Lepidoptera of North America 7.2.
Contributions of the C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Fleishman, E., G. T. Austin, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. Natural history and biogeography of
the butterflies of the Toiyabe Range, Nevada (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Holarctic
Lepidoptera 4: 1-18.









Fleishman, E., G. T. Austin, and D. D. Murphy. 2001a. Biogeography of Great Basin
butterflies: revisiting patterns, paradigms, and climate change scenarios. Biological Journal
of the Linnean Society 74: 501-515.

Fleishman, E., R. MacNally, J. P. Fay, and D. D. Murphy. 2001b. Modeling and predicting
species occurrence using broad-scale environmental variables: An example with butterflies
of the Great Basin. Conservation Biology 15: 1674-1685.

Fleishman, E., D. D. Murphy, and G. T. Austin. 2005. Biodiversity patterns of spring-
associated butterflies in a Mojave desert mountain range. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 59:89-95.

Foote, K. 2002. Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta L.). New York Flora Association Newsletter
13: 1-6.

Fothergill, P. G. 1941. Studies in Viola. III. An account of the inheritance of certain characters
in the progeny of plants of a wild population of Viola hybrids. New Phytologist 40: 139-
151.

Fothergill, P. G. 1944. Studies in Viola. IV. The somatic cytology and taxonomy of our British
species of the genus Viola. New Phytologist 43: 23-35.

Freitas, A. V. L. and K. S. Brown, Jr. 2004. Phylogeny of the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera).
Systematic Biology 53: 363-383.

Garth, J. S. 1949. Studies in Arizona Lepidoptera. I. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis
(Edwards) from the Kaibab Plateau, Grand Canyon National Park. Bulletin of the Southern
California Academy of Sciences 48: 1.

Garth, J. S. 1950. Butterflies of Grand Canyon National Park. The University of Southern
California Bulletin No. 11: 1-52.

Garth, J. S. and J. W. Tilden. 1963. Yosemite butterflies: An ecological survey of the
butterflies of the Yosemite sector of the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Research on
the Lepidoptera 2: 1-96.

Garth, J. S. and J. W. Tilden. 1986. California Butterflies. University of California Press,
Berkley, California.

Gatrelle, R. R. 1998. Two new Nymphalidae from western North Carolina: new subspecies of
Speyeria aphrodite and Phyciodes batesii. Taxonomic Report of the International
Lepidoptera Survey 1: 1-7.

Gillham, N. W. 1956. Geographic variation and the subspecies concept in butterflies. Systematic
Zoology 5: 110-120.

Glassberg. J. 1998a. Army tries to crush butterflies NABA fights back! American Butterflies 6:
inside cover, 23.









Glassberg, J. 1998b. Regal fritillary update. American Butterflies 6: inside cover.

Glassberg, J. 2000. Eyeing the greater fritillaries. American Butterflies 8:14-17.

Glassberg, J. 2001a. Butterflies through binoculars: the East, a guide to the butterflies of eastern
North America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Glassberg, J. 2001b. Butterflies through binoculars: the West, a guide to the butterflies of
western North America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Gochfeld, M. and J. Burger. 1997. Butterflies of New Jersey: A Guide to their Status,
Distribution, Conservation, and Appreciation. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey.

Goldstein, P. Z., R. DeSalle, G. Amato, and A. P. Vogler. 2000. Conservation genetics at the
species boundary. Conservation Biology 14: 120-131.

Goldstein, P. Z., Y. Wyner, P. Doukakis, M. G. Egan, G. Amato, H. Rosenbaum, and R.
DeSalle. 2005. Theory and methods for diagnosing species and populations in
conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 92: 12-27.

Gompert, Z., C. C. Nice, J. A. Fordyce, M. L. Forister, and A. M. Shapiro. 2006. Identifying
units for conservation using molecular systematics: The cautionary tale of the Karner blue
butterfly. Molecular Ecology 15: 1759-1768.

Gornall, R. J. 1997. Practical aspects of the species concept in plants. pp. 171-187. In M. F.
Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson (eds.), Species: the units of biodiversity,
Chapman and Hall.

Gregory, W. W. 1975. Checklist of the butterflies and skippers of Canada. Lyman
Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory Memoir No. 3 (Special Publication No.
10), Quebec.

Grey, L. P. 1951. The subspeciation of Speyeria atlantis. The Lepidopterists' News 5: 31-35.

Grey, L. P. 1957. Warren's argynnid classification (Nymphalidae). The Lepidopterists' News
11: 171-176.

Grey, L. P. 1964. Keeping records. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 18: 58-63.

Grey, L. P. 1970. On the Gunder collection of argynnids (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal
of Research on the Lepidoptera 8: 55-64.

Grey, [L.] P. 1972. Notes on Speyeria zerene populations in Modoc Co., California. News of the
Lepidopterists' Society 6: 2.

Grey, L. P. 1974a. Variation in Speyeria mormonia, or, do subspecies exist? News of the
Lepidopterists' Society 5: 1-2.









Grey, L. P. 1989. Sundry Argynninae concepts revisited (Nymphalidae). Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 43: 1-10.

Grey, L. P. and A. H. Moeck. 1962. Notes on overlapping subspecies. I. An example in
Speyeria zerene (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 16: 81-97.

Grey, L. P., A. H. Moeck, and W. H. Evans. 1963. Notes on overlapping subspecies. II.
Segregation in the Speyeria atlantis of the Black Hills (Nymphalidae). Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 17: 129-147.

Gunder, J. D. 1924. Several new aberrant Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera) from California.
Entomological News 35: 153-158.

Gunder, J. D. 1927. New transition forms (Lepid. Rhopalocera). The Canadian Entomologist
59: 281-287.

Gunder, J. D. 1929. New butterflies and sundry notes (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Bulletin of
the Brooklyn Entomological Society 24: 325-332.

Gunder, J. D. 1931. Some new butterflies (Lepid., Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the Southern
California Academy of Sciences 30: 45-48.

Gunder, J. D. 1932. New Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera). The Canadian Entomologist 64: 276-284.

Gunder, J. D. 1934. Various new butterflies (Lepid., Rhopalocera). The Canadian Entomologist
66: 125-131.

Guppy, C. S. 1986. Geographic variation in wing melanism of the butterfly Parnassiusphoebus
F. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 956-962.

Guppy, C. S. and J. H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia. UBC Press,
Vancouver, British Columbia.

Guppy, R. 1953. Rearing Speyeria in captivity. The Lepidopterists' News 7: 56.

Hajibabaei, M., D. H. Janzen, J. M. Burns, W. Hallwachs, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2006. DNA
barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 103: 968-971.

Hammond, P. C. 1974. An Ecological Survey of the Nymphalid Butterfly Genus Speyeria.
Master's Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 101 pp.

Hammond, P. C. 1978. Geographic variation and speciation in the Nymphalid butterfly genus
Speyeria. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg.









Hammond, P. C. 1981. The colonization of violets and Speyeria butterflies on the ash-pumice
fields deposited by Cascadian volcanoes. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 20: 179-
191.

Hammond, P. C. 1986. A rebuttal to the Arnold classification of Speyeria callippe
(Nymphalidae) and defense of the subspecies concept. Journal of Research on the
Lepidoptera 24: 197-208.

Hammond, P. C. 1990. Patterns of geographic variation and evolution in polytypic butterflies.
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 29: 54-76.

Hammond, P. C. 1995. Conservation of biodiversity in native prairie communities in the United
States. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 68: 1-6.

Hammond, P. C. and E. J. Dornfeld. 1983. A new subspecies of Speyeria egleis
(Nymphalidae) from the Pumice Region of central Oregon. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 37: 115-120.

Hammond, P. C. and D. V. McCorkle. 1984. The decline and extinction of Speyeria
populations resulting from human environmental disturbances (Nymphalidae:
Argynninae). The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 22: 217-224.

Haney, A. and R. L. Power. 1996. Adaptive management for sound ecosystem management.
Environmental Management 20: 879-886.

Hardesty, R. L. and D. R. Groothuis. 1993. Butterflies of the Laramie Mountains, Wyoming
(Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 32: 107-123.

Harris Jr., L. 1972. Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
326 pp.

Harvey, D. J. 1991. Higher Classification of the Nymphalidae, pp. 255-273. In H. F. Nijhout,
The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D. C.

Harvey, M. J. 1966. Cytotaxonomic relationships between the European and North American
rostrate violets. New Phytologist 65: 469-476.

Haslett, J. R. 1997a. Insect communities and the spatial complexity of mountain habitats.
Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 49-56.

Haslett, J. R. 1997b. Mountain ecology: organism responses to environmental change, an
introduction. Global Ecology and Biogeography 6: 3-6.

Hazevoet, C. J. 1996. Conservation and species lists: taxonomic neglect promotes the extinction
of endemic birds, as exemplified by taxa from eastern Atlantic islands. Bird Conservation
International 6: 181-196.









Hebert, P. D. N., S. Ratnasingham, and J. R. deWaard. 2003. Barcoding animal life:
Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings of
the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 270: 96-99.

Heitzman, J. R. and J. E. Heitzman. 1996. Butterflies and Moths of Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Hendricks, P. 1986. Avian predation of alpine butterflies. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
40: 129.

Heppner, J. B. 2003. Lepidoptera of Florida. Part 1. Introduction and Catalog. Arthropods of
Florida and Neighboring Land Areas Volume 17. Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida.

Hill, J. K, C. D. Thomas, and D. S. Blakeley. 1999a. Evolution of flight morphology in a
butterfly that has recently expanded its geographic range. Oecologia 121: 165-170.

Hill, J. K, C. D. Thomas, R. Fox, M. G. Telfer, S. G. Willis, J. Asher, and B. Huntley. 2002.
Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future
ranges. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 2163-2171.

Hill, J. K, C. D. Thomas, and B. Huntley. 1999b. Climate and habitat availability determine
20th century changes in a butterfly's range margin. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B 266: 1197-1206.

Hinchliff, J. 1994. The Distribution of the Butterflies of Oregon. The Oregon State University
Bookstore, Corvallis, Oregon.

Hinchliff, J. 1996. The Distribution of the Butterflies of Washington. The Oregon State
University Bookstore, Corvallis, Oregon.

Hodges, R. W. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of American North of Mexico. E. W.
Classey Limited, Oxfordshire, England.

Holland, R. 1974. Butterflies of six central New Mexico mountains, with notes on Callophrys
(Sandia) macfarlandi (Lycaenidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 28: 38-52.

Holland, R. 1984. Butterflies of two northwest New Mexico mountains. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 38: 220-234.

Holland, R. 1988. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Nymphalidae) from south-central
New Mexico. Bulletin of the Allyn Museum 115: 1-9.

Holland, R. and S. J. Cary. 1996. Butterflies of the Jemez Mountains of Northern New Mexico.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 50: 61-79.

Holland, W. J. 1898. The Butterfly Book. New York, Doubleday and McClure Co. xx + 382
pp., 48 pls.









Holland, W. J. 1931. The Butterfly Book. New and Thoroughly Revised Edition. Garden City,
New York, Doubleday, Doran and Co. xii + 424 pp., 77 pls.

Holmes, A. M., Q. F. Hess, R. R. Tasker, and A. J. Hanks. 1991. The Ontario Butterfly Atlas.
Toronto Entomologists' Association. Toronto, Canada.

Hooper, R. R. 1973. The butterflies of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Natural
Resources. 216 pp.

Hovanitz, W. 1941. Parallel ecogenotypical color variation in butterflies. Ecology 22: 259-284.

Hovanitz, W. 1943. Geographical variation and racial structure of Argynnis callippe in
California. The American Naturalist 77: 400-425.

Hovanitz, W. 1962. Argynnis and Speyeria. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 95-96.

Hovanitz, W. 1963a. Geographical distribution and variation of the genus Argynnis. I.
Introduction. II. Argynnis idalia. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 117-123.

Hovanitz, W. 1963b. Geographical distribution and variation of the genus Argynnis. III.
Argynnis diana. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 201-208.

Hovanitz, W. 1967. Ecological color variation in some Argynnis of the western United States.
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 6: 197-198.

Hovanitz, W. 1970. Habitat-Argynnis adiaste. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 9: 168,
192.

Howe, W. H. 1975. The Butterflies of North America. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden
City, New York.

Hribar, L. J. 2004. Mosquito control of butterfly control? Wing Beats 15: 25.

Hubbard, J. P. 1965. Some butterflies of the Pinos Altos Mountains, New Mexico. Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society 19: 231-232.

Hunter, L. M. and J. M. Brehm. 2004. A qualitative examination of value orientations toward
wildlife and biodiversity by rural residents of the intermountain region. Human Ecology
Review 11: 13-26.

Hunter, P. 2006. Defining species: the indirect impact of humans on biodiversity. European
Molecular Biology Organization Reports 7: 763-766.

Irwin, R. R. and J. C. Downey. 1973. Annotated Checklist of the Butterflies of Illinois. Illinois
Natural History Survey No. 81. Urbana, Illinois.

Jacobson, S. K. and M. D. McDuff. 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions
in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 12: 263-267.









Janzen, D. H. 1984. Weather-related color polymorphism of Rothchildia lebeau (Saturniidae).
Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 30: 16-20.

Johnson, K. 1972 (1973). The butterflies of Nebraska. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
11: 1-64.

Johnson, K. 1975. Post-Pleistocene environments and montane butterfly relicts. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 14: 216-232.

Kelly, L. and D. M. Debinski. 1998. Relationship of host plant density to size and abundance of
the regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Drury (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 52: 262-276.

Keyghobadi, N., K. P. Unger, J. D. Weintraub, and D. M. Fonseca. 2006. Remnant
populations of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) in Pennsylvania: Local genetic structure
in a high gene flow species. Conservation Genetics 7: 309-313.

Kimball, C. P. 1965. The Lepidoptera of Florida: An annotated checklist. Arthropods of Florida
and Neighboring Land Areas Vol. 1. Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant
Industry, Gainesville, Florida. 363 pp.

Kingsolver, J. G. and D. C. Wiernasz. 1991. Development, function, and the quantitative
genetics of wing melanin pattern in Pieris butterflies. Evolution 45: 1480-1492.

Klassen, P. 1984. Checklist of Manitoba butterflies (Rhopalocera). Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 38: 32-39.

Klots, A. B. 1951. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America, East of the Great Plains.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Knowles, L. L. 2001. Did the Pleistocene glaciations promote divergence? Tests of explicit
refugial models in montane grasshoppers. Molecular Ecology 10: 691-701.

Kniittel, H. and K. Fielder. 2000. On the use of ultraviolet photography and ultraviolet wing
patterns in butterfly morphology and taxonomy. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 54:
137-144.

Kniittel, H. and K. Fielder. 2001. Host-plant derived variation in ultraviolet wing patterns
influences mate selection by male butterflies. The Journal of Experimental Biology 204:
2447-2459.

Kohler, S. 1980. Checklist of Montana butterflies (Rhopalocera). Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 34: 1-19.

Kolaczkowski, B. and J. W. Thornton. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and
likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431: 980-984.









Kondla N. G. 2001. Clarification of and comments on Northern Speyeria hydaspe subspecies
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera
Survey 3: 1-5.

Kondla, N. G. 2004. Conservation Overview of Butterflies in the Southern Headwaters at Risk
Project (SHARP) Area. Alberta Sustainable Resources Department, Fish and Wildlife
Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 80. Edmonton, Alberta. ii + 35 pp.

Kondo, K., T. Shinkawa, and H. Matsuka. 2003. Molecular systematics ofbirdwing butterflies
(Papilionidae) inferred from mitochondrial ND5 gene. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 57: 17-24.

Kons Jr., H. L. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of the Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae:
Nymphalinae) and a revision of the genus Chlosyne Butler. Ph.D. Dissertation. University
of Florida, Gainesville.

Kopper, B. J., R. E. Charlton, and D. C. Margolies. 2000. Oviposition site selection by the
regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia, as affected by proximity of violet hosts. Journal of Insect
Behavior 13: 651-665.

Kopper, B. J., D. C. Margolies, and R. E. Charlton. 2001a. Notes on the behavior of Speyeria
idalia (Drury) (Nymphalidae) larvae with implications that they are diurnal foragers.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 54: 96-97.

Kopper, B. J., D. C. Margolies, and R. E. Charlton. 2001b. Life history notes on the regal
fritillary, Speyeria idalia (Drury) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), in Kansas tallgrass prairie.
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 74: 172-177.

Kopper, B.J., S. Shu, R. E. Charlton, and S. B. Ramaswamy. 2001c. Evidence for
reproductive diapause in the fritillary Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Annals
of the Entomological Society of America 94: 427-432.

Kozial, J. 1994. Some unusual fritillaries from Saskatchewan. News of the Lepidopterists'
Society 1: 3.

Krizek, G. 0. 1991. Is Speyeria diana attracted to manure? News of the Lepidopterists' Society
6: 83.

Kruse, J. J. and F. A. H. Sperling. 2002. Phylogeny of Nearctic species of the Xylosteana
ground of Archips Hiibner (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) based on combined analysis of
morphological and mitochondrial DNA data sets. Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 95: 288-301.

Lafontaine, J. D. and D. M. Wood. 1997. Butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of the Yukon.
pp. 723-785, In H. N. Danks and J. A. Downes (eds.) Insects of the Yukon, Biological
Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), Ottawa.









Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation.
Conservation Biology 11: 849-856.

Larsen, K. J. and J. A. Bovee. 2001. Changes in the butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Winneshiek
County, Iowa after 90 years. Great Lakes Entomologist 34: 43-54.

Launer, A. E., D. D. Murphy, J. M. Hoekstra, and H. R. Sparrow. 1994. The endangered
Myrtle's silverspot butterfly: present status and initial conservation planning. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 31: 132-146.

Lavers, N. 2006. Northeast Arkansas butterflies: Forty years ago and today. News of the
Lepidopterists' Society 48: 108-110.

Layberry, R. A., P. W. Hall, and J. D. LaFontaine. 1998. The butterflies of Canada.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 280 pp.

Lehmann, T. 1913. 2. Genus: Argynnis F. (= Brenthis Hbn., Acidalia Hbn., Boloria Moore,
Speyeria Scudd.). pp. 404-421, 429, pls. 85-88. In Seitz, A. The Macrolepidoptera of the
World. A Systematic Description of the hitherto known Macrolepidoptera. The
Macrolepidoptera of the American Faunistic Region. The American Rhopalocera.
Stuttgart, Alfred Kernen, Vol. 5.

Lembert, J. B. 1893. Argynnis egleis. The Canadian Entomologist 25: 259.

Levy, H. C., A. Garcia-Maruniak, and J. E. Maruniak. 2002. Strain identification of
Spodopterafrugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) insects and cell line: PCR-RFLP of
cytochrome oxidase C subunit I gene. Florida Entomologist 85: 186-190.

Linnaeus, C. L. 1758. System naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines,
genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima,
reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii. Vol. 1. 823 pp.

Lloyd, J. E. 1979. Mating behavior and natural selection. Florida Entomologist 62: 17-34.

Lloyd, J. E. 2001. On research and entomological education V: a species conceptt for fireflyers,
at the bench and in old fields, and back to the Wisconsian glacier. Florida Entomologist 84:
587-601.

Luckow, M. 1995. Species concepts: assumptions, methods, and applications. Systematic
Botany 20: 589-605.

Maddison, D. R., and W. P. Maddison. 2000. MaClade 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Sinauer.

Maeki, K. and C. L. Remington. 1960. Studies of the chromosomes of North American
Rhopalocera. 4. Nymphalinae, Charaxidinae, Libytheinae. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 14: 179-201.









Magnus, D. 1958. Experimental analysis of some "overoptimal" sign-stimuli in the mating
behaviour of the fritillary butterfly Argynnispaphia L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Entomology. Montreal 1956 2: 405-418.

Mallarino, R., E. Bermingham, K. R. Willmott, A. Whinnett, and C. D. Jiggins. 2005.
Molecular systematics of the butterfly genus Ithomia (Lepidoptera: Ithomiinae): a
composite phylogenetic hypothesis based on seven genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 34: 625-644.

Mallet, J. 1995. A species definition for the Modern Synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
10: 294-299.

Marrone, G. M. 1994. Checklist of South Dakota butterflies (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea).
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 48: 228-247.

Martin, J. A. and D. P. Pashley. 1992. Molecular systematic analysis of butterfly family and
some subfamily relationships (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 85: 127-139.

Martyn, T. 1797. Psyche Figures of Non Descript Lepidopterous Insects or Rare Moths and
Butterflies from Different Parts of the World. London. 8 pp. + 32 pls.

Mason, K. R. 2001. Comparison of Prairie Sites and Classification of Their Habitat Attributes in
Relation to Abundance of the Regal Fritillary Butterfly (Speyeria idalia)-Final Report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Masters, J. H. 1972 (1973). Butterfly records for three northwest Wisconsin counties. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 11: 175-182.

Masters, J. H. 1973. The collection of butterflies made by Jack Dennis at Beulah, Manitoba.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 27: 33-39.

Masters, J. H. 1974. The proper subspecific name for Speyeria aphrodite (Nymphalidae) in
southwest Manitoba. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 28: 100-102.

Masters, J. H. 1979. The type locality of Argynnis zerene Boisduval (Nymphalidae): A
correction. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 33: 137-138.

Mather, B. 1966. Speyeria cybele in Mississippi. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 5: 253-
254.

Mattoon, S.O., R. D. Davis, and O.D. Spencer. 1971. Rearing techniques for species of
Speyeria (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 25: 247-256.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York,
New York.

McCorkle, D. V. 1975. Speyeria zerene hippolyta in Oregon. Atala 3: 9-10, 17.









McCorkle, D. V. and P. C. Hammond. 1988. Biology of Speyeria zerene hippolyta
(Nymphalidae) in a marine-modified environment. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
42: 184-195.

McCracken, K. G. and F. H. Sheldon. 1998. Molecular and osteological heron phylogenies:
Sources ofincongruence. The Auk 115: 127-141.

McHenry, P. B. 1963. Generic or subgeneric names closely related to Argynnis. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 2: 229-239.

McHenry, P. 1964. The generic, specific and lower category names of the Nearctic butterflies:
Part 3-Argynnids. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 3: 231-268.

McKibben, B. 1999. The End of Nature. Anchor Books, New York New York.

McKinnon, J. S., S. Mori, B. K. Blackman, L. David, D. M. Kingsley, L. Jamieson, J. Chou,
and D. Schluter. 2004. Evidence for ecology's role in speciation. Nature 429: 294-298.

McLaughlin, J. F., J. J. Hellmann, C. L. Boggs, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change
hastens population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:
6070-6074.

Meffe, G. K. and C. R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd Ed. Sinauer
Associate, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 729 pp.

Memon, N., R. Meier, A. Manan, and K. Feng-Yi Su. 2006. On the use of DNA sequences for
determining the species limits of a polymorphic new species in the stink bug genus Halys
(Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Systematic Entomology 31: 703-710.

Miller, J. C. and P. C. Hammond. 2003. Lepidoptera of the Pacific Northwest: Caterpillars and
Adults. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, United States Department of
Agriculture.

Miller, J. S. and J. W. Wenzel. 1995. Ecological characters and phylogeny. Annual Review of
Entomology 40: 389-415.

Miller, J. Y. [Ed.]. 1992. The Common Names of North American Butterflies. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D. C.

Miller, L. D. 1969. Nomenclature of wing veins and cells. Journal of Research on the
Lepidoptera 8: 37-48.

Miller, L. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America
North of Mexico. Memoirs of the Lepidopterists' Society No. 2. 280 pp.

Miller, L. D. and S. M. Miller. 1966. Chromosomes from testicular preparations of
Lepidoptera. Science 152: 529-530.









Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: A case for pluralism. Systematic
Zoology 31: 491-503..

Mitchell, A., C. Mitter, and J. C. Regier. 2000. More taxa or more characters revisited:
Combining data from nuclear protein-coding genes for phylogenetic analyses of
Noctuoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera). Systematic Biology 49: 202-224.

Moeck, A. H. 1947. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) from New Mexico
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Entomological News 58: 73-75.

Moeck, A. H. 1950. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) from Nevada
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Entomological News 61: 61-64.

Moeck, A. H. 1957. Geographic variability in Speyeria: Comments, records and description of a
new subspecies (Nymphalidae). Milwaukee Entomological Society Special Publication.
48 pp.

Moeck, A. H. 1968. Mobility in a Wyoming population of Speyeria atlantis as determined by
tagging (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). The Michigan Entomologist 1: 279-282.

Monteiro, A. and N. E. Pierce. 2001. Phylogeny ofBicyclus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
inferred from COI, COII, and EF-la gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 18: 264-281.

Mooreside, P., D. Zercher, and P. McElhenny. 2006. Diurnal herbivory documented for
Speyeria idalia (Nymphalidae) larvae on Viola sagittata (Violaceae) in Pennsylvania.
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 60: 176-178.

Moran, M. D. and C. D. Baldridge. 2002. Distribution of the Diana fritillary, Speyeria diana
(Nymphalidae) in Arkansas, with notes on nectar plant and habitat preference. Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society 56: 162-165.

Mosher, E. 1969. Lepidoptera Pupae: Five Collected Works on the Pupae of North American
Lepidoptera. Entomological Reprint Specialists, East Lansing, Michigan.

Murphy, D. D., M. S. Menninger, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1984. Nectar source distribution as a
determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona. Oecologia 62: 269-271.

Mutanen, M. 2005. Delimitation difficulties in species splits: A morphometric case study on
the Euxoa tritici complex (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Systematic Entomology 30: 632-643.

Nadot, S., H. E. Ballard Jr., J. B. Creach, and I. Dajoz. 2000. The evolution of pollen
heteromorphism in Viola: a new phylogenetic approach. Plant Systematics and Evolution
223: 155-171.

Nelson, J. M. 1979. A preliminary checklist of the skippers and butterflies of Oklahoma.
Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 59: 41-46.









New, T. R. 1997. Butterfly Conservation. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Nice, C. C. and A. M. Shapiro. 1999. Molecular and morphological divergence in the butterfly
genus Lycaeides (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in North America: evidence of recent
speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 936-950.

Nielsen, M. C. 1999. Michigan Butterflies and Skippers. 1st ed. Michigan State University
Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Nijhout H. F. 1991. The development and evolution of butterfly wing patterns. In Funk VA,
Cannell PF (Eds.) Siuii/th,iui,n Series in Comparative Evolutionary Biology. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Nixon, K. C. and Q. D. Wheeler. 1990. An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept.
Cladistics 6:211-223.

North American Butterfly Association. 2001. North American Butterfly Association (NABA)
Checklist and English Names of North American Butterflies, 2nd Edition. North American
Butterfly Association, Morristown, New Jersey.

Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation
Biology 4: 355-364.

Oberthiir, C. 1912. Etudes de lepidopterologie comparee. Rennes, Oberthur. Vol. 6. 356 pp.,
97-160 pls.

O'Brien, M. F. 1983. New butterfly distribution records for northern New York State. Journal of
the Lepidopterists' Society 37: 92-94.

Opler, P. A. and G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD. xvii + 294 pp.

Opler, P. A. and V. Malikul. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York New York.

Opler, P. A. and A. D. Warren. 2005. Lepidoptera of North America. 4. Scientific Names List
for Butterfly Species of North America, North of Mexico. Contributions of the C. P.
Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado.

Opler, P. A. and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Second edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. xiv + 540 pp.

Omland, K. E., J. M. Baker, and J. L. Peters. 2006. Genetic signatures of intermediate
divergence: population history of Old and New World Holarctic ravens (Corvus corax).
Molecular Ecology 15: 795-808.

Orsak, L. J. 1974. Project Atossa-Preliminary Report. Atala 2: 5-8.









Orsak, L. J. 1978. The butterflies of Orange County, California. The regents of the University
of California, Irvine, CA.

Owen, D. F. 1975. Estimating the abundance and diversity of butterflies. Biological
Conservation 8: 173-183.

Palmer, C. M., K. Siebke, and D. K. Yeates. 2004. Infrared video thermography: a technique
for assessing cold adaptation in insects. BioTechniques 37: 212-217.

Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. K. Hill, C. D. Thomas, H. Descimon, B.
Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru, W. J. Tennent, J. A. Thomas, and M.
Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with
regional warming. Nature 399: 579-583.

Patten, M. A. and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow
subspecies. The Auk 119: 26-35.

Paterson, H. E. H. 1985. The recognition concept of species. pp. 21-29. In Vrba, E. S. (ed),
Species and speciation, Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 4, Transvaal Museum,
Pretoria.

Patterson, J. M. 2002. The 2002 survey for the presence of the Oregon silverspot butterfly,
Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae), on the Clatsop Plains, Clatsop
County, Oregon. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Pavulaan, H. 1990. The skippers (Hesperioidea) of Rhode Island with recent records of the true
butterflies (Papilionoidea). Atala 16: 6-12.

Pefia, C., N. Wahlberg, E. Weingartner, U. Kodandaramaiah, S. Nylin, A. V. L. Freitas,
and A. V. Z. Brower. 2006: Higher level phylogeny of Satyrinae butterflies (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae) based on DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
40:29-49.

Penz, C. M. 1999. Higher level phylogeny for the passion-vine butterflies (Nymphalidae,
Heliconiinae) based on early stage and adult morphology. Zoological Journal of the
Linnean Society 127: 277-344.

Penz, C. M. and D. Peggie. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships among Heliconiinae genera based
on morphology (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Systematic Entomology 28: 451-479.

Pollock, D. D., W. B. Watt, V. K. Rashbrook, and E. V. Iyengar. 1998. Molecular phylogeny
for Colias butterflies and their relatives (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 91: 524-531.

Pollard, E. 1982. Monitoring butterfly abundance in relation to the management of a nature
reserve. Biological Conservation 24: 317-328..









Porter, A. H. and A. M. Shapiro. 1990. Lock-and-key hypothesis: lack of mechanical isolation
in a butterfly (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) hybrid zone. Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 83: 107-114.

Poulton, E. B. 1909. Mimicry in the butterflies of North America. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America 2: 203-242.

Pyle, R. M. 1995. Field Guide to North American Butterflies. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York,
New York.

Pyle, R. M. 2002. The butterflies of Cascadia: a field guide to all the species of Washington,
Oregon, and surrounding territories. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

Reakirt, T. 1866. Coloradian butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Philadelphia 6: 122-151.

Reiff, W. 1910. Argynnis cybele Fabr. forma bartschi, f. nov. Psyche 17: 252-255.

Remington, P. S. 1947. Notes on the type locality of Speyeria egleis secret dos Passos and
Grey. Entomological News 58: 99-100.

Remington, P. S. 1948. A collecting trip in search of Speyeria egleis secret. The
Lepidopterists' News 2: 91-92.

Remington, C. L. 1973. Ultraviolet reflectance in mimicry and sexual signals in the
Lepidoptera. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 81: 124.

Reuss, F. A. T. 1922. Eine Androconialform von "Argynnis" niobe L., f n., und
durchentsprechende [males] gekennzeichnete ostasiatische Froemn oder Arten, diebisher
zu "adippe" L. (rect. cydippe L.) gerechnet wurden, sich aber nunmerh durch Art und
Verteilung der Androconien abtrennen lassen. Mit einer Revision des "Genus Argynnis F."
Archiv fur Naturgeschichte 87: 180-230.

Reuss, F. A. T. 1926a. Systematischer Uberblick der Dryadinae T. Rss. mit einigen
Neubeschreibungen (Lep. Rhopal.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift. 65-70.

Reuss, F. A. T. 1926b. Uber Funktion der Sexualarmaturen bei Lepidopteren (Rhop.) und die
resultierende Weiterentwicklung meines versuchten naturlichen Systems der Dryadinae T.
R. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 431-330.

Rindge, F.H. 1987. Speyeria collection of Paul Grey to the American Museum of Natural
History. Journal of the Lepidopterist's Society 41: 123.

Riotte, J. C. E. 1962. First additions to the northern Ontario list of butterflies. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 16: 243-245.

Ritchie, J. D. 1944. A method for determining food plants of Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the
Brooklyn Entomological Society 39: 171-172.









Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitching, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernandez. 2002.
Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of
the American Entomological Institute vol. 69. Gainesville, FL. 824 pp.

Rolfs, D. 2005. Butterflies of Chumstick Mountain. Published privately by the author, .

Ross, G. N. 1998. Butterfly feeding frenzies. Holarctic Lepidoptera 5: 43-44.

Ross, G. N. 2001 (2005). Survey of the butterflies of the Wah'Kon-Tah Prairie, Missouri.
Holarctic Lepidoptera 8: 1-30.

Ross, G. N. 2002. Social butterflies. American Butterflies 10: 34-37.

Ross, G. N. 2003. What's for dinner? A new look at the role of phytochemicals in butterfly diets.
News of the Lepidopterists' Society 45: 83-89.

Ross, G.N. 2004. Social Butterflies. Wildlife Conservation. May/June: 24-25.

Ross, G. N. and M. C. Henk. 2004. Notes on eggs and first instar larvae of three species of
Speyeria (Nymphalidae). News of the Lepidopterists' Society 46: 53-63.

Rudolph, D. C., C. A. Ely, R. R. Schaefer, J. H. Williamson, and R. E. Thill. 2006. The
Diana Fritillary (Speyeria diana) and Great Spangled Fritillary (S. cybele): Dependence on
fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 60: 218-
226.

Sapolsky, R. and P. Ehrlich. 2003. Appeal of the rare. Discover 24: 61-63.

Saunders, A. A. 1932. Butterflies of Allegany State Park. New York State Handbook 13,
Albany, New York.

Sbordoni, V. and S. Forestiero. 1998. Butterflies of the World. Firefly Books, Buffalo, New
York.

Schlicht, D. 1997. Population monitoring for prairie butterflies in Minnesota-Final Report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research
Program. 27 pp.

Schwanwitsch, B. N. 1924. On the groundplan of wing-pattern in nymphalids and certain other
families of rhopalocerous Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,
series B, 34: 509-528.

Schweitzer, D. 1993. Regal fritillaries in the East. American Butterflies 1: 9.

Scoble, M. J. 1995. The Lepidoptera: Form, Function and Diversity. Oxford University Press,
New York, New York.









Scoble, M. J. and M. Kriiger. 2002. A review of the genera of Macariini with a revised
classification of the tribe (Geometridae: Ennominae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean
Society 134: 257-315.

Scott, J. A. 1973a. Mating of butterflies. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 11: 99-127.

Scott, J. A. 1973b. Survey of ultraviolet reflectance of Nearctic butterflies. Journal of Research
on the Lepidoptera 12: 151-160.

Scott, J. A. 1975. Mate-locating behavior of western North American butterflies. Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 14: 1-40.

Scott, J. A. 1979. Hibernal diapause of North American Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea. Journal
of Research on the Lepidoptera 18: 171-200.

Scott, J. A. 1981. New Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea from North America. Papilio 1: 1-12.

Scott, J. A. 1984. The phylogeny of butterflies (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 23: 241-281.

Scott, J. A. 1986a. Larval hostplant records for butterflies and skippers (mainly from western
U.S.), with notes on their natural history. Papilio 4: 1-37.

Scott, J. A. 1986b. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide.
Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Scott, J. A. 1988. Speyeria atlantis in Colorado: Rearing studies concerning the relation between
silvered and unsilvered forms. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42: 1-13.

Scott, J. A. 1992. Hostplant records for butterflies and skippers (mostly from Colorado) 1959-
1992, with new life histories and notes on oviposition, immatures, and ecology. Papilio 6:
1-185.

Scott, J. A. [Ed.] 2006a. Taxonomic studies and new taxa of North American butterflies. Papilio
12: 1-74.

Scott, J. A. 2006b. Butterfly hostplant records, 1992-2005, with a treatise on the evolution of
Erynnis, and a note on new terminology for mate-collecting behavior. Papilio 14: 1-74.

Scott, J.A. 2006c. Proposals for a new insect study, commerce, and conservation law that
deregulates dead insects, and proposals for fixing the endangered species act as applied to
insects. Papilio 17: 1-17.

Scott, J. A., S. L. Ellis, and D. Eff. 1968. New records, range extensions, and field data for
Colorado butterflies and skippers. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 22: 159-171.

Scott, J. A. and M. E. Epstein. 1987. Factors affecting phenology in a temperate insect
community. The American Midland Naturalist 117: 103-118.









Scott, J. A. and S. O. Mattoon. 1981. Early stages of Speyeria nokomis (Nymphalidae). Journal
of Research on the Lepidoptera 20:12-15.

Scott, J. A., N. G. Kondla, and S. M. Spomer. 1998. Speyeria hesperis and Speyeria atlantis
are distinct species. Papilio 8: 1-31.

Scott, J. A. and G. R. Scott. 1978 (1980). Ecology and distribution of the butterflies of southern
central Colorado. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 17: 73-128.

Scudder, S. H. 1872. A systematic revision of some of the American butterflies, with brief notes
on those known to occur in Essex County, Mass. Salem, Massachusetts, The Salem Press.
62 + [2] pp.

Scudder, S. H. 1875. Synonymic list of the butterflies of North America, north of Mexico.
Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 2: 233-269.

Scudder, S. H. 1889. The Butterflies of the Eastern United States and Canada with Special
Reference to New England. Cambridge, published by the author. 3 Volumes. i-xxiv, i-xii,
i-viii + 1958 pp. 89 pls.

Segraves, K. A. and 0. Pellmyr. 2004. Testing the out-of-Florida hypothesis on the origin of
the cheating in the yucca-yucca moth mutualism. Evolution 58(10): 2266-2279.

Seitz, A. 1924. The Macrolepidoptera of the World: A Systematic Description of the Hitherto
Known Macrolepidoptera. Alfred Kernen Verlag Stuttgart. Vol. 5. viii + 1140 pp., 203 pls.

Sellier, R. 1973. Recherches en microscopic eletronique par balayage sur l'ultrastructure de
l'appareil androconial alaire dans le genre Argynnis et dans les genres voisons (Lep.
Rhopaloceres Nymphalidae). Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France 9:703-728.

Sette, O. E. 1962. Variation in the silvering of Argynnis (Speyeria) callippe in the interior
mountain area of south central California. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 3-20.

Shapiro, A. M. 1996. Status of butterflies. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to
congress, Vol. 2, assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis:
University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. pp. 743-757.

Shapiro, A. M. 2002. Species concepts and conservation law: why we have a problem. News of
the Lepidopterists' Society 44: 124-131.

Shapiro, A. M. and A. R. Shapiro. 1973. The ecological associations of the butterflies of Staten
Island. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 12: 65-128.

Shepherd, S. and D. M. Debinski. 2005. Reintroduction of regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) to a
restored prairie. Ecological Restoration 23: 244-250.

Shields, 0. 1963. A trip to California and Oregon for Speyeria. Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 17: 111- 116.









Shields, 0. 1966. The butterfly fauna of a yellow pine forest community. Journal of Research on
the Lepidoptera 5: 127-128.

Shields, O., J. F. Emmel, and D. E. Breedlove. 1970. Butterfly larval foodplant records and a
procedure for reporting foodplants. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 8: 21-36.

Shields, 0. and J. F. Emmel. 1973. A review of carrying behavior and mating times in
butterflies. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 12: 25-64.

Shir6zu, T. and T. Saigusa. 1973. A generic classification of the genus Argynnis and its allied
genera (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Sieboldia 4: 99-114.

Shuey, J. A., E. H. Metzler, D. C. Iftner, J. V. Calhoun, J. W. Peacock, R. A. Watkins, J. D.
Hooper, and W. F. Babcock. 1987. Status and habitats of potentially endangered
Lepidoptera in Ohio. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 41: 1-12.

Shull, E. M. and F. S. Badger. 1972. Annotated list of the butterflies of Indiana. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 26: 13-24.

Shull, E. M. 1987. Butterflies of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Simmons, R. S. 1963. Nine new butterfly records for the State of Maryland. Journal of the
Lepidopterists' Society 17: 107-109.

Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Crespi, H. Liu, and P. Flook. 1994. Evolution,
weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of
conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society of
America 87: 651-701.

Simonsen, T. J. 2004. Fritillary Butterflies: Phylogeny, Historical Zoogeography and
Morphological Aspects of the Tribus Argynnini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ph.D.
Dissertation, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen. 196 pp.

Simonsen, T. J. 2005. Boloria phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): tentatively reconstructed
on the basis of male and female genitalic morphology. Systematic Entomology 30: 653-
665.

Simonsen, T. J. 2006a. Glands, muscles and genitalia. Morphological and phylogenetic
implications of histological characters in the male genitalia of fritillary butterflies
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Argynnini). Zoologica Scripta 35: 231-241.

Simonsen, T. J. 2006b. The male genitalia segments in fritillary butterflies: Comparative
morphology with special reference to the "rectal plate" in Issoria (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae). European Journal of Entomology 103: 425-432.

Simonsen, T. J. 2006c. Fritillary phylogeny, classification, and larval hostplants: reconstructed
mainly on the basis of male and female genitalic morphology (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae:
Argynnini). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: 627-673.









Simonsen, T. J., N. Wahlberg, A. Z. Brower, and R. de Jong 2006. Morphology, molecules
and fritillaries: Approaching a stable phylogeny for Argynnini (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae). Insect Systematics and Evolution 37: 405-418.

Simonson, S. E., P. A. Opler, T. J. Stohlgren, and G. W. Chong. 2001. Rapid assessment of
butterfly diversity in a montane landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1369-1386.

Sims, S.R. 1984. Reproductive diapause in Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of
Research on the Lepidoptera 23: 211-216.

Sims, S. R., Brittnacher, J. G., and F. J. Ayala. 1979. Genetic confirmation of the specific
status of the Speyeria adiaste group in California (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Pan-Pacific
Entomologist 55: 111-116.

Skinner, H. 1917. New species of Lepidoptera. Entomological News 28: 328-329.

Smart, P. 1989. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Butterflies of the World. Salamander Books
Limited, Bedford Row, London.

Snyder, A. J. 1896. Some argynnids of Park City, Utah. The Canadian Entomologist 28: 105-
107.

Snyder, A. J. 1900. The Argynnids of North America. pp. 27-38. In J. L. Hancock and 0. S.
Westcott [Eds.], Occasional Memoirs of the Chicago Entomological Society Volume 1,
Chicago Entomological Society, Chicago, Illinois.

Soltis, P. S. and M. A. Gitzendanner. 1999. Molecular systematics and the conservation of rare
species. Conservation Biology 13: 471-483.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The
American Naturalist 104: 127-153.

Sperling, F. 2003. DNA barcoding: dues ex machine. Newsletter of the Biological Survey of
Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) 22. 4 pp.

Sperling, F. A. H. and D. A. Hickey. 1995. Amplified mitochondrial DNA as a diagnostic
marker for species of conifer-feeding Choristoneura (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The
Canadian Entomologist 127: 277-288.

Stehr, F. W. [Ed.] 1987. Immature Insects, Vol. 1. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company,
Dubuque, Iowa. 754 pp.

Stewart, B, P. Brodkin, and H. Brodkin. 2001. Butterflies of Arizona: A Photographic Guide.
West Coast Lady Press, Arcata, California.









Strecker, 1878. Butterflies and Moths of North America, with Full Instructions for Collecting,
Breeding, Preparing, Classifying, Packing for Shipment, etc., A Complete Synonymical
Catalogue of Macrolepidoptera, with a Full Bibliography, which is added a Glossary of
Terms and an Alphabetical and Descriptive List of Localities. Reading, Pennsylvania. I-ii
+ 282 pp., 2 pls.

Strehl, C. P. and J. Gadau. 2004. Cladistic analysis of paleo-island populations of the Florida
harvester ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) based upon divergence of mitochondrial DNA
sequences. Florida Entomologist 87: 576-581.

Siiffert, F. 1927. Zur vergleichende analyse der Schmetterlingszeichnung. Biologisches
Zentralblatt 47: 385-413.

Swengel, A. B. 1993. Regal fritillary: Prairie royalty. American Butterflies 1: 4-9.

Swengel, A. B. 1997. Habitat associations of sympatric violet-feeding fritillaries (Euptoieta,
Speyeria, Boloria) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in tallgrass prairie. The Great Lakes
Entomologist 30: 1-18.

Swengel. A. B. 2004. Good news for regal fritillaries. Wisconsin Entomological Newsletter
June: 3-4.

Swengel, A. B. and S. R. Swengel. 2001. A ten-year study to monitor populations of the regal
fritillary, Speyeria idalia, (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Wisconsin, U.S.A. The Great
Lakes Entomologist 34: 97-115.

Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP, Version 4.0b 10. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Sinauer.

Tebaldi, A. F. 1982. Genetic and Morphological Variation in Three Phenotypes of the Rocky
Mountain Butterfly Speyeria atlantis. Master's Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
51 pp.

Templeton, A. R., E. Routman, and C. A. Phillips. 1995. Separating population structure from
population history: a cladistic analysis of the geographical distribution of mitochondrial
DNA haplotypes in the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum. 140: 767-782.

The International Lepidoptera Survey. 2007. Standardized Common North American
Butterfly Names. (http://tils-ttr.org/sc-nabn/index.html) (Last accessed September 2007).

The Nymphalidae Systematics Group. 2007. (http://nymphalidae.utu.fi/index.htm) (Last
accessed September 2007).

Thomas, J. A. 1984. The conservation of butterflies in temperate countries: past efforts and
lessons for the future. pp. 333-353. In R. I. Vane-Wright and P. R. Ackery (eds.), The
biology of butterflies: symposium of the royal entomological society of London, number
11. Academic Press, London.









Threatful, D. L. 1988 (1989). A list of the butterflies and skippers of Mount Revelstoke and
Glacier National Parks, British Columbia, Canada (Lepidoptera). Journal of Research on
the Lepidoptera 27: 213-221.

Tietz, H. M. 1952. The Lepidoptera of Pennsylvania: a manual. The Pennsylvania State College
School of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station, State College, PA.

Tietz, H. M. 1972. An index to the described life histories, early stages and hosts of the
macrolepidoptera of the continental United States and Canada. The Allyn Museum of
Entomology, Sarasota, FL. 2 vols. 1-536; 537-1041 pp.

Tilden, J. W. 1963. The Argynnis populations of the Sand Creek Area, Klamath Co., Oregon.
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 109-113.

Tilden, J. W. and D. H. Huntzinger. 1977. The butterflies of Crater Lake National Park,
Oregon. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 16: 176-192.

Tilden, J. W. and A. C. Smith. 1986. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, MA.

Toliver, M. E., R. Holland, and S. J. Cary. 2001. Distribution of Butterflies in New Mexico
(Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). Published by R. Holland, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.

Tolman, T. 1997. Butterflies of Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Tree of Life Web Project. 2007. Argynnis. Simonsen, T., N. Wahlberg, and A. V. Z. Brower.
(http://www.tolweb.org/Argynnini/70206) (Last accessed September 2007).

Tuttle, J. P. [Ed.]. 1996-2006. The Lepidopterists' Society Season Summary. News of the
Lepidopterists' Society. Volumes 39-49.

Tuzov, V. K. 2003. Nymphalidae part 1: Tribe Argynnini: Argynnis, Issoria, Brenthis, Argyreus.
In G. C. Bozano [Ed.], Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region. Omnes Artes,
Milano, Italy.

Valentine, D. H. 1956. Variation and polymorphism in Viola. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 145: 315-319.

Vandewoestijne, S., M. Baguette, P. M. Brakefield, and I. J. Saccheri. 2004. Phylogeography
of Aglais urticae (Lepidoptera) based on DNA sequences of the mitochondrial COI gene
and control region. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 630-646.

Van Son, G. 1955. A proposal for the restriction of the use of the term subspecies. The
Lepidopterists' News 9: 1-3.

Van Regenmortel, M. H. 1997. Viral species. pp. 17-23. In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and
M. R. Wilson. Species: the units of biodiversity, Chapman and Hall.









Vaughan, D. M. and M. D. Shepherd. 2005a. Species profile: Speyeria diana. In Shepherd, M.
D., D. M. Vaughn and S. H. Black (eds.). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America.
CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, Oregon: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation.

Vaughan, D. M. and M. D. Shepherd. 2005b. Species profile: Speyeria idalia. In Shepherd, M.
D., D. M. Vaughn and S. H. Black (eds.). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America.
CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, Oregon: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation.

Vogler, A. P., R. Desalle, T. Assmann, C. B. Knisley, and T. D. Schultz. 1993. Molecular
population genetics of the endangered tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis (Coleoptera:
Cicindelidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 86: 142-152. .

Wagner, D. 1995. Rearing regals for reintroduction: playing the odds but still losing ground.
American Butterflies 3: 19-23.

Wagner, D. L. 2005. Caterpillars of Eastern North America. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.

Wahlberg, N., M. F. Braby, A. V. Z. Brower, R. deJong, M. Lee, S. Nylin, N. E. Pierce, F.
A. H. Sperling, R. Vila, A. D. Warren, and E. Zakharov. 2005. Synergistic effects of
combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and
skippers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272: 1577-1586.

Wahlberg, N., R. Oliveira, and J. A. Scott. 2003a. Phylogenetic relationships of Phyciodes
butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): complex mtDNA variation and species
delimitations. Systematic Entomology 28: 257-273.

Wahlberg, N., E. Weingartner, and S. Nylin. 2003b. Towards a better understanding of the
higher systematics of Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution 28: 473-484.

Wahlberg, N. and M. Zimmerman. 2000. Pattern of phylogenetic relationships among
members of the tribe Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from mitochondrial
DNA sequences. Cladistics 16: 347-363.

Warren, A. D. 2005. Lepidoptera of North America Vol. 6: Butterflies of Oregon their
taxonomy, distribution, and biology. Contributions of the C. P. Gillette Museum of
Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Warren, B. C. S. 1944. Review of the classification of the Argynnidi: With a systematic
revision of the genus Boloria (Lepidoptera; Nymphalidae). Transactions of the Royal
Entomological Society of London 94: 1-101.

Warren, B. C. S., C. F. dos Passos, and L. P. Grey. 1946. Supplementary notes on the
classification of Argynninae (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Proceedings of the Royal
Entomological Society London B 15: 71-73.









Warren, B. C. S. 1955. A review of the classification of the subfamily Argynninae. Part 2.
Definitions of the Asiatic genera. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of
London 107: 381-392.

Warren, M. S., J. K. Hill, J. A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley, D. B. Roy, M. G.
Telfer, S. Jeffcoate, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate, S. G. Willis, J. N. Greatorex-Davies, D.
Moss, and C. D. Thomas. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces
of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65-69.

Weiss, S. B., D. D. Murphy, and R.R. White. 1988. Sun, slope, and butterflies: topographic
determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69: 1486-1496.

Wells, P. V. 1983. Paleobiogeography of montane islands in the Great Basin since the last
glaciopluvial. Ecological Monographs 53: 341-382.

Wheeler, Q. D. 2003. Transforming taxonomy. The Systematist 22: 3-5.

Wiley, E. 0. 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Systematic Zoology 27:17-
26.

Will, K. W. and D. Rubinoff. 2004. Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot
replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics 20: 47-55.

Williams, B. L. 1999. Regal fritillaries in a tailspin: A story of East and West, DNA, and the
urgent need for the conservation of a flagship species. American Butterflies 7: 16-25.

Williams, B. E. [L.] 2001a. Recognition of western populations of Speyeria idalia
(Nymphalidae) as a new subspecies. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 55: 144-149.

Williams, B. L. 2001b. The evolutionary history and conservation of Speyeria idalia
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.

Williams, B. L. 2001c. Patterns of morphological variation in Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera:
Nymphalidae) with implications for taxonomy and conservation. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 94: 239-243.

Williams, B. L. 2002. Conservation genetics, extinction, and taxonomic status: A case history of
the regal fritillary. Extinction and Taxonomy 16: 148-157.

Williams, B. L., J. D. Brawn, and K. N. Paige. 2002. Highly polymorphic microsatellite loci
for Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Molecular Ecology Notes 2: 87-88.

Williams, B. L., J. D. Brawn, and K. N. Paige. 2003. Landscape and genetic effects of habitat
fragmentation on a high gene flow species: Speyeria idalia (Nymphalidae). Molecular
Ecology 12: 11-20.









Wilkinson, R. S. 1988a. Cyril Franklin Dos Passos (1887-1986). Journal of the Lepidopterists'
Society 42: 155-163.

Wilkinson, R. S. 1988b. Annotated bibliography of the entomological publications of Cyril F.
dos Passos (1887-1986). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 42: 168-183.

Wilson, E. 0. 1999. The Diversity of Life. W. W. Norton and Company, New York, New York.

Wilson, E. 0. and W. L. Brown, Jr. 1953. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic
application. Systematic Zoology 2: 97-111.

Winston, J. E. 1999. Describing species: practical taxonomic procedure for biologists. Columbia
University Press, New York, New York.

Woese, C. R. 2004. A new biology for a new century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Reviews 68: 173-186..

Yang, Z. and A. D. Yoder. 2003. Comparison of Likelihood and Bayesian methods for
estimating divergence times using multiple gene loci and calibration points, with
application to a radiation of cute-looking mouse lemur species. Systematic Biology 52:
705-716.

Zaspel, J. M. and S. J. Weller. 2006. Review of generic limits of the tiger moth genera Virbia
Walker and Holomelina Herrich-Schaffer (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae: Arctiinae) and their
biogeography. Zootaxa 1159: 1-68.

Zimmerman, M., N. Wahlberg, and H. Descimon. 2000. Phylogeny of Euphydryas
checkerspot butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) based on mitochondrial DNA
sequence data. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 93: 347-355.

Zirlin, H. 1996. Taxonomists just wanna have fun! Silver spangled goddesses. Part 1.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

James Christopher Dunford was born inl969 in Libertyville, Illinois. He is a graduate of

Wilmot Union High School in Wilmot, Wisconsin. James earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in

biology from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1996 and a Master of Science degree in

2000 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in entomology under the guidance of Dr. Daniel

Young. During his master's research, he worked for The Nature Conservancy in Madison,

Wisconsin. Upon completion of his master's degree, he worked as a curator at the Milwaukee

Public Museum before accepting a teaching assistantship and eventually a research assistantship

to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Florida. In 2001, he began a research

project on Speyeria butterflies under the guidance of Drs. Lee and Jacqueline Miller, Thomas

Emmel, James Maruniak, Carla Penz, Jon Reiskind, John Heppner and Paul Goldstein. He has

received national and University of Florida teaching awards, and was a recipient of the Health

Services Collegiate Scholarship from the United States Navy in 2004. Upon graduation in

December 2007, James will be commissioned as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and serve in the

medical service corps as an entomologist.





PAGE 1

1 THE GENUS SPEYERIA AND THE Speyeria atlantis / Speyeria hesperis COMPLEX: SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS, SYSTEMATICS, AND BIOGEOGRAPHY (LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE) By JAMES CHRISTOPHER DUNFORD A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 James Christopher Dunford

PAGE 3

3 To my family, James F. Dunford, Karen and Lee Schwind, and Kim Dunford, as well as my extended family, Robert Sr., Mary Jane, Robert Jr., Michael, Scott, Jeff and Mark Zukowski, and George and Rena Dunford, and Ca role Parshall; and finally my life long friends, Mitch Adams, Scott Brady, Stuart Iselin, John Kropp, Walter Sc hultz, and Greg Smith, who stood by my side as I pursued my entomological studies. Without thei r support (and patience), this would not have been possible. Good scientists surround themselves with great ones, and without the help of the superb biologists that I have had the great pleasure to work w ith along the way, I would not have attained some of my goals in life.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my co-c hairs Lee D. Miller and Jacqueline Y. Miller (Florida Museum of Natural History, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodi versity [MGCL]. Their guidance, advice, patience and most of all friends hip have made this research possible. I would also like to thank my remaining committee members Thomas C. Emmel (MGCL), Paul Z. Goldstein (MGCL), John B. Heppner (Florida Stat e Collection of Arthropods [FSCA]), James E. Maruniak (University of Flor ida, Entomology and Nematology Department [UF-Ent. & Nem. Dept.]), Carla M. Penz (University of New Orleans, Biology Department), and Jon Reiskind (University of Florida, Zoology Department), fo r providing their time, expertise, and support in the form of recommendation letters and encouragement. Most of this research would not have been possible without them. I truly admire the great amount of knowledge my collective committee has provided to the scientific commun ity, and I hope to someday be as established and prominent as they are. A very special thanks goes to the institu tions, professional societies, and government agencies who provided financial support for this research; they are: American Museum of Natural History [AMNH] (Theodor e Roosevelt Memorial Grant), Florida Entomological Society (mini-grants and scholarships), Florida Museum of Natural History and Paul Goldstein (research assistantship), United States Navy (Health Servic es Collegiate Scholarship Program), UF-Ent. & Nem. Dept. (teaching assistants hip), and University of Florid a Jack L. Fry Award (teaching scholarship). Numerous individuals from ar ound the country and the world provided specimens, images, specimen locality data, supervision in collections unde r their care, access to li terature in libraries, and their expertise on topics cove red in this project. I am extremely grateful for the time they spent helping this dissertation come to fru ition and I sincerely hope I do not forget to

PAGE 5

5 acknowledge anyone who contributed: Thomas Alle n (West Virginia), George Austin (Nevada State Museum [NSM], MGCL), George Baumga rtner (NSM), Barbara Beck (University of Alberta), Jim Beck (Alberta), James Boone (Fie ld Museum of Natural History), Su Borkin (Milwaukee Public Museum [MPM]), Brett Boyd (MGCL), Bruce Boyd (Nevada), Craig Brabant (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Depa rtment of Entomology [UWM-Dept. Ent.]), Colin Brammer (Utah State University Insect Collection [EMUS]), Brian Brown (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County [L ACM]), Jon Bremmer (MGCL ), Kim Goodger Buckmaster (British Museum of Natural History [BMNH; no w NHM]), Shawn Clark (Monte L. Bean Museum of Life ScienceBrigham Young University), Robert Ekin (Idaho), Clifford Ferris (Wyoming), Mike Fisher (Color ado), Daniel Glaeske (Saskatc hewan), Traci Grzymala (MGCL volunteer), Crispin Guppy (Briti sh Columbia), Wilford Hanson (EMUS), Richard Holland (New Mexico), Martin Honey (BMNH; now NHM), William Houtz (Pennsyl vania), Seungjin Jang (MGCL volunteer), Joan Jass (MPM), Ted Kirkpatr ick (West Virginia), Scott Klette (NSM), Norbert Kondla (British Columbia), Hugo Kons, Jr. (American Entomologi cal Institute), James Kruse (University of Alaska-Museum of the North), Robert Lasley (MGCL), Ross Layberry (Ontario), Deborah Matthews Lott (MGCL Resear ch Associate), Heather Manley (MGCL), Gary Marrone (South Dakota), Daniel Marschalek (UWM-Dept. Ent.), Sterling Mattoon (California), Don Miller (Vermont), Paul Op ler (C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity, Colorado State University), Kenelm Philip (Alaska), Ted Pike (Alberta), Beverly Pope (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Serv ices, Department of Plant Industry Library [FDACS, DPI Library]), Eric Quinter (AMNH), John Rawlins (C arnegie Museum of Natural History), Jim Reynolds (BMNH; now NHM), Robert Robbins (N ational Museum of Natural History), Don Rolfs (Washington), Richard Ro meyn (Wisconsin), Gary Ross (Louisiana),

PAGE 6

6 Ronald Royer (Minot State University), Alice Sanders (FDACS, DPI Library), Dennis Schlicht (Iowa), James Scott (Colorado), Scott Shaw (U niversity of Wyoming Insect Museum), Jon Shepard (Washington), Thomas Simonsen (Unive rsity of Copenhagen, Univ ersity of Alberta), Steven Sims (Missouri), Charlie Slater (Color ado), Steve Spomer (University of Nebraska, Department of Entomology), Ray Stanford (Colorado), David Wagner (University of Connecticut), Andrew Warren (Oregon State Un iversity, Department of Entomology and FLMNH), Andrew Williams (UWM-Dept. Ent.), Barry Williams (University of Illinois, Department of Animal Biology, University of Wisconsin, Madison Howard Hughes Medical Institute), and Weiping Xie (LAC M). I would also like to thank Alex Borisenko, Robert Hanner, Evgeny Zakharov (Canadian Barcode of Life Ne twork, University of Guelph), and Kevin Nixon (Diversity of Life, Cornell University) for pr oviding workspace on their web sites and assistance with molecular analyses and dist ributional databasing respectively; their web sites are invaluable tools for modern taxonomic and systematic resear ch and dissemination of these kinds of data. I am forever indebted to several people who not only provided specimens, images, and distributional information, but also took the time to entertain and guide me to collecting sites in various regions of the western U. S. Paul Opler and Evi Buckner-O pler allowed me to stay in their home while collecting in Co lorado. Paul kindly invited me on the 2003 Gilpin Co. Butterfly Count and took me to severa l collecting sites in the Speyeria -rich Rocky Mountains. Don Rolfs took care of me at his home in Washington and sh owed me a thing or two about hiking in the Cascades, which were at much higher elevation th an my home in Florida. Bob Ekin taught me how to catch fritillaries throughout the western U.S. with a net in one hand and a beverage in the other, and Bob Martin took me deep into the Scapegoat Wilderness in Montana and instructed

PAGE 7

7 me on how to deal with grizzly bears. Cliff Ferris graciously allo wed me to visit his home in Laramie, Wyoming to examine his extensive Speyeria collection. Several faculty, students, and staff in the UF-Ent. & Nem. Dept and FLMNH, McGuire Center were invaluable informati onal resources and were always w illing to help with my various teaching and research endeavors, projects and ad ministrative issues over the years. First and foremost, I would like to thank George Austin at the MGCL. He was not only a source for important references, but he was also an inspir ation to me professionally and personally. I also thank the following individuals for making research at UF a rewarding and fulfilling experience: Kathryn Barbara, Marc Branham, Eileen Buss, Lyle Buss, Jerry Butler, Seth Bybee, John Capinera, Paul Choate, Pete Coon, James Cuda Jaret Daniels, Aissa Doumbouya, Christine Eliazar, Thomas Fasulo, John Foltz, Howard Fr ank, Judy Gillmore, Debbie Hall, Donald Hall, Sharon Hoopaugh, Nick Hostettler, Pam Howe ll, Philip Kaufman, Steve Lasley, John Leavengood, Norman Leppla, James Lloyd, Ale Maruniak, Raquel McTiernan, Jane Medley, Jason Meyers, Jennifer Meyers, Eu genio Nearns, J. Akers Pence, Leslie Rios, Emily Saarinen, Nancy Sanders, Mike Sanford, Ke lly Sims, Grover Smart, Andrei Sourakov, Ricardo Vazquez, and Jennifer Zaspel. Finally, I thank close family and friends: Ki m Dunford, James F. Dunford, Karen and Lee Schwind, Bob, Jeff, Mark, Midge and Scott Zukowsk i, Mitch Adams, Scott Brady, Stuart Iselin, Brett Favre, John Kropp, and Greg Smith. A little insanity can go along way, especially when your interest in an odd topic such as entomol ogy becomes a career. Thanks for rooting for me, and most of all, treating me like a normal human being.

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........11 LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................12 ABSTRACT...........7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW: RESEARCH BACKGROUND, JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, AND HYPOTHESES....................................................19 Speyeria Butterflies: Introduction and Literature Review......................................................19 Overview and Taxonomic History..................................................................................19 Life History................................................................................................................... ..27 Research Background and Justification..................................................................................36 Taxonomy and Systematics.............................................................................................36 Conservation................................................................................................................... .42 Subspecies and Species Criteria......................................................................................44 Objectives and Hypotheses.....................................................................................................4 9 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ...49 Central and Peripheral Hypotheses.................................................................................50 2 SPEYERIA DIAGNOSIS AND KEY TO SPECIES, SPECIES ACCOUNTS, AND SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS..............51 Materials and Methods.......................................................................................................... .52 Speyeria Diagnosis.................................................................................................................55 Key to the Species of Speyeria ...............................................................................................59 Species Accounts............................................................................................................... .....61 Speyeria idalia .................................................................................................................61 Speyeria diana .................................................................................................................63 Speyeria cybele ................................................................................................................65 Speyeria aphrodite ...........................................................................................................66 Speyeria nokomis .............................................................................................................67 Speyeria edwardsii ..........................................................................................................69 Speyeria coronis ..............................................................................................................70 Speyeria zerene ................................................................................................................71 Speyeria carolae ..............................................................................................................73 Speyeria callippe .............................................................................................................74 Speyeria egleis .................................................................................................................75 Speyeria adiaste ...............................................................................................................76 Speyeria atlantis ..............................................................................................................77

PAGE 9

9 Speyeria hesperis .............................................................................................................79 Speyeria hydaspe .............................................................................................................80 Speyeria mormonia ..........................................................................................................81 Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis Subspecies Accounts..............................................82 Speyeria atlantis atlantis .................................................................................................82 Speyeria atlantis hollandi ................................................................................................83 Speyeria atlantis sorocko ................................................................................................83 Speyeria atlantis pahasapa ..............................................................................................84 Speyeria hesperis hesperis ..............................................................................................84 Speyeria hesperis helena .................................................................................................84 Speyeria hesperis beani ...................................................................................................85 Speyeria hesperis brico ...................................................................................................85 Speyeria hesperis ratonensis ...........................................................................................86 Speyeria hesperis greyi ....................................................................................................86 Speyeria hesperis lurana .................................................................................................87 Speyeria hesperis irene ....................................................................................................87 Speyeria hesperis cottlei ..................................................................................................88 Speyeria hesperis hanseni ...............................................................................................89 Speyeria hesperis dodgei .................................................................................................89 Speyeria hesperis viola ....................................................................................................90 Speyeria hesperis elko .....................................................................................................90 Speyeria hesperis tetonia .................................................................................................91 Speyeria hesperis wasatchia ............................................................................................91 Speyeria hesperis chitone ................................................................................................92 Speyeria hesperis electa ..................................................................................................92 Speyeria hesperis schellbachi ..........................................................................................93 Speyeria hesperis dorothea .............................................................................................93 Speyeria hesperis nausicaa .............................................................................................94 Speyeria hesperis capitanensis ........................................................................................94 3 PHYLOGENY OF SPEYERIA ...............................................................................................130 Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................1 37 Taxon Sampling.............................................................................................................139 Character Sampling.......................................................................................................139 Phylogenetic Analyses...................................................................................................139 Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... 140 4 BIOGEOGRAPHY AND GENITALIC SURVEY OF SPEYERIA WITH EMPHASIS ON OVERLAPPING SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS POPULATIONS...................................................................................................................1 64 Materials and Methods.........................................................................................................1 70 Taxon Sampling.............................................................................................................170 Preparation of Material..................................................................................................171 Databasing..................................................................................................................... 172 Results and Discussion......................................................................................................... 173

PAGE 10

10 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................195 APPENDIX…………………………………………….......…………………………….……..201 COI SEQUENCES FOR 16 SPECIES OF SPEYERIA …………………………………...……201 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 206 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................245

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. Checklist of Speyeria species and subspeci es treated herein.................................................96 2-2. List of museum abbreviations.............................................................................................. ...97 3-1. List of taxa included in the primary analyses.......................................................................148 3-2. Synopsis of characters and states used for phylogenetic analyses.......................................149 3-3. Data matrix for characters............................................................................................... ....150 4-1. Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies and a ssociated ventral............................... hindwing characters..................................................................................................... .........181 4-2. Species and subspecies examined and de scriptions of male genitalic armature..................182

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. Original description for ‘ Idalia ’...........................................................................................98 2-2. Wing terminology associated with species of Speyeria .......................................................99 2-3. Wing venation and cell scheme........................................................................................... .99 2-4. Images of adult Speyeria diana ..........................................................................................100 2-5. Type images for Speyeria diana .........................................................................................100 2-6. Type images for Speyeria cybele ........................................................................................101 2-7. Type images for Speyeria aphrodite ..................................................................................101 2-8. Images of Speyeria idalia life stages..................................................................................102 2-9. Type images for Speyeria idalia .........................................................................................102 2-10. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria idalia ...........................................................................103 2-11. Type images for Speyeria nokomis ....................................................................................103 2-12 Type images for Speyeria nokomis ....................................................................................104 2-13. Type images for Speyeria edwardsii .................................................................................104 2-14. Digitus located on left valva, Speyeria edwardsii .............................................................105 2-15. Type images for Speyeria coronis .....................................................................................105 2-16. Habitus image of Speyeria zerene ( gunderi ).....................................................................106 2-17. Type images for Speyeria zerene .......................................................................................106 2-18. Type images for Speyeria carolae .....................................................................................107 2-19. Speyeria callippe ( harmonia )............................................................................................107 2-20. Type images for Speyeria callippe ....................................................................................108 2-21. Type images for Speyeria egleis ........................................................................................109 2-22. Type images for Speyeria adiaste .....................................................................................110 2-23. Type images for Speyeria adiaste .....................................................................................110

PAGE 13

13 2-24. Type images for Speyeria atlantis .....................................................................................111 2-25. Type images for Speyeria hesperis ....................................................................................111 2-26. Type images for Speyeria hydaspe ....................................................................................112 2-27. Habitus image of Speyeria mormonia ( artonis )................................................................112 2-28. Type images for Speyeria mormonia .................................................................................113 2-29. Type images for Speyeria atlantis canadensis ..................................................................114 2-30. Type images for Speyeria atlantis hollandi .......................................................................114 2-31. Type images for Speyeria atlantis sorocko .......................................................................115 2-32. Type images for Speyeria atlantis pahasapa ....................................................................115 2-33. Type images for Speyeria hesperis helena ........................................................................116 2-34. Type images for Speyeria atlantis dennisi ........................................................................116 2-35. Type images for Speyeria hesperis beani ..........................................................................117 2-36. Types images for Speyeria hesperis brico .........................................................................117 2-37. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis ratonensis .........................................................................118 2-38. Type images for Speyeria hesperis greyi ..........................................................................118 2-39. Type images for Speyeria hesperis lurana ........................................................................119 2-40. Type images for Speyeria hesperis irene ..........................................................................119 2-41. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis hanseni .............................................................................120 2-42. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dodgei ........................................................................121 2-43. Type images for Speyeria hesperis viola ...........................................................................121 2-44. Type images for Speyeria hesperis elko ............................................................................122 2-45. Type images for Speyeria hesperis tetonia ........................................................................122 2-46. Type images for Speyeria hesperis wasatchia ..................................................................123 2-47. Type images for Speyeria hesperis chitone .......................................................................123 2-48. Type images for Speyeria hesperis electa .........................................................................124

PAGE 14

14 2-49. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nikias .........................................................................124 2-50. Holotype of Speyeria hesperis schellbachi .......................................................................125 2-51. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dorothea ....................................................................125 2-52. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nausicaa ....................................................................126 2-53. Type images for Speyeria hesperis capitanensis ...............................................................126 2-54. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby Mountains, Nevada....................................................................127 2-55. Hospital Flats, near Mt. Gr aham, Pinaleo Mountains, Arizona......................................127 2-56. View of Pinaleo M ountains in the morning.....................................................................128 2-57. View of Pinaleo Mountai ns in the early afternoon..........................................................128 2-58. Open glade in Sandia Mountains, New Mexico................................................................129 3-1. Intuitive phylogeny of subtribe Argynnina.......................................................................151 3-2. Intuitive phylogeny of Speyeria ........................................................................................151 3-3. Dendrogram of gene tic similarity between 10 Speyeria species.......................................152 3-4. Phylogenetic interpretation of Speyeria callippe subspecies............................................152 3-5. Strict consensus tree of Argynnini..................................................................................... 153 3-6. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 30 characters.................................................................154 3-7. Phylogeny of Speyeria generated at Barcode of Life Data Systems.................................155 3-8. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on COI................................................................................156 3-9. Phylogram of Speyeria based on COI...............................................................................157 3-10. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on combined morphology and COI....................................158 3-11. Phylogram of Speyeria based on combined morphology and COI...................................159 3-12. Phylogeny of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on COI.................................160 3-13. Phylogram of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on COI................................161 3-14. Phylogeny of Argynnini.................................................................................................. ..162 3-15. Phylogeny of Argynnis based on COI……………………………………………….......163

PAGE 15

15 4-1. Illustration and associated term inology of male genitalic armature of Speyeria .................... atlantis ............................................................................................................................... .184 4-2. Male genitalic armature ( Speyeria idalia ) and associated terminology............................184 4-3. Distributional map of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies.......................185 4-4. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis in the northeastern United States.........................185 4-5. Distribution map for Speyeria hesperis (sample interactive aeri al topo map generated......... at DiversityofLife.org).............................................................................................. .........186 4-6. Distribution map for Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies..............................................186 4-7. Ventral hindwing images of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies............187 4-8. Examples of wing vouchers.............................................................................................. .187 4-9. Male genitalia of Speyeria .................................................................................................188 4-10. Male genitalia of Speyeria .................................................................................................188 4-12. Male genitalia of Speyeria cybele (Missouri)....................................................................189 4-13. Male genitalia of Speyeria atlantis (West Virginia)..........................................................189 4-14. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming)....................................................189 4-15. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Wyomi ng).................................................190 4-16. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....190 4-17. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....190 4-18. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....191 4-19. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....191 4-20. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....191 4-21. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....192 4-22. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....192 4-23. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....192 4-24. Image of bursa copulatrix............................................................................................... ...193

PAGE 16

16 4-25. Male gentialia of Speyeria .................................................................................................193 4-26. Male genitalic armature................................................................................................. ....194 4-27. Images of adult Speyeria using ultraviolet light.................................................................194

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE GENUS SPEYERIA AND THE Speyeria atlantis / Speyeria hesperis COMPLEX: SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS, SYSTEMATICS, AND BIOGEOGRAPHY (LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE) By JAMES CHRISTOPHER DUNFORD December 2007 Chair: Lee D. Miller Cochair: Jacqueline Y. Miller Major: Entomology and Nematology Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae : Argynnini) are medium to large butterflies that repr esent conspicuous members of North American Lepidoptera. Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species, and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies. Long included in the Old World genus Argynnis they differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic structure and were consid ered generically distinct from Argynnis in 1945. Varying degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and occas ional contact of disjunct populations likely provide developmenta l processes that produce gradients, thresholds, and wing pattern changes in Speyeria. The Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis species complexes are represented by several widely di stributed, geographically variable subspecies. These subspecific taxa have dist ributions that range from the eastern United States and Canada, west to California, as far north as Alaska and south to Arizona and New Mexico. Each subspecies occurs more or less sympatrically, eith er by latitude or eleva tion, with other members of the group, thus providing useful models for evolutionary studies. Detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25 Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies are compiled. Each diagnos is includes a synonymy, type specimen

PAGE 18

18 data and image, taxonomic information and morp hological descriptions, distributions, and life history information. Distributiona l data is gleaned from museum and private collection locality records and databased in order to un derstand the degree of sympatry of Speyeria atlantis and S hesperis forms. Several errors in the nomenclatu re, type specimen data, and morphological descriptions for Speyeria are also identified. Phylogenetic analyses are also conducted on the 16 currently r ecognized species of Speyeria Investigation of useful external and internal mor phological characters was made, including a survey of the genitalia of Speyeria with emphasis on the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis complex. Phylogenetic analyses ar e based on combined morphologica l, life history, and genetic data. The genus apparently represents a relatively recent radiation of species, with the only clear divergence being those members of the Semnopsyche ‘clade.’ Based on combined morphological and molecular analyses, Speyeria represent a monophyletic grouping. This work provides relevant insight into the interand intraspeci fic relationships and e volutionary history of Speyeria and provides information pertinent to conser vation strategies and priorities for this taxon.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE RE VIEW: RESEARCH BACKGROUND, JUSTIFICATION, OBJECTIVES, AND HYPOTHESES Speyeria Butterflies: Introduction and Literature Review Overview and Taxonomic History Speyeria Scudder (1872) (Nymphalidae: He liconiinae: Argynnini), or greater fritillaries, are medium to large butterflies that repres ent conspicuous members of North American Lepidoptera. The genus was named in honor of a German lepidopterist, Adolph Karl Speyer, who specialized in butterfly studies (Opler and Krizek 1984; Zirlin 1996; Guppy and Shepard 2001). The origin of the common name “fritillaries ” is obscure, and one explanation is that the butterflies resemble the lily genus Fritillaria (Guppy and Shepard 2001). The Latin term “ fritillus ” means “dice box”, and could also refer to the spotted pattern on the wings (Field 1938). Speyeria as currently defined, is restricted to North America (absent in southeastern regions of the United States and most of Mexico) (Elwes 1889; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978). Morphologically similar genera exist in other temp erate parts of the world and together may be considered the temperate-zone counterpart to tropical Heliconiini (Hammond 1978; Scott 1986b). Recent workers have treated Speyeria as a subgenus of the pr imarily Palearctic genus Argynnis Fabricius 1807 (Tuzov 2003; Simonsen 2006c). Until further data can be analyzed and convincingly corroborated with the recent findi ngs of these phylogenetic studies, the name Speyeria will be retained herein. Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species (Opler and Warren 2005), and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies (dos Pa ssos 1964; McHenry 1964; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981; Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983; Ferris 1989a,b). Speyeria cybele (Fabricius), S. aphrodite (Fabricius), S. idalia (Drury), and S. atlantis (W.H. Edwards) occur in the eastern half of North America (east of the Mississippi River), each with distributions or

PAGE 20

20 subspecies occurring in the west, while S. diana (Cramer) of the eastern United States is restricted to the Appalachian and Ozark Mount ains (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). The remaini ng species occur in the western regions of North America. All but three Speyeria species are extremely variable [exceptions include S. diana S. idalia and S. edwardsii (Reakirt)], with the western North American species in particular fragmenting into numerous geographic races that are often c linally joined with considerable intergradation or blending occurring. Adults are more or less orange in color with darker wing veins and spots, often with silver or cream-white ventral hindwing spots. The s ilver spots owe their me tallic appearance to refracted light rather than pi gmentation (Scott 1988). Determin ations are made primarily by utilizing wing facies and geogr aphical location, and b ecause of this, specific and subspecific identification is difficult in many taxa due to subtle wing pattern variations. Eye coloration has been proposed to discern some of the more wi despread North American species (Glassberg 2000), although this coloration is usually lost in deceased individuals. Within Speyeria adult morphological variation between sp ecies and subspecies is by a nd large the following: overall size; degree of sexual dimorphism; wings: dorsally by ground color, intens ity of black markings, degree of dark basal suffusion, prominence of marginal band, thickness of veins on the wings; ventrally by the general gr ound color of the discal region, size, shape, color and position of spots on the hindwings, and color and width of submargi nal band between the two outer rows of spots on hindwings. Speyeria species have been collected and examined in great detail in th e past and continue to be of major interest for professional and am ateur collectors. Those who have studied the genus for years have often contradicted themselves, and competent authors living at some distance

PAGE 21

21 from one another have described the same sp ecies under different names. W. H. Edwards (1863a,b; 1864a; 1869; 1870; 1874a,b; 1878; 1879a ,b; 1881; 1883) and J. D. Gunder (1924; 1927; 1929; 1931; 1932; 1934) described numerous Argynnis (= Speyeria ) species, subspecies, and aberrant forms before species limits and clin al patterns were more readily recognized by subsequent authors. Ge ographic variation in Speyeria was first studied in detail by Comstock (1927=1989 reprint), Holland ( 1898, 1931), and later by Grey ( 1951), Moeck (1957), Hovanitz (1967), Howe (1975), and Hammond (1978). The earlier works listed dozens of “species” names (Holland 1898: 47 species), but subs equent authors realized that most of these “species” were no more than geographical forms or races associat ed with a few polytypic species (dos Passos and Grey 1947; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Miller and Brown 1981; Scott 1986b). C. F. dos Passos and L. P. Grey, two amateur lepidopterists, played an important role in sorting out species relationships and geogra phical variation within Speyeria and presented methodologies and substantial collections that have provided a foundation for subsequent studies on Speyeria and closely related groups (Grey 1964, 1970; Rindge 1987; Wilkinson 1988a, b). Studies conducted by Guppy (1953) and later by Grey et al. (1963) and Mattoon et al. ( 1971) elucidated some of the difficulties of rearing Speyeria The ability to break natural larval diapause during breeding experiments was helpful in understanding ecological data and in turn species limits within Speyeria Historically, three Speyeria species (i.e., S. diana S. cybele S. aphrodite ) have been recognized as the subgenus Semnopsyche Scudder (1875) based primarily on differences in the female genitalic armature (dos Passos a nd Grey 1945a, 1947; Kl ots 1951; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). Scudder (1875) first included only S. diana in the Semnopsyche group based on wing and leg morphology. Miller and Brown (1981) correctly placed Semnopsyche as a

PAGE 22

22 synonym of Speyeria but did not provide a reason for doing so; they likely followed the recommendation of dos Passos and Grey (1947) Upon further examination of the female genitalic armature of Speyeria idalia (the generotype of the genus ), Grey (1989) discovered a “secondary” bursal sac similar to those found in the Semnopsyche group, and thus definitively listed Semnopsyche as a junior synonym for Speyeria Dos Passos and Grey (1947) prepared an extensive revision of the group in accordance wi th the latest concep ts of speciation and systematics at that time and listed 13 species and 96 subspecies. Since then, several additional subspecies have been described, three subspecies have been elev ated to full species status, and some names have been declared synonyms (e.g., Garth 1949; Moeck 1947, 1950; Austin 1983; Hammond and Dornfeld 1983; Holland 1988; E mmel and Austin 1998; Emmel and Emmel 1998a,b; Emmel et al. 1998d; Gatrelle 1998; Scott et al. 1998; Williams 2001a). Speyeria long included in the Old World genus Argynnis (Argynninae) (Elwes 1889; Snyder 1900; Lehmann 1913; Seitz 1924), differ fr om their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic structure (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Dornfeld 1980). They were considered generically distinct from Argynnis by dos Passos and Grey (1945a ); all North American taxa named since that time have been described within Speyeria Nonetheless, Argynnis was retained in some popular guides and ot her literature (e.g., Garth 1950; Ga rth and Tilden 1963; Hovanitz 1962, 1963a,b; Sette 1962). McHenry (1963, 1964) attempted to resu rrect the use of Argynnis but this has not been followed in North Am erica (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). Howe ver, recent work conducted by Simonsen (2006a,b,c) and Simonsen et al. (2006) have provided some morphological and molecular evidence that suggest s the remainder of Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is retained as a separate genus.

PAGE 23

23 Reuss (1922, 1926a,b) erected the subfam ily Argynninae based on genitalic and androconial characters and divided Argynnis into different subtribe s and genera. Warren (1944) conducted a revision of European argynnines based primarily on male genita lia and concentrated on the genus Boloria Moore. At the same time, dos Passo s and Grey (1945a) provided a revision of the argynnines (primarily Speyeria ) utilizing genitalic structures Warren et al. (1946) divided the Argynninae and placed Boloria within the Boloriidi, distinguish ing the tribe from others in the Argynnidi (i.e., Speyeria and Argynnis ). Grey (1957, 1989) later agreed with some of Warren’s assertions of affinities between Speyeria and genera such as Mesoacidalia but criticized the use of one set of characters, those of male genitalia. Ackery (1988) partially adopted the classificatio n of Warren (1944) and dos Passos an d Grey (1945a) but included the New World genera Yramea Reuss and Euptoieta Doubleday. Ehrlich (1958) included Speyeria within the Nymphalinae but noted that the helico nian taxa were worthy of subfamilial rank and appeared to fall in closely with Argynnis and its allies. Scott (1984), based on numerous morphological and behavioral characters taken mos tly from previous studies, noted the close relationship between the Heliconi ini and Argynnini and stated th at the two tribes cannot be sustained on a worldwide basis due to inconsistencies with host plant use, humeral veins, and larval head spines, and suggested that they be combined into Heliconiini by priority. The subfamily Heliconiinae has only been recently delim ited as it is now by Harvey (1991), when he placed the Argynninae (i.e., Argynnis and Speyeria ) within the heliconiine tribe Heliconiini based on adult and larval morphology. Subseque nt higher systematic work within the Nymphalidae has also included Argynnis and/or Speyeria within Heliconiini (Brower 2000b; Wahlberg et al. 2003b; Freitas and Brown 2004).

PAGE 24

24 Since the precladistic works of Warren (1944, 1955), dos Passos and Grey (1945a), and Moeck (1957), and early systematic works of Shirzu and Saigusa ( 1973) and Hammond (1978), only a few workers have treated genera within the Argynnini utilizing modern systematic techniques. Based on adult and larval morphol ogy utilizing phylogenetic analyses, Penz and Peggie (2003) suggested that Heliconiinae be divided into four groups, and included Speyeria within the Argynnini. Their study utilized S. aphrodite and S. mormonia each representing hypothetically derived and basal Speyeria species, respectively. Th e argynnines in their study were the most derived monophyletic group within the Heliconiinae, implying that species diversification within the group occurred more recently than the emergence of ancestral neotropical heliconiines. By cont rast, however, the fairly rece nt morphological and molecular work of Brower (2000c) placed the neotropical taxa as more derived than the argynnine fritillaries, indicating that there is difficulty in accurately recove ring the evolutionary history of taxa that emerged a long time ago (Penz and Peggie 2003). The morphological and molecular work of Si monsen et al. (2006) provided evidence of monophyletic groups for six genera within the Argynnini, reducing Speyeria to a subgenus of Argynnis In both of these studies the European genera Fabriciana Reuss and Mesoacidalia Reuss [both genera are included in Argynnis in Simonsen et al. (2006)] are hypothetically closely related to Speyeria In addition, a fairly well-s upported clade comprising all Argynnis species (including Speyeria ) supports the unification of all larger fritillaries in one genus (Simonsen et al. 2006). Hypothetically closely related heliconiin e taxa with distributions in North America include Clossiana Reuss (= Boloria ) and Euptoieta (Harvey 1991; Penz and Peggie 2003) Present day computer websites such as The Nymphalidae Systematics Group (date last accessed

PAGE 25

25 Aug 2007) and Tree of Life Web Project (dat e last accessed Aug 2007) follow the taxonomic works of Simonsen et al. (2006) and utilize Argynnis when listing Speyeria species. Much of the speciation and subspeciation within Speyeria as we know it today, probably came about in the past ten thousand years as a co nsequence of the last glacial retreat and the climatic readjustments in its wake (Gre y 1951; Hammond 1990). Glaci al movements have indisputably had a major effect on many taxa as species’ distributions shifted in response to climatic fluctuations (Wells 1983; Hasle tt 1997a,b; Parmesan et al. 1999; Knowles 2001). Pleistocene glaciations likely promot ed speciation in groups such as Speyeria because divergence among allopatric gl acial refugia or founder even ts during recolonization of previously glaciated areas would have promoted differentiation (Hammond 1990). Climatological events, especially in western No rth America, have resulted in numerous montane “island” butterfly populations (Howe 1975; Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997; Fleishman et al. 2001a). Hammond (1990) noted that Speyeria callippe populations have evolved and spread by a peripheral budding pr ocess southward and eastward ac ross much of western North America. Lowland deserts and high mountain ra nges combined with Pleistocene climatic fluctuations have likely served as isolating barriers during this process. The creation of new, descendant populations via major ecological shifts into new environments have allowed for morphological changes in S. callippe Speyeria and their larval hostplants Viola L. (Violaceae) have proven to be vigorous colonizers of ash-pumice habitats in the Cas cades where other Lepidoptera species have been completely excluded from this habitat due to restrictive limitations in their physiology and ecological adaptations (Hammond 1981). This may have been the case as climate and environmental changes occurred during glacial and interglaci al episodes. Montane faunas

PAGE 26

26 (including several Speyeria species) of the remaining coniferous forests on the Great Plains, such as those in the Black Hills, apparently represen t relicts of former, more extensive populations that now occur further west and should be c onsidered a distinct ar ea of speciation (Johnson 1975). Varying degrees of isolation via geographical and glacial histories, dispersal and occasional contact of disjunct populations likely provide developmental processes that produce gradients, thresholds, and pattern changes in Speyeria (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Howe 1975; Hammond 1990). Many Speyeria also exhibit considerable ecological plasticity and adults frequently invade the habitats of related species. However, there appears to be a sharp segregation among species in the types of habitat utili zed by the larvae (Hammond 1974, 1981). Speyeria larvae do not appear to be restricted to any particular specie s of violet and will feed on any native violet that happens to be growing in the appropriate habitat. The broad acceptance of many violet species in the laboratory (Scott 1986b) and in the field suggests that other ha bitat factors besides hostplant availability strongly affect th e distribution and abundance of Speyeria (Swengel 1997). Ecological segregation of Speyeria species, which may be occurring at present, is largely the result of interspecific competition for the larv al food plant in various habitats (Hammond 1974, 1981). Adult nectar source distribu tion and availability may also play a role in selection of hostplant individuals or even species in habi tats where the two are proximal to each other (Murphy et al. 1984; Ross 2003). Violets exhibit environmental plasticity (V alentine 1956) and species mirror the habitat diversity of Speyeria In western North America, various violet species will grow in wet boggy meadows, dry or well-drained meadows, mesic fo rests, and xeric grasslands or mountainsides (Baird 1942; Hammond 1981). Butterfly biology has b een linked to host plant strategies, and

PAGE 27

27 population attributes and geogra phical distribution may be sign ificantly and substantially affected by host choice and the strategies of hos tplants (Dennis et al. 2004). Ehrlich and Raven (1964) noted that significant patterns exist in the hostplant relationships of Heliconiini and Argynnini, and that their dive rsification may have taken place from a common ancestor associated with their respective assemblages of plants. Evolutionarily speaking, Speyeria are prone to local adaptati ons and show the effects of genetic drift. At any one point in time, species and subspecies “state s” become fixed into differentiated wing patterns and colors, and wo rkers have responded by describing species or subspecies. Speyeria species have been the subjects of evolutionary-related studies on geographical variation and speciation (e.g., Grey 1951; Mo eck 1957; Grey et al. 1963; Hammond 1978, 1990; Scott et al. 1998). However, th ere has not been a comprehensive, modern cladistic analysis for Speyeria and several questions still need to be addressed: Which species are basal and which are derived? Which subspecies designations, if any, are valid? Is full species status warranted for any subspecific taxa a nd what were/are the pr eand post-isolating mechanisms of these cryptic species? Present-da y phylogenetic approaches utilizing molecular, morphological and life history tra its may provide an additional to ol to address some of these unanswered systematic questions. Life History The Argynnini presently comprise over 100 specie s and six genera as currently defined by Simonsen et al. (2006). Almost a ll species are found in temperate, arctic or alpine areas mainly in Palearctic or Nearctic Regions, although a few species occur in the mountains of South America and Africa (Se itz 1924; Sbordoni and Forestiero 1998; Smart 1989; Simonsen et al. 2006). Argynnini is also represen ted in Australia and New Guin ea in swampy habitats by the widely distributed Argynnis inconstans (= hyperbius ) Butler (Common and Waterhouse 1972;

PAGE 28

28 Simonsen et al. 2006). Adults frequent open fi elds, moist meadows, or open woodlands near streams, while others seem to be restricted to coastal dunes, tallgrass prairies or high mountains (Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). During the summer months, they may be abundant in forest clearing s, along roadsides, and on flower-rich slopes and in meadows in mountainous regions. Speyeria often prefer tall nectar sources such as thistles, wild asters, and sunflowers, as well as pe nstemons, mint and dogbane (Dornfeld 1980; Scott 1986b). They may not, however, be effectiv e pollen dispersers for some plants. Speyeria cybele and S. aphrodite were observed to carry many pollinia of Asclepias exaltata on their legs (Broyles and Wyatt 1991). However, upon aligh ting on a flower, they would often grasp the petals rather than reproductiv e parts, reducing the chances of both pollinium insertion and removal (Broyles and Wyatt 1991). Adult Speyeria are strong fliers and can fly many kilometers (especially in late summer) and are rather long lived (several weeks to 2-3 months from MaySeptember) (Scott 1986b; Tilden and Smith 1986; Pyle 1995; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999). All members of the genus are univoltine (Scott 1986b; Opler and Wright 1999). Scott and Epstein (1987) noted that in temperate climates, the longer the life span (many Speyeria individuals live longer than a year from egg to the end of adulthood), the longer the flight period is fo r adult butterflies. Adult males typically emerge a week before fe males, and males patrol for potential mates (Hammond 1974; Scott 1975, 1986b). Cour tship is rather elaborate, and pheromone cues from both sexes may be a reproductive barrier betwee n species (Hammond 1974; Scott 1986b; Scott et al. 1998). Speyeria atlantis [as well as other Argynnini (Selli er 1973; Magnus 1958)] adults bear scent scales that lie along the veins on the dorsa l side of the forewings (Grey et al. 1963; Scott 1986b). Males pursue females, draw their forewings forward, and flick the closed wings slightly

PAGE 29

29 open in quick bursts. Each burst of two to fi ve flicks lasts less than a second, wafting pheromones up to the female’s antennae. Th e tip of the abdomens of female Argynnini (including Speyeria ) contain paired glands normally hidden in the abdomen that aid in courtship (Scott 1986b). Courting males keep their forewi ngs in a forward position and open and close them near the resting female to waft pheromone s. Unreceptive females will flutter their wings to reject males. Copulation and oviposition in Speyeria were examined in detail by Arnold and Fischer (1977). No true morphological ovipositor or ex ternal genitalia are present in female Speyeria and the copulatory mechanism is based on the morphology and manipulativ e maneuverability of the abdominal segments. The ovipositor is frequen tly short in Lepidoptera, taking the form of a pair of broad, setose anal papillae (Scoble 1995). The male’s genitalia are everted by the sequential contraction of pre-genital segments and by the increased pres sure exerted by dorsal and longitudinal muscles located on each segment. The female prepares for the reception of the male by raising and retracting th e apical portion of the abdomen, thus exposing the ostium bursae making it ready for reception of the intromittent organ of the male. With the extrusion of the male external genital apparatus, the tegumen is extended and lowered, and the uncus is placed upon the dorsum of the female’s anal papillae [how ever, Scott (1984) noted that the male’s uncus actually fits beneath the papilla analis during mating in all butterf lies]. The male genital valves, bearing a structure known as the digitus, spread la terally, allowing the anal papillae of the female to rest in fusiform pouches, thus fixing the posit ion of the female. The phallus (=penis) is then inserted through the ostium bursae and a spermat ophore passes through to the corpus bursae. At the time of oviposition, a fertil ized egg lies in the posterior po rtion of the common oviduct. An increase in intra-abdominal pressure, the pe ristaltic movements of the oviducts, and the

PAGE 30

30 compression and extension of posterior abdominal segments help to squeeze the egg out of the common oviduct. Eggs are fertilized as they intercept the ductus seminalis. Females of most species delay egg-laying unt il late summer or fall and usually oviposit rather haphazardly near their hos tplants rather than carefully placing them on the plant as do most butterflies (Ritchie 1944; Howe 1975; Sc ott 1986b; Opler and Wright 1999). Since the larvae apparently do not discriminate between di fferent species of violets, the female must discriminate between different habitats in or der to prevent interspecific competition between species (Hammond 1974, 1981). Reproductive diapause ha s been exhibited in S. coronis and S. zerene in California during the warm, dry months of the summer flight period (Sims 1984). This diapausal period delays the onset of oviposition un til late summer or early fall and thus decreases the exposure time of overwintering first instar la rvae to desiccating condi tions. Fritillaries are fecund butterflies, with some species capable of laying over 1,000 eggs (Ross 2003; Wagner 2005). They are known to deposit eggs on twigs, leaves, stones and othe r debris (Scott 1986b; Allen et al. 2005). Some females will oviposit on the underside of hostplants (Arnold and Fischer 1977; Kopper et al. 2000). Eggs bear camouflage coloration and are slig htly rounded, tapering toward the apex. They are highly sculptured a nd contain a large amount of lipid, and are likely adapted to withstand considerab le environmental pressures incl uding submergence, frost, ground dwelling predators and microbes (Hammond 1974; Ross and Henk 2004). Eclosion occurs two to three weeks after eggs are laid, and first instar larvae will drink water but will not feed on violets for seven to eight months (Wagner 2005). The eggshell, which is consumed by the larva, contains a large amount of lipid, which probably serves as an energy source during larval diapause (Hammond 1974). Fe w individuals weather winter conditions, but female biology compensates for this by allowing females to lay hundreds of eggs (Mattoon et al.

PAGE 31

31 1971; Ross 2003; Wagner 2005). Speyeria like other cold adapted insects, probably survive adverse environmental conditions through physiologi cal adaptations such as freeze tolerance or freeze avoidance (Chapman 1998). Freeze tolerant insects can withstand the formation of internal ice by promoting extracellular ice form ation at relatively high subzero temperatures by synthesizing nucleating agents in the hemolymph, whereas freeze avoiding insects prevent lethal intracellular ice formation by an extended ability to supercool a nd by the masking or absence of ice nucleating agents (Palmer et al. 2004). Speyeria larvae do have the ab ility to respond to various stimuli such as light, h eat, and mechanical agitation while in captivity, and diapause may actually prove to be more of a quiescent stat e (Mattoon et al. 1971). Th e ability to respond to these stimuli and seek shelter in nature may also have an important role in larval survival during adverse environmental conditions. Adult Speyeria in montane habitats have been observed responding to cool summer evenings and morni ng dew by shivering their wings and basking in the sun to control body temperatur es (C. Penz, pers. comm.). Larvae pass through six instar s (Scott 1986b), overwintering as first instars and breaking diapause to complete development the fo llowing season (Scott 1986b; Wagner 2005). Edwards (1880a), however, observed larvae feeding on viol et and proceeding to a third molt before the onset of winter in Illinois, but they were not able to overwinter and later died. Larvae of Speyeria are generally secretive and feed primarily at night (Scudder 1889; Opler and Wright 1999) (but see McCorkle and Hammond 1988; Kopper et al 2001a; Mooreside et al. 2006), typically returning to hiding places unde r host leaves or nearby vege tation during the day (Hammond 1974; Ferris and Brown 1981; Ople r and Wright 1999; Wagner 2005) Final instars are sizable insects (e.g., S. cybele = approximately 55 mm in body length) and are capable of consuming two or more full-grown hostplants (Wagner 2005). Many species are black with lighter markings and

PAGE 32

32 bear three rows of branching sp ines of various colors on either side of the body (Allen et al. 2005). As with many nymphalid larvae, there are six stemmata on eith er side of the head capsule and numerous secondary setae (Stehr 1987). Seconda ry setae are also present on the thorax and abdomen. Like other members of the Heliconiinae, they lack mid-dorsal spines, but unlike other Heliconiinae, lack spines on the head (Scott 1986b; Layberry et al 1998). Allen et al. (2005) and Wagner (2005) have provided colo r images of several species. Speyeria larvae feed on various violet species ( Viola ), and in laboratory conditions they are known to feed on every American vi olet species tested (Mattoon et al. 1971; Brittnacher et al. 1978; Hammond 1981; Scott 1986b). In many cases, the specific violet utilized by a particular speyerian species is poorly known in the wild (Hammond 1974; Allen et al. 2005). There are only a few hostplant records that are not of the genus Viola and some may be dubious records (Durden 1965; Robinson et al. 2002). Pupation occurs inside a simple tent made of strands of silk stretched between surrounding surf aces (Allen et al. 2005). The pupa, or chrysalis, is suspended with the head down as in most other nymphalids and on average in nature lasts approximately 14 days (Mattoon et al. 1971). There are only a few records of species of Speyeria being attacked by na tural or potential predators Scudder (1889) reported S. aphrodite adults were found in the crops of the common nighthawk and chimney swift; larv ae were also found in the st omachs of the black-throated bunting and the towhee. Avian predation of Speyeria mormonia was recorded by Hendricks (1986). Two individuals were captured, the wing s were torn off, and the body was eaten by nesting water pipits in Wyoming. Three Speyeria [ S. diana (males), S. aphrodite and S. cybele ] were eaten by deer mice in model-mimicry experiments conducted by Brower and Brower (1961).

PAGE 33

33 Speyeria likely gain protection from potential predators in a variety of ways. Speyeria diana females have been implicated in a Batesian mimicry complex with a distasteful papilionid and other nymphalid species (Scudder 1889; Poulton 1909; Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1961; Adams and Finkelstein 2006). In some species, an ever sible gland, capable of producing a bad odor, is located on the dorsum of the adult female abdome n (Clark 1926; Harvey 1991). Larvae also bear a gland located ventrally just behind the head and before the first pair of legs that is likely used for defense against predators (Scott 1986b; McCorkle and Hammond 1988). McCorkle and Hammond (1988) note that Speyeria larvae do posses a fleshy, eversible osmeterium (not homologous with that of Papilionidae), but the strength of the scent emitted varies. The odor is stronger in larger species such as S. coronis and S. edwardsii Other avoidance measures during the larval stages include taking refuge under le aves during the day and feeding at night. First instar larvae will also often hibernate inside grass stems (Scott 1986b). Eggs in some species may also contain phytochemicals used to dete r potential predators (Ross 2003; Ross and Henk 2004). Ackery (1988) reviewed the larval hostplants of nympha lid butterflies and presented a classification that noted the affinities of re lated plant families Violaceae and Passifloraceae and associated host plant use of argynnine and heliconiine species. Viola is the largest genus within the Violaceae, comprised of 525-600 species worl dwide (Ballard et al 1999). There is an extensive north-temperate distribution that belies th e otherwise tropical affi nities of the family. Viola is distributed throughout most of the frostfree regions of the world, ranging widely across temperate habitats of the Northern Hemisphere and into higher elevatio ns of mountain systems towards the equator. Primary centers of mor phological and taxonomic dive rsity reside in the Alps and Mediterranean region, Himalayas and mountainous regions of eastern Asia and the

PAGE 34

34 South American Andes (Ballard et al. 1999). Sec ondary centers are the Pacific Coastal region of the United States, the Appalachian temperate fore sts and Atlantic Coastal Plain of the eastern United States, and the mountains of central and northern Mexico (Ballard et al. 1999). Floral structure is remarkably uniform and species fr om opposite ends of the world and from highly disparate habitats exhibit similar prefertilizati on floral characters, espe cially those concerned with attraction and manipulation of po llen vectors (Beattie and Lyons 1975). Morphological, ecological a nd cytological studies on Viola have been conducted. Seed dispersal mechanisms and predator avoidance measures in Viola are primarily those of explosive seed ejection away from the parent plant, an t exploitation and seed transportation or both (Beattie and Lyons 1975). Most species comb ine both systems while a few are purely myrmecochorous, possibly highly evolved with speci fic ant species, thus limiting the distribution of some of the Viola species concerned. Seed predation or consumption by Argynnis (= Speyeria ) larvae as well as other lepidopteran and bird sp ecies has been observed, wi th heavy predispersal damage of unripe ovaries occurring (Beattie and Lyons 1975). Predispersal and postdispersal seed predation may have been a selective force in the evolution of dispersal mechanisms in Viola (Beattie and Lyons 1975). A diverse group of insect pollinators associated with Viola has provided a sexual system of systematic cross-pollination simultaneously producing variation and invariance, and this may have been partially responsible for the success of the genus in temperate regions where there is a general paucity of pollen vect ors (Beattie 1971, 1974). The vari ous activities and morphologies of these pollinators allow for the deposition of pollen to the stigma in diverse ways, and there is a spectrum of crossor selfpo llination effects. New genetic re combinants with corresponding opportunities for adaptation to new or changing e nvironments, or an appropriate strategy in

PAGE 35

35 stable environments by producing offspring similar to the parents can be selected as the need arises, providing a system of great evolu tionary versatility (B eattie 1971). Pollen heteromorphism is also exhibited in Viola and several pollen morphs differing in aperture number can be produced by the same flower (D ajoz 1999; Nadot et al. 2000). Because pollen tube germination occurs through th e aperture, it is hypothesized th e aperture number could affect pollen grain fitness (Nadot et al 2000). In violets, aperture nu mber apparently increases with elevation due to polyploid speci es (which exhibit pollen hetero morphism) being more abundant at higher elevations. This is likely due to pollinator conditions, as it has been shown that pollination reliability decreases with elevation (Nadot et al. 2000). Polyploidy has likely played a role in the evolution of Viola and species hybridize readily. Cytological studies involving Viola were conducted by Clausen (1927, 1929), Fothergill (1941, 1944) and Harvey (1966). Clausen’s work focuse d on the cytological conditions found in hybrid European Viola species, namely chromosome numbers, in order to compare chromosome and morphological relationships. Species delimitations and interspecifi c relationships involving the behavior and number of chromo somes indicated that species of the same systematic subgroup belonged as a rule to the same series of chromosome numbers. Fothergill (1941) investigated the survivorship of various cytol ogical types and the actions se lected upon them in the wild. Chromosome lengths were later measured by Foth ergill (1944) to provide additional descriptions and classifications of Viola chromosomes. Ballard et al. (1999) used internal transcriber spacer DNA sequences for 42 widespread Viola taxa in phylogenetic analys es to support an Andean origin of the genus. The relationships presente d based on the nuclear ribosomal data showed generally a close congruence with relations hips indicated by chromosome numbers and corroborated some previous hypotheses of species relationships and diversification within Viola

PAGE 36

36 An Andean origin of Viola may have played a role on the separation of Speyeria and Palearctic groups such as Argynnis Speyeria and their larval hostplants Viola are amongst the best i ndicator organisms of native, undisturbed ecological communities in North America (Hammond 1981, 1995). They are also among the first organisms to be eliminated from such communities as a result of human– caused disturbances (Hammond and McCorkle 1984). A few Speyeria have been declining over the past 200 years, and several have been listed as either federall y/state endangered or threatened [e.g., S idalia S. diana S. nokomis (Edwards), S. zerene hippolyta (Edwards)]. The position of Speyeria in conservation and land management issu es is well known (Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Launer et al. 1994; Kelly and Debins ki 1998; Williams 1999, 2002; Swengel 1993, 2004; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Patterson 2002). El ucidating the interand intraspecific relationships and evolutionary history of Speyeria may provide information pertinent to conservation strategies and priorities. Research Background and Justification Taxonomy and Systematics Despite the likelihood that wing facies may be rather ‘plastic’ characters [i.e., environmentally influenced (see Hovanitz 1941; Watt 1968, Kingsolver and Wiernasz 1991; Scoble 1995)] and capable of reverting back to original states depending on fluctuating contact/isolation with other popula tions, butterfly species, including Speyeria are typically delimited utilizing wing characters (Opler a nd Krizek 1984; Scott 1986b; Emmel 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a ,b). The “nymphalid ground pl an” was originally proposed separately in the 1920’s by B. N. Schwanwitsch (1924) and F. Sffert (1927) to provide a general scheme and nomenclature for butterfly wing patterns based on a system of bands and spots that run from the anterior to the posterior margin of each wing. Pattern elements consist of

PAGE 37

37 a system of homologies that ar e identifiable acr oss thousands of lepidopt eran species, and are broken down into the following main components: discal spot, central symmetry system, wing root band, basal symmetry system, border ocelli system, marginal and submarginal bands, and parafocal element (Nijhout 1991). This plan re presents the maximal pattern found in the nymphalids, but it is not, however exhibited in its entirety in any one species. The scheme deviates in each taxon, in which subordinate gro und plans for particular taxa are utilized, and often special (i.e., informal) terminology is empl oyed for these subordinate plans. The plan does not suggest primitive conditions of butterfly color patterns exhibited within the Lepidoptera, but may be the basis (by recognizing wing pattern homologies) for which primitive patterns and evolutionary significance and syst ematics may be elucidated by further studies on groups such as Speyeria Taxonomically, these patterns have been utiliz ed mainly to distinguish related species. Sister generic taxa to Speyeria such as Heliconius Kluk exhibit deceptively simplistic deviations from the nymphalid ground plan, while others such as Agraulis Boisduval and LeConte are easily derived from the basic plan (Nijhout 1991). The nymphalid ground plan provides an overall organizing principle that can be used to identify various spots and bands that comprise these wing patterns. Species and subspecies of Speyeria are commonly delimited based on banding, discal coloration, spot coloration and size differen ces (Dornfeld 1980; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). In the evolution of Speyeria wing markings appear to be highly conservative and reliable diagnostic characters, while wing colors are less stab le (Hammond 1990). Pierid and papilionid butterfly populations in cold climates have much darker, more heavily melanized ventral hindwings than do populations in wa rm climates (Watt 1968; Guppy 1986). Habitat may

PAGE 38

38 be important in determining species and subspeci es, and the amount of so lar radiation (including factors such as latitude, temperat ure, elevation, humidity, degree of lack of vegetation, soil type) on larvae and pupae may play a role in color vari ation as it does in othe r lepidopterans (Hovanitz 1941; Moeck 1957; Janzen 1984; Pyle 1995; Laybe rry et al. 1998; Ellers and Boggs 2004). Basal, melanic, suffusion of wings is extremely plastic in Speyeria and subject to repeated convergence and reversal (Hammond 1990). “Alpine melanism” may be an adaptation to cooler environments as butterflies at hi gher elevations and latitudes are of ten darker than populations at lower elevations and latitudes (Guppy 1986), and th is may play a role in the wing coloration of northern and montane Speyeria Deviation from the nymphalid ground plan, and the subordinate ground plan exhibited within Speyeria traditionally used to recognize species/subspecies and evolutionary history (while avoiding wing “colo ration” where possible), will be the basis for inference and comparison within the phylogenetic an alyses presented later in this treatment. Genitalic morphology shows peculiar patt erns of variation among animal species (Eberghard 1985; Arnqvist 1997, 1998; Mutanen 2005). Traditionally, species-specificity in genitalia has been assumed to serve as a mechani cal isolation system betw een species (the lockand-key hypothesis) (Arnqvist 1998) Most recent studies suggest, however, that such variation may also be because of sexual selection (Ll oyd 1979; Eberhard 1996; Arnqvist 1997). These two hypotheses provide different pred ictions on genital variation w ithin and between species. Speyeria genitalia have largely proven to be taxonomically uninforma tive, and detailed genitalic examination has largely been ignored in th is group (Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). Dos Passos and Grey (1945a) conducted a survey of male genitalic stru ctures in Argynninae (including Speyeria ) butterflies and provided detailed illustration of se veral species, including the male genitalic armature (=capsule) of S. atlantis Generic characters for male Speyeria

PAGE 39

39 genitalia include a semi-rectangular plate (=digitus) located near the dorsal lobe of the valvae, but otherwise the armature is mo re conventional in type and co mparatively unspecialized (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). It is a pparent that genitalic data ca n conclusively separate the Semnopsych e group [= S. cybele S. diana S. aphrodite ] and Callippe group [= S. atlantis Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) Speyeria callippe (Boisduval), Speyeria zerene (Boisduval), Speyeria coronis (Behr), Speyeria egleis (Behr), Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval), Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval)], but the male armature is otherwise largely homogenous (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). Their work, however, was based on examination of slide-mounted genitalia and some structures may have been distorted and difficult to examine. Significant slide mounted genitalia collections do exist in museums ([i.e., F. H. Chermock Collection-Allyn Museum of Entomology ( now McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity)], but preliminary ex amination of closely related Speyeria yields no apparent taxonomically informative characters (Dunford unpublished data). Recen tly, however, genitalic examination of insects including Lepidoptera has improved via better prepar atory and illustrative techniques (Scoble and Krger 2002; Simons en 2006a,b; Zaspel and Weller 2006). Utilizing modern genitalic preparatory and imaging tech niques could yield taxonomically informative characters that have not been identified to date within Speyeria An attempt to revaluate the significance of genitalia within Speyeria is critical to provide additional taxonomically and evolutionarily informative characters. In general, mitochondrial genes are useful data for evolutionary studies such as species delimitation, population structure and gene flow, hybridization, phylogeographic histories, and phylogenetic relationships (Vogler et al. 1993; Brower 1997; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Levy et al. 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a; Segraves and Pellmyr 2004; Strehl and Gadau 2004;

PAGE 40

40 Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Wahlberg et al. 2005; Memon et al. 2006). Their small size and relative ease to purify (relative to nuclear genes) (i.e., buoyant density, high copy number in cells, and location within an organelle) allow re searchers to isolate these genes more readily (Simon et al. 1994). Because of the properties of mtDNA (i.e., various regions evolve rapidly in base substitutions and sequence length, has a cons tant initial rate of e volution, is maternally inherited, and is unlikely to recombine), mtDN A represents an unbiased neutral marker for maternal ancestry, and is a good tool to help reveal the historical relationships among populations (Brower 1994a; Simon et al. 1994). Nuclear genes have also been shown to be useful for phylogenetic studies in butterflies (Brower and DeSalle 1994, 1998; Brower and Egan 1997). Single copy genes, such as wingless have been used in reconstructing species level to subfamily and family level relationships in nymphalid and riodinid butterflie s, respectively (Brower and DeSalle 1998; Brower 2000b; Campbell et al. 2000). Wingless and other nuclear genes may be phylogenetically informative at deeper levels than the satu ration point (relations hip between substitutions and sequence divergence) of mitochondrial DNA (Brower and DeSa lle 1998). Inclusion of other nuclear genes such as elongation factor 1 in phylogenetic studies further re solved relationships among species groups within the same genus and clades at the subfamily rank and lower in Noctuoidea (Brower and DeSalle 1994; Mitchell et al 2000; Pea et al. 2006). The rate of evolution of mitochondrial a nd nuclear DNA and ribosomal RNA in animals varies among lineages, among genes, and within ge nes, and thus several different gene regions have been utilized in phylogene tic analyses (Martin and Pashle y 1992; Simon et al. 1994; SotoAdames et al. 1994; Templeton et al 1995; Brower and Egan 1997; McCracken and Sheldon 1998; Abraham et al. 2001; Kondo et al. 2003; Ya ng and Yoder 2003; Omland et al. 2006). COI

PAGE 41

41 and COII protein coding genes have been the mo st widely used mitochondrial gene regions in Lepidoptera phylogenetic analyses for some time (Brower 1994b, 1996b; Brown et al. 1994; Sperling and Hickey 1995; Pollock et al. 1998; Caterino and Sperling 1999; Nice and Shapiro 1999; Wahlberg and Zimmermann 2000; Zimmerm ann et al. 2000; Caterino et al. 2001; Monteiro and Pierce 2001; Kruse and Sper ling 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a, 2005; Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Mallarino et al. 2005; Simonsen et al. 2006c). However, controversy has arisen regarding the utility of DNA to delim it species and species relationships on its own. Practical and theoretical problem s raised by reliance on DNA-based identifications, especially DNA barcoding of the COI gene region, have been discussed by Sperling (2003), Wheeler (2003), Will and Rubinoff (2004), Ebach and Holdrege (2005), Brower (2006), and Dasmahapatra and Mallet (2006). More recent ph ylogenetic analyses now incorporate multiple gene regions, morphological, and ot her life history data (Mitche ll et al. 2000; Abraham et al. 2001; Kruse and Sperling 2002; Bitsch et al. 200 4; Mallarino et al. 2005; Braby et al. 2006; Gompert et al. 2006; S imonsen et al. 2006). Studies on speyerian genetics have been c onducted in the past. Chromosome work was conducted by Maeki and Remington (1960) and Mill er and Miller (1966). Chromosome numbers taken from male testes by Maek i and Remington (1960) for several Speyeria range from 29 to 30, although some counts may have been too hig h. Miller and Miller (1966) counted 27 for Speyeria aphrodite ethne (Hemming). Brittnacher et al. ( 1978) used electrophor esis to study the body enzymes of California Speyeria and found that five Callippe -group species could not be distinguished, whereas the other sp ecies could be (the enzymes of Speyeria hydaspe and Speyeria adiaste were also similar). Tebaldi (1982) ut ilized starch gel el ectrophoresis of six enzymes to analyze the relationshi ps between three phenotypes of Speyeria atlantis and found

PAGE 42

42 that the phenotypes could only be considered ‘semispecies’. Williams (2001a, 2002) examined the COI and COII gene regions for Speyeria idalia and suggested split ting the eastern and western United States populations into two s ubspecific taxa based on 18 parsimony-informative sites and spot size on the ventral hindwings. Several Speyeria have also been incorporated into higher-level taxonomic studies, a nd gene regions and sequences have been databased on the DNA database GenBank (Martin and Pashley 1992: S. atlantis ; Brower and Egan 1997: S. cybele ; Pollock et al. 1998: S. mormonia ; Williams et al. 2002: S. idalia ). Conservation Understanding and appropriately defining biodiversity in orde r to conserve it is becoming a significant social and scientific goal (Haney and Power 1996; Lambeck 1997; Wilson 1999, 2002; Blackmore 2002; Pyle 2002; Woese 2004). However, these environmental “values” may vary depending on experiences with and apprec iation for local landscap es (Noss 1990; Hunter and Brehm 2004). Monitoring, by means of transect counts and various sampling measures, has historically been utilized to assess the effect s of management on local butterfly abundance and diversity (Owen 1975; Pollard 1982). Until recently, sy stematics has contributed relatively little to the theory and practice of conservation and land management (Soltis and Gitzendanner 1999). However, phylogenetic analyses of conspecific populations and th e application of appropriate species concepts often reveal multiple lineages that can be viewed as evolutionary distinct units in need of some level of conservation (Haze voet 1996; Soltis and Gitzendanner 1999). Multiple characters and diagnostic character states must be examined and the processes that influence those characters must be understood to accurately delineate species and units for conservation (Goldstein et al. 2005; Gompert et al. 2006). Climate and habitat change, whether by natu ral cause or anthropoge nic alterations, is widely accepted as the most im portant factor in butterfly de cline (e.g., including some members

PAGE 43

43 of Speyeria ), as its multitude of important effect s include a decrease of breeding sites and removal of important resources (New 1997; Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Hammond 1995; Shapiro 1996; Hill et al. 1999a,b; Parmesan et al. 1999; Warren et al. 2001; Hill et al. 2002; McLaughlin et al. 2002; Dennis et al. 2004; Scott 2006c). There is a great need for well-designed experiments to reveal the effects of c limate and other environmental factors on Speyeria and other butterfly and inve rtebrate species (Dornfeld 1980; T homas 1984; Hammond 1995; Black et al. 2001; Bossart and Carlton 2002). These kinds of data may lead to a better understanding of the variability in forms encountered in the fiel d and the effect that these factors have on population viability. The data may also identify lineages worthy of conservation and help set appropriate and scientifically valid manage ment priorities (Hazevoet 1996; Soltis and Gitzendanner 1999). Additionally, it ma y be wise to be cognizant of the values associated with species richness and biodiversity in such studies to begin to understand the human dimensions associated with biological conservation (J acobson and McDuff 1998; Sapolsky and Ehrlich 2003; Hunter and Brehm 2004). Are taxonomy and systematics, as they ar e currently employed for the evolution of Speyeria appropriate mechanisms to sort out local degrees of sp ecific ‘purities’ (see Shapiro 2002)? Varying degrees of geogra phic and reproductive isolation (pre and post-mating), local population characteristics (i.e., dispersal capabili ties, hostplant preferences, local climatic conditions) and genetic heritage over tim e drive speciation mechanisms within Speyeria (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978; Williams 2001b). When and where do we warrant protection for a given species or subspecies? How will comprehensive phylogenetic analyses affect decisions made for or ag ainst protecting these species a nd their habitats? What is the overall ‘health’ of habitats where Speyeria occur? Utilizing phylogenetic analyses,

PAGE 44

44 biogeography, and interpreting but not biasing these data with conservation in mind (Shapiro 2002) will require use of applicable species concepts for Speyeria Subspecies and Species Criteria The question of subspecies and whether or not a subspecies is an ‘absolute’ or simply a ‘prevailing trend’ may not be important. Nami ng a taxon attracts attention, and recognition and attention can mean the difference between conti nued survival and extinc tion of a population or geographic race. It can even affect the survival of a species, if further study proves a subspecies is actually a cryptic species. Th e “subspecies concept” can be im portant and valid systematically, and has the potential to enha nce our understanding of speciat ion, dispersal, and geographic variation (Patten and Unitt 2002). There are exampl es of mismanaged “megafauna” [i.e., tuatara ( Sphenodon sp.), dusky seaside sparrow ( Ammodramus nigrescens )] because cryptic species were not recognized or populations/lineages were not conserved, but rather the “species” was conserved (Meffe and Carrol 1997; Winston 1999). It may be time to reevaluate species criteria (and conservation paradigms, especi ally those from the vertebrate perspective), to emphasize the fact that a given species or s ubspecies concept works for some taxa but not all (Mishler and Donoghue 1982; Lloyd 2001; Hunter 2006). Taxonomists typically name subspecies on th e basis of average character differences between populations (Gillham 1956; Patten a nd Unitt 2002). A common method for describing Speyeria subspecies has been to name populations or groups of individu als representing points along a continuum of geographic variation (o r clines). Subspecific taxon names within Speyeria are assigned to populations occupying various geographic areas based on the author’s own discretion, typically lacking a te stable criterion. Because many taxon “names” are arbitrary at the subspecies level, and given the characters anal yzed (e.g., wing coloration) and the way in which many Speyeria subspecies were described (e.g., lacki ng testable, intraor interspecific

PAGE 45

45 comparisons), these subspecies have relatively lit tle biological significance. In other words, they may not be a single lineage of ancestral-descendant populations th at maintains its own identity from other such lineages but has not lost its ab ility to breed with another lineage unless under geographic isolation. Two workers may not agre e on species/subspecies delimitations. However, subspecific trinomials do recognize degrees of va riation, and provide a st arting point to further analyze intraand interspecifi c relationships in a phylogenetic framework. Taxonomists should objectively describe the patterns of variation discovered in nature, and then translate them into subspecies or species level descriptions base d on testable hypotheses while avoiding arbitrary decision-making (Wilson and Brown 1953; Van Son 1955; Gillham 1956; Brower 2000a; Kons 2000). A subspecies of Speyeria following in part Kons (2000), Patten and Unitt (2002), and Cicero and Johnson (2006), is defi ned herein as follows: it is a distinct monophyletic lineage, allopatric from its closest relatives by having approximately 75% of a population lying outside 99% of the range of other populations for a gi ven, uncontaminated character set, possessing several identical sclerotized st ructures (e.g., genitalia) but havi ng differences in wing facies. These subspecies could be considered valid species or a taxon for conservation purposes, depending on which working species concep t is applied (to be described below). Since the typological species concept promulgated by Linnaeus in the mid 18th century, several interpretations of “s pecies” concept have been a dvanced (Mayr 1942; Wiley 1978; Paterson 1985; Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Ma llet 1995; Van Regenmortel 1997; Baker and Bradley 2006). The major component to the Biologi cal Species Concept (BSC ) is that a species is reproductively isolated from ot her species that could potentially come in contact with it (Mayr 1942). The BSC allows for the recognition of inte ractions within populations in time and space that create or maintain species. However, the BSC has raised several issues regarding its

PAGE 46

46 application (Sokal and Crovello 1970; Mallet 1995; Hazevoet 1996; Luckow 1995; Gornall 1997). It is difficult to apply this concept to uniparental enti ties or fossil taxa and it is operationally difficult to determine reproductive isolation if the rela ted “species” are not sympatric. It is also impossibl e to know whether or not members of a “species” are interbreeding without actually observing indi viduals in copula. Many species have never actually been observed mating, so much of what is considered a “species’ is actually based on morphological examination and assumptions (Sokal and Crovell o 1970). Incipient and polytypic species are difficult to define and the BSC applies only to populations viewed in a narrow window of time. Thus, the BSC is also not evolutionarily mean ingful and does not consider a species as an evolutionary unit. Finally, the BSC allows fo r nonmonophyletic taxa and does not produce taxa useful for cladistic analyses (Donoghue 1985). Recognizing some of the problems mentioned above, additional species concepts were developed, and portions of the following concepts define the working speci es concept utilized herein. The Evolutionary Species Concept (ESC ) describes a species as a single lineage of ancestral descendent populations of organisms wh ich maintains its own identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary te ndencies and historical fate (Wiley 1978). Kons (2000) provided a more concise definition: a species is a monophyletic lineage biologically capable of reticulating with a diffe rent evolutionary lineage; the point at which an evolutionary lineage loses its ability to merge with another lin eage is theoretically and biologically significant and separates a “species lineage” from an ancestral one. The Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) allows for the recognition of species in welldefined monophyletic clades and recognizes th e evolutionary potential of these lineages (Eldredge and Cracraft 1980; Hazevoet 1996; Clar idge et al. 1997). The PSC also recognizes

PAGE 47

47 synapomorphies within individuals or populations, a nd thus they are assumed to be more closely related than individuals or populations lacking those synapo morphies. An evolutionary hypothesis of true genealogical re lationships is represented in a cladogram/phylogram and often results in a hierarchy of m onophyletic groups (Baum 1992; Luckow 1995). A species, as defined by the PSC, is the smallest diagnos able cluster of individual orga nisms within which there is a pattern of ancestry and descent (Cracraft 1982; Nixon and Wheeler 1990). The species is thus an irreducible, or basal, unit dist inct from other such units. Any ch aracter unique to a population or set of populations would diagnose them as “species,” even if they interbr eed with other species (Nixon and Wheeler 1990). Because the PSC inco rporates history and reflects phylogeny, it is useful for species delineation and preserving biodiv ersity (Goldstein et al 2000; Goldstein et al. 2005; but see Scott 2006a). Whether morphological or molecular (or more importantly both) synapomorphies are utilized to delimit taxa, appl ying the PSC would allow analyses to identify small clades within “species” that comprise one or a few popul ations from a small geographic area (Nixon and Wheeler 1990; Go ldstein et al. 2005). Geogra phically distinct populations containing phenotypically and gene tically differentiated, phylogeneti cally diagnosable “races” or “forms” (=evolutionary units) could be consid ered full species (Kons 2000; Brower 2000a). Phylogenetically based classifications may be required to set conservation priorities and develop informed conservation strategies. Phylog enetic analyses can help identify population lineages that may represent bi ological entities worthy of conservation. Conservation, or the practice of, has in the pa st been a reactionary process. If analyses can provide useful hypotheses for the evolutionary significan ce of populations, especially th ose specifically related to invertebrates, perhaps conservation issues and laws can be addressed long before a species’ existence becomes a “crisis” (Scott 2006c). Uti lizing the PSC could alte r existing conservation

PAGE 48

48 paradigms and justify the preservation of the evolutionary potential of clades as well as help identify actively speciating groups. Species should be natural, monophyletic taxa and bear biologically and evolutionary significant characteristics that distinguish th em from related monophyletic taxa. However, because evolution is an ongoing process, species cr iteria must be flexible enough to accept that there are cases, such as with Speyeria where lineages are in a state of transition in the speciation process, and that some taxon delimitations at presen t will have to be made more arbitrarily. The phylogenetic work and ultimate conservation goals of this study, in conjunction with the examined group, require that a combination of species concepts be followed. Favoring any one species concept over another may bias the interpretati on of the results herein. It is difficult to put a universal “law” or definition on what a “species” is, and as scientific data continue to accrue, species concepts will also change. No species concept should be viewed as an absolute criterion for protecting species or populations, but rather should be viewed as part of the framework from within which identification of conservation and management goals can be achieved eff ectively (Goldstein et al. 2000). Each geographically and h ypothetical reproducti vely isolated Speyeria population, whether currently recognized as a full species or infraspecific categ ory, may be unique and maintain its own distinct gene pool and evolut ionary potential, thus worthy of conserving. Utilizing aspects of the BSC, the ESC, and the PSC in this study will appr opriately elucidate the reproductive and evolutionary processes exhibited by Speyeria while providing a means in which to address conservation issues This does not, however, mean that these species concepts will be applied whenever it conveniently suits the sc ientific purpose herein. Rather, it is a means

PAGE 49

49 to provide flexibility for prevalent anthropocentric issues and laws relevant to the taxonomy, systematics, and conservation of invertebrate fauna such as Speyeria Objectives and Hypotheses Accurate species and subspecies identif ication remains problematic for some Speyeria taxa, and determinations are often affixed by localit y. It is imperative to choose useful characters and avoid individual aberrations, mutations and characters subject to environmental influences. Further investigation into us e of wing facies to delimit Speyeria taxa is warranted, especially with regard to the subspecies level. Ther e may be useful morphological and behavioral characters that have been overlooke d in favor of the traditional us e of wing patterns and colors in species and subspecies diagnoses. A suite of useful and environmentally stable characters, including the external morphologi es of adults and immature stages, genitalia, DNA sequences, and life history traits, is still needed for Speyeria Beyond the scope of this study, further ecological (e.g., pheromone testi ng) studies, examination of wi ng patterns and coloration under ultra-violet light, DNA sequences of several gene regions, and re aring and cross breeding studies are also warranted. Objectives 1. Develop detailed species and subspecies diagnoses for 16 Speyeria species and 25 Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies. Each diagnosis will include synonymies, type specimen data, taxonomic information and morp hological descriptions distributions, and life history information. 2. Infer a phylogeny and test the monophyly of the 16 currently recognized species of Speyeria species based on combined morphologica l, life history, and genetic/sequence data. Investigation of useful external and in ternal morphological char acters will be made. 3. Survey the genitalia within Speyeria the Speyeria atlantis-hesperis complex to determine if there are evolutionary inform ative characters for phylogenetic analyses. 4. Database distributional data for Speyeria atlantis hesperis gleaned from museum and private collection locality records on Diversity of Life web-site.

PAGE 50

50 5. Develop Speyeria DNA barcode database for COI ge ne at Barcode of Life Data Systems, University of Guelph, for us e in future molecular analyses. 6. Compile, identify, label, and properly preserve Speyeria specimens for frozen tissue collection to be utilized for future mol ecular research at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity. 7. Photograph type specimens for 16 Speyeria species and 25 S. atlantis-hesperis subspecies, and photograph wings on specimens utilized for morphological and genetic studies. 8. Illustrate and photograph internal and exte rnal morphological characters utilized in analyses. Central and Peripheral Hypotheses The central hypothesis is the following: If comprehensive species diagnoses, taxonomic reviews, biogeographical data, and phylogenetic analyses are co mpiled and conducted, they may provide a better understanding of th e interand intraspecific relati onships, evolutionary history, and the accuracy of nomenclature associated with Speyeria The peripheral hypo thesis is the following: If appropriate species concepts are applied to the resu lts of the phylogenetic analyses and compilation of biogeographical data, they may provide additional justification for conserving members of this taxon.

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 2 SPEYERIA DIAGNOSIS AND KEY TO SPEC IES, SPECIES ACCOUNTS, AND SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS SUBSPECIES ACCOUNTS A diagnosis for Speyeria (Scudder 1889), based on the genotypic species Speyeria idalia (Drury), is included here as baseline for co mparative morphology and phylogenetic studies of members of this genus (Table 1). A key to adult Speyeria modified from Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1961), Ferris (1971a), Hammond (1978), and Scott et al. (1998), is also included to aid in species identifications. I attempted to use the l east regionally variable characters in developing the key, but the key presented here is at best superficial and s hould be used in conjunction with color images of adult habitus to aid in the identification of Speyeria Geographical information is also included in the key for some species. To gain a better understanding of nomenclature, taxonomy, life hi stories, and distributions, the species and subspecies accounts were compile d based on the available literature, field-work, and collection data. Diagnoses and life history information primarily pe rtain to the nominate taxon for each species unless otherwise indicate d. Larval hostplant and adult food records include those reported in the literature for nominate as well as subspecific taxa. Images of primary and a few miscellaneous type specimens are also included for many of the taxa discussed herein. Distri butional information for Speyeria was obtained from the literature and detailed distributional information for Speyeria atlantis (Edwards 1863a) and Speyeria hesperis (Edwards, 1864a) was also taken from specimen la bel data available in institutions and private collections. Errors in nomenclature are identifie d, and taxonomic and life history information is also updated and discussed. Compilation of these accounts has also provided baseline data and characters for systematic work and anal yses reported in subsequent chapters.

PAGE 52

52 Materials and Methods Numerous publications, directly and indirectly relevant to Speyeria species, were reviewed to compile the following accounts. An attempt to maintain a standard terminology for morphological and behavioral traits associated with Speyeria in the literature was made; morphological and behavioral terminology follo w primarily that of Hammond (1974; 1978) and Scott (1986b). Scientific and/or vernacular name s for adult and larval food sources included in each account are written as they appear in the or iginal publication unless otherwise noted (i.e., no attempt was made to change a vernacular name to a scientific name and vice versa; and no attempt was made to use the current taxonom y of plant species) unl ess otherwise noted. Recognition of nomenclatural errors, synonymies a nd type information was greatly facilitated by reference to dos Passos and Grey (1947), Mc Henry (1964), Brown (1965), Miller and Brown (1981) and Ferris (1989a,b), but several other taxonomic works we re also utilized and are referenced in the profiles. Type specimen informa tion included herein is primary type data only (i.e., holotype, lectotype, or ne otype); secondary type informa tion is not included in most accounts. Bracketed author(s) and ye ar of publication are references for which the name was first used as it appears in these account s. Bracketed text (i.e., sex of sp ecimen) in the Type Label Data section was included on the original label as a sy mbol and is included to indicate the sex of the specimen. Species accounts are presented in order according to Opler and Warren (2005). However, the type species for the genus, Speyeria idalia (Drury), is presented first in this treatment. Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis accounts are presented in order following Scott et al. (1998). Common names associated with Speyeria were taken from Scudder (1889), Miller (1992), The International Lepidoptera Survey (2 007), and original species and subspecies descriptions when vernacul ar names were included.

PAGE 53

53 In addition to specific literature cited in the accounts, the following literature was utilized for life history and distributional informati on: Acorn (1993), Adams and Finkelstein (2006), Allen (1997), Allen et al. (2005), Austin (1981 ), Austin (1985b), Brooks (1942), Brown et al. (1957), Cary and Holland (1992), Clark and Cl ark (1951), Cohen and Cohen (1991), Comstock J. A. (1989-reprint from origin al publication date of 1925), Comstock W. P. (1940), Covell and Straley (1973), Davenport (1995), Davenport (1 998), DeFoliart (1956), Dornfeld (1980), Douglas and Douglas (2005), Drees and Butle r (1978), Dunford (2005), Dunford and Ekin (2005), Ebner (1970), Ellis (1975), Ely et al (1983), Emmel (1964, 1998), Emmel and Emmel (1973), Emmel et al. (1992), Eriksen (1962), Ferge (2002), Ferris (1971b), Fe rris (1976a), Ferris and Brown (1981), Field (1938), Fish er (2005), Fleishman et al. ( 1997), Fleishman et al. (2001a), Fleishman et al. (2005), Garth (1950), Garth and Tilden (196 3), Garth and Tilden (1986), Glassberg (2001a,b), Gochfeld and Burger ( 1997), Gregory (1975), Grey (1972), Guppy and Shepard (2001), Hardesty and Groothuis (1993) Harris (1972), Heitzman and Heitzman (1996), Hinchliff (1994), Hinchliff ( 1996), Holland (1974), Holland (1984), Holland and Cary (1996), Holmes et al. (1991), Hooper (1973), Hubbard (1965), Irwin and Downey (1973), Johnson (1972), Klassen (1984), Kohler ( 1980), Kozial (1994), Lafontaine and Wood (1997), Larsen and Bovee (2001), Lavers (2006), Layberry et al. (1 998), Marrone (1994), Mast ers (1972), Miller and Brown (1981), Nelson (1979), Nielsen (1999), North Ameri can Butterfly Association (2001), O’Brien (1983), Opler a nd Krizek (1984), Opler and Malik ul (1998), Opler and Wright (1999), Orsak (1978), Pavulaan (1990), Pyle (1 995), Riotte (1962), Rolfs (2005), Saunders (1932), Scott (1973a), Scott (1975), Scott (1986a ,b), Scott (1992), Scott (2006a,b), Scott et al. (1968), Scott and Scott (1978), Scott et al. ( 1998), Scudder (1889), Shapiro and Shapiro (1973), Shields (1963), Shields (1966), Shields et al. (1970), Shields and Emmel (1973), Shuey et al.

PAGE 54

54 (1987), Shull and Badger (1972), Shull (1987), S immons (1963), Snyder (1896), Stewart (2001), Threatful (1988), Tietz (1952), Tilden (1963), Tild en and Huntzinger (197 7), Tilden and Smith (1986), Toliver et al. (2001), Tuttle [Ed.] (1996-2006), Wagner ( 2005), and Warren (2005). Coverage of the literature was meant to be as comprehensive as possible, but not all of the published life history and distributional information currently available for Speyeria is cited. Additional locality data for S. atlantis and S. hesperis was gleaned from specimen label data from the following museum and private collections (acronyms for museums primarily follow the Bishop Museum’s Abbreviations for In sect and Spider Collections of the World ( http://hbs.bishopmuseum.or g/codens/codens-inst.html ) (last visited September 2007): Allyn Museum of Entomology (AME) [currently McGu ire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (MGCL)-Florida Museum of Natural History (F LMNH)], American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH), C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity (CSUC), Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), Clifford D. Ferris, Florida State Collection of Arthropods (FSCA), McGu ire Center for Lepidopt era and BiodiversityFlorida Museum of Natural History (MGC L-FLMNH), Crispin Guppy, Norbert Kondla, Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM), Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum (Brigham Young University-BYU), James A. Scott, Steve Spomer Utah State University Insect Collection (EMUS), University of Wyoming Insect Museum (ESUW) and Andrew D. Warren. Abbreviated records (i.e., state and county information) are included in th e subspecies accounts. Locality records were also exported in Microsoft Excel spreadsh eet format to personnel at DiversityofLife.org (DOL) (h ttp://www.diversityoflife.org/ ) for databasing. Distributional maps are generated by selecting a give n species/subspecies and followi ng the instructions. Maps are either in road, aerial satellite imagery, or hybrid (i.e., road ma p and aerial satellite) format. A

PAGE 55

55 navigation and zoom function allows the user to visualize the enti re distribution or to focus on single locality data points. Type specimen images were taken by the auth or with an Olympus Stylus six-megapixel digital camera attached to a six-inch tall camer a tripod under the natural li ghting present at each museum. The background included with each speci men was blue-grey card stock. No flash was utilized to take images in order to reduce the reflection of silver wing scales present on most species. Enhancement of images (i.e., focus sh arpening and color adjust ment) included in this study was completed utilizing Adobe Photoshop CS 2 (version 9.0). Color adjustment was made while comparing the computer image with the ac tual specimen; however, in some cases true specimen color is not precisely matched in the im ages included herein (n atural, outdoor lighting would probably produce the most accurate wing co lor images). Type specimen images provided by various museum personnel are indicated; camer a and lighting specific s are not known. Table 2 includes a list of the museum names and a bbreviations where specimens were photographed. Species names included in the figure captions ar e written following the current taxonomy; thus, they are not always the name associated with the specimen when it was described. Names that were not given to the species when it was described are preceded by an = sign. Speyeria Diagnosis Speyeria Scudder, 1872 p. 23 Genotype: Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Idalia Drury, 1773 p. 1; 1770 p. 25 Argynnis Fabricius 1807 p. ix Genotype: Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758 p. 481 Semnopsyche Scudder, 1875 p. 258 [treated as a subgenus by dos Passos and Grey, 1947] Genotype: Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Diana Cramer, 1777 pp. 4, 148 Neoacidalia Reuss, 1926 p. 69

PAGE 56

56 Genotype: Papilio cybele Cramer, 1775 [ sic ] The adult description for Speyeria presented here from Scudd er (1889, p. 528), is based on the genotypic species, Speyeria [ Papilio ] idalia (Drury, 1773). The following description is slightly modified to include more recen t morphological terminology and excludes some extraneous descriptive wording, but is in large part verbatim : Head rather large, profusely covered with moderately long hair s, longest about the base of th e antennae. Slightly and broadly depressed dorsally, broader than high, but not as broad as the eyes; dorsal margin broadly angular, the apex depressed betw een the antennae, its lateral ma rgins nearly st raight; ventral margin broadly rounded and depressed only sligh tly. Vertex of head large and swollen, but scarcely rising above the upper level of the eyes twice as broad as long, the posterior margin broadly rounded and flattened medially, the anterior margin sloping extended forward and angulate with apex removed. Eyes large, full, an d not covered with scal es or hairs. Antennae inserted in deep pits with a transverse channe l between them, separated by a space fully equal to the diameter of the apex of th e pedicel; longer than the abdome n, composed of 52 segments, the last 13 of which form a slightly depressed cyli ndrical club; each segm ent flattened ventrally, suboval in shape, three times as broad as scape, two and a half to three times as long as broad. Palpi small and thin, approximately half the leng th of the eye, curving slightly forward, the apical joint about one-sixth the length of th e penultimate segment and thickly clothed with recumbent scales, the basal two joints with long, coarse, projecting hairs on each side, the third segment with shorter, scale-like hairs which grow longer in advance of the eyes, curving upward to partially encircle them. Prothoracic lobes moderately la rge, not swollen, slightly fl attened anteriorly, the dorsal surface nearly straight, both ends well rounded, scar cely four times as broa d as long, and slightly

PAGE 57

57 higher than long. Paired articulate d dorsal plates long and slender, slightly enlarged, more than three times longer than the wide st point, the base moderately broad or nearly square, the posterior lobe tapering rapidly ne xt to the base, the tip well ro unded, the dorsal margin slightly curved, scarcely sinuate, the ventral margin angulate. [Note: Wing venation in this study follows the Comstock-Needham system (see Figure 23) for the reasons discussed in Miller (1969); wi ng terminology included here is presented as it appears in Scudder (1889)] Forewing (see Figure 2-1A) seven-eighths as lo ng as broad, the costal margin rather strongly convex, the medially porti on less so, the apical angle we ll-rounded; outer margin nearly straight, rounded off toward the angles; inner margin slightly c onvex in males, slightly concave in the females. First superior subcostal vein arising beyond the middle of the outer half of the upper margin of the cell; second vein at the end of th e cell, or slightly with in the extreme limit of its upper border, which is pushed outward slightly at this location; this vein at approximately two-thirds the distance from the apex of the cell to the outer border; the fourth vein is a short distance beyond it, about half wa y between the apex of the cel l and the outer border; second inferior subcostal vein arising two-fifths the wa y down the cell; the latter s lightly more than twofifths the length of the wing, three times as long as broad. Last median vein connected with the vein closing the cell, nearly half as far beyond its base as it is from the base of the first vein. Hindwing (see Figure 2-1A) very strongly and roundly shouldered next to the base, beyond which it is slightly (females) or strongly (mal es) convex, the outer angl e broadly rounded. Outer margin regularly or fully rounded, very slightly at the upper subcostal vein (males) or very fully rounded, prominent, and roundly angulated at the upper median vein (females); inner margin broadly and abruptly expanded next to the base, beyond that straig ht nearly to the tip of the

PAGE 58

58 internal vein, beyond that exci sed and slightly and roundly emarginated, the angle rounded. Precostal vein curved strongly outward; first s ubcostal vein midway (males) or two-thirds (female) the distance from the bran ching point of the costal and s ubcostal veins to the origin of the second subcostal vein; cell closed. Androconial scent scales (males) ribbon-shaped, equal and slender, approximately 23 times longer than broa d, the basal portion black, the rest transparent, terminating in a lan cet-shaped fringed tip. Forelegs small, cylindrical, either clothed as the other legs (females) or also with a few short hairs on either side not projecting greatly (males); tibiae scarcely more than one-third as long as the hind tibia, the tarsi slightly shorter than the tibia; tarsi composed of either a single undivided segment with a bluntly conical apex (males), or fi ve segments, visible without denudation, of which the first segment forms fully three-fifths of the whole tarsus, the second segment nearly half of the remainder, the fourth is small and the fifth segment is the smallest; each of the segments except the terminal segment bearing short, rather stout spurs ventrally, all segments also bear a row of minute spines ventra lly on either side (females). Middle tibiae fivesixths the length of the hind tibi ae, bearing a row of long, slende r, scarcely tapering, slightly diverging spines ventrally on eith er side, the terminal ones devel oped to very long and slender, scarcely tapering spurs; the tibiae also bear num erous, short, slender, nearly recumbent spines dorsally and on the inner margin. Tarsi have four uniformly spaced rows of numerous, short, stout, slightly curving spines, the apical ones of each segment longe r than the rest; similar spines are located dorsally on all of the segments, scarce ly occurring in longitudinal rows. Tarsal claws long, rather stout, strongly curved at base, beyond the base nearly straight and equal, the apical third falcate and tapering to a pointed tip; pulvillus minute.

PAGE 59

59 Male genitalic armature (see Figure 2-10) st out, globose, arched, hook (=uncus) large, strongly compressed, longer than the centrum (=tegumen), somewhat curved and directed slightly downward, the tip minutely hooked; clasps (=valvae) large, broad and long, more than twice as long as broad, slightly curved in either direction, th e upper process of valvae arising near the middle of the dorsal ma rgin, several times longer than broa d, the basal half nearly equal, beyond that greatly tapering; main blade of valve expanding roundly at tip and beyond the middle of the dorsal margin, and especially at th e dorsal posterior angle, where a small process (=digitus) is directed upward a nd slightly forward and inward. The type species for Speyeria Scudder, 1872, Papilio idalia Drury 1773, is described in the three volume monograph entitled: Illustrations of natural history, wherein are exhibited upwards of two hundred and forty figures of exotic insects, accordi ng to their different genera by D. Drury. The original description contains three hand colored illustrations (Figure 2-1A) and a fairly brief description of ‘Idalia’ (Figure 2-1B). Speyeria idalia was described from individuals taken in New York on 28 June, with no further lo cality information. The original designation of Speyeria was monotypic, containing only idalia Drury’s description ha s been a source of potential error in that specimens used for the description are presumed lost. Because the type specimen was apparently lost since the time of Drury’s description, dos Passos and Grey (1947) designated a neotype based on a male specimen la beled ‘No. 1349 Coll. J. Angus, West Farms, New York City’ housed at the Amer ican Museum of Natural History. Key to the Species of Speyeria Abbreviations: VHW=ventral hi ndwing; DHW=dorsal hindwing; M=medial wing vein; A=anal wing vein [see Figures 2-2 and 2-3 for wi ng terminology; Figure 2-3 follows primarily the Comstock Needham system, as presented by Miller, 1969 (p. 46)] 1. Female genitalia: bursa copulatrix prolonged and constricted to form a secondary sac …………………………...…..……………………………………………………………………. 2

PAGE 60

60 1’. Bursa copulatrix simple (ovoid), not constricted to form a s econdary sac (partial secondary sac occurs in S. idalia )……………………………………………………………………………. 4 2. VHW with basal two-thirds un iform in color, without silver or whitish spots; males and females sexually dimorphic (males with ora nge DHW band; females with bluish band on DHW)(occurs east of the Rocky Mountains)………………………………………….…. S. diana 2’. VHW with basal two thirds with silver or whit ish spots; males and females with slight sexual dimorphism (females wit hout bluish band on DHW)………………………………………....….. 3 3. Males with M1-2A dorsal wing veins appearing widene d dorsally due to dark scaling along them; DHW on females without rosy-tinged patc h in median area towards inner margin; both sexes tending to brownish wing coloration ventrally…………….……………………..... S. cybele 3’. Males with scaling of dorsal wi ng veins thin or absent dorsally (resembling females in this respect); DHW on females usually with a rosy-ti nged patch in median area towards inner margin; both sexes tending to reddish wing coloration ventrally………………...………….... S. aphrodite 4. Male genitalia with uncus comparativ ely wide, ventrally excavate near tip………….……….. 5 4’. Male genitalia with uncus more uniforml y tapering, not ventrally excavate near tip……….... 6 5. DHW with one (male) or two (female) rows of whitish spots (occurs east of the Rocky Mountains)…………………………………………………………………………….….. S. idalia 5’. DHW not bearing one or two rows of whitis h spots (occurs primarily in Rocky Mountain states and west of the Rocky Mountains)…………………………………………........ S. nokomis 6. Male genitalia with valva bearing a long process (=digitus), this process three to four times as long as broad; large, conspi cuous silver spots on VHW……………………….….…. S. edwardsii 6.’ Male genitalia with valva bearing relatively short process (=digitus), this process less than three times as long as broad; VHW spots smaller, may be silver or unsilvered…………….....…. 7 7. DHW spots unsilvered or obsolete (restricted to central California)………….…..….. S. adiaste 7’. DHW spots silver or cream colored [some populations of S. mormonia (e.g., White Mountains, Arizona) bear obsolete DHW spots]……………………………………………….....8 8. VHW disc dark reddish to maroon in color, usually with conspicuous wash of lavender overscaling, spots cream or unsilver ed (occurs in Rocky Mountains and primarily west of the Rocky Mountains)………………………………………………………...………..…... S. hydaspe 8’. VHW disc devoid of conspicuous lave nder overscaling [some populations of S. zerene (e.g., Sierra Nevada Mountains) bear lavender overscaling], spot s silvered or unsilvered ………………………………………………………………………………………………..…… 9 9. VHW disc green, greenish br own, or brown (green scaling also occurs in a few S. coronis S. zerene S. egleis and S. mormonia populations), slender elongate me dian spots, almost devoid of yellow submarginal band, discal spots always si lver (only occurs west of the Mississippi River)………………………………………………………………………………....… S. callippe 9’. VHW disc various colors (usually not green ), yellow submarginal band usually present, median spots variously shaped……………………………..…………………………..…...…… 10 10. VHW disc never with green scaling…...………………………………………………….… 11 10’. VHW disc usually without gr een scaling, but with some popul ations having green scales on disc………………………………………...…………………………………………….………. 13 11. Occurring in the Spring Mountains in southern Nevada……………...……….….… S. carolae 11’. Not occurring in the Spring Mo untains in southern Nevada…………………..………….... 12 12. VHW spots always silvered, chocol ate-brown to blackish brown disc…………...… S. atlantis 12’ VHW spots cream colored, but may be silver, disc usually reddish [a few populations (e.g., Raton Mesa, New Mexico and Ruby Mountai ns, Nevada) bear a brownish disc]….…. S. hesperis

PAGE 61

61 13. Male with dorsal wing scaling of M1-2A veins “thin” and similar to female; size small on the average relative to remaining specie s in key (forewing length 22-26 mm)…………. S. mormonia 13’. Male with widened dorsal wing scaling of M1-2A veins compared to those of female; size on the average larger (forewing length usually greater than 26 mm)………………………....… 14 14. VHW disc color not so reddish and tending to brown, may be ove rscaled with green; discal spots may be silver, part ially silver, or opaque………...…………………………………. S. egleis 14’. VHW disc color brownish to greenish or dark red in some populations; discal spots usually silver……………………………..…………………………………………………..…………... 15 15. Generally larger wingspan than S. zerene usually with greenish-brown on VHW disc, varying to dark red-brown in some populations…………………...………………...….. S. coronis 15’. Generally smaller wingspan than S. coronis VHW disc with light buff, brown VHW disc to colors overlapping with S. coronis ……..………………………….……………….…..... S. zerene Species Accounts Note: Author names and year of publication a ppearing in brackets are references for which the name was first used as it appears in these accounts] Speyeria idalia (Drury, 1773) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-8) Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Idalia Drury, 1773 p. 1; 1770 p. 25 Argynnis astarte Fisher, 1858 p. 179 Argynnis Ashtaroth Fisher, 1859 p. 352 Argynnis Idalia-Infumata Oberthr, 1912 p. 315 Argynnis idalia Drury form dolli Gunder, 1927 p. 286 Argynnis idalia Drury form pallida Eisner, 1942 p. 124 Common names. Regal Fritillary, Regal Silverpot Bu tterfly, Regal S ilver-wing, Ideal Argynne, Eastern Regal Fritillar y, Prairie Regal Fritillary. Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by dos Passo s and Grey (1947) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-9). Type locality. See Figure 2-1B for original descri ption. New York. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on neotype as New York City, New York County, New York. Type label data. No. 1349, coll. J. Angus, West Farms, New York City.; NEOTYPE, Pap. Nym. Phal. Idalia Drury. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 68-106 mm. The forewings in males and females are bright orange -brown with black markings. The veins in the forewing of the male are thick and dark but th ere is no basal suffusion. Dorsal hindwings are black with a postmedian row of white spots and submarginal row of orange (male) or white (female) spots. The ventral hindw ing disc is a deep olive and th e spots are large and silver. The black surface on the dorsal hindwings distinguishes S. idalia from most other Speyeria The genitalia is similar to those in the Semnopsyche group. The male has a thick, hooked uncus (Figure 2-10) and there is a secondary bursal s ac in the female. Prior to Williams (2001a,c 2002), there were no ‘subspecifi c’ taxa designated under S. idalia Based on adult wing morphology and molecular evidence, Williams separated the western and eastern (Pennsylvania) S. idalia populations. The name Speyeria idalia occidentalis Williams has been given to the western populations. Eggs are pale green when newly laid, changing to tan as the larva develops inside.

PAGE 62

62 Larvae (Figure 2-8C) are velvety black with ochre-yellow or dull orange markings and transverse stripes. The dorsal spines are silver-w hite with black tips. The top half of the larval head capsule is bright red-ora nge. Scudder (1889) described the six larval instars in detail. Pupae (Figure 2-8B) are approximately 28 mm in length, light brown, tinged with pink, and bear black spots on the wing cases. There are also yellow tr ansverse bands on the abdomen. Detailed egg, larval instar, and pupal descriptio ns are included in Edwards (1879d). Range. Formerly known from Manitoba south through the plains states to central Colorado, Kansas, northeastern Oklahoma, and Mi ssouri; in the east from New Brunswick south to northwest North Carolina. Many colonies, howev er, have disappeared due mostly to habitat loss. Scudder (1889) reported S. idalia as far south as northern Georgia (but see Calhoun 2007), Louisiana (but see Hovanitz 1963a), and Arkansas, and also reported it to be abundant in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) liste d the following states: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Conn ecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, South Dakot a. It has been extirpated from most of New England except for a few offshore islands (but see Schweitzer 1993; Wagner 1995), and also extirpated from the mainland of New York, New Je rsey, and Delaware (Evers 1994). It has also been extirpated in many areas in the Great La kes region (Douglas and Douglas 2005) and is now rare or absent from many areas east of the Mississippi River (Opler and Wright 1999). Adults may wander long distances, and many records represent observations of single wandering individuals (Opler and Wright 1999). Currently, S. idalia are found in good numbers in the Great Plains states, with fragmented populations in the Midwest, and only a few known populations in the east (Pennsylvania and Virginia) (Schweitzer 1993; Mason 2001; Williams 2001a; Mooreside et al. 2006). Life history. Habitat includes Upper Austral to Tr ansition Zone in wet meadows/fields, marshlands, and prairie. Open grassy areas, such as mid-grass or tall-gras s prairies, are preferred habitat. Life history st udies and land management issues are numerous for S. idalia (Swengel 1993, 2004; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Wagner 1995; Glassberg 1998a,b; Debinski et al. 2000; Mason 2001; Ferster 2005; Kelly and Debinski 1998; Kopper et al 2000; Kopper et al. 2001a,b,c; Ross 2001; Shepherd and Debinski 20 05; Keyghobadi et al. 2006). Swengel (1997) reported S. idalia were significantly more abundant in larger midwestern prairies with topographic diversity and manage ment by haying or grazing. Speyeria idalia are reportedly sensitive to fire, and management activities shoul d both address the temporal and spatial aspects of the resource needs of the butterfly (Evers 1994; Swengel 1997; Swengel and Swengel 2001; Swengel 2004). Eggs are laid singly near hostpla nts or on hostplants (Scudder 1889) and unfed first instar larvae hibernate. Oviposition site sel ection may be influenced by the presence of grass and forb overstory for protection against sola r radiation and harsh overwintering conditions (Kopper et. al 2000). Females do not lay many eggs until August or early September (Scott 1986b; Kopper et al. 2001c), and a single individual is capable of laying nearly 2,500 eggs (Wagner 1995). Larvae have been observed feed ing on violets during the day (Kopper et al. 2001a; Mooreside et al. 2006). Flight period is from June through early September. Speyeria idalia is either listed as endangered, thre atened, or are of special concern in several states (Shuey et al. 1987; Evers 1994, Schlicht 1997; Mason 2001; Vaughan and Sheperd 2005a,b). Williams (1999, 2001a, 2001c) suggested that the subspecific status of the eastern population of S. idalia idalia has important conservation implicat ions and should result in federal emergency listing for this taxon. Habitat loss, due to development and agriculture, is the likely

PAGE 63

63 cause of the decline of S. idalia in many areas (Vaughan and Sh eperd 2005b), but their decline may also be due to pesticide spraying for gyps y moths control in some regions (Evers 1994). Larval host plant decline (Kelly and Debinski 1998) and lack of suitable nectar sources (Wagner 1995) may also explain the disappearance of S. idalia Wagner (2005) reported a nuclear polyhedrosis virus in captively bred populations, and this may also be a factor in the decline of some wild populations. Small, is olated populations are vulnerable to local extinction and loss of genetic diversity unless ovipositi ng females can find other suitable habitats. Ries and Debinski (2001) suggested the movements of adults are influe nced by the quality of ha bitat, and that they are less likely to exit from suitable ha bitat. It has also been reported that S. idalia is nonmigratory and generally stay w ithin the same local area thro ughout their lifetime (Scott 1986b). Keyghobadi et al. (2006) have shown that S. idalia populations in Pennsylvania occupying three, relatively nearby meadows exhibite d restricted gene flow and uni que genetic signatures. This suggests there may be fine–scale ge netic subdivision in areas where S. idalia populations have been largely extirpated. The results presente d by Williams et al. (2002) and Williams (2003) indicated that microsatellite markers have show n increased differentiation and decreased genetic diversity in the isolated, eastern S. idalia populations. Midwestern populations, which are presently experiencing the same effects of ha bitat fragmentation, are also more likely to experience the associated increase in extinction ri sk due to both genetic and demographic factors (Williams et al. 2003). Larval hostplants. Viola pedatifida V. papilionacea V. lanceolata V. pedata V. sagittata V. sororia (Swengel 1997; Robinson et al. 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005). Adult food sources. Common milkweed, butterfly milk weed, swamp milkweed, pasture and field thistles, alfalfa, butterfly weed, black-eyed Susan, wild bergamont, blackberry, dogbanes, crown vetch, Deptford pink, spotte d knapweed, ox-eye daisy, dotted blazing star, prairie blazingstar, purple coneflower, black Samp son (Shapiro and Shapiro 1973; Debinski et al. 2000; Ross 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005; Ferste r 2005; Shepherd and Debinski 2005; also see Kopper et al. 2001b for S. idalia and nectar source phenologies). Speyeria diana (Cramer, 1777) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-4A male; 2-4B female) Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Diana Cramer, 1777 pp. 4, 148 Common names. Diana Fritillary, Great Smokies Fr itillary, Ozark Diana Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype (male) (see Miller and Brown 1981) at The Natural History Museum, London (Figure 2-5). Type locality. The original description (Cramer 1977) did not contain a collection date, sex of specimen, or series data; “en Virgini e”. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on putative holotype (see Miller and Brown 1981) as Jamestown, James City County, Virginia. Type label data. ex collection Tring Museum, ex collection Felder, ex collection M. J. C. Sylvius van Lennep. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 88-112 mm. Both sexes are distinctive and superficially unlike ot her greater fritillaries. Adults are sexually dimorphic with the male’s general appearance ora nge and black and the female’s blue and black. A similar sexual dimorphism occurs in western North America with S. nokomis and with Eurasian Argynnis that range through regions of higher ra infall and higher summer temperatures (Hovanitz 1963b). Males bear black wing bases and are orange dist ally while females are black basally and bluish distally. The veins in th e forewing of the male are thick and dark. Speyeria

PAGE 64

64 diana also lacks silver spots on the ventral hindwings, the discal ba rs are completely obliterated, and the postmedian and submarginal spots are gr eatly reduced, distinguishing them from most other Speyeria A rare form of the female occurs that has green instead of blue on the hindwings (Opler and Krizek 1984). No subs pecies has been designated for S. diana ; however, there is some variability in individuals, but this is not abundantly apparent at th e population level. Clark and Clark (1951) reported differences in wing faci es due to elevational changes in Virginia populations. Female genitalia in S. diana differ from most other Speyeria by having a secondary bursal sac, closely allying S. diana with S. cybele and S. aphrodite In the male the digitus is distinct, widening distally b earing an abrupt ventral angl e with an outline unique to S diana Females are especially fecund with well over a thousand ova recorded (Ross and Henk 2004). Eggs are light yellow when they are deposited, a nd turn gray by day four or five, reflecting the color of the developing larva (Allen 1997; Ross and Henk 2004). Mature larvae are approximately 65 mm in length, velvet y black to purple with rows of black spines that are red to orange basally. Dorsal spines are proportionate ly longer than those located laterally. There occasionally is a double row of white spots locate d dorsally. The larval head capsule is orange above and black below, but is more a ngulate than those of closely related S. cybele and S. aphrodite Pupae are approximately 30 mm in length, mottled light brown and red, and bear tubercles on the abdomen. Duration of th e pupal stage is approximately 20 days. Range. It is currently restricted to the interior highlands of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri (Carlton and Nobles 1996; Rudolph et al. 2006). It is also known in the southern Appalachians from western Virginia, West Virg inia to northeast Geor gia and Alabama (Scott 1986b; Moran and Baldridge 2002). Moran and Bald ridge (2002) recorded it from 14 different Arkansas counties, 11 of these representing county records, indicating that it is more widespread than previously thought. It was extirpated in southeastern Virginia in about 1951 (Opler and Krizek 1984; Scott 1986b), and is considered uncommon or extirpate d in many other parts of its range. Historical populations in th e Midwest and the Virginia Pied mont were extirpated in the 1800s (Opler and Krizek 1984; Rudolph et. al. 2006) Dos Passos and Grey (1947) listed records from the following states: Pennsylvania, Virg inia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, I ndiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Arkansas. Life history. Habitat is mostly upper austral to tr ansition zone in deciduous and pine woodland near streams, rich forested valleys and mountainsides. Clark and Clark (1951) noted that thick undergrowth, usually with alders a nd rhododendrons, is usually present. Females will walk on the forest floor, laying single eggs on dead leaves and twigs near Viola spp., mostly in late summer. Larvae emerge in the late fall a nd hibernate until the following spring when they commence feeding on violet leaves and flowers. Adult males begi n flying one week earlier than females and patrol woodland habitats. Females likely mimic Battus philenor (L.) and Limenitis astyanax (F.) in various parts of the species range (Scudder 1889; Ehrlich 1961). However, Hovanitz (1963b) hypothesized that there may an environmental relationship affecting wing coloration and patterns by noting that they may be correlated to the high humidity and temperatures where S. diana occurs. Flight period is mid-June through early August, rarely into September. In Arkansas’s Ouachita Mountains, male S. diana emerge as early as late May and females emerge approximately 7-10 days la ter (Rudolph et al. 2006). Females have been observed as late as mid October in northe rn Georgia (Adams and Finkelstein 2006). Speyeria diana is of conservation concern and th e cause of extirpations and range contractions are likely due to habitat altera tion (Allen 1997), harvest of old growth forests (Hammond and McCorkle 1983), stri p mining (Vaughan and Shepard 2005a), and loss of nectar

PAGE 65

65 plants (Moran and Baldridge 2002; Rudolph et. al. 2006). The Xer ces Society currently lists S. diana as vulnerable (Vaughan and Shepard 2005a). Larval hostplants. Viola papilionacea V. cucullata V. cornuta V. sororia ; partially reared on Vernonia noveboracensis (Compositae) (Tietz 1972; Sc ott 1986b; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Reported to visit milkweeds including swamp milkweed and butterfly weed, ironweed, red clover, dung, carrion, damp soil, wads of grass, vomitus of coyotes, and human sweat (Opler and Krizek 1984; Krizek 1991; Opler and Malikul 1998; Rudolph et al. 2006). Rudolph et al. (2006) listed several pl ant species as primary nectar sources in Arkansas including Asclepias tuberosa Monarda fistulosa Cirisium carolinianum and Echinacea purpurea ; Asclepias syriaca was recorded as a nectar source in western Virginia (Krizek 1991). Speyeria cybele (Fabricius, 1775) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Cybele Fabricius, 1775 p. 516 Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Daphnis Cramer, 1775 p. 89; 1776 p. 152 Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Daphnis ? Martyn, 1797 p. 7 Argynnis Cybele aberration Baal Strecker, 1878 p. 111 Common names. Great Spangled Fritillary, Cybele Fritillary, Yellow-ba nded Silver Wing. Type deposited. Holotype (female) (=neotype of dos Passos and Grey 1947; see Miller and Brown 1981) at British Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-6). Type locality. The original description (Fabricius 1775) did not contain a collection date, sex of specimen, or series data; “Habitat in America”. Fixed by dos Pa ssos and Grey (1947) based on alleged holotype as New York City, New York County, New York. Type label data. cybele, Fab., Syst. Ent. P. 516 n. 311 (1775), United States; Papilio Cybele Fabr. Sp. Ins. No. 477; NEOTYPE, Papilio Nymph. Phalerat. Daphnis? Martyn, designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947, p. 6. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 65-105 mm. There are several ‘subspecies’ included within the S cybele species complex. The western races show a sexual dimorphism in which the ground color of th e male is bright orange and the female is yellow with darker scales locate d near the base. Some, such as Speyeria cybele leto exhibit sexual dimorphism with males being bright or ange and females being nearly white. Older literature, as well as contemporary works, treat leto as a distinct specie s (Holland 1931; Edwards 1864b; Scudder 1875; Howe 1975; Kondla 2004). East ern and western populations reportedly intergrade or show mixed wing characteristic s where they meet in Alberta and Montana (Glassberg 2001a). Speyeria cybele bear silver spots on the ventra l hindwings, but these spots are reduced compared to other Speyeria species. The ventral discal area is typically brown and the submarginal band is wide and yellowish in colo r. Males have prominent sex scaling on along forewing veins. The eyes on living adults are ye llow-green (Glassberg 2001a). Female genitalia in S. cybele differ from most other Speyeria by having a secondary bursa l sac, closely allying S. cybele with S. diana and S. aphrodite The male genitalic armature bears a hooked uncus, similar to those in S. aphrodite S. diana S. idalia and S. nokomis Eggs are light yellow when first deposited and turn pale br own after 3-4 days. Duration from oviposition to larval eclosion is reportedly 12-17 days (Edwards 1880b) or 2223 days indoors (Ross and Henk 2004). Mature larvae are approximately 51 mm in length, are typically chocolatebrown on the ventral surface, and bear dorsally black spines that are red-yellow to orange at the base. There is also a row of

PAGE 66

66 gray spots located dorsally. The larval head capsule is orange above and black below. Pupae are mottled dark brown, occasionally with reddish-orange over the wing cases. The anterior abdominal tubercles are usually bl ack or black and yellow in color. Duration of the pupal stage is 16 to 20 days in eastern cybele (Edwards 1880b). Range. The S. cybele species complex extends from the eas t coast to the west coast in the United States and Canada, south to northeastern California, New Mexico, and eastward to central Arkansas (reportedly common in Clay, Greene, and Craighead Counties in northern ArkansasLavers 2006) and the northern por tions of Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The range of nominate S. cybele includes much of the eastern United States, where it is considered common. Records for S. cybele exist as far south as Mississippi (Lafayette County-Mather 1966) and Florida (Kimball 1965; Heppner 2003). It was once c onsidered common in areas such as Staten Island, but was reportedly rare in the early 1970’s (Shapiro and Shapiro 1973). Some S. cybele forms may be declining in western North America because of habitat changes such as the loss of habitat (Opler and Wright 1999). Howe (1975) reported a decline in eastern Kansas cybele and noted considerable fluctuations in it s numbers from one season to the next. Life history. Habitat includes Transition to Canadian zone in moist deciduous woods and moist meadows, conifer forest openings, aspen-li ned streams or glades, valleys, prairies, and along roadsides. Females mate immediately after emerging in May and June but do not commence oviposition until August or September, strongly suggesting reproductive diapause (Sims 1984). Eggs are typically la id singly near dead or dying Viola and unfed first instar larvae hibernate; however, Scudder (1889) noted that eggs are also laid upon the leaves and stalks of the hostplant. First instars commence feeding th e following spring. Adults are swift fliers and males patrol all day while seeking females; fe males carry males while mating. Males typically frequent flower heads more often than females; the females remain hidden and rarely venture out into the open. Ross (2002, 2004) noted that dead or decoy adult S. cybele placed on nectar sources attracted additional S. cybele individuals as well as other butterfly species. Flight period is mid-June through mid-September. Larval hostplants. Viola rotundifolia, V. paplionacea, V. palustris, V. adunca, V. adunca variation bellidifolia, V. sororia, V. canadensis (Scott 1986b; Swengel 1997; Robinson et al. 2002; Heppner 2003). Adult food sources. Butterfly milkweed, Asclepias exaltata common milkweed, ironweed, thistles, dogbane, knapwee d, vetches, red clover, purple coneflower, Joe-Pye weed, and black-eyed Susan, also occasionally f eed on dung (Howe 1975; Scott 1986b; Broyles and Wyatt 1991; Opler and Malikul 1998; Ross 1998; Foote 2002; Ross 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005). Rudolph et al. (2006) listed several plant species as primar y nectar sources in Arkansas, including Asclepias tuberosa Monarda fistulosa Cirisium carolinianum Echinacea purpurea, Carduus nutans, and Liatris squarrosa Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius, 1787) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Papilio Nymphalis Phaleratus Aphrodite Fabricius, 1787 p. 62 Argynnis cybele Fabricius form Bartschi Reiff, 1910 p. 255 Argynnis aphrodite aberrant bakeri Clark, 1932 Common names. Aphrodite Fritillary, Silverspot Fr itillary, Silver-winged Butterfly, Venus Fritillary, Venus’s Argynne. Type deposited. Neotype (male) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-7).

PAGE 67

67 Type locality. The original description (Fabricius 1787) did not include a collecting date, sex of specimen, or series data; “Habitat in Amer ica meridionali”. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on neotype as New York City, New York County, New York. Type label data. No. 22, New York City and vicinity. Coll. S. L. Elliot. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-84 mm. Males are typically orange-brown and th ere is specialized sex scales along forewing veins. These veins are as thin as they are on females and this is unique to S. aphrodite as well as S. mormonia Another unique wing characterist ic, reported by Guppy and Shepard (2001), is the presence of a faint black circle or “halo” surrounding the black spot located between wing veins M3 and CuA1. There is frequently little basal suffusion in the male, but the fema les usually exhibit some basal suffusion. Females are typically larger and have darker wing bases than do the males. Most S. aphrodite individuals have silver spot s on the underside of the hindw ings and the discal area is cinnamon brown to red-brown. The ventral hindw ing submarginal band is narrow and invaded by disc coloration. Eye coloration in living adults is dull yellow -green (Glassberg 2001a). There are several known subspecies within S. aphrodite and the complex is geographically variable, both in immature and adult stages. Eggs are us ually reddish brown at maturity. Larvae are typically brown-black with the spines ochre or brown. The larval head ca psule is light orange above and black below. Pupae are brownish-bla ck with yellow wing cases and gray abdomen. There are spines or tuberc les located on the abdomen. Range. The range of the S. aphrodite complex extends from the eastern United States the Appalachians in northern Georgia south to No rth Carolina, north to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in Canada, west to southern and central parts of British Columbia, Nebraska, south to New Mexico. There is an isolat ed population in the White M ountains of eastern Arizona [ S. a. byblis (Barnes and Benjamin)]. The range of nominate S. aphrodite includes central New York and southern Vermont southward to Pe nnsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Life history. Habitats include dry Transition zone to Canadian Zone brushland or open woods, moist prairies, streamside s, foothills, mountain meadow s/slopes, and old fields. Dry habitat species such as aphrodite delay laying most of their eggs until late August or September and they usually oviposit in places where the vi olets have dried up for the year. Eggs are laid singly near Viola or where Viola will appear next spring (o ften under shrubs) (Scott 1986b). Females may be able to detect olfactory cues of the violets’ dormant roots (Pyle 1995). In the Colorado foothills, females lay eggs under ma hogany bushes and other places in August and September where violets have long since sene sced (Pyle 1995). Unfed first instar larvae hibernate. Larvae commence feeding the following spring and eat leaves of violets. Males patrol most of the day while seeking females. Flight period is late June through mid-September. Larval hostplants. Viola lanceolata V. fimbriatula V. nuttallii V. paplionacea V. nephrophylla V. primulifolia variation acuta V. sagittata V. sororia V. tricolor and V. adunca (Scott 1986b; Scott 1992; Robinson et al 2002). Tietz (1972) also reported Passiflora incarnata Podophyllum peltatum and Portulaca oleracea as foodplants, all of wh ich are likely erroneous. Adult food sources. Milkweed, Asclepias exaltata dogbane, black-eyed Susan, Queen Anne’s lace, hawkweeds, thistles, mints, rabbitbrush, Echium spp. (Broyles and Wyatt 1991; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Foote 2002; Douglas and Douglas 2005). Speyeria nokomis (W. H. Edwards, 1863b) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Nokomis W. H. Edwards, 1863b p. 221 Acidalia Semnopsyche nokomis form valesinoides-alba Reuss, 1926 p. 69

PAGE 68

68 Common names. Nokomis Fritillary, West ern Seep Fritillary. Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by dos Pa ssos and Grey (1947) at American Museum of Natural History. Type locality. Rocky Mountains and mount ains of California. Neot ype (male) (Figures 211) fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Mo unt Sneffels, Ouray County, Colorado; however, dos Passos and Grey (1965) rec onsidered this designation and Brown (1965) noted that this locality was an unlikely habitat for nokomis and that the specimen does not fit the original description. Ferris and Fisher (1971) revised the type locality and designated a lectotype (male) (Figure 2-12) taken from Colorado for S. nokomis. Ferris and Fisher (1971) discuss the likelihood that the type locality for S. nokomis nokomis was probably somewhere in eastern Utah; however, the specimen they designated as lectotype is taken from Mesa County, Colorado (see below). Grey (1989 ) later noted that S. nokomis does occur at Mt. Sneffels, based on collection records located at th e AMNH. Although the true type locality and type specimen will likely remain obscure or missing, the neotype designation provided by dos Passos and Grey (1947) is reaffirmed by Grey (1989). Type label data. Taken from dos Passos and Grey (1947): Oslar Sneffels Mts Ouray Co Col Aug 9000 Ft.; A. nokomis; Ex Coll. Wm C. Wood Acc 36915; NEOTYPE, Argynnis Nokomis [male], Edwards. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 63-80 mm. There are several ‘subspecies’ included in nokomis complex. Male dorsal wing coloration is orange with sparse black dots while females are black basally and whitish outwardly with many black spots. The dorsal submarginal dark chevrons do not touch the black marginal line. Forewings are pinkish-orange ventrally with white spots. Discal coloration is variable in both sexes depending on the geographic location. The ventral hindwing di sc on males and females is light to dark brown with submarginal band tan in many regions ; females bear a gray-green disc with the submarginal band yellow-green in California a nd Nevada populations. Eastward populations tend to have darker hindwing discs. The hindwin gs on both sexes have relatively small silver spots and they typically bear black edges. Most forms of S. nokomis exhibit sexual dimorphism. The uncus on the male genitalia is hooked and similar to those of S. idalia and the Semnopsyche group; however, the female has only a single bursa l sac. The eye coloration in living specimens is yellow-green (Glassberg 2001b). The egg is cream colored when laid and becomes tan after a few days. Detailed egg morphology is included in Scott and Mattoon (1981). Larvae typically bear a yellow to orange dorsal stri pe and yellow to orange transver se stripes with rows of yelloworange or black spines. Black patches surround spines dorsally and laterally. Female larvae typically feed ten days longer th an do males (Allen et al. 2005). Detailed larval descriptions, including setal maps, are included in Scott and Mattoon (1981). Pupae are black with center of wing cases orange, and bear orange stripes on the abdomen. Pupae vary in coloration throughout the range of nokomis Range. Many populations are declining because of capping of springs and other habitat modifications caused by human disturbances such as livestock grazing (Hammond and McCorkle 1984). Speyeria nokomis is presently known from ea stern California to western Colorado, south through eastern Arizona and wester n New Mexico, with popul ations as far south as Mexico. Known localities are widely separated due to restricted habitat. Life History. Habitats include Upper Sonoran to Canadian Zone moist meadows near streams, permanent spring fed meadows, mars hlands, boggy streamsides, and seeps; can be found in canyons with pinyon pines and junipers. Britten et al. (1994) studied the isozyme

PAGE 69

69 variability of S. nokomis populations in the Great Basin and note d that there was little gene flow between populations, further confirming that nokomis is confined to mesic seep habitats with great expanses of unsuitable, xeric habitat isolating populations Eggs are laid singly and haphazardly near hostplants. Unfed first instar la rvae hibernate, and some later instars may also aestivate during drought conditions from April through June (Scott 1986b). Larvae overwinter in grass stems after emerging (Pyle 1995). Males patrol all day in meadows or along streams seeking females. This species tends to fly on the average later than most other Speyeria species. Flight period is usually from late July to mi d September or mid August to mid September in the southern part of its range. The range of S. nokomis was likely more continuous duri ng moister climatological times. Populations are now separated by vast desert landscapes. A population [ S. nokomis coerulescens (W.J. Holland)] that once flew high in the Sant a Catalina Mountains no rth of Tucson, Arizona has not been seen since 1938 a nd presumably has been extirpated (Glassberg 2001b). Fleishman et al. (2001b) note that extincti on and colonization events for S. nokomis populations in the Great Basin are related to multiple aspects of habita t quality, such as extreme climatic events and grazing-mediated availability of nectar. The result s from Britten et al. (1994) indicate there is little gene flow among S. nokomis populations in the Great Basi n, and that these populations have lost genetic variability as the result of sm all effective populations sizes and genetic drift; thus, conservation of individual colonies may be im portant for the evolutionary potential of this species. Results from mark and recapture studies conducted by Britten et al (2003) indicate that suitable but vacant habitat patches should be maintained for potential recolonization by S. nokomis apacheana in the central Great Basin. Larval hostplants. Viola sororia (Emmel et al. 1970; Scott and Mattoon 1981; Scott 1986a; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Thistles (Scott 1986b). Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt, 1866) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Edwardsii Reakirt, 1866, p. 137 Acidalia Edwardsi montana Reuss, 1926, p. 439 Argynnis edwardsii Reakirt form edonis Gunder, 1934, p. 125 Common names. Edward’s Fritillary, Green Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Field Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-13). Type locality. California; Pike’s Peak, Teller C ounty, Colorado Territory. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as Pike’s Peak, Teller County, Colorado. Type label data. A. Edwardsii, Orig. Type, Reak Coll; Lectotype, Argynnis edwardsii Reakirt, Det. By dos Passos and Grey 1947; “Argynnis edwardsii Reak., Col., Empire city. Reak.”, “Orig. Types Originals of Edwd’s fi gs. In Butt. N.A.” Strecker Colln. 13311, Field Museum Nat. Hist.; Lepidoptera Ty pe Photograph No. 86, Field Museum. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This is one of the larger Speyeria with pointed forewings. Adult wingspan ranges from 51-85 mm. The dorsal wing surface in both sexes is bright tawny and dark marki ngs are moderate except along th e margin where they are well marked with chevrons that point toward the wing base. The ventral forewings are bright pinkish orange at base and shading to yellow toward th e distal margin with the same black pattern as upperside. The ventral hindwings bear oval or elonga te silver spots and the disc is mottled with a dull greenish olive coloration. There are no subspecific names associated with S. edwardsii and

PAGE 70

70 there is little wing vari ation throughout its range. Speyeria callippe may be superficially similar in appearance where their ranges overlap, but callippe bears ventral hindwing marginal spots that are more pointed rather than rounded inwardly as they appear on edwardsii Speyeria coronis is also similar but bears large, round median sp ots on the hindwing disc. The uncus on the male genitalia is clawed and slende r, unlike the previous 5 species discussed above. The digitus (Figure 2-14) on each valva is long and slender a nd unlike any other member in the genus (others have more or less a short, club-like digitus). E ggs are greenish yellow a nd generally shaped like the rest of Speyeria Larvae are dark yellow dorsally, with gray laterally and a black dorsal stripe. The upper four rows of spines are gray at the base; the lower tw o rows of spines are orange at the base. The pupa is approximately 22 mm in length and brown with anterior portions reddish in color. The wing cases are yellow-brown with dark streaks along the veins. Detailed egg, larval instar, and p upal descriptions are incl uded in Edwards (1888b). Range. Speyeria edwardsii is known from southern Alberta east to Manitoba, south to northern New Mexico, west to the Dakotas and western Nebras ka and Oklahoma. They are seldom found above 10,000 ft in Colorado. Stray reco rds also exist in Kansas (Ely et al. 1983). Life history. Habitat includes short grass prairie, foothills, meadows, glades, open pine forests, valleys and roadsides. Individuals are known to migrate into the mountains during the midsummer months with females moving back into the prairies during the late summer to lay eggs (Opler and Wright 1999). Flight period extends from mi d-May through late October. Edwards (1888b) noted the egg stage is approxim ately 10 to 11 days. Larvae, which pass through five molts after overwintering as a first instar, feed for approximately 45 days before pupating. The duration of the pupal stage is approximately 15 days. Sco tt (1986a, 2006b) reports various oviposition substrates for S. edwardsii Larval hostplants. Viola adunca V. nuttallii (Scott 1986a; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Thistles, coneflowers, Penstemon angustifolius Penstemon albidus (Hammond 1995; Pyle 1995). Speyeria coronis (Behr, 1864) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Coronis Behr, 1864 p. 435 Argynnis californica Skinner, 1917 p. 328 Common names. Coronis Fritillary, Crown Fr itillary, California Fritillary. Type deposited. Putative lecotype (male) (but see Emmel 1998b) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Muse um of Natural History (Figure 2-15). Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as Alma, Santa Clara County, California. However, Brown (1965) questioned this designation and use of the term lectotype with the specimen dos Passos and Grey examined because type specimens were likely lost in an earthquake. He stated that the specimen was not of the type series and was not available for se lection as lectotype. The specimen that I examined did not bear these two labels listed by Brown 1965: a label wr itten by L. P. Grey that he considers this specimen typical and an identify ing label added by Brown. Emmel et al. (1998b) discuss further this situation and conclude that it wa s possible that Behr likely described coronis from material collected by P. Lorquin, including one extant sp ecimen. Therefore, it could be valid for a neotype specimen. A label indicating that it is the neotype of Argynnis coronis Behr, designated by W.H. Edwards, 1865, was added to the specimen. Th is label was also not associated with the specimen I examined. It is possible that the imag e included herein is not the lectotype designated

PAGE 71

71 by dos Passos and Grey (1947), or it is unclear where the associat ed label data mentioned above was located at the time I visited the CMNH. Type label data. Coronis Behr’s type, Juba B type. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Several forms of this species range from the Rockies to the Pacific states. Adult wingspan ra nges from 49-86 mm. Both sexes are generally orange to pale orange, and the forewing margins are nearly straight, with wing bases slightly darkened. The ventral hindwing discs are genera lly mottled brown and bear rounded inward or flattened silver spots capped pa le green or greenish-brown. Populations in western Colorado and eastern Utah bear pale and sli ghtly green tinged discs while popul ations in the Great Basin are greenish-gray. The submarginal band located on th e ventral surface of the hindwings is yellow to pale buff. Eggs are ribbed and tan in color. La rvae bear black and brown spots with orange or black lateral spines. The upper four rows of spin es are typically black and somewhat lighter at the base; the lower two rows of spines are typically orange-yellow at the base. Larval coloration is variable throughout the range of S. coronis Pupae are whitish, with black markings and resemble those of S. callippe Speyeria coronis is hypothetically closely related to Speyeria zerene and in some locations they are difficult to separate in the field. Their la rge size, thin, light veins in the male, and large, round, silver median spots on the ve ntral hindwing should distinguish S. coronis from most other Speyeria Along the central co ast of California, S. coronis and Speyeria callippe are indistinguishable except that on average, S. coronis is larger and brighter orange dorsally, paler ventrally, and the hindwing postmedian spots (t ermed “spangles”) show through to a lesser extent when viewed dorsally. Speyeria carolae formerly considered an intermediate form between S. coronis and S. zerene is known only from mountains in southern Nevada and is presently considered a distinct species (Emmel and Austin 1998). Range. Speyeria coronis is known from northern Washi ngton south to northwest Baja California, northeast throughout th e Great Basin and central Rock ies to Montana, Wyoming, and into western South Dakota and Nebraska. Life history. Speyeria coronis is known from several habitat types, including oak woodlands, mountain slopes, foothills, mixed conifer forests, meadows, prairie valleys, chaparral, and sagebrush flats/scrub. This sp ecies often congregates on hillsides and meadows overgrown with rabbitbrush and sage (Dornfeld 1980). In forest openings, they often frequent flowers along mountain streams. Males of S. coronis may emerge two weeks in advance of females, and may be on the wing in late May or early June before the arrival of other Speyeria species. Females diapause (delay oviposition) in California and reappear in late August through September. Flight period is from late May to October, depending on locality and elevation. This species is usually found at low to middle elevations. Speyeria coronis forms occur at sea level in parts of California and up to 9,000 ft. in Colorado. Larval hostplants. Viola beckwithii V. douglasii V. nuttallii V. purpurea (Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Mint, thistle. Speyeria zerene (Boisduval, 1852) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-16) Argynnis Zerene Boisduval, 1852 p. 303 Argynnis monticola Behr, 1863 p. 84 Common names. Zerene Fritillary.

PAGE 72

72 Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-17). Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype as Yosemite Valley, Mariposa County, California. However, Masters (1979) (and also see Grey 1989) disputed this locality becau se it was unlikely that P. Lorquin collected specimens from Yosemite Valley before 1856. Masters listed Ag ua Fria, Mariposa County, as the likely type locality because Lorquin collected there in 1850-1851. Agua Fria is closest to Yosemite Valley and is in the same biotic province. However, A gua Fria is no longer in existence but was a gold camp and the county seat of Mariposa County in 1850. It was located on Aqua Fria Creek just west of the present town of Mariposa and appr oximately 35 miles southwest of Yosemite Valley. Emmel et al. (1998a) dismissed the likelihood of Lorquin traveling to Mariposa County before 1852 based on his travels to the Fe ather River region during those ti mes, thus re-restricted the type locality to Hwy 70 at Chambers Cree k, North Fork Feather River, Plumas County, California. Type label data. Zerene. Bois. Calif. Californie. ; Argynnis Zerene l’un des 2 types., Boisduval. Ann. Fr. 1852. p. 303; EX MUSAEO Dris BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection; Type A zerene Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes Collection. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 48-67 mm. There are several ‘subspecies’ included within the zerene species complex and wing coloration is highly variable (see Grey and Moeck 1962; Grey 1972). The uppers ide ground color of the wings varies from deep orange to pale yellow or brown to tan and the underside of the hindwings shows great variability depending on geographi c location. The ground color of the inner discal area ranges from maroon through various shades of reddish-brown through tan (discal coloration is generally violet-brown in Sierra Nevada Mountains, yellow in Great Basin, and slightly greenish brown in southern Wyoming and Colorado); the band located out side of the disc runs from lavender to tan or yellow; hindwing spots are usua lly silvered but not always (t hey are yellowish in California and southern Nevada). The thr ee anterior spots in the median band area are all separate, the second spot is round and larger, and the third spot is narrower and slanted away from the second. Speyeria zerene S. coronis S. callippe S. egleis and S. atlantis are very similar to each other in some regions. The thin, light veins in the male and the large round, silver median spots on the ventral hindwing should distinguish S. zerene from most other Speyeria with the exception of S. coronis Variation at the subspecific le vel is also parallel within th ese species. Eggs are cream to pinkish-tan. Larvae are typically black with yello wish to gray-tan dorsal stripes. The top two rows of spines are generally black, the middle row may be black or yellow, and the bottom row yellow. Larvae are somewhat variable in coloration througho ut the range of S. zerene Pupae are similar to those of S. nokomis and hang vertically w ithin leaves tied with silk as in most Speyeria Range. Speyeria z erene forms range from southeastern Alaska, southwestern Canada, south to central California, Arizona, New Mexi co, Utah, Montana, and southwestern Colorado. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed a few subspecific forms as either threatened or endangered [i.e., S. z. hippolyta (Edwards), S. z. behrensii (Edwards), and S. z. myrtleae dos Passos and Grey] and some popul ations along the California co ast have been extirpated. Life history. Depending on geographic location, zerene forms occur in a wide array of habitats. Several subspecies occur along forest roads and in moist ravines and montane conifer forests, while some [i.e. S. zerene gunderi (Comstock)] occur in the open expanses of sage and rabbitbrush. The Behren’s Fritillary ( S. zerene behrensii ) and Hippolyta Fritillary ( S. z.

PAGE 73

73 hippolyta ) occur in unlikely ha bitat along the weather-beaten, salt-s pray meadow coastline of the Pacific Ocean. Habitat destruction is the likely cause of the decline of the S. zerene myrtleae and S. zerene hippolyta (Launer et al. 1994). Speyeria zerene behrensii S. zerene hippolyta and S. zerene myrtleae are presently listed as federally endange red. Several life history studies and land management discussions occur in the literature for these rare zerene forms (McCorkle 1975; McCorkle and Hammond 1988; La uner et al. 1994; Patterso n 2002; Connor et al. 2002). McCorkle and Hammond (1988) discuss the life history of S. zerene hippolyta (as well as Speyeria in general) in detail. Flight period is as early as late J une to July, while some (i.e., S. z. behrensii and S. z. hippolyta ) appear on the wing in August and September. Larval hostplants. Viola adunca V. cuneata V. lobata V. nuttallii V. psychodes V. purpurea V. beckwithii (Scott 1986b; Hammond 1995; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. As with other Speyeria there are numerous plant species from which S. zerene likely nectar on. Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey, 1942) [Emmel and Austin 1998] Speyeria zerene carolae (dos Passos and Grey) [dos Passos, 1961 p. 221] Speyeria coronis carolae (dos Passos and Grey) [dos Passos and Grey, 1947 p. 11] Argynnis coronis carolae dos Passos and Grey, 1942 p. 2 Common names. Carol’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype (male) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-18). Type locality. Charleston Park, Clark County, Nevada. Type label data. Charleston Park, Clark Co., Nev., 8-9, VII, 1928, 8,000 ft.; ARGYNNIS C. CAROLAE, C. F. dos Passos and L. P. Gr ey; J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998; Holotype. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Average wingspan is approximately 56 mm. Speyeria carolae is generally darker and bears slightly different wing shape and coloration than those of S. coronis and S. zerene The dorsal color of both sexes is bright reddish-orange; the ventral forewing is heavily fl ushed with reddish-orange an teriorly to or beyond vein M3, and this is usually more extensive than on S. zerene and S. coronis The ventral hindwing disc varies from reddish-brown to brown and the spots are moderate ly large. The spots range from silvered to mostly unsilvered. Speyeria carolae has been hypothesized to be an intermediate form between S. coronis and S. zerene (Scott 1986b). Formerly recognized as a subspecies within the S. coronis complex (dos Passos and Grey 1942, 1947), and later S. zerene complex by dos Passos (1961) and Austin (1981), S. carolae was considered a distinct spec ies by Emmel and Austin (1998) and Austin (1998b) based on differences in wing pa tterns and chromosome numbers (but see North American Butterfly Associ ation 2001). The nearest Speyeria population to those of S. carolae is in southwestern Utah, approximately 225 km to the northeast. The geographic isolation and the low probability of present-day gene flow and probable, precinctive larval hostplant Viola charlestonensis support full species status (Emmel and Austin 1998). Range. Isolated in southern Nevada’s Spring Mountains in Clark C ounty. Type material was taken in the Charleston Range between el evations of approximately 6,000-11,000 ft. It is regarded as the most restricted Speyeria species in geographical range (Howe 1975; Emmel and Austin 1998). Life history. Adults occur in dry forests, hillsides, meadows, and riparian habitats above 6,000 ft. in the Spring Range (Austin 1981; Fleishman et al. 2005). Larval hostplants. Probably Viola charlestonensis (Emmel and Austin 1998).

PAGE 74

74 Adult food resources. (G. Austin pers. comm.): Erysimum asperum (Brassicaceae), Apocynum androsaemifolium (Apocynaceae), Rosa woodsii (Rosaceae), Lupinus sp. (Fabaceae), Angelica scabrida (Apiaceae), Chaenactis sp., Cirsium sp. [latter is principal source] (Asteraceae). Speyeria callippe (Boisduval, 1852) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-19) Argynnis callippe Boisduval, 1852 p. 302 Common names. Callippe Fritillary, Callippe Silverspot. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-20). Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as San Francisco, San Francisco County, California. Although it is now extinct in San Francisc o, it likely once flew on the slopes on Mt. Davidson where Viola pedunculata has been recorded (Emmel et al. 1998a). Type label data. Calippe. Boisd. Calif. Californie., Argynnis Callippe Boisduval type; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection; Type callipe Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes Collection. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 47-74 mm. There are several geographic forms with variable coloration on the wings. The dorsal wing surface is generally red-brown to light tawny, dependi ng on geographic location. Dark markings are evenly spaced, providing a distinctive checkered or lattice appearance. The ground coloring on the ventral surface varies from reddish to yellowish brown, sometimes with heavy black scaling. The discal area on the underside is commonly powdered by with green scales (especially in the Plains, Rockies, and Great Basin) but may be brown (Ca lifornia and southwest Oregon) in some forms, with spots on the ventral hindwings large and us ually silver but may be unsilvered (California and southwest Oregon) in some forms. A genera l trend in wing patterning and coloration is apparent west and east of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada Mountains. Populations east of the mountains have tan, brown, or red-brown ventral ground coloration with either silvered or unsilvered spots and a tan submarginal band in the ventral hindwing. Populations in western North America vary from pale green to deep bl ue-green ventrally either without a submarginal band or only a narrow yellow-green band. Speyeria coronis may be confused with S. callippe (especially along the central California coast) but hindwing marginal spots on S. callippe are usually triangular sh aped and bordered inwardly only by a thin dark border; other Speyeria species, including S. coronis usually bear differently shaped spots and darker, wider borders. The pale median and submarginal spots show through the wings above (termed “spangles”) on S. callippe especially in females along the Pacific Coast. These sp angles provide a two-toned appearance when viewed from above. Geographical variation for S. callippe has been studied (Hovanitz 1943; Sette 1962; Ar nold 1983, 1985). Hovanitz (1943) st udied California populations and hypothesized that racial or ge nealogical relationships are more or less the same, and that subspecific taxa there do not provide clear evidence of diverg ence. He did recognize several main divisions of the callippe complex, namely those in the Sout h Coastal Range, western Sierra Nevadas, and a southern zone of intergrada tion along the Piute Mountai ns and Sierra Madre range. Sette (1962) examined the va riation of silvering in the southern zone of intergradation and hypothesized that there may be a “silvering-gene ” present during the pupal stage under optimal environmental conditions, and speculated guanine wa s the substance responsib le for silvering in S. callippe Arnold (1985, 1983) examined the wing ch aracters of 16 subspecies utilizing

PAGE 75

75 principle component analyses and graph cluste ring techniques to de scribe variation and suggested reducing the number of subspecies to three (but see Hammond 1986). Larvae are mottled brown and black with black (or paler) dors al stripes and many orange to yellow or black branching spines. Eggs are pale yellow, becoming pinkish brown. Pupae are whitish, with black markings similar to S. nokomis Range. The S callippe species-complex extends from the Pacific Coast from southeastern British Columbia south to northwestern Baja Ca lifornia, northeast through the Great Basin and Rockies to southern Manitoba, and to western parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, and central Colorado. Life history. Speyeria callippe occurs in a variety of hab itat types, including grasslands, oak and pine woodlands, sagebrush, chaparral, va lleys, brushy hillsides, and prairie ridges. Dryhabitat Speyeria species such as callippe delay laying most of their eggs until late August or September and they usually oviposit in places wher e the violets have dried up for the year. Eggs are laid mainly under shrubs where violets wi ll appear the following season (Scott 1986b). In most areas males patrol hilltops to wait for fe males, but in California males tend to patrol grasslands and avoid hillside s (Opler and Wright 1999). Popul ations with green and brown ventral hindwings interbreed along the eastern edge of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains. Flight period is from April through September, and in many areas, these are the first greater fritillaries flying each new season. Speyeria callippe callippe is listed as endangered and nearly extinct in coastal northern California (i.e ., San Francisco Bay Area) by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Hammond and McCo rkle 1983, Connor et al. 2002). Larval hostplants. Viola beckwithii V. douglasii V. nuttallii V. pedunculata V. purpurea V. purpurea quercetorum ; Artemisia ? (Compositae) (Durden 1965; Hammond 1995; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Thistles (Pyle 1995). Speyeria egleis (Behr, 1862) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Egleis Behr, 1862 p. 174 Argynnis montivaga Behr, 1863 p. 84 Argynnis Astarte Edwards, 1864b p. 435 Argynnis montivaga Behr aberrant mammothi Gunder, 1924 p. 157 Argynnis montivaga Behr form boharti Gunder, 1929 p. 326 Common names. Egleis Fritillary, Great Basin Friti llary, Mountain Rambler, Montivaga. Type deposited. Neotype (female) designated by Emmel et al. (1998a) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-21). Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos an d Grey (1947) based on lectotype [=neotype of Emmel et al. (1998b) ] as Gold Lake, Sierra Countr y, California. However, Emmel et al. (1998b) have determined the type designate d as a lectotype is inva lid because it could not have been one of the original syntypes in front of Behr when he described egleis Therefore, the lectotype was redesignated as a neotype for S. egleis Emmel et al. (1998b ) listed the type specimen as being female, which differs from dos Passos and Grey’s purported “male” lectotype. The image included herein is that of a female (see Figure 21). Type label Data. Prob. Type egleis Bdv.; Egleis Bdv. California; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Argynnis Egleis, Bdv. [malesic ] Ex typic specim.; Ober thur Collection; Barnes Collection. [No date, sex, or series data was pr ovided with the original description (McHenry 1964).]

PAGE 76

76 Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 44-59 mm. There are several subspecific forms in the S. egleis species complex. The dorsal su rface is generally orange to brown with paler postmedian and marginal spots and most individuals have dark scaling on the basal half of the wings. Males be ar sex scaling on forewing veins. The ventral hindwing disc is variable depending on subspecies and can be red-brown, brown, tan, or greenish. The postmedian spots are smaller than most Speyeria species and may be silvered or unsilvered. The marginal spots are generally slightly triangular to rounded with brown or greenish caps. The ventral hindwing is yellow and spots are strongly s ilvered in central Nevada populations but bear a dull greenish tint in parts of Montana and Alberta. Speyeria egleis can resemble S. atlantis S. coronis S. zerene S. callippe and S. mormonia depending on geographical location. Larval coloration is variable throughout the range of S. egleis Speyeria egleis secreta dos Passos and Grey, a less commonly encountered egleis form, very closely resembles members of the Speyeria hesperis species complex in parts of its range (Remington 1947, 1948; Eff 1956). Larvae are gray-brown or black with a dark strip inside of yellow band located dorsomedially. The top four rows of spines are generally black or yellow; th e lower two rows of spin es are yellow. Pupae are dark brown with yellow-brown patches, dark wing cases and dark cross stripes on abdomen. Detailed life history notes and descriptions for the egg, larval instars and pupa of S. egleis is provided by Edwards (1879c). Range. Speyeria egleis occurs throughout the Great Ba sin, from southeastern British Columbia, western Oregon, Idaho, a nd western Montana, south to southern California, central Utah, and northwest Colorado. Nominotypical egleis is found throughout the entire Sierra Nevada above 6,000 ft. (Emmel and Emmel 1998a). Life history. Speyeria egleis forms occur in mixed woodlands, open rocky slopes, meadows and streambanks. They occur at middle to high elevations and are most common in cooler parts of the Great Basin, California Sierra Nevada and Tr inity Mountains. Females have been observed ovipositing on pine cones, sticks, and stones in California (Lembert 1893). Flight period is from early June through early October. Larval hostplants. Viola adunca V. nuttallii V. ocellata V. purpurea V. purpurea integrifolia V. purpurea venosa V. walteri ; Festuca ovina (Gramineae); Potentilla (Rosaceae) (Robinson et al. 2002) Adult food resources. As with other Speyeria there are numerous plant species from which S. egleis likely nectar on. Speyeria adiaste (W. H. Edwards, 1864) [Emmel and Emmel 1973] Speyeria egleis adiaste (W. H. Edwards), 1864b p. 436; [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Adiaste W. H. Edwards 1864b, p. 436 Argynnis Adiante Boisduval 1869, p. 61 Argynnis Adraste W. F. Kirby 1871, p. 160 Argynnis adianthe Barnes and McDunnough, 1917 p. 8 Common names. Adiaste Fritillary, Unsilvered Friti llary, Lesser Unsilvered Fritillary. Type deposited. There has been some confusion about the name and authorship of this insect. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) designa ted a specimen described by Boisduval as Argynnis Adiante housed at the National Museum of Natura l History, as a lectotype (Figure 2-22). However, Brown (1965; see also Emmel et al 1998a) rejected this designation because “ Adiante ” is not recorded from the area where dos Passos and Grey chose as the type locality, and chose a male specimen described by W. H. Edwards as Argynnis Adiaste housed at the

PAGE 77

77 Carnegie Museum of Natural Hi story, as the lectotype for S. adiaste (Figure 2-23) (also see Type Locality and Type Label Data sections below). Type locality. California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, California. F. M. Brown (1965) did not fix locality informa tion for the lectotype designated by him. However, he stated that S. adiaste is not found in the immediate vicinity of the city of Santa Cruz, but rather approximately 9 miles north of the c ity near Boulder Creek. Emmel et al. (1998a) further refined the dos Passos and Grey type locality to 2 miles southeast of Summit Road along Highland Way, Santa Cruz Mountains, Sant a Cruz County, California because no adiaste populations are (or we re) known from the city of Santa Cruz. Type label data. From dos Passos and Grey (1947) : Adiante Bd Calif.; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Type adiante a/c Hofer; Oberthur Collectio n; Barnes Collection. From Brown (1965): Adianthe type; Adiante [female] t ype sent W. H. E. by Dr Boisduval & figd in But. N. A.; lectotype Argynnis adiaste [female], W. H. Edwards designated by F.M. Brown ’64 also lectotype of adiante Bdv. de sig. by dos Passos and Grey ’47. Identification, Taxonomy, and Variation. Adult wingspan 45-57 mm. The dorsal ground coloring is red brown to pale brown and the vent ral surface is reddish orange to pale tan. Males are bright brick red in Santa Cr uz County, California or pale, wash ed-out tawny in south central California. Females are larger and paler than males. The ventral hindwing spot patterns are unsilvered or obsolete and bear delicate lavende r-pink reflections. Sims et al. (1979) noted allozyme characters separated S. adiaste forms from related S. atlantis and S. egleis taxa and suggested S. adiaste is distinct genetically. Larv ae are reportedly similar to S. callippe [mottled brown and black with black (or paler) dorsal stripes and many orange to yellow or black branching spines] but with lighter gray side s (Allen et al. 2005). Pupae are similar to S. callippe but the wing cases are somewhat lighter in color. Range. Speyeria adiaste is fairly restricted (see Grey 1989) along coastal and transverse mountain ranges in central California, from San Mateo County south to San Luis Obispo County, east to Kern County and northern Los Angeles C ounty. Populations are ve ry local and numbers may fluctuate from year to year. Some populations in Kern County [ Speyeria adiaste atossa (W. H. Edwards)] have been extinct since 1959 (Orsak 1974; Sims et al. 1979; Hammond and McCorkle 1983, Garth and Tilden 1986). Life history. Speyeria adiaste occurs along grassy slopes and openings in redwood forests (San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties) and in hi gh mountain meadows in Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. In southern California localitie s, habitat is mixed chaparral and oak woodland (Hovanitz 1970). The subs pecific taxa within adiaste appear to be distribu ted with their specific violet hostplants and by the desic cation tolerance of first instar larvae (Sims et al. 1979). Flight period is from June to early September. It has been hypothesized that the disappearance of adiaste forms is due to fire suppression and resulting habitat ch ange (Scott 1986b). Larval hostplants. Viola purpurea quercetorum V. ocellata ? (Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. California buckeye, thistles (Opler and Wright 1999). Speyeria atlantis (W. H. Edwards, 1863) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Atlantis Edwards, 1863a p. 54 Argynnis atlantis aberrant chemo Scudder, 1889 p. 573 Argynnis atlantis canadensis dos Passos, 1935 Speyeria atlantis canadensis (dos Passos) 1935 [dos Passos and Grey 1947] [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998] (Figure 2-29)

PAGE 78

78 Common names. Atlantis Fritill ary, Mountain Silverspot, M ountain Fritillary, Mountain Silver-spotted Butterfly Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-24). Type locality. Mountainous districts of the northern states and parts of British America. Fixed by dos Passos (1935) based on lectotype as Hunter, Greene Count y, Catskill Mountains, New York. Brown (1965) noted that Holland’s 1931 image of atlantis is a much better match of the atlantis that occurs in the Catskill Mountains than the very dark form dos Passos and Grey designated as lectotype, but at present th e specimen designated by dos Passos and Grey represents the name bearing type for atlantis Type label data. type Atlantis [male] Catskills; lect otype Argynnis atlantis [male], W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos 1935. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-69 mm. Speyeria atlantis forms are widespread and variable. Prior to splitting of the hypothetically distinct species Speyeria hesperis from S. atlantis there were over 25 subspecific or geographical forms associated with the S. atlantis complex (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957). Scott et al. (1998) (also see Scott 1988) proposed splitting S. atlantis and S. hesperis based on wing coloration and a few larval characters. However, some authors believe that is may still be difficult to provide a species assignment fo r many populations base d on ventral hindwing coloration and silvering of ventra l hindwing spots, and because th ere are several reports of the two forms interbreeding in various parts of thei r range (North American Butterfly Association 2001) The nominate, eastern atlantis bears black margins along the forewings and black scaling along the veins dorsally. The ventra l hindwing disc is usually pur plish-brown in coloration. The remaining S. atlantis forms generally bear a black outer margin dorsally and chocolate or purplish-brown hindwing discs. Ventral hindwing s pots are silvered in most individuals (many S. hesperis forms are cream colored) and the submargina l band is pale and narrow. Adults may be confused with S. aphrodite in many regions (including eastern North America), but aphrodite does not have black scaling along the wing vein s and usually lacks black marginal bands dorsally. Speyeria atlantis canadensis (dos Passos), now synonymized under S. atlantis (Scott et al. 1998), is generally smaller in size. R. Ho lland (1969) noted that specimens taken from Hawkes Bay, Newfoundland were even smaller and more red than S. a. canadensis taken at the type locality, Doyles Station. This variability notes the prob able relationship of nominate atlantis with S. a. canadensis and further corroborates the decision by Scott et al. (1998) to sink the smaller Canadian atlantis An atlantis form occurs in the mountains of West Virginia that may be an undescribed subspecies (Gatrelle 1998). Larvae are generally mottled black and brown with black-tipped, orange to ta n spines with two cream-colored lines located dorsomedially. Larvae are somewhat variable in coloration throughout the range of S. atlantis (see Scott et al. 1998). Pupae are mottled brown and black, and the wing cases are grayish brown. Scudder (1889) and Edwards (1888a) provided a de tailed description of the life stages. Range. Widespread in Canada from the Yukon, Maritime Provinces and west to east central British Columbia; in the northeastern United States south to West Virginia, across the northern parts of the Great Lake region. Disjunct populations exist in the Black Hills of South Dakota (see Grey et al. 1963) [ S. atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla], central Colorado [ S. atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer], and north western Montana, northern Idaho, and Manitoba [ S. atlantis hollandi (F. H. Chermock)]. Speyeria atlantis has been tentatively recorded in northeastern Illinois but is likely not a resident (Bouseman and Sternberg 2001).

PAGE 79

79 Life history. Adapted for cooler climates, it freque nts cool open woodlands near water, (i.e.. bogs, river valleys), open coni ferous forests, and old fields with forested borders. Scott (1988) indicated that the current distribution of wing characters s uggests that the dark silvered forms of atlantis occupied coniferous forests in th e northern U.S. and the Rocky Mountain foothills during the last ice age; they then move d higher in elevation and latitude. The unsilvered form with a reddish-brown ventral hindwing (i.e., hesperis forms) occupied open forest in the southern Great Basin lowlands duri ng the last ice age; they then spread north into the mountains, east to Wyoming and the Black Hills, and s outh along the Colorado mountain foothills. Eggs are laid near the base of hostplant. Firs t instar larvae typicall y do not feed until the following spring. Males patrol much of the day for available females. Mating behavior is described by Scott (1986b, 1988). Flight period is mid June to September. The mobility of western “atlantis” adults was studied by Moeck (1968) in Wyoming. He noted that tagged individuals were recaptured at least 50% of the time, indicating individuals moved very little from the study area. Larval hostplants. Viola septentrionalis, V. sorori a affinis, V. adunca, V. canadensis (Scott 1986b, Scott et al. 1998). Many reco rds in the literature listed for S. atlantis now pertain to members of the S. hesperis complex. Adult food resources. Milkweeds, vetches, mints, mud, dung (Scott 1986b; Douglas and Douglas 2005). Speyeria hesperis (W. H. Edwards, 1864) [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis hesperis (W. H. Edwards), 1864a p. 502 [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Hesperis W. H. Edwards, 1864a p. 502 Common names. Hesperis Fritillary, Western Fritillary. Type deposited. Neotype (male) designated by Brown (1965; see also dos Passos and Grey 1965) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-25). Type locality. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) based on lectotype (=neotype from Brown 1965; see also dos Passos and Grey 1965) as Turkey Creek Junction, Jefferson County, Colorado. Type label data. Hesperis [male] type Colo; Neotype Argynnis hesperis [male], W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1964. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Formerly considered a subspecies of S. atlantis S. hesperis is variable throughout its range and a number of subs pecific taxa have been recognized. Speyeria hesperis and S. atlantis occur together or in close proximity in many areas of the western North America and in South Da kota. Dos Passos and Grey (1965) noted that hesperis represented an unsilvered subspecies of S. atlantis along the Front Range in Colorado. Tebaldi (1982) (also see Ferris 1983) utilized starch gel elec trophoresis of six enzymes to analyze the relationships among three phenotypes of Speyeria atlantis and found that the phenotypes could be considered “semisp ecies.” Scott et al. (1998) divided S. atlantis into a distinct species based on wi ng coloration and wing pattern, hesperis having mostly unsilvered or cream colored ventral hindwing spots and atlantis always silvered. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-68 mm. The ventral hindwing disc is red-brown to orange-brown and can be silvered or unsilvered. Scott et. al. (1998) split S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms based on wing pattern and coloration and a few larval characters. Adult eye coloration in living indivi duals is blue-gray in some populations, and this may help se parate some populations form similar S. aphrodite populations, which dull, yellow-green eyes (Gla ssberg 2000). Larvae are generally solid black

PAGE 80

80 and bear orange spines with black tips. Ther e are two brown lines lo cated dorsomedially. The pupa is similar to S. atlantis in shape, but stouter; the color is brown on the head and wing cases. The abdomen is brown with some areas yello w-brown. Larval and pupal coloration varies throughout the range of S. hesperis as it does in adults (see Scott et al. 1998) due to various local climatic conditions. Range. Speyeria hesperis ranges from Alaska, central Y ukon and southwestern Northwest Territory, south through Canada east to western Manitoba, and in the western United States along the Rocky Mountains, to central California, northeastern and centra l Arizona, and central New Mexico. Life history. Speyeria hesperis forms occur in moist meadows, gulches, and along cool slopes (Scott 1986b). Scott (2006b) observed fe males laying eggs on pine needles, Quercus leaves, grasses, and various other plants near Viola spp. Edwards (1888c) described the morphology of the egg, larval instars, and pupal st age and provided the phenology of each stage. Flight period is from early June to late October. Larval hostplants. Viola canadensis var. scopulorum V. adunca V. sororia affinis V. rydbergii, V. adunca bellidifolia, V. nuttallii, V. purpurea (Scott 1992, 2006b; Scott et al. 1998). Adult food resources. Yellow composites, mints (Opler and Wright 1999). Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval, 1869) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] Argynnis Hydaspe Boisduval, 1869 p. 60 Common names. Hydapse Fritillar y, Lavender Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-26). Type locality. Southern California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Yosemite Valley, Mariposa County, California. Re-restricted by Emmel at al. ( 1998a) to Gold Lake, Sierra County, California. Type label data. Monticola Behr. Hydaspe Bd. Californ.; EX MUSAEO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Argynnis Hydaspe Bdv Californie; Argynnis Hydaspe [male], Boisduv. ex 2 typic. specim.; Type hydaspe a/c Hofer; Oberthur Collection; Barnes Collection. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan is 41-58 mm. There are several subspecific taxa associated with S. hydaspe but they are fairly unifo rm in wing patterning and color. The dorsal wing surface is red-orange with a heavy black pattern, especially at the base. The ventral surface is purplish brown with hi ndwing spots relatively round and unsilvered in most populations (some individual s in the Northwest have silver spots, i.e., Vancouver Island), cream colored and edged with black. Spots loca ted in median band are large, first three approximately equal in size, touching or nearly so. The submarginal spots are larger in southern populations, smaller in the north and occasionally partly silvered. Some Speyeria atlantis populations in the Pacific Northwest and Calif ornia Sierra Nevada Mountains resemble S. hydaspe Kondla (2001) clarified the taxonomic relati onships and nomenclature associated with hydaspe forms in British Columbia. Eggs are cream colored and somewhat purple in color before hatching (Pyle 2002). Larvae are mostly black with yellow-orange spines laterally; in some forms, these spines are black. The upper two rows of spines are typically black; lower four rows of spines orange-brown to yellow. There are also pale yellow mid-dorsal st ripes; these are much paler than those in Speyeria zerene Larval coloration is likely variable throughout the range of S. hydaspe due to various local climatic conditions.

PAGE 81

81 Range. Speyeria hydaspe forms range from central Bri tish Columbia and southwestern Alberta, south in mountainous areas to southern Sierra Nevada in Califor nia, northern Utah, and northern Colorado. Life history. This species occurs in openings in moist montane coniferous forests, often near aspens, and in mountain meadows and along roadsides. It also occurs in drier areas in British Columbia (Layberry et al. 1998). Fli ght period is from June to September. Larval hostplants. Viola adunca V. glabella V. nuttallii V. orbiculata V. purpurea V. sheltonii (Scott 1986b, Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Pussypaws, asters, thistles, mints (Pyle 1995, Opler and Wright 1999). Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval, 1869) [dos Passos and Grey 1945a] (Figure 2-27) Argynnis Mormonia Boisduval, 1869 p. 58 Common names. Mormon Fritillary, Mormonia Fr itillary, Mountain Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-28). Type locality. Oregon. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey ( 1947) as Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah. However, Grey (1974, 1989) discusse d the possibility that fixation of the type locality as “Salt Lake” was a mistake and specul ated the type specimen may have been taken from somewhere in California. However, he felt it would be hard to prove given the subtle nuances in wing pattern and coloration of Speyeria and also felt no present concepts are disturbed if the locality remains as fixed. Mill er and Brown (1981) late r restricted the type locality to the vicinity of Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Emmel et al (1998a) further restricted the type locality to Little Valley, W. of Wa shoe Lake, Washoe County, Nevada. Type label data. Mormonia Bd. Lac Sal; EX MUSA EO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Argynnis Mormonia [male] Bdv. ex typ. sp.; Ober thur Collection; Barnes Collection. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Speyeria mormonia can be identified by the smaller size compared to those of other Speyeria (wingspan 38-60 mm); on average it is the smallest species in the genus. The antennal cl ubs are relatively expanded compared to other Speyeria species. There are several subs pecific forms included within the mormonia species complex. The forewings are short and rounded and there is usually some basal darkening. The dorsal wing surface does not have black scaling on veins but does have a complex pattern of black spots, bars, and chevrons with a black bo rder. The ventral surface of the hindwing disc is pale yellow to pale brown, occasionally greenish in hue (in the Cascades of Washington), but otherwise similar in color to ve ntral forewing. Black Hills, South Dakota populations have a dark brown disc. The silvering of th e ventral hindwing spots is vari able within and among populations (spots are partially silvered in th e California Sierra Nevada Mount ains or primarily yellow in the Great Basin), and spots tend to be smaller than on most Speyeria Distinct populations occur in northern Nevada and southeastern Oregon where individuals are unsilve red ventrally with a yellow ground color and little pattern. A subspecies isolated in the White Mountains of Arizona, Speyeria mormonia luski (Barnes & McDunnough), is unlike other S. mormonia in appearance and bears white, ‘unsilvered’ hindwing spots rath er than the usual ‘uns ilvered’ condition of S. mormonia forms that have spots filled with brown. Eggs are small and tan-colored (may be yellowish when oviposited and become purplishtan later). Larvae are brown to gray, or yellowish to orange with black spots and lines. Spines are short and paler at the base. Larval

PAGE 82

82 coloration is likely variable throughout the range of S. mormonia due to local climatic conditions. Range. Speyeria mormonia occurs along the mountainous regions of western North America from south-central Alaska south to cen tral California in the Sierras and east-central Arizona, and north-central New Mexico, and exte nding east to southwestern Manitoba and the Dakotas. It occurs at higher elevatio ns and further north than most other Speyeria (Opler and Wright 1999; also see Eriksen 1962, Kozial 1994). It does occur at sea level in Alaska and to sagelands and plains in the Great Basin and Black Hills. Life history. Known to occur in mostly subalpine habitat, including Canadian to lower Alpine zone meadows, or moist prairie valley s/meadows, and openings in subarctic forests. Speyeria mormonia forms are the most likely member of the genus to occur in high mountain habitats. Females lay eggs singly and haphazardly near hostplant. Unfed first instar larvae hibernate. Flight period is mid July through Octo ber in the southern part of its range, July through August in the northern part. Adults can fl y far, especially females, and can stray into foothills or the Colorado plains. Boggs (1986, 1987a,b, 1988, 1997a,b), Boggs and Jackson (1991), Boggs and Ross (1993), and Boggs et al. (2004), have provided numerous studies on the ecology of S. mormonia Boggs and Murphy (1997) discussed how climate change might affect S. mormonia individuals by reducing avai lable nectar sources, w ith consequent effects on individual reproduction and surviv al. Montane species such as S. mormonia not directly encroached upon by human development, may be among the first victims of long term climate warming trends. Larval hostplants. Viola nuttallii V. palustris V. adunca V. adunca variation bellidifolia V. sororia (Scott 1986b; Robinson et al. 2002). Adult food resources. Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, mud (Scott 1986b; Pyle 1995), alpine fleabanes and other composites (T. C. Emmel in litt .). Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis Subspecies Accounts Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Edwards, 1863) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] [see species account for S. atlantis ] Locality data associated with specimens examined. CT: Litchfield; IA: Winneshiek; IL: Cook; IN: Lake, Vanderburgh; MA: Berkshire, Middlesex, Worceste r; MD: Garrett; ME: Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Kennebec, Oxfo rd, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset, Washington, York; MI: Antrim, Cheboygan, Chippe wa, Delta, Dickinson, Emmet, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Jackson, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Ontonagon, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Schoolcraft; MN: Aitkin, Beltram i, Cass, Cook, Hubbard, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Pine, Sherburne, St. Louis; NH: Carro ll, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Rockingham; NJ: Morris; NY: Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, Delawa re, Erie, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Oneida, Oswego, To mpkins, Ulster, Washington; OH: Delaware; PA: Allegheny, Berks, Cambria, Cameron, Centre Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Elk, Erie, Forest, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Potter, Somerset, Sullivan, Tioga, Warren; RI: Providence; VT: Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, Chittenden, Es sex, Lamoille, Orleans, Windham, Windsor; WI: Marquette, Bayfield, Burnett, Door, Dougl as, Florence, Forest, Kewaunee, Langlade, Manitowoc, Marathon, Marinette, Oneida, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Shawano, Vilas; WV: Grant, Monongalia, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Randolph, Tucker Webster. Canadian provincial records

PAGE 83

83 include (some of these records were take n from specimens formerly applied to Speyeria atlantis canadensis ): Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec. Speyeria atlantis hollandi (Chermock and Chermock, 1940) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] Argynnis atlantis Holland Chermock and Chermock, 1940 p. 82 Common name. Holland’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at Canadian Nati onal Collection (Figure 2-30). Type locality. Riding Mountains, Manitoba, Canada. Type label data. ARG. ATLANTIS. R. HOLLANDI [m ale] HOLOTYPE F. H. & R. L. Chermock; HOLOTYPE Arg. atlantis R. Holland No. 4370 F. H. & R. L. Chermock; RIDING MTS MANITOBA VII-24-34; Can. Dep. Agr. P hoto. Specimen No. 4093 24-IV-1986 Negative No. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-60 mm. The discal and basal areas located on the ventral forewing and hindwi ng are deep brown compared to paler atlantis forms. This subspecies is consid ered the western terminus of the atlantis cline (Howe 1975). Range. Riding Mountains of Manitoba, Peace River region, British Columbia. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. a. hollandi likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include: Manitoba. Speyeria atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer, 1998 Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [ atlantis ] electa (Edwards) [= Argynnis Cornelia Edwards], S. hesperis [ atlantis ] nixies (Hermann), or Speyeria hesperis [ atlantis ] hesperis (Edwards) in the past (see synonymies for these species). Common names. Southern Rockies Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-31). Type locality. near Mt. Judge, Clear Creek County, Colorado. Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria atlantis sorocko Scott, Spomer, + Kondla 1997; 1 mi. NE Mt. Judge, Clear Creek Co. Col o. Aug. 5, 1987; collected by James A. Scott. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Cliff Ferris (pers. comm.) states that this subspecies may be a redecoration of the form known as S. hesperis nixies (which has since been synonymized under S. hesperis electa by Scott et al. 1998). Adult wingspan is on average 60 mm. Range. Southern Rockies. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis V. scopulorum V. canadensis (Scott et al. 1998). Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. a. sorocko likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality Data Associated with Specimens Examined. CO: Archuleta, Clear Creek, Conejos, Custer, Douglas, Fremont, Grand, Hins dale, Jefferson, Larimer, Las Animas, Ouray, Rio Arriba, Routt, Saguache, San Migue l, Summit, Teller. NM: Rio Arriba.

PAGE 84

84 Speyeria atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla, 1998 Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria atlantis lurana dos Passos and Grey in the past. Common name. Dakota Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-32). Type locality. Deerfield Reservoir, Black Hill s, Pennington County, South Dakota. Type label data. HOLOTYPE; Speyeria atlantis pa hasapa [male] Spomer, Scott, & Kondla 1998; SD: Pennington Co. Deerfield Re servoir 13 July 1990 leg. S. M. Spomer. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is similar to S. h. hollandi but the hindwing disc is much darker (blackish-brown). ). Adult wingspan is on average 60 mm. Range. Black Hills, South Dakota. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. a. pahasapa likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. SD: Custer, Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington. Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Edwards, 1864) [Scott et al. 1998] [see species account for S. hesperis ] Locality data associated with specimens examined. CO: Alpine, Boulder, Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Teller. Speyeria hesperis helena dos Passos and Grey, 1955 [Scott et al. 1998] Argynnis lais Edwards, 1883 p. 209 [this name was a primary homonym for Argynnis lais Scudder 1875, and dos Passos and Grey proposed a replacement name ( Speyeria atlantis helena ) in 1955] (Figure 2-33) Speyeria atlantis lais (Edwards, 1883 p. 209) [dos Passos and Grey 1947; synonymized by Scott et al. 1998] Argynnis lais form dennisi Gunder, 1927 p. 287 (Figure 2-34) Speyeria atlantis dennisi dos Passos and Grey, 1947 [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998] [Gunder (1927) described this subspecies as Argynnis lais transitional form dennisi and dos Passos and Grey (1947) listed it as Speyeria atlantis dennisi ; also see Masters (1973, 1974)] Speyeria atlantis helena dos Passos and Grey, 1955 pp. 95-96 Common name. Northwestern Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-33). Type locality. From dos Passos and Grey (1947): Red Deer River, Albert a, Canada; Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Type label data. According to dos Passos and Grey 1955, the type of helena bears the following label data: Lais [male] N. W. Terr type Ged.; lectotype Argynnis lais [male] W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Speyeria hesperis helena is pale in color and bears a red-brown ventral hindwing disc Adult wingspan ranges from 40-45 mm.

PAGE 85

85 Range. Prairie belts of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. a. helena likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include: Alberta, Manitoba. Speyeria hesperis beani (Barnes and Benjamin, 1926) [Scott et al. 1998] Dryas atlantis race beani Barnes and Benjamin, 1926 p. 92 Argynnis atlantis beani Barnes and Benjamin form hutchinsi Gunder, 1932 p. 280 Speyeria atlantis hutchinsi dos Passos and Grey, 1947 [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis beani (Barnes and Benjami n, 1926 p. 92) [the race beani has also been placed within Speyeria electa by Howe 1975] Common name. Bean’s Fritillary Type deposited. Holotype at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-35). Type locality. Banff, Alberta, Canada. Type label data. Dryas atlantis beani Holotype [mal e] B & Benj; Banff Alberta, Aug. 8-15 Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are variable in size, and usually smaller than most hesperis Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Th e ventral hindwing disc is usually bright red and the spots can silvere d, entirely or partially unsilvered. Range. Northern Washington, northern Idaho, Br itish Columbia and the mountains of Alberta. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. beani likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include: Alberta, British Columbia. Speyeria hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, Spomer, 1998 Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [ atlantis ] beani (Barnes and Benjamin) or Speyeria hesperis [ atlantis ] helena dos Passos and Grey in the past. Common name. Brico Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at Canadian Nati onal Collection (Figure 2-36). Type locality. Castle Creek Forest Service Roa d, Cariboo Mountains, near McBride, British Columbia, Canada. Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, + Spomer 1997; KM 23.5, Castle Creek Forest Service Roa d, S of McBride, B.C. June 18, 1995, Norbert G. Kondla; 95-6-18 B.B. K 23.5 Castle Cr. FSR N. Kondla; HOLOTYPE in Type coll. CNC No. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies resembles S. h. beani but the disc is darker red, and the disc extends farther into the pale submarginal band ventrally. It often occurs sympatrically with S. a. hollandi Adult wingspan is on average 56 mm. Range. Northern part of southeastern British Columbia, specifically the interior plateau. Life history. Speyeria hesperis brico occurs in the Interior Cedar/Hammock bioclimatic zone and the Englemann Spruce/Subalpine fir zone.

PAGE 86

86 Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. a. brico likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Label data associated with specimens examined. Canadian provincial records include: British Columbia. Speyeria hesperis ratonensis Scott, 1981 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis ratonensis Scott, 1981 p. 4 Common names. None. Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Muse um of Los Angeles County (Figure 237). Type locality. Raton Mesa, Colfax County, New Mexico. Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen. Scott (1981) includes the following data: Holotype, ma le, Raton Mesa, Colfax Co. New Mex. 21 July 1972, J. Scott. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Considered one of the palest atlantis-hesperis forms, it is similar to S. h. greyi in Nevada. This subspecies always has silver spots on the ventral hindwings. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Range. Limited to Raton Mesa in northeastern New Mexico. Life history. Speyeria hesperis ratonensis may be a Pleistocene re lict related to prairie dwelling S. hesperis helena in Canada (Scott 1981). The two populations likely inhabited mixed grassland and aspen forest s on the southern plains. When the climate warmed, helena advanced north while ratonensis move upward. Larval hostplants. Viola canadensis var. scopulorum (= V. rydbergii ) (Scott 1992; Scott et al. 1998). Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. ratonensis likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. CO: Las Animas; NM: Colfax, Union. Speyeria hesperis greyi Moeck, 1950 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis greyi Moeck 1950 pp. 61-64 [some authors (e.g., Hodges 1983; Austin 1998; Scott et al. 1998) have in advertently included parenthe ses around Moeck, and it has been perpetuated in the literature; however, greyi was originally described within Speyeria and the parentheses were in error (see Dunford and Austin 2007)]. Common name. Grey’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-38). Type locality. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby Mountains, El ko County, Nevada (Figure 2-54). Type label data. Speyeria atlantis greyi n. ssp. Holotype [male]; Lamoille Canyon 88500’-July 24, 1949 (Moeck) Ruby Mts., Nevada [Austin 1998b provided additional type specimen data]. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes bear alight reddish buff ground color, similar to S. h. chitone Their appearance overall is pale and lacks the red hues of other hesperis and atlantis forms. Adult wingspan ranges from 45-50 mm.

PAGE 87

87 Range. Restricted to the Ruby Mountains a nd East Humboldt Range, Elko County, Nevada. Life history. I observed adults flying low to th e ground in aspen stands located in Lamoille Canyon, Nevada. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. Like most Speyeria S. h. greyi likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. NV: Elko. Speyeria hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey, 1945 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis lurana dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 8 Common name. Lurana Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-39). Type Locality. Harney Peak, Black Hills, South Dakota. Type label data. Holotype Speyeria atlantis lurana Cyril F. dos Passos and L. Paul Grey; HARNEY PEAK, S. D. [male] 25 VI-39 Col. By A. C. FREDERICK; L. P. Grey. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes are typically unsilvered, sympatrically occurring, with s ilvered forms being those of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa (Scott et al. 1998). Adult wingspan is on average 55 mm. Range. Black Hills, South Dakota. Also reco rded in Wyoming (Grey et al. 1963). Life history. I observed numerous individuals usi ng creeks as flyways and feeding on various flowers in Spearfish Canyon, South Dakota. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. lurana likely nectar on a variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. SD: Custer, Harding, Lawrence, Pennington, Crook. Speyeria hesperis irene (Boisduval, 1869) [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis irene (Boisduval, 1869 p. 60) [ dos Passos and Grey 1947] Argynnis irene Boisduval, 1869 p. 60 Argynnis cottlei Comstock, 1925 p. 64 [ cottlei has been changed from sunk in synonymy to subspecies status by Emmel et al. 1998c] Common name. Irene Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (female) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at National Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-40). Type locality. Interior of California. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Massack, Plumas County, California. However, Emmel et al. (1998a) stated that the re striction of the type locality to Massack, Plumas County is unsatisfactory and note that irene is not found in the immediate vicinity of Massack. Em mel et al. (1998a) restricted th e type locality to Gold Lake, Sierra County, California, where the irene phenotype is known to occur. Type label data. Montivaga Behr irene Bd. Calif.; Argynnis Egleis [female] (Irene, Bdv. Lepid. Californie, p. 60) specim-typic.; EX MUSA EO Dris. BOISDUVAL; Oberthur Collection; Type irene Bdv. a/c Hofer; Barnes Collection.

PAGE 88

88 Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are similar to S. h. dodgei S. h. hanseni S. h. cottlei (see Emmel 1998c) as well sympatrically occurring S. zerene Ventral hindwing spots are cream colored. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Range. Occurs in the northern Sierra Nevadas of California, south to Yosemite in isolated colonies. Life history. Occurs in open, dry meadows Larval hostplants. Viola purpurea (Emmel et al. 1970). Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. irene likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined CA: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Glenn, Modoc, Mono, Placer, Plumas, Sie rra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Tuolumne; NV: Douglas, Washoe. Speyeria hesperis cottlei (Comstock, 1925) [Warren 2005 is the first to use cottlei with hesperis after Emmel et al. 1998c raised it from synonymy and placed it under atlantis ] Argynnis cottlei Comstock, 1925 p. 64 [see dos Passos and Grey 1947] Speyeria atlantis cottlei (Comstock, 1925 p. 64) [placed in the ‘ atlantis ’ complex by Emmel et al. (1998c); this species sh ould be placed with former western ‘ atlantis’ forms that conform to the hesperis subspecies complex listed by Scott et al. (1998)]. This subspecies may have been referred to as S. hesperis [ atlantis ] irene (Boisduval) in the past. Common name. Cottle’s Fritillary. Type deposited. The specimen utilized for description was in the J. E. Cottle collection, San Francisco (Comstock 1925; dos Passos and Grey 1947). At present, the type specimen cannot be located (see discu ssion below) and a neotype designation may be needed. Type locality. Vicinity of Alturas, Modoc County, California. Dos Passos and Grey (1947) however synonymized the name with Speyeria atlantis irene and designated a lectotype for irene taken from Massack, Plumas County, California. Emmel et al. (1998c) resurrected the name from synonymy based on examination of the type for irene and the distribution of S. cottlei Type label data. I have not seen this specimen. A ccording to Emmel et al. (1998c), a single specimen was used to describe cottlei but it is not clear where the specimen is currently located. John Emmel (pers. comm.) stated the fo llowing: “riker mounts that Comstock used for his plates in The Butterflies of California are still stored at L.A. County Museum--however, specimens that Comstock borrowed, such as Cottle's specimen of Argynnis cottlei were returned to the persons who lent them to Comstock. So pr esumably the type was returned to J. E. Cottle-where his collection went, I'm not sure. There ar e some specimens of Cottle's in the American Museum of Natural History, New York. Howeve r, about 15 years ago when I was at the American Museum I did not see the type of cottlei Cottle lived in San Fr ancisco, but the type of cottlei has not turned up at the Calif ornia Academy of Sciences there. Comstock's illustration (1927 [1989], The Butterflies of Ca lifornia) of the type of cottlei may be your only source for an image.” A type specimen may need to redesignated for S. hesperis cottlei At the time, Comstock treated cottlei as a distinct species but speculated it may ha ve been an unsilvered form of what is now S zerene hippolyta Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Closely resembles members of the S. zerene complex and S. h. irene There is a complete lack of silv er scaling on the ventral hindwings. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm.

PAGE 89

89 Range. According to Emmel et al. (1998c), S. atlantis cottlei is known from the Warner Mountains, but blend zones with S. hesperis dodgei occur in the Klamath Mountains and Mt. Shasta region. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. cottlei likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Lassen. Speyeria hesperis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon, 1998 new combination [included within hesperis here for the first time] Speyeria atlantis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon, 1998c p. 152 [described in the atlantis subspecies complex by Emmel et al. (1998c), this species shou ld be placed with western ‘ atlantis’ forms that conform to the hesperis subspecies complex listed by Scott et al. (1998).] Forms of this subspecies may have been referred to as Speyeria hesperis [ atlantis ] irene (Boisduval) in the past. Common name. Hansen’s Fritillary Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Muse um of Los Angeles County (Figure 241). Type locality. Covelo Road, Anthony Peak, Tehama County, California. Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen. Emmel et al. (1998c) provide the follo wing data: Holotype male: Cali fornia, Tehama County; Anthony Peak on Covelo Road, 4 July 1968, leg S. O. Mattoon. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Similar to S. h. dodgei and S. h. irene S. h. hanseni is slightly duskier appearance dorsally and more pale vent rally due to extensive cream scaling. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Range. This subspecies is known in the North Coast Ranges from Glenn County northwestward to central Humbol dt County (Emmel et al. 1998c). Life history. Speyeria atlantis hanseni flies from late June to early August, with a peak flight period during early July. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. hanseni likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Glenn, Mendocino, Tehama, Trinity. Speyeria hesperis dodgei (Gunder, 1931) [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis dodgei (Gunder, 1931 p. 46) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] Argynnis dodgei Gunder, 1931 p. 46 Common name. Dodge’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-42). Type locality. Diamond Lake, Douglas County, Oregon. Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] COLLECTION OF JEANE D. GUNDER ARGYNNIS DODGEI [signed by] J. D. Gunde r TYPE LABEL; COLLECTION OF JEANE D. GUNDER DIAMOND LAKE, DOUGLAS Co., OREG. JULY 10-1930; J. D. Gunder collection Ac. 34998; 7/10/30 Diamond Lk, Oreg [male].

PAGE 90

90 Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies bears cream to whitish colored ventral hindwing spots and a bric k red disc. The marginal band al ong the disc is pinkish rather than buff. Adult wingspan ranges from 45-55 mm. Speyeria dodgei resembles S. hydaspe forms where these species overlap. Range. Cascade ranges of Oregon and southe rn Washington, eastward into Idaho. Life history. This subspecies is largel y confined fir and pine forests and may be seen in canyons, along creeks, and in sm all clearings and meadows. Larval hostplants. Viola bellidfolia (Shields et al. 1969). Adult food resources. Mint (Dornfeld 1980). Locality data associated with specimens examined. CA: Siskiyou; ID: Nez Perce; OR: Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Grant, Ja ckson, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn, Thurston, Umatilla, Wallowa, Wheeler; WA: Yakima. Speyeria hesperis viola dos Passos and Grey, 1945 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis viola dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 10 Common name. Viola’s Fritillary Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-43). Type locality. Trail Creek, Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho. Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis viola Cyril f. dos Passos and L. Paul Grey; J. D. Gunder collection Ac. 34998; Trail Cr eek Ida. 7400ft. VII.11.31; Col. C. W. Herr. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes are similar to S. h. irene but are somewhat paler in the disc. Adults are rather small and spots are entirely unsilvered on the ventral hindwings. Adult wi ngspan ranges from 45-50 mm. Range. Sawtooth Mountains, Idaho and eastern Oregon. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned from the liter ature. I have obser ved adults flying along roadsides nectaring on flowers along with Speyeria hydaspe near Crater Lake, Oregon. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. viola likely nectar on a variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. ID: Blaine, Boise, Camas, Custer. Speyeria hesperis elko Austin, 1983 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis elko Austin, 1983 pp. 244-245 Common name. Elko Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at Nevada St ate Museum (Figure 2-44). Type locality. ca. 10 miles south of Mountain City, Wild Horse Creek Campground, Owyhee River Valley, Elko County, Nevada. Type label data. HOLOTYPE Speyeria atlantis elko Austin Identification, taxonomy, and variation. The cline involved with S. h. elko is largely unsilvered and includes S. h tetonia (Wyoming), S. h viola (Idaho), S. h. irene S. h. cottlei and S. h. hanseni (California). Speyeria hesperis elko is pale similar to other Speyeria in the Great Basin (Austin 1983). Adult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Range. Range includes only the type locality: Ja rbidge Mountains, Owyhee River Valley, and Independence Range, Nevada.

PAGE 91

91 Life history. Males patrol the creek bottom along th e Owyhee River. Adult flight period includes late June th rough mid-August. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. elko likely nectar on a wide variety of plants (especially mints-G. Austin pers. comm.). Label data associated with specimens examined. NV: Elko. Speyeria hesperis tetonia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis tetonia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 9 Common name. Teton Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-45). Type locality. Teton Mountains, Wyoming. Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis tetonia Cyril F. dos Passos and L. Paul Grey; Teton Mts. Wyo. VII.11.31; J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Both sexes usually lack silvering on the ventral hindwing. The discal area is li ghter red ventrally than other hesperis Adult wingspan ranges from 45-50 mm. This subspeci es also closely resemble Speyeria egleis Range. Teton Mountain region. Life history. Adults appear in early July and fly along with similar looking S. egleis in parts of Teton National Park. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. tetonia likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. ID: Bear Lake, Bonneville, Clark, Fremont, Madison, Teton; WY: Fr emont, Lincoln, Sublette, Teton. Speyeria hesperis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey, 1945 p. 9 Common name. Wasatch Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-46). Type locality. Payson Canyon, Payson, Utah County, Utah. Type label data. Holotype [male] Speyeria atlantis wasatchia Cyril F. dos Passos and L. Paul Grey; A. chitone Edw. Det. Gunder; Pa yson Canyon, Payson, Utah VII.16.32; Col. Pfouts; J. D. Gunder Collection Ac. 34998. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is similar to S. h. chitone Ventral hindwing spots are typical ly unsilvered but there are silvered forms. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-60 mm. Range. Known from a few localities in Utah. Life history. This subspecies can be encountered at elevations above 7,500 ft. in northern Utah. Larval Hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. wasatchia likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. UT: Davis, Box Elder, Cache, Daggett, Duchesne, Salt Lake, Sevi er, Summit, Tooele, Utah, Wasatch.

PAGE 92

92 Speyeria hesperis chitone (Edwards, 1879) [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis chitone (Edwards, 1879b p. 82) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] Argynnis chitone Edwards, 1879b p. 82 Common name. Chitone Fritillary. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-47). Br own (1965), however, noted that the specimen selected by dos Passos and Grey (1947) was not th e specimen of Edward’s original description. That specimen is housed in the National Museum of Natural History. Do s Passos and Grey were, however, at liberty to select any syntype and they chose the only male in the Edwards’ Collection housed at Carnegie. Type locality. Southern Utah and Arizona. Fixed by dos Passos and Grey (1947) as Cedar Breaks National Monument, Iron County, Utah. Type label data. type Chitone [male] So. Utah; lect otype Argynnis chitone [male] W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults of this subspeci es are generally larger than S. h. wasatchia and have a heavier black patterning above. The ventral hindwing disc is either silver or unsilvered. A dult wingspan ranges from 50-55 mm. Range. La Sal and Abajo Mountains in Utah. It is also found near Cedar Breaks National Monument. Life history. Nothing could be gleaned form the literature. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. chitone likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. UT: Beaver, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, Milla rd, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier. Speyeria hesperis electa (Edwards, 1878) [Scott et al. 1998] Argynnis Electa Edwards, 1878 p. 143 Argynnis Cornelia Edwards, 1892 p. 106 Speyeria atlantis electa (Edwards, 1878 p. 143) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] Argynnis nikias Ehrmann, 1917 p. 55 (Figure 2-49) Speyeria atlantis nikias (Ehrmann, 1917 p. 55) [dos Pa ssos and Grey 1947] [synonymized by Scott et al. 1998] Some workers have treated the form ‘ electa ’ as a valid species including the subspecies now placed within the ‘ hesperis ’ group (Howe 1975, Bird et al. 1995), but unless further analyses prove otherwise, it will be treated here within the species hesperis Common names. Electa Fritillary, Electa S ilverspot, Cinnamon Silverspot. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-48). Type locality. Colorado. Fixed by dos Passos an d Grey (1947) as Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Brown (1965) considered this locality untenable and corrected it to Turkey Creek Junction, Jefferson County, Colorado.

PAGE 93

93 Type label data. type electa [male] Colo. Mead ’71; Argynnis cornelia [male] Fide W. J. Holland; Collection W. H. Edwards; lectotype Ar gynnis electa [male] W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies has been recognized as a distinct species by some author s (Howe 1975; Bird et al. 1995) and is difficult to distinguish from nominate atlantis except by locality labels. Adu lt wingspan ranges from 55-60 mm. Range. Throughout the Rocky Mountains of Colo rado and in the Laramie Range of southern Wyoming. Life history. Adults of S. h. electa are on the wing as early as May in Alberta (Bird et al. 1995) and fly well into September. Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis (Scott 1992). Adult food resources. Yellow composites (Bird et al. 1995). Locality data associated with specimens examined. WY: Albany, Carbon. There were numerous individuals taken from Colorado examined at various museums, but in many cases they were difficult to discern from Speyeria hesperis hesperis Speyeria hesperis schellbachi Garth, 1949 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis schellbachi Garth, 1949 p. 1 Common name. Schellbach’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at Natural History Muse um of Los Angeles County (Figure 250). Type locality. Neal Spring, north rim of Grand Canyon, Arizona. Type label data. I have not examined the label data associated with this specimen. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Adults are bright orange-yellow dorsally and dark basally. Adult wingspan ranges from 50-60 mm. This subspecies somewhat resemble S. h. chitone but is always silver on th e ventral hindwing spots. Range. Kaibab Plateau, near the Grand Canyon, Arizona. Life history. Adult are active in secl uded draws along springs. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. Cirisium spp. (Garth 1950). Locality data associated with specimens examined. AZ: Coconino. Speyeria hesperis dorothea Moeck, 1947 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis dorothea Moeck, 1947 pp. 73-75 Common name. Dorothy’s Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-51). Type locality. Sandia Peak, Sandia Mountains Sandoval County, New Mexico,. Type label data. HOLOTYPE [male] Speyeria atlantis dorothea A. H. Moeck; Sandia Peak, Sandia Mts., N. M., July 15, 1946 7,000 ft. (A. H. Moeck). Identification, taxonomy, and variation. Similar in size to S. h. nausicaa the basal suffusion is somewhat heavier and black patterni ng is bolder. The ventra l hindwing disc bear brilliant silver spots. Adult wingspan ranges from 55-70 mm. The genitalia ar e similar to those of the “callippe” group (e.g., callippe atlantis egleis adiaste ). Range. Sandia, Chuska, Manzano Mountains, New Mexico.

PAGE 94

94 Life history. Adults in can be observed in open glad es in the Sandia Mountains (Figure 258). Larval hostplants. Viola sororia affinis (Scott et al. 1998). Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. dorothea likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with specimens examined. AZ: Apache; NM: Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Otero, San Juan, Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia. Speyeria hesperis nausicaa (Edwards, 1874) [Scott et al. 1998] Argynnis Nausicaa Edwards, 1874b p. 104 Argynnis ? aphrodite form Arizonensis Elwes, 1889 p. 546 Speyeria atlantis nausicaa (Edwards, 1874b p. 104) [dos Passos and Grey 1947] Common names. Nausicaa Fritillary, Arizona Fr itillary, Arizona Silverspot. Type deposited. Lectotype (male) designated by dos Passos and Grey (1947) at Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-52). Type locality. Rocky Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona (dos Passos and Grey 1947). However, Brown (1965) believed that the collec tion date may have been misread by Edwards, and states the collector (H. W. Henshaw) was likely at Rock Canyon, Graham County, Arizona. Type label data. Nausicaa [male] Ariza. Wheeler Ex type; lectotype Argynnis nausicaa [male] W. H. Edwards designated by dos Passos and Grey 1947. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is one of the larger ones within hesperis Adult wingspan ranges from 60-75 mm. A dults are similar in appearance to S. h. dorothea but there is usually some white or gr ey overscaling discally on the underside of nausicaa The forewings are pointed, and the ventral hindwing spots are alwa ys silver with the discal area violaceous in color. Two ‘forms’ of S. h. nausicaa may occur in Arizona, one form, darker basally on the dorsal surface of the wings, flies at or above 10,000ft. Range. Central and western Arizona above the Mogo llon Rim. It also occurs in western New Mexico. Life history. Adults are active in th e mid morning hours in open sunny areas (Figure 255). Afternoon rains during the summ er months in the Arizona m ountains hinders their activity. Adults will become inactive fairly rapidly when the sun is covered by clouds (Figures 2-56 and 2-57). Howe (1975) noted that adults settle with their wings horizontal against the ground in the late afternoon sunshine along dirt roads in the White Mountains of Arizona. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. nausicaa likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated specimens examined. AZ: Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Grant, Greenlee, Navajo, Yavapai; NM : Catron, Cibola, Dona Ana, Grant, Sierra, Socorro. Speyeria hesperis capitanensis R. Holland, 1988 [Scott et al. 1998] Speyeria atlantis capitanensis R. Holland, 1988 p. 2 Common name. Capitan Mountain Fritillary. Type deposited. Holotype at American Museum of Natural History (Figure 2-53).

PAGE 95

95 Type locality. Padilla Point, crest of Capitan Ridg e, Capitan Mountains, Lincoln County, New Mexico. Type label data. HOLOTYPE Speyeria at lantis capitanensis R. Holland; 10.VII.82 leg. RWH Padilla Pt. 9200’ crest of Capitan Mts. Linc oln Co., NM; Figured in Bulletin of the Allyn Museum Number 113 Fig. 2B+4 Specime n 13664; 13664. RWH S. atlantis ssp. Identification, taxonomy, and variation. This subspecies is inte rmediate phenotypically from S. h. nausicaa and S. h. dorothea more closely resembling dorothea Adult wingspan ranges from 60-79 mm. Range. Capitan and Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. Life history. I observed adults using roadside flower s for nectar and would use streams as flyways in the Capitan Mountains (Figure 2-59). Adults were acti ve from mid to late morning hours through the early afternoon. Larval hostplants. Viola spp. Adult food resources. As with most Speyeria S. h. capitanensis likely nectar on a wide variety of plants. Locality data associated with spec imens examined. NM: Lincoln, Otero.

PAGE 96

96 Table 2-1. Checklist of Speyeria species and subspeci es treated herein. ________________ Speyeria diana (Cramer) Speyeria cybele (Fabricius) Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius) Speyeria idalia (Drury) Speyeria nokomis (Edwards) Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt) Speyeria coronis (Behr) Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey) Speyeria zerene (Boisduval) Speyeria callippe (Boisduval) Speyeria egleis (Behr) Speyeria adiaste (Edwards) Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) S. atlantis atlantis (Edwards) S. atlantis hollandi (Chermock and Chermock) S. atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla S. atlantis sorocko Scott, Kondla, Spomer Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) S. hesperis hesperis (Edwards) S. hesperis helena dos Passos and Grey S. hesperis beani (Barnes and Benjamin) S. hesperis brico Kondla, Scott, Spomer S. hesperis ratonensis Scott S. hesperis greyi Moeck S. hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey S. hesperis irene (Boisduval) S. hesperis cottlei (Comstock) S. hesperis hanseni Emmel, Emmel, and Mattoon S. hesperis dodgei (Gunder) S. hesperis viola dos Passos and Grey S. hesperis elko Austin S. hesperis tetonia dos Passos and Grey S. hesperis wasatchia dos Passos and Grey S. hesperis chitone (Edwards) S. hesperis electa (Edwards) S. hesperis schellbachi Garth S. hesperis nausicaa (Edwards) S. hesperis dorothea Moeck S. hesperis capitanensis R. Holland Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval) Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval)____________________________________________________

PAGE 97

97 Table 2-2. List of museum abbreviations.____________________________________________ AME-Allyn Museum of Entomology (now hous ed at McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity) AMNH-American Museum of Natural History BMNH (now NHM)-British Museum of Natural History CMNH-Carnegie Museum of Natural History CNC-Canadian National Collection CSUC-C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Biodiversity (C olorado State University) FMNH-Field Museum of Natural History FLMNH-Florida Museum of Natural History FSCA-Florida State Collection of Arthropods LACM-Natural History Muse um of Los Angeles County MGCL-McGuire Center for Le pidoptera and Biodiversity MPM-Milwaukee Public Museum MBSM (BYU)-Monte L. Bean Life Scie nce Museum (Brigha m Young University) NMNH (formerly USNM)-National Museum of Natural History (United States National Museum) NSM-Nevada State Museum UAM-University of Alaska Museum of the North EMUS-Utah State University Insect Collection IRCW-University of Wisconsin Insect Research Collection ESUW-University of Wyoming Insect Museum_______________________________________

PAGE 98

98 A B Figure 2-1. Original description for ‘ Idalia ’. A) hand colored illustrations included with original description, B) text included with orig inal description (taken from Drury 1773).

PAGE 99

99 Figure 2-2. Wing terminology a ssociated with species of Speyeria Image by James C. Dunford and Kelly R. Sims. Figure 2-3. Wing venation and cell scheme utiliz ed in dissertation (after Miller 1969).

PAGE 100

100 A B Figure 2-4. Images of adult Speyeria diana A) male, B) female. Each image with dorsal (left) and ventral (right) view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B C Figure 2-5. Type images for Speyeria diana BMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria diana male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria diana male, ventral view, C) holotype. = Speyeria diana label data. Images by Kim Goodger Buckmaster.

PAGE 101

101 A B C Figure 2-6. Type images for Speyeria cybele BMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria cybele female, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria cybele female, ventral view, C) neotype= Speyeria cybele label data. Images by Kim Goodger Buckmaster. A B Figure 2-7. Type images for Speyeria aphrodite AMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria aphrodite male, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria aphrodite male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 102

102 A B C Figure 2-8. Images of Speyeria idalia life stages. A) adult on butterflyweed, Crawford County, Wisconsin, image by James C. Dunford, B) pupa, image by David L. Wagner, C) larva, image by David L. Wagner. A B Figure 2-9. Type images for Speyeria idalia AMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria idalia male, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria idalia male, ventral view. Imag es by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 103

103 Figure 2-10. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria idalia Image James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-11. Type images for Speyeria nokomis AMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria nokomis male, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria nokomis male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 104

104 A B Figure 2-12 Type images for Speyeria nokomis AMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria nokomis male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria nokomis male, ventral view. This specimen is no longer recognized as the name beari ng type. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-13. Type images for Speyeria edwardsii FMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria edwardsii male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria edwardsii male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 105

105 Figure 2-14. Digitus located on left valva, Speyeria edwardsii Image by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-15. Type images for Speyeria coronis CMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria coronis male, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria coronis male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 106

106 Figure 2-16. Habitus image of Speyeria zerene ( gunderi ), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) views. Image by James C. Dunford. A B C Figure 2-17. Type images for Speyeria zerene NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria zerene male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria zerene male, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria zerene label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

PAGE 107

107 A B Figure 2-18. Type images for Speyeria carolae CMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria carolae male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria carolae male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. Figure 2-19. Speyeria callippe ( harmonia ), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) views. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 108

108 A B C Figure 2-20. Type images for Speyeria callippe NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria callippe male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria callippe male, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria callippe label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

PAGE 109

109 A B C Figure 2-21. Type images for Speyeria egleis NMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria egleis female, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria egleis female, ventral view, C) neotype= Speyeria egleis label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

PAGE 110

110 A B C Figure 2-22. Type images for Speyeria adiaste NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria adiaste female, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria adiaste female, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria adiaste label data. This is no longer recognized as the name bearing type. Images by Robert Robbins. A B Figure 2-23. Type images for Speyeria adiaste CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria adiaste male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria adiaste male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 111

111 A B Figure 2-24. Type images for Speyeria atlantis CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria atlantis male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria atlantis male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-25. Type images for Speyeria hesperis CMNH. A) neotype= Speyeria hesperis male, dorsal view, B) neotype= Speyeria hesperis male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 112

112 A B C Figure 2-26. Type images for Speyeria hydaspe NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hydaspe male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hydaspe male, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria hydaspe label data. Images by Robert Robbins. Figure 2-27. Habitus image of Speyeria mormonia ( artonis ), male; Nevada. Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) views. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 113

113 A B C Figure 2-28. Type images for Speyeria mormonia NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria mormonia male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria mormonia male, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria mormonia label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

PAGE 114

114 A B Figure 2-29. Type images for Speyeria atlantis canadensis AMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria atlantis canadensis male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria atlantis canadensis male, ventral view. Now synonymized with Speyeria atlantis (Scott et al. 1998). Image by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-30. Type images for Speyeria atlantis hollandi CNC. A) holotype= Speyeria atlantis hollandi male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria atlantis hollandi male, ventral view. Images by Norbert Kondla.

PAGE 115

115 A B Figure 2-31. Type images for Speyeria atlantis sorocko AMNH. A) holotype of Speyeria atlantis sorocko male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria atlantis sorocko male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-32. Type images for Speyeria atlantis pahasapa AMNH. A) holotype of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 116

116 A B Figure 2-33. Type images for Speyeria hesperis helena CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis helena male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis helena male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-34. Type images for Speyeria atlantis dennisi AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria atlantis dennisi male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria atlantis dennisi male, ventral view. Now synonymized with Speyeria hesperis helena (Scott et al. 1998). Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 117

117 A B C Figure 2-35. Type images for Speyeria hesperis beani NMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis beani male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis beani male, ventral view, C) holotype= Speyeria hesperis beani label data. Images by Robert Robbins. A B Figure 2-36. Types images for Speyeria hesperis brico CNC. A) holotype of Speyeria hesperis brico male, dorsal view, B) holotype of Speyeria hesperis brico male, ventral view. Images by Norbert Kondla.

PAGE 118

118 Figure 2-37. Holotype= Speyeria hesperis ratonensis male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM. Image by Weiping Xie. A B Figure 2-38. Type images for Speyeria hesperis greyi AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis greyi male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis greyi male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 119

119 A B Figure 2-39. Type images for Speyeria hesperis lurana AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis lurana male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis lurana male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B C Figure 2-40. Type images for Speyeria hesperis irene NMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis irene female, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis irene female, ventral view, C) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis irene label data. Images by Robert Robbins.

PAGE 120

120 Figure 2-41. Holotype= Speyeria hesperis hanseni male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM. Image by Weiping Xie.

PAGE 121

121 A B Figure 2-42. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dodgei AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis dodgei male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis dodgei male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-43. Type images for Speyeria hesperis viola AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis viola male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis viola male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 122

122 A B Figure 2-44. Type images for Speyeria hesperis elko NSM. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis elko male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis elko male, ventral view. Images by George Baumgartner and Scott Klette. A B Figure 2-45. Type images for Speyeria hesperis tetonia AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis tetonia male, dorsal view B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis tetonia male, ventral view. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 123

123 A B Figure 2-46. Type images for Speyeria hesperis wasatchia AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis wasatchia male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis wasatchia male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-47. Type images for Speyeria hesperis chitone CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis chitone male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis chitone male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 124

124 A B Figure 2-48. Type images for Speyeria hesperis electa CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis electa male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis electa male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-49. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nikias CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis nikias male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis nikias male, ventral view. Now synonymized with Speyeria hesperis electa (Scott et al. 1998). Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 125

125 Figure 2-50. Holotype= Speyeria hesperis schellbachi male, dorsal and ventral view, LACM. Image by Weiping Xie. A B Figure 2-51. Type images for Speyeria hesperis dorothea AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis dorothea male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis dorothea male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 126

126 A B Figure 2-52. Type images for Speyeria hesperis nausicaa CMNH. A) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis nausicaa male, dorsal view, B) lectotype= Speyeria hesperis nausicaa male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford. A B Figure 2-53. Type images for Speyeria hesperis capitanensis AMNH. A) holotype= Speyeria hesperis capitanensis male, dorsal view, B) holotype= Speyeria hesperis capitanensis male, ventral view. Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 127

127 Figure 2-54. Lamoille Canyon, Ruby Mountains, Nevada. Image by James C. Dunford. Figure 2-55. Hospital Flats, near Mt. Graham, Pinaleo Mountains, Arizona. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 128

128 Figure 2-56. View of Pinaleo Mountains in the morning. Image by James C. Dunford. Figure 2-57. View of Pinaleo M ountains in the early afternoon. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 129

129 Figure 2-58. Open glade in Sandia Mountains New Mexico. Image by James C. Dunford. Figure 2-59. Roadside flowers, Capitan Mount ains, New Mexico. Image by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 130

130 CHAPTER 3 PHYLOGENY OF SPEYERIA Speyeria (Nymphalidae: Heliconiinae: Argynnini) as currently defined, is restricted to North America (absent in southeastern region s of the United States) (Elwes 1889; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978). Morphologically similar genera exis t in other temperate parts of the world and together may be considered the temperate-z one counterpart to tropi cal Heliconiini (Hammond 1978; Scott 1986b). Long included in the Old World genus Argynnis (Argynninae) (Elwes 1889; Snyder 1900; Seitz 1924), Speyeria differ from their Eurasian relatives primarily in genitalic structure (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Dornfeld 1980) They were considered generically distinct from Argynnis by dos Passos and Grey (1945a); all Nort h American taxa named since that time have been described within Speyeria Recent workers have, however, treated Speyeria as a subgenus of the primarily Palearctic genus Argynnis Fabricius 1807 (Tuzov 2003; Simonsen 2006c). Simonsen (2006a,b,c) and Simonsen et al. (2006) have provide d some morphological and molecular evidence that suggests Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is retained as a separate genus. Speyeria is presently comprised of 16 species (Opler and Warren 2005), and according to some authors, over 100 subspecies (dos Pa ssos 1964; McHenry 1964; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981; Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983; Ferris 1989a,b). Speyeria cybele (Fabricius), S. aphrodite (Fabricius), S. idalia (Drury), and S. atlantis (W.H. Edwards) occur in the eastern half of North America (east of the Mississippi River), each with distributions or subspecies occurring in the west, while S. diana (Cramer) of the eastern United States is restricted to the Appalachian and Ozark Mount ains (Scott 1986b; Opler and Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). The remaini ng species occur in the western regions of North America. Historically, three Speyeria species (i.e., S. diana S. cybele S. aphrodite ) have

PAGE 131

131 been recognized as the subgenus Semnopsyche Scudder (1875) based primarily on differences in the female genitalic armature (dos Passo s and Grey 1945a, 1947; Klots 1951; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). Simonsen (2004) hypothesized that the tribe Argynnini likely originated approximately 35 million years ago (=Oligocene Epoch) in the Eastern Palearctic /Nearctic Region based on historical zoogeography. Argynnina (including Speyeria and Argynnis ) probably originated in the Eastern Palearctic/Afrotropics Regions and spread into the Wester n Palearctic Region on several occasions and the Near ctic Region once. Pleistocene glaciations likely promoted speciation in Speyeria because divergence among allopatric glacial refugia or founder events during recolonization of previ ously glaciated areas would ha ve promoted differentiation (Hammond 1990). Climatological ev ents and geological history, especially in western North America, have resulted in numerous mont ane “island” butterfly populations (Howe 1975; Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997; Fleishman et al. 2001a). Geographic variation in Speyeria was first studied in detail by Comstock (1927 [1989 reprint]), Holland (1898, 1931), and later by Gr ey (1951), Moeck (1957) Hovanitz (1967), Howe (1975), and Hammond (1978). The earlier wo rks listed dozens of “species” names (Holland 1898: 47 species), but subs equent authors realized that most of these “species” were no more than geographical forms or races associat ed with a few polytypic species (dos Passos and Grey 1947; Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Miller and Brown 1981; Scott 1986b). Species and subspecies of Speyeria are commonly delimited based on ba nding, discal coloration, spot coloration and size differences (Dornfeld 1980; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). In the evolution of Speyeria wing markings appear to be highly conservative and reliable diagnostic characters, while wing colors are less stable (Ha mmond 1990). Habitat may be important in

PAGE 132

132 “determining” species and subspecies, and the am ount of solar radiation (including factors such as latitude, temperature, elevation, humidity, lack of vegetation, dark or light soil) on larvae and pupae may play a role in color va riation as it does in other le pidopterans (Hovanitz 1941; Moeck 1957; Janzen 1984; Pyle 1995; Layberry et al. 1998; Ellers and Boggs 2004). For example, pierid and papilionid butterfly populations in cold climates have much darker, more heavily melanized ventral hindwings than do populations in warm climates (Watt 1968; Guppy 1986). Since the precladistic works of Warren (1944, 1955), dos Passos and Grey (1945a), and Moeck (1957), and early systematic works of Shirzu and Saigusa ( 1973) and Hammond (1978), only a few workers have treated genera within the Argynnini utilizing modern systematic techniques. Based on adult and larval morphol ogy utilizing phylogenetic analyses, Penz and Peggie (2003) suggested that Heliconiinae be divided into four groups, and included Speyeria within the Argynnini. Other closely related heliconiine taxa with distributions in North America included Clossiana Reuss (= Boloria ) and Euptoieta. The argynnines in their study were the most derived monophyletic group within the Heliconiinae, implying that species di versification within the group occurred more recently than the emergen ce of ancestral Neotropical heliconiines. By contrast, however, the fairly re cent morphological and molecular wo rk of Brower (2000c) placed the Neotropical taxa as more derived than the argynnine fritillaries, i ndicating that there is difficulty in accurately recovering the evolutionary history of taxa that emerged several thousand years ago (Penz and Peggie 2003). The morphologi cal and molecular work Simonsen et al. (2006) provided monophyletic groups for si x genera within the Argynnini, reducing Speyeria to a subgenus of Argynnis In both of these studies, the European genera Fabriciana Reuss and Mesoacidalia Reuss [both genera are included in Argynnis in Simonsen et al. (2006)] are hypothetically most closely related to Speyeria (Figure 3-14). In addition, a fairly well-supported

PAGE 133

133 clade comprising all Argynnis species (including Speyeria ) supports the unificat ion of all larger fritillaries in one genus (Simonsen et al. 2006). Work conducted by Simonsen (2006c) based primarily on genitalia also indicated a close relationship between that of Speyeria and Mesoacidalia (Figure 3-5); however, the generic placemen t of several larger fritillary species differed from Simonsen et al. 2006. To date, there has not been an in clusive, cladistic analysis for Speyeria A few older studies have utilized multiple Speyeria taxa in evolutionary-related an alyses (Brittnacher et al. 1978; Hammond 1978; Tebaldi 1982), but more recently Speyeria have been used as an outgroup for phylogenetic inferences of more or less related taxa (Martin and Pashle y 1992; Brower and Egan 1997; Pollock et al. 1998; Penz and Peggie 2003; Simonsen 2004, 2006; Si monsen et al. 2006). Previous evolutionary relationships within Speyeria have been arbitrarily delimited, based primarily on the genitalic differences exhibited between the Semnopsyche group and the remainder of Speyeria [=Callippe group (Hammond 1978)], a few immature characters, and by and large adult morphological va riation of the following: overall size, degree of sexual dimorphism, and the following wing characteris tics: dorsally, ground color, intensity of black markings, degree of dark basal suffusion, promin ence of marginal band, thickness of veins on the wings, and ventrally, ground color of the discal region, size, shape, color and position of spots on the hindwings, and color and widt h of submarginal band between th e two outer rows of spots on the hindwings. In dos Passos and Grey’s 1947 revision, Speyeria mormonia is presented as ‘derived’, while the Semnopsyche group is pr esented ‘basally’ within the Speyeria (Figure 3-1); however, they realized the arbitrary nature of this a rrangement and could only clearly distinguish the Semnopsyche group from those in the callippe group. Hammond (1978) discussed primitive and

PAGE 134

134 derived characteristics within Speyeria and its close relatives and rea lized the affinities between Eurasian Fabriciana aglaja (= Mesoacidalia ) and Argynnis Within Speyeria he noted that S. mormonia taxa most closely resemble the wing coloration and ground pl an patterns of old Mesoacidalia aglaja of the Old World Amongst the 15 Fabriciana and Argynnis taxa he examined, Argynnis was considered distinct from both Fabriciana and Speyeria in wing patterning. Argynnis has round submarginal spots on the dorsal wing surface, and the markings on the ventral hindwings are greatly re duced and obscure. In contrast, both Fabriciana and Speyeria have crescent shaped submarginal spots a nd the markings on the ventral hindwing are distinct. Hammond also consider ed a Semnopsyche group or ‘ cybele clade’, recognizing the close affinities of the male genitalia of S. diana S. idalia S. aphrodite S. cybele and S. nokomis (Figure 3-2). His analyses provided a more accurate representation of the evolutionary relationships within Speyeria although it was based largel y on untestable hypotheses. There have also been regi onal systematic studies on Speyeria Brittnacher et al. (1978) used electrophoresis to study the body enzymes of California Speyeria and found that five Callippe group species could not be readily distinguished, whereas the other five species could be (the enzymes of Speyeria hydaspe and Speyeria adiaste were also similar). The Callippe group species could, however, be distinguished by combining chromosomal, physiological, and morphological data (see Figure 33). For the 10 taxa examined, sp ecies that occurred in xeric habitats clustered into two groups, while mesic inhabiting species (i.e., S. nokomis and S. mormonia ) were most different from each other a nd from the xeric species (Figure 3-3). Hammond (1990) provided a cladistic analysis (based primarily on wing patterns) of Speyeria callippe subspecies (Figure 34) and hypothesized that S. callippe was a West Coast isolate of the Appalachian-type Speyeria atlantis and that Speyeria edwardsii probably evolved from one

PAGE 135

135 of the S. callippe subspecies that became isolated in th e Great Plains east of the Continental Divide. Tebaldi (1982) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six enzymes to analyze the relationships between three phenot ypes of what was considered Speyeria atlantis at the time (i.e., electa nikias and hesperis ) and found that the phenotype s could only be considered ‘semispecies’, and that electa and nikias were more closely related than either one was to hesperis Williams (2001a, 2002) examined the cytoch rome oxidase I and II gene regions for Speyeria idalia and suggested splitting the eastern and western United States populations into two subspecific taxa based on 18 parsimony-info rmative sites and spot size on the ventral hindwings. While there has been some dispute as to the true evolutiona ry relationship of Speyeria to the primarily Palearctic Argynnis for some time (Hovantiz 1962, McHenry 1963; Hammond 1978; Simonsen et al. 2006), rece nt cladistic analyses (Simonsen 2006a,c; Simonsen et al. 2006) have only utilized members of the Semnopsyche or Cybele group in those analyses; thus they may not accurately represent Speyeria as a whole. In another taxonomically-related heliconiine study, Penz and Peggie (2003) utilized Speyeria mormonia and Speyeria aphrodite (=Semnopsyche group). Their tree topology exhibited some differences when compared to those presented in Simonsen et al. ( 2006); namely, the relationship of Speyeria to that of Argynnis Although character usag e and the taxa included in their st udy differed somewhat, it may be an indication that additional Speyeria taxa should be included in future heliconiine-related studies to provide clearer resolution of the evol utionary relationships in the group. In general, mitochondrial genes are useful data for evolutionary studies such as species delimitation, population structure and gene flow, hybridization, phylogeographic histories, and phylogenetic relationships (Vogler et al. 1993; Brower 1997; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Levy et

PAGE 136

136 al. 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a; Segraves and Pellmyr 2004; Strehl and Gadau 2004; Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Wahlberg et al. 2005; Memon et al. 2006). Their small size and relative ease to purify (relative to nuclear genes) (i.e., buoyant density, high copy number in cells, and location within an organelle) allow re searchers to isolate these genes more readily (Simon et al. 1994). Because its properties (i.e ., various regions evolve rapidly in base substitutions and sequence length, have a constant initial rate of evolution, are maternally inherited, and are unlikely to recombine), mtD NA represents an unbiased neutral marker for maternal ancestry, and is a good tool to help re veal historical relati onships among populations (Brower 1994a; Simon et al. 1994). COI coding genes have been the most widely utilized mitochondrial gene regions in Lepidoptera phy logenetic analyses for some time (Brower 1994b, 1996b; Brown et al. 1994; Sperling and Hickey 1995; Pollock et al. 1998; Caterino and Sperling 1999; Nice and Shapiro 1999; Wahlberg and Zimmermann 2000; Zimmermann et al. 2000; Caterino et al. 2001; Monteiro and Pierce 2001; Kruse and Sperli ng 2002; Wahlberg et al. 2003a, 2005; Vandewoestijne et al. 2004; Mallarino et al. 2005; Simonsen et al. 2006c). Recent work has also suggested that COI can ai d in the resolution of diversity and in discrimination of closely allied species (Hebert et al. 2003; Hajibabaei et al. 2006; Burns et al. 2007). Morphological, behavioral, and genetic/se quence data are equally important in understanding interand intraspecific relationshi ps, and there has been a significant amount of potentially evolutionary informative data reported in the literature for Speyeria (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Maeki and Remington 1960; Scott 1973a, 1975, 1979; Hammond 1974, 1978; Arnold 1975, Ferris 1983, Emmel 1998; Scott et al. 1998). The combined analysis of data from various sources commonly leads to more robust, or stable phylogenetic hypotheses (Simonsen et al. 2006), and data from past studies can be integrated with newer findings to provide

PAGE 137

137 comprehensive data sets. In order to ex amine the specific relationships within Speyeria a thorough investigation of th e literature is necessary to gain in sight into potentially informative characters and leads to unique and novel characters. In addition to characters previously reported in the literature, characters recovered from the ge nitalic analyses, and mol ecular sequences of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) were utilized to examine the intra-and interspecific relationships of Speyeria and to test the monophyly of this genus. Materials and Methods Fieldwork and collaboration with nearly 30 lepidopterists in proximity to Speyeria populations (from Alaska to sout hern California, east to Main e and south to Georgia) and outgroup taxa were performed to obtain adult sp ecimens. Information pertaining to morphology and biology of Speyeria was also obtained from these lepidop terists. Accurate identification was imperative to this study, and identifications were also sought from regional experts. Specimens were collected in the field and stored in ethano l for genital and molecula r studies. At least five specimens of each sex for each species/subspecies were obtained, and if possible, a subset of individuals occurring in different parts of any single species/s ubspecies range was also obtained. An effort was made to attain samples in proxi mity to the type locali ties for each species of Speyeria In addition, Old World ta xa and other members of the Heliconiinae (i.e., Boloria Euptoieta ) were procured for phylogenetic analysis. The wings of specimens taken in the field or provided by collaborati ng lepidopterists were clipped off most specimens and the bodies were place in 95% ethanol. Several specimens were also kept intact and placed in glassine enve lopes. The removed wings were mounted to card stock (each pair of wings with ventral and dorsa l surfaces in view) and photographed to represent vouchers of specimens utilized for genital and mo lecular work. A five-digit number was given to each specimen to be able to track and coordina te each specimen with it s respective structures.

PAGE 138

138 Genital dissections were completed using at l east five individuals for each species/subspecies, with selected dissections photogr aphed. Adult male abdomens were removed and prepared using a 10% solution of KOH and subsequently placed in 70% EtOH. Genital armature (i.e., valves, uncus, aedeagus) was dissected from the abdomin al pelt and the aedeagus was removed for future genital examination (i.e., vesica eversion and imaging). Specimens housed in the American Museum of Natural History, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, and a few private collections were utilized for morphological examination. Resu lts from morphological work were scored and analyzed in PAUP 4.0b10b (Swofford 2002) and MacClade version 4.0 (Maddison and Maddison 2000). Additionally, the following literature was review ed to recover potentially informative morphological, behavioral, and ge netic characters: Warren (1944), Warren et al. (1946), Maeki and Remington (1960), Miller an d Miller (1966), Mosh er (1969), Scott (1972, 1975, 1979, 1984), Shields and Emmel (1973), Shirz u and Saigusa (1973), Penz (1999), Tolman (1997), Penz and Peggie (2003), Si monsen 2005,2006a,c, and Simonsen et al. (2006). Specimens prepared for molecular analyses were subjected to the following protocols, these following those implemented by the University of Guelph, Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) ( http://www.barcodinglife.org/views/login.php ). A leg or thorax was removed from an adult and DNA was extracted utilizing glass fi ber plate DNA isolation. PCR amplification of COI DNA was carried out using the fo rward and reverse primers LepF1 (5’ATTCAACCAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3’) and LepR1 (5’TAAACTTCTGGATGTCCAAAAAATCA-3’). The th ermal cycler profile consisted of 94oC for 1 minute, five cycles of 94oC for 40 seconds, 45oC for 40 seconds, and 72oC for 1 minute; followed by 35 cycles of 94oC for 40 seconds, 51oC for 40 seconds, and 72oC for 1 minute, with

PAGE 139

139 a final extension at 72oC for 5 minutes. Sequencing was co mpleted with a Beckman Coulter Biomek capillary sequencer located at the Un iversity of Guelph. Sequences were aligned automatically by BOLD software and/ or by eye using MacClade version 4.0. Taxon Sampling In total, 22 taxa were included in the primar y analyses (Table 3-1). Sixteen species of Speyeria and six outgroups were chos en. Six outgroup taxa represen t related heliconiine species, three of which occur in the Old World. Severa l widely distributed subspecific taxa of Speyeria were used for the molecular portion of thes e analyses. Several a dditional species (i.e., Argynnis spp., Boloria spp., Euptoieta spp., and Heliconius spp.) were incorporated into a separate COI phylogenetic analysis (see Figures 3-12 and 3-13). Character Sampling In all, 30 morphological/behavioral/genetic char acters (summarized in Table 3-2; also see Table 3-3) and over 600 molecular ch aracters have been establishe d to date. Many of them were taken from male genital features, followed by wi ng pattern and behavioral related characters. All characters chosen were binar y, with the exception of five, wh ich contained 3 or 4 states. Additional characters include immature, behavi oral and genetic states Several additional characters were accumulated but were deemed c linal, non-discrete characters that could not be easily defined for a given taxon. Phylogenetic Analyses Phylogenetic analyses were executed utilizing PAUP 4.0b10b (Swofford 2002) and molecular sequence alignments were made in MacClade version 4.0 (Maddison and Maddison 2000). Morphological, behavioral, a nd molecular data sets were inferred separately and in combined analyses. Molecular data were equally weighted and unordered, and other data were coded by the author. In most cas es, unless otherwise noted, anal yses were carried out using

PAGE 140

140 maximum parsimony and a heuristic algorithm, along with additional default settings in PAUP. Heuristic searches were run uti lizing several nucleotide substituti on or evolutionary models and are indicated with each tree. A maximum of 1000 trees were sear ched for each data set followed by a 50% majority rule, strict co nsensus of the best fit trees. Th e tree length, consistency and retention indices, and the number of parsimonious informative characters are reported in each tree. Branch support values (e.g., bootstrap and/or Bremer support) were not calculated at the time of this writing but will be in the future. Molecular sequences are currently stored on the workspace of the author at the BOLD workbench ( http://www.barcodingli fe.org/views/login.php ) and will be publicly available there as well as on GenBank following publicat ion of these results. Results and Discussion Based on the morphological a nd behavioral data set (s ee Tables 3-2 and 3-3), Speyeria can be divided into two “groupings,” th e Semnopsyche/Cybele group (including Speyeria idalia ), and more or less the Callippe group of Ha mmond (1978) (Figure 3-6), which appear as unresolved polytomies in Figure 3-6. Speyeria nokomis is placed between these two groupings. However, Speyeria does not appear monophyletic, with Fabriciana niobe falling within Speyeria Other hypothesized outgroups (i.e., Boloria Euptoieta and Heliconius ) have diverged where they would expect to relative to Speyeria It should also be noted that S. hydaspe is sister to S. adiaste which concurs with that relationship indi cated by Brittnacher et al. (1978). In the past, S. adiaste was hypothesized to be closely allied to S. egleis (dos Passos and Grey 1947, Hodges 1983) and S. atlantis (Hammond 1978). While genitalic ch aracters (including the shape of the uncus, tegumen, and fenestrula, and location of the digitus) between Speyeria and the European genera Fabriciana Argynnis and Mesoacidalia are quite distinct, discrete genitalic characters for species of Speyeria are few. However, the size and shape of the uncus on the male

PAGE 141

141 genitalic armature should serve to separate members of the Semnopsyche group from others in Speyeria In addition, an accessory bursal sac in th e females of the Semnopsyche group provides further evidence of this separa tion. Intermediate genitalic forms, such as those observed in S. idalia and S. nokomis may represent a transition between those Speyeria taxa that bear a flattened, excavate uncus and accessory bursal sac to those that have a simple uncus and single bursal sac. Additional informative characters identified in this st udy include the size and shape of the digitus, especially for S. idalia and S. edwardsii The location of this structure on the male genitalic armature is unique to Speyeria but it may have been overlooked as an evolutionarily informative character within the genus and other related taxa. Other characters chosen for this analysis, namely wing and behavioral characters, may not be evolutionarily informative and should be reexamined. Homoplasy may obscure synapomorphies, especially in groups with relatively recent speciation and where retained ances tral polymorphism is still extant. Additional discrete morphological characters are currently being analyzed and input into data matrices, and will be included in future publications. An approximately 650 base pair portion of the COI gene was sequenced for all species listed in Table 3-1 and for several additional species included in the analyses associated with Figures 3-12 and 3-13 (Note: ed iting and alignment in different analyses may have slightly changed the total number of available COI charact ers in each tree). A representative (=nominate subspecies or nearest to the species type lo cality) COI sequence for each of the 16 species of Speyeria is included in Appendix A. Because of the fairly rapid evolution of the COI region and the apparent recent divergence of many Argynni ni, COI provided a good marker to infer the evolutionary relationships of the members of this tribe.

PAGE 142

142 A phylogeny generated with Barcode of Life Data Systems software indicate that Speyeria is a monophyletic grouping and sister to M. aglaja based on COI (Figure 3-7). Closely related species, such as S. atlantis and S. hesperis largely group according to geographical locality. Trees inferred in PAUP following manual alignment of sequences also indicate Speyeria is monophyletic (Figures 3-8 and 3-9). In both an alyses, members of the Semnopsyche/Cybele group+ Speyeria idalia and Speyeria nokomis appear basal within Speyeria and most closely allied to S. adiaste and S. hydaspe The relationship between the latter two species confirms the relationship observed in the morphol ogical/behavioral data set. The strict consensus tree (Figure 3-8) suggests Speyeria is most closely related to Argynnis paphia and Mesoacidalia aglaja ( M. aglaja appears more closely related in the phylogram presented in Figure 3-9), with Speyeria edwardsii appearing derived within the genus. Much of the Callippe group remains unresolved, but the species tend to group togeth er, especially by locality (Figure 3-7). It should be noted that eastern Speyeria atlantis forms do not appear si ster to western S. atlantis and Speyeria hesperis forms (Figure 3-7). There also appear s to be a close relationship between S. atlantis from Ontario and Speyeria aphrodite (Figure 3-7). In addition, S. aphrodite does not appear closely related to members of the Semnopsyche group, for which it ha s been considered part of in the past based on genitalic similarities (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). A few anomalies observed in the tree, namely the placement of one Speyeria diana relative to S. aphrodite and S. atlantis from Ontario (Figure 3-7) could be due to DNA contaminati on or misidentification of specimens. The combined data sets including morphology, behavior al, and molecular characters (Figures 3-10 and 3-11) show similar results to that of the trees inferred from COI alone (i.e., a close relationship to M. aglaja and A. paphia ) with the exception of th e placement of the basal Speyeria taxon ( Speyeria nokomis not S. idalia or S. diana as indicated by the COI data).

PAGE 143

143 There are observable differences, namely in the male genitalia, between the North American and Old World Argynni ni. Assuming Eurasian argynni ne taxa represent a more ancient lineage due to greater di fferences in wing and genital morphologies than those within Speyeria Mesoacidalia aglaja may most closely represent ancestral Speyeria The next step in understanding the true evolutionary relationships within the Argynnini and thei r relatives is to combine Speyeria inclusive data sets with those cove ring other argynnine taxa. A preliminary analysis of publicly available COI sequence da ta was conducted here, wh ich included several additional heliconiine species (Figures 3-12 and 3-13). Speyeria maintains a natural grouping, with Argynnis (= Fabriciana ) niobe appearing most closely related to Speyeria All Argynnis included in this analysis app ear more closely related to Speyeria than does M. aglaja Simonsen (2006c) (Figure 3-5) reported M. aglaja sister to Speyeria based on wing and genitalic morphology but included a different generic treatmen t of most of the species presented here as Argynnis Recent morphological (wing and genitalic charac ters) and molecular (COI and two nuclear genes) studies conducted by Si monsen et al. 2006 suggest Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is maintained as a separate genus (Figure 3-14). Speyeria [= Argynnis (Simonsen et al. 2006)] cybele is sister to Mesoacidalia [= Argynnis (Simonsen 2006c)] aglaja and closely related to Argynnis kamala in this study. Although there ar e obvious affinities between the Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups as indi cated by the inclusive analyses conducted on Speyeria herein, members of the Callippe group and the remainder of Speyeria should not be excluded in phylogenetic analyses relative to the evolution of Argynnini. In addition, it is apparent from the recent literature that the use of Argynnis and other closely related genera continue to be used interchangeably when discussing a given species. Taxon inclusion (and

PAGE 144

144 omission) and statistical analyses change tree topologies (and pe rceived relationships) considerably. For example, when S. cybele is used as the representative speyerian taxon utilizing COI without strict consensus crit erion, it appears to fall within Argynnis (Figure 3-15) [ Argynnis following Simonsen et al. (2006) (Fig ure 3-14)]. Thus, the designation of Speyeria as a subgenus within Argynnis is tentative until more robust data sets can be analyzed; Speyeria should be retained as a distinct genus until that time. Percent divergence of COI, calculated at the Barcode of Life Data Systems workbench, was compared within (from different populations) and between species of Speyeria Individuals selected from overlapping and more or less disj unct populations indicate that average percent divergence follows a trend in increasing percen t divergence, as would be hypothesized based on the evolution of the gene. Percen t COI divergence increases within Speyeria populations when they are more disjunct, and increase on aver age when they are compared to hypothetical outgroups. It is evident that species known fr om a single population will exhibit very low COI divergence (e.g., 0% for Speyeria carolae in Nevada’s Spring Mountains and S. adiaste on the California coast), while the same species known from disjunct, more or less geographically isolated populations will show a di vergence as high as 4 or 5.33% (e.g., Speyeria zerene from California and S. zerene from Nevada was 5.01%; Speyeria atlantis from Vermont and S. atlantis from Wyoming was 4.5%). The divergence within the genus and between species averaged 4.3%, showing the greatest percentage of 8.4%. Speyeria callippe and Speyeria idalia indicated approximately 8.0% divergence, while S. callippe and S. edwardsii showed only a 0.16% divergence. Related genera, namely those utilized as outgroups in phylogenetic analyses, showed on average a 9.2% divergence from Speyeria The highest divergence for Argynnis paphia was 9.2% when compared to S. idalia whereas the highest divergence between Mesoacidalia aglaja

PAGE 145

145 and a Speyeria taxon (i.e., Speyeria coronis ) was 7.88%. Boloria selene (from North America) and Clossiana selene (from Europe) both showed divergences as high at 12%. All of these COI divergence data will be made public ly available at a later time. Missing data, resulting from limited sample of taxa or only partial information on characters, can have adverse effects on clad istic results (Miller and Wenzel 1995). Thus, additional morphological and molecular characters are presently being adde d to this data set. Amplification of COI for additional Speyeria taken from various parts of a species range is ongoing. A Speyeria DNA barcode database for the COI ge ne has also been implemented at Barcode of Life Data Systems, University of Gu elph, for use in future molecular analyses. This will allow for researcher a ugment and/or access to the DNA sequences for COI when Speyeria are critical taxa in phylogenetic analyses In addition, a large tissue collection of Speyeria now resides at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity fo r future molecular research. Species and subspecies delimitation remains problematic for many taxa within Speyeria and determinations are often affixed by locality. Lepidoptera taxa, in par ticular butterflies, are often elevated to species rank on the basis of few or slight morphologi cal differences, often without additional, significant character support (e.g., Scott et al 1998). It is imperative that informative characters are chosen while avoi ding wing aberrations, mutations and characters subject to environmental influences. Further i nvestigation into use of wing facies to delimit Speyeria taxa is needed, especially with regard to the subspecies level. There may be useful morphological and behavioral charact ers that have been overlooked in favor of the traditional use of wing patterns and colors in species and subspecies diagnoses. A suite of useful and environmentally stable characters, including the external morphologies of adults and immature stages, genitalia, DNA sequences, and life histor y traits, will continually be needed for Speyeria

PAGE 146

146 Beyond the scope of this study, fu rther ecological (e.g., pheromone testing) studies, examination of wing patterns and coloration under ultra-viol et light, DNA sequences of several additional gene regions, and rearing and cross breeding studi es are also warranted to better understand the evolutionary relationships of Speyeria Primers for amplification of additional gene regions for Speyeria are available in the lite rature (Martin and Pashley 1992; Brower and Egan 1997; Pollock et al. 1998; Williams 2001a; Williams et al. 2002; Simonsen et al. 2006). At issue is a growing discontent with an arbitrary taxonomic category, the subspecies, which often fails to accurately describe infraspecific variation (Arnold 1985). Most subspecies are named on the basis of one or a few wing ch aracters, often intuitively perceived by the worker. Within Speyeria there is often a greater morphologi cal difference between subspecies than between sympatric species, and workers often call attention to rather fine (wing pattern) differences within each species. These differences are then named subspecies in order to properly define and identify the species themselves (G rey 1989). The riddle of species and subspecies, and an even more intriguing question of evolutio nary meaning in local variation in relation to local environment, may come down to a better understanding of symp atry. There is still a richness of data afforded by nume rous closely related and co-inhabi ting ‘species’, as seen in the molecular data presented herein. Rather than arb itrarily designating subspe cies or following an attempt at justifying them sta tistically by percent population ove rlap, as suggested for birds (Patten and Unitt 2002; Cicero and Johnson 2006), pe rhaps a mean COI (or some other gene region) percent divergence can be utilized. Depe nding on the working species concept, and there are many, it may be impossible to ‘define’ some Speyeria forms in their present state. One might be better off to let evolution ‘run its course’ with these potenti ally ‘incipient’ entities, and reexamine these interand intra-specific relation ships in the [perhaps distant] future. In the

PAGE 147

147 meantime, it may be wise to consider each populati on as evolutionary sign ificant units, worthy of further systematic and conservation attention.

PAGE 148

148 Table 3-1. List of taxa include d in the primary analyses._________________________________ Ingroup taxa Speyeria diana (Cramer) Speyeria cybele (Fabricius) Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius) Speyeria idalia (Drury) Speyeria nokomis (Edwards) Speyeria edwardsii (Reakirt) Speyeria coronis (Behr) Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey) Speyeria zerene (Boisduval) Speyeria callippe (Boisduval) Speyeria egleis (Behr) Speyeria adiaste (Edwards) Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval) Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval) Outgroup taxa Boloria selene (Denis and Schiffermller) (= Clossiana selene ) Euptoieta claudia (Cramer) Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus) Fabriciana niobe (Linnaeus) Mesoacidalia aglaja (Linnaeus) Heliconius spp.___________________________________________________________

PAGE 149

149 Table 3-2. Synopsis of characters* and st ates used for phylogenetic analyses.________________ Male genitalia (4) uncus with dorsal spines/teeth (0) absent/weak (1) present/strong (16) bifid uncus (0) absent (1) present (18) tip of uncus (0) simple (1) excavate (5) juxta with apical spine(s) (0) absent (1) present (22) crista (0) absent (1) present (6) clavate ampulla (0) absent (1) present (7) ampulla straight (0) or bent downward (1) (17) digitus (located on distal end of valve) (0) absent (1) present (19) length of digitus (0) less than 3 to 4 times the width (1) 5 to 6 times longer than the width (20) dorsal, distal end of di gitus (0) rounded and not extended into point (1) extended into narrow point (1) (13) proximal end of aedeagus (0) open (1) closed (21) cornuti on aedeagus (0) absent (1) present (27) position of harp (=digitus) on valves (0) dorsal/f ree (1) lateral (2) do rsal/attached (3) none (29) tegumen/uncus with fenest rula (0) absent (1) present (30) fenestrula (0) elongate, narrow (1) wi dest at base (2) tr iangular anteriorly Female genitalia (14) bursa copulatrix with appendi x bursa (0) absent (1) present Wings (24) male forewing veins (0) “thin” (1) “thick” (25) “halo” surrounding ventral black median spot between veins M3 and CuA1 (0) absent (1) present (26) dorsal submarginal spots (0) ro und (1) crescent shaped (2) none (28) silver spots on ventral hindw ing disc in at least one form or sex (0) absent (1) present Behavioral (2) Male carries female while mating (0) male (1) female (2) either (3) Mate locating behavior by male (0) perching (1) patrolling (2) pheromones (3) more than 1 behavior (10) females oviposit on hostplant (0) or not on hostplant (1) (11) diapausing (overwintering) stage (0) egg/larva (1) pupa/adult (12) diapausing larv al instar (0) 1st (1) 2nd or later (23) univoltine (0) multivoltine (1) Pupal Characters (8) tubercles on dorsal mesal portion of abdomen (0) absent (1) present (9) carinate mesothorax (0) absent (1) present Larval Characters (1) Viola used larval host pl ant (0) no (1) yes Genetic (15) total chromosomes in test es (0) >30 (1) 30 or more_________________________________ *Numbers in parentheses to the left represent the character number input on data matrix in Table 3-3.

PAGE 150

150 Table 3-3. Data matrix for characters listed in Table 3-2. Character # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 S. diana 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 110001?0110011 0 1 0 1 1011 S. cybele 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 11000100110011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. aphrodite 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 11000100110011 0 0 1 1 1111 S. idalia 1 1 ? 0 0 0 0 1 110001?0110111 0 1 0 1 1111 S. nokomis 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 110000?0110011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. edwardsii 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 110000?0101011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. coronis 1 ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 11000010100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. carolae 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 11??00?0100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. zerene 1 ? 1 0 0 0 0 1 11000000100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. callippe 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 11000010100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. egleis 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 110000?0100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. adiaste 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 110000?0100011 0 1 0 1 1011 S. atlantis 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 11000000100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. hesperis 1 ? ? 0 0 0 0 1 110000?0100011 0 1 0 1 1111 S. hydaspe 1 1 ? 0 0 0 1 1100000010001 0 1 0 1 1011 S. mormonia 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 11000000100011 0 0 0 1 1111 B. selene 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1101101100??01 1 ? ? ? 3112 E. claudia 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 00???0? 000??00 1 ? ? ? 301? A. paphia 1 2 ? 1 0 0 0 1 11??000001??11 0 ? ? 0 0110 F. niobe 1 2 ? 0 1 0 0 ? ?1??000000??11 0 ? ? 1 0110 M. aglaja 1 2 ? 1 1 0 1 ? ?1??000001 ???1 0 0 ? 1 2110 Heliconius sp. 0 0 ? 0 0 ? ? 1 101??0?0????00 1 ? ? 2 300?

PAGE 151

151 Figure 3-1. Intuitive phyloge ny of subtribe Argynnina ( Speyeria based on dos Passos and Grey 1947). Figure 3-2. Intuitive phylogeny of Speyeria (taken and modified from Hammond 1978). Semnopsyche/cybele group

PAGE 152

152 Figure 3-3. Dendrogram of ge netic similarity between 10 Speyeria species (taken from Brittnacher et al. 1978). Figure 3-4. Phylogenetic interpretation of Speyeria callippe subspecies (taken from Hammond 1990). Callippe group

PAGE 153

153 Figure 3-5. Strict consensus tree of Argynnini (taken from Sim onsen 2006c; Figure 4. The strict consensus tree of the three most pars imonious trees with length 417 (CI=0.3765, RI=0.7498).

PAGE 154

154 Figure 3-6. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 30 characters (ovals = polytomies). Semnopsyche/Cybele group

PAGE 155

155 Figure 3-7. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 653 characters of the mitochondrial gene COI (BOLD-Kimura 2 Parameter). Five-digit id entifier, number of COI base pairs, and locality record for each specimen to the right of species name. Speyeria

PAGE 156

156 Figure 3-8. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 625 characters of the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 157

157 Figure 3-9. Phylogram of Speyeria based on the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 158

158 Figure 3-10. Phylogeny of Speyeria based on 653 characters of combined morphology and the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 159

159 Figure 3-11. Phylogram of Speyeria based on combined morphology and the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 160

160 Figure 3-12. Phylogeny of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on 647 characters of the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 161

161 Figure 3-13. Phylogram of Speyeria and additional outgroup taxa based on the mitochondrial gene COI.

PAGE 162

162 Figure 3-14. Phylogeny of Argynnini based on combined morphological and molecular sequence data [taken from Simonsen et al 2006c; Figure 4. The combined analysis of all four datasets. The single most pa rsimonious tree (3724 steps, CI=0.41, RI=0.54). The numbers above the nodes are Bremer s upport values, whereas the numbers below the nodes are partitioned Bremer suppor t values yielded by morphology, COI, EF-1 and wingless respectively].

PAGE 163

163 Figure 3-15. Phylogeny of Argynnis (following Simonsen et al. 2006) based on the mitochondrial gene COI with only Speyeria cybele included in analysis. .

PAGE 164

164 CHAPTER 4 BIOGEOGRAPHY AND GENITALIC SURVEY OF SPEYERIA WITH EMPHASIS ON OVERLAPPING SPEYERIA ATLANTIS AND SPEYERIA HESPERIS POPULATIONS The Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) and Speyeria hesperis (Edwards) species complexes are represented by several widely distributed s ubspecies (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978; Dunford 2005). These subspecific taxa have distributions that range from the eastern United States and Canada, west to Calif ornia, as far north as Alaska and south to Arizona and New Mexico (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hammond 1978) (see Figure 4-3). W. H. Edwards originally described S. atlantis from the northeastern United States in 1863 [type locality now fixed in the Catskills Mountains, in Hunt er, Greene Co., New York ( dos Passos and Grey 1947)] and S. hesperis from Colorado in 1864. Since th at time, several additional S. atlantis and S. hesperis ‘forms’ have been described (e.g., dos Passo s and Grey 1945b; Moeck 1947, 1950; Austin 1983; Holland 1988; Emmel et al. 1998c; Scott et al. 19 98), and there are a few regions where the two ‘species’ occur sympatrically and synchronously (Grey et al. 1963; Ferris 1983; Scott et al. 1998). Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis are presently comprised of 25 subspecies (Emmel et al. 1998c; Scott et al. 1998). Subspeci es designation is based primarily on differences in wing facies [i.e., basal suffusion dorsally, disc al coloration and silvering of spots on hindwings (see Figure 47)] and geographical location of populations (Howe 1975; Hammond 1978; Ferris and Brown 1981). Hammond (1990) noted that wing markings appear to be highl y conservative and reliable diagnostic characters within Speyeria while wing colors are less st able. Melanic, basal suffusion of wings is exceedingly plastic in Speyeria and subject to repeated convergence and reversal (Hammond 1990). The ‘form’ hesperis was formerly recognized as a subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (dos Passos and Grey 1947; Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Hamm ond 1978) until Scott et al. (1998) examined adult wing patterns and sympat ric occurrence without in terbreeding exhibited

PAGE 165

165 by atlantis and hesperis forms in several regions, resurrecting the status of these entities to that of Edwards’ original descri ptions (Edwards 1863a; 1864a). Sc ott et al. (1998) designated hesperis and atlantis as distinct species based primarily on the silvering of ventral hindwing spots (and a few larval characters), and placed four silver-spotted forms into the atlantis species group and 19 primarily unsilvered forms into hesperis species group. However, earlier work by Scott (1988) indicated that a clear distinction between the two sp ecies was obscure, and that the silvered and unsilvered phenotypes are likely pol ymorphic forms of one species. Tebaldi (1982) and Ferris (1983) also attempted to discern the status of atlantis and hesperis in Colorado based primarily on wing facies and preliminary en zyme electrophoresis st udies. Ferris (1983) suggested ‘ hesperis ’ phenotypes might represent a sibling species of ‘ atlantis’ forms. Two additional subspecies, Speyeria atlantis hanseni Emmel, Emmel and Mattoon and Speyeria atlantis cottlei (Comstock) (presently listed under S. hesperis by the author), were described and discussed in Emmel et al. (1998c). Much of the speciation and subspeciation within Speyeria probably came about in the past 10,000 years as a consequence of the last glacial retreat and the climatic readjustments in its wake (Grey 1951; Hammond 1990). Plei stocene glaciations likely pr omoted speciation in groups such as Speyeria because divergence among allopatric gl acial refugia or fo under events during recolonization of previously glaciated areas would have promoted differentiation (Hammond 1990). Climatological events, especi ally in western North America, have resulted in numerous montane “island” butterfly populations (How e 1975; Johnson 1975; Boggs and Murphy 1997; Fleishman et al. 2001a). Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis primarily inhabit cool, Canadian life zone habitats; their life histor y requirements include either the climatological elements of northern parts of North America or montane en vironments in the West (Scott 1986b; Opler and

PAGE 166

166 Malikul 1998; Opler and Wright 1999; Glassberg 2001a,b). These s ubspecies are more or less isolated, and adaptations to local environmenta l conditions have allowed for distinct forms, especially the coloration on th e ventral hindwings (see Table 4-1; Note: discal and spot coloration on hindwings is variable within so me populations). In addi tion, the coloration in images may be artifacts of th e age of the specimens, photogra ph lighting, and printer and paper quality (also see Introduction in Chapter 2 fo r discussion on photography and wing coloration). Genitalic morphology demonstrates peculiar pa tterns of variation among animal species (Eberghard 1985; Arnqvist 1997; 19 98, Mutanen 2005), and this variation may represent a more stable, discrete suite of characters than do the wing patterns mentioned above. Genital characteristics tend to vary grea tly between Lepidoptera species, providing useful features for species delimitation (Porter and Shapiro 1990; Scoble 1995; Mutanen 2005; Simonsen 2006b). Traditionally, species specificity based on genitalia has been assumed to serve as a mechanical isolation system between species (i.e., the lo ck-and-key hypothesis) (D ufour 1844; Porter and Shapiro 1990; Arnqvist 1998). Most recent studies suggest, however, that such variation may also be due to sexual selecti on (Lloyd 1979; Eberhard 1996; Ar nqvist 1997). These two working hypotheses provide different pred ictions on genital variation w ithin and between species. Genitalia of Speyeria have proven to be taxonomically uninformative, and detailed genitalic examination has largely been ignored in this group (Hammond 1 978; Ferris and Brown 1981). Dos Passos and Grey (1945a) conducted a survey of male genitalic structures primarily in Argynninae (including Speyeria ) butterflies and provided illustr ations of several species, including the male genitalic armature (=capsule) of S. atlantis (Edwards) (Figure 4-1). Generic characters for male Speyeria genitalia include a semi-rectangular plate (=digitus) located near the dorsal lobe of the valvae (Figur e 4-1), but otherwise the armature is more conventional in type

PAGE 167

167 and comparatively unspecialized (d os Passos and Grey 1945a). It is apparent that genitalic data can conclusively separate the Semnopsyche group [= Speyeria cybele (Fabricius), Speyeria diana (Cramer), Speyeria aphrodite (Fabricius)] and Callippe group [= S. atlantis S. hesperis (Edwards), Speyeria callippe (Boisduval), Speyeria zerene (Boisduval), Speyeria coronis (Behr), Speyeria egleis (Behr), Speyeria hydaspe (Boisduval), Speyeria mormonia (Boisduval)], but otherwise the male armature is largely homogenous (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). Arnold and Fischer (1977) de scribe the morphology of ge nitalia and summarize the mechanisms of copulation in Speyeria including those of S. atlantis in greater detail. The ninth genital segment in male Speyeria is the main genitalic segment and is highly modified, bearing the aedeagus and clasping organs. A transverse sclerotic ring termed the tegumen forms a supportive structure for the entire genitalic arma ture (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The tegumen is heavily thickened for muscle atta chment around its anterior edge. Th e tegumen also gives rise to the uncus (Figures 4-1 and 4-2), and the uncus is often specifically varied in shape and important in diagnostic value in grouping re lated species (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). The ventral portion of the tegumen gives rise to a large sclerite termed the vincul um (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The vinculum is greatly expanded midventrally and extended anteriorly to form a trough-shaped inflection known as the saccus (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Large, flattened, double walled lobes (=valvae) represent the clasping structures and are articulated with the vinculum. In Speyeria a heavily sclerotized dorsal extension located on th e valvae is known as the digitus (Figure 4-1 and 4-2) and may also be diagnostically important (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). The valvae are articulated dorsally at the base with the tegumen and ventrally at the base with the juxta. The juxta, a sclerite lying on the ve ntral surface of the anellus, sup ports the aedeagus. Internally, the anellus encompasses the aedeagus by acting as an eversible cone and allows for the extrusion of

PAGE 168

168 the genital bulb at the time of copulation. The dist al portion of the aedeagus forms an inner tube known as the vesica. During copulation, the greater pa rt of the vesica is uncoiled and bears small chitinous teeth (=cornuti). Female Speyeria possess two separate ge nital openings, as do all ditrysian Lepidoptera, and do not bear a true morphol ogical ovipositor (Arnold and Fisc her 1977). Fusion of the ninth and tenth abdominal segments appa rently gives rise to the papill ae anales, and these form a pair of setiferous lobes, one on either side of the anus and ovipositional opening. The copulatory opening, the ostium bursae, opens internally into a large sac termed the bursa copulatrix (Figure 4-24B). A secondary bursa, known in the Semnop syche group (dos Passos and Grey 1945a) and Speyeria idalia (Drury) (Grey 1989), is considered a taxonomically important structural character in female Speyeria genitalia (dos Passos and Grey 1945a) (Figure 4-24A). Dilation of the bursa copulatrix readies the female for r eception of the male intromittent organ. When copulation takes place, the male lowers the un cus and tegumen upon the papillae anales of the female. The male valvae embrace the anterior porti on of the papillae anales and the movement of the valvae enables the sharply acuminate tip of the uncus to hook into the intersegmental membrane of the female’s eight tergite. There ar e three points of attach ment involving the uncus and the valvae, and when these are secured, the ae deagus is inserted into the female’s bursa copulatrix, where the vesica are everte d as the sperm is introduced. In order to further exam ine the relationship of S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms ( sensu Scott et al. 1998) and speci es delimitations, 13 S atlantis-hesperis taxa and two members of the Semnopsyche group [ S. diana (Cramer) and Speyeria cybele krautwurmi (Holland)] were utilized for genitalic comparisons. Several additional species, including Spring Mountain, Nevada isolate Speyeria carolae (dos Passos and Grey), were also exam ined. Genitalic dissections were made

PAGE 169

169 on eastern North American S. atlantis atlantis (Edwards), western U.S. atlantis given the name S. atlantis sorocko by Scott et al. (1998), and S. hesperis [= S. hesperis hesperis and S. hesperis electa (Edwards)] populations in Colorado and Wy oming. In addition, species from sympatric populations in South Dakota, Speyeria atlantis pahasapa Spomer, Scott, Kondla and Speyeria hesperis lurana dos Passos and Grey, were also exam ined. Although there are several other regions where S atlantis and S. hesperis populations overlap, this preliminary study of male genitalia may provide a stepping-s tone in which to justify furt her genitalic examination (both male and female) of other sympatrically and synchronously occurring populations. Male genitalia were examined in this study b ecause the taxonomic value of these structures in species and generic level taxonomy and systema tic studies is well established in Lepidoptera (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Scoble 1995; Scobl e and Krger 2002; Simonsen 2006a,b). It is also hypothesized that rapid dive rgent evolution of male genita lia, which could provide some insight into the relationships of relatively young taxa such as thos e still considered ‘subspecies’, is one of the most general evolu tionary trends in animals with in ternal fertilization, and in many cases the shapes of genital traits often provides the only reliable characters for species identification (Eberghard 1985; Arnqvist 1998). An attempt to re valuate the significance of genitalia within Speyeria is critical to provide additional taxonomically and evolutionarily informative characters. In recent years, genitali c examination of insects has improved via better preparatory (i.e., dissection met hods) and illustrative techniqu es (i.e., drawing and imaging technology) (Scoble and Krger 2002; Simonsen 2006a,b; Zaspel and Weller 2006) and these modern techniques may yield taxonomically informa tive characters that have not been identified to date. The present study test ed whether the characters of th e current classification, based primarily on wing morphology, provide further evid ence to support or reject the distinction of S.

PAGE 170

170 atlantis and S. hesperis and whether mechanical isolation or some form of sexual selection are active forces in the evolution of these species. Examination of genitalia within the S. atlantis and S. hesperis complexes is undertaken herein. The genitalia of indivi duals occurring in overlapping populations of each species complex, particularly with respect to the Colorado/Wyoming and South Dakota forms, are imaged utilizing the Microptics Digital Imaging System. Several additional genitalic morphs, representing other S. atlantis and S. hesperis subspecies, are also illu strated and discussed. Label data gleaned from over 5,000 specimens in these two species groups have also been and are presently being databased at Di versityofLife.org in order to be gin to determine the degree of sympatry of S. atlantis and S. hesperis populations. Museums, priv ate collections, and fieldcollected specimens were utilized to generate locality record s, and distributional maps are electronically produced for the 25 S. atlantis and S. hesperis subspecies discussed herein. Materials and Methods Taxon Sampling Specimens utilized for genitalic preparations were obtained from Lepidoptera specialists, amateur collectors, and fieldwork conducted by the author throughout much of the western United States. Subspecies identification was c onfirmed by at least three different Lepidoptera specialists upon examination of wing morphology and collection locality information. Slide mounted material was obtained from the F.H. Ch ermock Collection located at the Allyn Museum of Entomology (now The McGuire Center for Le pidoptera and Biodiversity) Species/subspecies chosen for this study include indivi duals that would embrace nominate S. atlantis and S. hesperis and two pairs of overlapping subspecies known from these species complexes. Speyeria atlantis sorocko represents a western atlantis form while S. hesperis electa occurs sympatrically in Colorado (Figure 4-3). Speyeria a. pahasapa and S. h. lurana are overlapping, isolated

PAGE 171

171 populations located in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Two members of the Semnopsyche group ( S. diana and S. cybele krautwurmi ) were also chosen for ‘outgr oup’ comparison. Slide mounted genitalic material borrowed from the Allyn Mu seum of Entomology included individuals that best represented similar (based on adult wing morphology and collection locality information) species/subspecies to those chosen for the ge nitalic preparations. For example, because S. atlantis sorocko was lacking in the slide collection, S. atlantis hollandi was chosen to represent a western atlantis form. Preparation of Material Wings from individuals utilized for genitalic dissections we re removed and glued to card stock providing a dorsal and vent ral view. Wing vouchers were th en placed into unit trays and photographed (Figure 4-8). Genitalic dissections were made of at least five individuals for each species/subspecies, with select dissections photographed. Adult male abdomens were removed and prepared using a 10% solution of KOH and subsequently placed in 70% EtOH. Genitalic armature (i.e., valves, uncus, aedeagus) was diss ected from abdominal pelt and the aedeagus was removed and will be utilized later for future genitalic examination (i.e., vesica eversion and imaging). Dissection numbers were given to each indi vidual utilized for imaging to track specimens and associated structures. Ventral, do rsal, and lateral view images of the male and female genitalic armature were taken utilizing the Microptics Digital Imaging System housed at the Florida Museum of Natural History, McGuir e Center for Lepidopter a and Biodiversity, and the Auto-Montage Syncroscopy System housed at the Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida. Genitalic ar mature was positioned on top of K-Y Jelly and submerged in 70% EtOH. Bubbles were removed using insect pins and genitalic preps were positioned accordingly for desired image. Genitalic structures were then placed in glycerol filled genitalia vials and maintained together with asso ciated abdominal pelt. The remaining structures

PAGE 172

172 for each individual used for dissections were pl aced in 95% EtOH and are presently stored in a freezer for molecular studies. Slide mounted genitalia borrowed from the Allyn Museum of Entomology were photographed utilizing the Auto -Montage Syncroscopy System housed at the Florida State Collection of Arthropods-Department of Plant Indus try, Gainesville, Florida. Touch ups, blemish removal, and enhancement of images included in this study was completed utilizing Adobe Photoshop CS. Terminology utilized for genitalic descriptions follows that of dos Passos and Grey (1945a) (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Select images were chosen to include herein, thus all of the genitalic images taken have not been provide d. The author took all ge nitalic images unless otherwise noted. Databasing Locality records were taken from specimens housed at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH), C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity (CSUC-C.P.) (Colorado Stat e University), Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM), Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (MGCL) [includes material from the Allyn Museum of Entomology (AME) and Florida State Collection of Ar thropods (FSCA)], the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum (MBSM) (Brigham Young University), Utah Stat e University Insect Collection (EMUS), and University of Wyoming Insect Museum (ESUW) as well as six private collections, and specimens collected in the field. State and county information, as well as GPS coordinates, were primarily utilized for mapping sp ecies/subspecies distributions. Locality records were exported in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet form at to personnel at DiversityofLife.org (DOL) (http://www.diversit yoflife.org/) for databasing. DOL provides software for a “plug and play” management syst em for biodiversity data, with tools for mapping

PAGE 173

173 species distributions, image database mana gement and retrieval, morphological data management, diagnostic key generation, cladogr am display and navigation, descriptions, classifications and nomenclature. This allows fo r storing, retrieving, and analyzing biodiversity, systematic, taxonomic, and phylogenetic data. Dist ributional maps are generated by selecting a given species/subspecies and follo wing the instructions. Maps are either in road, aerial satellite imagery, or hybrid (i.e., road map and aerial topo) format. A navigation and zoom function allows the user to visualize the entire distribut ion or to focus on single locality data points. Results and Discussion Examination of closely related species of Speyeria yields a few apparent taxonomically informative genitalic characters. The species a nd subspecies that were examined from the Chermock collection and newly diss ected specimens are listed and select structures are described in Table 4-2. Both sympatrically occurring Wyoming/Colorado and Black Hills S. atlantis S. hesperis populations were compared and key male genitalic features are discussed below. Several additiona l species of Speyeria and S. atlantis-S. hesperis subspecies are also briefly described and/or illustrated. The digitus, a distinct genitalic character for Speyeria appears to be variously shaped, with the apical portion bearing a ‘finger-like’ extension or proj ection of different lengths and orientation. Amongst the taxa included in the dissections, it appears to project dorsally (=upward) when viewed laterally on S. atlantis sorocko (Figure 4-9A) and projecting posteriad (=straight back) on S. hesperis electa (Figure 4-9B). The saccus of S. atlantis sorocko also appears to be distinct from ot hers included in the dissections. The length appears to be shorter with the apex rounded when viewed late rally (Figure 4-10A). The tegumen of S. atlantis sorocko appears slightly different than other atlantis/hesperis forms when viewed laterally (Figure 4-11). The basal margin appears to be convex, whereas on others the margin appears to be vertical with

PAGE 174

174 respect to point of attachment with valvae. Th is may, however, be an artifact of positioning of the genitalic prep on the surface of the K-Y Jell y. The digitus is distinctly shaped in many Speyeria and phylogenetically informative in Speyeria edwardsii (Figure 4-20B) and S. idalia (Figure 4-19B). Its function and placement during copulation should be explored. The uncus appears to taper gently to a vent rad-curved claw without pronounced ventral excavation in the lateral outline. This was apparent in all of the S. atlantis/hesperis taxa dissected here. Grey (1951) noted that the uncus fails to separate atlantis from its closest relatives (=Callippe group); however, it is distinctly different in S. idalia S. nokomis and in members of the Semnopsyche group. The uncus of S. cybele is distinct in both size and shape (Figure 4-12), and this distinction is expected in members of the Semnopsyche group. It appears flattened and deeply notched at its apex. The tegumen is similar to other Speyeria in shape, with the exception of the outline of the basal portion, and a clear membranous portion located medially termed the fenestrula (Figure 4-26A) differs in size and shape from other non Semnopsyche Speyeria (Figure 4-26B), especially towards the uncus. It should be noted that the tegumen in European Argynnis is clearly distinct in shap e and the fenestrula is diamond shaped (Figure 4-26C). The dorsal lobes, located on the ba sal portion of the valvae, are relatively similar in the S. atlantis/hesperis taxa (Figures 4-13A, 4-14A, 4-15A) a nd only vary slightly (=less pronounced) in S. cybele The aedeagus is somewhat similar in the species examined here, with the shape of its apex the only readily discernable differen ce (Figures 4-13B, 4-14B, 4-15B). The uncus, distinct in the Semnopsyche forms and S. idalia likely fits specifically in the attachment of females of those species. It may be that females of S. idalia and those of the Semnopsyche group are not only distinct in bearing an accessory bursa (Figure 4-24A), but also in points of attachment for a flattened, excavate uncus. A deta iled examination of female genitalia, with

PAGE 175

175 respect to the known points of attachment during copulation as listed by Arnold and Fisher (1977), would be necessary to truly test the lock and key species hypothesis. The genitalia of Black Hills atlantis and hesperis is quite similar, and this would be expected as members of the Callippe group bear morphologically similar genitalia (dos Passos and Grey 1945a; Hammond 1978). However, in the three male specimens examined, the digitus is somewhat distinct, and this was consistent in all three. The digitus of lurana (Figure 4-25A) is short and the distal, ventral por tion is extended into a short fi nger-like projection, whereas in pahasapa (Figure 4-25B) the digitus is about twice the length of the digitus observed on lurana and the distal, ventral portion do es not extend into a point or finger-like projection. Within each subspecies, however, there were s light variations in overall digitu s length. Other structures such as the size and shape of the uncus and valv ae are similar (see Table 4-2 for additional descriptions). Upon initial examination using the methodologies presented here, the genitalic structures of some S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms are distinct; however, a dditional dissections (including females) are required to truly test clinal trends and utility of genitalia for species delimitation. Additional preparatory techniques, such as vesica eversion, should also be attempted. Differences in the male genitalia of S. atlantis and S. hesperis forms examined here are not obvious. However, the images included in this study do provide some de tail not described to date. The distal portion of the digitus, size and shape of the saccus, and tegumen are variable and should be further examined, especially with regard to the atlantis forms S. a. sorocko and S. a. pahasapa Additionally, di ssections of S. atlantis occurring in West Virginia should also be investigated further. The number of individuals and taxa utilized in this study are inappropriate to provide

PAGE 176

176 confirmation that S. atlantis and S. hesperis are distinct species, an d additional individuals representing different subspecies (=populations) will need to be examined to develop a thorough data set and subsequent assessment in a phylog enetic framework. Although a few preparations may exhibit distinctions, they ar e often nullified when more speci mens of a given population or various subspecies of a wide distribution are examined (dos Passos and Grey 1945a). Additional species/subspecies taken from di fferent populations would be requi red to examine the potential clinal variation in genitalic morphology. Morpho metric analyses may also be warranted to further explore the vari ation and allometry in S. atlantis and S. hesperis genitalia, to provide more detailed genitalic descriptions, a nd to test the lock and key hypothesis. Speyeria in the Black Hills continue to be forc ed into close spatial contact by further drying and warming of this region, and they have been in contact temporally for some hundreds if not thousands of years (Grey et al. 1963). The question becomes were S. atlantis and S. hesperis originally separate species, or are they s ubspecies of one or a nother that have been remarkably exempt from the leveling results of intermingling and the directive mechanisms of ecology, and apparently clinging to their earlier ways of life and “Colorado” facies. Ecological separation S. atlantis and S. hesperis is apparent in some areas, with hesperis forms occurring in more cooler, mesic habitats (Grey et al. 1963 ; Hammond 1974). However, Scott et al. (1998) noted that the habitat for S. a. pahasapa in the Black Hills is moist meadows, whereas S. h. lurana occurs in drier, aspen woodland. It may be that e ach species in the Black Hills was adapted to wetter or drier conditi ons and forced into contact as one species either intruded or retreated following changing clim atic conditions. In either event, genital morphology may provide little to no indica tion that these two entities are species, especially with regard to a lock and key hypothesis. It is likely that some other force may be acting to separate these two

PAGE 177

177 “species”. Perhaps pheromone profiles (see Sco tt 1988) or some other form of sexual selection such as recognition of silvering and or spangles (the appearance of the ventral silvering of hindwing spots when viewed from above), es pecially under ultravio let wave lengths as visualized by many Lepidoptera (Ferris 1972, 1973; Remington 1973, Sc ott 1973b; Knttel and Fielder 2000, 2001; Acorn 2002; Brisco e et al. 2003), is acting to di verge these closely related entities. Initial examination of S. atlantis pahasapa (Figure 4-27A) and S. hesperis lurana (Figure 4-27B) males utilizing ultr a violet lighting indicated that silver spots are more noticeable, and perhaps the presence or absence of silver spots along with flight patterns during courtship (see Scott 1986b, 1988) are used for species recognition. It is evident in S. atlantis S. hesperis forms that wing facies vary (see Table 4-1 and Figure 4-7) (see also Scott et al. 1998), and that the apparent trend is that hesperis forms bear unsilvered, cream-colored ve ntral hindwing spots while atlantis forms are silvered. For those populations that occur sympatrically perhaps silver spots or lack thereof initially acted as a selective force within species, an d eventually as a visual cue along with olfactory cues between species. Additional studies of Speyeria mating behavior and the appearance of wings under ultraviolet light may elucidate some clues as to th e distinctness of spangles and/or silvering as an evolutionary force within Speyeria Tebaldi (1982) (also see Ferris 1983) utilized starch gel electrophoresis of six enzymes to analyze the relationships between three Rocky Mountain phenotypes of S. atlantis S. hesperis and found that the phenotypes could be considered only “semispecies.” Perhaps, in some areas, especially those within or near the Rocky Mountains where overlapping atlantis hesperis forms are prevalent (see Figure 4-3), “species” of Speyeria still have a great ability to come into contact with one another and gene flow is evident in a menagerie of Speyeria forms. Further unraveling

PAGE 178

178 the true clinal trends between S. atlantis and S. hesperis will fill in the gaps between named subspecies that are partly or wholly bridged by intermediates, and provide clearer recognition of those taxa isolated to degree in which evolutio nary forces have acted upon to provide distinct species. Distributional and clinal trends for Speyeria have been described in detail in the past and new locality data continues to be compiled (Grey 1951; Moeck 1957; Grey et al. 1963; Hammond 1978; Scott et al. 1998). However, the workspace provided on the Diversity of Life website allows for on-going input of lo cality data and the ability to map Speyeria distributions as new locality data are compiled (sample maps gene rated from the Diversity of Life website are included Figures 4-4, 4-5, 4-6). In addition, one pr actical aspect of knowing the distributions of hostplants such as Viola is that locality data from herbarium records may also help predict the distributions of Speyeria (and vice-versa). Herbarium data sh ould also be incorporated with known Speyeria locality data in the future. Imaging technology has recently improved via systems such as Microptics Digital Imaging and Auto-Montage Syncroscopy. Both systems allow for high magnification, high depth of field images needed for detailed exam ination of morphological structures such as genitalia. Use of these imaging techniques allows for continued manipulation of genitalic preps, whereas slide mounted material is permanently se t. In addition, slide mounted material provides virtually no three-dimensional vantage points, and structures poten tially taxonomically informative are ‘flattened’ during slide prepar ation. Slide mounted material can, however, now be photographed in detail comparable to viewin g slides with a compound microscope, providing a supplement or perhaps replacem ent for traditional examination and/or illustrative techniques. Illustration is always subject to the artists’ interpretation and ability, and detailed images

PAGE 179

179 produced by a lens are likely more anatomica lly/proportionally accurate. This study provides a stepping-stone on which to just ify further examination of othe r sympatrically and synchronously occurring S. atlantis-hesperis populations using mode rn imaging technology. Choosing appropriate and accurately identified individuals for future genitalic research may prove problematic, and will require careful exam ination of species descriptions and detailed locality information. C. Ferris (pers. comm.) states that S. hesperis electa is likely the name applied to silver populations in the Rockies a nd Intermountain Region; however, this does not account for the silvered S. atlantis sorocko described by Scott et. al. (1998). In addition, Ferris (1983) stated that within central Colorado, there is an unknown isolating mechanism that causes electa and hesperis to behave as sibli ng species, and that the electa phenotype belongs with nominate atlantis while hesperis perhaps represents a sibling species. This contradicts the current designation of electa within the hesperis subspecies complex by Sc ott et al. (1998). In the absence of carefully controlled rearing expe riments or perhaps pheromone profiles, thorough examination of male and female genitalia ma y be one way to determine the status of S. atlantis S. hesperis and associated subspecies. Speyeria atlantis and S. hesperis may also be of conservation interest, not necessarily from human encroachment or habitat mismanagement, but from climatic change and long term warming trends. Could cold adapted species such as S. atlantis and S. hesperis be affected by warming temperatures? Will their distributions change? Climate and habitat change, whether by natural cause or anthropogenic a lterations, is widely accepted as the most important factor in butterfly decline, as its multit ude of important effects include a decrease of breeding sites and removal of important resources, altering hi storical population dist ributions (New 1997; Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Hammond 1995; Shapir o 1996; Hill et al. 1999a,b; Parmesan et

PAGE 180

180 al. 1999). The S. atlantis-hesperis complex provides an oppo rtunity to examine these evolutionary mechanisms in a wide ly distributed group restricted to climatically co lder latitudes and isolated boreal ‘islands’ in mountainous regi ons. Additional genitalic examination (including the function of the digitus in mating) in conjunction with othe r adult and larval characters, molecular sequences, and life history data anal yzed in a phylogenetic fr amework, will contribute greatly to our current understa nding of the intra-and interspecies relationships within Speyeria

PAGE 181

181 Table 4-1. List of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies and associated ventral hindwing characters.____________________________________________________________ Species HW ventral disc color HW spots A) S atlantis atlantis reddish to dark-brown (chocolate brown) silvered B) S. a. hollandi dark-brown to blackish-brown (some gray) silvered C) S. a. pahasapa blackish-brown (darker than hollandi ) silvered D) S. a. sorocko dark reddish-brown (chocolate brown) silvered E) S. hesperis helena red-brown with large tan areas silvered F) S. h. beani reddish-brown silvered/unsilvered G) S. h. brico reddish-brown (darker red than beani ) silvered H) S. h. ratonensis brown with gray-tan areas silvered I) S. h. greyi pale brown (some with green tinge) silvered J) S. h. lurana red-brown with large tan ar eas mostly unsilvered (cream) K) S. h. hesperis red-brown usually with pale ar eas mostly unsilvered (cream) L) S. h. irene red-brown with pale tan streaks unsilvered (cream) S. h. cottlei reddish-brown unsilvered (cream) M) S. h. hanseni reddish-brown with cream overscaling unsilvered (cream) N) S. h. dodgei red-brown with pale tan streaks unsilvered (cream) O) S. h. viola red-brown with pale tan streaks unsilvered (cream) P) S. h. elko red-brown with pale tan streaks unsilvered (cream) Q) S. h. tetonia reddish-brown mostly unsilvered (cream) R) S. h. wasatchia reddish-brown mostly unsilvered (cream) S) S. h. chitone reddish-brown mostly silvered T) S. h. electa red-brown usually with pale areas mostly silvered U) S. h. schellbachi reddish-brown with tan areas mostly silvered V) S. h. nausicaa red-brown with pale tan or gray areas mostly silvered W) S. h. dorothea reddish-brown with tan areas mostly silvered X) S. h. capitanensis reddish-brown with tan ar eas mostly silvered___________ (*not pictured-Type Locality: Alturas, Modoc Co., CA) [See Figure 4-7 for wing images co rresponding to letters in table] [Note: Discal coloration and silv er or unsilvered data are averag es across populations of a given subspecies. (List primarily follows th e arrangement of Scott et al. 1998)]

PAGE 182

182 Table 4-2. Species and subspecies examined and se lect descriptions of male genitalic armature. Dissections examined and photographed: Speyeria atlantis atlantis Vermont: Addison Co.: digitusprojection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertic ally; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobespronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria atlantis sorocko Colorado: Hinsdale Co. (Figur es 4-10A and 4-11): digitus (N)projection distinct, dorsad; uncus-tip curv ed, not expanded verti cally; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-sli ghtly pronounced; saccus-lateral ly short, rounded at apex. Speyeria atlantis pahasapa South Dakota: No county data: digitus (N)-twice the length of S. h. lurana projection distinct, posterad to dor sad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; do rsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria atlantis hollandi British Columbia: digitus-pr ojection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertic ally; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobespronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex. S. hesperis hesperis : Wyoming: Albany Co. (Figure 415): digitus-projection distinct, posterad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vert ically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, slightly tapered at apex. Speyeria atlantis greyi Nevada: Elko Co.: digitus-project ion distinct, poste rad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expande d vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobespronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria hesperis lurana South Dakota: Lawrence Co.: digitus (N)-half the length of S. a. pahasapa projection not distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; do rsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-laterally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria hesperis electa Wyoming: Albany Co. (Figure 4-14): digitus-projection not distinct; uncus-tip curv ed, not expanded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobespronounced; saccus-laterally long, tapered slightly at apex. Speyeria hesperis schellbachi Arizona: Coconino Co.: di gitus-projection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, not expa nded vertically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-la terally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria hesperis nausicaa Arizona: Graham Co.: digitus-pr ojection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, somewhat expanded ve rtically; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-later ally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria hesperis capitanensis New Mexico: Lincoln Co.: di gitus-projection distinct, posterad to dorsad; uncus-tip curved, somewh at expanded vertically; with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccus-la terally long, rounded at apex. Speyeria diana West Virginia: No county data.: dig itus-projection moderate to extended, ventrad; uncus-tip curved, expanded verticall y, excavate at tip; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-slightly pronounced; saccu s-laterally long, tapered at apex. Speyeria cybele krautwurmi Missouri: Cape Girardeau Co. (Figure 4-12): digitusprojection moderate, dorsad; uncus-tip curv ed, expanded vertica lly, excavate at tip; tegumen with fenestrula; dorsal lobes-sligh tly pronounced; saccus-laterally long, tapered at apex.

PAGE 183

183 Table 4-2 cont. Speyeria carolae Nevada: Clark Co.: digitus (N)-pr ojection distinct and “thumblike”, projecting distinctly do rsad; uncus-tip curved, not expanded vertically, long, extending to the tip of the digitus; tegumen-basal marg in vertical; dorsal lobes-pronounced; saccuslaterally long, rounded at apex. Additional slide mounted materi al examined and photographed: Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Enfield, Maine) (Figure 4-16A) Speyeria hesperis irene/dodgei (Diamond Lake, Oregon) (Figure 4-16B) Speyeria hesperis chitone (Southern Utah) (Figure 4-17A) Speyeria hesperis nausicaa (Sierra Ancha Mountains, Arizona) (Figure 4-17B) Speyeria diana (no locality data av ailable) (Figure 4-18A) Speyeria cybele (Omaha, Nebraska) (Figure 4-18B) Speyeria aphrodite (Pennsylvania) (Figure 4-19A) Speyeria idalia (no locality data av ailable) (Figure 4-19B) Speyeria nokomis (White Mountains, Arizona) (Figure 2-20A) Speyeria edwardsii (Sioux County, Nebraska) (Figure 2-20B) Speyeria zerene (California) (Figure 4-21A) Speyeria callippe (San Francisco, California) (Figure 4-21B) Speyeria adiaste (Santa Cruz, Califor nia) (Figure 4-22A) Speyeria hydaspe (Big Meadows, California) (Figure 4-22B) Speyeria mormonia (948) (Menache Meadows, Ca lifornia) (Figure 4-23)_____________

PAGE 184

184 Figure 4-1. Illustration and associated terminology of male genitalic armature of Speyeria atlantis (after dos Passos and Grey 1945a). Figure 4-2. Male genitalic armature ( Speyeria idalia ) and associated terminology.

PAGE 185

185 Figure 4-3. Distributional map of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies (taken and modified from Dunford 2005; origin al map produced by J. Glassberg). Figure 4-4. Dist ribution map for Speyeria atlantis in the northeastern United States (sample interactive road map generated at DiversityofLife.org).

PAGE 186

186 Figure 4-5. Dist ribution map for Speyeria hesperis (sample interactive ae rial topo map generated at DiversityofLife.org). Figure 4-6. Dist ribution map for Speyeria atlantis-hesperis subspecies (sample interactive topo map generated at DiversityofLife.org).

PAGE 187

187 Figure 4-7. Ventral hindwing images of Speyeria atlantis and Speyeria hesperis subspecies (see Table 4-1 for letters and corresponding taxon names). Image by James C. Dunford and Kelly R. Sims. A B Figure 4-8. Examples of wing vouchers. A) Speyeria atlantis sorocko B) Speyeria cybele

PAGE 188

188 A B Figure 4-9. Male genitalia of Speyeria A) digitus, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado), B) digitus, Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming). A B Figure 4-10. Male genitalia of Speyeria A) saccus, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado), B) saccus, Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming). Figure 4-11. Uncus and tegumen, Speyeria atlantis sorocko (Colorado).

PAGE 189

189 A B Figure 4-12. Male genitalia of Speyeria cybele (Missouri). A) male genitalic armature, lateral view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side. A B Figure 4-13. Male genitalia of Speyeria atlantis (West Virginia). A) male genitalic armature, lateral view, right side, B) aedea gus, lateral view, left side. A B Figure 4-14. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis electa (Wyoming). A) male genitalic armature, lateral view, right side, B) aedea gus, lateral view, left side.

PAGE 190

190 A B Figure 4-15. Male genitalia of Speyeria hesperis hesperis (Wyoming). A) male genitalic armature, lateral view, right side, B) aedeagus, lateral view, left side. A B Figure 4-16. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria atlantis atlantis (Maine), B) Speyeria hesperis irene/dodgei (Oregon). A B Figure 4-17. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria hesperis chitone (Utah), B) Speyeria hesperis nausicaa (Arizona).

PAGE 191

191 A B Figure 4-18. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria diana (no locality), B) Speyeria cybele (Nebraska). A B Figure 4-19. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria aphrodite (Pennsylvania), B) Speyeria idalia (no locality). A B Figure 4-20. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria nokomis (Arizona), B) Speyeria edwardsii (Nebraska).

PAGE 192

192 A B Figure 4-21. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria zerene (California), B) Speyeria callippe (California). A B Figure 4-22. Male geni talic armature. A) Speyeria adiaste (California), B) Speyeria hydaspe (California). Figure 4-23. Male genitalic armature, Speyeria mormonia (California).

PAGE 193

193 A B Figure 4-24. Image of bursa copulatrix A) Speyeria diana B) Speyeria carolae A B Figure 4-25. Male genitalia of Speyeria A) digitus, Speyeria hesperis lurana B) digitus, Speyeria atlantis pahasapa

PAGE 194

194 A B C Figure 4-26. Male genitalic armatu re. A) dorsal view of tegumen, Speyeria cybele B) dorsal view of tegumen, Speyeria hesperis, C) dorsal view of tegumen, Argynnis paphia A B Figure 4-27. Images of adult Speyeria using ultraviolet light. A) dorsal surface of Speyeria atlantis pahasapa B) dorsal surface of Speyeria hesperis lurana Images by James C. Dunford.

PAGE 195

195 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The preliminary cladistic analys es and generic review conduct ed herein and the previous studies conducted on Speyeria by dos Passos and Grey ( 1945a, 1947) and Hammond (1978), suggest that there is a divisi on between the Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups. Genitalic differences provide discrete evid ence that these groups diverged from one another at some point in time. A few other morphological differences, namely the overall size, degree of sexual dimorphism, and general reduction of wing pattern ing in the Semnopsyche/cybele group provide further evidence of their distin ction from the Callippe group. However, potentially informative characters for Speyeria may be obscured by factors related to climatological conditions. Hot, humid summers or dry, cooler c onditions likely affect local populations, and these conditions likely influence color and pattern variation of the wings. Thus, it is difficult to systematically interpret characters rela ted to wings due to the clinal variation that is now obvious for Speyeria as more population locality gaps are filled. Members of the Callippe group are nearly identical in many ways, and only under close inspection can some morphological differences be detected. Howeve r, these are not consistent across or even amongst populations; thus, they ar e difficult to subject to phylogenetic analyses. The Callippe group has retained many geographic fo rms that may represent close evolutionary links between the species. Each species within this ‘clade’ is morphologically similar across various parts of their range; thus, discrete mo rphological characters fo r subspecies cannot be readily discerned. Members of the Semnopsyche/cybe le group are more restricted in their ranges and exhibit relatively fewer geogr aphical linkages; thus, it is not surprising from an evolutionary standpoint that they have become more distinct morphologically.

PAGE 196

196 It is apparent from these analyses that members of the Semnopsyche group+ Speyeria idalia and Speyeria nokomis represent basal taxa within Speyeria Assuming Eurasian argynnine taxa represent a more ancient lineage due to greater differences in wing and genitalic morphologies than those within Speyeria Mesoacidalia aglaja most closely represents ancestral Speyeria ; this was confirmed in the phylogenetic an alyses conducted herein. However, the inclusion of additional taxa in the COI data set indicated that Fabriciana niobe may be the sister taxon to Speyeria while M. aglaja is sister to the Argynnis species utilized in this analysis. The next step in understanding the true evolutiona ry relationships within the Argynnini and their relatives is to combine Speyeria -inclusive data sets with th ose covering other Heliconiinae. Recent morphological and molecu lar studies conducted by Simonsen et al. (2006) suggest Argynnis is paraphyletic if Speyeria is maintained as a separate genus. However, within those analyses members of the morphologically and mol ecularly distinct Cybele group are utilized as representative speyerian taxa; thus they may not accurately represent Speyeria as a whole. Although there are obvious affinities between the Semnopsyche/Cybele and Callippe groups, members of the Callippe group (+ S. mormonia ) should not be excluded in phylogenetic analyses relative to the evol ution of Argynnini. The designation of Speyeria as a subgenus within Argynnis is tentative until more robus t data sets can be analyzed; Speyeria should be retained as a distinct genus until that time. There are few unique, discrete characters for species of Speyeria However, the size and shape of the uncus on the male genitalic armatu re should serve to separate members of the Semnopsyche group from others in the genus. An accessory bursal sac in the females of the Semnopsyche group provides furthe r evidence of this separation. Intermediate genitalic forms, such as those observed in Speyeria idalia and Speyeria nokomis may represent a transition

PAGE 197

197 between those Speyeria taxa that bear a flattened, excavat e uncus and accessory bursal sac to those that have a simple uncus and single bursal sac. Additional informative characters identified in this study include the size and shape of the digitus. The locati on of this structure on the male genitalic armature is unique to Speyeria (and differs greatly with re spect to related European taxa), but it may have been overlooked as an evolutionarily informative character within the genus. In addition, the shape of the tegumen a nd fenestrula in comparison with those in Argynnis differ. It is distinctly shaped in many taxa, and quite distinct in Speyeria edwardsii and S. idalia Its function and placement during co pulation should be explored. Percent COI divergence increases within Speyeria populations when they are more disjunct, and increase on average when they are compared to hypothetical outgroups. It is evident that species known from a single population will exhibit very lo w COI divergence (e.g., 0% for Speyeria carolae in Nevada’s Spring Mountains and S. adiaste on the California coast), while the same species known from disjunct, more or less geographically isolated populations will show a divergence as high as 4 or 5.33% (e.g., Speyeria zerene from California and S. zerene from Nevada was 5.01%; Speyeria atlantis from Vermont and S. atlantis from Wyoming was 4.5%). The divergence within the genus and between species averaged 4.3%, showing the greatest percentage of 8.4%. Speyeria callippe and Speyeria idalia indicated approximately 8.0% divergence, while S. callippe and S. edwardsii showed only a .16% divergence. Related genera, namely those utilized as outgroups in phyl ogenetic analyses, showed on average a 9.2% divergence from Speyeria The highest divergence for Argynnis paphia was 9.2% when compared to S. idalia whereas the highest divergence between Mesoacidalia aglaja and a Speyeria taxon (i.e., Speyeria coronis ) was 7.88%. Boloria selene (from North America) and Clossiana selene (from Europe) both showed di vergences as high at 12%.

PAGE 198

198 Over 8,000 individual Speyeria atlantis Speyeria hesperis locality records taken from specimens housed at museums, private collections and collected in the field were compiled and are currently being entered into an interactive database. The web-site located at DiversityofLife.org is still a work in progress, bu t many records are already available there from the present project. Distributi onal maps are generated by selec ting a given species/subspecies and following the instructions. Maps are either in road, aerial satellite imagery, or hybrid (i.e., road map and aerial topo) format. A navigation a nd zoom function allows the user to visualize the entire distribution or to focus on single loca lity data points. Additional records, as they become known, can be continually incorporated to further realize the sympatric nature of these two closely related ‘species’. As a result from the present work, a large frozen tissue collection of Speyeria now resides at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodi versity for future molecular research. In addition, a Speyeria DNA barcode database for the COI gene has been implemented at Barcode of Life Data Systems, University of Guelph, for use in future molecular analyses. This will allow for researcher access to DNA sequences of this gene region whenever Speyeria are critical taxa in phylogenetic analyses. Nomenclatural errors were identified after a th rough review of the l iterature associated with Speyeria The description of Speyeria hesperis greyi Moeck (1950) had been listed as described within Argynnis This was perpetuated in the literature for some time and is clarified here. North American greater fritillaries we re considered generically distinct from Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 as Speyeria Scudder, 1872 by dos Passos and Grey (1945a); all taxa named since that time have been described with in the latter genus. Nonetheless, Argynnis was retained in some popular guides and other literature (e.g., Garth 1950; Garth and Tilden 1963; Hovanitz

PAGE 199

199 1962, 1963; Sette 1962). McHenry (1964, see also McHenry 1963) attempte d to resurrect the use of Argynnis but this has not been followed in North America. McHenry (1964) may well have originally misled compilers of later ch ecklists (i.e., Miller and Brown 1981; Hodges 1983) by implicating that S. atlantis greyi was named within Argynnis This treatment was then followed by several subsequent authors. Additional discrepancies in the literature, necessary corrections, and current taxonomies were also identified and discussed herei n. The sex of the lectotype specimen for Speyeria egleis as indicated in dos Passos and Grey (1947), is th at of a male. A specimen bearing the same label was reported as female in Emmel et al. (1998a), and was verified as such following personal examination of the purported type specimen herei n. Penz and Peggie (2003) reported that female Speyeria mormonia had an accessory bursal sac, but this has not been reported previously nor observed here; this may have been erroneously reco rded in the appendix of character states. This character is key in separating member s of the Semnopsyche group from other Speyeria One recently described taxon, Speyeria atlantis hanseni (Emmel et al. 1998c), should now be considered Speyeria hesperis hanseni based on Scott et al. (1998); all California taxa formerly considered atlantis should receive this treatment based on the wing characteristics described by Scott et al. (1998). The location of the type specimen for Speyeria hesperis cottlei is apparently unknown. This species was recently raised from synonymy (Emmel et al. 1998c) and a neotypic specimen may need to be designated. Primary type specimens for all the currently recognized Speyeria species and S. atlantis S. hesperis appear together in color here for the first time. This may be of importance for future taxonomic studies. Museums are now limited in curatorial personnel and access to major Lepidoptera collections is now restricted. In addition, presenting quality images of type

PAGE 200

200 specimens reduces the possibility of accident al damage to these taxonomically important artifacts. Finally, the position of Speyeria in conservation and land management issues is well known (Hammond and McCorkle 1984; Launer et al. 1994; Kelly and Debinski 1998; Williams 1999, 2002; Swengel 1993, 2004; Swengel and Swenge l 2001; Patterson 2002). Elucidating the interand intra-specific relationshi ps and evolutiona ry history of Speyeria in this study may provide information pertinent to conservation stra tegies and priorities. Additionally, the effects of climate change (i.e., global warming) on north ern and montane species that have not been considered of conservation interest to date (e.g., S. atlantis and S. hesperis ) should be investigated. Each population of Speyeria whether classified as a species, subspecies, or otherwise, should be recognized as a significant evolutionary un it. The habitats in which each population occurs should be consid ered invaluable if the genetic diversity of this fascinating genus and its remarkable evolutionary divergence is to be preserved.

PAGE 201

201 APPENDIX COI SEQUENCES FOR 16 SPECIES OF SPEYERIA (Species here=nominate subspecies or nearest to the species type locality) Speyeria diana (West Virginia: Wyoming Co.; male) GACttTATATTTTATTTTTGGGATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTAT TAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGG TCACTAATTGGAGAT GATCAAATTTACA ATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTATT ATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTATA ATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCC CCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGCT TTCCCCCGTATAAACAATATAAGATTTTGAC TTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTTA TTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGC AGGAACAGGATGAAC AGTATACCCCCCT CTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTTC TTCAGTAGATTTAGC AATTTTCTCTTTAC ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCTTCTATTTTAGGAG CAATTAACTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAGAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCATTATTTGTGTGAGCAGTAGG AATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTAC CAGTTTTAGCAGGAG CTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAG GAGGAGGAGACC CTATTTTATA Speyeria cybele (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male) GACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GGATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCACTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAC AATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCC CTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGC TTTCCCCCGTATAAACAATATAAGATTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATC CTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATGGAGGTTC TTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCTTCTATTTTAGGAG CAATTAACTTTATTACAACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAGAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCATTATTTGTGTGAGCAGTAGG AATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTTAC CAGTTTTAGCAGGAG CTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAG GAGGAGGAGACC CTATTTTATA Speyeria aphrodite (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male) AAcTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACTGAACTGGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAC AATACCATTGTAACAGCCCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAAT ATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACC CCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATCGCACATGGAGGT TCTTCAGTGGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTA CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCA TTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAT CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT

PAGE 202

202 Speyeria idalia (Missouri: St. Claire Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGTATAAT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATCCGAACTGAATTAGGAAACCCAGGAT CATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AATACTATTGTGACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAATCCCCT TAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAGC TTTCCCACGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTT GACTTTTACCTCCATC TTTAACTTTAATT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAACAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCCTCCAATATTGCTCATAGAGGT TCTTCAGTAGATTTATCAATTTTTTCATTAC ATTTAGCGGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGC AATTAACTTTATTACTACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTCGATCAA ATGCCATTATTTATTTGAGCAGTAGG AATTACAGCATTACTTCTCTTATTATCTT TACCAGTTTTAGCGGGAGCTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGACCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAG GAGGAGGAGATC CCATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria nokomis (Colorado: Ouray Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACTGAATTAGGAAACCCAGGAT CATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AATACTATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTAT AATTGGAGGATTTGGTAATTGATTAGTCCCC CTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAGC TTTTCCTCGTATAAATAACATAAGATTTTGAC TTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTACTTA TTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGC AGGGACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCCT CTTTCCTCTAATATTGCTCATGGAGGTTC TTCAGTAGATTTAGC AATTTTCTCATTAC ATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTATTTTAGGAGC AATTAACTTTATTACTACAATTATTAA TATACGGATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCCTTATTCGTATGAGCAGTAGG AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTACTATCTTT ACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCCATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCCGCAG GAgGAGGAGACC CTATTTTATACCAACATTT Speyeria edwardsii (Colorado: Douglas Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAG GATCATTAATTGGAGACGATCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGTTTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTC ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATAGAGGCT CTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTGG GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTC TTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAc CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria coronis (California: Monterey Co.; male)

PAGE 203

203 AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACCGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT AACACTATTGTAACAGCTC ATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTT ATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTCGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCTTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCT CTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTA CATTTGGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TCTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGTGGAGAT CCTATTTTATACcaACATTTATT Speyeria carolae (Nevada: Clark Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACCGAATTAGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AACACTATTGTAACAGCTC ATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTT ATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTCGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCTTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCTCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCT CTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTA CATTTGGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTGTC TCTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGGGAGGTGGAGAT CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria zerene (California: Sierra Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGTACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATGCCAATTA TAATTGGCGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATAT AAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCC CATCCTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTCTATCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGT TCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCCTTA CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCTTC TATTTTAGGAGCAATT AACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATACCA TTATTCGTTTGAGCAGTAG GAATTACCGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGGGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGACCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAT CCTATTTTATACCAaCaTTTATT Speyeria callippe (California: Tulare Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAAT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AACACCATTGTAACAGCTC ATGCTTTTATTATAATTTTTTTT ATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG

PAGE 204

204 CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTC ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGTAGG AACGGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGCT CTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTC TTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAT CCTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria egleis (California: Tulare Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATCCGAACAGAACTAGGTAATCCAG GATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTGGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATACCCCCC TCTTTCTTCCAATATTGCACATGGAGGCT CTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTCTCTTTA CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA ATATGCGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTTGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCTTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGGGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTC TTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGGGGAGAT CCTATTTTATATCA ACATTTATT Speyeria adiaste (California: Monterey Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAAtTTGGGC AGGAATAGTAGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG CTTTTCCCCGTATAAATAAT ATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACC CCCATCCTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATATCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTTC TTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC ATTTAGCAGGAATTTCCTCT ATTTTAGGAGCAATTAATTT TATTACAACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCATTATTCGTATGAGCAGTAGG AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTA CCAGTTTTAGCAGGAG CTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGG GAGGAGGAGATC CTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria atlantis (Vermont: Caledonia Co.; male) AAcTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGTAGGGACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACCGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG CTTTTCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGTTTTT GACTTTTACCCCCATCCCTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATATCCCCC CCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACACGGAGG CTCTTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATCTTTTCTTTG CATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATTA

PAGE 205

205 ATATACGAATTAAT AAAATATCTTTCGATCAAATA CCATTATTTGTATGAGCAGTAG GAATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAAT ACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTC TTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGAGAC CCTATTTTATA Speyeria hesperis (Wyoming: Albany Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT AGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGTACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGGGATGACCAAATTTAC AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATGCCAATTA TAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCTCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATAT AAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCC CATCCTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTCTATCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGGTTC TTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC ATTTAGCAGGTATTTCCTCTA TTTTAGGAGCAATTAATTTTA TCACAACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCATTATTCGTTTGAGCAGTAGG AATTACCGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTA CCAGTTTTAGCAGGAG CTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTTCTTTTTTTGATCCTGCAGGAGGAGGTGAtC CTATTTTATACcAaCATTTATT Speyeria hydaspe (California: Tulare Co., male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTG GAATTTGAGCAGGAATAGT GGGAACATCATTAAGTTTA TTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAACCCAGGGTCATTAATTGGAGATGACCAAATTTAT AATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTTTTA TTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATTA TAATTGGAGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGTCCCCCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATAG CTTTCCCCCGTATAAATAATAT AAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCC CATCCTTAATTTTACTT ATTTCTAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCAG GAACAGGATGAACA GTATATCCCCC TCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCCCATAGAGGTT CCTCAGTAGATTTAGCAATTTTCTCTTTAC ATTTAGCAGGGATTTCCTCT ATTTTAGGAGCAATTAACT TTATTACAACAATTATTAA TATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATCA AATACCATTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTAGG AATTACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATCTTTA CCGGTTTTAGCAGGAG CTATTACAATA CTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATACTT CTTTTTTTGACCCTGCGG GAGGAGGAGATC CTATTTTATACCAACATTTATT Speyeria mormonia (Wyoming: Albany Co.; male) AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGA ATTTGGGCAGGAATAGTAGGAACATCACTAAGTTT ATTAATTCGAACTGAACTAGGTAATCCAGGATCATTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTA TAATACCATTGTAACAGCTCATGCTT TTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCAATT ATAATTGGTGGATTTGGTAACTGATTAGT CCCTCTAATATTAGGAGCCCCAGATATA GCTTTCCCTCGTATAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCCCCATCCTTAATTTTAC TTATTTCCAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGAGCA GGAACAGGATGAACAGTATACCCC CCTCTTTCTTCTAATATTGCACATGGAGG TTCTTCAGTAGATTT AGCAATTTTCTCTTT ACATTTAGCGGGTATTTCCT CTATTTTAGGAGCA ATTAACTTTATCACAACAATTATT AATATACGAATTAATAAAATATCTTTTGATC AAATACCATTATTCGTGTGAGCAGTA GGAATCACAGCCTTACTTCTTTTATTATC TTTGCCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACAA TACTTTTAACTGATCGTAATTTAAATAC TTCTTTTTTTGACCCTG CAGGAGGAGGAGA TCCTATTTTATATCAACATTTATT

PAGE 206

206 LIST OF REFERENCES Abraham, D., N. Ryrholm, H. Wittzell, J. D. Holloway, M. J. Scoble, and C. Lfstedt. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the subfamilies in Geometridae (Geometridae: Lepidoptera). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20: 65-77. Acorn, J. H. 1993. Butterflies of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta. Acorn, J. 2002. Assessing ultraviolet reflec tions of lepidopterans with video and digital cameras. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 44: 60. Adams, J. K. and I. L. Finkelstein. 2006. Late season observations on female Diana fritillary ( Speyeria diana ) aggregating behavior. News of the Lepidopterists’ So ciety 48: 106-107. Allen, T. J. 1997. The Butterflies of West Virginia a nd Their Caterpillars. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Allen, T. J., J. P. Brock, and J. Glassberg. 2005. Caterpillars in the Field and Garden. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, New York. Arnqvist G. 1997. The evolution of animal genitalia : Distinguishing between hypotheses by single species studies. Biological Jour nal of the Linnean Society 60: 365-379. Arnqvist, G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolut ion of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393: 784-786. Arnold, R.A. 1983. Speyeria callippe (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): Application of InformationTheoretical and Graph–Clustering techniques to analyses of geogr aphic variation and evaluation of classifications. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 76: 929-941. Arnold, R.A. 1985. Geographic variation in natural populations of Speyeria callippe (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Pan Pacific Entomologist 61: 1-23. Arnold, R. A. and R. L. Fischer. 1977. Operational mechanisms of copulation and oviposition in Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 70: 455-468. Austin, G. T. 1981 The montane butterfly fauna of the Spring Range, Nevada. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 35: 66-74. Austin, G. T. 1983. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) (Nymphalidae) from the Great Basin of Nevada. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 37: 244-248. Austin, G. T. 1985a Nevada butterflies: Preliminary check list and distribution. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 39: 95-118. Austin, G. T. 1985b. Lowland riparian butterflies of th e Great Basin and associated areas. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 24: 117-131.

PAGE 207

207 Austin, G. T. 1998b. Type data for butterflies de scribed from Nevada. pp. 629-640. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western Nort h American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Austin, G. T. and D. D. Murphy. 1987. Zoogeography of Great Basi n butterflies: Patterns of distribution and differentiation. Gr eat Basin Naturalist 47: 186-201. Austin, G. T., D. D. Murphy, J. F. Baughm an, A. E. Launer, and E. Fleishman. 2003. Hybridization of checkerspot butterflies in the Great Basin. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 57: 176-192. Baird, V. 1942. Wild Violets of North America. Univ ersity of California Press, Berkeley, California. Baker, R. J. and R. D. Bradley. 2006. Speciation in mammals and the genetic species concept. Journal of Mammalogy 87: 643-662. Baker, A. C., C. J. Starger, T. R. McClanahan, and P. W. Glynn. 2004. Coral reefs: corals’ adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430: 741. Ballard Jr., H. E., K. J. Sytsma, and R. R. Kowal. 1999. Shrinking the violets: phylogenetic relationships of infr ageneric groups in Viola (Violaceae) based on in ternal transcribed spacer DNA sequences. Systematic Botany 23: 439-458. Barnes, W. and F. H. Benjamin. 1926. Notes on diurnal Lepidopter a, with additions and corrections to the recent “List of diurnal Lepidoptera.” Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 25: 88-98. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Tre nds in Ecology and Evolution 7:1-2. Baum, D. A. and M. J. Donoghue. 1995. Choosing among alternative “phylogenetic” species concepts. Systematic Botany 20: 560-573. Beattie, A. J. 1971. Pollination mechanisms in Viola New Phytologist 70: 343-360. Beattie, A. J. 1974. Floral evolution in Viola Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 61: 781793. Beattie, A. J. and N. Lyons. 1975. Seed dispersal in Viola (Violaceae): Adaptations and Strategies. American Jo urnal of Botany 62: 714-722. Behr, H. H. 1862. Our Californian argynnides. Proceedi ngs of the California Academy of Natural Sciences 2: 171-177. Behr, H. H. 1863. On Californian Lepidoptera-No. III. Pr oceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences 3: 84-93.

PAGE 208

208 Behr, H. H. 1864. In Edwards, W. H. Notes on the argynnides of California. Proceedings of the Entomological Society Philadelphia 3: 434-436. Bitsch, J., C. Bitsch, T. Bourgoin, and C. D. Haese. 2004. The phylogenetic position of early hexapod lineages: morphological da ta contradict molecular data. Systematic Entomology 29: 433-440. Bird, C. D., G. J. Hilchie, N. G. Kondla, E. M. Pike, and F. A. H. Sperling. 1995. Alberta butterflies. The Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Black, S. H., M. Shepard, and M. M. Allen. 2001. Endangered invertebrates: the case for greater attention to invert ebrate conservation. Endangere d Species UPDATE 18: 42-50. Blackmore, S. 2002. Biodiversity update-progress in taxonomy. Science 298: 365. Boggs, C. L. 1986. Reproductive strategies of female butte rflies: Variation in and constraints on fecundity. Ecological Entomology 11: 7-15. Boggs, C. L. 1987a. Demography of the unsilvered morph of Speyeria mormonia in Colorado. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 41: 94-97. Boggs, C. L. 1987b. Within population variation in the demography of Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Holarctic Ecology 10: 175-184. Boggs, C. L. 1988. Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: Effects of sex, size, age and nectar concentration. Functional Ecology 2: 289-295. Boggs, C. L. 1997a. Reproductive allocation from reserves and income in butterfly species with differing adult diets. Ecology 78: 181-191. Boggs, C. L. 1997b. Dynamics of reproductive allocation from juvenile and adult feeding: Radiotracer studies. Ecology 78: 192-202. Boggs, C. L. and L. A. Jackson. 1991. Mud puddling by butterflies is not a simple matter. Ecological Entomology 16: 123-127. Boggs, C. L. and D. D. Murphy. 1997. Community composition in mountain ecosystems: climatic determinants of montane butte rfly distributions. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 39-48. Boggs, C. L. and C. L. Ross. 1993. The effect of adult food limitati ons on life history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nympha lidae). Ecology 74: 433-441. Boisduval, J. B. A. D. 1852. Lpidoptres de la Califor nie. Annales de la Socit Entomologique de France 10: 275-324. Boisduval, J. B. A. D. 1869. Lpidoptres de la Califor nie. Annales de la Socit Entomologique de Belgique 12: 1-28., 37-94.

PAGE 209

209 Bouseman, J. K. and J. G. Sternburg. 2001. Field Guide to Butterflies of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Bossart, J. L. and C. E. Carlton. 2002. Insect conservation in Amer ica: biased information and absence of a clear agenda hinders the integrat ion of entomological data into mainstream conservation biology research and policy, and limits participation by professional entomologists. American Entomologist 48: 82-92. Braby, M. F., R. Vila, and N. E. Pierce. 2006. Molecular phylogeny an d systematics of the Pieridae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea): higher classification and biogeography. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 147: 239-275. Briscoe, A. D., G. D. Bernard, A. S. Szeto, L. M. Nagy, and R. H. White. 2003. Not all butterfly eyes are created equal: Rhodopsin ab sorption spectra, molecular identification, and localization of ultraviolet, blue-, and green-sensitive rhodopsin-encoding mRNA’s in the retina of Vanessa cardui The Journal of Comparative Neurology 458: 334-349. Britten, H. B., P. F. Brussard, D. D. Murphy, and G. T. Austin. 1994. Colony isolation and isozyme variability of the western seep fritillary, Speyeria nokomis apacheana (Nymphalidae), in the western Great Basi n. The Great Basin Naturalist 54: 97-105. Britten, H.B., E. Fleishman, G. T. Austin, and D.D. Murphy. 2003. Genetically effective and adult population sizes in the apache silverspot butterfly, Speyeria nokomis apacheana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Western No rth American Naturalist 63(2): 229-235. Brittnacher, J. G., S. R. Sims, and F. J. Ayala. 1978. Genetic differentiation between species of the genus Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalid ae). Evolution 32: 199-210. Brooks, G. S. 1942. A checklist of the butterflies of Man itoba. The Canadian Entomologist 74: 31-36. Brower, A. V. Z. 1994a. Rapid morphological radiation and convergence among races of the butterfly Heliconius erato inferred from patterns of mitochondrial DNA evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 91: 6491-6495. Brower, A. V. Z. 1994b. Phylogeny of Heliconius butterflies inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Mol ecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3: 159174. Brower, A. V. Z. 1996a. A new mimetic species of Heliconius (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), from southeastern Colombia, revealed by cladistic analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 116: 317-332. Brower, A. V. Z. 1996b. Parallel race formation and the evolution of mimicry in Heliconius butterflies: a phylogenetic hypot hesis from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Evolution 50: 195-221.

PAGE 210

210 Brower, A. V. Z. 1997. The evolution of ecologica lly important characters in Heliconius butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nym phalidae): a cladistic review. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 119: 457-472. Brower, A. V. Z. 2000a. Evolution is not a necessary assump tion of cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143-154. Brower, A. V. Z. 2000b. On the validity of Heliconius tristero Brower and Heliconius melpomene mocoa Brower, with notes on species concepts in Heliconius Kluk (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 102: 678-687. Brower, A. V. Z. 2000c. Phylogenetic relationships among the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera) inferred from partial sequences of the wingless gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267: 1201-1211. Brower, A.V.Z. 2006. Problems with DNA barcodes for species delimitation: ‘ten species’ of Astraptes fulgerator reassessed (Lepidoptera: Hesperii dae). Systematics and Biodiversity 4: 127-132. Brower, A. V. Z. and R. DeSalle. 1994. Practical and theoretical c onsiderations for choice of a DNA sequence region in insect molecular system atics, with a short review of published studies using nuclear gene regions. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 87: 702-716. Brower, A. V. Z. and R. DeSalle. 1998. Patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA sequence divergence among nymphalid butterflies: the utility of wingless as source of characters for phylogenetic inference. Insect Molecular Biology 7: 73-82. Brower, A. V. Z. and M. G. Egan. 1997. Cladistic analysis of Heliconius butterflies and relatives (Nymphalidae: Heliconiiti): a revised phylogenetic position for Eueides based on sequences from mtDNA and a nucl ear gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 264: 969-977. Brower, J. V. Z. and L. P. Brower. 1961. Palatability of North American model and mimic butterflies to caged mice. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 15: 23-24. Brown, F. M. 1965. The types of the nymphalid butterflies described by William Henry Edwards Part I. Argynninae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 91: 233350. Brown, F. M., J. D. Eff, and B. Rotger. 1957. Colorado Butterflies. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 368 pp. Brown, J. M., O. Pellmyr, J. N. Thompson, and R. G. Harrison. 1994. Phylogeny of Greya (Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae), based on nucleot ide sequence variation in mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I and II: congruence with morphological data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 11: 128-141.

PAGE 211

211 Brown, K. S. 1965. Some comments on Arizona butterflies (Papilionoidea). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 19: 107-115. Broyles, S. B. and R. Wyatt. 1991. Effective pollen dispersal in a natural population of Asclepias exaltata : The influence of pollinator behavior, genetic similarity, and mating success. The American Naturalist 138: 1239-12249. Burns, J. M., D. H. Janzen, M. Hajibabaei, W. Hallwachs, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2007. DNA barcodes of closely related ( but morphologically and ecologi cally distinct) species of skipper butterflies (Hesperiidae) can differ by only one to thr ee nucleotides. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 61: 138-153. Calhoun, J. V. 2007. Speyeria idalia in Georgia: An erroneous hi storical record. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 49: 82-84, 93. Campbell, D. L., A. V. Z. Brower, and N. E. Pierce. 2000. Molecular evolution of the wingless gene and its implications for the phylogenetic placement of the butterfly family Riodinidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Molecula r Biology and Evolution 17: 684-696. Cary, S. J. and R. Holland. 1992. New Mexico butterflies: Checklist, distribution and conservation. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 31: 57-82. Carlton, C. E. and L. S. Nobles. 1996. Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on conservation. Entomological News 107: 213-219. Caterino, M. S. and F. A. H. Sperling. 1999. Papilio phylogeny based on mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I and II genes. Molecu lar Phylogenetics and Evolution 11: 122-137. Caterino, M. S., R. D. Reed, M. M. Kuo, and F. A. H. Sperling. 2001. A partitioned likelihood analysis of swallowtail butterf ly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematic Biology 50: 106-127. Chapman, R. F. 1998. The Insects: Stru cture and Function. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 792 pp. Chermock, F. H. and R. L. Chermock. 1940. Some new diurnal Lepidoptera from the Riding Mountains and the Sand Ridge, Manitoba. The Canadian Entomologist 72: 81-83. Cicero, C. and N. K. Johnson. 2006. Diagnosability of subspecies: Lessons from sage sparrows ( Amphisipiza belli ) for analysis of geographic variation in birds. The Auk 123: 266-274. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson. 1997. Practical approaches to species concepts for living organisms. pp. 1-15. In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson. Species: the units of biodiversity, Chapman and Hall. Clark, A. H. 1926. Notes on the odors of some New E ngland butterflies. Psyche 33: 1-5.

PAGE 212

212 Clark, A. H. 1932. The butterflies of the District of Columbia and vicinity. Smithsonian Institution Bulletin 157. x + 338 pp., 64 pls. Clark, A. H. and L. F. Clark. 1951. The Butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 116, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Clausen, J. 1927. Chromosome number and the rela tionship of species in the genus Viola Annals of Botany 41: 677-714. Clausen, J. 1929. Chromosome number and relationship of some North American species of Viola Annals of Botany 43: 741-764. Cohen, E. and J. Cohen. 1991. A collecting adventure in th e George Washington National Forest. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 1: 3-4. Common, I. F. B. and D. F. Waterhouse. 1972. Butterflies of Australia. Angus and Robertson PTY LTD, Sydney, Australia. Comstock, J. A. 1925. Studies in Pacific Coast Lepidopt era. Eight new races, forms or aberrations of California butterflies. Bulleti n of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 24: 62-68. Comstock, J. A. 1989. Butterflies of California. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. ix-lviii, 334 pp., 63 plates. Comstock, W. P. 1940. Butterflies of New Jersey: A list of the Lepidoptera suborder Rhopalocera occurring in the State of New Je rsey; giving time of flight, food plants, records of capture with locality and date. J ournal of the New York Entomological Society 48: 47-84. Connor, E. F., J. Hafernik, J. Levy, V. L. Moore, and J. K. Rickman. 2002. Insect conservation in an urban biodi versity hotspot: the San Fran cisco Bay area. Journal of Insect Conservation 6: 247-259. Covell, C. V. and G. B. Straley. 1973. Notes on Virginia butterflies, with two new state records. Journal of the Lepidopter ists’ Society 27: 144-154. Cracraft, J. 1982. Geographic differentiation, cladis tics, and vicariance biogeography: reconstructing the tempo and mode of e volution. American Zoologist 22: 411-424. Cramer, P. 1775. Papillons exotiques des trios part ies du monde l’Asie, l’Afrique et l’Amerique. Amsterdam, S. J. Baalde. Vol. 1. i-xxx + 1-16, 1-155, 1-96 pls. Cramer, P. 1777. Papillons exotiques des trios part ies du monde l’Asie, l’Afrique et l’Amerique. Amsterdam, S. J. Baalde. Vol. 2. 152 pp., 97-192 pls. Dajoz, I. 1999. The distribution of pollen heteromorphism in Viola : ecological and morphological correlates. Evoluti onary Ecology Research 1: 97-109.

PAGE 213

213 Dasmahapatra, K. K. and J. Mallet. 2006. DNA barcodes: recent successes and future prospects. Heredity 97: 254-255. Davenport, K. 1995. Are there Parnassians in the Greenhorn Mountains? News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 4: 91-92. Davenport, K. 1998. New observations of three fritillaries ( Speyeria sp.; Argynninae) in the southern Sierra. News of the Le pidopterists’ Society. 40: 26-27. Debinski, D., P. Drobney, and N. Smith. 2000. Regal fritillary and its ho st plant studied at Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, (Iowa). Ec ological Restoration North America 18: 254255. DeFoliart, G. R. 1956. An annotated list of southeastern Wyoming Rhopalocera. The Lepidopterists’ News 10: 91-101. Dennis, R. L. H. and T. G. Shreeve. 1997. Diversity of butterflies on British islands: ecological influences underlying the roles of area, is olation and the size of the faunal source. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 257-275. Dennis, R. L. H., J. G. Hodgson, R. Gren yer, T. G. Shreeve, and D. B. Roy. 2004. Host plants and butterfly biology: Do host-plant st rategies drive butterf ly status? Ecological Entomology 29: 12-26. Donoghue, M. J. 1985. Critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172-181. Dornfeld, E. J. 1980. The Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. 276 pp. dos Passos, C. F. 1935. Some butterflies of southern Newf oundland with descriptions of new subspecies (Lepid. Rhopal.) The Canadian Entomologist 67: 82-88. dos Passos, C. F. 1961. Taxonomic notes on some Nearctic Rhopalocera. 2. Papilionoidea. Journal of the Lepidopter ists’ Society 15: 209-225. dos Passos, C. F. 1964. A synomic list of the Nearctic Rhopalocera. Memoirs of the Lepidopterists’ Society No. 1. dos Passos, C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1942. Two new North American subspecies of Argynnis with some revisional notes (Lep idoptera: Nymphalidae). Ameri can Museum Novitates 1214. 16. dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1945a. A genitalic survey of Argynninae (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). American Museum Novitates 1296: 1-29. dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1945b. A new species and some new subspecies of Speyeria (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ameri can Museum Novitates 1297: 1-17.

PAGE 214

214 dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1947. Systematic catalogue of Speyeria (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) with designations of types and fi xations of the type localities. American Museum Novitates 1370: 1-30. dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1955. A new name for Argynnis lais Edwards (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 63: 95-96. dos Passos C. F. and L. P. Grey. 1965. Notes on certain lectotypes and neotypes designated by the authors in their systematic catalogue of Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 91: 351-360. Douglas, M. M. and J. M. Douglas. 2005. Butterflies of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Pre ss, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 345 pp. Drees, B. and L. Butler. 1978. Rhopalocera of West Virginia. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 32: 198-206. Drury D. 1773. Illustrations of natural history, wher ein are exhibited upwards of two hundred and forty figures of exotic insects, accordi ng to their different ge nera by D. Drury. London, B. White. Vol. 1 xxvii + 132 pp, 50 pls. Dufour, L. 1844. Anatomie gnrale des diptres. A nnales des Sciences Naturelles1: 244-264. Dunford, J. C. 2005. Chasing greater fritillaries: The rise of Atlantis. American Butterflies 13: 14-25. Dunford, J. C. and R. J. Ekin. 2005. Greater fritillaries at three localities in Humboldt National Forest, Nevada. American Butterflies 13: 26-32. Dunford, J. C. and G. T. Austin. 2007. Nomenclatural faux pas for Speyeria atlantis greyi Moeck, 1950 (Lepidoptera: Nympha lidae). Insecta Mundi 17:1-4. Durden, C. J. 1965. Speyeria callippe and Artemisia a possible foodplant. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 19: 186-187. Ebach, M. C. and C. Holdrege. 2005. DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature 434: 697. Eberhard, W. G. 1985. Sexual Selection and the Evoluti on of Animal Genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 244 pp. Eberhard, W. G. 1996. Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 501 pp. Ebner, J. A. 1970. Butterflies of Wisconsin. Milwauk ee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI.

PAGE 215

215 Edwards, W. H. 1863a. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the limits of the United States and British Amer ica-No. 2. Proceedings of the Academy of National Sciences Philadelphia 14: 54-58. Edwards, W. H. 1863b. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the limits of the United States and British Amer ica-No. 3. Proceedings of the Academy of National Sciences Philadelphia 14: 221-226. Edwards, W. H. 1864a. Descriptions of certain species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the limits of the United States and British North America-No. 3. Proceedings of the Entomological Society Philadelphia 2: 501-507. Edwards, W. H. 1864b. Notes on the argynnides of California. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia 3: 434-436. Edwards, W. H. 1869. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found within the United States. Transactions of the Amer ican Entomological Society 2: 369-376. Edwards, W. H. 1870. Descriptions of new species of di urnal Lepidoptera found in the United States. Transactions of the Americ an Entomological Society 3: 10-22. Edwards, W. H. 1873. Notes on the early stages of some of our butterflies. The Canadian Entomologist 5: 223-225. Edwards, W. H. 1874a. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in North America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 5: 13-19. Edwards, W. H. 1874b. Descriptions of new species of diurnal Lepidoptera found in North America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 5: 103-111. Edwards, W. H. 1878. Descriptions of new species of No rth American Lepidoptera. Field and Forest 3: 142-144. Edwards, W. H. 1879a. Descriptions of new species of butterflies collected by Mr. H.K. Morrison, in Nevada, 1878; also remarks on so me errors of synonymy and arrangement. The Canadian Entomologist 11: 49-56. Edwards, W. H. 1879b. Descriptions of new species of No rth American butterflies; also notes upon certain species. The Canadi an Entomologist 11: 81-89. Edwards, W. H. 1879c. Description of the pr eparatory stages of Argynnis egleis Bois. The Canadian Entomologist 11: 177-179. Edwards, W. H. 1879d. Description of preparatory stages of Argynnis idalia Drury. The Canadian Entomologist 11: 217-219. Edwards, W. H. 1880a. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis alcestis Edw. The Canadian Entomologist 12: 69-74.

PAGE 216

216 Edwards, W. H. 1880b. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis cybele Fabr. The Canadian Entomologist 141-145. Edwards, W. H. 1881. Descriptions of new species of di urnal Lepidoptera found in the United States. Transactions of the Americ an Entomological Society 9: 1-8. Edwards, W. H. 1883. Descriptions of new species of North American butterflies. The Canadian Entomologist 15: 209-211. Edwards, W. H. 1888a. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis atlantis Edwards. The Canadian Entomologist 20: 1-3. Edwards, W. H. 1888b. Description of the preparatory stages of Argynnis edwardsii Reakirt. The Canadian Entomologist 20: 3-5. Edwards, W. H. 1888c. Description of the pr eparatory stages of Argynnis hesperis, Edwards. The Canadian Entomologist 20: 67-69. Edwards, W. H. 1892. Miscellaneous notes on butterflies, larvae, etc. Canadian Entomologist 24: 105-111. Eff, D. 1956. Notes on Speyeria egleis secreta (Nymphalidae). The Lepidopterists’ News 10: 102-106. Ehrmann, G. A. 1917. Some new North American butte rflies. Lepidopterist 1: 54-56. Ehrlich, P. R. 1958. The comparative morphology, phylogeny a nd higher classification of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). The Un iversity of Kansas Science Bulletin 34: 305-370. Ehrlich, P. R. 1983. Summer butterflies in Dinosaur National Monument. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 37: 91-92. Ehrlich, P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich. 1961. How to Know the Butterflies. Wm. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Ehrlich, P. R. and P. H. Raven. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a st udy in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Ehrlich, P. R. and R. R. White. 1980. Colorado checkerspot butterf lies: isolation, neutrality, and the biospecies. The Am erica Naturalist 115: 328-341. Eisner, C. 1942. Einige Ergebnisse der Sichtung der Gattungen Melitaea und Argynnis im Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leid en. Zoologische Mededelingen 24: 116-124.

PAGE 217

217 Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and th e Evolutionary Process. Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Co lumbia University Press, New York, New York. 349 pp.. Ellers, J. and C. L. Boggs. 2004. Functional ecological implications of intraspecific differences in wing melanization in Colias butterflies. Biological Journa l of the Linnean Society 82: 79-87. Ellis, S. L. 1975. Speyeria nokomis nokomis in Colorado. Atala 3: 11-12. Elwes, H. J. 1889. A revision of the genus Argynnis Transactions of the Entomological Society London. 535-575. Ely, C. A., M. E. Rolfs, and T. E. Labedz. 1983. New and unusual butte rfly records from Kansas. Journal of the Lepi dopterists’ Society 37: 256-257. Emmel, J. F. and T. C. Emmel. 1998a. A review of the Speyeria egleis complex in California, with the description of two new subsp ecies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). pp. 437-442. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F. and T. C. Emmel. 1998b. A previously unrecognized subspecies of Speyeria zerene (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from coastal northern California. pp. 451-454. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western Nort h American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S.O. Mattoon. 1998a. The types of California butterflies named by Jean Alphonse Boisduval: Designation of lectotypes and a neotype, and fixation of type localities. pp. 3-76. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systema tics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998b. The types of California butterflies named by Herman Behr: Designation of neotype s and fixation of type localities. pp. 95114. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of West ern North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998c. New subspecies of Nymphalidae from California and a neotype designation for Argynnis rupestris Behr (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). pp. 139-158. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Pr ess, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F., T. C. Emmel, and S. O. Mattoon. 1998d. A new subspecies of Speyeria zerene (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from the San Fr ancisco Bay Area of California. pp. 455-459. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of West ern North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, J. F., O. Shields, and D. E. Breedlove. 1970 (1971). Larval foodplant records for North American Rhopalocera, Part 2. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 9: 233-242.

PAGE 218

218 Emmel, T. C. 1964. The ecology and distribution of butterf lies in a montane community near Florissant, Colorado. The American Midland Naturalist 72: 358-373.. Emmel, T. C. [Ed.] 1998. Systematics of Western North Amer ican Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. 878 pp. Emmel, T. C. and G. T. Austin. 1998. What is Argynnis carolae ? The cytotaxonomy and systematic position of a Speyeria relic from Nevada (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). pp. 443450. In T. C. Emmel [Ed.], Systematics of West ern North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, Florida. Emmel, T. C. and J. F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles Count y, Science Series 26: 1-148. Emmel, T. C., M. C. Minno, and B. A. Drummond. 1992. Florissant Butterflies: A Guide to the Fossil and Present-Day Species of Cent ral Colorado. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Eriksen, C. H. 1962. Further evidence of th e distribution of some boreal Lepidoptera in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Res earch on the Lepidoptera 1: 89-93. Evers, D. C. [Ed.] 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, A nn Arbor, Michigan. Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descri ptionibus, observationibus. Flensburg and Leipzig, Kortii. 832 pp. Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum, sistens eoru m species nuper detectas adiectis characteribus genericis, differentiis sp ecificis, emendationibus observationibus. Copenhagen, Christ. Gottl. Proft. Vol. 1, xx + 348 pp. Fabricius, J. C. 1807. Systema glossatorum secundum ordi nes, genera, species adiectis synonymis locis, observationibus, descriptioni bus, descriptionibus Brunswick, Carolum Reichard. xii + 13 + 112 pp. Ferge, L. A. 2002. Checklist of Wisconsin butterflies. Wisconsin Entomological Society Miscellaneous Publication No. 5. Ferris, C. D. 1971a. A Key to the Rhopalocera [Butterf lies] of Wyoming. Agricultural Experimental Station Science Monograph 21. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Ferris, C. D. 1971b. An Annotated Checklist of the R hopalocera [Butterflies] of Wyoming. Agricultural Experimental Station Scie nce Monograph 23. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

PAGE 219

219 Ferris, C. D. 1972. Ultraviolet photography as an ad junct to taxonomy. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 26: 210-215. Ferris, C. D. 1973. A revision of the Colias alexandra complex (Pieridae) aided by ultraviolet reflectance photography with designation of a new subspecies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 27: 57-73. Ferris, C. D. 1976a. A checklist of the butterflies of Gr ant County, New Mexico and vicinity. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 30: 38-49. Ferris, C. D. 1983. Speyeria atlantis phenotypes in the southern Ro cky Mountains (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Argynninae). Journal of Re search on the Lepidoptera 22: 101-114. Ferris, C. D. 1989a. A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterf lies of America North of Mexico. Memoirs of the Lepidopteri sts’ Society No. 2. 280 pp. Ferris, C. D. 1989b. Supplement to: A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America North of Mexico. Memoirs of the Lepi dopterists’ Society No. 3. 103 pp. Ferris, C. D. and M. Fisher. 1971. A revision of Speyeria nokomis (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 25: 44-52. Ferris, C. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. Butterflies of the Rocky M ountain states. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Ferster, B. 2005. Regal fritillaries: News from the easte rn front. American Butterflies 13: 5-12. Field, W. D. 1938. A manual of the butterflies and skippers of Kansas. Bulletin of the University of Kansas 39: 1-328. Fisher, J. C. 1858. Description of a new species of Argynnis Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences Phil adelphia 10: 179-180. Fisher, J. C. 1859. [Statement]. Proceedings of the Acad emy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia 11: 352. Fisher, M. S. 2005. The Butterflies of Colorado. Ny mphalidae-Part 2. The Subfamily Heliconiinae-The Greater and Lesser Fritillarie s (Argynnini), The Longwings (Heliconiini) and the Subfamily Danainae-The Milkweed Bu tterflies. Lepidoptera of North America 7.2. Contributions of the C. P. Gillette Muse um of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Fleishman, E., G. T. Austin, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. Natural history and biogeography of the butterflies of the Toiyabe Range, Neva da (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Holarctic Lepidoptera 4: 1-18.

PAGE 220

220 Fleishman, E., G. T. Austin, and D. D. Murphy. 2001a. Biogeography of Great Basin butterflies: revisiting patterns, paradigms, and climate change scenarios. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 74: 501-515. Fleishman, E., R. MacNally, J. P. Fay, and D. D. Murphy. 2001b. Modeling and predicting species occurrence using broad-sc ale environmental variables: An example with butterflies of the Great Basin. Conser vation Biology 15: 1674-1685. Fleishman, E., D. D. Murphy, and G. T. Austin. 2005. Biodiversity patterns of springassociated butterflies in a Mojave desert mountain range. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 59:89-95. Foote, K. 2002. Black-eyed Susan ( Rudbeckia hirta L.). New York Flora Association Newsletter 13: 1-6. Fothergill, P. G. 1941. Studies in Viola III. An account of the inher itance of certain characters in the progeny of plants of a wild population of Viola hybrids. New Phytologist 40: 139151. Fothergill, P. G. 1944. Studies in Viola IV. The somatic cytology and taxonomy of our British species of the genus Viola. New Phytologist 43: 23-35. Freitas, A. V. L. and K. S. Brown, Jr. 2004. Phylogeny of the Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera). Systematic Biology 53: 363-383. Garth, J. S. 1949. Studies in Arizona Lepidoptera. I. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) from the Kaibab Plateau, Grand Ca nyon National Park. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 48: 1. Garth, J. S. 1950. Butterflies of Grand Canyon National Pa rk. The University of Southern California Bulletin No. 11: 1-52. Garth, J. S. and J. W. Tilden. 1963. Yosemite butterflies: An ecological survey of the butterflies of the Yosemite sector of the Sie rra Nevada, California. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 2: 1-96. Garth, J. S. and J. W. Tilden. 1986. California Butterflies. University of California Press, Berkley, California. Gatrelle, R. R. 1998. Two new Nymphalidae from western No rth Carolina: new subspecies of Speyeria aphrodite and Phyciodes batesii Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 1: 1-7. Gillham, N. W. 1956. Geographic variation and the subspecies concept in butterflies. Systematic Zoology 5: 110-120. Glassberg. J. 1998a. Army tries to crush butterflies NABA fights back! American Butterflies 6: inside cover, 23.

PAGE 221

221 Glassberg, J. 1998b. Regal fritillary update. American Butterflies 6: inside cover. Glassberg, J. 2000. Eyeing the greater fritillaries American Butterflies 8:14-17. Glassberg, J. 2001a. Butterflies through binoculars: the East, a guide to the butterflies of eastern North America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Glassberg, J. 2001b. Butterflies through binoculars: the We st, a guide to the butterflies of western North America. Oxford Un iversity Press, New York, NY. Gochfeld, M. and J. Burger. 1997. Butterflies of New Jersey: A Guide to their Status, Distribution, Conservation, a nd Appreciation. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Goldstein, P. Z., R. DeSalle, G. Amato, and A. P. Vogler. 2000. Conservation genetics at the species boundary. Conservation Biology 14: 120-131. Goldstein, P. Z., Y. Wyner, P. Doukakis, M. G. Egan, G. Amato, H. Rosenbaum, and R. DeSalle. 2005. Theory and methods for diagnos ing species and populations in conservation. Annals of the Misso uri Botanical Garden 92: 12-27. Gompert, Z., C. C. Nice, J. A. Fordyce, M. L. Forister, and A. M. Shapiro. 2006. Identifying units for conservation using molecular systematic s: The cautionary tale of the Karner blue butterfly. Molecular Ecology 15: 1759-1768. Gornall, R. J. 1997. Practical aspects of the spec ies concept in plants. pp. 171-187. In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson (eds.), Species: the units of biodiversity, Chapman and Hall. Gregory, W. W. 1975. Checklist of the butterflies and skippers of Canada. Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laborator y Memoir No. 3 (Special Publication No. 10), Quebec. Grey, L. P. 1951. The subspeciation of Speyeria atlantis The Lepidopterists’ News 5: 31-35. Grey, L. P. 1957. Warren’s argynnid classi fication (Nymphalidae). Th e Lepidopterists’ News 11: 171-176. Grey, L. P. 1964. Keeping records. Journal of th e Lepidopterists’ Society 18: 58-63. Grey, L. P. 1970. On the Gunder collection of argynnids (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 8: 55-64. Grey, [L.] P. 1972. Notes on Speyeria zerene populations in Modoc Co., California. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 6: 2. Grey, L. P. 1974a. Variation in Speyeria mormonia or, do subspecies exist? News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 5: 1-2.

PAGE 222

222 Grey, L. P. 1989. Sundry Argynninae concepts revisi ted (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 43: 1-10. Grey, L. P. and A. H. Moeck. 1962. Notes on overlapping subspecies. I. An example in Speyeria zerene (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 16: 81-97. Grey, L. P., A. H. Moeck, and W. H. Evans. 1963. Notes on overlapping subspecies. II. Segregation in the Speyeria atlantis of the Black Hills (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 17: 129-147. Gunder, J. D. 1924. Several new aberrant Lepidopt era (Rhopalocera) from California. Entomological News 35: 153-158. Gunder, J. D. 1927. New transition forms (Lepid. Rhopalo cera). The Canadian Entomologist 59: 281-287. Gunder, J. D. 1929. New butterflies and sundry notes (Lep idoptera, Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 24: 325-332. Gunder, J. D. 1931. Some new butterflies (Lepid., Rhopalo cera). Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 30: 45-48. Gunder, J. D. 1932. New Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera). The Canadian Entomologist 64: 276-284. Gunder, J. D. 1934. Various new butterflies (Lepid., Rhopa locera). The Canadian Entomologist 66: 125-131. Guppy, C. S. 1986. Geographic variation in wing melanism of the butterfly Parnassius phoebus F. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Cana dian Journal of Zoology 64: 956-962. Guppy, C. S. and J. H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia. Guppy, R. 1953. Rearing Speyeria in captivity. The Lepi dopterists’ News 7: 56. Hajibabaei, M., D. H. Janzen, J. M. Burns, W. Hallwachs, and P. D. N. Hebert. 2006. DNA barcodes distinguish species of tropical Lepidoptera. Proceed ings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 968-971. Hammond, P. C. 1974. An Ecological Survey of the Nymphalid Butterfly Genus Speyeria Master’s Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 101 pp. Hammond, P. C. 1978. Geographic variation and speciation in the Nymphalid butterfly genus Speyeria Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytech nic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

PAGE 223

223 Hammond, P. C. 1981. The colonization of violets and Speyeria butterflies on the ash-pumice fields deposited by Cascadian volcanoes. Jour nal of Research on th e Lepidoptera 20: 179191. Hammond, P. C. 1986. A rebuttal to the Arnol d classification of Speyeria callippe (Nymphalidae) and defense of the subspecies concept. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 24: 197-208. Hammond, P. C. 1990. Patterns of geographic variation a nd evolution in pol ytypic butterflies. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 29: 54-76. Hammond, P. C. 1995. Conservation of biodiversity in na tive prairie communities in the United States. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 68: 1-6. Hammond, P. C. and E. J. Dornfeld. 1983. A new subspecies of Speyeria egleis (Nymphalidae) from the Pumice Region of centr al Oregon. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 37: 115-120. Hammond, P. C. and D. V. McCorkle. 1984. The decline and extinction of Speyeria populations resulting from human environmental disturbances (Nymphalidae: Argynninae). The Journal of Res earch on the Lepidoptera 22: 217-224. Haney, A. and R. L. Power. 1996. Adaptive management for sound ecosystem management. Environmental Management 20: 879-886. Hardesty, R. L. and D. R. Groothuis. 1993. Butterflies of the Laramie Mountains, Wyoming (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. 32: 107-123. Harris Jr., L. 1972. Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 326 pp. Harvey, D. J. 1991. Higher Classification of the Nymphalidae, pp. 255-273. In H. F. Nijhout, The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wi ng Patterns, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C. Harvey, M. J. 1966. Cytotaxonomic relationships between the European and North American rostrate violets. New Phytologist 65: 469-476. Haslett, J. R. 1997a. Insect communities and the spatia l complexity of mountain habitats. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 49-56. Haslett, J. R. 1997b. Mountain ecology: organism respons es to environmental change, an introduction. Global Ecol ogy and Biogeography 6: 3-6. Hazevoet, C. J. 1996. Conservation and species lists: taxon omic neglect promotes the extinction of endemic birds, as exemplified by taxa from eastern Atlantic islands. Bird Conservation International 6: 181-196.

PAGE 224

224 Hebert, P. D. N., S. Ratnasingham, and J. R. deWaard. 2003. Barcoding animal life: Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among clos ely related species. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 270: 96-99. Heitzman, J. R. and J. E. Heitzman. 1996. Butterflies and Moths of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. Hendricks, P. 1986. Avian predation of alpine butterflies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 40: 129. Heppner, J. B. 2003. Lepidoptera of Florida. Part 1. In troduction and Catalog. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Ar eas Volume 17. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida. Hill, J. K., C. D. Thomas, and D. S. Blakeley. 1999a. Evolution of flight morphology in a butterfly that has recently expanded it s geographic range. Oecologia 121: 165-170. Hill, J. K., C. D. Thomas, R. Fox, M. G. Telf er, S. G. Willis, J. Asher, and B. Huntley. 2002. Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 2163-2171. Hill, J. K., C. D. Thomas, and B. Huntley. 1999b. Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly’s range ma rgin. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266: 1197-1206. Hinchliff, J. 1994. The Distribution of the Butterflies of Oregon. The Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis, Oregon. Hinchliff, J. 1996. The Distribution of the Butterflie s of Washington. The Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis, Oregon. Hodges, R. W. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of American North of Mexico. E. W. Classey Limited, Oxfordshire, England. Holland, R. 1974. Butterflies of six central New Mexico mountains, with notes on Callophrys ( Sandia ) macfarlandi (Lycaenidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 28: 38-52. Holland, R. 1984. Butterflies of two northwest New Mexico mountains. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 38: 220-234. Holland, R. 1988. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Nymphalidae) from south-central New Mexico. Bulletin of th e Allyn Museum 115: 1-9. Holland, R. and S. J. Cary. 1996. Butterflies of the Jemez Mountai ns of Northern New Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 50: 61-79. Holland, W. J. 1898. The Butterfly Book. New York, Doubleday and McClure Co. xx + 382 pp., 48 pls.

PAGE 225

225 Holland, W. J. 1931. The Butterfly Book. New and Thoroughly Revised Edition. Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Doran and Co. xii + 424 pp., 77 pls. Holmes, A. M., Q. F. Hess, R. R. Tasker, and A. J. Hanks. 1991. The Ontario Butterfly Atlas. Toronto Entomologists’ Asso ciation. Toronto, Canada. Hooper, R. R. 1973. The butterflies of Saskatchewan. Sa skatchewan Department of Natural Resources. 216 pp. Hovanitz, W. 1941. Parallel ecogenotypical color varia tion in butterflies. Ecology 22: 259-284. Hovanitz, W. 1943. Geographical variation an d racial structure of Argynnis callippe in California. The American Naturalist 77: 400-425. Hovanitz, W. 1962. Argynnis and Speyeria Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 95-96. Hovanitz, W. 1963a. Geographical distribution a nd variation of the genus Argynnis I. Introduction. II. Argynnis idalia Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 117-123. Hovanitz, W. 1963b. Geographical distribution a nd variation of the genus Argynnis III. Argynnis diana Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 201-208. Hovanitz, W. 1967. Ecological color variation in some Argynnis of the western United States. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 6: 197-198. Hovanitz, W. 1970. HabitatArgynnis adiaste Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 9: 168, 192. Howe, W. H. 1975. The Butterflies of North America. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York. Hribar, L. J. 2004. Mosquito control of butterfly control? Wing Beats 15: 25. Hubbard, J. P. 1965. Some butterflies of the Pinos Alto s Mountains, New Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 19: 231-232. Hunter, L. M. and J. M. Brehm. 2004. A qualitative examination of value orientations toward wildlife and biodiversity by ru ral residents of the interm ountain region. Human Ecology Review 11: 13-26. Hunter, P. 2006. Defining species: the indirect impact of humans on biodiversity. European Molecular Biology Organizat ion Reports 7: 763-766. Irwin, R. R. and J. C. Downey. 1973. Annotated Checklist of the Bu tterflies of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey No. 81. Urbana, Illinois. Jacobson, S. K. and M. D. McDuff. 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Cons ervation Biology 12: 263-267.

PAGE 226

226 Janzen, D. H. 1984. Weather-related colo r polymorphism of Rothchildia lebeau (Saturniidae). Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 30: 16-20. Johnson, K. 1972 (1973). The butterflies of Nebraska. Jour nal of Research on the Lepidoptera 11: 1-64. Johnson, K. 1975. Post-Pleistocene environments and m ontane butterfly relicts. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 14: 216-232. Kelly, L. and D. M. Debinski. 1998. Relationship of host plant dens ity to size and abundance of the regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Drury (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 52: 262-276. Keyghobadi, N., K. P. Unger, J. D. Weintraub, and D. M. Fonseca. 2006. Remnant populations of the regal fritillary ( Speyeria idalia ) in Pennsylvania: Local genetic structure in a high gene flow species. C onservation Genetics 7: 309-313. Kimball, C. P. 1965. The Lepidoptera of Florida: An annot ated checklist. Arthropods of Florida and Neighboring Land Areas Vol. 1. Florida Department of Ag riculture, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida. 363 pp. Kingsolver, J. G. and D. C. Wiernasz. 1991. Development, function, and the quantitative genetics of wing melanin pattern in Pieris butterflies. Evolution 45: 1480-1492. Klassen, P. 1984. Checklist of Manitoba butterflies (Rhopa locera). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 38: 32-39. Klots, A. B. 1951. A Field Guide to the Butterflies of No rth America, East of the Great Plains. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. Knowles, L. L. 2001. Did the Pleistocene glaciations pr omote divergence? Tests of explicit refugial models in montane grassho ppers. Molecular Ecology 10: 691-701. Knttel, H. and K. Fielder. 2000. On the use of ultraviolet photography and ultraviolet wing patterns in butterfly morphology and taxonomy. J ournal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 54: 137-144. Knttel, H. and K. Fielder. 2001. Host-plant derived variation in ultraviolet wing patterns influences mate selection by male butterflies. The Journal of Expe rimental Biology 204: 2447-2459. Kohler, S. 1980. Checklist of Montana butte rflies (Rhopalocera). Journa l of the Lepidopterists’ Society 34: 1-19. Kolaczkowski, B. and J. W. Thornton. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431: 980-984.

PAGE 227

227 Kondla N. G. 2001. Clarification of and comments on Northern Speyeria hydaspe subspecies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 3: 1-5. Kondla, N. G. 2004. Conservation Overview of Butterflies in the Southern Headwaters at Risk Project (SHARP) Area. Alberta Sustainable Resources Department, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Re port No. 80. Edmonton, Alberta. ii + 35 pp. Kondo, K., T. Shinkawa, and H. Matsuka. 2003. Molecular systematics of birdwing butterflies (Papilionidae) inferred from mitochondrial ND5 gene. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 57: 17-24. Kons Jr., H. L. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of the Mel itaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae) and a revision of the genus Chlosyne Butler. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. Kopper, B. J., R. E. Charlton, and D. C. Margolies. 2000. Oviposition site selection by the regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia as affected by proximity of vi olet hosts. Journal of Insect Behavior 13: 651-665. Kopper, B. J., D. C. Margolies, and R. E. Charlton. 2001a. Notes on the behavior of Speyeria idalia (Drury) (Nymphalidae) larvae with impli cations that they are diurnal foragers. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 54: 96-97. Kopper, B. J., D. C. Margolies, and R. E. Charlton. 2001b. Life history notes on the regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia (Drury) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Kansas tallgrass prairie. Journal of the Kansas Ento mological Society 74: 172-177. Kopper, B.J., S. Shu, R. E. Charlton, and S. B. Ramaswamy. 2001c. Evidence for reproductive diapause in the fritillary Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94: 427-432. Kozial, J. 1994. Some unusual fritillaries from Sask atchewan. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 1: 3. Krizek, G. O. 1991. Is Speyeria diana attracted to manure? News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 6: 83. Kruse, J. J. and F. A. H. Sperling. 2002. Phylogeny of Nearctic species of the Xylosteana ground of Archips Hbner (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) based on combined analysis of morphological and mitochondrial DNA data sets. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 95: 288-301. Lafontaine, J. D. and D. M. Wood. 1997. Butterflies and moths (L epidoptera) of the Yukon. pp. 723-785, In H. N. Danks and J. A. Downes (eds.) Insects of the Yukon, Biological Survey of Canada (Terrest rial Arthropods), Ottawa.

PAGE 228

228 Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 849-856. Larsen, K. J. and J. A. Bovee. 2001. Changes in the butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Winneshiek County, Iowa after 90 years. Great Lakes Entomologist 34: 43-54. Launer, A. E., D. D. Murphy, J. M. Hoekstra, and H. R. Sparrow. 1994. The endangered Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly: present status and initial c onservation planning. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 31: 132-146. Lavers, N. 2006. Northeast Arkansas butterflies: Fort y years ago and today. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 48: 108-110. Layberry, R. A., P. W. Hall, and J. D. LaFontaine. 1998. The butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 280 pp. Lehmann, T. 1913. 2. Genus: Argynnis F. (= Brenthis Hbn., Acidalia Hbn., Boloria Moore, Speyeria Scudd.). pp. 404-421, 429, pls. 85-88. In Seitz, A. The Macrolepidoptera of the World. A Systematic Description of the hitherto known Macrolepidoptera. The Macrolepidoptera of the American Fauni stic Region. The American Rhopalocera. Stuttgart, Alfred Kernen, Vol. 5. Lembert, J. B. 1893. Argynnis egleis The Canadian Entomologist 25: 259. Levy, H. C., A. Garcia-Maruni ak, and J. E. Maruniak. 2002. Strain identification of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) inse cts and cell line: PCR-RFLP of cytochrome oxidase C subunit I gene Florida Entomologist 85: 186-190. Linnaeus, C. L. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria na turae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differe ntiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii. Vol. 1. 823 pp. Lloyd, J. E. 1979. Mating behavior and natural selec tion. Florida Entomologist 62: 17-34. Lloyd, J. E. 2001. On research and entomological educati on V: a species (c)oncept for fireflyers, at the bench and in old fields, and back to th e Wisconsian glacier. Florida Entomologist 84: 587-601. Luckow, M. 1995. Species concepts: assumptions, met hods, and applications. Systematic Botany 20: 589-605. Maddison, D. R., and W. P. Maddison. 2000. MaClade 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Sinauer. Maeki, K. and C. L. Remington. 1960. Studies of the chromosomes of North American Rhopalocera. 4. Nymphalinae, Charaxidinae, Li bytheinae. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 14: 179-201.

PAGE 229

229 Magnus, D. 1958. Experimental analysis of some “ overoptimal” sign-stimuli in the mating behaviour of the fritillary butterfly Argynnis paphia L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Proceedings of the 10th International Congr ess of Entomology. Montreal 1956 2: 405-418. Mallarino, R., E. Bermingham, K. R. Willmot t, A. Whinnett, and C. D. Jiggins. 2005. Molecular systematics of the butterfly genus Ithomia (Lepidoptera: Ithomiinae): a composite phylogenetic hypothesis based on seve n genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34: 625-644. Mallet, J. 1995. A species definition for the Modern Synt hesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 294-299. Marrone, G. M. 1994. Checklist of South Dakota butterflie s (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). Journal of the Lepidopteris ts’ Society 48: 228-247. Martin, J. A. and D. P. Pashley. 1992. Molecular systematic analys is of butterfly family and some subfamily relationships (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 85: 127-139. Martyn, T. 1797. Psyche Figures of Non Descript Le pidopterous Insects or Rare Moths and Butterflies from Different Parts of the World. London. 8 pp. + 32 pls. Mason, K. R. 2001. Comparison of Prairie Site s and Classification of Their Habitat Attributes in Relation to Abundance of the Regal Fritillary Butterfly ( Speyeria idalia )-Final Report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Masters, J. H. 1972 (1973). Butterfly records for three northw est Wisconsin counties. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 11: 175-182. Masters, J. H. 1973. The collection of butte rflies made by Jack Dennis at Beulah, Manitoba. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 27: 33-39. Masters, J. H. 1974. The proper subspecific name for Speyeria aphrodite (Nymphalidae) in southwest Manitoba. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 28: 100-102. Masters, J. H. 1979. The type locality of Argynnis zerene Boisduval (Nymphalidae): A correction. Journal of the Lepi dopterists’ Society 33: 137-138. Mather, B. 1966. Speyeria cybele in Mississippi. Jour nal of Research on the Lepidoptera 5: 253254. Mattoon, S.O., R. D. Davis, and O.D. Spencer. 1971. Rearing techniques for species of Speyeria (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepi dopterists’ Society 25: 247-256. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York, New York. McCorkle, D. V. 1975. Speyeria zerene hippolyta in Oregon. Atala 3: 9-10, 17.

PAGE 230

230 McCorkle, D. V. and P. C. Hammond. 1988. Biology of Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Nymphalidae) in a marine-modified environmen t. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 42: 184-195. McCracken, K. G. and F. H. Sheldon. 1998. Molecular and osteological heron phylogenies: Sources of incongruence. The Auk 115: 127-141. McHenry, P. B. 1963. Generic or subgeneric names closely related to Argynnis Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 2: 229-239. McHenry, P. 1964. The generic, specific and lower categor y names of the Nearctic butterflies: Part 3-Argynnids. Journal of Re search on the Lepidoptera 3: 231-268. McKibben, B. 1999. The End of Nature. Anchor Books, New York New York. McKinnon, J. S., S. Mori, B. K. Blackman, L. David, D. M. Kingsley, L. Jamieson, J. Chou, and D. Schluter. 2004. Evidence for ecology’s role in speciation. Natu re 429: 294-298. McLaughlin, J. F., J. J. Hellmann, C. L. Boggs, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2002. Climate change hastens population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academ y of Sciences 99: 6070-6074. Meffe, G. K. and C. R. Carroll. 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd Ed. Sinauer Associate, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 729 pp. Memon, N., R. Meier, A. Manan, and K. Feng-Yi Su. 2006. On the use of DNA sequences for determining the species limits of a polym orphic new species in the stink bug genus Halys (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Sy stematic Entomology 31: 703-710. Miller, J. C. and P. C. Hammond. 2003. Lepidoptera of the Pacifi c Northwest: Caterpillars and Adults. Forest Health Technology Enterpri se Team, United States Department of Agriculture. Miller, J. S. and J. W. Wenzel. 1995. Ecological characters and phylogeny. Annual Review of Entomology 40: 389-415. Miller, J. Y. [Ed.]. 1992. The Common Names of North American Butterflies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C. Miller, L. D. 1969. Nomenclature of wing veins and cells. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 8: 37-48. Miller, L. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America North of Mexico. Memoirs of the Lepidopterists’ Society No. 2. 280 pp. Miller, L. D. and S. M. Miller. 1966. Chromosomes from testicular preparations of Lepidoptera. Science 152: 529-530.

PAGE 231

231 Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: A case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology 31: 491-503.. Mitchell, A., C. Mitter, and J. C. Regier. 2000. More taxa or more characters revisited: Combining data from nuclear protein-c oding genes for phylogenetic analyses of Noctuoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) Systematic Biology 49: 202-224. Moeck, A. H. 1947. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) from New Mexico (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ento mological News 58: 73-75. Moeck, A. H. 1950. A new subspecies of Speyeria atlantis (Edwards) from Nevada (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). En tomological News 61: 61-64. Moeck, A. H. 1957. Geographic variability in Speyeria : Comments, records and description of a new subspecies (Nymphalidae). Milwaukee Entomological Society Special Publication. 48 pp. Moeck, A. H. 1968. Mobility in a Wy oming population of Speyeria atlantis as determined by tagging (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). The Michigan Entomologist 1: 279-282. Monteiro, A. and N. E. Pierce. 2001. Phylogeny of Bicyclus (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from COI, COII, and EF-1 gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18: 264-281. Mooreside, P., D. Zercher, and P. McElhenny. 2006. Diurnal herbivory documented for Speyeria idalia (Nymphalidae) larvae on Viola sagittata (Violaceae) in Pennsylvania. Journal of the Lepidopteris ts’ Society 60: 176-178. Moran, M. D. and C. D. Baldridge. 2002. Distribution of the Diana fritillary, Speyeria diana (Nymphalidae) in Arkansas, with notes on nectar plant and habitat pr eference. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 56: 162-165. Mosher, E. 1969. Lepidoptera Pupae: Five Collected Works on the Pupae of North American Lepidoptera. Entomological Reprint Sp ecialists, East Lansing, Michigan. Murphy, D. D., M. S. Menninger, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1984. Nectar source distribution as a determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona Oecologia 62: 269-271. Mutanen, M. 2005. Delimitation difficulties in species sp lits: A morphometric case study on the Euxoa tritici complex (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Systematic Entomology 30: 632-643. Nadot, S., H. E. Ballard Jr., J. B. Creach, and I. Dajoz. 2000. The evolution of pollen heteromorphism in Viola : a new phylogenetic approach. Pl ant Systematics and Evolution 223: 155-171. Nelson, J. M. 1979. A preliminary checklist of the skip pers and butterflies of Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 59: 41-46.

PAGE 232

232 New, T. R. 1997. Butterfly Conservation. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Nice, C. C. and A. M. Shapiro. 1999. Molecular and morphological divergence in the butterfly genus Lycaeides (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in No rth America: evidence of recent speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 936-950. Nielsen, M. C. 1999. Michigan Butterflies and Skippers. 1st ed. Michigan State University Extension, Michigan State Univer sity, East Lansing, Michigan. Nijhout H. F. 1991. The development and evoluti on of butterfly wing patterns. In Funk VA, Cannell PF (Eds.) Smithsonian Series in Compar ative Evolutionary Biology Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Nixon, K. C. and Q. D. Wheeler. 1990. An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6: 211-223. North American Butterfly Association. 2001. North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist and English Names of North Ameri can Butterflies, 2nd Edition. North American Butterfly Association, Morristown, New Jersey. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity : A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355-364. Oberthr, C. 1912. tudes de lpidoptrologie compar e. Rennes, Oberthr. Vol. 6. 356 pp., 97-160 pls. O’Brien, M. F. 1983. New butterfly distribution records for northern New York State. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 37: 92-94. Opler, P. A. and G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. xvii + 294 pp. Opler, P. A. and V. Malikul. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York New York. Opler, P. A. and A. D. Warren. 2005 Lepidoptera of North America. 4. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, Nort h of Mexico. Contributions of the C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Co lorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Opler, P. A. and A. B. Wright. 1999. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. xiv + 540 pp. Omland, K. E., J. M. Baker, and J. L. Peters. 2006. Genetic signatures of intermediate divergence: population hist ory of Old and New Worl d Holarctic ravens ( Corvus corax ). Molecular Ecology 15: 795-808. Orsak, L. J. 1974. Project Atossa-Preliminar y Report. Atala 2: 5-8.

PAGE 233

233 Orsak, L. J. 1978. The butterflies of Orange County, Califor nia. The regents of the University of California, Irvine, CA. Owen, D. F. 1975. Estimating the abundance and dive rsity of butterf lies. Biological Conservation 8: 173-183. Palmer, C. M., K. Siebke, and D. K. Yeates. 2004. Infrared video thermography: a technique for assessing cold adaptation in insects. BioTechniques 37: 212-217. Parmesan, C., N. Ryrholm, C. Stefanescu, J. K. Hill, C. D. Thomas, H. Descimon, B. Huntley, L. Kaila, J. Kullberg, T. Tammaru W. J. Tennent, J. A. Thomas, and M. Warren. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579-583. Patten, M. A. and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. The Auk 119: 26-35. Paterson, H. E. H. 1985. The recognition concep t of species. pp. 21-29. In Vrba, E. S. (ed), Species and speciation, Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 4, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria. Patterson, J. M. 2002. The 2002 survey for the presence of the Oregon silverspot butterfly, Speyeria zerene hippolyta (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae), on the Clatsop Plains, Clatsop County, Oregon. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pavulaan, H. 1990. The skippers (Hesperioidea) of Rhode Island with recent records of the true butterflies (Papilionoidea ). Atala 16: 6-12. Pea, C., N. Wahlberg, E. Weingartner, U. Koda ndaramaiah, S. Nylin, A. V. L. Freitas, and A. V. Z. Brower. 2006: Higher level phylogeny of Satyri nae butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) based on DNA sequence data. Mo lecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40:29-49. Penz, C. M. 1999. Higher level phylogeny for the passi on-vine butterflies (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae) based on early stage and a dult morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 127: 277-344. Penz, C. M. and D. Peggie. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships am ong Heliconiinae genera based on morphology (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae ). Systematic Entomology 28: 451-479. Pollock, D. D., W. B. Watt, V. K. Rashbrook, and E. V. Iyengar. 1998. Molecular phylogeny for Colias butterflies and their relatives (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91: 524-531. Pollard, E. 1982. Monitoring butterfly abundance in rela tion to the management of a nature reserve. Biological Conservation 24: 317-328..

PAGE 234

234 Porter, A. H. and A. M. Shapiro. 1990. Lock-and-key hypothesis: lack of mechanical isolation in a butterfly (Lepidoptera: Pi eridae) hybrid zone. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 83: 107-114. Poulton, E. B. 1909. Mimicry in the butterflies of North Am erica. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 2: 203-242. Pyle, R. M. 1995. Field Guide to North American Butterf lies. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Pyle, R. M. 2002. The butterflies of Cascad ia: a field guide to all the species of Washington, Oregon, and surrounding territories. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Reakirt, T. 1866. Coloradian butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia 6: 122-151. Reiff, W. 1910. Argynnis cybele Fabr. forma bartschi f. nov. Psyche 17: 252-255. Remington, P. S. 1947. Notes on the type locality of Speyeria egleis secreta dos Passos and Grey. Entomological News 58: 99-100. Remington, P. S. 1948. A collecting trip in search of Speyeria egleis secreta The Lepidopterists’ News 2: 91-92. Remington, C. L. 1973. Ultraviolet reflectance in mimi cry and sexual signals in the Lepidoptera. Journal of the New Yo rk Entomological Society 81: 124. Reuss, F. A. T. 1922. Eine Androconialform von “ Argynnis ” niobe L., f. n., und durchentsprechende [males] gekennzeichnete ostasiatische Froemn oder Arten, diebisher zu “ adippe ” L. (rect. cydippe L.) gerechnet wurden, sich aber nunmerh durch Art und Verteilung der Androconien abtrennen lassen. Mit einer Revision des “Genus Argynnis F.” Archiv fur Naturgeschichte 87: 180-230. Reuss, F. A. T. 1926a. Systematischer berblick der Dryadinae T. Rss. mit einigen Neubeschreibungen (Lep. Rhopal.). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift. 65-70. Reuss, F. A. T. 1926b. ber Funktion der Sexualarmatu ren bei Lepidopteren (Rhop.) und die resultierende Weiterentwicklung meines versuchten naturliche n Systems der Dryadinae T. R. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 431-330. Rindge, F.H. 1987. Speyeria collection of Paul Grey to th e American Museum of Natural History. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society 41: 123. Riotte, J. C. E. 1962. First additions to the northern Ontari o list of butterflies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 16: 243-245. Ritchie, J. D. 1944. A method for determining food plants of Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 39: 171-172.

PAGE 235

235 Robinson, G. S., P. R. Ackery, I. J. Kitchin g, G. W. Beccaloni, and L. M. Hernndez. 2002. Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpill ars of America north of Mexico. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institu te vol. 69. Gainesville, FL. 824 pp. Rolfs, D. 2005. Butterflies of Chumstick Mountain. P ublished privately by the author, Ross, G. N. 1998. Butterfly feeding frenzies. Ho larctic Lepidoptera 5: 43-44. Ross, G. N. 2001 (2005). Survey of the butterflies of th e Wah’Kon-Tah Prairie, Missouri. Holarctic Lepidoptera 8: 1-30. Ross, G. N. 2002. Social butterflies. Amer ican Butterflies 10: 34-37. Ross, G. N. 2003. What’s for dinner? A new look at the ro le of phytochemicals in butterfly diets. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 45: 83-89. Ross, G.N. 2004. Social Butterflies. Wildlife Conservation. May/June: 24-25. Ross, G. N. and M. C. Henk. 2004. Notes on eggs and first instar larvae of three species of Speyeria (Nymphalidae). News of the Le pidopterists’ Society 46: 53-63. Rudolph, D. C., C. A. Ely, R. R. Schaefer, J. H. Williamson, and R. E. Thill. 2006. The Diana Fritillary ( Speyeria diana ) and Great Spangled Fritillary ( S. cybele ): Dependence on fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepidopt erists’ Society 60: 218226. Sapolsky, R. and P. Ehrlich. 2003. Appeal of the rare. Discover 24: 61-63. Saunders, A. A. 1932. Butterflies of Allegany Stat e Park. New York State Handbook 13, Albany, New York. Sbordoni, V. and S. Forestiero. 1998. Butterflies of the World. Firefly Books, Buffalo, New York. Schlicht, D. 1997. Population monitoring for prairie bu tterflies in Minneso ta-Final Report. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. 27 pp. Schwanwitsch, B. N. 1924. On the groundplan of wing-pattern in nymphalids and certain other families of rhopalocerous Lepidoptera. Pro ceedings of the Zoological Society of London, series B, 34: 509-528. Schweitzer, D. 1993. Regal fritillaries in the Ea st. American Butterflies 1: 9. Scoble, M. J. 1995. The Lepidoptera: Form, Function and Di versity. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

PAGE 236

236 Scoble, M. J. and M. Krger. 2002. A review of the genera of Macariini with a revised classification of the tribe (G eometridae: Ennominae). Zoologic al Journal of the Linnean Society 134: 257-315. Scott, J. A. 1973a. Mating of butterflies. Journal of Re search on the Lepidoptera 11: 99-127. Scott, J. A. 1973b. Survey of ultraviolet reflectance of N earctic butterflies. J ournal of Research on the Lepidoptera 12: 151-160. Scott, J. A. 1975. Mate-locating behavior of western No rth American butterflies. Journal of Research on the Le pidoptera 14: 1-40. Scott, J. A. 1979. Hibernal diapause of North American Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea. Journal of Research on the Le pidoptera 18: 171-200. Scott, J. A. 1981. New Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea fr om North America. Papilio 1: 1-12. Scott, J. A. 1984. The phylogeny of butterflies (Papilionoid ea and Hesperioidea). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 23: 241-281. Scott, J. A. 1986a. Larval hostplant records for butterflie s and skippers (mainly from western U.S.), with notes on their na tural history. Papilio 4: 1-37. Scott, J. A. 1986b. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Scott, J. A. 1988. Speyeria atlantis in Colorado: Rearing studies concerning the relation between silvered and unsilvered forms. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 42: 1-13. Scott, J. A. 1992. Hostplant records for butterflies a nd skippers (mostly from Colorado) 19591992, with new life histories and notes on ovi position, immatures, and ecology. Papilio 6: 1-185. Scott, J. A. [Ed.] 2006a. Taxonomic studies and new taxa of North American butterflies. Papilio 12: 1-74. Scott, J. A. 2006b. Butterfly hostplant reco rds, 1992-2005, with a trea tise on the evolution of Erynnis and a note on new terminology for mate-c ollecting behavior. Papilio 14: 1-74. Scott, J.A. 2006c. Proposals for a new insect study, co mmerce, and conservation law that deregulates dead insects, and proposals for fi xing the endangered species act as applied to insects. Papilio 17: 1-17. Scott, J. A., S. L. Ellis, and D. Eff. 1968. New records, range extensions, and field data for Colorado butterflies and ski ppers. Journal of the Lepi dopterists’ Society 22: 159-171. Scott, J. A. and M. E. Epstein. 1987. Factors affecting phenology in a temperate insect community. The American Midl and Naturalist 117: 103-118.

PAGE 237

237 Scott, J. A. and S. O. Mattoon. 1981. Early stages of Speyeria nokomis (Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 20:12-15. Scott, J. A., N. G. Kondla, and S. M. Spomer. 1998. Speyeria hesperis and Speyeria atlantis are distinct species. Papilio 8: 1-31. Scott, J. A. and G. R. Scott. 1978 (1980). Ecology and distribution of the butterflies of southern central Colorado. Journal of Res earch on the Lepidoptera 17: 73-128. Scudder, S. H. 1872. A systematic revision of some of the American butterflies, with brief notes on those known to occur in Essex County, Mass. Salem, Massachusetts, The Salem Press. 62 + [2] pp. Scudder, S. H. 1875. Synonymic list of the butterflies of North America, north of Mexico. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 2: 233-269. Scudder, S. H. 1889. The Butterflies of the Eastern Unite d States and Canada with Special Reference to New England. Cambridge, published by the author. 3 Volumes. i-xxiv, i-xii, i-viii + 1958 pp. 89 pls. Segraves, K. A. and O. Pellmyr. 2004. Testing the out-of-Florida hypothesis on the origin of the cheating in the yucca -yucca moth mutualism. Evolution 58(10): 2266-2279. Seitz, A. 1924. The Macrolepidoptera of the World: A Sy stematic Description of the Hitherto Known Macrolepidoptera. Alfred Kernen Verl ag Stuttgart. Vol. 5. viii + 1140 pp., 203 pls. Sellier, R. 1973. Recherches en microscopic letronique par balayage sur l'ultrastructure de l'appareil androconial alaire dans le genre Argynnis et dans les genres voisons (Lep. Rhopalocres Nymphalidae). Annales de la So cit Entomologique de France 9:703-728. Sette, O. E. 1962. Variation in the silvering of Argynnis ( Speyeria ) callippe in the interior mountain area of south central California. Jo urnal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 3-20. Shapiro, A. M. 1996. Status of butterflies. Sierra Neva da Ecosystem Project: Final report to congress, Vol. 2, assessments and scientif ic basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers fo r Water and Wildland Resources. pp. 743-757. Shapiro, A. M. 2002. Species concepts and conservation la w: why we have a problem. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 44: 124-131. Shapiro, A. M. and A. R. Shapiro. 1973. The ecological associations of the butterflies of Staten Island. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 12: 65-128. Shepherd, S. and D. M. Debinski. 2005. Reintroduction of regal fritillary ( Speyeria idalia ) to a restored prairie. Ecologi cal Restoration 23: 244-250. Shields, O. 1963. A trip to California and Oregon for Speyeria Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 17: 111116.

PAGE 238

238 Shields, O. 1966. The butterfly fauna of a yellow pine fo rest community. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 5: 127-128. Shields, O., J. F. Emmel, and D. E. Breedlove. 1970. Butterfly larval foodplant records and a procedure for reporting foodplants. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 8: 21-36. Shields, O. and J. F. Emmel. 1973. A review of carrying behavior and mating times in butterflies. Journal of Resear ch on the Lepidoptera 12: 25-64. Shirzu, T. and T. Saigusa. 1973. A generic classification of the genus Argynnis and its allied genera (Lepidoptera: Nympha lidae). Sieboldia 4: 99-114. Shuey, J. A., E. H. Metzler, D. C. Iftner, J. V. Calhoun, J. W. Peacock, R. A. Watkins, J. D. Hooper, and W. F. Babcock. 1987. Status and habitats of potentially endangered Lepidoptera in Ohio. Journal of th e Lepidopterists’ Society 41: 1-12. Shull, E. M. and F. S. Badger. 1972. Annotated list of th e butterflies of Indian a. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 26: 13-24. Shull, E. M. 1987. Butterflies of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Sciences, Indianapolis, Indiana. Simmons, R. S. 1963. Nine new butterfly records for th e State of Maryland. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 17: 107-109. Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Crespi, H. Liu, and P. Flook. 1994. Evolution, weighting, and phylogenetic util ity of mitochondrial gene sequences and a compilation of conserved polymerase chain reaction primers. Annals of the Ento mological Society of America 87: 651-701. Simonsen, T. J. 2004. Fritillary Butterflies: Phyloge ny, Historical Zoogeography and Morphological Aspects of the Tribus Ar gynnini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ph.D. Dissertation, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen. 196 pp. Simonsen, T. J. 2005. Boloria phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Nymphalid ae): tentatively reconstructed on the basis of male and female genitalic morphology. Systematic Entomology 30: 653665. Simonsen, T. J. 2006a. Glands, muscles and genitalia Morphological and phylogenetic implications of histological characters in the male genitalia of fritillary butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Argynnini). Zoologica Scripta 35: 231-241. Simonsen, T. J. 2006b. The male genitalia segments in fritillary butterflies: Comparative morphology with special referen ce to the “rectal plate” in Issoria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). European Journal of Entomology 103: 425-432. Simonsen, T. J. 2006c. Fritillary phylogeny, cla ssification, and larval ho stplants: reconstructed mainly on the basis of male and female ge nitalic morphology (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Argynnini). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: 627-673.

PAGE 239

239 Simonsen, T. J., N. Wahlberg, A. Z. Brower, and R. de Jong 2006. Morphology, molecules and fritillaries: Approaching a stable phylogeny for Argynnini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Insect Systema tics and Evolution 37: 405-418. Simonson, S. E., P. A. Opler, T. J. Stohlgren, and G. W. Chong. 2001. Rapid assessment of butterfly diversity in a montane landscape. Biodiversity and Cons ervation 10: 1369-1386. Sims, S.R. 1984. Reproductive diapause in Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 23: 211-216. Sims, S. R., Brittnacher, J. G., and F. J. Ayala. 1979. Genetic confirmation of the specific status of the Speyeria adiaste group in California (Lepidopter a: Nymphalidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 55: 111-116. Skinner, H. 1917. New species of Lepidoptera. Entomological News 28: 328-329. Smart, P. 1989. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Butte rflies of the World. Salamander Books Limited, Bedford Row, London. Snyder, A. J. 1896. Some argynnids of Park City, Utah. The Canadian Entomologist 28: 105107. Snyder, A. J. 1900. The Argynnids of North America. pp. 27-38. In J. L. Hancock and O. S. Westcott [Eds.], Occasional Memoirs of the Chicago Entomological Society Volume 1, Chicago Entomological Soci ety, Chicago, Illinois. Soltis, P. S. and M. A. Gitzendanner. 1999. Molecular systematics and the conservation of rare species. Conservation Biology 13: 471-483. Sokal, R. R. and T. J Crovello. 1970. The biological species concep t: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist 104: 127-153. Sperling, F. 2003. DNA barcoding: dues ex machina. News letter of the Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods) 22. 4 pp. Sperling, F. A. H. and D. A. Hickey. 1995. Amplified mitochondrial DNA as a diagnostic marker for species of conifer-feeding Choristoneura (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Canadian Entomologist 127: 277-288. Stehr, F. W. [Ed.] 1987. Immature Insects, Vol. 1. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 754 pp. Stewart, B, P. Brodkin, and H. Brodkin. 2001. Butterflies of Arizona: A Photographic Guide. West Coast Lady Press, Arcata, California.

PAGE 240

240 Strecker, 1878. Butterflies and Moths of North America, with Full Instructions for Collecting, Breeding, Preparing, Classifying, Packing fo r Shipment, etc., A Complete Synonymical Catalogue of Macrolepidoptera, with a Full Bibliography, which is added a Glossary of Terms and an Alphabetical and Descriptive Li st of Localities. Reading, Pennsylvania. I-ii + 282 pp., 2 pls. Strehl, C. P. and J. Gadau. 2004. Cladistic analysis of paleo-is land populations of the Florida harvester ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) based upon divergence of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Florida Entomologist 87: 576-581. Sffert, F. 1927. Zur vergleichende analyse der Schmetterlingszeichnung. Biologisches Zentralblatt 47: 385-413. Swengel, A. B. 1993. Regal fritillary: Prairie royalt y. American Butterflies 1: 4-9. Swengel, A. B. 1997. Habitat associations of sympat ric violet-feeding fritillaries ( Euptoieta Speyeria Boloria ) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in ta llgrass prairie. The Great Lakes Entomologist 30: 1-18. Swengel. A. B. 2004. Good news for regal fritillaries. Wisconsin Entomological Newsletter June: 3-4. Swengel, A. B. and S. R. Swengel. 2001. A ten-year study to monito r populations of the regal fritillary, Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Wisconsin, U.S.A. The Great Lakes Entomologist 34: 97-115. Swofford, D. L. 2002. PAUP, Version 4.0b10. Sunderla nd, Massachusetts. Sinauer. Tebaldi, A. F. 1982. Genetic and Morphological Variation in Three Phenotypes of the Rocky Mountain Butterfly Speyeria atlantis Master’s Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 51 pp. Templeton, A. R., E. Routman, and C. A. Phillips. 1995. Separating population structure from population history: a cladistic analysis of the geographical distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum 140: 767-782. The International Lepidoptera Survey. 2007. Standardized Common North American Butterfly Names. ( http://tils-ttr.org/sc-nabn/index.html ) (Last accessed September 2007). The Nymphalidae Systematics Group. 2007. ( http://nymphalidae.utu.fi/index.htm ) (Last accessed September 2007). Thomas, J. A. 1984. The conservation of butterflies in te mperate countries: past efforts and lessons for the future. pp. 333-353. In R. I. Vane-Wright and P. R. Ackery (eds.), The biology of butterflies: sympos ium of the royal entomologi cal society of London, number 11. Academic Press, London.

PAGE 241

241 Threatful, D. L. 1988 (1989). A list of the butterflies and ski ppers of Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks, British Columbia, Cana da (Lepidoptera). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 27: 213-221. Tietz, H. M. 1952. The Lepidoptera of Pennsyl vania: a manual. The Penn sylvania State College School of Agriculture Agricultural E xperiment Station, State College, PA. Tietz, H. M. 1972. An index to the described life hist ories, early stages and hosts of the macrolepidoptera of the continental United States and Canada. The Allyn Museum of Entomology, Sarasota, FL. 2 vols. 1-536; 537-1041 pp. Tilden, J. W. 1963. The Argynnis populations of the Sand Creek Area, Klamath Co., Oregon. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 1: 109-113. Tilden, J. W. and D. H. Huntzinger. 1977. The butterflies of Crater Lake National Park, Oregon. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 16: 176-192. Tilden, J. W. and A. C. Smith. 1986. A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. H oughton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Toliver, M. E., R. Holland, and S. J. Cary. 2001. Distribution of Butterflies in New Mexico (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoi dea). Published by R. Holland, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Tolman, T. 1997. Butterflies of Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Tree of Life Web Project. 2007. Argynnis Simonsen, T., N. Wahlber g, and A. V. Z. Brower. ( http://www.tolweb.org/Argynnini/70206 ) (Last accessed September 2007). Tuttle, J. P. [Ed.]. 1996-2006. The Lepidopterists’ Society Season Summary. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society. Volumes 39-49. Tuzov, V. K. 2003. Nymphalidae part 1: Tribe Argynnini: Argynnis Issoria Brenthis Argyreus In G. C. Bozano [Ed.], Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region. Omnes Artes, Milano, Italy. Valentine, D. H. 1956. Variation and polymorphism in Viola Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biologi cal Sciences 145: 315-319. Vandewoestijne, S., M. Baguette, P. M. Brakefield, and I. J. Saccheri. 2004. Phylogeography of Aglais urticae (Lepidoptera) based on DNA sequences of the mitochondrial COI gene and control region. Molecular Phylog enetics and Evolution 31: 630-646. Van Son, G. 1955. A proposal for the restriction of th e use of the term subspecies. The Lepidopterists’ News 9: 1-3. Van Regenmortel, M. H. 1997. Viral species. pp. 17-23. In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. Wilson. Species: the units of biodiversity, Chapman and Hall.

PAGE 242

242 Vaughan, D. M. and M. D. Shepherd. 2005a. Species profile: Speyeria diana In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughn and S. H. Black (eds.). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, Oregon : The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Vaughan, D. M. and M. D. Shepherd. 2005b. Species profile: Speyeria idalia In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughn and S. H. Black (eds.). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, Oregon : The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Vogler, A. P., R. Desalle, T. Assmann, C. B. Knisley, and T. D. Schultz. 1993. Molecular population genetics of the endangered tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). Annals of the Entomol ogical Society of America 86: 142-152. Wagner, D. 1995. Rearing regals for reintroduction: playing the odds but still losing ground. American Butterflies 3: 19-23. Wagner, D. L. 2005. Caterpillars of Eastern North Amer ica. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Wahlberg, N., M. F. Braby, A. V. Z. Brower, R. deJong, M. Lee, S. Nylin, N. E. Pierce, F. A. H. Sperling, R. Vila, A. D. Warren, and E. Zakharov. 2005. Synergistic effects of combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272: 1577-1586. Wahlberg, N., R. Oliveira, and J. A. Scott. 2003a. Phylogenetic relationships of Phyciodes butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): complex mtDNA variation and species delimitations. Systematic Entomology 28: 257-273. Wahlberg, N., E. Weingartner, and S. Nylin. 2003b. Towards a better understanding of the higher systematics of Nymphalidae (Lepidopter a: Papilionoidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28: 473-484. Wahlberg, N. and M. Zimmerman. 2000. Pattern of phylogenetic relationships among members of the tribe Melitaeini (Lepidopter a: Nymphalidae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Cladistics 16: 347-363. Warren, A. D. 2005. Lepidoptera of North America Vol. 6: Butterflies of Oregon their taxonomy, distribution, and biology. Contributions of the C. P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Warren, B. C. S. 1944. Review of the classification of the Argynnidi: With a systematic revision of the genus Boloria (Lepidoptera; Nymphalidae). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 94: 1-101. Warren, B. C. S., C. F. dos Passos, and L. P. Grey. 1946. Supplementary notes on the classification of Argynninae (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society London B 15: 71-73.

PAGE 243

243 Warren, B. C. S. 1955. A review of the classification of the subfamily Argynninae. Part 2. Definitions of the Asiatic genera. Transacti ons of the Royal Entomological Society of London 107: 381-392. Warren, M. S., J. K. Hill, J. A. Thomas, J. Asher, R. Fox, B. Huntley, D. B. Roy, M. G. Telfer, S. Jeffcoate, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate S. G. Willis, J. N. Greatorex-Davies, D. Moss, and C. D. Thomas. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65-69. Weiss, S. B., D. D. Murphy, and R.R. White. 1988. Sun, slope, and butte rflies: topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha Ecology 69: 1486-1496. Wells, P. V. 1983. Paleobiogeography of montane islands in the Great Basin since the last glaciopluvial. Ecological Monographs 53: 341-382. Wheeler, Q. D. 2003. Transforming taxonomy. The Systematist 22: 3-5. Wiley, E. O. 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Systematic Zoology 27:1726. Will, K. W. and D. Rubinoff. 2004. Myth of the molecule: DNA barcodes for species cannot replace morphology for identification and classification. Cladistics 20: 47-55. Williams, B. L. 1999. Regal fritillaries in a tailspin: A story of Ea st and West, DNA, and the urgent need for the conservation of a flagsh ip species. American Butterflies 7: 16-25. Williams, B. E. [L.] 2001a. Recognition of western populations of Speyeria idalia (Nymphalidae) as a new subspecies. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 55: 144-149. Williams, B. L. 2001b. The evolutionary hist ory and conservation of Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ph.D. Dissertati on, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Williams, B. L. 2001