<%BANNER%>

The Population Biology of Two Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Subspecies (papilio (pterourus) Glaucus Glaucus L. and P. G. May...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041499/00001

Material Information

Title: The Population Biology of Two Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Subspecies (papilio (pterourus) Glaucus Glaucus L. and P. G. Maynardi Gauthier) (lepidoptera Papilionidae), and Its Correlation to the Northern-Florida Suture Zone
Physical Description: 1 online resource (469 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lehnert, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: glaucus, hybridization, papilionidae, swallowtail
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: The rising sea levels during interglacial periods of the Pleistocene Epoch impacted the Florida and Georgia fauna by creating a chain of islands of Florida, isolating the populations of fauna that resided there. As sea levels receded, once-disjunct populations came into secondary contact, forming multiple hybrid zones and creating the Northern-Florida Suture Zone. Although many hybrid zones within this suture have been investigated, no previous studies have focused on two putative subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus glaucus and P. g. maynardi), within and near this region, to determine any relationship with the suture zone. The purpose of this investigation was to study morphological (color and wing measurements) and ecological (oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight) characters of P. glaucus populations in the southern US to determine how these subspecies differ and if there is a divergence in character traits that occurs within the suture zone. Phenotypic plasticity of P. glaucus was also studied to determine if temperature and/or host plant influence the unique morphology (larger wing size, orange hue) of the maynardi subspecies. Results from this investigation reveal a transition in P. glaucus morphological characters that overlaps the Northern-Florida Suture Zone. Papilio glaucus populations south of the suture zone have morphological characters that represent the maynardi subspecies, whereas populations north of the suture zone are representative of the glaucus subspecies. In addition, the color analysis revealed that specimens are more orange during the summer and fall flight period than the more yellow spring flight period. The oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight studies suggested that the maynardi subspecies has a stronger preference for Sweetbay when compared to the northern glaucus subspecies, but still maintains a high preference for host plants not locally available. Phenotypic plasticity experiments revealed that host plant and temperature are not responsible for the morphological characteristics that distinguish either subspecies, but the seasonal increase in temperature may be responsible for the subtle color changes observed in populations over time from spring to fall. From this study, it is suggested that southern populations of P. glaucus were likely impacted evolutionarily by the geological events that shaped the Northern-Florida Suture Zone.
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 Matthew Lehnert.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Emmel, Thomas C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041499:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041499/00001

Material Information

Title: The Population Biology of Two Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Subspecies (papilio (pterourus) Glaucus Glaucus L. and P. G. Maynardi Gauthier) (lepidoptera Papilionidae), and Its Correlation to the Northern-Florida Suture Zone
Physical Description: 1 online resource (469 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lehnert, Matthew
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: glaucus, hybridization, papilionidae, swallowtail
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: The rising sea levels during interglacial periods of the Pleistocene Epoch impacted the Florida and Georgia fauna by creating a chain of islands of Florida, isolating the populations of fauna that resided there. As sea levels receded, once-disjunct populations came into secondary contact, forming multiple hybrid zones and creating the Northern-Florida Suture Zone. Although many hybrid zones within this suture have been investigated, no previous studies have focused on two putative subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus glaucus and P. g. maynardi), within and near this region, to determine any relationship with the suture zone. The purpose of this investigation was to study morphological (color and wing measurements) and ecological (oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight) characters of P. glaucus populations in the southern US to determine how these subspecies differ and if there is a divergence in character traits that occurs within the suture zone. Phenotypic plasticity of P. glaucus was also studied to determine if temperature and/or host plant influence the unique morphology (larger wing size, orange hue) of the maynardi subspecies. Results from this investigation reveal a transition in P. glaucus morphological characters that overlaps the Northern-Florida Suture Zone. Papilio glaucus populations south of the suture zone have morphological characters that represent the maynardi subspecies, whereas populations north of the suture zone are representative of the glaucus subspecies. In addition, the color analysis revealed that specimens are more orange during the summer and fall flight period than the more yellow spring flight period. The oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight studies suggested that the maynardi subspecies has a stronger preference for Sweetbay when compared to the northern glaucus subspecies, but still maintains a high preference for host plants not locally available. Phenotypic plasticity experiments revealed that host plant and temperature are not responsible for the morphological characteristics that distinguish either subspecies, but the seasonal increase in temperature may be responsible for the subtle color changes observed in populations over time from spring to fall. From this study, it is suggested that southern populations of P. glaucus were likely impacted evolutionarily by the geological events that shaped the Northern-Florida Suture Zone.
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 Matthew Lehnert.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Emmel, Thomas C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041499:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE POPULATION BIOLOGY OF TWO EASTERN TIGER SWALLOWTAIL SUBSPECIES ( PAPILIO (PTEROURUS) G LAUCUS GLAUCUS L. AND P. G. MAYNARDI GAUTHIER) (LEPIDOPTERA: PAPILIONIDAE) AND ITS CORRELATION TO THE NORTHERN FLORIDA SUTURE ZONE By MATTHEW STEVEN LEHNERT 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 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Matthew Steven Lehnert

PAGE 3

3 To my wife, Margie, and our son, Logan

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank both of my parents, Richard Lehnert and Mary Byrd for their support and encouragement to pursue my hobbies in the sciences as a career and for always believing in me. I would also like to thank my wife, Margie Lehnert for always being by my side, helping me with editorial comments and formatting issues with this document, and dealing with the freezer always being full of butterflies instead of food. I thank m y brothers, Mar c and Ahren, for their encouragement of collecting insects since childhood and for their memorable assistance along with my sister in law, Cristin, on collecting trips during my Ph.D. studies. I also want to thank Marvin Beland III for being the friend that I can always count on. I would also like to thank my StepMom, Elaine Lehnert, and my StepDad, Reeves Byrd for being supportive throughout my Ph.D. studies. I am a firm believer that the scientists and professors I have acquainted myself with over the y ears have directly contributed to and influenced the scientist I have become. First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Thomas C. Emmel, the chairperson for my M .S. and Ph.D. studies. His support for my ideas in research his encouragement to pursue them and our numerous discussions have directly impacted the way I interpret the biological sc iences and evolution, and my outlook on mentoring students I especially thank another Ph.D. committee member, Dr. Mark J. Scriber, for showing me that it is possi ble to turn your hobbies and passions into a career, and for encouraging me to pursue my interests in Lepidoptera with Dr. Emmel at the University of Florida, Gainesville. I would like to thank my other two Ph.D. committee members, Dr. Jaret C. Daniels fo r his encouragement and advice throughout this study and for showing me how to correctly handpair swallowtail butterflies, and Dr. Charlie Baer for

PAGE 5

5 encouraging me to pursue molecular techniques when studying evolutionary biology and for providing assistance i n understanding the intricacies of hybridization I thank many of the curators at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, specifically Dr. Charlie Covell and Dr. Andrew Warren, for our discussions about swallowtail butterflies and hybridization. I also want to especially thank Dr. Jackie Miller, as she assisted me with just about every aspect of this project from locating host plants to providing advice and suggestions with the biogeography of Florida and the swallowtail butterflies that reside there. I have been for t unate to have many students and workers at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity assist me throughout this work. Natasha Wright, Kayla Brownell, Joanna Rodriguez, Adrienne Doyle, and Jennifer Lewis investigated this project under my supervision for undergraduate research experience, and devoted much of their time assisting with feeding numerous larvae. I appreciate the work of Matthew Standridge, who managed to accomplish the difficult and tedious task of cleanin g up over a thousand images for color analysis. I particularly want to thank Jonathon Doyle; he assisted in every aspect of this project and was a great help in the field and enjoyable to work with. I thank Donna Watkins for helping me acquire a permit to collect Tiger S wallowtail butterflies within Highlands Hammock State Park, Florida. Dr. Dana Griffin III and his wife were kind enough to drive around Gainesville, Florida, during an entire afternoon to help me locate host plants for feeding larvae. I would like to thank Dr. Terry Arbogast and Dr. Paul Shirk at the USDA CMAVE, Gainesville, Florida for the countless

PAGE 6

6 enjoyable discussions about swallowtail butterflies and for the freezer space for specimens. I thank professors at the Entomology and Nematology Department at the University of Florida, particularly Dr. Jim Maruniak and his wife, Dr. Alejandro (Ale) Maruniak. They managed to encourage my molecular work and taught me just about everything I know about molecular biology. In addition, they provided lab space, freezer space, and guidance throughout my studies. I also thank Dr. Carl Barfield who provided encouragement and mentorship with teaching undergraduate students, which has played a significant role in my accomplishments throughout my Ph.D. studies. He has proved to be someone that I admire as a person and in his unique teaching abilities. I would also like to thank Dr. Roberto Pereira for his help with statistical questions. I thank the numerous people that have cont ributed to my studies outside the University of Florida, particularly James Adams, Irving Finkelstein, and J. D. Turner for spending hours collecting Tiger S wallowtail butterflies from Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama, and shipping them overnight to me. These butterflies represented s ome of the most important specimens to the entire investigation. I would also like to thank John Emmel for our phone conversations where he provided assistance with handpairing butterflies and bringing Tiger S wallowtail butterflies out of diapause. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank Debbie Hall and Christine Eliazar. From my perspective, their administrative skills and experience with helping students are the most important factor that prevents stressed out graduate students from having mental breakdowns when deadlines are approaching.

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 16 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW, OBJECTIVES, AND JUSTIFICATION ............................. 21 A Brief History of Hybridization, Hybrid Zones, and Suture Zone Theory ............... 21 Suture Zones .......................................................................................................... 25 Formation of Suture Zones and the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone .................. 27 Species and Subspecies Definition .................................................................. 2 9 The Tiger Swallowtail Group ............................................................................ 33 Tiger Swallowtails and Suture Zones ............................................................... 39 Papilio glaucus m aynardi a Southern Subspecies of Tiger Swallowtail ................. 41 Taxonomic Status ............................................................................................. 41 Identification ..................................................................................................... 41 Distribution ....................................................................................................... 42 Objectives and Hypothesis ..................................................................................... 43 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 45 Morphometrics .................................................................................................. 45 Color Measurements ........................................................................................ 48 Oviposition Preference ..................................................................................... 51 Oviposition Preference in the E astern Tiger Swallowtail .................................. 60 Larval Detoxification, Survival, and Development in Tiger Swallowtail Butterflies ...................................................................................................... 64 Phenotypic Plasticity and Genetic Accomodation ............................................. 74 Phenotypic Plasticity of Wing Patterns on Lepidoptera .................................... 85 Phenotypic Plasticity of Tiger Swallowtails ....................................................... 92 Other Investigations with Temperature and Host Plants .................................. 93 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 111 Sampling and Collecting Methods ........................................................................ 111 Color Analysis ....................................................................................................... 112 Color Analysis Preparation ............................................................................. 112 Color Analysis with Lenseye Software ......................................................... 117 Statistics for Color Analysis ............................................................................ 119 Morphometrics ...................................................................................................... 120

PAGE 8

8 Butterfly Measurements ................................................................................. 120 Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................... 122 Data Analysis for Correlation of Size and Color ............................................. 123 Oviposition Preference Bioassay .......................................................................... 123 Larval Survival ...................................................................................................... 127 Larval Survival in 2006 ................................................................................... 128 Larval Survival in 2007 ................................................................................... 128 Larval Survival in 2008 ................................................................................... 129 Larval Survival Data Analysis ......................................................................... 129 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight ........................................................................ 130 2007 Rearing Conditions ................................................................................ 130 2008 Rearing Conditions ................................................................................ 131 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Data Analysis ........................................... 132 Phenotypic Plasticity of Adult P. glaucus .............................................................. 133 Phenotypic Plasticity Studies in 2007 ............................................................. 133 Phenotypic Plas ticity in 2008 .......................................................................... 133 Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 134 Hybridization Studies ............................................................................................ 134 3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 154 Collection and Sampling ....................................................................................... 154 Color Analysis of Male and Yellow Female P. glaucus ......................................... 158 Color Comparison per Population according to Sex ....................................... 158 Color Comparison per Region (North, Within, and South of Suture Zone) ..... 158 Analysis of Average Color Change per Flight Period in Each Region ............ 158 Color Comparison of Mean L* a* and b* Values between Each Region during Each Flight Period ............................................................................ 159 Dark Morph Female P. glaucus Color Analysis ..................................................... 160 Color Analysis between Populations and per Region for Dark Morph Female P. glaucus ...................................................................................... 160 Color Comparison of Dark Morph P. glaucus Females per Flight Period in Each Region ................................................................................................ 161 Color Comparison of Mean L* a* and b* Values between Each Region during Each Flight Period ............................................................................ 161 Multivariate Analysis of Color per Flight Period in Each Region ........................... 162 Morphometric Analysis .......................................................................................... 163 Morphometric Comparison between Populations of P. glaucus for Each Sex 163 Morphometric Comparison of Male and Female P. glaucus per Region ........ 163 Analysis of Morphometric Change per Flight Period in Each Region ............. 164 Analysis Comparing Morphometrics of P. glaucus between Regions per Flight Period ................................................................................................ 165 Morphometric Comparison of P. glaucus Males and Females between Regions ....................................................................................................... 167 Multivariate Analysis of Wing Measurements in Male and Female P. glaucus ........................................................................................................ 167 Multivariate Analysis for Correlations of Size and Color in P. glaucus .................. 168

PAGE 9

9 Oviposition Preference .......................................................................................... 169 Oviposition Preference in 2006 ...................................................................... 169 Oviposition Preference in 2007 ...................................................................... 169 Oviposition Preference in 2008 ...................................................................... 170 Larval Survival ...................................................................................................... 172 Larval Survival Within and between Populations ............................................ 173 Larval Survival Within and between Regions North, South, and Within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone ..................................................................... 174 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight ........................................................................ 174 2007 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight ......................................................... 174 2008 Larval Dur ation and Pupal Weight ......................................................... 176 Effect of Temperature and Host Plant on Phenotypic Plasticity of Adult P. glaucus .............................................................................................................. 185 Results from 2007 TemperatureShock Experiments ..................................... 185 2008 Phenotypic Plasticity Experiments ......................................................... 189 Hybridization S tudies ............................................................................................ 197 4 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 264 Collecting and Sampling ....................................................................................... 264 Color Analysis of Wild Captured P. glaucus .......................................................... 265 Morphometri cs ...................................................................................................... 271 Oviposition Preference .......................................................................................... 277 Larval Survival ...................................................................................................... 283 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight ........................................................................ 285 Phenotypic Plasticity in Adult P. glaucus .............................................................. 295 Hybridization Studies ............................................................................................ 304 5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 306 A P P E N D I X A RAW DATA OF MORPHOMETRICS FROM P. GLAUCUS COLLECTED IN 2006 ...................................................................................................................... 315 B WING MEASUREMENTS OF WILD COLLECTED P. GLAUCUS IN 2007 .......... 319 C WING MEASUREMENTS OF WILD COLLECTED P. GLAUCUS IN 2008 .......... 324 D OVIPOSITION PREFERENcE RAW DATA 2006 ................................................. 339 E OVIPOSITION PREFERENCE RAW DATA 2007 ................................................ 343 F OVIPOSITION PREFE RENCE RAW DATA 2008 ................................................ 348 G LARVAL DURATION AND SURVIVAL ................................................................. 356 H PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY ................................................................................. 415

PAGE 10

10 I COLOR ANALYSIS OF WILD CAPTURED P. GLAUCUS ................................... 439 LIST OF REF ERENCES ............................................................................................. 451 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 469

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 List of known hybridizing and potential hybridizing Lepidoptera species or subspecies within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone according to Remington (1968) with modification (*). .............................................................................. 109 1 2 Host plants commonly used by P. glaucus with preference for plants used in the southern US. ............................................................................................... 109 1 3 Summary of suggested scenarios that could induce the P. g. maynardi phenotype using parameters studied in this investigation. ............................... 110 2 1 Camera specification used for color analysis. ................................................... 151 2 2 Output from Lenseye software from P. glaucus 7068f. ..................................... 152 2 3 Outline of temperatures and photoperiods used for rearing and temperature shocking experiments. ...................................................................................... 153 3 1 Raw data for wild collected P. glaucus adults in 2007 ...................................... 213 3 2 Raw data for wild collected P. glaucus adults in 2008 ...................................... 214 3 3 Mean L*, a*, and b* values (SE) of female (yellow) and male P. glaucus per population. ........................................................................................................ 215 3 4 Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of female (yellow) and male P. glaucus north, within, and south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. .......................... 216 3 5 Average (SE) L*, a*, and b* values for male and female (yellow) P. glaucus between flight periods within each region ......................................................... 216 3 6 Average (SE) L*, a*, and b* values for male and female (yellow) P. glaucus between regions during flight periods ............................................................... 217 3 7 Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of dark morph female P. glaucus per population. ........................................................................................................ 218 3 8 Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of dark morph female P. glaucus north, within, and south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. .................................... 218 3 9 Color comparison of dark morph female P. glaucus between flight periods per population ................................................................................................... 219 3 10 Dark morph female P. glaucus comparison between flight periods per region. 219

PAGE 12

12 3 11 Correlations between color values (L*, a* and b*) of P. glaucus males and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during fall flight period. ..................................................................................... 220 3 12 Correlations between color values (L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during the spring flight period. .................................................................. 221 3 13 Correlations between color values (L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during summer flight period. .................................................................... 222 3 14 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) for female P. glaucus populations sampled. ........................................................................................................... 223 3 15 Mean (SE) wing measurement (mm) for male P. glaucus per population. ...... 224 3 16 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus per region. ......... 225 3 17 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus per region. ............ 225 3 18 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus between flight periods per region. ............................................................................................ 226 3 19 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus between flight periods per region. ............................................................................................ 226 3 20 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus between regions during flight periods. ......................................................................................... 227 3 21 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus between regions during flight periods. ......................................................................................... 227 3 22 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) comparison of male and female P. glaucus per region. ........................................................................................... 228 3 23 Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus. ..................................................................................... 229 3 24 Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus north of the suture zone. .............................................. 230 3 25 Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus south of the suture zone. .............................................. 231 3 26 Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus within the suture zone. ................................................. 232

PAGE 13

13 3 27 Correlations between forewing length and color (L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females. ............................................................................. 233 3 28 Correlations between forewing length and color (L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone. ...................................................................................................... 234 3 29 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited per plant by female P. glaucus collected from Cedar Key, FL in 2006. ............................................................. 235 3 30 Mean percentage ( SE) eggs oviposited by P. glaucus females collected south of the suture zone in 2006. ..................................................................... 235 3 31 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited by females collected from Cedar Key, FL during the spring flight period in 2007. ................................................ 235 3 32 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited by females collected south of the suture zone during the spring flight period 2007. .............................................. 235 3 33 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populations per host plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007. ................................................... 236 3 34 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per population after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007. ........................................... 236 3 35 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per host plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007. ............................................................ 236 3 36 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per region after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007. ............................................................ 236 3 37 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populations per host plant before the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 during the spring flight period. 237 3 38 Compariso n of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per population during the spring flight period in 2008. ............................................ 237 3 39 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per host plant dur ing the spring flight period in 2008. .............................................................. 237 3 40 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per region before the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008. ......................................................... 237 3 41 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populations per host plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008. ................................................... 238 3 42 Comparison of mean per centage (SE) eggs between host plants per population after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008. ........................................... 238

PAGE 14

14 3 43 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per host plant during the spri ng flight period in 2008. .............................................................. 239 3 44 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per region with the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008. ............................................................. 239 3 45 Percent larval survival (SE) on selected host plants per region in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. .................................................................... 239 3 46 Mean percent survival (SE) per host plant between different populations sampled. ........................................................................................................... 240 3 47 Mean percent survival (SE) on selected host plants from populations sampled. ........................................................................................................... 241 3 48 Mean (SE) percent larval survival on selected host plants between regions north, within, and south of the suture zone. ...................................................... 242 3 49 Mean (SE) transformed percent survival within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone. .................................................................................. 242 3 50 The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus .............................................................. 242 3 51 The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus captured in 2007 within regions. ............ 243 3 52 The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus captured in 2007. ................................... 243 3 53 Effect of host plant on larval duration (days) and pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus ................................................................. 243 3 54 Effect of temperature (C) on larval duration (days) and pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glau cus ................................................... 244 3 55 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus .............................................................. 244 3 56 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus ................................................................. 245 3 57 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus within each region. ................................. 245 3 58 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus within each region. .................................... 246

PAGE 15

15 3 59 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus between each region. ............................ 247 3 60 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus between each region. ............................... 248 3 61 The effect of hos t plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. ............................................................................................................... 249 3 62 The effect of temperature (C) on forewing l ength (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. ......................................................................................................... 249 3 63 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. .................................................................................... 250 3 64 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow and darkmorph) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. ........................................................ 251 3 65 The effect of host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus ................................................. 252 3 66 The effect of temperature (C) on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. gla ucus ...................................... 253 3 67 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus within each region. ...................................................................................................... 254 3 68 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus within each region. ...................................................................................................... 256 3 69 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus within each region. ...................................................................................................... 258 3 70 The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of darkmorph female P. glaucus captured in 2008. ................................................................................................................ 261 3 71 Raw data of copulation time for handpaired and laboratory hybridized P. glaucus and viability of eggs. ............................................................................ 262

PAGE 16

16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Map of North Americ an suture zones as described by Remington (1968). ......... 96 1 2 Map of Florida during an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Epoch.. ............. 97 1 3 Suggested formation of NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. ...................................... 98 1 4 Photographs of yellow and dark morph female P. glaucus captured in Cedar Key, Florida in 2007. ........................................................................................... 99 1 5 First known artistic renditions of P. glaucus ....................................................... 99 1 6 Neotypes of Papilio glaucus ............................................................................ 100 1 7 Range of all tiger swallowtail butterflies and their known subspecies with suture zones. .................................................................................................... 101 1 8 Calibrated photographs of both subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail. ....... 102 1 9 Using predicted average wing color to illustrate possible cline formation of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail in relation to suture zone. ........................................ 103 1 1 0 Current distribution of Sweetbay, Magnolia virginiana (Magnoliaceae). ........... 104 1 11 A general example of phenotypic plasticity. ...................................................... 105 1 12 An example of genotype x environment. .......................................................... 106 1 13 Evolution of genetic assimilation. ...................................................................... 107 1 14 A depiction comparing genetic assimilation and genetic accommodation. ....... 107 1 15 Example comparison of differences between larval performance of P. g. glaucus and P. g. maynardi at low and high temperatures. .............................. 108 2 1 Layout of equipment used for color analysis. ................................................... 137 2 2 Raw JPEG image taken of P. glaucus 7068F. .................................................. 138 2 3 Cleaned image of P. glaucus 7068F. ................................................................ 139 2 4 Regions of interest removed from a female P. glaucus ................................... 140 2 5 Images used for color analysis. ........................................................................ 141 2 6 Pre calibrated images used for color analysis. ................................................. 141

PAGE 17

17 2 7 Calibrated photograph used for color analysis. ................................................ 142 2 8 Example comparison of a raw image and a calibrated image. ......................... 142 2 9 Image of ventral side of male P. glaucus maynardi to illustrate measurements taken for morphometric analysis. ...................................................................... 143 2 10 A female P. glaucus feeding on honey water solution out of a spoon. ............. 144 2 11 Oviposition container with plant samples used to determine oviposition preference per female. ..................................................................................... 144 2 12 Setup used to determine oviposition preference for P. glaucus females. ......... 145 2 13 Eggs laid by a female P. glaucus on Tulip Tree ( Liriodendron tulipifera) ......... 145 2 14 Transport of neonat e P. glaucus larvae using a camelhair paintbrush. ............ 146 2 15 Modified container used for rearing P. glaucus larvae in 2007. ........................ 146 2 16 P. glaucus larva photographed at prepupa stage. ............................................ 147 2 17 Screen enclosure used for hanging P. glaucus pupae in 2007. ........................ 148 2 18 Emergence of P. glaucus neonate larvae in petri dish. ..................................... 148 2 19 Varying temperatures used for larval rearing in Florida Reach In Chambers in 2008. ................................................................................................................ 149 2 20 Photographs of handpaired P. glaucus .. ......................................................... 150 3 1 Photographs of Cedar Key, FL location.. .......................................................... 198 3 2 Phot ographs of Lake Placid, FL collecting site. ................................................ 199 3 3 Average L*, a*, and b* values of male and female P. glaucus collected from regions north, south, and within the suture zone. ............................................. 200 3 4 Average wing measurements (mm) of male and female P. glaucus per population sampled throughout investigation. .................................................. 201 3 5 Mean percentage of oviposition preference per population in 2006. ................ 204 3 6 Mean percentage of oviposition preference in 2007 before Tulip Tree. ............ 205 3 7 Mean percentage of oviposition preference in 2007 with Tulip Tree. ................ 206 3 8 2008 oviposition preference before Tulip Tree. ................................................ 207

PAGE 18

18 3 9 Oviposition preference of population sampled in 2008 before the addition of Tulip Tree. ........................................................................................................ 208 3 10 Oviposition preference per region in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone in 20 08 before the addition of Tulip Tree. ................................................ 209 3 11 2008 oviposition preference data with Tulip Tree. ............................................ 210 3 12 Oviposition preference of populations sampled in 2008 with the addition of Tulip Tree. ........................................................................................................ 211 3 13 Oviposition preference according to region in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone in 2008 with the addition of Tulip Tree. ........................................ 212 4 1 Male P. glaucus photographed at Cedar Key, Fl collecting site. ....................... 309 4 2 Total number of P. glaucus captured per month throughout investigations in 2007 and 2008. ................................................................................................. 310 4 3 Average monthly temperatures from 19712000 at specific locations encompassing the collecting transect. .............................................................. 311 4 4 Number of host plants available for P. glaucus in Florida. ................................ 312 4 5 Hypothetical correlation of P. glaucus color and temperature. ......................... 313 4 6 Depicted example of potential influence of host plant availability on average adult P. glaucus phenotype within a population. ............................................... 314

PAGE 19

19 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 POPULATION BIOLOGY OF TWO EASTERN TIGER SWALLOWTAIL SUBSPECIES ( PAPILIO ( PTEROURUS) GLAUCUS L. AND P G. MAYNARDI GAUTHIER) (LEPIDOPTERA:PAPILIONIDAE) AND ITS CORRELATION TO THE NORTHERN FLORIDA SUTURE ZONE By Matthew Steven Lehnert August 2010 Chair: Thomas C. Emmel Major: Entomology and Nematology The rising sea levels during interglacial periods of the Pleistocene Epoch impacted the Florida and Georgia fauna by creating a chain of islands of Florida, isolating the populations of fauna that r esided there. As sea levels rec eded, once disjunct populations came into secondary contact forming multiple hybrid zones and creating the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Although many hybrid zones within this suture have been investigated, no previous studies have focused on two putative subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail ( Papilio glaucus glaucus and P. g. ma ynardi ) within and near this region, to determine any relationship with the suture zone. The purpose of this investigation was to study morphological (color and wing measurements) and ecological (oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight) characters of P. glaucus populations in the southern US to determine how these subspecies differ and if there is a divergence in character traits that occurs within the suture zone. P henotypic plasticity of P. glaucus was also studied to determine if temperature and/or host plant influence the unique morphology (larger wing size, orange hue) of the maynardi subspecies.

PAGE 20

20 Results from this investigation reveal a transition in P. glaucus morphological characters that overlaps the NorthernFlor ida Suture Zone. Papilio glaucus populations south of the suture zone have morphological characters that represent the maynardi subspecies, whereas populations north of the suture zone are representative of the glaucus subspecies. I n addition, the color analysis revealed that specimens are more orange during the summer and fall flight period than the more yellow spring flight period. The oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupal weight studies suggested that the maynardi subspecies has a stronger preference for Sweetbay when compared to the northern glaucus subspecies, but still maintains a high preference for host plants not locally available. Phenotypic plasticity experiments revealed that host plant and temperature are not responsible for the morphological characteristics that distinguish either subspecies, but the seasonal increase in temperature may be responsible for the subtle color changes observed in populations over time from spring to fall From this study, it is suggested that southern populations of P. glaucus were likely impacted evolutionarily by the geological events that shaped the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW, O BJECTIVES, AND JUSTI FICATION A Brief History of Hybridization, Hybrid Zones, and Suture Zone Theory The phenomenon of hybridization is a major component of evolutionary biology because it represents incomplete speciation. The term hybridization has had numerous liberal and conservative definitions (correlated to how an author defines a species), but for the purpose of this investigation, hybridization refers to the interbreeding of individuals, regardless of taxonomic status, from what are likely genetically distinct populations, as defined by Rhymer and Simberloff (1996). A regi on where two distinct parental types (genetically distinct populations) meet and exchange genes producing offspring of mixed ancestry is known as a hybrid zone ( Mallet and Barton 1989). Hybrid zones represent a geographical band of genotypic change from o ne parental type to the next, sometimes coupled with a substantial change in phenotypic characters (Jiggins and Mallet, 2000; Collins, 2007). Hybrid zones are appropriately referred to as natural laboratories for studying the preand post zygotic reproduc tive isolating mechanisms associated with divergence patterns in speciation and the stability of species genetic integrity (Mayr, 1963; Hewitt, 1988; Collins et al., 1993; Moritz et al., 2009) These uniqu e areas encourage investigation, partly because th ey provide an area where one can witness evolution in action, lending an enormous contribution to our current understanding of evolution and its numerous facets The occurrence of hybridization has long been realized in many different organisms. Dating back to 1757, Linnaeus demonstrated hybridization to prove sexual reproduction in plants by crossing two species of goats beard, Tragopogon porrifolius and T. pratensis ( Burke and Rieseberg, 2000 ). Linnaeus used this artificial hybrid cross

PAGE 22

22 to imply hybridiz ation as a common method for the production of new species in nature, which was later refuted by Koelreuter in 1766. Koelreuter revealed that hybrid crossings commonly resulted in sterility, and that the intermediate morphology observed in hybrid offspring resembling both interbreeding parents is typically lost with a continuation of reproductive crossing of interbred offspring, eventually resorting in the restoration of one of the parental types phenotype (Burke and Riesber, 2001; Howard et al., 2003). The st udy of artificial hybridization, defined here as human manipulation and/or intervention to produce hybrid offspring in a laboratory, continued throughout the remainder of the 18th and 19th century, particularly with plants, but its application to evolutionary biology and population dynamics remained uninvestigated until the early 20th century During this time period, researchers began to apply their knowledge of successfully producing artificial hybrids in a laboratory to agriculture, and began to hypothesize why hybrids were not more common in nature (Howard et al., 2003) This fundamental question was addressed by Ostenfeld (1927), who suggested that the rarity of natural hybridization was due to decreased vigor of hybrid offspring when compared to parental types, and that hybrids commonly backcrossed with parental types leaving few diagnostic characteristics unique to hybrid offspring. Fortunately, the current surge in advancement of molecular techniques has granted us the ability to detect hybrid introgression in individuals and populations that lack obvious morphological or phenotypic uniqueness (Sperling, 1990, 2003; Seehausen, 2004). Hybridization research was continued with groundbreaking investigations led by Wilhelm Meise and Edgar Anderson. Me ise investigated avian hybrid zones ( Corvus sp.) in Europe, where his research concluded that there is an increase in morphological

PAGE 23

23 variation in areas where separate species are living in parapatry Up to this point in time, hybridization research had been primarily restricted to studying sympatric populations of closely related species or sister species (Howard et al., 2003) Meises work examined characters of the morphological phenotype, such as beak shape in parapatric populations of different races. He concluded that the production of hybrid populations could arise due to contact between formerly disjunct populations (Howard et al. 2003). This research was further complemented by the investigations of introgressive hybr idization from Anderson and Hubri cht (1938), revealing that new characters can be introduced into parental populations through backcrosses of hybridized individuals with parental types The combination of introgressive hybridization coupled with the stability of parental populations and t he environment that these populations inhabit provided a fundamental template explaining why hybrid individuals were rather rare in nature (Anderson, 1948). It was suggested by Anderson (1948) that the range of parental populations were limited by their habitat, and that areas where hybrids are found is where two separate habitats containing two separate populations meet. The resulting heterogeneous or intermediate habitat would be the only place where the hybridized individuals will not be completely outco mpeted by the parental types. Anderson (1948) argued that these heterogeneous habitats are very rare and unstable; therefore, only the offspring of hybrid individuals with parental types (introgressive hybridization) would be able to compete with individua ls from the parental populations (Howard et al., 2003). In addition, Anderson proclaimed that hybridized populations may stabilize in recently joined or disturbed areas.

PAGE 24

24 Investigations of hybridization were propelled into the spotlight in the mid20th century with publications by Theodosius Dobzhansky. Much of todays understandings of hybridization are a direct result of Dobzhanskys research with Drosophila sp. and his subsequent wr itings (such as Dobzhansky ; 1937, 1940, 1973; Patterson and Dobzhansky, 1945). Dobzhansk y acknowledged the importance of understanding the forces that not only contribute to the hybridization of separate biological entities, therefore lacking a prezygotic reproductive isolating mechanism such as reinforcement, but also the for ces that contribute to the maintenance of areas where hybrid offspring occur (post zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms). Post zygotic barriers can be considered a mechanism that controls the stability of a hybrid zone, and include gamete or zygote m ortality and a lack of hybrid fitness (v itality, sterility, fecundity, or sterility), whereas reinforcement can be considered an important pre zygotic barrier limiting hybridization ( Dobzhansky, 1940; Blair, 1955; Howard, 1993). T he process of reinforcement is a positive selection of genetic or other factors, such as morphologically incompatible genitalia and/or allochronic eclosion and flight periods between species in Lepidoptera. Compatibility of any of these factors contributes to successful int raspecif ic mating and prevents interspecific hybridization in hybrid zones ( Dobzhansky, 1940; Howard, 1993) Hybrid zones can be viewed as an area where post zygotic barriers exist, but the prezygotic barriers are still forming. Dobzhansky concluded from his res earch that hybrid zones (areas where hybridization occurs) form from secondary contact of populations that had previously lived in sympatry, but recently speciated or diverged in allopatry, evolving some mode of a post zygotic reproductive isolating mechanism

PAGE 25

25 Suture Zones As the study of hybrid zones progressed, it became evident that many hybrid zones were clustered in particular geographical areas, some overlapping others. Mayr (1963) referred to these areas interchangeably as hybrid zones and hybrid belts, but these areas are currently referred to as suture zones ( Remington, 1968) As defined by Remington (1968), a suture zone is a band whether narrow or broad, of geographic overlap between major biotic assemblages, including some pairs of species or semispecies which hybridize in the zone. In other words, a suture zone is an area where multiple individual hybrid zones of interbreeding pairs overlap (Swenson, 2006; Swenson and Howard, 2004, 2005). Suture zones have been mapped or are suspected to exist on nearly every continent except Antarctica (Remington, 1968; Whinnett et al., 2005; Moritz et al., 2009), but the North American suture zones have historically received the most attention. The extent of this attention is likely attributable to the f act that these are the suture zones Remington studied to publish his landmark paper. Within North America (Nearctic region), Remington divided the suture zones into 2 primary categories: major and minor suture zones. The 6 major zones are the NortheasternCentral suture zone (I), the Northern Florida suture zone (II), the Central Texas suture zone (III), the Rocky MountainEastern suture zone (IV), the NorthernRocky Mountain suture zone (V), and the Pacific Rocky Mountain suture zone (VI). Remington specul ated that there may be another major suture zone along the arctic treeline, but currently a lack of sampling in this region has prevented any firm conclusions. In addition, at least 7 minor suture zones were mapped within North America (Remington, 1968) (Figure 11) The Northern Florida suture zone (II) will be the focus of most of this investigation.

PAGE 26

26 One of the most important aspects of suture zone theory is that the multiple hybrid zones within the suture zone may have formed due to a similar biotic or abiotic event(s) influencing species divergence but i t is difficult to determine when these events occurred. Remington (1968) admits that his preliminary thoughts were that glacier movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (app. 10,000 years ago) created refugia and population isolation, and the subsequent melting of these glaciers brought these fragmented populations into secondary contact creating the hybrid zones. According to Remington, the problem with this hypothesis, termed the Pleistocene refuge hypothesis ( Haffer, 1969; Whinnett et al., 2005), is that the hybrid zones likely produced by the glacier movement during the Pleistocene Epoch dissolved long ago, resulting in either complete speciation (if enough genetic differences accumulated during isolatio n before secondary contact) or a cline (genetic differences were not great enough to prevent full reproductive compatibilities producing a gradient of genetic/phenotypic characters throughout a continuous population, i.e. parapatric differentiation) ( Endl er, 1977). Remington, therefore, believed that the current suture zones evolved recently (less than 2,000 years ago), perhaps as a direct response to human encroachment/habitat destruction (Remington, 1968). Although it is known that humans have had an impact on organism distribution patterns and subsequent hybridization, molecular evidence has shown that divergence time estimates with some hybridizing species within a suture zone did occur during the Pleistocene Epoch (Smith and Farrell, 2005; Whinnett et al., 2005). Since Remingtons extensive investigation, suture zones have been a hot topic for evolutionary biologists. Swenson and Howard (2004 and 2005) examined suture zone

PAGE 27

27 theory using geographic information system (GIS) and statistical approaches and f ound highly supportive evidence that suture zones do exist in North America. Sutures zone theory has also been applied to aquatic systems, although the biogeographical events that formed them are likely different than those in terrestrial systems. Formation of Suture Zones and the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone The Quaternary Period is divided into two epochs: The Pleistocene Epoch, which occurred from 1.8 million year ago to 10,000 years ago ( commonly referred to as the Ice Age ) and the Holocene Epoch, whic h started 10,000 years ago to the present. During the Pleistocene Epoch there were great fluctuations of the Earths temperatures creating at least four great glacial periods ( Lane, 1994). Martin and Harrell (1957) commented that during the peak of these glacier periods, many organisms took refuge in Mexico and Florida. During this time, sea levels dropped considerably, by as much as 400 feet below current sea level, producing a much larger peninsular Florida land mass than what is seen today ( Lane, 1994). Of course, as glaciers retreated during the interglacial periods (warming periods) of the Pleistocene Epoch, sea levels rose to much higher elevations than today, by as much as 150 feet above the current sea level ( Lane, 1994; Neill, 1957 ). As previously mentioned, glacier movement during the Pleistocene probably had a substantial, if not primary, impact on many of the North American suture zones. Population communities entering fragmentation during glacier movement, and eventually leading to secondary co ntact by the retreat or melting of glaciers is well illustrated by Remington (1968) and discussed by Moritz et al. (2009), Whinnett et al. (2005), Smith and Farrell (2005), Swenson and Howard (2004 and 2005), Knowles and Richards (2005), Swenson (2006), and Hewitt (1996). Although the North American

PAGE 28

28 suture zones were impacted by glacier movement, the NorthernFlorida suture zone was likely impacted by the fluctuating sea level. The rising sea levels around peninsular Florida during the interglacial periods of the Pleisto cene Epoch created a water barrier separating Florida from the rest of the continental mainland. This water barrier, which has been called the Suwannee Strai t (sometimes used in papers referring to different time periods more distant in the past, such as the Oligocene or Miocene, rather than the Pleistocene Epoch) ( Neill, 1957 ; Webb, 1990), connected the Atlantic Ocean just south of the Florida/Georgia border to the Gulf of Mexico, effectively creating a chain of islands near the center of present day Florida. Looking at current elevations of Florida ( Lane, 1994), and the fossil record ( Clench and Turner, 1956; Webb, 1990), it is accepted that the warmest interglacial period during the Pleistocene Epoch, thus the highest sea level, created a large island in Central Florida with various small islands distributed northward (Figure 1 2). It is very likely that these islands served as a refuge to terrestrial organisms as sea levels rose during the interglacial periods, and in turn isolated and fr agmented the populations of these organisms from the remainder of the continent. Reproductive isolation due to fragmentation of populations is a primary component of suture zone theory and to evolutionary theory in general. Previously sympatric populations located near the Florida/Georgia border separated into island populations are subjected to a lack of gene flow from the continental populations, and could have been completely reproductively isolated, allowing genetic differences to accumulate in each population. Receding sea levels followed by secondary contact of populations along the Florida/Georgia border may create d hybrid zones (or cline s, depending on the

PAGE 29

29 amount of genetic differences and preand/or post zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms accumulated), thus creating the NorthernFlorida suture zone (illustrated in Figure 1 3). Numerous hybrid zones have been determined to reside within or partially overlap the NorthernFlorida suture zone. Remington (1968) listed the known hybridizing and th e suspected hybridizing pairs that hybridize within this suture zone. The known and suspected Lepidoptera listed by Remington to hybridize in the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone have been outlined in Table 11 Interestingly, all of the known hybridizing Lepi doptera within the NorthernFlorida suture zone at the time of Remingtons manuscript are subspecies, but the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail subspecies that may overlap this suture zone are absent from Remington's list. The ultimate purpose of this investigati on is to determine if the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail butterfly subspecies comprising Papilio ( Pterourus ) glaucus glaucus and P. g. maynardi populations in the southeastern US have divergence patterns that correlate to and overlap the NorthernFlorida suture zone. Species and Subspecies Definition The nomenclature of Tiger Swallowtail butterflies, particularly at the Generic and Subgeneric level, is disputable. Therefore, it is important at this point to note what I accept as a species definition and what constitutes as a subspecies, and these opinions will be used throughout this writing. The accumulating number of publications representing ideologies of species definitions is not the focus of this investigation, and only my opinions of the most relevant defi nitions follow. I find that many definitions, including the widely used biological species concept -that a species is an entity that is reproductively isolated from other species that may or may not come into contact with it

PAGE 30

30 (Mayr, 1963) -to be a bit l imited. As mentioned by Sokal and Crovello (1970) the biological species definition is typically restricted to the application of morphometrics to determine species uniqueness, lending to assumptions that copulation may or may not occur. More importantly, the biological species definition does not look at a species as an evolutionary unit, but instead looks at populations at a snapshot moment in time. When studying evolutionary biology, perhaps the phylogenetic species concept is more appropriate (Donoghue, 1985). Here, species are defined as the smallest diagnosable group of individuals within which there is a similar ancestor and can be distinguished from other such groups ( Cracraft, 1982). Monophyly is the emphasis of the phylogenetic species concept, which has been divided into two broad categories: species defined by character based concepts, and species defined by history based concepts (Donoghue, 1985; Baum and Donoghue, 1995). The former concept uses characters of a population to determine pattern cladistics, or reconstructing hierarchal distributions of characters. The latter may be a more appropriate use of the phylogenetic species concept because it determines a species evolutionary history and relationship with other species (Baum and Donoghue, 1995). Although the phylogenetic species concept gives a more relaxed definition for species when compared to the biological species concept, it may be too relaxed. Under this definition, as long as a population has some distinct and heritable property of the genome, the population could represent a new species, regardless whether the populations in question are living in allopatry or sympatry. Ultimately, using the phylogenetic species concept results in a correlation between species recognition and what m olecular markers were used for the distinction (Mallet, 1995; Sperling, 2003).

PAGE 31

31 Of the numerous definitions of species, I tend to agree most with Sperlings (2003) genomic integrity species definition. Sperling (2003) notes that although the phylogenetic sp ecies concept which m ay use a single heritable trait such as an allele substitution at one part icular locus may be useful for distinguishing populations living in sympatry, it is an impractical way of classifying allopatric populations. Instead, when using molecular data sets to determine phylogenetic positioning of populations, the overall genetic divergences for an allopatric population should be equivalent to the overall genetic divergences of sympatric populations representing closely related species (i .e. sister species). This criterion, combined with a wide range of other ecological, behavioral, and morphological characters should be used when defining species. In addition, under the genomic integrity species definition, allopatric and parapatric populations classified as species maintain species status even if genes are occasionally exchanged with other populations. This is much less restrictive than the biological species concept and more applicable to some organisms such as butterflies which have a reputation for consistently testing species concepts due to the large amount of natural and artificial hybridization. For the present study, a definition for subspecies is necessary. T he term subspecies is often referred to interchangeably as a race, depending on ones acceptance of using subspecies ( Futuyma, 1986; Collins 2007). Differences within subspecies should be more prevalent than differences within races (Templeton, 1998 ). Using subspecies as a taxonomical status is not readily accepted amongst the scienti fic community because many taxa with a subspecific name are arbitrarily identified as a particular morph along a cline, such as wing color in butterflies or having/lacking stripes

PAGE 32

32 in snakes, and are deficient in intensive comparative ecologic al or molecular studies ( Patten and Unitt, 2002). Also, a subspecies diagnosis may be misleading when understanding evolutionary patterns ( Cicera and Johnson, 2006). Smith et al. (1997) described a subspecies as a population of individuals that have a geographical distinction coupled with genetic differentiation. A s pointed out by Templeton (1998), this definition lacks fundamental boundaries and parameters that could arguably result in an overabundance of taxa acquiring the subspecies status, because many species consist of populations with at least some small degree of genetic differences which likely regularly fluctuate over short time due to gene flow. A more reasonable and conserved approach which I agree with, is to define a subspeci e s as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species (a monophyletic lineage) ( Shaffer and McKnight, 1996; Templeton, 1998). According to this definition, subspecies must have a degree of genetic differentiation that has persisted for long periods of time (a historical c ontinuity) from a lack of genetic exchange due to some type of barrier (Templeton, 1998). A historical continuity of a subspecies would likely contribute to character differences other than genetic differences alone (such as morphological or ecological), as one set of characters should not be used to establish a taxon as a subspecies. Patton and Unitt (2002) used the 75% rule criteria for establishing subspecies within Sage Sparrows, Amphispiza belli in which 75% of a diagnosable character of a population must be unique to that particular population when compared to 99% of other populations. This provides a numerical or quantitative threshold that can be applied for the diagnosis of subspecies. A combination of the 75% rule with recognition of a subspec ies as a monophyletic lineage is a convenient way of defining

PAGE 33

33 populations as subspecies. As mentioned before, one set of diagnosable characters should not distinguish one species from another, and it should be no different when identifying a subspecies. S ubspecies, as a taxonomic entity, should be studied for numerous purposes including evolutionary biology, geographic variation, dispersal, and should be recognized for conservation purposes (Johnson et al., 1998) Subspecies recognized as a monophyletic gr oup within a species suggest population uniqueness, a qualification when conservation measures are needed to maintain biodiversity. Studying subspecies may also reveal cryptic species. For example, the classification of some North American rat snakes subsp ecies, Elaphe obsolet a revealed what are likely completely separate species based on a comparison of the cytochrome b gene and mitochondrial DNA (Burbrink et al., 2000) An important if not obvious component of subspecies is that they can readily mate, pr oducing fertile offspring with other subspecies within the same species; in Lepidoptera, this would suggest a lack of differences in the scleritorized structures of genitalia, or in behavioral/ecological characteristics The Tiger Swallowtail Group The Ti ger Swallowtail butterflies ( Papilio subgenus= Pterourus Scopoli 1777) (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae: Papilionini) are a group of butterflies native to North America The common name Tiger Swallowtail was given to these butterflies due to the appearance of black tiger stripes that strongly contrast to the yellow background on their wings The primary exception to this phenotype is the genetically determined melanic form observed in females of the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio glaucus L. and the Mexican Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio alexiares Hoppfer, and their correlated subspecies, where the yellow pigment is replaced by a dark brown or black color

PAGE 34

34 ( Brower, 1959a; Clarke and Sheppard, 1959, 1962; Scriber and Evans, 1988; Scriber, 1996; Scriber et al., 1996) (Figure 1 4) Tiger Swallowtails, like all butterflies, reside in the Order Lepidoptera, a Latin term that literally translates to scaled wing; describing the scales that; through structure, pigmentation, and reflection, provide the enormous range of color and patterns we see on the wings of butterflies and moths Tiger Swallowtail s are in the Family Papilionidae, which is comprised of three Subfamilies: Baroniinae (consisting of one species, Baronia brevicornis Salvin), Parnassiinae (consisting of t wo Tribes and eight Genera), and Papilioninae (consisting of four Tribes and 15 Genera) according to Miller (1987) and outlined again by Scriber (1995) The Papilioninae represent the group of butterflies commonly known as Swallowtail butterflies, aptly named for the frequent extension of the M3 vein on their hindwings Currently, the number of species that represent Papilionidae is unknown and varies depending on species definitions ( Mayr, 1942, 1963; Sperling, 2003), which is further complicated by fact ors such as natural hybri dr dization and reproductive compatibility of different species reared in captivity that live in allopatry in the wild (Sperling, 1990; Scriber 1995) The most liberal estimate of 573 species belonging to the Family Papilionidae ( C ollins and Morris, 1985) does not include recently described species, such as Papilio canadensis Rothschild and Jordan 1906 (Hagen et al., 1991) and Papilio appalachiensis Pavulaan and Wright 2002 (Pavulaan and Wright, 2002) ; both are species belonging to the Tiger Swallowtail group. More recent estimates regarding the number of species residing in Papilionidae are 561 (Miller, 1987) and 551 (Zakharov et al., 2004); these numbers will undoubtedly change as new species definitions and techniques arise elucidating species divergence

PAGE 35

35 patterns Tiger Swallowtails reside in the genus Papilio a Latin term used by Linnaeus (1758) that literally means butterfly, which today comprises more than 200 recognized species ( Zakharov et al., 2004). Tiger Swallowtail bu tterflies have a large range, occupying most of North America ( Brower, 1959a; Scriber, 1996) Except for the recent additions of Papilio canadensis and Papilio appalachiensis (which were once synonymous with Papilio glaucus ) to the Tiger Swallowtail group, relatively little has changed at the species level in taxonomic status since the five species of Tiger Swallowtail butterflies were appropriately verified by Brower ( 1959a, 1959b) using color, morphology, shape and structure of genitalia, and ecological and physiological properties Four of the five Tiger Swallowtail species recognized by Brower (1959a) are: the Western Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio rutulus Lucas 1852 and the Pale Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio eurymedon Lucas 1852, which occupy much of the Western US; the TwoTailed Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio multicaudatus W.F. Kirby 1884, which has a large range that extends throughout much of the Western US south through Mexico, where its range is partly sympatric with the Mexican Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio ale xiares Hoppfer 1866. The relationship of these butterflies with one another is interesting, but will not be discussed in great detail here because it is not the focus of this investigation. Instead, this investigation will focus on the Tiger Swallowtail po pulations found in the Southeastern US. The fifth species of Tiger Swallowtail verified by Brower (1959a, 1959b) is the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio glaucus L. which at the time was considered to have a large occupancy of most of the US east of the Rocky Mountains, Canada, and parts of Alaska The taxonomic status of P. glaucus has changed considerably in recent years.

PAGE 36

36 Only 20 years before this writing, these butterflies and their related subspecies were all considered to be of the same species, the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio ( Pterourus ) glaucus L. 1758. Currently, three species of Tiger Swallowtail butterfly have been identified in a split of the historical Eastern Tiger Swallowtail populations east of the Rocky Mountains: Papilio canadensis Rothschild & Jordan 1906, found from Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York north into Canada and parts of Alaska; Papilio glaucus L. 1758, occurring from Michigan to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico west to the Rocky Mountains ; and Papilio appalachiensis Pavulaan and Wright 2002, which is found in the Appalachian Mountain regions. The interesting taxonomic history of the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail is presented in the following pages The Eastern Tiger Swallowtail has the prestigious honor as the first butterfly d epicted in a drawing from The New World and brought back to Europe, where naturalists likely reveled at the biodiversity North America has to offer As noted by other authors, the drawing was composed in 1587 by John White, the commander of Sir Walter Rale ighs 3rd expedition to America, who was given a male specimen of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail by a local Native American boy while visiting an area referred to then as Virginia but is now called Roanoke Island, North Carolina (Scriber, 1996; Pavulaan and Wright, 2002) White depicted the butterfly in a stylized water coloring, which was later replicated by Thomas Moffett in London by means of a woodcut construction and publication in Insectorium sive Minimorum Animalium Theatrum (1634) (Figure 1 5) The E astern Tiger Swallowtail was mentioned in later publications by Merret (1666), Petiver (1699), and Catesby (1736), where it was given preLinnaean names such as Papilio Caudatus, luteus, maximus, Virginianus, and Papilio caudatus maximus,

PAGE 37

37 Carolinianus, and acquired a mouthful of a common name, Moffets great yellow and black Virginia Butterfly (Pavulaan and Wright, 2002). The current scientific nomenclature for the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio glaucus was arranged by Linnaeus in 1758, when he descr ibed a dark morph female. It was unknown at the time that the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail has a polymorphic phenotype and subsequently resulted with the species acquiring three more specific epithets: Papilio antilochus Linnaeus 1758, referring to a yellow m ale, Papilio turnus Linnaeus 1771, the yellow form female, which was likely thought to be a different species than the yellow male probably due to the abundance of blue scales found on the distal portion of the anterior side of the hindwing, and Papilio al cidamas Cramer 1775, which is also a yellow male. It is unclear to this author what differentiated Papilio antilochus from Papilio alcidamas justifying the distinct epithet, except for maybe locality, as Cramer described the specimen as being collected in Jamaica ( and additionally added ...but also can be found from New York to Carolina) (Cramer, 1775) Tiger Swallowtails are not found in Jamaica or the remainder of the West Indies, which is why this locality record seems to be a bit of an enigma and why Rothschild and Jordan (1906) modified the locality of this butterfly to New York, Carolina (Pavulaan and Wright, 2002) Due to a lack of type specimens (and specific locality for described species), neotypes of the species mentioned above were collected and designated by Pavulaan and Wright (2002) from the same area inhabited by John Whites crew in 1587, and were located at the Museum of the Hemispheres, Goose Creek, South Carolina, but are now at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity (MG CL) It

PAGE 38

38 is important to note that these neotypes fall outside the range of other closely related Tiger Swallowtail species and subspecies (Pavulaan and Wright, 2002) (Figure 1 6). Throughout most of the 20th Century, three parapatric subspecies were recognized to make up the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail species group: Papilio glaucus glaucus L. which occupies much of the Eastern US occurring from Michigan to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico ; Papilio glaucus canadensis Rothschild & Jordan 1906, found from Michiga n and Wisconsin and other northern States throughout al l of Canada and parts of Alaska; and Papilio glaucus australis Maynard 1891, which has a smaller range, only found in the extreme s outheastern portion of North America (Ritland and Scriber, 1985; Scrib er, 1986; Rockey et al., 1987; Hagen, 1990; Tyler et al., 1994) Numerous morphological, physiological, and ecological differences between the two northern subspecies, Papilio glaucus canadensis and Papilio glaucus glaucus encouraged several thorough inv estigations comparing the relationship of these butterflies (Remington, 1968; Ritland and Scriber, 1985; Luebke et al., 1988; Scriber, 1988; Hagen, 1990; Scriber, 1990; Scriber, 1991), eventually leading to the elevation of Papilio glaucus canadensis to it s current species status, Papilio canadensis Rothschild and Jordan 1906 ( Hagen et al., 1991). The research investigating the relationships of these two species, both before and after species divergence recognition, contributed a vast amount of knowledge to our current understanding of many evolutionary and biological processes, such as introgressive hybridization and the factors contributing to hybrid zone stability (Scriber, 2002). Importantly, the methods used in comparing and delineating these two species of butterflies provided a template, or, perhaps more appropriately put, a set of protocols, that will be used (with alterations and additions)

PAGE 39

39 throughout this investigation of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail populations inhabiting the southeastern US. Although three subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail were recognized throughout most of the 20th Century, the dissimilarities between the two northern subspecies received the vast majority of attention, leaving the southern subspecies relatively unstudied. Curio usly, even Remingtons famous paper on suture zone theory (1968) recognized hybridization of Papilio glaucus canadensis with Papilio glaucus glaucus in the Northeas tern Central Suture Zone (Zone I ), but omitted the relationship and possible hybridization of Papilio glaucus glaucus and Papilio glaucus australis in the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone (Zone II) It is unclear to this author why the relationship of the two southern subspecies was omitted from this study considering the range of these parapatric s ubspecies had been assumed from previous range estimates to overlap along the Northern Florida Suture Zone before Remingtons paper was published. Tiger Swallowtails and Suture Zones The tiger swallowtail butterflies represent an excellent group for study ing suture zones due to their enormous range that overlaps many suture zones Remington (1968) states that the known hybridizing tiger swallowtail species that overlap suture zones are Papilio glaucus canadensis x P. g. glaucus (NortheasternCentral Sutur e Zone), Papilio rutulus x P. glaucus (Rocky MountainEastern SutureZone), and Papilio g. canadensis x P. rutulus (Northern Cascade SutureZone) As previously mentioned, Papilio glaucus canadensis was elevated to species level ( Hagen et al., 1991) The only unconfirmed, but suspected occasionally hybridizing pair of tiger swallowtails mentioned by

PAGE 40

40 Remington (1968) is Papilio glaucus x P. multicaudatus in the Central Texas SutureZone. Using tiger swallowtail distribution maps produced by Brower (1959 a ) and Scriber (1996) and maps of North American suture zones produced by Remington (1968), a new map was created overlaying the two maps to display which species and subspecies groups overlap suture zones (Figure 1 7). The distribution of Papilio appalachiensis ( Pavulaan and Wright, 2002) was also added to the map for completeness. In addition, the numerous subspecies of tiger swallowtail butterflies identified since Remingtons publication may also have an evolutionary relationship with suture zones. Interesti ngly, many of these subspecies, particularly in the P. multicaudatus group, are distinguished from each other based on similar characteristics that distinguish the P. glaucus susbspecies: color and size (Austin and Emmel, 1998). Papilio rutulus form arizonensis also displays these same distinguishing characteristics, but this form has not been formally designated as a subspecies. As previously stated, it is unclear why Remington (1968) did not include the subspecies P. g. glaucus and P. g. maynardi as potentially hybridizing subspecies in the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Papilio glaucus maynardi is an understudied butterfly requiring further investigation to elucidate its evolutionary relationship with other tiger swallowtail species, particularly P. g. gla ucus which is the central purpose of this study. It is important to reiterate and clarify that the radiation of tiger swallowtail butterflies was likely impacted by the Pleistocene Epoch, but it is unclear at this time if speciation, for instance in the c ommon ancestor of P. canadensis and P. glaucus occurred through genetic drift or novel selection pressures in isolated populations. As pointed out by

PAGE 41

41 Scriber (2002) and Losos et al. (1997), novel selection pressures can rapidly encourage reproductive isol ation and subsequent speciation. Papilio gla ucus m aynardi a Southern Subspecies of Tiger Swallowtail Taxonomic S tatus Maynard (1891) was the first to give these southern populations of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail an official taxonomic nomenclatural designat ion, Papilio turnus australis Maynard 1891. Papilio turnus australis was renamed Papilio glaucus australis once the dark morph females (= glaucus ) were determined to be the same species as the yellow females (= turnus ). The nomenclature for Papilio glaucus australis remained unchanged until it was discovered that the australis name is a preoccupied name. Papilio rumina australis Esper, 1781, was the first butterfly using the term australis coupled with the Genus Papilio Due to the preoccupied nomenclature, P apilio glaucus australis Maynard 1891 was renamed Papilio glaucus maynardi Gauthier 1984, which gives recognition to Maynard for first naming the butterfly and to Gauthier for revealing the preoccupied name ( Warren et al., 2010). Throughout the remainder of this investigation, Papi l io glaucus australis will be referred to by its proper name, Papilio glaucus maynardi I dentification Eastern Tiger Swallowtails in the southeastern US have a distinct morphology when compared to other northern populations (Figur e 1 8). Maynard (1891) described Papilio glaucus maynardi as being similar to typical P. turnus but much darker in color, the yellow being as dark as that of P. cresphontes and there is very little blue above. Maynard was referring to the blue near the distal margins of the dorsal hindwing. Maynard also adds that the size of the butterfly is large, ochraceous in color, and the bandings are heavy.

PAGE 42

42 Being large and darker in yellow than other Papilio glaucus populations is really the only distinguishing morphological characteristic of P. g. maynardi This poses an obvious problem when distinguishing one subspecies of t iger swallowtail from the other: what is the limiting numerical point where the forewing measurement is large enough for that individual to be considered the maynardi subspecies? Additionally, color, when addressed, can be a relative measurement; what is orangeyellow to one person may be yellow orange to another, and these are two very different colors Perhaps more importantly is there a geographic cut off point for these phenotypes, or does the phenotype of the northern populations gradually blend into the phenotype of southern populations perhaps representing a clinal phenotype instead of hybrid zone? Distribu tion Papilio g. maynardi i s restricted to the southeast US; therefore, location of wild captured s pecimens can also be used as a distinguishing characteri stic, depending on how homogenous the southern populations are. The actual distribution of P. g. maynardi is unknown. There have been numerous varying references to its range, such as residing only in Florida (Maynard, 1891; Brower, 1959a; Lindroth et al., 1988a ), but also ranging into Georgia (Harris, 1972), Alabama and Mississippi (Mather and Mather, 1985), North Carolina (Forbes 1960), Texas (Scriber, 1986), or the entire Gulf C oast States (Howe, 1975). From these reports, the australis subspecies likely occurs throughout these areas, being less common in the northern States, but becoming increasingly more frequent southward thr ough Florida. It is hoped that this investigation will elucidate the distribution of this butterfly.

PAGE 43

43 Objectives and Hypothesis The relationship of Papilio glaucus maynardi with P g glaucus is unknown. The only publications this author is aware of that st udied these subspecies directly was written by Scriber (1986) and Bossart and Scriber (1995a and 1995b) and these treatments focused primarily on comparing the ecological monophagy and detoxification ability of the larval stages, oviposition preference, and genetic integrity. Other than this information, these southern populations remain a bit of an enigma. In addition, these studies compared these southern populations to other dis tant populations, rather than to a series of closely grouped populations along a potential transition zone of these subspecies. These authors did not know if a hybrid zone ex ists between the two subspecies, that is, a sharp distinguishable region occupied by hybrids of both parental types. If a hybrid zone does exist this may represent a region where species divergence is currently taking place. Do these southern populations represent a monophyletic lineage that has diverged, at least by some small degree, from the northern subspecies, P. g. glaucus ? As an alternative, these tiger swallowtail populations may represent a cline (or a blend zone) rather than a hybrid zone, which could indicate at least a couple of possibilities: when seeking refuge during high sea levels at some interglacial stage in the Pleistocene, populations in s outhern Florida diverged (larger size, orange hue), but did not diverge to great extent (genotype, genitalia morphology, life history traits, etc.) from the northern populations, thus, resulting in secondary contact that allowed reproduction with no deleterious sideeffects in offspring fertility or viability (which are typically observed in hybrid offspring, i.e. Haldane's rule ). This scenario could have effectively created a zone of secondary contact with no reproductive barriers, which

PAGE 44

44 may have been foll owed by intense introgressive hybridization (unrestrained gene flow) subsequently eliminating the original contact zone and creating a blend zone or cline (Figure 1 9). Another possibility is that the cline represented by these populations is an example o f phenotypic plasticity, and that the environment (temperature, host plant preference, etc.) is causing the change in morphology even though these populations are genotypically identical. If a cline does exist (rather than a hybrid zone), does this cline o verlap the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone? If it does in the absence of phenotypic plasticity this could suggest that the formation of the suture zone did impact these tiger swallowtail popul ations, just not to an extent that would prevent successful reproduction upon secondary contact. If phenotypic plasticity is the cause for the unique morphology of southern populations, is the susceptibility to the effects of the environment unique to southern populations? By this it is meant that the southern populations may possess a gene that can be switched on or off or have extended or shortened gene expression causing these morphological changes, and this gene is unique to the southern populations (i.e. northern populations are always yellow whereas southern populations can represent a spectrum in color from yellow to orange). The presence of a unique gene like this in southern populations would again suggest that there is some significant divergence between populations on opposite sides of a transition zone. Additionally, some or all populations of the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail may have a pleiotropic gene responsible for the increase in size coupled with the orange hues. In order to begin to answer these questions, these southern populations require further inve stigations

PAGE 45

45 elucidating their ecological, morphological, and genetic characters, and comparing these characters to northern populations. Objectives Determine the distribution of Papilio glaucus maynardi and the extent of overlap with southern Papilio glaucus glaucus populations using morphological and color characters. Determine if color or morphometrics differences are diagnosable in hybridized specimens. Determine if there is a shift in oviposition preference that may coincide with availability of host plants in regions where butterflies are sampled. Investigate larval detoxification ability and survival of laboratory reared offspring from wild collected females and to determine if there is any genetic component associated with these variables by rearing ar tificially hybridized offspring. Hybridize (handpair) wild collected males with laboratory reared females to establish if any reproductive isolating mechanisms exist between the two subspecies effectively contributing to a hybrid zone. Rear hybrid larvae to determine viability and fertility. Rear larvae on different host plants at different temperatures to determine if one or both of these factors contributes to the unique morphology of Papilo glaucus maynardi i.e., phenotypic plasticity. Determine if a s hift in any of the above factors overlaps the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Morphometrics Morphometrics (the measurement of morphological characters) are commonly applied for classification purposes and are sometimes useful for the identification of hybri ds specimens within hybid zones (Babik and Rafinski, 2004; Luebke et al., 1988; Hagen et al., 1991; Roe and Sperling, 2007). Morphometrics such as size are also used as a diagnostic tool to determine physiological properties and overall health of organisms (e.g. large body size versus small body size attained when fed a particular food) ( Angelo and Slansky Jr., ) Identifying unique morphological traits can be an essential property when defining species and di lineating closely related taxa.

PAGE 46

46 In the Lepidopt era, assigning unique morphological characteristics is often an essential component for species recognition Genetalia, wing veination, and color pattern are often used for comparing intraand interspecific groups (Fordyce et al., 2002) Although color and wing shape alone can be used to differentiate many of the known Lepidopteran species, other properties, such as measuring the shape of genetalia, have become a primary component for species recognition (Brower 1959a, Lucas et al., 2008). Although genital ic dissections may be an excellent method for distinguishing differences in closely related species, it may be an ineffective method for distinguishing similar looking species in the field or comparing different taxa that readily copulate and thus suggest a lack of or subtle, genitalic variation. Hybridization in the Lepidoptera has been reported from multiple species pairs within many f amilies, but distinguishing hybrids from parental types can be difficult. Morphometric multivariate analyses are typical ly required to distinguish parental types that hybridize and to reveal the hybrid offspring, even with large and showy Hyalophora and Papilio sp p (Collins, 1985, 2007; Luebke et al., 1988; Donovan and Scriber, 2003). As stated by Luebke et al. (1988), dis criminate analysis of individuals and assignment of these individuals to specific taxa require that the reference specimens be of a known identity (standards) and that the unkown individual belongs to a group represented by the standards. The purpose of t his portion of the investigation is to determine if Papilio glaucus glaucus and P. g. maynardi are morphologically distinguishable. The most intensive multivariate analysis of wing morphometrics applied to P. glaucus butterflies that I am aware of is by L uebke et al. (1988) where 15 wing measurements were used to dilineate the hybrid zone of P. glaucus and P. canadensis

PAGE 47

47 in Wisconsin. Although this study accomplished the purpose of determining wing measurements that can be used to differentiate P. glaucus males from P. canadensis males, these measurements are probably irrelevent when comparing the southern populations of P. glaucus of interest in this study. Large size (usually measured in Lepidoptera by forewing length) is one of the diagnosable characteri stics of P. g. maynardi so it is expected that southern populations will have a longer forewing length than northern populations and this is why forewing length will be an important component of the measurements. Although size is an important characteris tic it is necessary to determine other potential diagnosable measurements, as size alone is highly influenced by host plant choice (Scriber, 1984; Luebke et al., 1988) but should remain a valid measurement considering multiple genes control body size (At chley, 1983) Perhaps when drawing conclusions about morphometrics that include overall size it is best to use the average body size or wing length measurements of populations with large samples to compensate for the variation in body size associated with host plant choice. In order to determine other morphological measurements for comparative studies between the subspecies in this investigation, multiple museum specimens of both subspecies will used as standards to determine additional measurements to study. Due to the sexually dimorphic nature of P. glaucus males and females will be analyzed separately. Comparing size (forewing length) of P. glaucus populations in the context of suture zone theory it is expected that the largest wing lengths will be found south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone, and will gradually decrease in length north through the suture zone. Populations of P. glaucus north of the suture zone will have the shortest

PAGE 48

48 wing lengths in this investigation. Although this general trend is expected, it will be interesting to determine if the transition from a large average wing size to a small wing size occurs over a relatively short distance within the suture zone, suggesting size alone may be a diagnosable character dilineating a hybrid zo ne. Color M easurements Color has been used as a tool to study a wide range of ecological and evolutionary parameters, including sexual selection (Dubuc et al., 2009), aposematism (Brower 1958), industrial melanism (Kettlewell, 1961), mimicry (Saito, 2002) and is a readily used attribute of organismal classification to verify species or population properties and subspecies entities which can be important for conservation purposes ( Johnson et al., 1998). Lepidoptera are commonly used to better understand e vo devo patterns by comparing color of butterfly wings and phenotypic plasticity of particular life stages ( Starnecker and Hazel, 1999; Nice and Fordyce, 2006; Otaki, 2008). In general, studies that investigate color are typically hindered in the ability to accurately quantify color. Common methods for quantifying color include simple visual estimation of color with or without the use of a book of color standards for reference such as Munsells (1976) spectrophotometry (Stevens et al., 2007) color softw are such as Adobe Photoshop (Villafuerte and Negro, 1998) and the use of a col orimeter ( Yagiz et al., 2009). It is widely understood that color is difficult to accurately quantify, partially due to color bias of human vision that is strongly dependent on illumination and that color is context dependent Although these methods are commonly used they possess inherint flaws. For instance, a colorimeter is nearly useless when determining and quantifying color var iation. Only specimens that are nearly homogenous in color and that have a nearly flat surface are accurately represented with the use of

PAGE 49

49 colorimeters (Balaban, 2008; Yagiz et al., 2009). Using digital images for color analysis are beneficial in that the photographs can be saved, but using Adobe Phot oshop has limitations when standardizing the image and when quantifying average color of complex images with large color variation. Wh en quantifying color RGB and L*a* b* values are typically used sometimes in conjunction with saturation, intensity, and hue values. RG B ( red, green, blue) are represented by 256 values each, meaning a total of more than 16 million colors (256 x 256 x 256) are possible through various combinations (Balaban, 2008). Although RG B values are commonly used in investigations involv ing color analysis, the colors produced by these values are typically nonuniform and do not correlate well to human vision (Pedreschi et al., 2006). In contrast to RGB values, L*a* b* values do account for the way humans perceive color. The L*a*b* color model is useful in that it produces consistent color values regardless of the device (camera, scanner, etc.) used to create the image (Pedreschi et al., 2006). The L* value represents lightness and ranges on a scale from 0 1 00. The a* and b* values range o n a scale from 120 120. The a* values vary from green (negative values) to red (positive values), and the b* values range from blue (negative values) to yellow (positive values). These three variables are placed together to represent a color that can be readily used in a comparative context to other similar colors. For instance, slightly different L* values (lightness) for the same a* and b* values produce very different colors that can be understood in human perception. The purpose of this portion of the investigation is to use Lenseye software to quantify the wing color

PAGE 50

50 of P. glaucus to establish quantitative color differences between the two subspecies of interest and to map the transition from one subspecies into the other. Lenseye software has been previously used in the food science industry to study the color of various foods, such as Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar and mangoes ( Yagiz et al., 2009; Balaban, 2008), but the application of this software to evolutionary biology is novel. Although the soft ware is capable of a wide variety of color applications, for this study only the L*a*b* values will be assessed. Lenseye is unique in that it analyzes the L*a*b*, RGB, saturation, hue, and intensity of every pixel on a computer screen, it readily standardi zes colors, is capable of analyzing a single image with a wide variety of colors, and produces an easily accessible spreadsheet of the percent of each color of the image and the average L*a*b* values. For this study, Lenseye will be used to quantify and determine the L*a*b* values for P. glaucus wings. As previously mentioned, one of the characteristics that distinguishes P. g. maynardi from the northern P. g. glaucus populations is that they possess a prominent orange color that is not found on the northern yellow individuals. It is unclear at this point why the southern populations are orange rather than yellow and this investigation will provide some insight into this problem Female P. g. maynardi typically appear more orange than the males; therefore, males and females will be analyzed separately. In addition, dark morph females will be analyzed separately from yellow females, as the dark morph females may also show a change in brown and black colors that correspond to subspecies designation. I expect t hat a* values will be larger on average i n southern populations i f P. glaucus populations are correlated to the NorthernFlorida Suture and if the southern

PAGE 51

51 subspecies is in fact more orange than northern specim ens. Positive a* values represent red (the higher the a* value the more red) and by mixing a high a* value with a positive b* value (yellow) the color should become increasingly orange. Within these expectations, populations north of the suture zone will have a lower a* value. Likewise, populations s outh of the suture zone will have a lower b* values (less yellow) than northern populations. It is difficult to hypothesize what differences, if any, there will be between the L* values, as lightness for this species is not mentioned in the literature. In addition, i f populations are stongly correlated to the suture zone, the most southern populations should have a high a* value with relatively little variation. This a* value should not begin to decrease until the suture zone is approached, and the values should be relatively stable with a low a* value north of the suture zone. On the other hand, if these populations represent a cline it is expected that the a* and b* values will gradually change from northern populations to southern populations Ovipositio n P reference Oviposition preference is a major component of ecological and evolutionary systems. Host shifts within and among populations and the specificity of host plants (monophagy, oligophagy, or polyphagy) have an important impact on the spatial dynam ics of a population and the other inhabitants of that ecosystem, i.e. coevolution (Ehrlich and Raven, 1964; Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991; Thompson, 1995; Larsen et al., 2008). Additionally, the host plant selected by the gravid female for oviposition determ ines the fate of that larvas development and her ability to pass on her genes, and could additionally influence species divergence patterns through ovipositon mistakes or regional plasticity due to host plant availability (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991; Raus her, 1995; Mercader and Scriber, 2005 ; Larsen et al., 2008).

PAGE 52

52 Oviposition preference is based on a hierarchal system; a female when confronted with multiple species of plant will oviposit only a few of her eggs on one species of plant, more eggs on a more preferred host plant, and most of her eggs on the most suitable plant for supporting the growth and development of her offspring (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991). A multitude of internal and external factors (Mercador and Scriber, 2005) may be important in determining which host plants are selected and how these plants are chosen. External factors could include the nutritional chemistry of the plant (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991; Feeny, 1995 ), plant morphology ( Rausher, 1978, 1995), allelochemicals (Feeny et al., 1989), thermal contstraints (Scriber and Lederhouse, 1992), and the presence of natural enemies ( Atsatt, 1981; Strong, 1988). Internal factors include health of the gravid female (e. g. age, discussed by Mercador and Scriber 2005) and reproductive history (e.g., time since last mating or last egg laid) (Lederhouse and Scriber, 1987). It is unclear at this time if one of these factors is more important in host plant selection than the other. The process of oviposition can be broadly di vided into three components: (1) a choice in habitat to find a desirable host plant suitable for oviposition; (2) a choice of which plants to land on to determine suitability; and (3) the choice to oviposit or not on the plant (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991; Rausher, 1995). Th e first two components can be grouped together as part of the prealighting stage, maximizing oviposition for the female and survival for larval offspring. The last component is a post alighting stage, choosing a plant that will contribute to rapid larval development and weight gain (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991). As previously mentioned, these choices may be

PAGE 53

53 influenced by a large number of factors, some of which may be more important in some species than others. Visual cues may attract a female to a particu lar plant, but oviposition preference hierarchy is also mediated by chemical cues released by these plants. The presence of particular compounds or a particular mix of compounds and their concentrations may affect and determine a females decision to oviposit or not ( Renwick et al. 19 92). Upon landing on a potential host plant, gravid females drum the plant with tarsal chemoreceptors located on the fifth tarsomere on the foretarsi to determine host plant suitability ( Vaidya, 1969; Nishida, 1995; Rausher, 1995) Numerous oviposition stimulants have been investigated with Papilio sp p such as P. xuthus P. machaon h ippocrates and P. polyxenes asterius that typically use the R utaceae and Umbelliferae plant f amilies, and Atrophaneura alcinous that utilize Ar tistolochiaceae plants (Feeny et al., 1989 ; Nishida, 1995). The females of these species have shown there is a strong response to oviposit only when presented with multiple compounds in specific proportions; i.e. there is no oviposition response from fema les when presented with only a single molecular extract from a preferred host plant (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991; Nishida, 1995; Nakayama et al., 2003). The chemical stimulants for oviposition are complex and vary for each species, but in Papilionidae some g eneral chemical classes include flavonoids, carboxylic acids, zwitterions compounds, H bas e compounds (adenosine), and neutral cyctilos (Nishida, 1995). Importantly, the mixing pot of chemicals in potential host plants serves as the recognition for oviposition on the host plant. This may account for the plant specificity of some species that require an explicit ratio of these chemicals and may also account for

PAGE 54

54 the polyphagous nature of other species where there is more flexibility in chemical components and their ratios (Nishida, 1995). Other lepidopteran species, such as Heliothis virescens (Noctuidae) oviposited on specific plants species when visual cues and olfaction were restricted, suggesting the importance of chemoreception (Ramaswamy, 1987). Plant quality can also be a factor in choosing a suitable place for oviposition. Although a female may identify the correct species of plant for oviposition, the plant may have a disease or could be nutritionally poor due to other environmental conditions which could impact larval survival and development. The genetics of oviposition in some l epidopteran species has been studied but still requires additional investigations. According to Thompson (1995) the Papilio butterflies are so far the only group where the genes responsible for oviposition preference are primarily located on one chromosome. Hybridized offspring of Papilio zelicaon and P. oregonius crosses revealed that one or more loci on the X chromosome in Lepidoptera seem to intrinsically control which plant species a female chooses to oviposit on, and this chromosome works in coordination with other autosomal genes for that female s particular preference resulting in slight shifts in oviposition preference hierarchy (Thompson, 1988; Thompson and Pellmyr 1991; Thompson, 1995). Similar results have been found investigating P. glaucus and P. canadensis hybridization, to be discussed in greater detail below. Additionally, genetically linked fluctuations in the hierarchy of oviposition preference within and among populations have been demonstrated in other insects including Euphydryas editha (Nymphalidae) (Singer et al., 1991). Even if the genetic signature for oviposition is strong, shifts in the hierarchy are known to depend on host plant availability in t he habitat, a case of phenotypic

PAGE 55

55 plasticity ( Scriber and Lederhouse, 1992; Mercader and Scriber, 2005; Mercader and Scriber, 2007). Interestingly, P. zelicaon does not have strong hierarchal fluctuations within and among populations; even though it is ext remely polyphagous utilizing at least 69 plant species (65 of these in the Umbelliferae f amily) and is widespread (Emmel and Shields, 1978; Wehling and Thompson, 1997). Three mechanisms have been proposed to account for the conser vatism seen in this spec ies: (1) large gene flow from other populations could swamp local adaptations; (2) the multiple genes responsible for oviposition preference are coadapted, thus, eliminating local adaptations; and (3) the range of some host plants is limited, therefore many populations lack the selective pressures for altering oviposition preference hierarchy ( Thompson, 1993; Wehling and Thompson, 1997). In comparison, female P. glaucus display variable hierarchical rankings within populations depending on local adaptation and host plant availability (i.e., phenotypic plasticity), but display little variation as a species throughout its range (Mercader and Scriber, 2005). Although a hierarchal system of oviposition preference may exist (hierarchical threshold model), and t his hierarchy represents plants suitable for proper larval development, occasional mistakes are made in which an egg is laid on a plant that does not typically serve as a suitable host plant for larval survival ( Wiklund, 1975; Mercader and Scriber, 2005) These oviposition mistakes on novel host plants potentially serve as the raw material for a host shift which could lead to species divergence (Scriber et al., 1991; Mercader and Scriber, 2008), or could simply be a case of natural selection weeding out unfit individuals (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991).

PAGE 56

56 The relative sequence and impact of behavioral and physiological components on causing oviposition mistakes are unclear at this time. As suggested by Futuyma (1987) and briefly reviewed by Scriber et al. (1991), the behavioral component of gravid females ovipositing on the wrong host plant could precede the physiological adaptations for larval detoxification, and over time selective pressure will contribute to adaptation for the larvae to feed on the novel hos t plant. Reciprocally, the detoxification ability for larvae to feed on the incorrect host plant may be a prerequisite for these oviposition mistakes to take hold, subsequently resulting in a new diet for the species. It seems to this author that the latter explanation is a more convincing argument. In comparison, as in the incorrect theory of evolution by Lamarck (1809), a giraffes neck did not continually grow longer in order to reach and eat leaves high in the canopy, but a random mutation for a long neck occu rred in this species that proved beneficial for reaching these leaves. The same can be thought with oviposition mistakes and larval detoxification ability; either larvae feeding on the novel host plant possess some remnant or ancestral trait for det oxification of the plant or the egg placed on the plant happens to contain a larva that acquired a mutation for detoxification of the novel host plant and through great odds that adult female happened to oviposit that egg on that particular plant. Over mi llions of years of coevolution of angiosperms and insects, such rare events likely occurred numerous times. As mentioned above, another interesting possibility stated by Larsen et al. (2008) is that oviposition mistakes may repr esent a remnant ancestral tr ait. In such cases, the behavior to oviposit on certain plants may have outlasted the physiological ability for larval detoxification. The possession of ancestral oviposition preference traits is an

PAGE 57

57 important component of the hierarchical threshold model d eveloped by Courtney et al. (1989), which is based on the genetically controlled oviposition preference hierarchies observed in Lepidoptera (Mercader and Scriber, 2008). For example, Papilio canadensis has maintained the trait to oviposit on Liriodendron t ulipifera, even though the larvae are incapable of surviving on the plant (Scriber et al., 1991; Mercader and Scriber, 2007). Mistakes made on toxic plants, such as the endangered Ornithoptera richmondia in Australia ovipositing on an invasive plant, Arist olochia elegans ; effectively kill neonate larvae ( Straatman, 1962; Larsen et al., 2008). Instances of ovipositing mistakes could be influenced by other factors, such as the availability of nectar near the novel host plant. Courtney (1981) determined that A cardamines oviposited on plants with nectar sources more frequently than plants without nectar, even though the plants with nectar were less nutritious for the larvae. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence stating that host plant and nectar avai lability are independent variables meaning that females seek host plants in areas lacking nectar sources (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991). An important assumption regarding the hierarchal status of selected host plants and a particular affinity towards one or two of these plant species is a correlation of the preferred plants for larval survival and rapid development. In other words, females have a preference to oviposit their eggs onto plants that will pr ovide the best nutrition for their offspring, maximizing their development and growth. This is called the preference/performance hypothesis (Thompson and Pellmyr, 1991). It is tempting to be supportive of this hypothesis, as it makes sense that there would be a close link between larval survival and ovipositi on preference. A study by Singer et al. (1988)

PAGE 58

58 revealed that variation in larval performance of E. editha on selected host plants ( Plantago lanceolata and Collinsia parviflora ) correlated to the variation in oviposition preference of the mother. In other w ords, there was a parallel relationship with the most preferred plant for oviposition in individual females within a population to their offsprings development (i.e. rapid growth and weight gain) on the same preferred host plant; supporting the preferenc e/performance hypothesis. If the preference/performance hypothesis serves as a semi universal theory of oviposition preference in Lepidoptera, it is highly suggestive that this would fall under so me sort of genetic control; the loci responsible for ovipos ition preference also play an integral role in larval development. Interestingly, a genetic correlation of oviposition preference and larval development has been difficult to prove. Thompson et al. (1990) revealed that, unlike oviposition preference, larva l survival and development is not completely X chromosome linked in offspring produced from interspecific crosses of P. zelicaon with P. oregonius Similar results have revealed larvae detoxification ability to be autosomally controlled (Scriber, 2002). In other words, larval survival/development and oviposition preference are not traits controlled by the sam e loci. T herefore, they are not an example of pleiotropy (Thompson, 1995). As listed by Thompson (1988) and Thompson and Pellmyr (1991), there are at least 5 additional factors that argue against the preference/performance hypothesis. First, gravid females may oviposit on plants containing secondary metabolites or toxins that are sequestered by the larvae. Although the larvae may acquire secondary compounds, they typically develop at a slower rate. Second, the preferred host plant for oviposition and larval development may grow in an inaccessible or unfavorable habitat.

PAGE 59

59 Third, Lepidoptera species whose larvae are grazers may have eggs oviposited in a nonspecific host plant manner For instance, females may oviposit eggs in areas of thick patches of mixed plant species and grasses, many of which may serve as suitable host plants for successful larval development. Fourth, a preferred host plant for oviposi tion may be a new addition to the environment, and larvae that feed on these plants have slower development or lower survival In this example, selection has not had time to either favor the females that choose more suitable host plants or the larval have not had time to acquire a local adaptation to the plant. Fifth, the preferred host plant may be rare, resulting in the female having to select a less preferred host plant. In close association with the ideology of a correlation of oviposition preference and larval survival the Hopkins Host Selection Principle predicts that oviposition preference of a female is impacted by what that female fed on as a larva. As reviewed by Barron (2001) and Mercader and Scriber (2005), the Hopkins Host Selection Principle has several flaws including difficulty in separating larval experience from early adult experience, and that holometabolous insects undergo extreme physiological changes and reorganization during the pupal stages likely rendering any memory useless. Regardless of these problems, some studies indicate that there may be a link between that host plant a larva fed on and the plant she chooses to oviposit her eggs on as an adult. For example Bossart and Scriber (1999) revealed a significant preference for P. g laucus larvae fed Black Cherry ( Prunus serotina) to oviposit on the same plant as an adult. Interestingly, in the same study there was no significant diff erence in larvae fed Tulip Tree ( Liriodendron tulipifera), or Sweetbay ( Magnolia virginiana), with su bsequent oviposition preference on these two plant species. As pointed out by Mercader and

PAGE 60

60 Scriber (2005), the lack of correlation in larvae fed Tulip Tree to oviposit on the same plant or Sweetbay is perhaps due to the chemical similarities of the plants, since they both belong to the same plant family, Magnoliaceae. However, Wehling and Thompson (1997) revealed no close association in the Papilio machaon group between adult oviposition preference and the host plant it fed on as a larva. Oviposition Prefer ence in the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Investigating oviposition preference in the Tiger Swallowtail group provides a unique opportunity to understand the relationship of these butterflies to the host plants they utilize. Tiger Swallowtails have helped dem onstrate a parallel association of insect plant divergence patterns, partially because they utilize certain pla nt f amilies such as Ros aceae, Oleaceae, and Salicaceae which are quite different chemically than the Magnoliaceae, Lauraceae, Rutaceae, and Arist olochiaceae, used commonly by tropical swallowtail butterflies (Scriber, 1996; Mercader and Scriber, 2008). Previous studies of the Tiger Swallowtail group have revealed that Magnoliaceae is likely one of the ancestral hosts for these butterflies. An intensive investigation by Mercador and Scriber (2008) tested the oviposition preference of four Tiger Swallowtail butterflies species ( P. glaucus P. canadensis P. multicaudatus and P. rutulus ) on selected host plants representing seven plant f amilies. Inte restingly, in this study all butterfly species oviposited approximately 15 40% of their eggs on Liriodendron tulipifera (Magnoliaceae), even though only one of the four butterfly species tested, P. glaucus have larvae that are capable of surviving on th is plant. In accordance with these results, additional tiger swallowtail oviposition bioassays have yielded similar results suggesting Magnoliaceae preference is an ancestral trait that evolved before the radiation of tiger swallowtail butterflies (Bossar t and Scriber, 1995), and is an

PAGE 61

61 ancestral trait to most other Papilioninae ( Brown et al., 1995). Additional experiments with Australian swallowtails yielded similar results, that detoxification of Magnoliaceae plants is likely an ancestral trait ( Scriber et al., 2008). Multiple oviposition preference bioassays have shown most populations of Papilio glaucus to have a strong preference for Magnoliaceae, regardless of other host plants offered (Bossart and Scriber, 1995; Mercader and Scriber, 2005; Mercader et al., 2009), although some populations have displayed a strong preference for hop tree, Ptelea trifoliata (Rutaceae) (Mercader and Scriber, 2008). A great deal of information is available on the oviposition preference of P. glaucus due to numerous investi gations comparing populations of this species within and outside the hybrid zone with P. canadensis (Hagen et al., 1991; Scriber et al., 1991; Scriber, 1993; Bossart and Scriber, 1995a ; Mercader and Scriber, 2005; Mercader and Scriber, 2008) These studies have revealed the reciprocal latitudinal clines of both species and the genetics associated with the oviposition preference (Scriber et al., 1991; Bossart and Scriber, 1995a ). The employment of three host plant choice bioassays using L. tulipifera, P. tre muloides and P. serotina additionally reveal the strong preference of both species to oviposit on L. tulipifera. In one such study by Bossart and Scriber (1995a ), female P. glaucus oviposited over 70% of their eggs on L. tulipifera and P. canadensis femal es oviposited over 40% of their eggs on the same plant. Interestingly, P. canadensis do not normally encounter this plant throughout the majority of their range, and their larvae have an extremely low larval survival (near zero) on Tulip Tree (Mercader and Scriber, 2008).

PAGE 62

62 Similar to previous studies mentioned above, oviposition preference and larval survival in Tiger Swallowtail butterflies are greatly influenced by the X chromosome, revealed by reciprocal crosses and studies of F1 hybrid offspring of P. g laucus mated with P. canadensis (Mercader and Scriber, 2008) In P. glaucus and P. canadensis butterflies, these oviposition preference and larval detoxification abilities are linked to the 6phosphogluconate dehydrogenase enzyme (Pgd) and lactate dehydrogenase enzyme (Ldh) ( Hagen and Scriber, 1989; Hagen et al., 1991; Scriber et al., 1991). The hierarchical threshold model was upheld with comparative studies of the tiger swallowtail sister species P. glaucus and P. canadensis Investigations of oviposition preference in these butterflies revealed that the strong preference for Magnoliaceae is likely an ancestral trait. The observation that both species readily oviposit on Liriodendron tulipifera (Magnoliaceae) even though P. canadensis larvae cannot surviv e on the host plant helps verify Magnoliaceae as an ancestral host. Additionally, P. glaucus does not oviposit or survive on the preferred host plant of P. canadensis Populus tremuloides (Salicaceae) (Mercader and Scriber, 2007; Mercader and Scriber, 2008). Although the southern subspecies of the Easter n Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio glaucus maynardi is ecologically monophagous on Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana (Magnoliaceae), in the southern portion of its range (Scriber, 1986; Bossart and Scriber, 1995b), the hierarchical threshold model predicts these populations to display a preference for other host plants that are not locally available. Investigating the oviposition preference of P. glaucus subspecies populations within and outside the NorthernFlorida S uture Zone will likely not reveal any distinct divergence patterns in

PAGE 63

63 ovipositio n preference on selected plant f amilies presented in a laboratory setting, partially due to previous results of the retained preference to oviposit on the ancestral Magnoliaceae observed in the derived P. canadensis butterflies, and that the locally available host plant in souther n Florida also belongs in this f amily. If the hierarchical threshold model holds true, it is hypothesized that populations south of the NorthernFlori da Suture zone and the most extreme southern populations will display a preference for ancestral host plants that are not locally available, including plants in the Rosaceae and Oleaceae, and retain a strong preference for plants in the Magnoliaceae f amily Even though there may not be a drastic change in preference to ov iposit on these selected plant f amilies, and P. glaucus populations will still prefer Magnoliaceae, it will be interesting to determine what the hierarchical preference is in the most southern populations for oviposition: the Magnoliaceae plant that they are locally adapted to ( Sweetbay ), or the other Magnoliaceae plant ( Tulip Tree) commonly used by more northern populations where this plant is locally available. Bossart and Scriber (1995a ) suggested the preference for Sweetbay in these southern populations is likely a recently acquired trait, as both subspecies have a preference for Magnoliaceae plants, but only tiger swallowtails in the most southern populations show a strong preference this plant species. Results from the current investigation would be predicted to be identical with results produc ed by Bossart and Scriber (1995a), whe re a 5host plant choice bioassay revealed a strong preference for Sweetbay (75% of eggs) followed by the l ocally unavailable Tulip Tree (nearly 17% of eggs) in the most southern ecologically monophagous populations. Subsequent studies by the same authors with this population revealed a practically equal preference for

PAGE 64

64 these plants ( Bossart and Scriber, 1995b) In the first study (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a), these results were compared to a P. glaucus population near the southern extreme of the NorthernFlorida Suture zone where there was nearly identical preference for Sweetbay and Tulip Tree, 31.4% compared t o 35.7% of eggs, respectively. Tulip Tree, although not common, does range into this population of P. glaucus The coupling of these oviposition trials with genetic inferences suggest s that local selective pressures to feed on Sweetbay outweigh the extensive amount of gene flow between P. glaucus populations, causing the high preference for M. virginiana in the most southern populations (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a and 1995b). Additionally, this population does show a gradually decreasing preference for plants in the Oleaceae, Rosaceae, and Salicaceae, whereas the most southern populations hardly oviposit any eggs on the Rosaceae and Salicaceae plants (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a ). If the present study should reveal similar results with these populations, it i s possible that by increasing the number of populations sampled within and near the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone, a more obvious transition in oviposition preference can be mapped. Larval Detoxification, Survival, and Development in Tiger Swallowtail Butterflies Swallowtail butterflies are unique in that their large size, peculiar behavior, flight pattern, and beauty have attracted favorable attention from professional biologists and amateurs alike, thus creating a database composed of a wealth of knowledge acquired through research and field observations (Lindroth et al., 1988b ; Brown et al., 1995). The host plants utilized by numerous species are well known, arguably more than for any other family of Lepidoptera or I nsect a Because of this, investigations of insect plant relationships of the Papilionidae have made substantial contributions to multiple disciplines including chemical ecology ( Dethier, 1941; Lindroth et al., 1988a ), and

PAGE 65

65 several components of evolutionary biology (Brower, 1958; Ehrlich and Rave n, 1964; Remington, 1968; Feeny et al., 1983; Scriber, 1988; Berenbaum et al., 1996; Scriber, 2002). The ability to detoxify plant chemicals has a direct impact at the individual and population level s by mediating life history traits including survival, development time, and fertility (Lindroth et al., 1986; Lindroth et al., 1988a ). Swallowtail butterflies range from being monophagous, such as Graphium macleayanum moggana and Papilio glaucus maynardi ( Scriber, 1986; Scriber et al., 2006) to extremely polyp hagous, as observed in the majority of Papilio glaucus populations which have led P. glaucus to the title as the most polyphagous swallowtail butterfly known (Lindroth et al., 1988a ; Scriber et al., 1991; Scriber et al., 1995; Berenbaum, 1995; Mercader and Scriber; 2005). I n order for a larva to feed on any plant species it must be able to detoxify the plants allelochemicals and secondary metabolites. Plants produce toxins or secondary metabolites that are, in the strict sense, used to deter herbivores by slowing developmental rate through slower food consumption (tannins) and/or by a lack of necessary enzymes or through slow ing enzymatic activity needed to process toxic allelochemicals, which can lead to gut lesions and death in Lepidoptera larvae (Lindroth et al., 1988a ; Frankfater et al., 2005). In response, mutations and natural selection favor key innovations such as the development of larval enzymes capable of breaking down these toxins in order to survive and properly develop on particular plant sp ecies ( Ehrlich and Raven, 1964; Berenbaum et al., 1996; Scriber, 2002). The fact that many closely related Papilio sp ecies are either ecologically monophagous, oligophagous, or highly polyphagous over a particular array of plant f amilies is why this group of butterflies provides an excellent model for studying the evolution of dietary specialization, and its

PAGE 66

66 impact on insect and plant evolution, co evolution, and adaptations (Scriber, 1986; Miller, 1987 ; Lindroth et al., 1988a ; Berenbaum, 1995; Brown et al. 1995). The Papilionidae display a peculiar phenomenon in that larvae within this phylogenetically divers e and biogeographically robust f amily utilize a rather narrow spectrum of plant f amilies. In fact 66% of all host plants utilized by swallowtail but terflies reside within the Lauraceae, Rutaceae, Aristolochiaceae, Annonaceae, and Apiaceae plant f amilies (Scriber, 1984; Berenbaum, 1995; Brown et al., 1995). In particular, over 75% of swallowtail butterflies within the Papilio genus feed on plants within the Rutaceae, and do not feed on any Aristolochiaceae or Annonaceae plants (Berenbaum, 1995). Other plant f amilies, such as Salicaceae, Magnoliaceae, Oleaceae, and Rosaceae are important larval hosts for butterflies in the Tiger Swallowtail group (Lindroth et al., 1988a ; Scriber, 1988; Scriber, 1991; Mercader and Scriber, 2005). As previously mentioned above, oviposition preference studies have suggested that the preference for Magnoliaceae appears to be an important ancestral trait; this observation has also been correlated with larval detoxification ability (Lindroth et al., 1988b ; Scriber, 1988). A nonvolatile chemical relationship in host shifts of the Papilionini from the Lauraceae to Rutaceae to Umbelliferae has been demonstrated, and Magnoliaceae i nterestingly shares a wide range of compounds with all three of these plant f amilies suggesting its role as a general host (Dethier, 1941; Brown et al., 1995). As summarized by Berenbaum (1995), the five plant f amilies utilized by Papilionidae have some s imilar chemical components, but can be separated into two general taxonomic groups: the Magnoliidae which includes the Lauraceae and Magnoliaceae/Rutaceae group, and the Apiaceae/Asteraceae group. The former group

PAGE 67

67 shares a similar chemical makeup of various amounts of lignans (diarylpropanoids), amides, prenylated flavonoids, and benzylisoquinoline alkaloids. Interestingly, Brown et al. (1995) points out that the Rutaceae plants, although chemically similar to the Lauraceae, are not closely related to these plants. The latter group, importantly, completely lacks tannins, and has eremophilanolide varieties of sesquiterpene lactones, diterpenes and triterpene saponins, isoprenylated coumarins, eudesmanolide, germacranolide, and acetylenic compounds ( Hegnauer, 1983; Miller and Feeny, 1983; Berenbaum, 1995). It is these shared chemical components and/or the similarities between these plants that allow many species within the Papilionidae to feed on multiple host plants within these plant f amilies (Brown et al., 1995). It is also this ability that allows a monophagous species, usually considered an evolutionary deadend or an example of constrained evolution, to rapidly adapt a host plant shift if under local selective pressures (e.g. decline in abundance of the preferred host plant) as long as the ancestral traits are not lost. As previously mentioned, oviposition preference hierarchical fluctuations and oviposition mistakes may be two essential component s for a host shift, which could likely result in species div ergence. An important and essential component of the host shift is larval detoxification ability. Detoxification and proper development on a selected host plant are absolutely necessary for larval survival and subsequent reproduction. An oviposition mistak e will not lead to a host shift unless the larva is first capable of surviving on the host plant. It is for this reason that this author tends to think that the ability to detoxify a plant is the primary component in a host shift, and that the o viposition mistake is secondary, though both may be essential to a host shift. Without

PAGE 68

68 the ability to detoxify the host plant, the larva will die upon emergence from starvation or from the toxic phytochemicals. Of course, host shifts can occur first through oviposit ion mistakes if the mother, although not necessarily raised on the incorrect host plant, does have the unique genotype for larval detoxification on the novel host plant. The subsequent larvae may inherit the autosomal gene to detoxify this plant from the m other, but it is important to mention again that oviposition preference and larval detoxification ability are not located at the same loci. Therefore, if the ability to detoxify a novel host plant is inherited from the mother, there is likely a lack of cor relation between this detoxification ability and the preference for oviposition of the egg on the novel host plant. For further clarification, larval adaptations to properly develop (and perhaps thrive) on a host plant may occur over time depending on mutations, recombinant DNA, and environmental pressures, but the larva must first acquire the ability to survive on the novel host plant before a host plant shift can be made. Due to oviposition preference and larval detoxification ability being located at di ffe rent loci and some modifier gene located on different chromosomes, therefore for all intents and purposes inherited independent ly of one another, the oviposition mistake should not have any correlation to the ability for that larva to be able to feed on that plant. The ability to detoxify a novel host plant, either through some ancestral trait that has remained untapped for thousands or millions of years, or from a recent mutation or recombination in the genome, must be available in order f or the host shift to take place; otherwise the oviposition mistake is a dead end.

PAGE 69

69 In North America, the Section III group of swallowtails described by Monroe (1961) represent the most polyphagous swallowtail butterflies. Section III is composed of two primary groups : the Papilio glaucus group, consisting of the tiger swallowtails listed above, and the P. troilus group, represented by P. troilus P. pilumnus and P. palamedes The Eastern Tiger Swallowtail has reigned as the undisputed polyphagous champ of swallowtail butterflies having the ability to detoxify and survive on at least 31 plant species wi thin 22 genera across 10 plant f amilies (Lindroth et al., 1986; Scriber, 1986; Scriber, 1988; Scriber et al., 1995; Frankfater et al., 2005; Mercader and Scriber, 2005) (commonly used plants listed in Table 1 2). Studies comparing P. glaucus and its sister species, P. canadensis have subsequently revealed different detoxification and reciprocal feeding abilities closely associated with the secondary metabolites in Salica ceae and Magnoliaceae plants (Scriber, 1984; Lindroth et al., 1986). In the Magnoliaceae plants such as the preferred Tulip Tree, Liriodendron tulipifera L., and Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana L., detoxification of the sesquiterpene lactones are likely res ponsible for the positive development of P. glaucus and the lack of survival by P. canadensis According to Frankfater et al. (2005), sesquiterpene lactones methylenelac tone that disrupt critical proteins and nucleic acids subsequently leading to apoptosis and gut lesions, and may additionally cause depletion in necessary antioxidants. In order for P. glaucus larvae to deal with the sesquiterpene lactones and other toxic allelochemicals they must be able to either expel the compounds undigested, have efficient excretion mechanisms (Maddrell and Gardiner, 1976), or

PAGE 70

70 metabolize the compound to a less toxic compound (Lindroth et al., 1988b ; Frankfater et al., 2005). Frankfater et al. (2005) suggest that P. glaucus larvae may possibly perform a combination of methods to rid the body of secondary metabolite sesquiterpene lactones such as Parthenolide. In this study, frass collected from P. glaucus larvae revealed the presence of undigested Parthenolide, which could mean two different possibilities: (1) that the Parthenolide was found in undigested food particles; therefore, the larvae was not subjected to the toxic phytochem ical; or (2) that the gut lining in the alimentary canal prevents the absorption of Parthenolide, preventing susceptibility to the toxin, which is likely not the case since it has been shown that Parthenolide can readily enter a cell. Importantly, in this study the frass also revealed a high level of the compound 2hydroxydihydroparthenolide, which is a non toxic metabolite of Parthenolide, suggesting that P. glaucus larvae possess enzymes necessary to catalyze toxic phytochemicals to nontoxic compounds. It is likely that P. canadensis has lost the ability to effectively use or has reduced ability of the enzymes necessary to convert the allelochemicals present in Magnoliaceae plants. Reciprocally, results suggest that P. glaucus lacks the enzymes necessary to quickly catalyze the phenolic glycosides found in Salicaceae plants. Processing Salicaceae plants requires a completely different metabolic pathway than Magnoliaceae plants. Previous studies have revealed that a combination of phenolic glycosides in Quaking Aspen, Populas tremuloides (Salicaceae), partic ularly salicortin and tremulacin, have tremendous deleterious effects affecting the feeding ability of P. glaucus larvae by causing a decrease in food consumption and possibly causing gut

PAGE 71

71 lesions, but have little effect on P. canadensis (Lindroth et al., 1988a ). It is hypothesized that this differential feeding ability is due to either a novel esterase enzyme prevalent in P. canadensis that contributes to the speedy conversion of cyclohexenone saligenin ester (CSE), a toxic component of the salicortin and t remulacin compounds, or an amplication of the esterase enzyme in P. canadensis that may be common in the P. glaucus group. The ability of some tiger swallowtails ( P. eurymedon, P. canadensis and P. rutulus ) to successfully develop o n plants within the Salicaceae f amily whereas the other members of the P. glaucus group cannot has been appropriately suggested as an important adaptation that encouraged the range expansion of this group of butterflies (Lindroth et al., 1988a ). It is unclear if these butterf lies acquired this adaptation due to natural or climatic fluctuations in plant species abundance within a defined area, or if these adaptations were acquired as these butterfly species pushed to expand their range, but the ability to feed on Salicaceae is an acquired trait in these butterflies and/or their common ancestor rather than an ancestral trait such as the preference for Magnoliaceae ( Scriber, 1973; Lindroth et al., 1988a ). The local adaptation for south Florida populations of P. glaucus maynardi to prefer to oviposit on the only available host plant, Sweetbay ( M. virginiana ), was discussed earlier. These southern populations not only prefer to oviposit on Sweetbay but are more successful at surviving and developing on this plant as larvae than nort hern populations that are not naturally exposed to this plant in the wild (Scriber, 1986). The ability to rapidly detoxify and develop on Sweetbay suggests strong selection pressures to adapt to the only available host plant, even in the face of extensive gene flow from

PAGE 72

72 outlier populations (Scriber, 1986; Bossart and Scriber, 1995). Such local adaptations are likely common in different populations within this species, as no host plant covers the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail s entire range (Scriber, 1986). Ther efore, fluctuations in host plant species abundance and availability in different geographic locales may be frequent, impacting local adaptations and preference. The present investigation studying the most southern popoulations of P. glaucus maynardi represents the only case known to this author of a P. glaucus population that is strictly ecologically monophagous (Scriber, 1986). Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana L. (Magnoliaceae) is primarily restricted to the Southeastern US and is most common in swamps and wetlands near the coasts of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, but also extends north along the Atlantic coast to Massachusetts ( Preister 1990) (Figure 1 10). Although nearly shrublike in the northern limits of its range, Sweetbay becomes a major component of the forest cover type Sweetbay Swamp TupeloRedbay (Society of American Foresters Type 104) in the South where it is more common and attains a height of 30 m ( Eyre, 1980; Preister 1990). The definitive range of P. glaucus maynardi is unknown, but it is known that this subspecies is most common in the extreme Southeast US and does not commonly range any further north than the range of Sweetbay In other words, the northward limit of Sweetbay happens to coincide with the northward limit of P. glaucus maynardi Due to this overlap in range, it is alluring to conclude there is a direct correlation between the presence of P. glaucus maynardi and Sweetbay (Scriber, 1986). If there is a correlation between the two, it is hypothesized that it could be mediated by two factors

PAGE 73

73 that can be dependent or independent of each other. The first factor would be if Sweetbay induces a morphologically plastic response (i.e. phenotypic plasticity, discussed in detail below) that impacts the color and/or size unique to P. glaucus maynardi In other words, the phytochemicals in Sweetbay expose the maynardi phenotype as an adult in P. glaucus that feed on Sweetbay as a larva The other possible relationship and correlation in range of Sweetbay and P. glaucus maynardi is the specialized feeding ability of this butterfly with this plant. Papilio glaucus maynardi has been demonstrated to survive and develop on this plant more successfully than other P. glaucus populations (Scriber, 1986). Perhaps this adaptation for S weetbay allows P. g. maynardi to outcompete the P. g. glaucus restricting this subspecies movement southward into areas where Sweetbay is the only available host plant. Reciprocally, P. g. glaucus may outcompete P. g. maynardi on host plants other than S weetbay which could restrict this subspecies from moving northward. Theoretically, this differential in specialization and subsequent development could serve as a prezygotic reproductive isolating mechanism. As pointed out by Scriber (1986), investigatio ns are needed to help elucidate the obligate/facultative host plant affiliations to determine the role of specialization potentially leading to a host race formation of Papilio glaucus maynardi The current studies of oviposition preference and larval detoxification are similar in that they will help elucidate the specialization and relationship of Papilio glaucus maynardi with Sweetbay These results could be relevant to suture zone theory. Perhaps as Florida was isolated as a group or chain of islands dur ing the Pleistocene Epoch, the only available or most readily available host plant on these islands was

PAGE 74

74 Sweetbay During this period, direct selection pressures on the P. glaucus populations may have resulted in increased and /or more efficient utilization of Sweetbay Although it has already been mentioned that significant gene flow occurs between these populations (Bossart and Scriber, 1995), an affinity for Sweetbay still prevails suggesting a greater selection pressure for local adaptations to this plant. As previously mentioned, the preference for Magnoliaceae is an ancestral trait and the most common Magnoliaceae plant used by the vast majority of P. glaucus populations is Tulip Tree, Liriodendron tulipifera. Papilio glaucus populations located in re gions where only one Magnoliaceae plant is available, Tulip Tree, show a reduced preference and ability to develop on Sweetbay (Scriber, 1986) Due to southern populations displaying a preference for Sweetbay and that these populations develop faster on this plant when compared to Tulip Tree (which is the most preferred host plant by northern populations) suggests that Sweetbay specialization is a recent adaptation by these southern P. glaucus populations (Scriber, 1986; Scriber, 1995). I t is hypothesized t hat t he larval development on Sweetbay will likely be followed by Tulip Tree; the other Magnoliaceae plant used in this study. This investigation is unique in that larvae from multiple populations near the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone will be tested on the various plant species, possibly presenting a gradual transition in Sweetbay specialization that overlaps the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Phenotypic Plasticity and Genetic Accomodation Phenotypic plasticity, as defined by Pigliucci et al. (2006) is a pr operty of individual genotypes to produce different phenotypes when exposed to different environmental conditions. Since a phenotype can be simply defined as any expression of the genotype, phenotypic plasticity encompasses a large array of components

PAGE 75

75 in cluding any behavioral, morphological, and physiological changes (Stearns, 1989; West Eberhard, 1989). The ability of a particular phenotypic trait to be plastic in response to environmental cues is considered advantageous as this may lead to an increased tolerance in a heterogeneous environment, thus giving that organism increased fitness (reproduction and survival) (Via et al., 1995). It is important to note that although the typical definition of evolution is a change in allele or gene frequency over ti me, natural selection acts on the expression of these genes, i.e. the phenotype. T herefore, phenotypic plasticity probably has a large role in ecology and evolutionary biology. The literature presents some controversy over the importance of phenotypic pla sticity in evolutionary biology and its specific role in adaptation and speciation, but many of these controversies are apparently correlated to our lack of understanding phenotypic plasticity at the genetic and heritable level, and determining which empir ical and theoretical models should be used when investigating phenotypic plasticity (Via et al., 1995; de Jong, 2005; Pigliucci et al., 2006; Ghalambor et al., 2007; Reuter et al., 2007). In addition, problems arise because terminology of necessary phenoty pic plasticity concepts in relation to evolutionary biology or inappropriately used in the literature ( Schiener, 1995; Crispo, 2007). Regardless of these controversies, some agreements can be made about phenotypic plasticity : for instance, the degree of phenotypic plasticity is unique to each individual trait and its relationship to the specific environmental cue acting on that trait (Schiener, 1995; Pigliucci et al., 2006), and that there is no rule stating phenotypic plasticity has to be adaptive; it may or may not be adaptive (Via et al., 1995; Pigliucci et al., 2006; Ghalambor et al., 2007). Another

PAGE 76

76 important realization of phenotypic plasticity is that the abundant genetic variability within species and populations causes a spectrum of plastic responses of specific but different traits for natural selection to act on, possibly encouraging evolution (Laurila et al., 2002). Although it can be assumed that a general benefit for a character to be plastic is to provide a buffer in a heterogeneous or changing environment, this benefit may be costly. Scheiner (1995 ) points out that the maintenance of the cellular machinery responsible for the developmental switches in a plastic trait may require the expenditure of energy, which could be wasteful in a situation where the environment is stable and a pla stic response in unnecessary. It seems reasonable to assume that natural selection will also act on the unnecessary plastic traits that require energy expenditure. According to Scheiner (1995) at least three broad and possibly chronological (in evolutionary time) components of phenotypic plasticity are relevant to evolutionary biology: a reaction norm, an adaptive plastic phenotype (i.e. adaptive phenotypic plasticity), and genetic assimilation and/or genetic accom modation. The first component is that a trait has to be plastic in response to the environment, possibly creating a reaction norm for that trait, which is also called the norm of reaction (reaction norm and norm of reaction will be used interchangeably thr oughout this writing) (Stearns, 1989). The term reaction norm was first used by Woltereck (1909) to describe observations he made of Daphnia (Cladocera), but the concept of phenotypic plasticity and separating the germline (genetic transmission) from the s oma (the interaction of the environment) was first described by Weismann (1885) (reviewed by Stearns, 1989). In the most basic sense, a reaction norm is the relationship between the environment and the phenotype

PAGE 77

77 (Schiener, 1993), but a more accurate descri ption for a reaction norm is a change in phenotype of a single genotype over a range of environments (Pigliucci, 2005; Gutteling et al., 2007). When a line of slope can be calculated on a graph depicting the change in phenotype over the environment, there is said to be a norm of reaction (or a reaction norm) (Figure 1 11). Obviously, a lack of a slope on this graph would repres ent a trait that is not plastic, i.e., not changing from one environment to the next. The norm of reaction can refer to a spectrum or continuous cline in traits throughout the environment (sometimes referred to as continuous traits), or can be discontinuous (i.e., a seasonal polyphenism ) where the traits are fixed as one form or the other based on an environmental threshold (i.e., sea sonal temperature and/or photoperiod) (Stearns, 1989; Schiener, 1995; Ghalambor et al., 2007). A discontinuous trait i s thought to be induced by a developmental or physiological switch triggered by an environmental cue, such as sex determination in turtles (temperature dependent), and phys iological and behavioral cues associated with the circadian clock in the antennae of migrating Monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus ) (photoperiod and angle of the sun dependent) (Stearns, 1989; Merlin et al., 2009). In ad dition, reaction norms can be considered flexible or inflexible, meaning that the plastic trait once developed is reversible or irreversible throughout the individual s lifetime (Stearns, 1989). Pigliucci (2005) states that p lasticity at the individual le vel is the reaction norm ; a single genotype exposing a different phenotype due to certain environmental conditions, whereas at the population level it is the average differences of the phenotypes across diff erent environments. The norm of reaction is c ommo nly confused at the population and individual lev el with genotype x environment. According to Pigliucci (2005), many

PAGE 78

78 authors use genotype x environment interchangeably with the norm of reaction, and adding to the confusion, both terms can theoretically be used at the individual and population level. For clarification in this writing, I use the term genotype x environment to specifically address the comparison of a specific phenotypic trait between at least two different genotypes (or populations) across specific environments (Ghalambor et al., 2007). In other words, genotype x environment contributes to understanding how two different genotypes or populations react to similar trends or changes in an environment. To continue, the reaction norm is concerned primarily with the change of a phenotype in an individual or a population over different environmental conditions, whereas genotype x environment is a comparison of this individual or population with other individuals or populations (at least two different genotypes depicting slopes on the same graph) (Figure 1 12). Stearns (1989) states that the genotype x environment is the point on a graph where two reaction norms cross, and that if the two reaction norms did not cross then one phenotype would outcompete the other phenotype in all environments, leading towards selection against the disadvantaged phenotype and eliminating it from the environment. The crossing of reaction norms can reveal two interesting effects on the distributions of the phenotypes in question: (1) that heritable variation can be assessed and that the point of crossing represents an environment where the different genotypes cannot be distinguis hed by their phenotype; and (2) the reaction norms can be used to determine the ranking of the phenotypes in different environments (Stearns, 1989) (Figure 1 12).

PAGE 79

79 In order for this plasticity to have significance in evolutionary biology, it should have some adaptive or maladaptive properties for natural selection to act on. Adaptive phenotypic plastic ity refers to a directional movement or change in a specific plastic trait in the phenotype that correlates with the same directional change in an environment, contributing to the fitness of that organism, sometimes referred to as the adaptive plasticity h ypothesis (Stearns, 1989; Dudley and Schmitt, 1996; Agrawal, 2001; Ghalambor et al., 2007). According to Ghalambor et al. (2007), as long as there is genetic variation in a population or species, selection for an plastic trait will be adaptive when: (1) t he population(s) capable of expressing the plastic trait reside within a heterogeneous or fluctuating environment; (2) the environment is semi stable or the fluctuations within the environment are predictable; and (3) the different phenotypic traits expr essed are favorable in different environments and that no plastic trait is favorable in both environments. The general idea of adaptive phenotypic plasticity is that the plastic response of a trait first allows a population to tolerate a changing environme nt, then adapt to that environment creating a buffer that prevents extinction, eventually becoming selected for in a particular environment ( Pigliucci, 2001; Laurila et al., 2002; Schlichting, 2004; Ghalambor et al., 2007). Currently, there is a surge of activity in the field of adaptive phenotypic plasticity. Some of the most compelling work investigating organisms that are under strong selection pressures due to their introduction into novel environments include the biologically invasive lizard species, Anolis sagrei It has been demonstrated through numerous field and laboratory experiments that there is a plastic response in the morphology of this species in correlation to vegetation type (Losos et al., 2000; Losos et

PAGE 80

80 al., 2001). By changing the diameter of substrate or the type of vegetation the lizards are raised on, being on skinny or thick wooden dowels, which theoretically mimic skinny tree branches in the canopy environment or the thick treetrunks/ground environment, respectively, there is a resul ting correlation in hindlimb length. It is thought that this is an adaptation contributing to fitness through survival (predator invasion and/or movement stability) or to hunting behavior; short legs work well in the canopy providing stability on skinny t reelimbs and long legs contribute to faster running speeds on the more stable ground/treetrunk environment. It is possible that in this species the rapid phenotypic response to the environment is likely correlated with the enormous genetic diversity, at least in Florida where there have been multiple introductions ( Campbell, 1996; Kolbe et al., 2004). In addition to this example, other Anolis species, such as A. carolinensis also display a similar trend in morphological change when presented with differ ent environments (Kolbe and Losos, 2005). Interestingly, the invasive A. sagrei outcompete the native A. carolinensis in the southeastern US ( Echternacht, 1999), effectively occupying the terrestrial habitats while forcing A. carolinensis to move into the canopy environment, which is likely resulting in shorter hindlimbs in this species ( Campbell and Echternacht, 2003) The rapid ecological adaptations of Anolis sp ecies has been one of the key hypotheses illuminating the enormous diversity of these primari ly Caribbean lizards, meaning that inter and intraspecific competition enforced selective pressures that encouraged at first adaptive plastic traits to occupy specific niches, which then secondarily resulted in fixation of these genes provoking species radiation ( Losos et al., 1993; Losos et al., 2000; Losos et al., 2001; Kolbe et al., 2004; Kolbe and Losos, 2005).

PAGE 81

81 The third important stage of phenotypic plasticity to evolutionary biology is for the plastic trait to become genetically fixed in a population, therefore losing its plasticity, a process sometimes referred to as genetic assimilation ( Waddington, 1953, 1956). Genetic accommodation, also known as the Baldwin Effect, is commonly confused with genetic assimilation ( West Eberhard, 2003; Suzuki and Nijhout, 2006; Crispo, 2007). According to Baldwin (1896), accommodation includes two important facets: (1) organic selection, which was described as the ability of plasticity to increase fitness; and (2) orthoplasy, the directional selection of organic s election on evolution. Baldwins original writings of accommodation are comparable to what is commonly referred to today as phenotypic accommodation (West Eberhard, 2003; Crispo, 2007). Genetic accommodation is similar, except that it also includes adaptiv e genetic changes. Crispo (2007) writes that genetic accommodation is evolution in response to both genetically based and environmentally induced novel traits. It is important to note that genetic accommodation can work in a direction for positive select ion for the trait if it is adaptive, but can also work in a direction with maladaptive traits called genetic compensation ( Grether, 2005; Crispo, 2007). Genetic compensation is when the genotype evolves in a different direction than the maladapt ive phenoty pic trait, therefore shifting the average phenotype away from the maladaptive trait and leading to a weakening or removal of this trait. To continue, genetic accommodation is a broad term that allows a genotype to adapt or evolve through adaptive phenotyp ic plasticity, due to natural selection acting on these plastic traits. In other words, genetic accommodation includes a change in gene frequency in a population selecting for a plastic trait and/or selecting for organisms

PAGE 82

82 capable of displaying a large range in plasticity; evolution acts on the individuals that are the most plastic, as these are the individuals that are most capable of taking advantage of the environment in which they live. Because of this, it is reasonable to assume that over time as natur al selection continues to positively select for the most plastic organism, the variation or range of plasticity will stay the same or increase ( Schlichting and Pigliucci, 1993; Crispo, 2007). In other words, the reaction norm may be inherited rather than t he actual trait itself. An increase in plasticity has been demonstrated in numerous investigations, including studies of tiger snakes ( Aubret et al., 2004) and pumpkinseed sunfish ( Parsons and Robinson, 2006 ), where the populations inhabiting novel environments have greater plasticity than those populations from which they came from. Genetic assimilation is similar to genetic accommodation in that they both incorporate the relationship of the environment and the genotype, and change of the phenotype in res ponse to the environment, but genetic assimilation is concerned more with the evolution of the reaction norm, or the change in slope of the reaction norm, whereas genetic accommodation revolves around the trait means in a population, or how these traits ar e elevated from one generation to the next (Crispo, 2007). Genetic assimilation is directly correlated with canalization. A canalized trait is a trait that is stable or does not change throughout a range of environments (Stearns, 1989). As seen in Figure 1 13, a canalized trait has a slope of zero throughout the different environments. Genetic assimilation is based on the idea that a trait will lose its plasticity over time, i.e., canalization.

PAGE 83

83 Suzuki and Nijhout (2006) were able to distinguish genetic assi milation from genetic accommodation from their investigations with phenotypic plasticity of Manduca sexta Tobacco hornworm larvae have two different phenotypes: the wildtype green larva or the mutant black larva. The mutant black larvae are unique in that when they are heat shocked, they produce a spectrum of phenotypes ranging in color from the typical black to a green. The mutant type is black due to a suppression of juvenile hormone, leading to an increase in melanization. By continuously selecting the extreme ranges of these phenotypes (completely black or completely green) with heat shocking for future generati ons, two strains were developed: a black and a green strain. At the end of the 13th generation, heat shocking the black strain no longer produc ed a green phenotype. In other words, the phenotypic trait to express the black color had become canalized, and no range of temperatures tested could induce the green color. This is a classic example of genetic assimilation, as the plastic response decreas ed over time. In contrast, the green strain of larvae showed an increase in plasticity in response to temperature. The green strain displayed a shift to lower temperatures in the threshold required to induce the green color In other words lower temperatures were required for the environmental switch point needed to produce green larvae from the black mutant larvae. In addition, there was an increase in elevation in the reaction norm suggesting that this line was becoming increasingly green. This is a classic example of genetic accommodation; plasticity was increasing survival (artificial selection) which was then followed by a heritable change observed in the shifting of the reaction norm (Suzuki and Njihout, 2006; Crispo, 2007). This example has been depicted in Figure 114 to illustrate the difference between genetic assimilation and genetic accommodation.

PAGE 84

84 According to Scheiner (1993 ), three models have been proposed to describe the genetics of phenotypic plasticity: pleiotropy, epistasis, and the overdominance model. The overdominance model has received the least support. This model states that plasticity is directly correlated with the homozygosity/heterozygosity of that individual, but most investigations have revealed little correlation between heterozygosity and plasticity. Pleiotropy and epistasis are both supported by numerous investigations. Pleiotripy refers to the plasticity of one gene whose expression is determined by the environmental cues. This model assumes that if a gene s expression is dir ectly correlated to, for example, temperature, then different temperatures will induce a different phenotypic response of that gene (see citations in Sheiner, 1995; Suzuki and Nijhout, 2006). The relationship of temperature with gene expression is commonly observed with optimal enzyme activity, or expression of heat shocked genes and/or melanism; these examples strongly support pleiotropy as a model for phenotypic plasticity. In addition, investigations have revealed epistasis as an intriguing model for pl asticity. Epistasis is where one gene s expression is modified or determined by other genes. In the realm of phenotypic plasticity, epistasis is where the plastic trait that is expressed by a particular gene is not necessarily impacted by the environment i tself, but is instead impacted by other genes that are responding to the environmental cues. When studying phenotypic plasticity, this author interprets pleiotropy as the environmental cue acting directly on the expression of the gene responsible for the p lastic trait of interest, whereas epistasis is where the environment acts on the plasticity of modifier genes that regulate the expression of a trait of interest.

PAGE 85

85 It seems reasonable to assume that both of these models are prevalent in nature and responsible for the observed plasticity considering that, in general, both of these models reflect a similar system underlying the important relationship of the environment with phenotype: a particular cue from the environment is affecting the expression of a gene. To elaborate further, it is reasonable to assume that both of these models are simultaneously occurring in a single organism. For example, the gene responsible for one trait (e.g. color) may be expressed directly by an environmental cue such as temperat ure acting on that gene (pleiotropy), whereas another trait in that same organism (e.g. size) may be determined by plastic modifier genes reacting to an environment cue such as host plant availability and/or detoxification ability (epistasis). As pointed out by Scheiner (1995), genetic variability creates problems when investigating phenotypic plasticity, as subtle individual differences of the genotype could alter the relationship of the phenotype and the environment. It is for this reason that it is reco mmended to study half or full siblings, as this would help eliminate variation of the genotype in selected environments. Phenotypic Plasticity of Wing Patterns on Lepidoptera Lepidoptera represent an excellent group for studying the dynamics and interacti ons of the genotype and the environment and the subsequent development of the morphology, particularly because of the enormous variation and seasonal polyphenisms of wing patterns and their colors. As a matter of fact, many of the more than 17,000 species of butterflies are classified and recognized based on wing pattern alone (Beldade and Saenko, 2009 ). Due to the enormous diversity of wing pattern at the inter and intraspecific level, Lepidoptera have become a model for studying the relationship of genet ics and phenotype ( Nijhout, 1984, 1991; Brakefield et al., 1998;

PAGE 86

86 McMillan et al., 2002; Beldade et al., 2005; Otaki, 2008; Beldade and Saenko, 2009). Studying butterfly wing pattern and color in relation to phenotypic plasticity has helped elucidate the as sociated developmental mechanisms. Some of the most well studied examples of adaptive phenotypic plasticity, polymorphisms, and polyphenisms are attributed to studies of Bicyclus anynana (Satyridae) (seasonal polyphenism, phenotypic plasticity), Precis sp p and Vanessa sp p (Nymphalidae) (phenotypic plasticity), Heliconius sp p (Nymphalidae) (mimicry), and Papilio sp p (Papilionidae) (mimicry) ( Roundt r ee and Nijhout, 1995; Brakefield et al., 1996, 1998; Scriber et al., 1996; Mallet and Joron, 1999; Koch et al., 2000; Brakefield and Monteiro, 2003; Nijhout, 2003; Otaki, 2003, 2008; Otaki and Yamamoto, 2004; Willmott and Mallet, 2004; Beldade et al., 2005; Krushnamegh, 2009). As pointed out by Otaki (2008), although it is advantageous to work with butterfly w ing patterns due to the twodimensional developmental system of a butterfly wing (pigmentation based on position), the lengthy generation time of most Lepidoptera species provides complications in comparison to other commonly used insects such as Drosophil a In addition, when investigating the developmental biology associated with a specific trait, such as color determination on a butterfly wing, it is convenient, though difficult, to produce a spectrum of the trait rather than simply a few types to fully u nderstand the mechanisms (Otaki, 2008) As mentioned above, investigations of butterflies have contributed to understanding the evolutionary developmental (evo devo) mechanisms linking genetics and phenotype (Beldade and Brakefield, 2002); but many of these studies are associated with genetic polymorphisms and will not discussed in detail here, as studies

PAGE 87

87 of phenotypic plasticity are the focus of this part of t he investigation. The butterfly Bicyclus anynana represents a model organism for the correlation of butterfly wing pattern and phenotypic plasticity, having two seasonal forms associated with the wet and dry season in Africa The wet season variety expresses large marginal eyespots on the ventral side of the wings, whereas the dry season has smaller eyespots; interestingly, the marginal spots on the dorsal side of the wings are not plastic (Brakefield et al., 1998). Each spot is c omposed of an inner white pupil then two larger concentric circles, a black inner ring and gold outer ring. The mechanism associated with the development of these eyespots is relatively well understood, but will only be discussed briefly here, as there are no eyespots on tiger swallowtail wings, although a similar or general developmental system may exist in tiger swallowtail wing pattern systems. A focus forms on a developing wing, which will eventually become the center of the eyespot. After pupation, cells organize around the focus and become arranged into what will become the remainder of the eyespot. A signal is then se nt from the focus to these surrounding cells to determine the fate of cell position and pigment (Brakefield et al., 1998; Beldade and Saenko, 2009). The ventral marginal eyespots are plastic and mediated by temperature and ecdysteroid levels. The injection of ecdysteroids (20hydroxyecdysone) at critical time periods (young pupae) produced enlarged eyespots on adults reared under dry season conditions, although the eyespots were not quite as large as the wet season eyespots. By coupling a high ecdysteroid t iter with high temperature, the wet season eyespots can be produced. It is reasonably assumed that in wild populations of B. anynana a high temperature causes a rapid increase in

PAGE 88

88 ecdysteroid levels during critical time periods producing the large eyespot s seen during the wet season (Brakefield et al., 1998). Although much has been accomplished studying the developmental mechanisms associated with eyespot formation in B. anynana, current research is intensively investigating the genes responsible for plas ticity in wing characters Through experiments with Drosophila, genes and proteins responsible for wing/wing pattern formation have been isolated. In B. anynana, transcription factors Distal less and engrailed are commonly used to st udy gene expression in eyespots. Distalless is thought to upregulate ecdysone receptor proteins in the focus (Beldade and Saenko, 2009). In addition, the role of morphogens such as Decapentaplegic, as eyespot signals is being investigated (Monteiro et al., 2006). Interestingly, studies of B. anynana have also yielded results suggesting that many of the proteins responsible for eyespot formation are created by genes that are active throughout the larval and pupal stages of wing development. For instance, engrailed and Distalless are both found in the imaginal discs at early larval stages, and are also expressed near the focus of the late pupal stage, which correspond to the organizing centers for the golden and black rings of the eyespot, respectively (Beldade and Saenko, 2009). T his is an excellent mechanistic example of a seasonal polyphenism and phenotypic plasticity that allows a comparison of the genes acting on the various components of the eyespots, thus leading to an identification of these genes responsible for plasticity T he current investigation of P. glaucus is primarily concerned with the color of the adult phenotype and its possible correlation to temperatures or other environmental cues which may influence plasticity

PAGE 89

89 Color and melanism of butterfly wings has been demonstrated to strongly correlate to temperature ( Nijhout, 1984; Ritland, 1986; Nijhout, 1991; Roland, 2006; Otaki, 2008). Under artificial conditions, heat and/or cold shocking larvae during a critical time period in the larvae or pupae can induce a resp onse in the adult phenotype, thus influencing the slope in the norm of reaction. As an example, Otaki (2008) reared Vanessa indica larvae at a variety of temperatures to produce a spectru m of plasticity in wing pattern: from broadening or sh ortening of bands and spots, to different color patterns. By coldshocking early pupae at 4 C in a range of 2 to 20 days, a variety of color patterns were produced and were believed to be likely due to an exploitation of the coldshock hormone (CSH) pathway. Using a lar ge range of days in this experiment is unique. O ther more conventional coldshocking experiments typically expose larvae or pupae to much shorter time periods, which is likely why only one morphotype is reported to be expressed at cold temperatures in the butterflies studied (Shapiro, 1984; Otaki and Yamamoto, 2004). In addition, heat shocking pupae from 38 to 40 C from 1 to 3 days produced a dark (black) morphotype (in the few adults that survived prolonged exposure to these unnaturally high temperatures ) that is commonly witnessed in the naturally occurring winter form. In addi tion to the temperature shocks used in Otakis (2008) investigation, pupae were injected with 20hydroxyecdysone to induce a plastic response in color or wing pattern of Vanessa i ndica Unlike the temperatureshock experiments that induced a change in wing pattern, injections of this ecdysteroid caused a shift in color expression ( to paler individuals). As mentioned above, the wing pattern of Bicyclus anynana is heavily influenced by a combination of 20hydroxyecdysone titers and temperature,

PAGE 90

90 which appears to also be the case with V. indica and other nymphalid butterflies ( Otaki et al., 2005). Otaki (2008) suggests that perhaps different combinations of CSH, ecdysteroids, and enzymes located in the scale cells are responsible for large variations observed in Lepidoptera wing patterns and colors, as these components appear to affect the location of focal points and the colors expressed. For example, Otaki (2008) implies that the range of color morphs produced by V. indica when s ubjected to temperatureshock experiments and/or injection of 20hydroxyecdysone produces morphotypes highly resembling other closely related Vanessa sp ecies. By taking this a step further, Otaki reasonably hy pothesized that a recent ancestor of the current genus Vanessa likely ha d highly plastic phenotypes, which through geographic dispersal and subsequent different environmental pressures ( e.g., different temperatures), different phenotypes were expressed that may have become genetically fixed over time (genetic assimilation) or faced some type of genetic accommodation (a shifting in the reaction norm while still maintaining a slope). Future molecular investigations are needed to shed light on this subject. D ue to the studies mentioned above, and an elaborate investigation by Koch et al. (2000), the development of wing morphology is fairly well understood. The wing begins to develop during the first instar larva as enlargements of epidermal cells, called imagi nal discs, in the meso and metathorax. Throughout larval development, the imaginal discs begin to enlarge and prepatterning begins, particularly during the last larval instar. Importantly, it is during the last instar when future color pattern is determ ined, as this period is likely the sensitive period to environmental cues. It is

PAGE 91

91 during the pupae stage that scale maturation and pigmentation take place ( Nijhout, 1985 ; Koch et al., 2000; Beldade and Saenko, 2009). There are many classes of pigments found in butterfly wings, but most belong to the ommatins (reds and redbrowns), the pteridins (whites, yellows, and reds), melanins (browns, blacks, and grays), and papiliochromes (yellows; exclusively in Papilionidae) (Nijhout, 1985; Koch et al., 2000). Each of these pigments may be found on a single butterfly wing, but they are laid down and/or developed at different pupal stages. Koch et al. (2000) determined by dissecting P. glaucus wing buds at different pupa stages that the papiliochromes are laid down fi rst, and the melanins are the last to be laid down. These results are especially interesting in the polymorphic dark morph females, as their primarily black wings receive no pigmentation or maturation until immediately before eclosion, independent from the tiny yellow spots along the margins of the wings that matured earlier in development. The authors found similar results with dissected wing buds of B. anynana, although the yellow pigments in this butterfly are pteridins, not the papiliochromes in P. glaucus As mentioned earlier, development and pigmentation of the eyespots is strongly correlated to signals sent out by the focus at the center of the eyespot, but scales pigmented with melanin, although found in the inner portion of the eyespot and closer t o the focus (receive signals from the focus sooner than the outer yellow ring), are preceded in pigmentation by the pteridins at the focus and the outer ring of the eyespot. These results greatly suggest that pigmentation is preceded by wing pattern develo pment.

PAGE 92

92 Phenotypic Plasticity of Tiger Swallowtails The general purpose of this sectio n of the current investigation was to determine if the transition zone of traits for the two subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail of interest, Papilio glaucus glaucus a nd Papilio glaucus maynardi is an example of phenotypic plasticity. If the traits reveal ed significant plasticity, what role do these characters play in the ecology and evolutionary biology of these butterflies, and are they adaptive? Phenotypic plasticit y, as mentioned earlier, encompasses literally anything that can be labeled as a phenotype, and its relevancy to population and evolutionary biology is variable depending if the plastic trait operates on the fitness of the organism. For example, Mercade r a nd Scriber (2005) reported the phenotypic plasticity of oviposition preference in Eastern Tiger Swallowtails. Their report illustrated that oviposition preference hierarchies change depending on local host plant species availability, showing that the envir onment (host plant species available) is acting on oviposition preference (behavior, and other life history traits). Thus part of the investigation was concerned with measurable, and perhaps, plastic traits that distinguish these two subspecies of butterfl ies: morphology and the affinity for particular host plants, although other life history and ecological components of this species were observed throughout this study. Papilio glaucus maynardi differs from northern populations of P. g. glaucus in at least three traits: color, size, and ecological monophagy in the most southern populations (mentioned in detail earlier). In order to study these variables and their possible correlation to phenotypic plasticity, particular environmental cues need ed to be addres sed that might have an impact on these traits of interest. For this investigation,

PAGE 93

93 larval P. glaucus were exposed to two environmental cues serving as independent variables: temperature and host plant. The general purpose of this portion of the investigat ion was to determine if temperature and/or color influence the morphology of P. glaucus and to determine if these variables are solely responsible for producing the P. g. maynardi phenotype. To add some complication to the matter, it is completely plausib le that in order to produce the P. g. maynardi phenotype, both, a particular host plant ( Sweetbay ) and a particular temperature (warm/hot) are necessary; temperature may act solely on the color and host plant on size. On the other hand, temperature and hos t plant may have absolutely no measurable significance on size and/or color of P. glaucus suggesting that P. g. glaucus and P. g. maynardi are indeed separate entities that have diverged from a common ancestor and are now on their own evolutionary paths u nder different selective pressures. In addition to this, it is possible that what was once a plastic trait (size or color) may no longer be plastic: i.e. genetic assimilation. Table 1 3 outlines some of the rearing conditions that will be tested to determ ine the effec t of environmental conditions on P. glaucus phenotype. Other Investigations with Temperature and Host Plants Aside from those variables in studies mentioned above, additional ecological variables w ere ass essed during this investigation. S ome can be labeled as examinations of phenotypic plasticity, but w ere studied in a context comparing populations within and outside the Northern Florida Suture Zone. For instance, developmental period w as recorded in relation to temperature with the intent to answer several questions Do populations differ in their ability to develop quickly at particular

PAGE 94

94 temperatures? Do particular populations develop faster or slower when fed certain host plants? In this study, numerous sibling larvae were divided and placed into different temperature regimes. I expect ed that the temperatures used would reveal an optimum temperature for rapid growth and development, which could provide a direct correlation to optimal enzymatic activity necessary for host plant detoxification. Rapid development would be advantageous, as this allows an individual to reach sexual maturity quicker for reproduction. The optimal temperature (producing short developmental period) may be different for the two subspecies being investigated here. For ex ample, southern populations of P. glaucus may perform better (large weight attained in short time period) at higher temperatures than northern populations. In addition, northern populations of P. glaucus may not perform well at high temperatures. This scenario would demonstrate an excellent example of genotype x environment depicted in Figure 1 15. It is hypothesized that all populations studied will be capable of developing at the temperatures tested, as these temperatures are found in natural populations, but some populations may fair better at some temperatures than others. Larval development was also assessed by correlating pupa weight with temperature and host plant. As mentioned above (larvae detoxification section), it was expected that larvae fed pl ants within the Magnoliaceae f amily ( Sweetbay and Tulip Tree) would produce pupae of the highest weight, likely followed by Black Cherry or Green Ash It wa s also hypothesized that larvae fed Willow w ould produce the lightest pupae, as this is not a plant utilized by P. glaucus naturally. Pupae weight strongly correlates to adult size (forew ing length) ; therefore, the heaviest pupae should produce

PAGE 95

95 the largest adults. Because size is a diagnosable characteristic for P. g. maynardi it was expected that these individuals will produce the largest pupae weights. A comparison of pupae weight from northern populations and southern populations when fed selected host plants would provide insight on the role of host plant in producing phenotypic variation within this species.

PAGE 96

96 Figure 11. Map of North American suture zones as described by Remington (1968). The R oman numerals (I VI) represent the major suture zones, highlighted in light grey. The letters (A G) represent the minor suture zones, highlighted in dar k grey. The figure has been labeled with R oman numerals and letters to coincide with the labeling by Remington. The NorthernFlorida Suture Zone is the primary focus of this investigation, represented in light grey as R oman numeral II.

PAGE 97

97 Figure 12. Map of Florida during an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Epoch. The islands represent possible refugia of P. glaucus during high sea levels of these interglacial periods.

PAGE 98

98 Figure 13. Suggested formation of NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. (A) Florida and the southeastern US have a homogenous populations of different species represented by the grey shading. (B) Sea level rises during interglacial period of Pleistocene Epoch separating southcentral Florida populations from the mainland. Populations on Fl orida islands are isolated from mainland populations (no gene flow). (C) Genetic accumulations occur in Florida island populations different than those on mainland, effectively creating new species different than those on mainland. New species represented by dark charcoal. (D) Receding sea level allows secondary contact of populations, creating hybrid zones between reproductively isolated populations. Multiple overlapping hybrid zones produce the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone represented here by overlapping dark charcoal and light grey. Note that here the grey mainland species are depicted as unchanging species.

PAGE 99

99 Figure 1 4. Photographs of yellow and dark morph female P. glaucus captured in Cedar Key, Florida in 2007. Figure 1 5. First known artistic r enditions of P. glaucus (A) The stylized water color drawing of P. glaucus by John White in 1587. (B) Wood cutting of John Whites drawing constructed by Thomas Moffett (1634) (C) Current reproduction of John Whites drawing sold at the British Museum as a poster. (A) and (B) are cited from Pavulaan and Wright (2002), and (C) is from www.britishmuseumshoponline.org.

PAGE 100

100 Figure 1 6. Neotypes of Papilio glaucus The first column represents the neotype female P. glaucus Linnaeus captured from Sandbridge, Virginia Beach, VA. The second column is the neotype male P. antilochus Linnaeus captured from Corapeake, Gates Co., N.C., and the third column is the neotype male P. alcidamus Cramer captured from Sandbridge, Virginia Beach, VA. The first row and third row represent the dorsal and ventral of neotypes, respectively. The middle row represents original nomenclature (red) and current (white). All specimens shown represent P. glaucus although the genus here is referred to as Pterourus Pho tographs of neotypes and labels are from Warren et al. (2010).

PAGE 101

101 P. canadensis P. appalachiensis P. g laucus glaucus P. g laucus maynardi P. m ulticaudatus grandiosus P. m ulticaudatus multicaudatus P. a lexiares alexiares P. a lexiares garcia P. rutulus P. m ulticaudatus pusillus P. eurymedon Figure 17. Range of all tiger swallowtail butterflies and their known subspecies with suture zones.

PAGE 102

102 Figure 1 8. Calibrated photographs of both subspecies of Eastern Tiger Swallowt ail. (A) and (B) represent male Papilio glaucus maynardi and P. g. glaucus respectively. (C) and (D) represent female P. g. maynardi and P. g. glaucus respectively. Both sexes of P. g. maynardi (A and C) were captured from Cedar Key, Florida. Both sexes of P. g. glaucus (B and D) were captured from La Fayette, Georgia and Vicksburg, Mississippi, respectively. Images were taken at the same magnification. Note differences in size and color of different subspecies.

PAGE 103

103 Figure 19. Using predicted average wi ng color to illust rate possible cline formation of Eastern Tiger Swallowtail in relation to suture zone. Image (A) represents the color of tiger swallowtail butterfly subspecies at secondary contact. The red represents the color of Papilio glaucus maynardi wings and the yellow represents the wing color of P. g. glaucus Image (B) depicts the northward and southward introgression and subsequent mixing of wing color due to a lack of reproductive barriers. Image (C) displays the extensive progression of wing color and gradual change in wing color over geographic distance formin g a cline of average wing color. A l ack of reproductive isolation and no geographic barriers during secondary contact results in formation of a northsouth cline of coloration.

PAGE 104

104 Figure 1 10 Current distribution of Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana (Magnoliaceae). Sweetbay is the only known host plant available to P. glaucus populations in south Florida ( Priester 1990).

PAGE 105

105 Figure 1 11 A general example of phenotypic plasticity. The measu red phenotypic trait in Genotype I is plastic (phenotypic plasticity) because there is a change in the phenotype in response to a change in the environment, thus creating a slope known as the reaction norm or the norm of reaction. Genotype II is not plasti c because there is no change in the phenotype, regardless of the change in the environment.

PAGE 106

106 Figure 1 1 2 An example of genotype x environment. Genotype I and II both display an example of phenotypic plasticity; a particular trait changes in response to a changing environment. Although both genotypes have a plastic response to the environment, the response is slightly different as depicted with different slopes, thus referred to as genotype x environment. The point where the slopes intercept is where that specific environmental cue creates the same phenotype in these two different genotypes thus these genotypes are indistinguishable for this trait in this environment.

PAGE 107

107 Figure 11 3 Evolution of genetic assimilation. The first graph depicts an organism that displays a positive reaction norm (represented by the line) with a specific phenotype in a specific environment (represented by square) along an environmental gradient. Genetic assimilation occurs when natural selection acts only on the one phenotype in a stable environment, thus losing its ability to be plastic, as shown in the second graph. Figure 114 A depiction comparing genetic assimilation and genetic accommodation. The solid line represents a plastic trait before genetic assimilation or genetic accommodation occurred, which is represented by the dashed line. The primary difference between the two is that the end result in genetic assimilation is a loss of plasticity (A), whereas in genetic accommodation, the mean plastic trait changes (B) or the level of plasticity increases (C), or can decrease (not depicted).

PAGE 108

108 Temperature Low High P. g. maynardi P. g. glaucus Larval Performance Figure 115 Example comparison of differences between larval performance of P. g. glaucus and P. g. maynardi at low and high temperatures. Larval per formance can be measured in a variety of ways, including larval survival larval duration (days) and pupa weight. In this example, P. g. maynardi performs better at higher temperatures than P. g. glaucus whereas the reciprocal is found at lower temperatur es. This scenario also represents an example of genotype x environment where larval performance for the two entities are the same at a certain temperature where the norm of reactions cross.

PAGE 109

109 Table 11 List of known hybridizing and potential hybridizing Lepidoptera species or subspecies within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone according to Remington (1968) with modification (*). Known Hybridizing Lepidoptera Limenitis archippus archippus x L. a. floridensis Papilio troilus troilus x P. t. ilioneus A utomeris io io x A. i. Lilith Possible Hybridizing Lepidoptera Battus philenor x B. polydamus Erynnis brizo brizo x E. b. somnus Synanthedon decipiens x S. sapygaeformis Sylvora acerni acerni x S. a. B uscki Papilio glaucus glaucus x P. g. maynardi Table 1 2. Host plants commonly used by P. glaucus with preference for plants used in the south ern US Family Common name Species Betulaceae Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Marsh. Plantanaceae Sycamore Plantanus occidentalis L Tiliaceae Ba sswood Tilia americana L Rutaceae Hop Tree* Ptelea trifoliata L Lauraceae Sassafrass* Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees Oleaceae White Ash Fraxinus americana L. Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Marsh. Carolina Ash Fr axinus caroliniana Mill. Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris L. Rosaceae Mountain Ash Sorbus americana (Marsh.) Pin Cherry Prunus pennsylvanica L Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana L Black Cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. Magnoliaceae Mountain Magnolia Magnol ia fraseri Walt Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera L Sweetbay ** Magnolia virginiana L. Plants used by wild P. glaucus in the south ern US ** Only plant available in most southern portion of range

PAGE 110

110 Table 1 3. Summary of suggested scenarios that c ould induce the P. g. maynardi phenotype using parameters studied in this investigation. Environmental factors Outcome High Temperature x Northern host plants (no Sweetbay ) Plastic response temperature dependent High Temperature x Sweetbay Plasti c response temperature and/or host plant dependent Low Temperature x Sweetbay Plastic response host plant dependent Low Temperatures x Northern host plants (no Sweetbay ) Genetic response inherited character A genetic component could still be r esponsible for the phenotype in all of these cases.

PAGE 111

111 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS The entire study consisted of numerous steps that followed a chronological order and each step represents a topic of interest for this investigation. In order, these steps include d : Collecting wild adult P. glaucus Color analysis of wild collected individuals Morphometrics of wild collected P. glaucus Oviposition Preference of female P. glaucus Larval survival duration, and pupa weight Phenotypic plasticity (morphometric s and color analysis of reared larvae) Hybridization studies Sampling and Collecting Methods There were two prim ary approaches taken when collecting Papilio glaucus : (1) traveling through areas of interest in hopes of driving by an adult P. glaucus to col lect during and in between known flight broods; or (2) sampling areas known to contain high numbers of P. glaucus during peak flight periods. The collec ting method was always the same: adults were carefully collected with a butterfly net (numerous sizes of n ets were used) and the butterflies were placed into a glassine envelope for transport back to University of Florida, Gainesville, for analysis. The glassine envelopes were labeled with collecting inf ormation such as sex, date, location of capture, and ID # The ID # was assigned based on year collected, sex, and the chronological order of the collected specimen collected. For example, the first individual collected (male) in the year 2008 received the ID # 8001m, whereas the tenth individual collected (female) that same year received the ID # 8010f. The general idea when collecting was to remove as few scales as possible from the wings, as these scales contained the colors that were necessary for the color analysis. In addition, maintaining good wing condi tion was necessary for

PAGE 112

112 taking accurate morphological measurements ( for the morphometrics portion of this study ). Yellow female P. glaucus were given priorit y when collecting, as these were most likely to produce yellow offspring for future analysis, but al l adults were collected when presented the opportunity. The only instances when P. glaucus were not collected was due to either a restriction in a collecting permit (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Permit # 04250820, 20 males and 10 females total restriction to 30 adults taken within Highlands Hammock State Park, Florida), or where collecting t he extra adults was unnecessary. Influencing any facet of popul ation size and structure was avoided in this investigation. During the first collecting period in the late spring early summer 2006, roadmaps of Florida were used along with Googlemaps.com and Googleearth.com to find areas that might host populations of P. glaucus Beginning in the Spring of 2007, more time was spent collecting individu als within specific areas of Florida and Georgia that were previously known to host large numbers of P. glaucus during particular times of the year (broods), and these areas became standard sampling regions throughout the remainder of the study. Additional live adults were shipped overnight to the University of Florida from Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama beginning in 2007 and in 2008. Upon arrival at the University of Florida, all individuals were immediately refrigerated. Color Analysis Color A nalysis P repa ration All individuals were transported to and cooled in a walk in refrigerator set at 4 C in the Food Science Building at the University of Florida. Upon cooling, the live adult P. glaucus were spread in the walk in refrigerator on a white piece of Styrofoam cut into the shape of a butterfly spreading board. Insect pins were carefully placed into veins

PAGE 113

113 along the outside margins of the wings and the butterfly was spread similarly to how a butterfly should be spread when being spread for a professional insect collection. No pins were inserted into the body and minimal stress was iss ued on the butterflies, as the unharmed females were needed for additional experiments, such as oviposition preference. The wings of all butterflies were usually moved into position by pins inserted briefly behind the major veins, such as the C ostal and A1 vein on the forewing, and the Anal and M2 or M3 vein of the hindwing. They were pinned in a fashion to flatten and ex pose their wings. Once a butterfly was spread (and sti ll cold), it was removed from the walk in refrigerator and quickly walked into a different lab room that contained the equipment needed for color analysis. The color analysis equipment consisted of a light box, a camera, a color standard, and a computer w ith color analysis software (Figure 2 1 ). For this investigation, the light box was constructed so that standardized lighting illuminated without creating a shadow on the image. The color standard is necessary in order to properly calibrate the image. A La bsphere yellow color standard used throughout this investigation had an L*, a*, b* value of 90.17, 3.27, and 74.3 respectively; and an R, G, B value of 255, 228, and 87, respectively. A 12 mp Nikon camera was fastened to a stand approximately 1/3 m tall in such a way that the camera was facing down; therefore, the camera was set to the same height for each photograph. The camera was set to specifications outlined in Table 21 A USB cable was used to attach the camera to a nearby computer where Camerapro software controlled the act of taking a picture with the camera; therefore, a picture could be taken while the camera is completely enclosed within the light box and the picture would immediately upload onto the computer. The computer had two types

PAGE 114

114 of sof tware necessary for color analysis: Adobe Photoshop 6.0 ( used for image adjustments, modifications, and edits) and Lenseye ( used for color quantification and analysis) The cooled and spread butterfly was quickly placed into the light box, which was com pletely illuminated, and the color standard was placed next to the butterfly on the Styrofoam block. The light box was then closed and a photograph was taken of the butterfly. This process was completed as swiftly as possible to prevent the butterfly fr om warming up and dislodging its wings from the pins, possibly causing severe damage to the wings. The butterfly was placed back into the glassine envelope after the photograph was taken. The raw photographs were saved on the computer as JPEG images with the ID # (Figure 2 2 ). The photographs were then opened in Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and cleaned up using the eraser tool to produce only the images necessary for color analysis. This was accomplished by first opening Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and clicking open from the File menu and selecting the photograph of interest (e.g. butterfly 8001m). The eraser tool from the side bar was chosen and used to tediously erase all insect pins from the image that were used to spread the butterfly wings, feces, and any additional shadows created during the photographing process. The Labsphere color standard was cleaned up by selecting the Elliptical Marquee tool in the side toolbar and highlighting a large circular area of the color standard so that only the yellow in the standard was highlighted. This highlighted area was moved using the move tool to a different section of the image, but always to the left of and not overlapping the butterfly. The portion of the color standard that was not highlighted (the black surrounding area

PAGE 115

115 left behind) was then erased with the eraser tool. The all white background was also cleaned up by selecting the paint bucket tool (white paint) and running the paint over any shadows or unwanted images. This created two images: a butterfly void of any additio nal images or shadows not important for the analysis, and a yellow circle dissected from the yellow color standard. The image was then saved as a JPEG (Figure 2 3 ). Upon completion of cleaning up all raw images, the figures were then subjected to selectio n for future color analysis. Images used for color analy sis had one primary requirement: they contained a butterfly that had the majority of the scales present in areas of interest. Yellow and dark morph P. glaucus were used for the analysis. The areas of interest pertain to three specific prechosen regions of P. glaucus wings: the space within the forewing discal cell between the first and second tiger stripe, the area of the hindwing discal cell proximal to the tiger stripe, and the cell between the M2 and M3 vein of the forewing (Figure 2 4 ). These regions typically represent the range of yellow or orange hues outside of the tiger stripes on P. glaucus wings (and dark areas of interest outside the stripes on dark morph females), with the darker hues usually proximal to the body and becoming distally lighter. These three regions were analyzed rather than the entire butterf ly for two primary reasons: (1) this investigation is only concerned with particular areas of P. glaucus wings (the region typically used to distinguish P. g. glaucus from P. g. maynardi yellow and/or orange area of wing); and (2) butterfly wings over time lose scales altering their color ( they become dull over t ime). Therefore, studying only three regions on each butterfly actuall y increased the sample size, because butterflies that had scale and/or wing loss on the outside margins

PAGE 116

116 were still usable for this analysis as long as these three regions were undamaged and had scales. Studying only three regions also eliminated unnecessar y analysis of areas on wings not required for this comparative study Once the final images were selected for analysis, the Elliptical Marquee tool was selected and used to circle each region of interest on the butterfly. Circles were made as large as pos sible as long as they only contained the color of interest within the cell; therefore, black stripes and veins were left out of the circle. Each of the three circles was then moved to the bottom right corner of the butterfly with a white background. The circles were placed in the described order as listed above. The remaining butterfly was then erased with the erase tool. Therefore, the only images left in the figure were 4 circles: the first circle was the color standard and the last 3 circles represented colors from the butterfly (F igure 2 5 ). Once the image was cleaned, the resolution was adjusted by going to Image in the main toolbar and selecting Image, then Resize and then Image Size. Under pixel dimensions, the width was changed to 700 pixels, and then saved as a BMP image with BMP options set to 24 bit. Lenseye software occasionally had difficulty locating images for analysis if they were small. In this case, the four circles in Adobe Photoshop 6.0 were placed within the same quadrant of the cleaned screen (they were placed close together), and were highlighted by the rectangular marquee. The highlighted area with all circles was then copied and pasted into a new file with the set dimensions of 700 pixels in width and height and saved as a BMP i mage. This process was repeated for all photographs.

PAGE 117

117 Color Analysis with Lenseye S oftware Images were calibrated and analyzed in Lenseye software by first selecting the Option menu from the tool bar and then selecting Color Analysis. A box appeared with numerous options for color analysis: Binary Threshold, Color Analysis, Analysis Options, Blob Analysis, and Color Calibration. Under Binary Threshold, two options are available: the Select Method option and the RGB Range 1 option. The Use RGB Range(s) was selected first under the Select Method option followed by selecting the Use Range 1 and White is Background box. The RGB Range 1 option was selected next where the Red, Green, and Blue color categories were set to a low and high value of 220 and 255, resp ectively. Under the Color Analysis option, the 16 colors per axis (4096 blocks), Exclude object 1 from averages, Confirm before closing spreadsheets, and Display Primitives Image were all checked. The yellow color standard used for calibration in the figure is labeled as object 1, which is why it is necessary to exclude this from the average colors after analysis. The other options selected here contribute to understanding the calibration steps as each figure is calibrated. The Analysis Options menu had the Display color data as % of total area icon and the Save colors with % higher than icon checked. The Save colors with % higher than icon did not have any specific number placed in the blank area and the N one icon was also checked. Under Blob Analysis, a 1 00 was placed in the Min. area to remove blob spot, and a 10 was placed in Pts Period under Perim eter. The Remove blob touching edges was not marked. This latter selection was unmarked because if the color standard or circles of interest were too close or touching the edge of the screen, they would be removed from the analysis, thus altering the calibration and results.

PAGE 118

118 The last menu under the Options for Analysis tab, Color Calibration, was checked. The Apply color calibration to image box was checked, along with the Calculate L* a* b* shift values. An option opened up, allowing the input of the L* a* b* values of the color standard; 90.17, 3.27, and 74.30, respectively. A 1 was placed in the Always use blob _to calculate shift values box. The Apply button was clicked at the lower left area of the menu, which applied the above settings to all images processed. Under the File menu, the open image tab was opened revealing a list of P. glaucus BMP images; the image of interest was selected and opened revealing the figure. The Process Image menu was then opened and the Color Analysis tab was selected; this processed the image, revealing a total of two images and one table. T he two images consisted of the original figure where each image to be analyzed is outlined by a square with a representative number (Figure 26 ) the second image is the calibrated figure (Figure 27 ) and the table (Table 22 ) is the color analys is results. As seen in Figure 26 the large circle in the upper left with the square around it and the number 1 was the color standard. The three circles at the bottom with the corresponding numbers 2, 3, and 4 were the three areas of interest in the butterfly selected for color analysis. Selecting and checking the Always use blob 1 to calculate shift values under the Color calibration menu (discussed above) informed the software to use the far left image (color standard with known L*, a*, b* values and the number 1 next to it) to calibrate (shift color values) and quantify all images on the screen acc ording the color standards values. Figure 2 7 is the calibrated image. Figure 2 8 has been added to show the effect of calibration on an entire P. glaucus specimen.

PAGE 119

119 Lenseye displays the results of the color analysis in a table format. For this investigati on, I was primarily concerned with the average L* (lightness scale light to dark, 0 100) a* (green to red scale, 120 120) b* (blue to yellow scale, 120 120) values for the three areas of interest per butterfly. A section of interest has been bol d f= ac ed in the output table for 7068f (Table 2 2 ). The plot sequence consists of a series of numbers representing the 4096 color blocks available. For instance, the number 3744 represents the color strongorangeyellow (L* a* b* = 70.86, 15.76, and 74.76, r espectively). Also, as seen in Table 2 2 the average L* a* b* values have been given for each circle of interest (Plot sequence column 2, 3, and 4) and an average L* a* b* value for all three circles at the bottom of these columns. The bottom of the fift h column represents the overall average L*, a* and b* values for the three circles representing the average color of the butterfly, and it was these numbers that were used for the subsequent analysis This data table was exported as an Excel file and used to create a spreadsheet of average L* a* b* values for for all captured wild specimens along with date captured and locality information. As mentioned above, males and female were subjected to morphological measurements after the photograph was taken. Sta tistic s for Color A nalysis Data from these spreadsheets were uploaded into JMP 6.0 Student Edition for analysis. Due to differences between t he sexes all analyses were performed on the sexes separately. The same statistical analysis mentioned here was als o performed for dark morph females separately. The L*, a* and b* values (used for comparing colors) were transformed for normality by taking the square root of each value and were then analyzed with ANOVA tests followed by Each Pair Students t tests to determine significant differences The first analysis consisted of comparing populations sampled

PAGE 120

120 regardless of flight period. Populations were used in this analysis only if they had at l east three individuals to represent the population. For the second analy sis, all p opulations were divided into one of three categories: south, within, and north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone to determine any bigpicture trends in color change in relation to the suture zone. Flight period was disregarded for this portion of the analysis. The third color analysis performed compared the average color of each flight period within each region ( north, within, or south of the suture zone) to determine if the average color changes over time. To do this, each sex from each region was divided into a spring, summer, or f all brood for comparison. Oneway ANOVA followed by Each Pair Students t tests were performed to compare, for example, the average color of summer and fall flight periods of female P. glaucus captured north of the N orthernFlorida suture zone. The final analysis compared how these regions (listed above) compare to each other over time --for example, to determine if males south of the suture zone have a different L* value than males north of the suture zone in the spri ng brood. Again, oneway ANOVA followed by Each Pair Students t tests was performed to determine significant differences. In addition, a multivariate analysis ( MANOVA) was applied to determine any significant correlations between the transformed L*, a* and b* values ; for instance, to determine if there is an increase in a* values as L* values increase. A MANOVA was also used to test for similar correlations in L*, a* and b* values per region. Morphometrics Butterfly Measurements M easurements used for this analysis were based on a morphometric comparison of various Papilio glaucus specimens in the collection located at the McGuire Center for

PAGE 121

121 Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, University of Florida, Gainesville. Specimens representing both subspecies were compared side by side to determine any differences worthy of further investigation. It was decided to use seven morphological measurements to compare adult P. glaucus Wild collected male and female specimens were measured to compare morphological differences within and among populations from the various localities sampled. The measurements are shown in Figure 2 9 and consisted of: Forewing length (LFW) measured from the base of the forewing where it attaches at the mesothorax to the apex of the wing. Width of black band within anal c ell of ventral side of hindwing (WABB) measured from distal edge of anal margin to the proximal border of the wing margin. This was measured at the point where the line of intersection would pass through the junction of the discal cell and the Cu2 vein. Width of anal cell on ventral side of hindwing (WAC) measured similarly to measurement 2 above. Measured from distal edge of anal margin to the junction of the disca l cell and Cu2 vein. H indwing length (HWL) measured from the base of the hindwing where it attaches at the metathorax to the t ip of the M3 vein (tip of tail) Width of black submarginal band on ventral side of hindwing (HWSMB) this was measured between the M1 and M2 vein through the center of the M1 cell. The line of intersection passed through the center of the discal cell vein with in the M1 cell Width of black submarginal band on ventral side of forewing (FWSMB) measured between the M2 and M3 veins through center of the M2 cell. Measurement had line of interse ction pass through the middle of the lower disc ocellular vein. Shape of hindwing tail (TS) the shape of the tail was determined to be either clubbed (c), slightly clubbed (sc), or intermediate (I). The same measurements were recorded on each specimen captured. All measurements were recorded in mm with a ruler, unless the measurement could not be t aken due to wing damage.

PAGE 122

122 Statistical A nalysis All recorded morphometric data was uploaded into JMP 6.0 Student Edition for comparison of wing measurements betw een populations and regions, and over time. Due to sexually dimorphic differences sexes were analyzed separately. The measurement tail shape was removed from the analysis due to a lack of any possible trends considering nearly all individuals had clubbedshape tails; this proved to be an ineffective measurement. Raw data was transformed for normality by taking the square root of each measurement. All morphometrics were compared with oneway ANOVA followed by Each Pair Students t tests unless the degrees of freedom equaled one resulting in only an Each Pair Students t test The first analysis consisted of determining significant differences between populations per sex regardless of flight period. Only populations with three or more individuals of each sex sampled were used in this analysis. P opulations were divided into regions (identified earlier i n color analysis section) and significant differences were determined in morphometrics between sexes within each region regardless of flight period. An exam ple would be differences between males and females south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. In addition, the morphometr ics of each sex was compared between regions for significant differences F or example, to determine i f females have a significantly lar ger forewing length (FWL) south of the suture zone compared to individuals north of the suture zone. The last set of analysis for morphometrics included the flight period to determine if there are average changes in wing measurements over time. Wing measur ements were compared for each sex between diff erent regions per flight period. F or example, I could determine if there are significant differences between females north and south of the

PAGE 123

123 suture zone during the fall flight period. Additionally, comparisons w ere made to check for significant differences between broods within each region, for each sex. In addition, a multivariate analysis ( MANOVA) with a 95% density ellipse was applied using the JMP software to determine co rrelations amongst the different trans formed wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus The MANOVA was also applied to compare transformed morphometric data between regions per sex to determine, for instance, if there is a significant correlation between the submarginal band on the hindw ing (HWSMB) and forewing length (FWL) in females south of the suture zone, but not north of the suture zone. Data A nalysis for Correlation of Size and C olor Large size coupled with the orange hue of the wings are common diagnostic characters for the southern subsp ecies ; therefore, a MANOVA was used to test for any correlations between the transformed forewing length (FWL) and the transformed L*, a* and b* values for male and female P. glaucus Correlations were also checked between color and size for each region in relation to the suture zone. Oviposition Preference Bioassay The methods used for this portion of the investigation are similar to those used by the Scriber lab at Michigan State University, East Lansing ( Scriber, 1993; Mercader and Scriber, 2008), but will be elaborated on again here. After morphometrics were recorded, females were fed a honey water solution (1:5) out of a plastic spoon. An insect pin or a dissecting probe was used to unravel the proboscis into the honey water solution (Figure 2 10). Upon doing this the female P. glaucus would typically rest next to the spoon while feeding. During this period, the oviposition containers were set up.

PAGE 124

124 Host plants used for oviposition preference study (and for larval feeding) varied depending on the year of study and the availability of particular host plants. In 2006, only three host plants were used: Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana L. (Magnoliaceae); Black Cherry Prunus serotina Ehrh. (Rosaceae); and Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. (Oleaceae). These species of plants were used throughout all oviposition bioassays, regardless of year and season. The category other was used to represent the eggs laid in the dish not near a plant species. In addition to the three plants just listed, Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera L. (Magnoliaceae) was added in bioassays of the Fall brood in 2007, bringing the total number of host plants to four. In the S pring brood of 2008, the Carolina Willow (also called Coastal Plain Willow), Salix caroliniana Michx. (Salicaceae) was added to host plants used for the spring brood, but Tulip Tree was not added as a host plant this year until the Summer brood; therefore, there were four host plants used in the S pring brood of 2008, and five host plants used for the Summer and Fall broods. Tulip Tree was not added in the spring of 2008 because the leaves were still budding. The other option was eliminated from the oviposition preference bioassays in 2008 because the large quantity of plants eliminated the extra space in t he dishes for females to lay eggs. If eggs were not laid on a plant they were almost always laid within 1 inch from the plant, which was counted as an egg oviposited on the nearest host plant. During the rare occasion of an egg being laid in the middle of the dish (not immediately near a host plant) it was not counted at all. The host plants were collected throughout numerous locations of Florida daily or semi daily. Plants were primarily collected from various locations in Gainesville, Florida, and near Goethe State Park, Florida, but other collection sites were sometimes used,

PAGE 125

125 depending on availability of plants. The quantity of plants needed fluctuated depending on number of females set up for oviposition preference bioassays and number of larvae fed, and it was not uncommon to remove large branches of trees measuring 2 3 m in length with a 4 m pole saw daily. Branches were brought back to the Gaine sville, Florida labs immediately upon removal. Plant limbs were placed in a bucket of water and l eaves we re then removed from the branches and quickly placed into an aquapick (floral water tube) to maintain leaf turgidity. The arenas used for oviposition preference bioassays are large, cylindrical clear plastic containers with a fitted lid. A paper tow e l wa s cut to fit smoothly along the bottom of the container. The host plants used for each study were placed along the perimeter of the container at equal distance from each other preventing any overlapping of plants. The female butterfly was placed into the container (after feeding) and covered with the lid (Figure 2 11). The arenas were then placed onto a table that has been modified to contain three rotating platforms. Each platform rotates at approximately 1 revolution per 6 minutes. A stand of incandescent 100 W lights were placed approximately 0 .66 m from the arenas (Figure 2 12). Multiple arenas were sometimes stacked on top of each other producing columns of arenas, but no more than eight were stacked at once; therefore, eggs could not be collected from more than 24 females one time. The lights were set to a photocycle of 6:6 h L:D to maximize egg laying production. An original setting of a 4:4 h L:D photocycle did not produce a large quantity of eggs. The rearing room containing the oviposition arenas was set to 24 C, although the temperature within the oviposition

PAGE 126

126 containers was much higher and more humid when the lights were on (32 C, nearly 100% R.H. ). Eggs were counted and collected daily from each female according to which plant they were laid on (Figure 2 13) and placed into a labeled petri dish. The eggs were removed by using scissors to cut small areas of the leaf on which the egg was laid and adhered to. While eggs were collected, the females were fed a 1:5 honey water solution until they would not feed any longer. Eggs in petri dishes were kept in the rearing room with the oviposition arenas, but were kept further from the lights; therefore, the eggs were kept at a more constant temperature of 24 C. Old leaves and leaves with multiple cuttin gs due to egg removal were replaced with fresh leaves daily Aqua picks were checked daily and refilled with water as needed. Adults were removed from the arenas once they became too weak to feed or went 3 days without ovipositing. No leaves remained for m ore than 3 days for the bioassays, but they were usually replaced daily. Spreadsheets of total number of eggs laid on each plant per female were created in Excel 7.0. The data were transformed into percentage data and then converted to a proportion for each f emale. The proportion data was transformed for normality by taking the arcsine squareroot of each percentage. The transformed data was then uploaded in JMP 6.0 Student Edition for analysis. Each year (2006, 2007, and 2008) was analyzed separately because each year was m odified from the previous. Data from 2007 and 2008 are each separated into two treatments each due to the addition of Tulip Tree in both summer flight periods (with and without Tulip Tree) P opulations or regions were used in the analysis only if they had three or more females oviposit.

PAGE 127

127 All analysis for oviposition preference was tested with a oneway ANOVA followed by Each Pairs Students t tests. A total of four different analyses were issued to determine oviposition preference dynamics within and between populations and regions. The first analysis tested s ignificant differences for preference tested between each population per plant species for instance, determining if the Sebring, FL population has a stronger preference for Sweetbay t han the Gainesville, FL population. The second analysis determined significant differences in oviposition preference within populations. The third and fourth analyses required the populations to be divided into regions in relation to the NorthernFlorida S uture Zone (north, within, and south) to determine overall oviposition preference in relation to the suture zone. The third analysis tested significant differences between regions for each plant species. The final analysis determined significance in ovipos ition preference within each region. A MANOVA test was run on the 2008 data to determine which regions were significantly different in oviposition preference. The results from these analyse s will also determine oviposition preference hierarchal ranking wit hin each region. Larval Survival Eggs removed from oviposition arenas were placed into petri dishes and were checked daily for neonate larvae emergence. Upon emerging, neonate larvae were removed with a soft tip camel hair paintbrush and placed into a cont ainer with an aquapicked host plant (Figure 2 14). The rearing procedure was continuously modified and improved throughout this investigation, but all treatments consisted of nochoice feeding bioassays The general setup of this study was to determine pr ogeny performance assays on selected host plants using a split brood design.

PAGE 128

128 Larval S urvival in 2006 The first trials in 2006 consisted of placing neonate larvae into petri dishes which were placed into Florida Reach In Chambers (FRIC) set at different tem peratures (constant 24 or 35 C) at the Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. This proved very ineffective, as neonate larvae quickly desiccated regardless of temperature. Maintaining humidity in the FRIC is difficult and the lack of humidity is thought to be the r eason for desiccation. There was no larval survival data recorded from 2006. Larval S urvival in 2007 Due to the dessication problems with rearing neonate larvae in 2006, it was determined in 2007 that larval sur vival was best studied at 24 C in the rearing room l ocated at the McGuire Center f or Lepidoptera and Biodiversity which also contained the oviposition preference arenas. Six humidifiers were placed throughout the room, which were set to function at diffe rent time intervals so that only 2 humidifiers would run at a time. The humidifiers created approximately 75% humidity in the room at all times. Neonate larvae, upon emergence were divided and placed into a Rubbermaid T akealong s containers labeled with the mother s identification number number of larv a e, host plant, and container number. The containers were modified to have approximately half of the top removed (cut away) and replaced with fine mesh screen to create airflow. The screen was hot glued ont o the top of the container (Figure 2 15). As neonate larvae emerged, they were randomly divided and placed on to one of the host plants which were placed into separate containers (1 host plant per container) The same host plants used to study oviposition preference in 2007 were also used for d etermining larval survival Recording for larval survival began in the f all of 2007.

PAGE 129

129 Larval S urvival in 2008 In 2008 the protocol for larval development was changed again. During this year larvae were raised again in Rubbermaid Takealongs labeled with mother s identification number, container number, host plant, and number of larvae, but this time the lids were not cut open and screened; instead, the lids were left completely intact. It was found that by placing larvae in these containers with the aquapicked host plant and keeping the lid tightly closed, sufficient humidity was produced within the container for normal larval growth and development, and created a better rearing environment ( i.e. reduced the spreadi ng of disease). In addition, a strong emphasis was put on placing fewer larvae together as neonates, and larvae placed together as neonates were split up into individual containers upon reaching 2nd or early 3rd instars. In 2008, neonate larvae were still kept in the rearing room at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity. Larval survival in 2007 and 2008 was calculated based on the number of larvae that successfully developed from the first instar (neonate) to the second instar. In other words if a larva survived the first molt it was recorded as being able to survive on that host plant, regardless if the same larvae died during a later period of development. Larval Survival Data Analysi s Spreadsheets were created consisting of the number of larvae that emerged from each mother (including location where the mother was captured), host plant and the number of larvae that emerged and survived to the second instar. Percent larval survival was initially calculated and averaged for larvae fed the s ame host plant, Tulip Tree (TT), Sweetbay (SB), Green Ash (GA), Black Cherry (BC), and Willow (W) per mother T hen

PAGE 130

130 larval averages per mother were averaged together with the larval survival of other mothers to determine overall percent survival within eac h population and region. In order to determine significant differences of larval survival within and between populations and regions the percent survival was arcsine transformed. The 2007 and 2008 larval survival data were pooled together due to similar rearing conditions for neonate larvae (reared in rearing room). Only populations with at least three mothers captured that subsequently had at least three sibling larvae a piece fed the same host plant were used to determine significant differences between populations Only mothers that had at least three larvae fed a specific host plant were used to determine significant differences between regions. A one way ANOVA followed by an Each Pair Students t test was used to test for significant differences. Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Larvae from the survival experiments were continuously fed the species of host plant they were originally placed on. Throughout their development, host plants were replaced as needed, aquapicks were refilled with water, frass w as removed from the container and the old paper towel was replaced with a fresh paper towel daily. 2007 Rearing Conditions In 2007, larval duration was studied by rearing larvae in the rearing room (24 C) at the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodive rsity, the same room as the oviposition arenas. A wooden structure was constructed that consisted of trellis plastic platforms from which fluorescent lights (Sylvania full spectrum sunstick, 5000K, 40 W, 90 CRI) were hung and set to a 14:10 photoperiod. Larvae were reared in the same type of containers used to calculate larval survival until early prepupae stage (Figure 216), at which point they were quickly transported to the FRIC at the Entomology and

PAGE 131

131 Nematology Department for temperature shocking treat ments (to study phenotypic plasticity in adult P. glaucus discussed later). The chambers were set to various constant temperatures and photoperiods as outlined in Table 23. Pre pupae were left in the chamber until pupation (approximately 2 days), at which point they were removed from the chamber and weighed in grams. 2008 Rearing Conditions In 2008, larval duration experiments were altered to reproduce conditions more similar to what P. glaucus are exposed to north and south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. This was done to potentially induce a phenotypic response in the subsequent adults. Rubbermaid Takealong containers were set up as mentioned earlier for larval survival calculations in 2008. Second instar larvae were then transported to the FRIC at the Entomology Department which were set to various temperatures. Larvae were kept individually per container, unless there was a limit of containers, then no more than three larvae were kept together, but only until the third instar, at which point they w ere divided into separate containers. As seen in Table 23, temperatures and photoperiods in FRIC in early 2008 were adjusted to vary ing temperatures replicating La Fayette, Georgia (northern Georgia, north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone) and Naples, Florida (south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone). Temperatures were changed in late July 2008 to replicate Lansing, Michigan and Naples, Florida temperatures (Figure 219). Temperatures were based on average monthy temperature readings for summer months ( www.noaa.com ). O nce placed into a chamber, larvae were reared at the same temperature regimes throughout development in 2008 until adult eclosion. Larvae were fed the same host plants listed earlier for larval survival in 2008 and were checked daily to replace food

PAGE 132

132 with fresh leaves, empty out frass, replace paper towel, and refill aquapicks. Date of pupation was recorded, and pupae were removed from the Rubbermaid containers and weighed (grams). Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Data Analysis Larvae that successfully developed and eclosed as adults were used to calculate larval duration and pupa weight These adults were sexed in order to categorize larval duration and pupal weight by sex; this was necessary because mal e and female P. glaucus are sexually dimorphic for larval development time periods and attain dif ferent weights. Larval duration was calculated by subtracting the neonate emergence date from the date the larva pupated. Pupa mass (g) was determined at the t ime pupation occurred (usually 1 day after pupation). Both, larval duration and pupal weight was transformed by taking the squareroot of each value. Pupal weights and larval duration data were categorized according to rearing temperature and host plant and then divided into categories according to where each mother was captured ( region). All pupal weight and larval duration data was pooled together within each region, regardless of the number of siblings. Pupal weights and larval durations were used in the analysis only if three repitions of each treatment survived to adulthood. Average pupal weight and larval duration data was analyzed first between host plants used, and between rearing temperatures, without region (North, South, and with NorthernFlorida Suture Zone) taken into account. Significant differences between pupal weight and larval duration were then tested within and between each region according to host plant, and the according to rearing temperature. A oneway ANOVA followed by an Each Pair St udents t test was used to test for significance. A fit model analysis was

PAGE 133

133 used to test for a correlation between temperature and host plant on larval duration and pupal weight. All data were analyzed using JMP 6.0 Student Edition. Phenotypic Plasticity of Adult P. glaucus Experiments investigating plastic traits in P. glaucus b utterflies were divided into three categories: the effect of temperature, the effect of host plant and the combination of host plant and temperature on morphological traits in adult s, particularly color and morphometrics ( including size ) The adults that emerged from the larval survival and larval duration experiments mentioned above were used here for the adult phenotypic plasticity experiments. Phenotypic Plasticity S tudies in 2007 Pupae were transported back from the temperature shock chambers to the rearing room at the McGuire Center where they were hung within a screened enclosure (1 m3) with compartments (Figure 2 17) The pupae were hung by hot gluing the abdominal tip to the screen, and a label was placed next to each pupa to identify which mother it came from and specific rearing conditions. Compartments were arranged so that pupae from the same mother exposed to similar temperature conditions (e.g. same chamber) and reared on the same host plant were placed together. The date of adult emergence was recorded and adults were then subjected to the same morphometric and co lor analysis described above. Phenotypic P lasticity in 2008 Pupae were hot glued by the cremaster to the lids of Rubbermaid Takealongs round bowls Paper towel was placed at the bottom of the container, and containers (with pupae) were placed back into the same chamber with the fluctuating temperature as the larvae were reared. The paper towel was occasionally sprayed with distilled

PAGE 134

134 water to provide some humidity. Date of adult eclosion was recorded and adults were placed through the same mor phometric and color analysis previously described. Data Analysis A oneway ANOVA followed by an Each Pair Students t test s was performed in JMP 6.0 Student Edition on the emerged adults to determine any significance betw een wing color and host plant, and wing color and temperature regime. In addition, a oneway ANOVA was used to determine any significance between size of emerged adults (FWL) and host plant, and size (FWL) and temperature. Each region was treated as a separate treatment; therefore sibling offspring reared from different mothers collected in each region were pooled together according to sex, temperatureshock ( 2007 data) rearing temperature (2008 data), and host plant, regardless of which family they were reared from. Dark morph females were analyzed separately. A fit model analysis was used to determine significance of the combination of host plant and temperature on color, and the combination of host plant and temperature on wing size. Hybridization Studies Laboratory reared adults were mated with other lab reared adults or wild captured males to test reproductive compatability of P. glaucus from populations north and south of the suture zone. R ecently emerged virgin females were mated with either wild collected males or lab reared recently emerged males from northern populations All adults used were fed a 1:5 honey water solution before being handpaired for m ating. Before mating, male were placed under a warm light for approximately 30 minutes b efore being hand paired to induce susceptibility of female. Handpairing P. glaucus adults followed similar instructions reported by Clarke and Shephard (1956). With o ne hand, warmed males were gently squeezed near the tip of

PAGE 135

135 the abdomen, slightly anterior from the claspers with forefinger and thumb, which resulted in evers ion of the claspers and exposure of the aedeagus. In the other hand, the female is held in such a way that her abdomen is exposed. The aedeagus of the male was then lined up with the genital opening of the female, and inserted into the female. The female was then gently rubbed and/or twisted back in forth, never leaving contact with the males genitalia, which would stimulate eversion of the male genitalia into the female and closing of the claspers onto the female s abdomen. Suitability of the male and female connection was tested by slowly releasing the male to ensure he would stay coupled with the female s abdomen without releas e If the male released the female, the hand pairing was tried again. If the male did not release the female, the female (with attached male) was placed on a vertical substrate, such as curtain drapes or the back of a fabric covered chair (Figure 2 20.). Copulation time was recorded and stopped once the male and female became disconnected. The male and female were both fed the honey water solution again. Mated females were set up in the previously described oviposition containers to determine oviposition preference Males, depending on age and condition, were either fed honey water solution for an addition al two days and mated again, or were frozen. Eggs from mated females were collected and the subsequent larvae had survival d etermined and were reared under the same conditions as other larvae ( as cited in the phenotypic plasticity experiments). The recently emerged female adults were then fed a honey water solution and mated again with either wildcaptured males (hybrid female x wild collected male) or were mated with other reared males (hybrid female x hybrid

PAGE 136

136 male). Eggs were collected again and the process was continued. Copulation time and larv al survival were analyzed with JMP 6.0 software and Excel for all individuals.

PAGE 137

137 Figure 2 1 Layout of equipment used for color analysis. In this picture the wings of a dark morph female P. glaucus have been pinned on the Styrofoam spreading board with the yellow color standard placed next to the butterfly. The camera and butterfly ar e inside the light box, which is closed when the photograph is taken. The photograph is sent to a computer that has the color analysis software Lenseye.

PAGE 138

138 Figure 2 2. Raw JPEG image taken of P. glaucus 7068F. This image will be cleaned up by erasing the pins, shadows, and other unwanted images with Adobe Photoshop 6.0 before being analyzed by Lenseye software.

PAGE 139

139 Figure 2 3 Cleaned image of P. glaucus 7068F. Unnecessary images were removed from the figure leaving only the butterfly and the interior of the color standard.

PAGE 140

140 Figure 2 4 Regions of interest removed from a female P. glaucus The three dots are placed in the same order as described in the text.

PAGE 141

141 Figure 2 5 Images used for color analysis. The upper left circle is the color standard wh ich will be used to calibrate the three other images. Figure 2 6 Pre calibrated images used for color analysis. Lenseye software has selected each image to be processed for the analysis and has been assigned to use image 1 as the image to use for cali bration.

PAGE 142

142 Figure 2 7 Calibrated photograph used for color analysis. Using the color standard the image has been calibrated to represent the true colors. The calibration then produces a table that lists the quantified details of the degree of calibration needed for each image, thus analyzing the color of each image. Figure 2 8 Example comparison of a raw image and a calibrated image. The raw image (top) represents the initial photograph of P. glaucus 8174F. The bottom image represents the calibrated photograph after the image has been cleaned.

PAGE 143

143 A G F C B D E Figure 2 9 Image of ventral side of male P. glaucus maynardi to illustrate measurements taken for morphometric analysis. The measurements (blue lines) consisted of forewing l ength (FWL) (A), width of black band in anal cell of hindwing (WABB) (B), width of anal cell on hindwing (WAC) (C), lenth of hindwing (HWL) (D), hindwing submarginal band (HWSMB) (E), forewing submarginal band (FWSMB) (F), and tail shape (TS) (G). Picture of male P. glaucus was obtained f rom a McGuire C enter specimen (Warren et al., 2010)

PAGE 144

144 Figure 2 10 A female P. glaucus feeding on honey water solution out of a spoon. A female P. glaucus would typically rest contently while feeding. Figure 2 11 Ov iposition container with plant samples used to determine oviposition preference per female. The clear plastic lid has been removed here to reveal the female P. glaucus and three host plants: Sweetbay M. virginiana ; Black Cherry P. serotina; and Green Ash F. pennsylvanica.

PAGE 145

145 Figure 2 12 Setup used to determine oviposition preference for P. glaucus femal es. The turntable consisted of three rotating platforms; each could support eight oviposition dishes (only two dishes with females shown here). Figur e 2 13 Eggs laid by a female P. glaucus on Tulip Tree ( L iriodendron tulipifera)

PAGE 146

146 Figure 2 14 Transport of neonate P. glaucus larvae using a camelhair paintbrush. Neonate larvae were carefully removed from the petri dishes and placed on a randomly chosen leaf ( Sweetbay depicted here). Figure 2 15 Modified container used for rearing P. glaucus larvae in 2007. In this photograph, one larva has been placed on an aquapick ed Tulip Tree, L. tulipifera leaf.

PAGE 147

147 Figure 2 16 P. glaucus larva photographed at prepupa stage. As seen in the late 5th instar larvae presented here, there is a sequential transformation that takes place in the epidermal layers of the skin. In image A, the typical 5th instar larvae has a nearly solid and vibrant green color. As the metamorphosis progresses, the vibrant green becomes much more dull colored, and there is a mottled coloration that appears on the skin as seen in image B. It was at this point that larvae were removed from the rearing room and subjected to temperature shocking experiments. Image C represents the larva at the late prepupa stage, just before the final molt to reveal the pupa. A C B

PAGE 148

148 Figure 2 17 Screen enclosure used for hanging P. glaucus pupae in 2007. Pupae were hot glued to the enclosure within compart ments with a data label taped next to them for identification. Figure 2 18 Emergence of P. glaucus neonate larvae in petri dish. Typically, larvae would emerge from eggs approximately 4 to 5 days after being laid. A mass emergence as shown above was a common occurrence.

PAGE 149

149 Figure 2 19 Varying temperatures used for larval rearing in Florida Reach In Chambers in 2008. Temperatures were set to closely mimic actual average summer temperatures (June August) at each city.

PAGE 150

150 Figure 2 20 Photographs of handpaired P. glaucus Photograph A demonstrates how handpaired individuals were tested to ensure that the male was securely fastened to the female. The female was held with the male dangli ng from her abdomen; if he let go, the handpairing method was repeated. Photographs B and C show how females (dark morph in photograph C) were hung on curtains while mating continued. A B C

PAGE 151

151 Table 2 1 Camera specification used for color analysis Image Quality Compressed RAW (12 bit) Image Size Large (3872x2592) Col or Color Device Nikon D200 Lens VR 18 200 mm F/3.5 5.6 G Focal Length 35 mm Sensitivity ISO 100 Optimize Image Custom High ISO NR Off Exposure Mode Manual Metering Mode Multi Pattern Shutter Speed 1/3 sec F/11 Exposure Comp.: (in Camera) 0 EV Focus Mode AF S Long Exposure NR Off Exposure Comp.: (by Capture NX) 0 EV Sharpening Auto Tone Comp. Auto Color Mode Model Saturation Normal Hue Adjustment 0 White Balance Direct Sunlight

PAGE 152

152 Table 2 2 Output from Lenseye software from P. glau cus 7068f Filename z: \ 7068fr.bmp Date 1/5/2010 4 Version 9.7.6 Time 1:32:41 PM Illuminant D65 Blob # 1 2 3 4 Average Name 1 2 3 4 Area(pixels) 13332 1108 1108 1101 1106 Area (user units) 0 0 0 0 0 Max X 149 332 503 671 Max Y 153 603 603 603 Min X 19 295 466 634 Min Y 25 568 568 568 Using RGB as Threshold Low High R 220 255 G 220 255 B 220 255 Length 131 38 38 38 38 Height 129 36 36 36 36 Elongation 1.015504 1.055556 1.055556 1.055556 1.055556 Color Anal ysis Results Color Blocks 4096 Threshold 1 Plot seq. 1 2 3 4 5 3472 0 1.534 0.271 0.091 0.633 3488 0 2.076 0.181 0.272 0.844 3744 0 85.74 89.621 0.182 58.637 3745 0 1.805 1.354 0 1.055 3762 0 0.271 0.271 1.272 0.603 3763 0 0.722 1.08 3 0.908 0.904 4016 0 0 0 2.452 0.814 4017 0 0 0 5.904 1.96 4018 0 0 0 17.62 5.849 4019 0 0 0.09 55.132 18.33 4020 0 0.271 0.361 5.631 2.08 4036 0 0 0 2.271 0.754 4037 0 0.451 0.451 1.09 0.663 4038 0 1.534 1.805 1.453 1.598 4039 0 1.083 1.354 1.453 1.296 4056 0 0.993 0.722 1.272 0.995 4068 15.909 0 0 0 0 4069 79.065 0 0 0 0 4070 3.09 0 0 0 0 A rea 13332 1108 1108 1101 1106 Lab L* 90.17 71.61 70.48 77.95 73.31 StdDev L* 0.37 2.84 3.05 2.11 Lab a* 3.27 14.18 15.4 12.49 14.02 StdDev a* 0.71 1 .72 1.9 1.27 Lab b* 74.3 78.42 79.46 72.94 76.93 StdDev b* 3.12 6.93 6.83 5.56 NBS name brilliant yellow strong orange yellow strong orange yellow strong orange yellow strong orange yellow

PAGE 153

153 Table 2 3 Outline of temperatures and photoperiods used for rearing and temperature shocking experiments Year Temperature C Photoperiod Comments 2007 18 12:12 Constant temperatures 24 14:10 24 10:14 32 14:10 32 10:14 35 15:9 2008 (spring) 22 15:9 Constant temperatures 27 15:9 32 15:9 200 8 (summer) NGA (17 30) 15:9 Varying Temperatures FL (22 32) 15:9 2008 (late summer) LMI (14 27) 15:9 FL (22 32)

PAGE 154

154 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Collection and Sampling Eastern Tiger Swallowtail butterflies were collected from field population sit es in the spring through fall in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The first year of collecting, 2006, yielded the fewest P. glaucus as much of this year was spent in search of reliable collecting sites with stable populations for sampling. There were only two collec ting sites that could be consistently sampled: Cedar Key and Lake Placid, Florida, shown in Figure 3 1 and Figure 3 2 respectively Both of these populations are located south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone and the Lake Placid population represents t he most southern population of P. glaucus sampled throughout this entire investigation (although areas further south than this were searched for P. glaucus ) Because of the phenotypes of all individuals in the site, the Lake Placid population is considered to contain the most homogene ous population representing the maynardi subspecies found in this investigation. Both t he Cedar Key and Lake Placid population had an abundance of host plants and nectar sources for P. glaucus The Lake Placid population is lo cated near the town of Lake Placid, but the collecting site is located along Lake Istokpoga. Only one host plant, Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana, was present in high abundance and is likely one of the most common tree species in the area. This specific coll ecting site yielded two areas good for collecting P. glaucus : one area along the side of Lake Placid near Bradley Avenue in a small forest area in between a subdivision of houses and a boat launch, and another area actually in the lake four feet under high water and thus accessible only when the lake is experiencing drought. The first area consists of relatively few nectar sources;

PAGE 155

155 only the occasional Lantana camara is pre sent and that is only at certain times of year and when the area in the small forest has not been mowed, which unfortunately is a common occurrence here. Although there are few nectar sources, there is an abundance of Sweetbay and extraordinarily large females can be seen ovipositing at the tops of these trees throughout the late morning and afternoon. The tops of some of these trees are approximately 20 m in height; thus ovipositing females could only be captured when they flew down below the canopy, at which point I had to be ready for the catch. Collecting males and females in this area was best accomplished during the morning hours from 8 11 am, when adults were basking on leaves at a reachable height or feeding on nectar sources near the ground. The other region at Lake Placid was inconsistent in terms of producing a large quantity of adult butterflies, as the accessibility for this region was directly correlated with the lakes water level. The severe drought in the spring of 2007 allowed me to access a patch of buttonbush, Cephalanthus occidentalis which numerous P. glaucus were utilizing as a nectar source at approximately 11 am. In less than 20 minutes over 20 adult P. glaucus were collected --a high number for this collecting site. Subsequent trips to this area revealed a lake filled with water. On one occasion, I attempted wadi ng through the 3 4 feet of water to the area where the buttonbush was seen before, which is approximately a half mile from the starting point That area was not visible when water has been present because other vegetation in the water had grown over my h ead in height. This wading trip was unsuccessful due to the young alligators I encountered. They began barking for their mother because of my presence, at which point I decided it was best to turn around and retreat to the shore.

PAGE 156

156 Lake Placid was visited ev ery spring, summer, and fall in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, the area became increasingly more urbanized, which seems to have impacted the tiger swallowtail population there. This region was a reliable source for P. glaucus at the early stages of the inve stigation, but fewer tiger swallowtail butterflies were seen during later trips Increased mowing in the area limited the number of nectar sources available; therefore, what butterflies were there became more difficult to capture as they were flying high i n the canopy. In additi on, this forested region had a For S ale sign on my last visit, which suggests to me that this wooded area could unfortunately be drained and cleared in the future. A drive around the remainder of Lake Placid revealed few areas that w ere as natural and hospitable for P. glaucus as this area. Cedar Key, the other main collecting site in 2006, became the pr imary collecting site for P. glaucus throughout this investigation. As long as this area was visited during a time period when P. gla ucus were known to be flying, as many as 100 P. glaucus could be captured t here in a single day A quantity this large was never captured on a single visit in this study, as it would have been unnecessary. Unlike the Lake Placid population, Cedar Key has other host plants available to P. glaucus than only Sweetbay Black Cherry ( Prunus serotina) and Green Ash ( Fraxinus pennsylvanica ) are abundant in the area, but neither is as abundant as Sweetbay Nectar sources are common in the area, but the favored nect ar source is thistle ( Cirsium sp. ) which is common in spring, particularly late March. During this time period, the Cedar Key collecting site is booming with activity of P. glaucus and other butterfly species. In addition to the thistle, L antana camara and C ephalanthus occidentalis are also common

PAGE 157

157 in the area during certain times of the year. The Cedar Key collecting site is situated along a small road near the brackish water in the delta of the Suwannee River and the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 3 1 ) Host plant s and nectar sources line both sides of the road here and this site is only frequented by the occasional driver taking his or her boat to the river. This area is currently under no threat of habitat disturbance. In 2007 and 2008, other reliable collecting sites were utilized that encompassed a much larger sampling region. In addition to sampling Lake Placid and Cedar Key, FL populations, P. glaucus were collected from Barberville, FL, an area near Goethe State Park, FL, a region along a roadside at the Florida/Georgia border on Road 441 (Florida/Georgia 441). P. glaucus were also obtained from Vicksburg, MS. Collecting during the spring of 2007 was unfortunately very difficult as forest fires swept across much of north Florida and south Georgia. The Florida/Georgia 441 site was unapproachable as it was literally on fire and most of northern Florida was covered in a haze of smoke, which does not serve as a beneficial butterfly attractant. In 2008, the number of sampling sites dramatical ly increased, and due t o other l epidopterists and butterfly enthusiasts, I managed to find other excellent sampling areas throughout northern Georgia (La Fayette, GA, and Coopers Creek, GA). In addition, as I was busy feeding larvae or sampling south Florida, I was receiving sh ipments of P. glaucus in the mail from Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia. The Sebring, FL, population was the most reliable population to sample throughout 2008. Upon receiving a Florida Department of Environmental Protection collecting permit (Permit # 04250820), a total of 30 individuals were removed from Highlands Hammock State Park. The areas outside the park

PAGE 158

158 borders also proved to be areas of good sampling. Table 3 1 and Table 3 2 present the number of P. glaucus collected i n 2007 and 2008, respectively Color Analysis of Male and Yellow Female P. glaucus Color Comparison per Population according to S ex Oneway ANOVA determined there were significant differences between populations of female P. glaucus in L* (lightness scale dark to light, 0 100) values ( F= 4.94; df== 10, P < 0.0001), a* (green to red scale, 120 120) values ( F= 2.78; df== 10; P=0.0056), and b* (blue to yellow scale, 120 120) values ( F= 2.50; df= 10; P=0.012) (Table 33) In addition, oneway ANOVA determined significant differences between populations of male P. glaucus in L* values ( F= 14.94, df= 16, P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 7.24, df= 16, P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 2.58; df= 16, P=0.0008) (Table 3 3 ). Although significant differences were found between populations, it is difficult to determine if there was a general trend in the data from north to south for each sex. Color Comparison per Region (North, Within, and South of Suture Zone) Oneway ANOVA determined significant differences between regions of female P. glaucus in L* values ( F= 2.59; df= 2; P=0.0806), a* values ( F= 8.98; df= 2; P=0.0003), and b* values ( F= 4.81; df= 2; P=0.0104). Oneway ANOVA also determined significant differences between regions of male P. glaucus L* values ( F= 13.73; df= 2; P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 15.68; df= 2; P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 6.17; df= 2; P=0.0023) (Table 3 4 ). The mean color analysis results are shown in Figure 33. Analysis of Average C olor Change per Flight Period in Each R egion According to Table 3 5 oneway ANOVA determined some significant differences between flight periods for female and male P. glaucus in each region. Populations of female P. glaucus north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant

PAGE 159

159 differences between the summer and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 0.31; df= 1; P=0.5896) and b* values ( F= 1.84; df= 1; P=0.1965), but did have significant differences in a* values ( F= 15.84; df= 1; P=0.0014). Males in this region also had significant differences in the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 42.92; df= 2; P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 38.13; df= 2; P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 3.55; df= 2; P=0.0332). Females in populations within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had a significant difference between the spring and summer broods in L* values ( F= 10.11; df= 1; P=0.0010) and b* values ( F= 1.25; df= 1; P=0.3102), but no significance in a* values ( F= 5.78; df= 1; P=0.0109). Males in this region had significance between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 25.28; df= 2; P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 16.66; df= 2; P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 19.46; df= 2; P<0.0001). Females in populations south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant differences between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 1.43; df= 2; P=0.2490), b* values ( F= 0.42; df= 2; P=0.6620), but did have significant differences in a* values ( F= 5.33; df= 2; P=0.0081). Males in this region displayed significant differences between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 10.25; df= 2; P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 13.09; df = 2; P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 7.38; df= 2; P=0.0010). Color Comparison of Mean L* a* and b* Values between Each Region during Each Flight P eriod Oneway ANOVA determined some significant differences in L* a* and b* values between each region during eac h flight period (Table 3 6 ). Female P. glaucus north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant differences in L* values ( F= 2.3; df= 2; P=0.1192) and b* values ( F= 0.50; df= 2; P=0.6130) in the fall flight period when

PAGE 160

160 compared to the other regions during this same flight period, but did have significant differences in a* values ( F= 3.34; df= 2; P=0.0499). Males north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone in the fall flight period had no significant differences when compared to other regions in L* values ( F= 2.23; df= 2; P=0.1149) and a* values ( F= 2.68; df= 2; P=0.0756), but did show significance in b* values ( F= 14.26; df= 2; P<0.0001). In the spring flight period, there is no significant difference between female P. glaucus when comparing populations south and within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone; L* values ( F= 1.61; df= 1; P=0.2175), a* values ( F= 0.0034; df= 1; P=0.9537) and b* values ( F= 1.23; df= 1; P=0.2794). Interestingly, the male P. glaucus during this flight period do show significance when comparing populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in L* values ( F= 10.41; df= 2; P<0.0001), a* values ( F= 17.93; df= 2; P<0.0001), and b* values ( F= 6.03; df= 2; P=0.0028). During the summer flight period, there are significant differences between female P. glaucus populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in a* values ( F= 14.20; df= 2; P<0.0001) and b* values ( F= 5.48; df= 2; P=0.0094), but the L* values are not significant ( F= 1.09; df= 2; P=0.3496). The males during this flight period show no significant differences between populations from these regions in L* values ( F= 0.90; df= 2; P=0.4131), a* values ( F= 0.83; df= 2; P=0.4407), and b* values ( F= 0.52; df= 2; P=0.5993). Dark Morph Female P. glaucus Color Analysis Color Analysis between P opulations and per Region for Dark Morph Female P. glaucus Oneway ANOVA determined significant differences in dark morph P. glaucus females between populations in L* values ( F= 2.49; df= 6; P=0.0407), but no significant differences in a* values ( F= 1.66; df= 6; P=0.1588) or b* values ( F= 2.30; df= 6; P=0.0554)

PAGE 161

161 ( although mean separations showed significance in a* and b* values, Table 3 7 ) Overall, the southern populations were slightly darker than other regions. When populations were combined and analyzed by region, oneway ANOVA determined significant differences in dark morph P. glaucus females in L* values ( F= 6.43; df= 2; P=0.0035) and b* values ( F= 3.97; df= 2; P=0.0258), with butterflies from the north being lighter and more yellow than wi thin and southern populations. There was no significant differences in a* values ( F= 0.26; df= 2; P=0.7713) (Table 3 8 ). Color Comparison of Dark M orph P. glaucus Females per Flight P e riod in Each R egion Oneway ANOVA determined significant differences between the summer and fall flight periods in populations of dark morph female P. glaucus north of the suture zone in L* values ( F= 7.04; df= 1; P=0.0199), a* values ( F= 7.83; df= 1; P=0.0151), and b* values ( F= 8.24; df= 1; P=0.0131) illustrating that dark morph females from the fall flight period we re respectively darker, more red, and more yellow than dark morph females from the summer flight period. Populations south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant differences between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in L* values ( F= 1.06; df= 2; P=0.3655), a* values ( F= 0.66; df= 2; P=0.5280), or b* values ( F= 1.74; df= 2; P=0.2022) (Table 3 9 ). Color Comparison of M ean L* a* and b* V alues between Each Region during Each Flight P eriod Oneway ANOVA determined some significant differences between each region during each flight period. Dark morph f emale P. glaucus north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant differences during the fall flight period when compared to the southern populations in a* values ( F= 0.55; df= 1; P=0.4715), but did have significant differences in L* values ( F= 12.90; df= 1; P=0.0027) or b* values ( F= 11.42; df= 1;

PAGE 162

162 P=0.0041) (Table 310) During the spring flight period there were no significant differences between populations south and within the NorthernFl orida Suture Zone in L* values ( F= 0.15; df= 1; P=0.7067), a* values ( F= 0.066; df= 1; P=0.7999), or b* values ( F= 0.43; df= 1; P=0.5207). The summer flight period also showed no significance difference between the north and south populations in L* values ( F= 0. 09; df= 1; P=0.7700), a* values ( F= 2.80; df= 1; P=0.1233), or b* values ( F= 8.60; df= 1; P=0.4555) Multivariate Analysis of Color per Flight Period in Each R egion The multivariate analysis of variance determined no significant correlations in L*, a*, or b* values in females north of suture zone during the f all flight period. On the other hand, a significant difference was found between all measured variables ( L*, a* and b* values) in male P. glaucus in this region during this period (Table 3 11) During the f all flight period south of the suture zone, female P. glaucus had significant correlations between all measured variables. Males south of the suture zone also had significant correlations between all variables during the fall flight period. There were no c orrelations within the suture zone in females and males during the fall flight period, except a significant correlation between L* and a* values in males. During the spring flight period, male P. glaucus had a significant correlation between all variables north of the suture zone, and no females were measured. Females and males south of the suture zone had significant correlations between all measured variables during the spring flight period. Within the suture zone, male and female P. glaucus had significant correlations between all variables except the L* and b* values in females during the spring flight period (Table 312) During the summer flight period, female P. glaucus had no significant correlations between measured variables except the a* and b* va lues north of the suture zone, but

PAGE 163

163 males in this region had significant correlations for all values. Females and males south of the suture zone had significant correlations for all color values. Within the suture zone there were no significant correlations in female color values, but all color values in male P. glaucus had significant correlations (Table 313) The sample size during the winter flight period was too small to determine any correlations in male and female P. glaucus Morphometric Analysis Mor phometric C omparison between P opulations of P. glaucus for Each S ex Mean wing measurements for male and female P. glaucus recorded from each population are shown in Figure 34. Oneway ANOVA determined there were significant differences (Table 314) between populations of female P. glaucus in forewing length ( FWL) ( F= 9.26; df= 13, P<0.0001), width of anal cell on hindwing ( WAC) values ( F= 1.98; df= 13; P=0.0232) hindwing length ( HWL ) ( F= 3.25; df= 13; P=0.0002), forewing submarginal band ( FWSMB) ( F= 4.41; df= 13; P<0.0001), hindwing submarginal band ( HWSMB) ( F= 5.24; df= 13; P<0.0001), but no significance in width of black band in anal cell ( WABB ) ( F= 1.46; df= 13; P=0.1309) although separation of means found significance. O neway ANOVA determined significant differences between populations of male P. glaucus in FWL ( F= 32.02; df= 16; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 6.72; df= 16; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 15.60; df= 16; P<0.0001), HWL (F= 21.06; df= 16; P<0.0001), FWSMB ( F= 6.51, df= 16, P<0.0001), and HWSMB ( F= 9.21, df= 16, P<0.0001) (Table 3 15) In general, measurements are larger in southern populations for both females and males. Morphometric Comparison of Male and Female P. glaucus per R egion Oneway ANOVA determined significant differences between regions of female P. glaucus in FWL ( F= 23.92; df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 4.14; df= 2; P=0.0169), WAC

PAGE 164

164 ( F= 3.68; df= 2; P=0.0265), HWL ( F= 9.51; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 4.52; df= 2; P=0.0118) and FWSMB ( F= 9.23; df= 2; P<0.0001) (Table 3 16) One way ANOVA also determined significant differences between regions of male P. glaucus in FWL ( F= 153.38; df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB (F21.79; df= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 74.27; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 106.70; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 26.15; df= 2; P<0.0001), and FWSMB ( F= 24.70; df= 2; P<0.0001) (Table 3 17) thus reiterating that male and female P. glaucus butterflies south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone are larger than in other regions. Analysis of Morphometric Change per Flight Period in Each R egion As seen in Table 3 18, oneway ANOVA determined some significant differenc es between fli ght periods for female P. glaucus in each region. Populations of female P. glaucus north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone had no significant differences between the summer and fall flight periods in FWSMB ( F= 2.49; df= 1; P=0.1233), HWL ( F= 0 .1325; df= 1; P=0.7206), WAC ( F= 0.05; df= 1; P=8245), and FWL ( F= 1.30; df= 1; P=0.2619), but did show HWSMB ( F= 4.37; df= 1; P=0.0439) was smaller in females from summer flight periods while WABB ( F= 7.16; df= 1; P=0.0111) was larger in females from summer flight periods South of the suture zone, females had significant differences between the spring, summer, and fall broods in FWSMB ( F= 11.78; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 46.64; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 23.68; df= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 4.25; df= 2; P=0.0063), WABB ( F= 0.71; df= 2; P=0.5483), and FWL ( F= 41.26; df= 2; P<0.0001) with female butterflies from later flight periods generally having larger measurements than those from early flight periods Within the suture zone, females had significant differences between the spring and summer in FWSMB ( F= 12.41; df= 1; P0.0012), HWSMB ( F= 28.98; df= 1; P<0.0001), and FWL ( F= 17.86; df= 1; P=0.0002),

PAGE 165

165 but no significance in HWL ( F= 1.18; df= 1; P=0.2875), WAC ( F= 2.70; df= 1; P=0.1092), and WABB ( F= 0.19; df= 1; P=0.6679) once again with butter flies from the later flight period displaying larger measurements than those from the early flight period As seen in Table 3 19, males north of the suture zone had significant differences between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods in FWSMB (F9.44; df= 2; P=0.0002), HWSMB ( F= 19.71; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 3.70; df= 2; P=0.0306), WAC ( F= 14.59; df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 4.83; df= 2; P=0.0103), and FWL ( F= 19.48; df= 2; P<0.0001) with a general trend showing larger measurements in the later flight period. Males south of the suture zone displayed the same trend between the spring, summer, and fall flight periods with significant differences in FWSMB ( F= 35.17; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 64.79; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 41.06; df= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 10.14; df= 2 ; P<0.0001) and FWL ( F= 78.45; df= 2; P<0.0001), but no significance in WABB ( F= 2.21; df= 2; P=0.1130) although mean separations depicted significance. Males within the suture zone had significant differences in FWSMB ( F= 47.23; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 101.20; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 28.19; df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 6.34; df= 2; P=0.0127), and FWL ( F= 74.77; df= 2; P<0.0001), but no significance in. WAC ( F= 1.17; df= 2; P=0.2803) also portraying the same trend as the northern and southern regions Analysis Compar ing M orphometrics of P. glaucus between Regions per Flight P eriod There were significant differences (Table 320) between P. glaucus females using onewa y ANOVA when comparing populations north and south of the suture zone in the fall flight period in FWSM B ( F= 67.70; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 56.73; df= 1 ; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 48.71; df= 1 ; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 5.72; df= 1; P=0.0205), and FWL

PAGE 166

166 ( F= 114.66; df= 1 ; P< 0.0001), but no significance in WABB ( F= 3.78; df= 1 ; P=0. 0574) Female P. glaucus in the spring flight peri od had no significant differences between populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in HWL ( F= 2.20; df= 1; P=0.1173) FWSMB ( F= 2.35; df= 1; P=0.0989), HWSMB ( F= 1.15; df= 1; P=0. 3208), WAC ( F= 0.22; df= 1; P=0. 8019), WABB ( F= 1.07; df= 1; P=0. 3448), and FWL ( F= 1.89; df= 1; P=0.1547). In the summer flight period, female P. glaucus had significant differences between populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in FWSMB ( F= 4.79; df= 2; P=0.0115), HWSMB ( F= 16.12; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 28.25; d f= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 3.50; df= 2; P=0.0360), and FWL ( F= 45.91; df= 2; P<0.0001), but no significance in WABB ( F= 0.09; df= 2; P=0.9122) Smallest measured females were recorded north of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone for both spr ing and summer flight periods. Comparing males between the north and south regions during the fall flight period (Table 321) were significant in FWSMB ( F= 12.84; df= 1; P=0.0006), HWSMB ( F= 12.99; df= 1; P=0.0006), HWL ( F= 136.88; df= 1; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 21.40; df= 1; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 5.90; df= 1; P=0.0176), and FWL ( F= 208.00; df= 1; P<0.0001). Male P. glaucus i n the spring flight period had significant differences between populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in FWSMB ( F= 6.42; df= 2; P=0.001 9 ), HWSMB ( F= 5.42; df= 2; P= 0.00 50), HWL ( F= 27.15; df= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 15.28; df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 3.96; df= 2; P=0.0202), and FWL ( F= 35.28; df= 2; P<0.0001). Males during the summer flight period had significant differences between populations north, within, and south of the suture zone in FWSMB ( F= 18.46; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 12.32; df= 2; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 15.59; df= 2; P<0.0001), WAC ( F= 33.83;

PAGE 167

167 df= 2; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 12.07; df= 2; P<0.0001), and FWL ( F= 101.47; df= 2; P<0.0001). Morphometric C omparison of P. glaucus M a les and Females between R egions Male and female P. glaucus had significant differences in morphometrics north of the suture zone (Table 322) in FWSMB ( F= 75.24; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 42.23; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 16.66; df= 1; P=0.0002), WAC ( F= 35.35; df= 1; P<0 .0001), WABB ( F= 19.72; df= 1; P<0.0001), and FWL ( F= 93.93; df= 1; P<0.0001). South of the suture zone, male and female P. glaucus had significant differences in FWSMB ( F= 147.74; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 45.23; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWL ( F= 26.66; df= 1; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 26.42; df= 1; P<0.0001), and FWL ( F= 55.93; df= 1; P<0.0001) but no significant difference in WAC ( F= 0.69; df= 1; P=0.4075) Within the suture zone, male and female P. glaucus had significant differences in FWSMB ( F= 80.62; df= 1; P<0.0001), HWSMB ( F= 3 8.77; df= 1; P<0.0001), WABB ( F= 27.58; df= 1; P<0.0001), and FWL ( F= 49.30; df= 1; P<0.0001), but no significant difference in HWL ( F= 0.65; df= 1; P=0.4221), WAC ( F= 2.72; df= 1; P=0.1003) All significant measurements support the trend that females are larger than males. Multivariate A nalysis of Wing Measurements in Male and Female P. glaucus A MANOVA test determined a significant correlation between every wing measurement in male P. glaucus with a 95% density ellipse (P<0.05). Female P. glaucus showed a similar trend, except there was a lack of a correlation between the transformed HWL and WABB measurements, and between the transformed HWSMB and WABB (P<0.05) (Table 323) A MANOVA determined a lack of a significant correlation between WABB and FWL, HWL and WABB, HWSMB and WABB, and FWSMB and WABB in female P. glaucus north of the suture zone. Male P. glaucus

PAGE 168

168 north of the suture zone also had a lack of correlation between HWL and WA BB, and HWSMB and WABB (Table 3 24). Female P. glaucus south of the suture zone had a lack of significant correlation between WABB and FWL, HWL and WABB, HWSMB and WABB, and FWSMB and WABB (P<0.05). Papilio glaucus males south of the suture zone had no significant correlations between HWSMB and WA BB, and FWSMB and WABB (Table 3 25). With in the NothernFlorida Suture Zone, female P. glaucus had a lack of significant correlations between the WABB and FWL, HWL and FWL, HWL and WABB, HWL and WAC, HWSMB and WABB, FWSMB and WABB, and FWSMB and HWL wing measurements. Male P. glaucus within the s uture zone had a lack of significant correlations between the HWSMB and WABB, and FWSMB and WABB wing measurements (Table 326). Multivariate Analysis for C o rrelations of Size and C olor in P. glaucus Forewing length (FWL) was used as a measurement of overall size of P. glaucus to determine a correlation between size and color (L:* a* and b* value), and correlations between the L*, a*, and b* values. The MANOVA determined significant correlations in size between FWL and a* values in female P. glaucus (regardless of brood and region). In addition, a significant correlation was found between L* and a* values, L* and b* values, and a* and b* values. In male P. glaucus there were correlations bet ween every measurement (Table 327). A MANOVA determined correlations (p<0.05) between color and size in females north of the suture zone in b* and L* values, and b* and a* values, but there were no correlations between size and color values. Males north of the suture zone had significant correlations between all measured variables except FWL and b* values. Females south of the suture zone had significant correlations between a* values and L*

PAGE 169

169 values, b* values and L* values, and b* values and a* values. There were no significant correlations between color and forewing lengt h. Males south of the suture zone had significant correlations between every measurement. Females within the suture zone had significant correlations between FWL and L* values, L* and a* values, and a* and b* values. Male P. glaucus within the suture zone had significant correlations between every measurement e xcept FWL and L* value (Table 328). Oviposition Preference Oviposition P reference in 2006 Data analysis is limited for 2006 data due to a lack of specimens from different locations. Mean percentage of eggs for 2006 has been depicted in F igure 3 5 for each location, but data collected from Gainesville, FL, and Lake Placid, FL w ere from one female each, and were not included in ANOVA analysis O neway ANOVA showed signif icant preference for Sweetbay (S B) Green Ash (GA), and Other over Black Cherry (BC) with in the Cedar Key, FL population ( F= 4.00; df= 3; P.0 1333) (Table 3 29 ) When the data were organized into regions, all P. glaucus were placed into the south region with only one individual left for analysis within the suture zone; therefore, the only analysis performed here determined significant differences in oviposition preference in the south ( F= 3.86; df= 3; 0.015) (Table 3 30) once again with BC favored significantly less than all other plants Ovi position Preference in 2007 Data analysis for the first portion of this year (before the addition of Tulip Tree) is limited due to a lack of multiple populations sampled (2 populations) and that only one female oviposited from the Lake Placid, FL populati on. The mean percentage of eggs for each population is depicted in Figure 3 6 The Cedar Key, FL population had

PAGE 170

170 significant differences in oviposition preference ( F= 10.43; df= 3; P=0.0012) (Table 3 31) with GA highly favored over SB, BC, and Other plant options Combining the Lake Placid, FL and Cedar Key, FL population into the southern region revealed similar significant results ( F= 19.17; df= 3; P<0.0001) (Table 3 32 ) The later part of this year, with the addition of Tulip Tree (TT) included more populations and females for analysis (Figure 3 7 ) There was a lack of a significant difference between Lake Placid, FL, Cedar Key, FL, and Vicksburg, Mississippi in preference for BC ( F= 1.19; df= 2; 0.3316), GA ( F= 0.04; df= 2; P=0.9605), SB ( F= 1.53; df= 2; P=0.2512), TT ( F= 0.36; df= 2; P=0.7051) or other ( F= 1.78; df= 2; P=0.2040) (Table 3 33) Although there was lack of significance between the hierarchal ranking of plants between these populations, there were significant differences within these populations for thes e plants; Cedar Key, FL ( F= 44.26; df= 4; P<0.0001), Lake Placid, FL ( F= 5.95; df= 4; P=0.0040), and Vicksburg, MS ( F= 22.18; df= 4; P<0.0001) all showed a preference for TT (Table 3 34) When these populations were divided into north and south regions (no populations included from within the suture zone), there is a lack of significance in preference between these regions for BC ( F= 0.14; df= 1; P=0.7117), GA ( F= 0.12; df= 1; P=0.7293), SB ( F= 0.14; df= 1; P=0.7138), TT ( F= 0.24; df= 1; P=0.6296), or other ( F= 0.37; df= 1; P=0.5513) (Table 3 35 ) There wer e significant differences within the north region ( F= 22.18; df= 4; P<0.0001) and so uth region ( F= 38.72; df= 4; P<0.0001) in oviposition preference for t hese host plants (Table 3 36) with partiality towards TT in both regi ons Oviposition P reference in 2008 Mean percentage of eggs oviposited in 2008 on host plants before the addition of Tulip Tree is shown in Figure 3 8 and mapped in Figure 39 Oneway ANOVA revealed

PAGE 171

171 no significant differences in the spring flight period in 2008 between the Barberville, FL, Cedar Key, FL, Pineland, FL, or Wakulla FL populations in preference for BC ( F= 3.13; df= 3; P=0.0697), GA ( F= 2.81; df= 3; P=0.0892), SB ( F= 2.66; df= 3; P=0.0997), or Willow (W) (F= 1.12; df= 3; P=0.3838) (Table 3 37) although mean separations determined significance. Significant differences were found in oviposition preference with females collected within Barberville, FL (F21.88; df= 3; P<0.0001), Pineland, FL ( F= 23.69; df= 3; P=0.0002), and Wakulla, FL ( F= 9.19; df= 3; P=0.0020), but no significance in Cedar Key, FL (F2.58; df= 3; P=0.1025) although mean separation displayed significance (Table 3 38 ) There were no significant differences between the regions within and south of the suture zone that encompass these populations in preference for BC ( F= 2.79; df= 1; P=0.1115), SB ( F= 0.6390; df= 1; P=0.4340) and W ( F= 0.15; df= 1; P=0.6986) but there was a significant difference in GA ( F= 6.39; df= 1; P=0.0205) (Table 3 39) Significant differences were found in oviposition preference for these particular host plants within the southern region ( F= 21.75; df= 3; P<0.0001) and within the suture zone ( F= 21.88; df= 3; P<0.0001) (Table 3 40) Oviposition preference for these regions was mapped in Figure 3 10 The mean oviposition preference per population sampled with the addition of Tulip Tree is shown in Figure 3 1 1 and mapped in Figure 31 2 Oneway ANOVA found no significant differences after the addition of Tulip Tree between the Cedar Key, FL, Elkton, TN, Fairmount, GA, Fayette, AL, Lake Placid, FL, Sebring, FL, and Waycross, GA populations in their preference for SB ( F= 1.70; df= 6; P=0.1486), TT ( F= 1.06; df= 6; P=0.4015), W ( F= 1.41; df= 6; P=0.2388), BC ( F= 0.40; df= 6; P=0.8770), or GA ( F= 0.91;

PAGE 172

172 df= 6; P=0.4997) It should be noted that although no significant differences were found by oneway ANOVA for this analysis the Each Pair Students t tests did reveal a ranking order in preference for these populations according to the means and determined which populations were significant from each other according to plant species (Table 3 41). One way ANOVA did find significant differences in oviposition preference between each plant within the Cedar Key, FL ( F= 27.66; df= 4; P<0.0001), Elkton, TN ( F= 19.97; df= 4; P<0.0001), Fairmount, GA ( F= 13.47; df= 4; P< 0.0001), Fayette, AL ( F= 7.81; df= 4; P=0.0040) Lake Placid, FL ( F= 3.33; df= 4; P=0.0384), Sebring, FL ( F= 39.14; df= 4; P<0.0001), or Waycross, GA ( F= 13.71; df= 4; P<0.0001) populations (Table 3 42) No significant differences were found using a oneway ANOVA be tween regions north, within, or south of the suture zone in preference for BC ( F= 0.72; df= 2; P=0.4947), GA ( F= 1.06; df= 2; P=0.3559), SB ( F= 1.96; df= 2; P=0.1535), TT ( F= 0.6239; df= 2; P=0.5410), and W ( F= 2.20; df= 2; P=0.1246) (Table 3 4 3 ) Significant diff erences were found in ovipositon preference for plant species within the regions north of the suture zone ( F= 35.48; df= 4; P<0.0001), within the suture zone (F13.71; df= 4; P<0.0001), and south of the suture zone ( F= 52.20; df= 4; P<0.0001) (Table 3 44). Ovipo sition preference within each region is mapped in Figure 313 Larval S urvival The overall percent larval survival was determined for each region in Table 345. The data represent the percent survival of all larvae reared, regardless of the number of larva e or mother per population and region; therefore, there were no tests for significance performed here.

PAGE 173

173 Larval S urvival W ithin and between P opulations Following the stipulations for an ANOVA test mentioned previously, numerous populations could not be compared due to low female sample numbers or that some females only had one larva em erge (a female needed at least three offspring to be included in the oneway ANOVA). A oneway ANOVA determined no significant differences in larval survival between the Cedar Key, FL, Sebring, FL, and Waycross, GA populations when fed Black Cherry ( F= 1.03; df= 2; P=0.3735). The Cedar Key, FL, and Sebring, FL populations had a lack of significant difference in larval survival when fed GA ( F= 0.72; df= 1; P=0.4155). There were no significant differences in larval survival between Cedar Key, FL, Elkton, TN, Lake Placid, FL, Pineland, FL, Sebring, FL, Wakulla, FL, and Waycross, GA fed Sweetbay ( F= 0.65; df= 6; P=0.6518). In addition, there was no significant difference between Cedar Key, FL, and Sebring, FL when fed Willow ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8645). There was a significant difference, though, between the Cedar Key, FL, Elkton, TN, Sebring, FL, and Waycross, GA populations when fed Tulip Tree ( F= 4.02; df= 3; P=0.0183) (Table 34 6 ). A oneway analysis of variance found significant differences in larval survival within the Cedar Key, FL population when fed Black Cherry (BC), Green Ash (GA), Sweetbay (SB), Tulip Tree (TT), and Willow (W) ( F= 4.20; df= 4; P=0.0060) with TT and BC preferred over GA and SB There were no significant differences in the Elkton, TN population when fed SB and TT ( F= 0.01; df= 1; P=0.9347), in the Sebring, FL population when fed BC, GA, SB, TT, and W ( F= 1.26; df= 4; P=0.3019), or Waycross, GA when fed BC, SB, TT ( F= 2.14; df= 2; P=0.1988) (Table 34 7 ).

PAGE 174

174 Larval S urvival W ithin and between Regions North, S outh, and W ithin the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone Oneway ANOVA found no significant differences between regions north, south, and within the suture zone in ability to survive on Black Cherry ( F= 1.40; df= 2; P=0.2602), and Sweetbay ( F= 1.93; df= 2; P=0.1547). There was a significant difference between these regions though, in ability to survive on Tulip Tree ( F= 6.18; df= 2; P=0.0050) with the northern region surviving best There were no significant differences found between regions south and within the suture zone in ability to survive on Green Ash ( F= 2.11; df= 1; P=0.1687), or Willow ( F= 0.06; df= 1; P=0.8109) (Table 34 8 ). The oneway ANOVA did find a significant differ ence in the region north of the suture zone in ability to survive on Tulip Tree, Sweetbay and Black Cherry ( F= 3.43; df= 2; P=0.0548), south of the suture zone in larval survival on Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree, and Willow ( F= 7.68; df= 4; P<0.0001), and w ithin the suture zone on Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree, and Willow ( F= 5.96; df= 4; P=0.0013) with the north, south, and within regions having lowest survival on SB, GA, and GA, respectively (Table 3 49) Larval Duration and Pupal Weight 2007 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Larval duration and pupa weight data acquired from 2007 were not analyzed for correlation to temperature because the prepupae were temperature shocked for only a short amount of time until pupation occurred. A total of 2 families from within the suture zone and 12 families from south of the suture zone were used in the analysis. A oneway ANOVA found no significant differences (Table 35 0 ) in pupal weight between female P. glaucus fed different host plants ( Black Cherry (B C), N=8; Sweetbay (SB),

PAGE 175

175 N=35; or Tulip Tree (TT), N=17) ( F= 0.12; df= 2; P=0.8849). A significant difference was found in larval duration of females when fed different host plants (BC, N=8; SB, N=36; TT, N=25) ( F= 18.42; df= 2; P<0.0001) with BC longest and TT shortest. A similar pattern was seen in male P. glaucus ; there was a lack of significant difference in pupal weight when fed SB (N=33) or TT (N=30) ( F= 0.31; df= 1; P=0.5795), but there was a significant difference in larval duration when fed SB (N=35) and TT (N=37) ( F= 13.33; df= 1; P=0.0005) with SB having a longer duration than TT Dividing the pupal weight and larval duration data int o the regions from where their mothers were collected yielded similar results as described above. A oneway ANOVA of females reared on different host plants from mothers collected south of the suture zone had no significant differences in pupal weight (BC, N=8; SB, N=32; TT, N=14) ( F= 0.75; df= 2; P=0.4775); male P. glaucus also had a lack of significant differences (SB, N=26; T T, N=30) ( F= 0.17; df= 1; P=0.6823). There were significant differences with both sexes from south of the suture zone in larval duration. Females had significant ly longer larval duration on BC (N=8) than SB (N=34), with duration on TT (N=22) the fastest ( F= 1 5.71; df= 2; P<0.0001) Males had significantly longer larval duration on SB (N=28) than TT (N=37) ( F= 12.47; df= 1; P=0.0008). Analyzed data from within the suture zone produced similar results. There was a lack of a significant difference in pupal weight between females fed SB (N=3) and TT (N=3) ( F= 5.9; df= 1; P=0.0720) (Table 351). No other data from 2007 could be analyzed because only a few individuals were collected from the region within the suture zone. Pupal weight s and larval durations were compared between regions according to which host plant larvae were fed. Females fed SB south of the suture zone (N=32) were

PAGE 176

176 not significantly different than those fed SB within the suture zone (N=3) in pupal weight ( F= 0.09; df= 1; P=0.7725). Males fed SB yielded simi lar results when comparing pupal weight between the regions south of the suture zone (N=26) and within the suture zone (N=7) (F= 0.08; df= 1; P=0.7792). There was no significant difference s in male larval duration between the regions south (N=28) and within the suture zone (N=7) ( F= 0.06; df= 1; P=0.8138). A lack of data prevented a similar analysis in larval duration of females fed SB. Interestingly, females fed TT were significantly different in pupa weight with higher weights in the south (N= 14) than within (N=3) the suture zone ( F= 10.36; df= 1; P=0.0057). Female larval duration was longer in the south (N=22) than within (N=3) the suture zone when fed TT ( F= 2.75; df= 1; P=0.1109) (Table 35 2 ). Too few males developed on TT to test a similar analysis. 2008 Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Larval duration and pupal weight data in 2008 introduced rearing temperatures and Willow as additional variables A total of 50 families were used for the following analyses (north, N=10; south, N=29; within, N=11, of suture zone). Larval duration and pupal weight were checked for significant differences between male and female P. glaucus fed different host plants, regardless of rearing temperature and region where their mothers were collected. There were significant differences in larval duration in females with GA (N=4) having a significantly longer duration than BC (N=59), SB (N=79), and TT (N=88) ( F= 5.91; df= 3; P=0. 0007) Larval duration was significantly longer in males on BC (N=58) than SB (N=93), TT (N=83), and W ( N=5) ( F= 7.56; df= 3; P<0.0001). Significiant differences were also found in pupal weight for females with the heaviest fed BC (N=55) and TT (N=86), and the lighest fed GA (N=3) and SB (N=74), ( F= 10.20; df= 3; P <0.0001). Significant differences were found in male pupal weights

PAGE 177

177 with the heaviest males fed BC (N=57), and the lighest fed SB (N=91), TT (N=78), and W (N=5) ( F= 6.97; df= 3; P=0.0002) (Table 35 3 ). Larval duration and pupal weight were compared for each sex between temperatures without host plant as a factor. In the following paragraphs, N. Georgia refers to North Georgia, and S. Fl orida refers to South Florida. Significant differences were found in female P. glaucus larval duration between temperatures set at 22 C (N=5), 24 C (N=66), 27 C (N=5), Lansing, Michigan (N=51), N. Georgia (N=35), S. Florida ( N=70) ( F= 12.77; df= 5; P<0.0001), and male P. glaucus reared at 22 C (N=9), 24 C (N=68), Lansing, Michigan (N=59), N. Georgia (N=36), and S. Florida (N=67) ( F= 33.83; df= 4; P<0.0001). Significant differences were also found between pupae weight for females reared at 22 C (N=5), 24 C (N=64), 27 C (N=5), Lansing, Michigan (N=46), N. Georgia (N=35), and S. Florida (N=65) ( F= 10.84; P<0.0001), and for males reared at 22 C (N=9), 24 C (N=66), Lansing, Michigan (N=58), N. Georgia (N=36), and S. Florida (N=61) ( F= 13.56; df= 4; P<0.0001) ( Table 3 54 ). For males and females, Lansing, Michigan temperatures have the longest larval durations and lowest pupal weights. A oneway ANOVA found significant differences in larval duration between rearing temperature according to each host plant for both sexes. When fed SB, female P. glaucus had significant differences when reared at 22 C (N=5) 24 C (N=24) 27 C (N=4) Lansing, Michigan (N=20) N. Georgia (N=9) and S. Flor ida (N=17) ( F= 11.94; df= 5; P<0.0001) with Lansing, Michigan having the longest duration. Males fed the same plant also had significant differences between rearing temperatures of 22 C (N=9), 24 C (N=30), Lansing, Michigan (N=20), N. Georgia (N=13), and S. Florida

PAGE 178

178 (N=19) ( F= 17.59; df= 4; P<0.0001) with Lansing, Michigan also having the longest larval duration. When fed TT, females had a significant difference between 24 C (N=7), Lansing, Michigan (N=25), N. Georgia (N=21), and S. Florida (N=35) ( F= 16.88; df= 3; P<0.0001). Males also had a significant difference in rearing temperatures of 24 C (N=10), Lansing, Michigan (N=24), N. Georgia (N=18), and S. Florida (N=31) ( F= 19.17; df= 3; P<0.0001). Male P. glaucus when fed BC had a significant difference between 24 C (N=22), Lansing, Michigan (N=14), N. Georgia (N=5), and S. Florida (N=17) rearing temperatures ( F= 16.57; df= 3; P<0.0001), with every significant larval duration measurement longest at Lansing, Michigan. T here were no significant differences for fem ales when fed BC at rearing temperatures of 24 C (N=31), Lansing, Michigan (N=6), N. Georgia (N=5), or S. Florida (N=16) when fed BC ( F= 2.08; df= 3; P=0.1131) (Table 355 ) There were significant differences in pupal weight of females when fed BC at 24 C (N=31), Lansing, Michigan (N=3), N. Georgia (N=5), and S. Florida (N=15) rearing temperatures ( F= 4.84; df= 3; P=0.0049), and males also had significant differences when fed BC at these same rearing temperatures (N=22, 14, 5, 16, respectively) ( F= 3.45; df= 3; P=0.0229) with the heaviest pupal weight occurring at N. Georgia temperatures When fed TT, females had a significant difference between rearing temperatures of 24 C (N=7), Lansing, Michigan (N=24), N. Georgia (N=21), and S. Florida (N=34) ( F= 13.73; df= 3; P<0.0001) with the heaviest pupal weight attained at N. Georgia temperatures A oneway ANOVA also yielded significant differences between male pupal weight when fed TT at rearing temperatures of 24 C (N=10), Lansing, Michigan (N=23), N. Georgia (N=18) and S. Florida (N=27) ( F= 15.06; df= 3; P<0.0001)

PAGE 179

179 with the highest pupal weight occurring at N. Georgia temperatures Similarly to larval duration, Lansing, Michigan temperatures always had the lowes t pupal weight. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in female pupal weight when fed SB between rearing temperatures of 22 C (N=5), 24 C (N=22), 27 C (N=4), Lansing, Michigan (N=19), N. Georgia (N=9), or S. Florida (N=15) ( F= 2.27; df= 5; P=0.0571). Males also had no significant differences when fed SB at rearing temperatures of 22 C (N=9), 24 C (N=29), Lansing, Michigan (N=20), N. Georgia (N=13), or S. Florida (N=18) ( F= 1.86; df= 4; P=0.1254) (Table 35 6 ). The larval duration was compared for each sex according to which host plant they were fed at each rearing temperature, within each region in relation to the suture zone. At 24 C there were no significant differences in larval duration in female offspring from mothers captured south of the suture zone when fed BC (N=21), SB (N=9), or TT (N=6) ( F= 1.98; df= 2; P=0.1544). Males from this same region when fed the same host plant species (N=10, 16, 8, respectively) at 24 C also lacked significant differences in larval dur ation ( F= 2.12; df= 2; P=0.1322). Females south of the suture zone had no signifi cant differences in larval duration when fed SB (N=12) or TT (N=12) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 0.73; df= 1; P=0.4009), however, males had significant differences in larval duration when fed BC (N=8), SB (N=14), and TT (N=9) ( F= 14.56; df= 2; P<0.0001) with males having a longer duration when fed BC Females from south of the suture zone had no significant differences in larval duration when fed BC (N=5), SB (N=8), or TT (N=21) when reared at N. Georgia temperatures ( F= 2.26; df= 2; P=0.1209), nor did males when fed BC (N=5), SB (N=10), or TT (N=18) ( F= 1.59; df= 2; P=0.2205). Males and f emales south of the suture zone had a significantly shorter larval duration

PAGE 180

180 when fed TT (N=21, 26 respectively) compared to those fed BC (N=15, 13) or SB (N=16, 13) ( F= 6. 76, df= 2; P=0.0026, F= 7.07; df= 2; P=0.0020). Male and female offspring from mothers collected from within the suture zone had significant differences in larval duration when fed BC (N= 10, 9 respectively), SB (N= 13, 13) and TT (N=3, only males) ( F= 8.86, df = 2; P=0.0014, F= 14.77, df= 1; P=0.0010). Within the suture zone, females had a significant difference when fed SB (N=4) and TT (N=6) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 14.00; df= 1; P=0.0057) with females having a longer duration on SB There were no significant differences in females from within the suture zone when fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=3) ( F= 0.43; df= 1; P=0.5476), and males also had no significant differences in larval duration when fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=6) at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 0.0005; df= 1; P= 0.9832). There were few P. glaucus from north of the suture zone reared at temperatures other than S. Florida and Lansing, Michigan rearing temperatures. Female P. glaucus from north of the suture zone had a significant ly longer lar val duration when fed SB (N=4) compared to those fed TT (N=7) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 18.88; df= 1; P=0.0019). Males from this region also had significant differences in larval duration when fed BC ( N=5), SB (N=4), and TT (N=7) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 4.45; df= 2; P=0.0337) with males developing longer on SB Too few P. glaucus from this region reared at S. Florida temperatures emerged for analysis (Table 357 ) The pupal weight was compared for each sex according to which host plant they were fed at each rearing temperature, within each region in relation to the suture zone. Female offspring from mother s collected south of the suture had significant differences

PAGE 181

181 in pupal weight when fed BC (N=21), SB (N=7), and TT (N=6) at 24 C ( F= 5.05; df= 2; P=0.0127) with females having a lower pupal weight when fed SB but males did not have any significant differences when fed these same plants (N=10, 15, 8, respectively) ( F= 1.18; df= 2; P=0.3212). Females south of the suture zone had no significant differences in pupal weight when fed SB (N=11) or TT (N=12) ( F= 0.27; df= 1; P=0.6085), and males also had no significant differences in pupal weight when fed BC (N=9), SB (N=14), or TT (N=9) when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 0.1045; df= 2; P=0.9012). Females and males south of the suture zone had significant differences in pupal weight when fed BC (N=5, 5 respectively ), SB (N=8 10) and TT (N=21, 18) when reared at N. Georgia temperatures ( F= 7.49; df= 2; P=0.0022, F= 6.49; df= 2; P=0.0046) both sexes had lowest weig hts when fed SB Significant differences were found in pupal weight of females from south of the suture zone when fed BC (N=13), SB (N=12), and TT (N=25) which had the highest weight when reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 6.19; df= 2; P=0.0041), but males had no significant differences in pupal weight when fed BC (N=14), SB (N=15), or TT (N=18) ( F= 2.89; df= 2; P=0.0662). Females from within the suture zone had a significant ly higher pupal weight when fed BC (N=9) compared to those fed SB (N=13) ( F= 14.09; d f= 1; P=0.0013), and males also had the highest pupal weight when fed BC (N=10), compared to those fed SB (N=13), or TT (N=3) at 24 C ( F= 6.93; df= 2; P=0.0044). Within the suture zone, females had no significant difference s in pupal weight when fed SB (N=4) or TT (N=6) when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 2.12; df= 1; P=0.1832). There were significant differences in the pupal weight of males from within the suture zone when fed

PAGE 182

182 SB (N=3) and TT (N=6) at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 8.53; df= 1; P=0.0223) ; larvae fed TT had the highest weights. As with the larval duration data, few analyses were accomplished with males and females north of the suture zone due to few individuals being available. Females north of the suture zone had significant differenc es in pupa weight when fed SB (N=4) and TT (N=6) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 8.25; df= 1; P=0.0207), with females having a higher pupal weight when fed TT. M ales also had significant differences in pupal weight when fed BC (N=5), SB (N=4), and TT ( N=6) ( F= 3.03; df= 2; P=0.0860) with the highest pupal weight in individuals fed TT (Table 3 58). A oneway ANOVA was used to test for significant differences in larval duration and pupal weight in both sexes of P. glaucus between different regions when fed the same host plant and reared at the same temperature. There was a lack of significant differences in larval duration found between females south (N=21) or within (N=9) the suture zone when fed BC and reared at 24 C ( F= 2.86; df= 1; P=0.1019), and males f rom these regions (N=10, 10, respectively) also had no significant differences ( F= 0.82; df= 1; P=0.3769). When fed BC, males from north (N=5) of the suture zone had significantly longer larval duration than males from south (N=8) of the suture zone w hen reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 10.9381; df= 1; P=0.0070). Females from south (N=9) of and within (N=13) the suture zone had significant differences in larval duration when fed SB at 24 C ( F= 23.55; df= 1; P<0.0001) with females from south of the suture zone having a longer duration than those within the suture zone, but there were no significant differences in larval duration of males from south (N=16) of or within (N=12) the suture zone ( F= 3.95; df= 1; P=0.0575). There were

PAGE 183

183 no significant differences in female P. glaucus from north (N=4) of, south (N=12) of, or within (N=4) the suture zone when fed SB at Lansing, Michigan temper atures ( F= 1.95; df= 2; P=0.1728), but s ignificant differences were found, though, in the larval duration of males from nort h (N=4) and south (N=14) of the suture zone ( F= 7.30; df= 1; P=0.0157) with males from south of the suture zone developing fastest There were no significant differences in larval duration of male P. glaucus from south (N=10) of or within (N=3) the suture z one when fed SB and reared at N. Georgia temperatures ( F= 1.00; df= 1; P=0.3398). No significant differences were found in female P. glaucus from south (N=13) of or within (N=3) the suture zone when fed SB and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 0.40; df= 1; P=0.5398), males from these regions (N=16, 3, respectively), also had no significant differences ( F= 0.26; df= 1; P=0.6140). There were significant differences in the larval duration of females from north (N=7) of, south (N=12) of, and within (N=6) the suture zone when fed TT and reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 10.94; df= 2; P=0.0005), with females from south of the suture zone having the longest duration, but t here were no significant differences in larval duration of male P. glaucus from nor th ( N=7) of, south (N=9) of, or within (N=8) the suture zone ( F= 1.67; df= 2; P=0.2116). There were no significant differences in the larval duration of females collected from nort h (N=6) of, south (N=26) of, or within (N=3) the suture zone when fed TT and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 0.08; df= 2; P=0.9271). Male P. glaucus from the same regions (N=4, 21, 6, respectively) also had no significant differences when fed TT at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 0.79; df= 2; P=0.4626) (Table 359 )

PAGE 184

184 No s ignificant differ ences were found in pupal weight between females from south (N=21) and within (N=9) the suture zone when reared at 24 C and fed BC ( F= 4.03; df= 1; P=0.0544), and in males from these regions (N=10, 10, respectively) ( F= 1.20; df= 1; P=0.2876). There was a significant difference in pupal weight of males from north (N=5) and south (N=8) of the suture zone when fed BC at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 7.59; df= 1; P=0.0187). When fed SB and reared at 24 C females from south (N=7) of or within (N=13) the suture zone had no significant differences in pupal weight ( F= 1.24; df= 1; P=0.2794), males also had no significant differences from so uth (N=15) of or within (N=12) t he ( F= 0.01; df= 1; P=0.9052). Significant differences were found in the pupal weight of females from north (N=4) of, south (N=11) of, and within (N=4) the suture zone when fed SB and reared at Lansing, Michigan temperat ures ( F= 23.34; df= 2; P<0.0001) with females from south of the suture zone having the heaviest weight Males also had similar signif icant difference s from north (N=4) and south (N=14) of the suture zone when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures on SB ( F= 49.64; df= 1; P<0.0001) Males from south (N=10) of or within (N=3) the suture zone had no significant differences in pupal weight when fed SB at N. Georgia temperatures ( F= 0.45; df= 1; P=0.5169). There were significant differences in the pupal weight of males from south (N=15) of and within (N=3) the suture zone when fed SB and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 6.20; df= 1; P=0.0241) with males from south of the suture zone having the heavier pupal weight Significant differences were not found in the pupal weight of females from north (N=6) of, south (N=12) of, or within (N=6) the suture zone when fed TT at Lansing,

PAGE 185

185 Michigan tempe rat ures ( F= 3.36; df= 2; P=0.0543), but males had significant differences in the pupal weight of males from north (N=6) of, south (N=9) of, and within (N= 8) the suture zone ( F= 5.93; df= 2; P=0.0095) with males from north of the suture zone having the lowest pupal weight There were significant differences in the pupal weight of female P. glaucus from north (N=6) of, south (N=25) of, and within (N=3) the suture zone when fed TT at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 17.44; df= 2; P<0.0001), males also had significant di fferences from the regions north (N=3), south (N=18), and within (N=6) the suture zone ( F= 7.98; df= 2; P=0.0022) (Table 360) ; both sexes were heaviest south of the suture zone. Effect of Temperature and Host P la nt on Phenotypic Plasticity of A dult P. glaucus Resul ts from 2007 TemperatureShock E xperiments In 2007, all larvae were reared at 24 C and then temperatureshocked at various temperatures during the prepupal stage to determine if temperature has an effect on the subsequent wing color. In addition, the effect of host plant on wing color was analyzed. The first analysis consisted of determining the effect of host plant on wing color. Male P. glaucus from south of the suture zone had a significant differene in b* values and L* values between individuals fed SB (N=19) and TT (N=31) ( F= 4.93; df= 1; P=0.0311, F= 4.18; df= 1; P=0.0463, respectively ) with a higher L* values when fed SB and a higher b* values when fed TT, but no significant differences in a* values ( F= 1.90; df= 1; P=0.1747). Male P. glaucus f rom within the suture zone were not analyzed due to a small sample size. Interestingly, f emales south of the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.51; df= 1; P=0.4813), a* values ( F= 0.06; df= 1; P=0.8056), or L* values ( F= 1.94; df= 1; P =0.1736) between individuals fed SB (N=20) and TT (N=12).

PAGE 186

186 In addition to determining the effect of host plant and temperature on wing color, the effect of host plant on the size of P. glaucus was determined using the forewing length (FWL) measurement. Mal es from south of the suture zone fed SB (N=26) or TT (N=33) had no significant differences in FWL ( F= 0.92; df= 1; P=0.3422). Females also had no significant differenc es in FWL when fed SB (N=22) or TT (N=18) ( F= 2.51; df= 1; P=0.1215) ( Table 361 ) There wer e no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.98; df= 2; P=0.3862), a* values ( F= 0.28; df= 2; P=0.7575), or L* values ( F= 0.23; df= 2; P=0.7988) between females collected south of the suture zone temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=4), 20 C (N=7), or 35 C (N=21 ). The b* values ( F= 0.32; df= 2; P=0.7313) and a* values ( F= 1.07; df= 2; P=0.3500) between male P. glaucus wing color were also not significantly different when temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=9), 20 C (N=6), or 35 C (N=35) The L* values were significantl y different in males collected from south of the suture zone when temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=9), 20 C (N=6), and 35 C (N=35) ( F= 6.04; df= 2; P=0.0046) with the lowest L* values at 35 C There were no s ignificant differences in FWL between females so uth of the suture zone temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=3), 20 C (N=7), or 35 C (N=30) ( F= 0.17; df= 2; P=0.8412), and between m ales w hen temperatureshocked at similar temperatures (N=9, 8, 42, respectively) ( F= 1.82; df= 2; P=0.1721) (Table 3 62 ) The 2007 data w ere analyzed according to the effect of host plant combined with temperatureshock on wing color. Male P. glaucus when reared at 17 C had a significant difference in b* values ( F= 11.04; df= 1; P=0.0127) and a* values ( F= 16.64; df= 1; P=0.0047) betw een individuals fed SB (N=4) and TT (N=5), with both values

PAGE 187

187 higher in individuals fed TT, but no significant differences in L* values ( F= 0.99; df= 1; P=0.3532) When temperatureshocked at 35 C, there were no significant differences in male b* values ( F= 0. 50; df= 1; P=0.4857) or a* values ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8667) between individuals fed SB (N=16) or TT (N=21), but t here were signi ficant differences in L* values ( F= 8.20; df= 1; P=0.0070) with a lower L* value in individuals fed TT. There were no significant di fferences in male P. glaucus FWL between individuals fed SB (N=4) or TT (N =5) ( F= 0.94; df= 1; P=0.3637) temperature shocked at 17 C fed SB (N=3) or TT (N= 5) temperature shocked at 20 C ( F= 0.02; df= 2; P=0.8905) or w hen temperatureshocked at 35 C between individuals fed SB (N=21) and TT (N=23) ( F= 2.49; df= 1; P=0.1221). There w ere no significant differences in female b* values between individuals fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=3) temperatureshocked at 20 C ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8593), and there were no significant differences between a* values ( F= 0.00; df= 1; P=0.9882) or L* values ( F= 0.05; df= 1; N=0. 8347) fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=4) when temperatureshocked at 20 C. When females were temperatureshocked at 35 C, there were no significant difference s in b* values ( F= 4.12; df= 1; P=0.0541) or a* values ( F= 0.00; df= 1; P=0.9795) between individuals fed SB (N=13) or TT (N=12), but the L* values were significantly higher on individuals fed SB ( F= 5.23; df= 1; P=0.0316) T here were no significant differences in fe male FWL betw een individuals fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=4) ( F= 2.28; df= 1; P=0.1911) when temperatureshocked at 20 C or when temperatureshocked at 35 C (SB, N=16; TT, N=14) ( F= 1.91; df= 1; P=0.1777) ( Table 3 63) Male and female P. glaucus wing color and FWL were compar ed between temperatureshock according to which host plant they were fed as larvae. Females fed

PAGE 188

188 SB did not have significantly different b* values ( F= 0.43; df= 2; P=0.6567), a* values ( F= 0.13; df= 2; P=0.8789), or L* values ( F= 0.67; df= 2; P=0.5243) when temperature shocked at 17 C (N=4), 20 C (N=3), or 35 C (N=13). Females fed TT did not have significantly different b* values ( F= 2.12; df= 1; P=0.1760), a* values ( F= 0.46; df= 1; P=0.5148), or L* values ( F= 0.l14; df= 1; P=0.7164) when temperatureshocked at 20 C (N=4) or 35 C (N=8). There w ere no significant differences in FWL between females temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=3), 20 C (N=3), or 35 C (N=16), when fed SB ( F= 0.40; df= 2; P=0.6736). When fed TT, females had no significant differences in FWL when tem peratureshocked at 20 C (N=4) or 35 C (N=10) ( F= 0.69; df= 1; P=0.4213). There were no significant differences in male b* values ( F= 4.08; df= 1; P=0.0606), a* values ( F= 2.25; df= 1; P=0.1529), or L* values ( F= 2.14; df= 1; P=0.1630) between individuals fed S B and temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=4) or 35 C (N=14). When fed TT, males had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 1.42; df= 2; P=0.2582) or a* values ( F= 2.34; df= 2; P=0.1146) when temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=5), 20 C (N=5), or 35 C (N=21), b ut the L* values were significantly lower when temperatureshocked at 35 C ( F= 7.09; df= 2; P=0.0032). There were significant differences in FWL between males fed SB and reared at 17 C (N=4) and 35 C (N=19) ( F= 4.55; df= 1; P=0.0449) with a longer FWL with individuals reared at 17 C but no significant differences when fed TT at these temperatures (N=5, 5, 23, respectively) ( F= 0.11; df= 2; P=0.8998). There were no significant differences between dark morph females fed SB in b* values ( F= 0.18; df= 1; P=0.6923), a* values ( F= 0.00; df= 1; P=0.9869), or L* values ( F= 0.11; df= 1; P=0.7524) when temperatureshocked at 17 C (N=3) or 35 C (N=3),

PAGE 189

189 but there were significant differences in FWL ( F= 10.64; df= 1; P =0.0310) with a longer FWL in individual reared at 17 C (T able 3 64). 2008 Phenotypic Plasticity E xperiments In 2008, experiments were modified from the prepupae temperatureshock experiments done in 2007 to rearing larvae at different temperatures (constant and variable) from the second instar through adult eclosion. When studying the relationship of host plant on color, with no other variables, female P. glaucus had no significa nt differences in b* values between individuals fed BC (N=27), SB (N=41), or TT (N=38) ( F= 2.99; df= 2; P=0.0546), but there were signifi cant differences in a* values ( F= 5.57; df= 2; P=0.0050) and L* values ( F= 3.83; df= 2; P=0.0248) with the highest L* value and lowest a* value when fed SB Males had significant differences in b* values ( F= 2.73; df= 3; P=0.0456) and L* values ( F= 7.48; df= 3; P= 0.0001) between individuals fed BC (N=41), SB (N=60), TT (N=54), and W (N=4) with the lowest L* value and highest b* value when fed TT, but no significant differences in a* values ( F= 1.98; df= 3; P=0.1189). Significant differences were found in female FWL between individuals fed BC (N=27), SB (N=36), and TT (N=34) ( F= 4.28; df= 2 ; P=0.0166), and in males ( F= 7.48; df= 3; P=0.0001) when fed BC (N=37), SB (N=54), TT (N=45), and W (N=4) (Table 3 65) with the smallest FWL when fed SB in both sexes Investigations of the relationship of temperature and color, with no other variables, revealed significant differences in b* values between females reared at 22 C (N=4), 24 C (N=38), 27 C (N=4), and Lansing, Michigan (N=15), N. Georgia (N=17), and S. Florida temperat ures (N=28) ( F= 3.65; df= 5; P=0.0045) with the lowest b* value with females reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures but no significance in a* values ( F= 1.52; df= 5; P=0.1912) or L* values ( F= 2.12; df= 5; P=0.0690) although mean

PAGE 190

190 significance showed separat ion Male P. glaucus had significant differences in b* values ( F= 4.68; df= 4; P=0.0014), a* values ( F= 8.29; df= 4; P<0.0001), and L* values ( F= 5.12; df= 4; P=0.0007) between individuals reared at 22 C (N=9), 24 C (N=52), and Lansing, Michigan (N=39), N. Geo rgia (N=27) and S. Florida temperatures (N=34) with the lowest L* values at S. Florida and N. Georgia temperatures, highest a* values at S. Florida and Lansing, Michigan temperatures, and the highest b* values in individuals reared at S. Florida temperatures A oneway ANOVA found significant differences between female FWL when reared at 22 C (N=4), 24 C (N=37), 27 C (N=4), and Lansing, Michigan (N=8), N. Georgia (N=17), and S. Florida temperatures (N=27) ( F= 2.96; df= 5; P=0.0161), and between male FWL ( F= 6.58; df= 4; P<0.0001) when reared at 22 C (N=8), 24 C (N=51), and Lansing, Michigan (N=25), N. Georgia (N=27), and S. Florida temperatures (N=31) ; both sexes had the largest FWL when reared at N. Georgia temperatures (Table 3 66). Color and FWL were c ompared between regions in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone with a oneway ANOVA to determine significant differences between individuals fed a particular host plant and reared at a certain temperature. There were no significant differences in the b* values of females betw een the regions south (N=11) or within (N=8) the suture when reared at 24 C ( F= 2.91; df= 1; P=0.1064) and fed BC, but there were significant differences in the a* values ( F= 5.03; df= 1; P=0.0386) and the L* values ( F= 7.59; df= 1; P=0.0135) with a higher a* value and a lower L* values south of the suture zone. Males fed BC and reared at 24 C had significantly different a* values between regions south (N=9) of and within (N=9) the suture zone ( F= 9.96; df= 1; P=0.0061) with a higher value in males south of the suture zone, but a lack of

PAGE 191

191 significant differences between L* values ( F= 3.83; df= 1; P=0.0678) or b* values ( F= 0.18; df= 1; P=0.6789). There were no significant differences in male b* values ( F= 3.34; df= 1; P=0.0854), a* values ( F= 0.96; df= 1; P=0.3401), or L* values ( F= 0.54; df= 1; P=0.4711) in individuals be tween regions south (N=8) of, or within (N=11) the suture zone when fed SB and reared at 24 C. Male P. glaucus had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.8963; df= 1; P=0 .3685), a* values ( F= 0.49; df= 1; P=0.5017), or L* values ( F= 4.93; df= 1; P=0.0535) between regions north (N=4) or south (N=7) of the suture zone when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures and fed BC Female P. glaucus had significant differences in b* va lues ( F= 5.15; df= 1; P=0.0725) between regions north (N=4) of and within (N=3) the suture zone when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures and fed SB, with a higher value in individuals north of the suture zone, but no significant differences in a* values ( F= 0.70; df= 1; P=0.4423) or L* values ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8801). Males fed SB and reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures had no significant differences between regions north (N=3) of or south (N=7) of the suture in b* values ( F= 0.74; df= 1; P=0.4142), a* values ( F= 4.64; df= 1; P=0.0634), or L* values ( F= 0.38; df= 1; P=0.5525). Females fed TT and reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.19; df= 1; P=0.6847) or a* values ( F= 0.04; df= 1; P=0.8414) when compared between regions north ( N=3 ) of and within ( N=4 ) the suture zone, but L* values were significantly different ( F= 14.76; df= 1; P=0.0121) There were no significant differences between males in b* values ( F= 0.21; df= 1; P=0.6578), a* values ( F= 0.75; df= 1; P=0.4057), or L* values ( F= 0.49; df= 1; P=0.4994) from regions north

PAGE 192

192 (N=6) of or within (N=7) the suture zone when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures and fed TT. Females from regions south (N=11) of or within (N=3) the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 1.06; df= 1; P=0.324), a values ( F= 1.12; df= 1; P=0.3110), or L* values ( F= 2.82; df= 1; P=0.1191) reared at S. Florida temperatures and fed TT. Males from these same regions (N=11, 6, respectively) reared at S. Florida temperatures and fed TT also had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8707), a* values ( F= 0.02; df= 1; P=0.8786), or L* values ( F= 0.21; df= 1; P=0.6531). There were no significant differences in female FWL between regions south (N=11) of or within (N=8) the suture zone when fed BC and reared at 24 C ( F= 2.11; df= 1; P=0.1642), and males from these same regions (N=9, 9, respectively) also had no siginificant differences ( F= 2.83; df= 1; P=0.1119). There were no significant differences in male P. glaucus FWL between regions south (N=8) of or within (N=10) the suture zone when fed SB and reared at 24 C ( F= 0.01; df= 1; P=0.9388). There were significant differences between the FWL of females from south ( N=11 ) and within ( N=3 ) the suture zone when fed TT and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 8.30; df= 1; P=0.0138) with a larger FWL in individuals from south of the suture zone. Males from south (N=10) of the suture zone had a significantly larger FWL than those from within (N=6) the suture zone when fed TT and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 11.14; df= 1; P=0.0049) ( Table 367 ). The color values and FWL were compared across host plants per rearing temperature and region for male and female P. glaucus Females from south of the suture zone reared at 24 C had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.47; df= 1;

PAGE 193

193 P=0.5047), a* values ( F= 0.03; df= 1; P=0.8570), or L* values ( F= 1.18; df= 1; P=0.2965) between individuals fed BC (N=11) or TT (N=4). Reared at 24 C, m ales south of the suture zone fed BC (N=9), SB (N=8 ), or TT (N=7) did have significant differences in b* values ( F= 5.70; df= 2; P=0.0105) a* values ( F= 10.69; df= 2; P=0.0006), or L* values ( F= 10.38; df= 2; P=0.0007). There were no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.43; df= 1; P=0.5183), a* values ( F= 0. 33; df= 1; P=0.5737), or L* values ( F= 4.24; df= 1; P=0.0552) between females fed BC (N=8) or SB (N=11) from within the suture zone when reared at 24 C. Males from this same region and reared at 24 C also had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.38; df= 1; P=0.5441), a* values ( F= 0.14; df= 1; P=0.7108), or L* values ( F= 3.26; df= 1; P=0.0879) between individuals fed BC (N=9) and SB (N=11). There were no significant differences in b* values ( F= 2.22; df= 1; P=0.1965), a* values ( F= 2.06; df= 1; P=0.2102), or L* values ( F= 0.66; df= 1; P=0.4531) between females fed SB (N=4) or TT (N=3) from north of the suture zone, when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures, and no significant differences in b* values ( F= 3.02; df= 2; P=0.0942), a* values ( F= 1.65; df= 2; P=0.204), or L* values ( F= 2.83; df= 2; P=0.1061) between males fed BC (N=4), SB (N=3), or TT (N=6). Males south of the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.26; df= 1; P=0.6186), a* values ( F= 0.35; df= 1; P=0.5640), or L* values ( F= 0.01; df= 1 ; P=0.9337) between individuals fed BC (N=7) or SB (N=7), when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures. Females from within the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.05; df= 1; P=0.8364), a* values ( F= 0.46; df= 1; P=0.5280), or L* val ues ( F= 1.66; df= 1;

PAGE 194

194 P=0.2534) between individuals fed SB (N=3) or TT (N= 4) reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures. F emales from south of the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 2.94; df= 1; P=0.1084), a* values ( F= 3.80; df= 1; P=0.0715), or L* values ( F= 0.29; df= 1; P=0.6010) when fed SB (N=5) or TT (N=11) and reared at N. Georgia temperatures, and m ales had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.45; df= 2; P=0.6423), a* values ( F= 0.36; df= 2; P=0.7046), or L* values ( F= 1.79; df= 2; P=0.1906) when fed BC (N=4), SB (N=8), or TT (N=13) Females from south of the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.70; df= 2; P=0.5088), a* values ( F= 1.80; df= 2; P=0.1947), or L* values ( F= 1.78; df= 2; P=0.1972) when fed BC (N=5), S B (N=5), or TT (N=11) reared at S. Florida temperatures, and males had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.86; df= 2; P=0.4391), a* values ( F= 0.10; df= 2; P=0.9047), or L* values ( F= 1.51; df= 2; P=0.2461), between individuals fed BC (N=5), SB (N=7), or TT (N=11). There were no signif icant differences in FWL between females fed BC (N=11) or TT (N=4) from south of the suture zone when reared at 24 C ( F= 0.55; df= 1; P=0.4708) or between males fed BC (N=9), SB (N=8), or TT (N=7) ( F= 1.17; df= 2; P=0.3301) There were no significant differences in FWL between females fed BC (N=8) or SB (N=11) from within the suture zone when reared at 24 C ( F= 3.98; df= 1; P=0.0625), but males had significant differences when fed SB (N=10) and BC (N=9) ( F= 4.63; df= 1; P=0.0461) with individuals fed TT having the largest FWL. There were no significant differences in male FWL from south of the suture zone when fed BC (N=7) or SB (N=7) at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 0.79; df= 1; P=0.3929). Females from within the

PAGE 195

195 suture zone had no significant differences in FWL when fed SB (N=3) or TT (N=4) when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures ( F= 2.67; df= 1; P=0.1630). There were no significant differences in females from south of the suture zone in FWL when fed SB (N=5) or TT (N=1 1) and reared at N. Georgia temperatures ( F= 2.97; df= 1; P=0 ,1068), but there were significant differences in the FWL of males from south of the suture zone when fed BC (N=4), SB (N=8), and TT (N=13) ( F= 5.28; df= 2; P=0.0134) with individuals fed SB having the smallest FWL There were no significant differences in the FWL of females from south of the suture zone when fed BC (N=5), SB (N=5), or TT (N=11), and reared at S. Florida temperatures ( F= 0.29; df= 2; P=0.75), and i n FWL between males from south of the suture zone fed BC (N=5), SB (N=7), or TT (N=10) ( F= 3.34; df= 2; P=0.0573) (Table 3 68). Papilio glaucus wing color and FWL was compared according to rearing temperature per host plant within each region. Females from south of the suture zone had no signif icant differences in b* values ( F= 1.65; df= 1; P=0.2192), a* values ( F= 1.58; df= 1; P=0.2289), L* values ( F= 4.46; df= 1; P=0.0531), or FWL ( F= 0.84; df= 1; P=0.3757) between the 24 C (N=11) or S. Florida (N=5) rearing temperatures when fed BC Males from the s ame region also had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.81; df= 3; P=0.5018), or a* values ( F= 0.81; df= 3; P=0.5025), but there were significant differences in L* values ( F= 6.00; df= 3; P=0.0041), and FWL ( F= 5.02; df= 3; P=0.0089), between individuals reared at 24 C (N=9), Lansing, Michigan (N=7), N. Georgia (N=4), and S. Florida (N=5) rearing temperatures and fed BC with the lowest L* values in individuals reared at the N. Georgia and S. Florida temperatures

PAGE 196

196 Female P. glaucus fed SB had no signific ant differences in b* values ( F= 0.96; df= 3; P=0.4411), a* values ( F= 0.67; df= 3; P=0.5858), L* values ( F= 3.09; df= 3; P=0.0678), or FWL ( F= 2.30; df= 3; P=0.1297), between the 22 C (N=3), 27 C (N=3), N. Georgia (N=5), or S. Flor ida (N=5) rearing temperatures There were no significant differences in males from south of the suture zone in b* values ( F= 2.16; df= 4; P=0.0960), but there were significant differences in a* values ( F= 8.28; df= 4; P=0.0001), L* values ( F= 5.63; df= 4; P=0.0015), and FWL ( F= 3.62; df= 4; P= 0.0156), when fed SB between 22 C (N=6), 24 C (N=8), Lansing, Michigan (N=7), N. Georgia (N=8), and S. Florida (N=7) rearing temperatures with the highest b* values when reared at S. Florida temperatures and the smallest FWL when reared at 22 C Females from within the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 1.86; df= 1; P=0.1976), a* values ( F= 0.10; df= 1; P=0.7586), or L* values ( F= 2.12; df= 1; P=0.1712), but there were significant differences in FWL ( F= 11.81; df= 1; P=0.0049) when fed SB between 24 C (N=11) and Lansing, Michigan (N=3) rearing temperatures with the largerst FWL at 24 C There were no significant differences in females from south of the suture zone in b* values ( F= 0.47; df= 2; P=0.6328), a* values ( F= 0.07; df= 2; P=0.9352) L* values ( F= 0.79; df= 2; P=0.4649), or FWL ( F= 0.21; df= 2; P=0.8126) when fed TT between individuals reared at 24 C (N=4), N. Georgia (N=11), or S. Florida (N=11) temperatures. Males from south of the suture zone also had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.56; df= 2; P=0.5801), a* values ( F= 1.35; df= 2; P=0.2763), L* values ( F= 0.16; df= 2; P=0.8500), or FWL ( F= 2.50; df= 2; P=0.1011) between 24 C (N=7), N. Georgia (N=13), or S. Flor ida (N=10) rearing temperatures when fed TT. Female P.

PAGE 197

197 glaucus from within the suture zone had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 0.14; df= 1; P=0.7215), a* values ( F= 0.33; df= 1; P=0.5887), L* values ( F= 3.75; df= 1; P=0.1108), or FWL ( F= 0.76; df= 1; P=0.4235) when fed TT between Lansing, Michigan (N=4) and S.Florida (N=3) rearing temperatures. However, males from within the suture zone did have significant differences in b* values ( F= 5.65; df= 1; P=0.0367), but no significant differences in a* values ( F= 2.15; df= 1; P=0.1710), L* values ( F= 3.29; df= 1; P=0.0969), and FWL ( F= 0.89; df= 1; P=0.3547) between Lansing, Michigan (N=7) and S. Florida (N=6) rearing temperatures when fed TT (Table 3 69) with a higher b* value in S. Florida temperatures The colors and FWL of dark morph female P. glaucus were compared between rear in g temperatures. It was found that only b* values were significantly different ( F= 5.13; df= 1; P=0.0342) between Lansing, Michigan (N=14) and S. Florida (N=9) rearing conditions with a higher value in S. Florida, but a* values ( F= 1.48; df= 1; P=0.2385), L* values ( F= 1.94; df= 1; P=0.1780), or FWL ( F= 0.24; df= 1; P=0.6300) were not. Dark morph females had no significant differences in b* values ( F= 1.88; df= 2; P=0.1792), a* values ( F= 1.31; df= 2; P=0.2948), or L* values ( F= 1.19; df= 2; P=0.3260), between BC (N=7), SB (N=6), or TT (N=10). There were no significant differences in FWL between individuals fed BC (N=6), SB (N=5), or TT (N=8) as host plants ( F= 0.38; df= 2; P=0.6914) (Table 3 70). Hybridization S tudies Table 371 presents the raw data of mated parental typ es and the subsequent mated hybrids with other hybrids. In addition, the number of eggs laid by the mated females, the number of the larvae that emerged from these eggs, and the number of larvae that developed into adults was recorded.

PAGE 198

198 Figure 3 1 Ph otographs of Cedar Key, FL location. Large numbers of P. glaucus occurred here during peak flight periods.

PAGE 199

199 Figure 3 2 Photographs of Lake Placid, FL collecting site. This area proved to be a reliable collecting site at the beginning of the investigat ion, but m owing and human encroachment became increasingly more prevalent during the study period, suggesting the ultimate fate of this productive habitat area.

PAGE 200

200 Figure 3 3 Average L*, a*, and b* values of male and female P. glaucus collected fr om regions north, south, and within the suture zone. All values represent P. glaucus averages from every flight period.

PAGE 201

201 Figure 34. Average wing measurements (mm) of male and female P. glaucus per population sampled throughout investigation.

PAGE 202

202 Figure 34. Continued.

PAGE 203

203 Figure 34. Continued.

PAGE 204

204 Figure 3 5 Mean percentage of oviposition preference per population in 2006. Only Cedar Key FL, had multiple individuals utilized (Cedar Key FL, N= 12) (Gainesville, FL; Lake Placid, FL, N=1)

PAGE 205

205 Figure 3 6 Mean percentage of oviposition preference in 2007 before Tulip T ree. Cedar Key FL ( N=4 ) Lake P lacid FL ( 2 )

PAGE 206

206 Figure 3 7 Mean percentage of oviposition preference in 2007 with Tulip Tree. Cedar key FL (N= 8 ) Gainesville FL (1) Goethe State Park FL ( 1 ) Lake Placid, FL ( 4 ) Vicksburg MS (5 ).

PAGE 207

207 Figure 3 8 2008 oviposition preference before Tulip T ree Barberville FL ( N=4 ) Cedar Key FL ( 4 ) Florida/Georgia 441 ( 1 ) Gainesville FL ( 1 ) Lake Placid, FL ( 1 ) Pineland FL ( 3 ) Sebring, FL ( 2 ) Wakulla FL ( 4 ) Waycross GA (1 ).

PAGE 208

208 0 20 40 60 80 BC GA SB W Wakulla, FL 0 10 20 30 40 50 BC GA SB W Waycross, GA 0 20 40 60 80 BC GA SB W Sebring, FL 0 10 20 30 40 50 BC GA SB W Pineland, FL 0 20 40 60 80 BC GA SB W Lake Placid, FL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BC GA SB W Gainesville, FL 0 20 40 60 80 BC GA SB W Florida/Georgia 441 0 10 20 30 40 BC GA SB W Cedar Key, FL 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BC GA SB W Barberville, FL Figure 3 9 Oviposition preference of population sampled in 2008 before the addition of Tulip Tree. Barberville, FL ( N=4 ), Cedar Key, FL ( 4 ), Florida/Georgia 441 ( 1 ), Gainesville, FL ( 1 ), Lake Placid, FL ( 1 ), Pineland, FL ( 3 ), Sebring, FL ( 2 ), Wakulla, FL ( 4 ), Waycross, GA ( 1 )

PAGE 209

209 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 BC GA SB W South of the Suture Zone 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 BC GA SB W Within Suture Zone Figure 3 10 Oviposition preference per region in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone in 2008 before the addition of Tulip Tree. Within the suture zone ( N=14 ), s outh of the suture zone ( 7 )

PAGE 210

210 Figure 3 11 2008 oviposition preference data with Tulip T ree. Cedar K ey FL (N= 6 ) Elkton TN ( 4 ) Fairmount GA ( 4 ) Fayette, AL ( 3 ) Lake Placid, FL ( 4 ) Sebring, FL ( 17) Waycross, GA (5 ).

PAGE 211

211 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W Cedar Key, FL 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W Elkton, TN 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W Fairmount, GA 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W Fayette, AL 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 BC GA SB TT W Lake Placid, FL 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W Sebring, FL 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 BC GA SB TT W Waycross, GA Figure 31 2 Oviposition preference of populations sampled in 2008 with the addition of Tulip Tree. Waycross, GA ( N=5 ), Sebring, FL ( 17), Lake Placid, FL ( 4 ), Fayette, AL ( 3 ), Fairmount, GA ( 4 ), Elkton, TN ( 4 ), Cedar Key, FL ( 6 )

PAGE 212

212 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W South of Suture Zone 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 BC GA SB TT W Within Suture Zone 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 BC GA SB TT W North of Suture Zone Figure 3 13 Oviposition preference according to region in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone in 2008 with the addition of Tulip Tree. North of the suture zone ( N=11 ), s outh of the suture zone ( 27), w ithin the suture zone ( 5 )

PAGE 213

213 Table 3 1. Raw data for wild collected P. glaucus adults in 2007 Location Date Males Females Total Dark Yellow Lake Placid, FL Mar 31 12 1 5 18 Sep 3 8 1 9 Oct 3 12 1 3 16 Dec 2 1 1 1 3 Dec 9 1 2 3 Cedar Key, FL Mar 21 3 1 1 5 Mar 23 1 12 8 21 Mar 26 6 2 2 10 Mar 28 4 4 Jun 12 1 1 Jul 3 2 1 1 4 Aug 29 4 6 7 17 Barberville, FL Jul 27 2 2 Gainesville, FL Aug 29 1 1 2 Florida/Georgia 441 Aug 31 7 1 8 Goethe State Park, FL Sep 8 7 1 2 10 Sep 20 2 2 Kentucky Sep 8 1 1 Vicksburg, MS Sep 18 9 7 4 20 Total 82 34 40 156

PAGE 214

214 Table 3 2 Raw data for wild collected P. glaucus adults in 200 8 Location Date Males Females Total Dark Yel low Cedar Key, FL Mar 15 23 6 8 37 Jun 3 13 1 6 20 Lake Placid, FL Mar 16 2 1 3 Apr 7 1 1 Apr 17 3 1 4 Jun 4 1 1 Oct 11 6 4 10 Goethe State Park, FL Mar 19 2 2 Mar 30 2 2 Barberville, FL Mar 21 27 9 36 Gainesville, FL Mar 26 1 1 May 4 1 1 2 Sep 6 2 2 Florida/Georgia 441 Mar 27 18 3 21 Wakulla, FL Mar 29 10 4 2 16 Apr 26 19 2 1 22 Pineland, FL Mar 29 44 3 5 52 Sebring, FL Apr 7 19 3 8 30 Jun 4 14 8 12 34 Oct 11 20 2 13 35 Waycross, GA Apr 1 0 29 1 4 34 Jul 25 15 2 9 26 Hosford, FL Apr 26 5 5 La Fayette, GA May 1 30 1 31 Horse Creek GA May 23 6 6 Starkville, MS Jul 11 2 2 Coopers Creek GA Jul 11 16 16 Elkton, TN Aug 10 6 2 1 9 Aug 17 1 5 6 Fayette, AL Aug 17 8 4 3 15 Fairmount, GA Sep 1 13 7 7 27 Total 352 47 109 508

PAGE 215

215 Table 33. Mean L*, a*, and b* values (SE) of female (yellow) and male P. glaucus per population. Femal e Male Location L* value a* value b* value L* value a* value b* value Pineland, FL 8.92 0.05ab 2.73 0.16 8.33 0.07a 9.03 0.01bc 2.40 0.03g 7.89 0.03ab Barberville, FL 8.86 0.04ab 2.78 0.06ab 8.17 0.10ab 9.01 0.02cd 2.57 0.06cdef 7.77 0.05bcde Florida/Georgia 441 8.87 0.04ab 2.70 0.03 8.12 0.08abc 9.07 0.02ab 2.45 0.07efg 7.90 0.08ab Sebring, FL 8.61 0.03c 3.09 0.07a 8.10 0.08a 8.85 0.02gh 2.72 0.06ab 7.83 0.04abc Cedar Key, FL 8.83 0.05ab 2.96 0.11ab 8.08 0.12ab 8.98 0.02de 2.59 0.06bcde 7.87 0.05ab Goethe State Park, FL 8.82 0.02ab 2.84 0.15ab 7.92 0.16 8.94 0.04def 2.64 0.08abcdef 7.83 0.11bcde Fairmount, GA 8.70 0.03bc 2.75 0.04 7.89 0.15 8.81 0.03hi 2.69 0.09abcd 7.85 0.11abcde Waycross, GA 8.73 0.03b 2.72 0.06bc 7.87 0.04abc 8.92 0.02f 2.57 0.06cdef 7.83 0.05abcde Vicksburg, MS 8.92 0.02a 2.79 0.04ab 7.64 0.08bcd 8.91 0.05efg 2.71 0.09abcd 7.75 0.09 Lake Placid, FL 8.84 0.06ab 2.76 0.13b 7.63 0.24cd 8.95 0.02ef 2.76 0.06a 7.93 0.05a Elkton, TN 8.81 0.05ab 2.36 0.13c 7.34 0.24d 8.79 0.05ghi 2.82 0.16abc 7.94 0.15abcd Fayette, AL 8.77 0.03i 2.72 0.09abc 7.88 0.05abcde Wakulla, FL 8.99 0.01cde 2.43 0.05fg 7.73 0.04cdef Horse Creek, GA 9.01 0.02abcde 2.39 0.04defgh 7.7 2 0.06 Coopers Creek, GA 8.95 0.03def 2.50 0.08cdefg 7.66 0.07def La Fayette, GA 9.09 0.01a 2.12 0.03h 7.62 0.04f Hosford, FL 8.96 0.01cdef 2.54 0.05abcdefg 7.55 0.13ef Means in L*, a* and b* columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values -120 (green) 120 (red) b* values -120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 216

216 Table 34. Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of female (yellow) and male P. glaucus north, within, and south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Female Male Region L* value a* value b* value L* value a* value b* value North 8.82 0.03a 2.57 0.07b 7.59 0.11b 8.95 0.02b 2.44 0.04b 7.72 0.03b Wit hin 8.81 0.03a 2.75 0.06b 8.01 0.07a 9.00 0.01a 2.48 0.02b 7.82 0.02a South 8.73 0.03a 2.97 0.05a 7.99 0.07a 8.92 0.01b 2.67 0.03a 7.86 0.03a Means in L*, a* and b* columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values -120 (green) 120 (red) b* values -120 (blue) 120 (yellow) Table 35. Average (SE) L*, a*, and b* values for male and female (yellow) P. glaucus between fli ght periods within each region Males Females Region Flight Period L* Value a* value b* value L* value a* value b* value North Fall 8.850.03b 2.690.06a 7.820.07a 8.830.04 2.770.03a 7.740.08 Spring 9.080.01a 2.160.03b 7.640.04b Summer 8.870.03b 2.610.06a 7.770.05ab 8.800.05 2.380.10b 7.440.02 Within Fall 8.960.04a 2.910.10a 8.430.06a 8.630.12b 3.180.22a 7.910.45 Spring 9.020.01a 2.440.02b 7.800.02b 8.880.02a 2.650.06b 8.090.06 Summer 8.830.04b 2.760.09a 7.760.0 8b 8.680.03b 2.780.09b 7.810.05 South Fall 8.890.02b 2.850.04a 7.970.03a 8.690.04 3.090.08a 8.000.13 Spring 8.990.02a 2.500.05b 7.770.04b 8.810.06 2.660.13b 7.960.11 Summer 8.890.02b 2.630.08b 7.840.06b 8.710.04 3.020.07a 8.090.10 Means in L*, a* and b* columns within each region followed by the same letter or lacking a letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values -120 (green) 120 (red) b* values -120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 217

217 Table 36. Average (SE) L*, a*, and b* values for male and female (yellow) P. glaucus between regions during flight periods Males Females Flight Period Region L* Value a* value b* value L* value a* value b* value Spring North 9.080.01a 2.160.03b 7.640.04b Within 9.020.01b 2.440.02a 7.800.02a 8.880.03 2.650.06 8.090.06 South 8.990.02b 2.500.05a 7.770.04a 8.810.06 2.660.13 7.960.11 Summer North 8.870.03 2.610.06 7.770.05 8.800.05 2.380.10b 7.4 40.20b Within 8.830.04 2.760.09 7.760.08 8.680.03 2.780.09a 7.810.06ab South 8.890.02 2.630.08 7.840.06 8.700.04 3.020.07a 8.090.10a Fall North 8.850.03 2.690.06 7.810.07c 8.830.04 2.770.03b 7.740.08 Within 8.960.04 2.910.10 8.4 30.06a 8.630.12 3.180.22ab 7.910.45 South 8.890.02 2.850.04 7.970.03b 8.690.04 3.090.08a 8.000.13 Means in L*, a* and b* columns within each region followed by the same letter or lacking a letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each P air Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values -120 (green) 120 (red) b* values -120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 218

218 Table 3 7 Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of dark morph female P. glaucus per population. Location L* value a* valu e b* value Pineland, FL 3.61 0.28bc 2.71 0.07ab 4.14 0.35ab Sebring, FL 3.45 0.18c 2.95 0.08ab 3.63 0.23b Cedar Key, FL 3.620.17bc 2.71 0.07a 4.08 0.24b Fairmount, GA 4.13 0.26ab 2.83 0.12a 4.45 0.28ab Vicksburg, MS 4.24 0.08a 2 .63 0.04ab 4.78 0.10a Fayette, AL 3.690.09abc 2.420.04b 3.950.02ab Wakulla, FL 3.480.19bc 2.550.10ab 3.750.29b Means in L*, a* and b* columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow). Table 3 8 Mean L*, a* and b* values (SE) of dark morph female P. glaucus north, within, and south of the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. Regi on L* value a* value b* value North 4.12 0.10a 2.65 0.05 4.58 0.13a Within 3.56 0.14b 2.61 0.06 3.94 0.20b South 3.61 0.11b 2.67 0.05 4.01 0.16b Means in L*, a* and b* columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 219

219 Table 39 Color comparison of dark morph female P. glaucus between flight periods per population Region Flight Period L* Value a* value b* value North Fall 4.230.10a 2.710.05a 4.730.13a Summer 3.670.09b 2.420.04b 3.950.02b Within Spring 3.560.14 2.610.06 3.940.20 South Fall 3.420.27 2.650.03 3.670.38 Spring 3.470.19 2.580.07 3.7 40.24 Summer 3.780.17 2.720.10 4.300.24 Means in L*, a* and b* columns within each region followed by the same letter or lacking a letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* v alues 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow) Table 3 10. Dark morph female P. glaucus comparison between flight periods per region. Region Flight Period L* Value a* value b* value Spring Within 3.560.14 2.610.06 3.940.20 South 3.470.19 2.580.07 3.740.24 Summer North 3.690.09 2.420.04 3.950.02 South 3.780.17 2.720.10 4.300.24 Fall North 4.230.10a 2.710.05 4.730.13a South 3.420.27b 2.650.03 3.670.38b Means in L*, a* and b* columns within each region f ollowed by the same letter or lacking a letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 220

220 Table 3 11 Correlati ons between color values ( L*, a* and b* ) of P. glaucus males and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during fall flight period. Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female s north of the suture zone a value L* value 8 0.0278 0.9480 b* value L* value 8 0.4984 0.2087 b* value a* value 8 0.0969 0.8195 Male s north of the suture zone a value L* value 21 0.7104 0.0003 b* value L* value 21 0.7314 0.0002 b* value a* value 21 0.8549 <0.0001 Fem ales south of the suture zone a value L* value 20 0.9375 <0.0001 b* value L* value 20 0.9328 <0.0001 b* value a* value 20 0.8893 <0.0001 Males south of the suture zone a value L* value 49 0.8100 <0.0001 b* value L* value 49 0.4071 0.0037 b* va lue a* value 49 0.7213 <0.0001 Females within the suture zone a value L* value 3 0.7400 0.4697 b* value L* value 3 0.6482 0.5511 b* value a* value 3 0.9918 0.0814 Males within the suture zone a value L* value 7 0.9378 0.0018 b* value L* value 7 0.6028 0.1520 b* value a* value 7 0.5678 0.1836 L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 221

221 Table 3 12 Correlat ions between color values ( L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus male s and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during the spring flight period. Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Male s north of the suture zone a value L* value 36 0.7688 <0.0001 b* value L* val ue 36 0.5761 0.0002 b* value a* value 36 0.4883 0.0025 Females south of the suture zone a value L* value 10 0.8547 0.0016 b* value L* value 10 0.8674 0.0012 b* value a* value 10 0.8303 0.0029 Males south of the suture zone a value L* value 43 0.8361 <0.0001 b* value L* value 43 0.5350 0.0002 b* value a* value 43 0.5068 0.0005 Females within the suture zone a value L* value 15 0.7120 0.0029 b* value L* value 15 0.2335 0.4023 b* value a* value 15 0.6327 0.0114 Males within the suture z one a value L* value 147 0.7665 <0.0001 b* value L* value 147 0.4417 <0.0001 b* value a* value 147 0.5754 <0.0001 L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 222

222 Table 3 13 Correl atio ns between color values ( L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females (yellow) within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone during summer flight period. Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female s north of the suture zone a value L* value 8 0.6685 0.0699 b* value L* value 8 0.4450 0.2693 b* value a* value 8 0.7254 0.0417 Male s north of the suture zone a value L* value 27 0.8565 <0.0001 b* value L* value 27 0.5385 0.0038 b* value a* value 27 0.6106 0.0007 Females south of the suture zone a value L* value 21 0.4683 0.0323 b* value L* value 21 0.6420 0.0017 b* value a* value 21 0.8615 <0.0001 Males south of the suture zone a value L* value 30 0.7517 <0.0001 b* value L* value 30 0.5195 0.00 03 b* value a* value 30 0.8644 <0.0001 Females within the suture zone a value L* value 4 0.8227 0.1773 b* value L* value 4 0.5312 0.4688 b* value a* value 4 0.0393 0.9607 Males within the suture zone a value L* value 14 0.8177 0.0018 b* value L* value 14 0.6213 0.1520 b* value a* value 14 0.8977 0.1836 L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 223

223 Table 3 14 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) for female P. glaucus popula tions sampled Location FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB Lake Placid, FL 8.220.04a 1.550.04ab 2.570.04ab 8.180.06a 3.960.04a 3.100.03abc Sebring, FL 8.160.03ac 1.520.03bc 2.520.03bc 8.150.04ab 3.930.04a 3.160.02a Goethe State Park, FL 8.200.13 abc 1.600.08ab 2.720.08a 8.120.20abc 3.960.11a 3.160abc Cedar Key, FL 7.990.02bd 1.580.02ab 2.490.02c 8.020.03ab 3.730.02cd 3.050.02cd Barberville, FL 8.050.07abcd 1.560.06 2.510.03bcd 8.010.08abc 3.620.03cd 3.050.04bcde Gainesville, F L 7.920.15bdef 1.480.06 2.490.04bcd 7.890.12abc 3.870.09abc 3.120.04abcd Pineland, FL 7.790.08ef 1.570.06 2.500.05bcd 7.270.61d 3.580.08d 2.930.04e Wakulla, FL 7.800.09ef 1.660.05a 2.440.07bcd 7.700.12c 3.620.07cd 2.940.06e Florida/Geo rgia 441 7.950.18bcdef 1.490.08 2.390.10bcd 8.040.20abc 3.620.23cd 3.000.10bcde Waycross, GA 8.170.06ac 1.590.05ab 2.510.04bc 8.100.09abc 3.900.07a 3.140.03ab Vicksburg, MS 7.940.04de 1.470.04bc 2.500.04bcd 7.890.05abc 3.880.04ab 2.980. 05de Fayette, AL 7.710.08f 1.520.07 2.410.08cd 7.780.16 3.670.06bcd 3.030.03bcde Fairmount, GA 7.710.03f 1.410c 2.370.03d 7.580.07cd 3.710.03bcd 2.960.03e Elkton, TN 7.750.05ef 1.570.07 2.480.08bcd 7.680.04bcd 3.660.08bcd 3.030.05bcde Means in wing measurement columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 224

224 Table 3 15 Mean (SE) wing measurement (mm) for male P. glaucus per population. Location FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSM B Lake Placid, FL 7.970.03a 1.450.02bc 2.500.02abc 8.010.03a 3.660.04ab 2.900.03ab Sebring, FL 7.940.03ab 1.480.02b 2.520.02ab 7.950.03abc 3.700.04a 2.910.02a Goethe State Park, FL 7.930.05ab 1.470.04abc 2.570.05a 8.030.04ab 3.680.06abc 2.900.05abc Cedar Key, FL 7.770.03cd 1.470.02bc 2.470.02bc 7.820.03d 3.550.03cd 2.840.02c Barberville, FL 7.730.04de 1.480.03bc 2.490.03abc 7.840.04cd 3.430.03e 2.810.03cd Pineland, FL 7.600.03g 1.410.02cde 2.410.02def 7.630.03f 3.43 0.02e 2.770.02de Wakulla, FL 7.690.03def 1.440.02bcd 2.450.02cd 7.770.03de 3.460.03de 2.810.02cd Hosford, FL 7.630.03defgh 1.310.08cdef 2.410.04bcdef 7.680.08cdefg 3.400.06def 2.830abcde Florida/Georgia 441 7.860.04bc 1.570.03a 2.560.02a 7.850.04bcd 3.570.05bcd 2.910.03ab Waycross, GA 7.700.03def 1.360.03de 2.380.02ef 7.660.03ef 3.510.03de 2.840.02c Vicksburg, MS 7.640.04defg 1.410bcde 2.470.02abcde 7.690.03def 3.680.03abc 2.810.02bcde Fayette, AL 7.590.04efgh 1.410bcd e 2.360.04def 7.610.06defg 3.470.12de 2.820.07abcde Horse Creek, GA 7.460.04ghi 1.330.08cdef 2.320.05fg 7.330.05gh 3.600.05 2.770.04cdef Fairmount, GA 7.450.02hi 1.380.03cde 2.330.03f 7.440.02g 3.550.07bcde 2.840.04abcd La Fayette, GA 7. 220.04j 1.350.04e 2.200.02g 7.210.04h 3.210.04f 2.650.03f Coopers Creek, GA 7.370.04i 1.180.05f 2.190.02g 7.140.23h 3.530.04cde 2.710.03ef Elkton, TN 7.550.07fghi 1.210.09f 2.200.04g --3.630.09abcd 2.830.05abcde Means in wing measure ment columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 225

225 Table 3 16 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus per region Region FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB North 7.750.03c 1.470. 02b 2.430.02b 7.750.05b 3.750.03ab 2.980.02b Within 7.960.04b 1.580.02a 2.480.02ab 7.790.14b 3.700.04b 3.030.02b South 8.060.02a 1.560.01a 2.510.01a 8.080.02a 3.820.02a 3.090.01a Means in wing measurement columns followed by the same lett er are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 17 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus per region Region FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB0.01 North 7.400.02c 1.330.02b 2.270.02c 7.340.05c 3.450.0 3b 2.740.02c Within 7.700.02b 1.430.01a 2.440.01b 7.730.02b 3.470.02b 2.820.01b South 7.880.02a 1.470.01a 2.500.01a 7.930.02a 3.630.02a 2.880.01a Means in wing measurement columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 226

226 Table 3 18 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus between flight periods per region Region Flight Period FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB North Summer 7.730.04 1.550.05b 2.440.06 7.720.06 3.670. 05b 3.030.02 Fall 7.800.03 1.440.02a 2.430.03 7.760.06 3.780.03a 2.690.02 Within Spring 7.880.04b 1.580.03 2.460.03 7.720.16 3.610.04b 2.990.02b Summer 8.250.05a 1.590.05 2.550.04 8.230.07 4.000.05a 3.160.04a South Spring 7.940.02 b 1.570.02 2.480.02b 7.950.03b 3.680.02c 3.040.02c Summer 8.240.03a 1.560.03 2.580.03a 8.230.03a 3.980.03b 3.130.02b Fall 8.270.03 1.520.04 2.540.04ab 8.290.05a 4.090.03a 3.210.02a Winter 8.180.06a 1.490.08 2.590.10ab 3.920.04ab 3.120.04abc Means in wing measurement columns per region followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 19 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus between flight periods per regi on Region Flight Period FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB North Spring 7.260.03b 1.350.04a 2.220.02b 7.220.04b 3.270.04b 2.670.03b Summer 7.470.03a 1.250.03b 2.230.02b 7.320.16ab 3.540.04a 2.770.03a Fall 7.530.03a 1.400.02a 2.390.02a 7.57 0.04a 3.610.04a 2.830.02a Within Spring 7.650.01b 1.450.01b 2.440.01 7.700.02b 3.430.01b 2.800.01b Summer 7.990.03a 1.360.06a 2.470.04 7.970.04a 3.780.04a 2.980.04a South Spring 7.730.02c 1.450.02 b 2.450.02b 7.790.02b 3.450.02b 2.79 0.01b Summer 7.980.02b 1.510.03a 2.550.03a 8.000.04a 3.750.03a 2.950.02a Fall 8.060.02 a 1.460.02ab 2.550.02a 8.080.02a 3.800.03a 2.990.03a Means in wing measurement columns per region followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 227

227 Table 3 20 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of female P. glaucus between regions during flight periods Flight Period Region FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB Spring North 7.800.07 1.660.07 2.440.06 7.700.19 3.620.07 2.940.05 Within 7.900.04 1.550.04 2.470.03 7.720.11 3.610.04 3.000.03 South 7.940.02 1.570.02 2.480.02 7.950.06 3.670.02 3.040.01 Summer North 7.730.05 1.550.05 2.440.05b 7.720.06b 3.670.05b 3.030.03b Within 8.240.05 1. 570.05 2.550.05ab 8.200.06a 4.000.05a 3.160.03a South 8.240.03 1.570.03 2.590.03a 8.230.03a 3.980.03a 3.130.02a Fall North 7.800.03b 1.440.03 2.430.03b 7.760.06b 3.780.03b 2.960.02b South 8.270.03a 1.520.03 2.540.03a 8.290.05a 4.0 90.03a 3.210.02a Means in wing measurement columns per season followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 21 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) of male P. glaucus between regions during fli ght periods Flight Period Region FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB Spring North 7.450.03c 1.390.02b 2.330.02 7.480.03c 3.360.02b 2.730.02b Within 7.650.02b 1.450.01a 2.440.01 7.680.02b 3.420.02a 2.790.01a South 7.730.02a 1.450.02 2.450.02 7.790.03a 3.450.02a 2.790.01a Summer North 7.470.03b 1.250.04b 2.230.03b 7.320.10b 3.540.04b 2.770.03b Within 7.990.03a 1.360.04b 2.470.03a 7.970.11a 3.770.04a 2.980.03a South 7.980.03a 1.510.04a 2.550.03a 8.000.09a 3.750.03a 2.94 0.03a Fall North 7.530.03b 1.400.02b 2.390.03b 7.570.04b 3.610.04b 2.830.04b South 8.060.02a 1.460.02a 2.550.02a 8.080.02a 3.800.03a 2.990.02a Means in wing measurement columns per season followed by the same letter are not significantly di fferent (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 228

228 Table 3 22 Mean (SE) wing measurements (mm) comparison of male and female P. glaucus per region Region Sex FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB North Male 7.400.02b 1.330.02b 2.270.02b 7.340.05b 3.450.03b 2.740.02b Female 7.770.03a 1.470.02a 2.430.02a 7.750.05a 3.750.03a 2.980.02a Within Male 7.700.02b 1.420.01b 2.440.01 7.730.02 3.470.02b 2.820.01b Female 7.960.04a 1.580.02a 2.480.02 7.790.14 3.700.04a 3.030.02a South Male 7.880.0 2b 1.470.01b 2.500.01 7.930.02b 3.630.14b 2.880.01b Female 8.060.02a 1.560.01a 2.510.01 8.080.02a 3.820.15a 3.090.01a Means in wing measurement columns per region followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 229

229 Table 3 23. Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus Wing measurement 1 Wing measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female WABB FWL 261 0.1330 0.0317 WAC FWL 261 0.42 66 <0.0001 WAC WABB 272 0.7199 <0.0001 HWL FWL 156 0.5900 <0.0001 HWL WABB 159 0.0037 0.9634 HWL WAC 159 0.2819 0.0003 HWSMB FWL 243 0.6872 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 249 0.1061 0.0947 HWSMB WAC 249 0.3529 <0.0001 HWSMB HWL 153 0.6351 <0.0001 FWSMB FWL 2 59 0.5501 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 262 0.1679 0.0065 FWSMB WAC 262 0.2848 <0.0001 FWSMB HWL 155 0.3688 <0.0001 FWSMB HWSMB 246 0.5699 <0.0001 Male WABB FWL 435 0.3201 <0.0001 WAC FWL 435 0.6480 <0.0001 WAC WABB 436 0.6807 <0.0001 HWL FWL 327 0.8710 <0.0001 HWL WABB 327 0.3143 <0.0001 HWL WAC 327 0.6031 <0.0001 HWSMB FWL 419 0.6495 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 418 0.1079 0.0274 HWSMB WAC 418 0.3722 <0.0001 HWSMB HWL 322 0.5488 <0.0001 FWSMB FWL 433 0.6223 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 432 0.2180 <0.0001 FWSMB WAC 432 0.4493 <0.0001 FWSMB HWL 327 0.5588 <0.0001 FWSMB HWSMB 418 0.6433 <0.0001

PAGE 230

230 Table 3 24 M ultivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus north of the suture zone. Wing measurement 1 Wing measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female WABB FWL 47 0.1286 0.3890 WAC FWL 47 0.4886 0.0005 WAC WABB 47 0.6247 <0.0001 HWL FWL 25 0.9381 <0.0001 HWL WABB 25 0.1867 0.376 HWL WAC 25 0.6533 0.0004 HWSMB FWL 46 0.7006 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 46 0.0820 0.58 82 HWSMB WAC 46 0.3626 0.0133 HWSMB HWL 24 0.6889 0.0002 FWSMB FWL 46 0.4914 0.0005 FWSMB WABB 46 0.1690 0.2615 FWSMB WAC 46 0.3277 0.0262 FWSMB HWL 25 0.5198 0.0077 FWSMB HWSMB 45 0.5509 <0.0001 Male WABB FWL 116 0.2805 0.0023 WAC FWL 116 0. 7138 <0.0001 WAC WABB 116 0.5604 <0.0001 HWL FWL 86 0.7314 <0.0001 HWL WABB 86 0.1904 0.0792 HWL WAC 86 0.54 56 <0.0001 HWSMB FWL 112 0.5620 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 111 0.0085 0.9291 HWSMB WAC 111 0.3806 <0.0001 HWSMB HWL 85 0.3956 0.0002 FWSMB FWL 117 0.5863 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 116 0.2270 0.0143 FWSMB WAC 116 0.4864 <0.0001 FWSMB HWL 86 0.4691 <0.0001 FWSMB HWSMB 112 0.6684 <0.0001

PAGE 231

231 Table 3 25 M ultivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus south of the suture zone. Wing measurement 1 Wing measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female WABB FWL 178 0.1148 0.1269 WAC FWL 178 0.3887 <0.0001 WAC WABB 187 0.7345 <0.0001 HWL FWL 105 0.9445 <0.0001 HWL WABB 108 0.0922 0.3426 HWL WAC 108 0.400 2 <0.0001 HWSMB FWL 164 0.7054 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 169 0.1209 0.1173 HWSMB WAC 169 0.3180 <0.0001 HWSMB HWL 104 0.6420 <0.0001 FWSMB FWL 177 0.4563 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 179 0.1288 0.0858 FWSMB WAC 179 0.2101 0.0048 FWSMB HWL 104 0.4760 <0.0001 FWSMB HWSMB 167 0.5364 <0.0001 Male WABB FWL 172 0.1496 0.0502 WAC FWL 172 0.4525 <0.0001 WAC WABB 172 0.6756 <0.0001 HWL FWL 122 0.9329 <0.0001 HWL WABB 122 0.2418 0.0073 HWL WAC 122 0.4819 <0.0001 HWSMB FWL 164 0.6516 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 164 0.0753 0.3379 HWSMB WAC 164 0.2510 0.0012 HWSMB HWL 120 0.6127 <0.0001 FWSMB FWL 170 0.5631 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 170 0.0960 0.2131 FWSMB WAC 170 0.3217 <0.0001 FWSMB HWL 122 0.5631 <0.0001 FWSMB HWSMB 163 0.5254 <0.0001

PAGE 232

232 Table 3 26. Multivariate analysis of variance correlation of wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus within the suture zone. Wing measurement 1 Wing measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female WABB FWL 36 0.0462 0.7890 WAC FWL 36 0.3840 0.0208 WAC WABB 38 0.7054 <0.000 1 HWL FWL 26 0.2613 0.1973 HWL WABB 26 0.1646 0.4218 HWL WAC 26 0.2222 0.2752 HWSMB FWL 33 0.6809 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 34 0.0807 0.6500 HWSMB WAC 34 0.4724 0.0048 HWSMB HWL 25 0.6560 0.0004 FWSMB FWL 36 0.7070 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 37 0.2507 0.1346 F WSMB WAC 37 0.4084 0.0121 FWSMB HWL 26 0.2096 0.3042 FWSMB HWSMB 34 0.6678 <0.0001 Male WABB FWL 147 0.2135 0.0094 WAC FWL 47 0 .4791 <0.0001 WAC WABB 148 0.7071 <0.0001 HWL FWL 119 0.9355 <0.0001 HWL WABB 119 0.3607 <0.0001 HWL WAC 119 0.5643 <0.0001 HWSMB FWL 143 0.6425 <0.0001 HWSMB WABB 143 0.0206 0.8069 HWSMB WAC 143 0.2725 0.0010 HWSMB HWL 117 0.5758 <0.0001 FWSMB FWL 146 0.5905 <0.0001 FWSMB WABB 146 0.1565 0.0592 FWSMB WAC 146 0.3403 <0.0001 FWSMB HWL 119 0.5486 <0.0001 FWSMB HW SMB 143 0.7076 <0.0001

PAGE 233

233 Table 3 27 Correlations between forewing length and color ( L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female L* value FWL 87 0.2423 0.0238 a* value FWL 8 7 0.4142 <0.0001 a* value L* value 87 0.7273 <0.0001 b* value FWL 87 0.1481 0.1710 b* value L* value 87 0.6386 <0.0001 b* value a* value 87 0.7374 <0.0001 Male L* value FWL 458 0.2696 <0.0001 a* value FWL 458 0.4349 <0.0001 a* value L* value 458 0.8018 <0.0001 b* value FWL 458 0.3714 <0.0001 b* value L* value 458 0.4798 <0.0001 b* value a* value 458 0.6797 <0.0001

PAGE 234

234 Table 3 28. Correlations between forewing length and color ( L*, a* and b* values) of P. glaucus males and females within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone Measurement 1 Measurement 2 Count Correlation P value Female s north of the suture zone L* value FWL 14 0.5121 0.0612 a* value FWL 14 0.1507 0.6070 a* value L* value 14 0.3532 0.2154 b* value FWL 1 4 0.1210 0.6804 b* value L* value 14 0.5570 0.0385 b* value a* value 14 0.8066 0.0005 Male s north of the suture zone L* value FWL 84 0.3874 0.0003 a* value FWL 84 0.3978 0.0002 a* value L* value 84 0.8943 <0.0001 b* value FWL 84 0.2098 0.0554 b value L* value 84 0.6256 <0.0001 b* value a* value 84 0.6437 <0.0001 Females south of the suture zone L* value FWL 51 0.1171 0.4131 a* value FWL 51 0.1996 0.1603 a* value L* value 51 0.7646 <0.0001 b* value FWL 51 0.0193 0.8929 b* value L* val ue 51 0.7725 <0.0001 b* value a* value 51 0.7800 <0.0001 Males south of the suture zone L* value FWL 120 0.4104 <0.0001 a* value FWL 120 0.4143 <0.0001 a* value L* value 120 0.7977 <0.0001 b* value FWL 120 0.3195 0.0004 b* value L* value 120 0.5 527 <0.0001 b* value a* value 120 0.7500 <0.0001 Females within the suture zone L* value FWL 22 0.5859 0.0042 a* value FWL 22 0.4132 0.0560 a* value L* value 22 0.7760 <0.0001 b* value FWL 22 0.1070 0.6356 b* value L* value 22 0.3351 0.1273 b* v alue a* value 22 0.5973 0.0033 Males within the suture zone L* value FWL 167 0.1112 0.1524 a* value FWL 167 0.1909 0.0135 a* value L* value 167 0.7796 <0.0001 b* value FWL 167 0.2287 0.0030 b* value L* value 167 0.3823 <0.0001 b* value a* value 1 67 0.6219 <0.0001

PAGE 235

235 Table 3 29 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited per plant by female P. glaucus collected from Cedar Key, FL in 2006 Sweetbay 0.560.07a Green Ash 0.520.07a Black Cherry 0.300.07b Other 0.580.07a Mean percentages in columns fol lowed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 30 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited by P. glaucus females collected south of the suture zone in 2006 Sweetbay 0.550.05a Green Ash 0.540.05a Black Cherry 0.310.05b Other 0.550.05a Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 31 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited by females collected from Cedar Ke y, FL during the spring flight period in 2007 Sweetbay 0.460.10b Green Ash 0.890.10a Black Cherry 0.400.10bc Other 0.140.10c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t te sts) Table 3 32 Mean percentage (SE) eggs oviposited by females collected south of the suture zone during the spring flight period 2007 Sweetbay 0.530.07b Green Ash 0.830.07a Black Cherry 0.400.07b Other 0.100.07c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 236

236 Table 3 33 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populations per ho st plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007 Location Black Cherry Gre en Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree Other Lake Placid, FL 0.120.07 0.300.10 0.510.12 0.920.16 0.030.01 Cedar Key, FL 0.250.06 0.300.07 0.240.09 1.070.11 0 Vicksburg, TN 0.170.07 0.270.09 0.300.11 1.080.14 0 Mean percentages in columns followed by t he same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 34 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per po pulation after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007 Plant species Cedar Key, FL Lake Placi d, FL Vicksburg, MS Black Cherry 0.250.06b 0.120.15bc 0.170.09b Green Ash 0.300.06b 0.300.15bc 0.270.09b Sweetbay 0.240.06b 0.510.15ab 0.300.09b Tulip Tree 1.070.06a 0.920.15a 1.080.09a Other 0c 0.030.15c 0c Mean percentages in columns f ollowed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 35 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per ho st plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007 Region Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree Other North 0.170.07 0.270.09 0.300.12 1.080.14 0 South 0.200.04 0.300.05 0.360.07 1.000.09 0.010.01 Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t test s) Table 3 36 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per region after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2007 Plant species North South Black Cherry 0.170.09bc 0.200.06b Green Ash 0.270.09b 0.300.06b Sweetbay 0.300.09b 0.360. 06b Tulip Tree 1.080.09a 1.000.06a Other 0c 0.010.06c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 237

237 Table 3 37 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populat ions per host plant before the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 during the spring flight period. Location Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Willow Barberville, FL 0.190.10b 0.880.06a 0.590.07ab 0.130.07 Cedar Key, FL 0.620.10a 0.610.09ab 0.490.10b 0. 240.07 Pineland, FL 0.330.11ab 0.740.10ab 0.710.11ab 0.050.08 Wakulla, FL 0.300.10b 0.530.09b 0.880.10a 0.160.07 Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Tab le 3 38 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per population during the spring flight period in 2008 Plant species Cedar Key, FL Barberville, FL Pineland, FL Wakulla, FL Black Cherry 0.620.11a 0.190.08c 0.330.07bc 0.300.10bc Green Ash 0.610.11a 0.880.08a 0.740.07a 0.530.10b Sweetbay 0.490.11ab 0.610.08b 0.710.07a 0.880.10a Willow 0.240.11b 0.130.08c 0.530.07c 0.160.10c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0. 05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 39 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per host plant during the spring flight period in 2008 Region Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Willow South 0.390.05 0.610.05a 0.720.06 0.160.04 Within 0.190.11 0.880.10b 0.610.13 0.130.07 Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 40 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per re gion before the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 Plant species Within South Black Cherry 0.190.08c 0.390.05b Green Ash 0.880.08a 0.610.05a Sweetbay 0.610.08b 0.720.05a Willow 0.130.08c 0.160.05c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) .

PAGE 238

238 Table 3 41 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between populations per ho st plant after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 Location Sweetbay Green Ash Black Cherry Tulip Tree Willow Lake Placid, FL 0.590.11a 0.340.11 0.170.08 0.670.08b 0.110.06ab Sebring, FL 0.360.05ab 0.370.05 0.210.04 0.850.04a 0.170.03a Cedar Key, FL 0.460.09ab 0.460.09 0.210.06 0.780.06ab 0.200.05a Waycross, GA 0.220.10b 0.380.10 0.230.07 0.890.07a 0.110.05ab Fayette, AL 0.320.12ab 0.580.12 0.230.09 0.770.09ab 0b Fairmount, GA 0.440.11ab 0.360.11 0.330.08 0.820.08ab 0.130.06ab Elkton, TN 0.230.11b 0.560.11 0.250.08 0.880.08ab 0.110.06ab Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 42 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants per po pulation after the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 Lake Placid, FL Sebr ing, FL Cedar Key, FL Waycross, GA Fayette, AL Fairmount, GA Elkton, TN Black Cherry 0.17 0.14b 0.21 0.04c 0.21 0.05c 0.23 0.08bc 0.23 0.11c 0.33 0.07bc 0.25 0.07c Green Ash 0.34 0.14ab 0.37 0.04b 0.46 0.05b 0.38 0.08b 0.58 0.11ab 0.36 0.07b 0.56 0.07b Sweetbay 0.59 0.14a 0.36 0.04b 0.46 0.05b 0.22 0.08bc 0.32 0.11bc 0.44 0.07b 0.23 0.07c Tulip Tree 0.67 0.14a 0.85 0.04a 0.78 0.05a 0.89 0.08a 0.77 0.11a 0.82 0.07a 0.85 0.07a Willow 0.11 0.14b 0. 17 0.04c 0.20 0.05c 0.11 0.08c 0c 0.13 0.07c 0.11 0.07c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 239

239 Table 3 43 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between regions per host plant during the spring flight period in 2008 Region Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree Willow North 0.270.05 0.490.06 0.330.07 0.810.05 0.090.03 Within 0.230.07 0.380.09 0.220.10 0.890.07 0.110.05 South 0.210.03 0. 390.04 0.420.04 0.810.03 0.170.02 Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 44 Comparison of mean percentage (SE) eggs between host plants p er region with the addition of Tulip Tree in 2008 Plant species North Within South Black Cherry 0.270.05c 0.230.09bc 0.210.04c Green Ash 0.490.05b 0.380.09b 0.390.04b Sweetbay 0.330.05c 0.220.09bc 0.420.04b Tulip Tree 0.810.05a 0.890.09a 0.810.04a Will ow 0.090.05d 0.110.09c 0.170.04c Mean percentages in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05; Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 4 5 Percent larval survival (SE) on selected host plants per region in relation to the Northern Florida Suture Zone. Region BC GA SB TT W North 87.2211.03 (9, 46) 100 (1, 1) 83.418.29 (12, 129) 99.01.0 (9, 81) South 80.815.42 (31, 297) 45.29.02 (15, 123) 82.163.71 (43, 765) 85.442.6 (32, 386) 64.510.47 (12, 64) Within 67.1 10.47 (10, 155) 74.29 (5, 46) 71.56.47 (14, 240) 94.53.65 (6, 118) 629.17 (3, 29) Numbers in parenthesis equal (number of families used, number of larvae fed host plant)

PAGE 240

240 Table 3 46 Mean percent survival (SE) per host plant between different p opulations sampled. Location Black Cherry Green Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree Willow Cedar Key, FL 1.210.12 0.820.20 1.240.08 1.170.07b 0.720.22 Elkton, TN 1.320.14 1.570.11a Lake Placid, FL 1.510.18 Pineland, FL 1.190.18 Seb ring, FL 1.320.11 0.560.23 1.250.08 1.230.06b 0.780.29 Wakulla, FL 1.110.18 Waycross, GA 1.570.22 1.090.18 1.420.12ab Means in host plant columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Student s t tests)

PAGE 241

241 Table 3 47 Mean percent survival (SE) on selected host plants from populations sampled Host plant Cedar Key, FL Elkton, TN Lake Placid, FL Pineland, FL Sebring, FL Wakulla, FL Waycross, GA Black Cherry 31.504.40a 12.673.40 4.33 8.21 Green Ash 7.865.26b 8.005.26 Sweetbay 14.873.59b 13.003.92 14.677.86 8.002.65 16.562.94 8.001.53 17.338.21 Tulip Tree 15.604.40ab 13.504.39 17.753.40 28.338.21 Willow 7.206.22b 5.336.80 Means in host plant columns fol lowed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests)

PAGE 242

242 Table 3 48 Mean (SE) percent larval survival on selected host plants between regions north, within, and south of the suture zone. Region Black Cherry Gr een Ash Sweetbay Tulip Tree Willow North 1.490.18 1.290.10 1.530.08a South 1.220.08 0.730.13 1.280.05 1.230.04b 0.840.15 Within 1.130.13 0.290.27 1.100.08 1.380.10ab 0.910.27 Means in host plant columns followed by the same letter are no t significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t tests) Table 3 49 Mean (SE) transformed percent survival within regions north, within, and south of the suture zone. Host plant North Within South Black Cherry 1.490.09ab 1.130.11a 1.220.07 a Green Ash 0.290.18b 0.730.10b Sweetbay 1.290.07b 1.100.09a 1.280.06a Tulip Tree 1.530.07a 1.380.14a 1.230.07a Willow 0.910.18a 0.840.12b Means region columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pai r Students t tests) Table 350. The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus Sex Host plant Pupa weight Larval duration Male Black Cherry Sweetbay 1.05 0.02 6.18 0.06a Tu lip Tree 1.06 0.02 5.87 0.06b Female Black Cherry 1.08 0.03 6.79 0.14a Sweetbay 1.10 0.02 6.33 0.07b Tulip Tree 1.09 0.02 5.89 0.08c Means in the same column within the same sex followed by the same letter are not significantly differ ent (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test )

PAGE 243

243 Table 351. The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus captured in 2007 within regions. Sex Region Host plant Pupa weight Larval duration Mal e South Black Cherry Sweetbay 1.05 0.02 6.18 0.07a Tulip Tree 1.06 0.02 5.87 0.06b Female South Black Cherry 1.08 0.03 6.79 0.14a Sweetbay 1.10 0.02 6.33 0.07b Tulip Tree 1.12 0.02 5.92 0.08c Within Black Cherry Sweetbay 1.11 0.05 6.27 0.28 Tulip Tree 0.96 0.05 5.68 0.23 Means in the same column within the same region followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) Table 352. The effect of host plant on pupa weight (g) and larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus captured in 2007 Sex Host plant Region Pupa weight Larval duration Male Sweetbay South 1.05 0.02 6.18 0.08 Within 1.04 0.03 6.14 0.15 Female Sweetbay So uth 1.10 0.02 Within 1.11 0.05 Tulip Tree South 1.12 0.02a 5.92 0.05 a Within 0.96 0.05b 5.68 0.14 b Means in the same column within the same host plant followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair S tudents t test ) Table 353. Effect of host plant on larval duration (days) and pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus Male Female Host plant Larval duration Pupa weight Larval duration Pupa weight Green Ash 6.64 0.24a 1.06 0.06 a Black Cherry 5.85 0.06a 1.11 0.01a 5.81 0.06 b 1.15 0.01b Tulip Tree 5.60 0.05b 1.12 0.01b 5.70 0.05b 1.16 0.01b Sweetbay 5.52 0.04b 1.06 0.01b 5.66 0.05b 1.07 0.01a Willow 5.51 0.19b 1.00 0.05a Means in a colum n followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test )

PAGE 244

244 Table 354. Effect of temperature (C) on larval duration (days) and pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus Male Female Temperature a Larval duration Pupa weight Larval duration Pupa weight 22 5.17 0.12a 1.03 0.03cd 5.31 0.20bc 1.12 0.04bc 24 5.48 0.04b 1.08 0.01bc 5.61 0.05b 1.12 0.01b 27 5.10 0.20c 1.10 0.04bc Lansing, Michigan 6.09 0.05c 1.03 0.01d 6.1 3 0.06a 1.05 0.01c North Georgia 5.55 0.06b 1.19 0.02a 5.69 0.07b 1.22 0.02a South Florida 5.50 0.04b 1.11 0.01b 5.65 0.05b 1.13 0.01b Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 1427, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations. Table 3 55. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus Male Female Temperature a Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree 22 5.17 0.13a 5.32 0.20bc 24 5.71 0.07a 5.30 0.07a 5.48 0.08a 5.71 0.08b 5.40 0.09bc 5.45 0.12a 27 5.05 0.22c Lansing, Michigan 6.35 0.08b 6.14 0.09c 5.88 0.05c 6.10 0.17a 6.27 0.10a 6.03 0.06c North Georgia 5.57 0.14a 5.37 0.11ba 5.68 0.06b 5.72 0.19ab 5.49 0.15bc 5.77 0.07b South Florida 5.71 0.07a 5.53 0.09b 5.37 0.05a 5.94 0.11ab 5.67 0.11bc 5.46 0.05a Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Student s t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 1427, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations.

PAGE 245

245 Table 356. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus Male Female Temperature a Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree 22 1.03 0.03b 1.17 0.04abc 24 1.13 0.02 a 1.06 0.02ab 1.09 0.03bc 1.16 0.02ab 1.05 0.02bc 1.17 0.03b 27 1.07 0.05abc Lansing, Michigan 1.04 0.03b 1.03 0.02b 1.05 0.02c 1.02 0.05c 1.03 0.02c 1.08 0.02c North Georgia 1.19 0.05a 1.11 0.03a 1.23 0.02a 1.25 0.04a 1.13 0.03a 1.25 0.02a South Florida 1.11 0.03ab 1.07 0.02ab 1.13 0.02b 1.11 0.02bc 1.11 0.02ab 1.15 0.02b Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test). aL Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14 27, 1730, and 22 32 C, respecti vely. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations. Table 357. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus within each region. Male Female Temperaturea Host Plant South Within North South Within North 24 Black Cherry 5.63 0.10a 5.76 0.11a 5.78 0.09 5.5 2 0.10a Sweetbay 5.36 0.08b 5.16 0.09b 5.81 0.14 5.03 0.08b Tulip Tree 5.48 0.11ab 5.41 0.20ab 5.43 0.17 Lansing, Michigan Black Cherry 6.52 0.08a 6.08 0.17ab Sweetbay 6.03 0.06b 6.62 0.19a 6.17 0.09 6 .30 0.11a 6.53 0.12a Tulip Tree 5.96 0.08b 5.91 0.15b 6.28 0.09 5.75 0.09b 5.85 0.09b North Georgia Black Cherry 5.57 0.15 5.72 0.15ab Sweetbay 5.44 0.11 5.48 0.12b Tulip Tree 5.68 0.08 5.77 0.07a South Florida Black Cherry 5.74 0.08a 6.02 0.12a Sweetbay 5.54 0.07ab 5.45 0.11 5.69 0.12ab 5.50 0.10 Tulip Tree 5.37 0.06b 5.44 0.08 5.47 0.08b 5.42 0.10 Means in the same column within the same temperature treatm ent followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test). aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14 27, 1730, and 2232 C, respecti vely. These temperature cycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations.

PAGE 246

246 Table 358. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus within each region. Male Female Temperature a Host Plant South Within North South Within North 24 Black Cherry 1.12 0.03 1.16 0.02a 1.15 0.02a 1.21 0.03a Sweetbay 1.07 0.02 1.06 0.02b 1.05 0.03b 1.09 0.02 b Tulip Tree 1.13 0.03 1.01 0.04b 1.19 0.03a Lansing, Michigan Bla ck Cherry 1.09 0.02 0.96 0.04ab Sweetbay 1.08 0.15 0.85 0.04b 1.09 0.01 1.02 0.03 0.88 0.04a Tulip Tree 1.08 0.02 0.97 0.03a 1.10 0.01 1.08 0.02 1.03 0.03b North Georgia Black Cherry 1.19 0.03ab 1.25 0.03a Sweetbay 1.12 0.02b 1.14 0.03b Tulip Tree 1.23 0.02a 1.25 0.02a South Florida Black Cherry 1.12 0.03ab 1.10 0.02b Sweetbay 1.09 0.03b 0.96 0.03a 1.13 0.03b Tulip Tree 1.17 0.02a 1.07 0.02b 1. 20 0.02a Means in the same column within the same temperature treatment followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0 .05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles f rom 1427, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations.

PAGE 247

247 Table 359. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on larval duration (days) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus between each region. Male Female Temperature a Region Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree 24 South 5.63 0.10 5.36 0.08 5.78 0.09 5.81 0.12a Within 5.76 0.10 5.12 0.10 5.52 0.13 5.03 0.10b Lansing, Michigan South 6.08 0.10a 6.04 0.10a 5.96 0.07 6.17 0.09 6.28 0.07a Within 5.77 0.08 6.30 0.16 5.75 0.10b North 6.52 0.08b 6.62 0.19b 5.91 0.08 6.17 0.16 5.86 0.10b North Georgia South 5. 44 0.15 Within 5.14 0.27 South Florida South 5.54 0.07 5.37 0.05 5.69 0.13 5.48 0.07 Within 5.45 0.17 5.44 0.09 5.50 0.27 5.42 0.19 North 5.27 0.11 5.43 0.14 Means in the same column within the same temperature treatment followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0 .05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14 27, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations.

PAGE 248

248 Table 360. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on pupa weight (g) (Mean SE) of male and female P. glaucus between each region. Male Female Temperature a Region Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree 24 South 1.12 0.03 1.07 0.02 1.15 0.02 1.05 0.03 Within 1.16 0.03 1.07 0.02 1.21 0.03 1.09 0.02 Lansing, Michigan South 1.09 0.03a 1.08 0.03a 1.08 0.02a 1.09 0.02a 1.10 0.02a Within 1.07 0.02a 1.02 0.03b 1.08 0.02ab North 0.96 0.04b 0.85 0.03b 0.97 0.02b 0.88 0.03c 1.03 0.02b North Georgia South 1.13 0.02 Within 1.09 0.04 South Florida South 1.09 0.02a 1.17 0.02a 1.20 0.02a Within 0.96 0.05b 1.07 0.03b 1.08 0.05b North 1.00 0.05b 0.99 0.03b Means in the same column within the same temperature treatment followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test). aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14-27, 17-30, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations.

PAGE 249

249 Table 361. The effect of host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. Measurement Host plant Male Female Forewing leng th Sweetbay 7.37 0.05 7.46 0.07 Tulip Tree 7.43 0.04 7.61 0.07 L* value Sweetbay 9.09 0.01a 8.79 0.03 Tulip Tree 9.05 0.01b 8.87 0.04 a* value Sweetbay 2.11 0.05 2.58 0.07 Tulip Tree 2.19 0.04 2.61 0.09 b* value Sweetbay 7 .57 0.06 7.93 0.07 Tulip Tree 7.73 0.05 8.01 0.10 Means in the same column within the same measurement followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow) Table 362. The effect of temperature (C) on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. Measurement Temperature Male Female Forewing length 17 7.53 0.08 7.57 0.18 20 7.45 0.08 7.59 0.12 35 7.37 0.04 7.51 0.06 L* value 17 9.11 0.02a 8.82 0.07 20 9.12 0.02a 8.85 0.06 35 9.05 0.01b 8.81 0.03 a* value 17 2.18 0.07 2.64 0.16 20 2.04 0.08 2.51 0.12 35 2.17 0.03 2.61 0.07 b* value 17 7.68 0.09 8.04 0.17 20 7.59 0.11 7.81 0.13 35 7.68 0.05 8.00 0.07 Means in the same column within the same measurement followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 250

250 Table 363. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L* a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. Temperature Sex Measurement Host plant 17 20 35 Male Forewing length Sweetbay 7.60 0.10 7.46 0.09 7.30 0.05 Tulip Tree 7.45 0.09 7.44 0.07 7.42 0.05 L* value Sweetbay 9.13 0.03 9.08 0.01a Tulip Tree 9.09 0.02 9.03 0.01b a* value Sweetbay 1.99 0.06a 2.17 0.05 Tulip Tree 2.34 0.06b 2.18 0.04 b* value Sweetbay 7.39 0.11a 7.65 0.06 Tulip Tree 7. 90 0.10b 7.71 0.05 Female Forewing length Sweetbay 7.51 0.07 7.43 0.09 Tulip Tree 7.65 0.06 7.61 0.09 L* value Sweetbay 8.87 0.09 8.77 0.51a Tulip Tree 8.84 0.08 7.08 0.53b a* value Sweetbay 2.51 0.17 2.58 0.0 9 Tulip Tree 2.51 0.15 2.58 0.10 b* value Sweetbay 7.83 0.13 7.92 0.41 Tulip Tree 7.79 0.12 6.70 0.43 Means in the same column within the same measurement followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0 .05, Each Pair Students t test ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 251

251 Table 364. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow and darkmorph) P. glaucus collected in 2007 from the South. Host plant Sex Measurement Temperature Sweetbay Tulip Tree Male Forewing length 17 7.60 0.12 a 7.47 0.10 20 7.44 0.10 35 7.30 0.06b 7.42 0.05 L* value 17 9.13 0.03a 9.09 0.02a 20 9.12 0.02a 35 9.08 0.01 b 9.03 0.01b a* value 17 1.99 0.10 2.34 0.09a 20 2.06 0.09b 35 2.15 0.05 2.18 0.04ab b* value 17 7.39 0.10 7.90 0.12 20 7.64 0.12 35 7.63 0.06 7.71 0.06 Yellow female Forewing length 17 7.57 0.15 20 7.51 0.15 7.65 0.17 35 7.43 0.06 7.48 0.11 L* value 17 8.82 0.07 20 8.87 0.08 8.84 0.08 35 8.78 0.04 8.88 0.05 a* value 17 2.64 0.16 20 2.51 0.19 2 .52 0.17 35 2.58 0.09 2.67 0.12 b* value 17 8.04 0.15 20 7.83 0.18 7.79 0.19 35 7.92 0.08 8.13 0.13 Dark morph female Forewing length 17 7.83 0.11 a 20 35 7.35 0.11 b L* value 17 3.89 0.20 20 35 3.99 0.20 a* value 17 2.44 0.11 20 35 2.44 0.11 b* value 17 4.19 0.16 20 35 4.09 0.16 Means in the same column within the same measurement followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 252

252 Table 365. The effect of host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (ye llow) P. glaucus Sex Host plant Forewing length L* value a* value b* value Male Sweetbay 7.34 0.04a 8.98 0.03a 2.36 0.07 7.37 0.04a Tulip Tree 7.58 0.04b 8.82 0.03b 2.54 0.07 7.53 0.04b Black Cherry 7.51 0.05b 9.00 0.03a 2.46 0. 08 7.43 0.05ab Willow 7.19 0.14a 9.09 0.10a 2.01 0.26 7.34 0.16ab Female Sweetbay 7.49 0.05a 8.83 0.03a 2.51 0.07a 7.76 0.07a Tulip Tree 7.67 0.05b 8.73 0.03b 2.75 0.07b 7.55 0.06ab Black Cherry 7.66 0.06b 8.75 0.03ab 2. 83 0.08b 7.72 0.06b Willow Means in the same column within the same sex followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 253

253 Table 3 66. The effect of temperature (C) on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus Sex Temperatures a Forewing length L* value a* value b* value Male 22 7.28 0.10c 9.07 0.07a 1.98 0.16b 7.16 0.10d 24 7.37 0.04c 9.00 0.03a 2.26 0.07b 7.41 0.04bc 27 2.68 0.08b Lansing, Michigan 7.40 0.06bc 8.97 0.03a 2.68 0.08a 7.37 0.05cd North Georgia 7.66 0.05a 8.86 0.04b 2.34 0.09b 7.54 0.06ab South Florida 7.52 0.05ab 8.85 0.03b 2.67 0.08a 7.56 0.05a Female 22 7.53 0.14abc 8.97 0.08a 2.41 0.22ab 7.60 0.19ab 24 7.57 0.05bc 8.76 0.03b 2.71 0.07ab 7.74 0.06a 27 7.34 0.14c 8.87 0.08ab 2.47 0.2 2ab 7.45 0.19ab Lansing, Michigan 7.37 0.10c 8.82 0.04ab 2.49 0.11b 7.34 0.10b North Georgia 7.74 0.07a 8.73 0.04b 2.70 0.10ab 7.85 0.09a South Florida 7.67 0.06ab 8.75 0.03b 2.79 0.08a 7.67 0.07a Means in the same column within the same sex followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 1427, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature cycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light), a* values 120 (green) 120 (red), b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow).

PAGE 254

254 Table 367. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus within each region. Sex Measurement Temperature a Region Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Male Forewing length 24 South 7.34 0.10 7.31 0.09 Withi n 7.58 0.10 7.30 0.08 South Florida South 7.73 0.06a Within 7.40 0.08b L* value 24 South 8.95 0.03 9.07 0.02 Within 9.05 0.03 9.09 0.02 Lansing, Michigan South 9.10 0.03 9.09 0.04 Within 8.94 0 .03 North 8.98 0.04 9.04 0.07 8.90 0.04 South Florida South 8.76 0.11 Within 8.85 0.15 a* value 24 South 2.43 0.08a 2.00 0.10 Within 2.09 0.08b 2.13 0.09 Lansing, Michigan South 2.77 0.21 2.96 0.19 Within 2.35 0.13 North 2.53 0.27 2.19 0.30 2.51 0.14 South Florida South 2.73 0.23 Within 2.67 0.30 b* value 24 South 7.50 0.11 7.17 0.08 Within 7.43 0.11 7.36 0.07 Lansing, Michigan South 7.25 0 .14 7.37 0.14 Within 7.32 0.06 North 7.47 0.19 7.15 0.21 7.36 0.06 South Florida South 7.63 0.10 Within 7.66 0.13

PAGE 255

255 Table 3 67. Continued. Sex Measurement Temperature a Region B lack Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Female Forewing length 24 South 7.60 0.06 Within 7.74 0.08 South Florida South 7.78 0.08a Within 7.30 0.15b L* value 24 South 8.68 0.03a Within 8.82 0.04b Lansing, M ichigan South Within 8.81 0.08 8.77 0.02a North 8.80 0.07 8.88 0.02b South Florida South 8.69 0.04 Within 8.84 0.08 a* value 24 South 2.84 0.09a Within 2.51 0.11b Lansing, Michigan South Within 2.41 0.20 2.53 0.10 North 2.19 0.17 2.56 0.12 South Florida South 2.88 0.12 Within 2.61 0.23 b* value 24 South 7.91 0.12 Within 7.59 0.14 Lansing, Michigan South Within 7.4 8 0.16 7.44 0.14 North 7.00 0.14 7.35 0.15 South Florida South 7.82 0.14 Within 7.51 0.27 Means in the same column within the same measurement and temperature treatments followed by the same letter are not significantly di fferent (P=0 .05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14 27, 173 0, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature cycles were designed to s imulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations. L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 256

256 Table 368. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (y ellow) P. glaucus within each region. Sex Region Temperature a Host plant Forewing length L* value a* value b* value Male South 24 Black Cherry 7.34 0.09 8.95 0.04a 2.43 0.10a 7.50 0.10a Sweetbay 7.31 0.10 9.07 0.04a 2.00 0.11b 7.17 0. 11b Tulip Tree 7.52 0.11 8.77 0.05b 2.71 0.11a 7.71 0.12a Lansing, Michigan Black Cherry 7.50 0.05 9.10 0.04 2.77 0.23 7.25 0.16 Sweetbay 7.43 0.05 9.09 0.04 2.96 0.23 7.37 0.16 Tulip Tree North Georgia Bla ck Cherry 7.89 0.10a 8.83 0.05 2.45 0.21 7.55 0.15 Sweetbay 7.51 0.07b 8.91 0.04 2.24 0.15 7.43 0.11 Tulip Tree 7.74 0.06a 8.82 0.03 2.35 0.12 7.56 0.09 South Florida Black Cherry 7.50 0.09ab 9.05 0.14 2.70 0.32 7.4 1 0.14 Sweetbay 7.51 0.08b 8.91 0.12 2.58 0.27 7.53 0.12 Tulip Tree 7.73 0.07a 8.76 0.10 2.73 0.21 7.63 0.10 Within 24 Black Cherry 7.58 0.09a 9.05 0.02 2.09 0.07 7.43 0.08 Sweetbay 7.30 0.09b 9.09 0.02 2.13 0. 07 7.36 0.07 Tulip Tree North Lansing, Michigan Black Cherry 8.98 0.04ab 2.53 0.14 7.47 0.09a Sweetbay 9.04 0.05a 2.19 0.16 7.15 0.10ab Tulip Tree 8.90 0.04b 2.51 0.11 7.36 0.07b Female South 24 Black Cherry 7.60 0.07 8.68 0.04 2.84 0.11 7.91 0.11 Sweetbay Tulip Tree 7.69 0.11 8.59 0.07 2.80 0.18 7.76 0.19 North Georgia Black Cherry Sweetbay 7.60 0.08 8.75 0.07 2.43 0.17 7.65 0.16 Tulip Tree 7.77 0. 05 8.70 0.05 2.84 0.12 7.97 0.11 South Florida Black Cherry 7.69 0.12 8.84 0.07 3.10 0.20 7.68 0.19 Sweetbay 7.69 0.12 8.73 0.07 2.57 0.20 7.56 0.19 Tulip Tree 7.78 0.08 8.69 0.04 2.88 0.13 7.82 0.13

PAGE 257

257 Table 3 68. Co ntinued. Sex Region Temperature a Host plant Forewing length L* value a* value b* value Within 24 Black Cherry 7.74 0.08 8.82 0.04 2.51 0.08 7.59 0.13 Sweetbay 7.54 0.06 8.92 0.03 2.46 0.07 7.70 0.11 Tulip Tree Lansing Michigan Black Cherry Sweetbay 7.11 0.16 8.81 0.03 2.41 0.13 7.48 0.13 Tulip Tree 7.46 0.14 8.77 0.02 2.52 0.11 7.44 0.11 North Lansing, Michigan Black Cherry Sweetbay 8.80 0.06 2.19 0.17 7.00 0.15 Tulip Tree 8.88 0.07 2.56 0.19 7.35 0.18 Means in the same column within the same region and temperature treatments followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 1427, 1730, and 2232 C, respectively. These temperature cycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations. L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 258

258 Table 369. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of male and female (yellow) P. glaucus within each region. Sex Measurement Region Te mperature a Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree Male Forewing length South 22 7.15 0.08b 24 7.34 0.08b 7.31 0.07ab 7.52 0.09b 27 Lansing, Michigan 7.50 0.09b 7.43 0.08a North Georgia 7.89 0.12a 7.51 0.07a 7.74 0.0 6a South Florida 7.50 0.11b 7.51 0.08a 7.73 0.07ab Within 24 Lansing, Michigan 7.31 0.07 South Florida 7.40 0.07 L* value South 22 9.07 0.04a 24 8.95 0.04bc 9.07 0.04a 8.77 0.11 27 Lans ing, Michigan 9.10 0.04a 9.09 0.04a North Georgia 8.83 0.05c 8.91 0.04b 8.82 0.08 South Florida 9.05 0.05ab 8.91 0.04b 8.76 0.08 Within 24 Lansing, Michigan 8.94 0.03 South Florida 8.85 0.04 a* value S outh 22 2.00 0.15c 24 2.43 0.16 2.00 0.14c 2.71 0.23 27 Lansing, Michigan 2.77 0.19 2.96 0.15a North Georgia 2.45 0.25 2.24 0.14bc 2.35 0.17 South Florida 2.70 0.22 2.58 0.15ab 2.73 0.19 Within 24 Lansing, Michigan 2.35 0.15 South Florida 2.67 0.16

PAGE 259

259 Table 3 69. Continued. Sex Measurement Region Temperature a Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree b* value South 22 7.12 0.12b 24 7.50 0.12 7.17 0.11b 7.71 0.11 27 Lansing, Michigan 7.25 0.14 7.37 0.12ab North Georgia 7.55 0.18 7.43 0.11ab 7.56 0.08 South Florida 7.41 0.16 7.53 0.12a 7.63 0.09 Within 24 Lansing, Michigan 7.32 0.10a So uth Florida 7.66 0.10b Female Forewing length South 22 7.48 0.15ab 24 7.60 0.06 7.69 0.12 27 7.21 0.15b Lansing, Michigan North Georgia 7.60 0.12ab 7.77 0.07 South Florida 7.69 0.09 7.69 0.12a 7. 78 0.07 Within 24 7.54 0.06a Lansing, Michigan 7.11 0.11b 7.46 0.12 South Florida 7.30 0.14 L* value South 22 9.01 0.09a 24 8.68 0.04 8.59 0.04 27 8.91 0.09ab Lansing, Michigan North Georgia 8.75 0.07b 8.70 0.05 South Florida 8.84 0.06 8.73 0.07b 8.69 0.05 Within 24 8.92 0.03 Lansing, Michigan 8.82 0.06 8.77 0.02 South Florida 8.84 0.03

PAGE 260

260 Table 3 69. Continued. Sex Measurement Region Temperature a Black Cherry Sweetbay Tulip Tree a* value South 22 2.25 0.19 24 2.84 0.12 2.80 0.21 27 2.34 0.19 Lansing, Michigan North Georgia 2.43 0.15 2.84 0.13 South Florida 3.0 1 0.17 2.57 0.15 2.88 0.13 Within 24 2.46 0.06 Lansing, Michigan 2.41 0.12 2.53 0.10 South Florida 2.61 0.11 b* value South 22 7.45 0.17 24 7.91 0.10 7.76 0.22 27 7.29 0.17 Lansing, Michiga n North Georgia 7.65 0.13 7.97 0.13 South Florida 7.68 0.15 7.56 0.13 7.82 0.13 Within 24 7.70 0.08 Lansing, Michigan 7.48 0.15 7.44 0.12 South Florida 7.51 0.14 Means in the same column within the sam e measurement and region followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0 .05, Each Pair Students t test ) aL. Michigan, N. Georgia, and S. Florida had daily gradual temperature cycles from 14 27, 1730, and 223 2 C, respectively. These temperature c ycles were designed to simulate daily fluctuations within these actual locations. L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 261

261 Table 370. The effect of temperature (C) and host plant on forewing length (mm), L*, a* and b* values (Mean SE) of darkmorph female P. glaucus captured in 2008. Forewing length L* value a* value b* value Temperature Lansing, Michigan 7.53 0.10 3.77 0.18 1.38 0.15 3.69 0.15a South Flor ida 7.45 0.12 4.17 0.22 1.67 0.18 4.23 0.19b Host plant Black Cherry 7.58 0.14 3.80 0.26 1.76 0.20 3.97 0.22 Tulip Tree 7.50 0.12 4.17 0.22 1.41 0.18 4.09 0.19 Sweetbay 7.40 0.15 3.67 0.28 1.31 0.24 3.51 0.24 Means in the same column within a variable (temperature, host plant) followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P=0.05, Each Pair Students t test). L* values 0 (dark) 100 (light) a* values 120 (green) 120 (red) b* values 120 (blue) 120 (yellow)

PAGE 262

262 Table 3 71. Raw data of copulation time for hand paired and laboratory hybridized P. glaucus and viability of eggs. Male ID Location captured or parent locations Female ID Location captured or parent locations Copulation time (min.) Ge neration of offspring Total # of eggs laid Total # of larvae emerged Total # of subsequent adults Additional notes 829 8 Cedar Key, FL 7119 2 Vicksburg, MS F1 6 0 0 All fertile 0 viable 8239 9 Lake Placid, FL 8242 (6) Wakulla, FL 15 F1 0 0 0 8239 10 L ake Placid, FL 8242 (2) Wakulla, FL 15 F1 44 0 0 40 fertile 4 infertile 0 viable 8361 Starkville, MS 8239 (12) Lake Placid, FL 190 F1 41 0 0 all fertile but not viable 8388 Waycross, GA 8308 1 Cedar Key, FL 65 F1 262 65 21 most fertile ** 8393 Waycros s, GA 8353 2 Sebring, FL 38 F1 13 0 0 8389 Waycross, GA 8318 2 Cedar Key, FL 60 F1 18 7 2 8390 Waycross, GA 8318 (31) Cedar Key, FL 82 F1 7 0 0 8392 Waycross, GA 8307 3 Cedar Key, FL 64 F1 53 1 0 all fertile only 1 viable 8336 1 Sebring, FL 8341 2 S ebring, FL 68 F1 6 0 0 8391 Waycross, GA 8341 (19) Sebring, FL 37 F1 0 0 0 8410 Elkton, TN 8341 9 Sebring, FL 106 F1 188 46 8 8355 7 Sebring, FL 8348 1 Sebring, FL 45 F1 17 0 0 8411 Elkton, TN 8355 8 Sebring, FL 62 F1 39 0 0 8355 6 Sebring, FL 83 60 (9) Lake Placid, FL 53 F1 172 26 6 8459 Fairmount, GA 8348 Sebring, FL 66 F1 0 0 0 8450 Fairmount, GA 8354 13 Sebring, FL 30 F1 96 0 0 8461 Fairmount, GA 8356 3 Sebring, FL 101 F1 26 0 0 8453 Fairmount, GA 8354(1) Sebring, FL 230 F1 0 0 0 8450 Fairmount, GA 8348(1) Sebring, FL 55 F1 26 7 8459 Fairmount, GA 8359(25) Sebring, FL 98 F1 3 1 8461 Fairmount, GA 8403(51) Waycross, GA 151 F2 0 0 0

PAGE 263

263 Table 3 71. Continued. Male ID Location captured or parent locations Fema le ID Location captured or parent locations Copulation time (min.) Generation of offspring Total # of eggs laid Total # of larvae emerged Total # of subsequent adults Additional notes 8402(2) Waycross, GA 8308 1 3 Cedar Key, FL (F) x Waycross, GA (M) 31 F2 0 0 0 8308 1(54) Cedar Key, FL (F) x Waycross, GA (M) 8354(20) Sebring, FL 105 F2 0 0 0 8308 1(43) Cedar Key, FL (F) x Waycross, GA (M) 8403 1 Waycross, GA 25 F1 171 106 42 8453 Fairmount, GA 8354(1) Sebring, FL F1 159 0 0 All fertile 8461 Fairmount, GA 8403(51) Waycross, GA F1 118 0 0 8459 Fairmount, GA 8359(25) Sebring, FL F2 33 1 1 8492 Sebring, FL 8341 9 3 Elkton, TN (M) x Sebring, FL (F) 105 F2 74 5 2 8464 Sebring, FL 8308 1 10 Waycross, GA (M) x Cedar Key, FL (F) 94 F2 36 0 0 8493 Sebring, FL 8308 1(9) Waycross, GA (M)x Cedar Key, FL (F) 15 F1 0 0 0 8481 Sebring, FL 8403 10 Waycross, GA 62 F2 0 0 0 8467 Sebring, FL 8308 1 21 Waycross, GA (M) x Cedar Key, FL (F) 76 F2 77 13 1 8341 9 2 Elkton, TN (M) x Sebring, FL (F) 8308 1 18 Waycross, GA x Cedar Key, FL 72 F1 139 44 12 8498 Sebring, FL 8412(1) Elkton, TN 72 F2 55 1 1 (F) = female, (M) = male ** equals instances when most eggs hatched but neonates were not set up (high viability)

PAGE 264

264 CHAPTER 4 D ISCUSSION Coll ecting and Sampling It is clear from the continous sampling throughout this investigation that P. glaucus adults fly from early mid March through October in most of Florida. South Florida is unique in that P. glaucus can be collected here during winter months, although they are rare during this time period and few nectar sources are available. It is unclear if the P. glaucus found during the winter months represent long lived fallemerging adults, an a dditional winter brood in south Florida, or a late emergence from the preceding fall flight period. It was noted that these individuals did appear worn (missing scales and tattered wing margins) suggesting that they did not recently emerge. There were three primary flight periods in most of Florida: a spring, a summer, and a fall brood. The mass emergence of each of these broods strongly correlates to the abundance of nectar sources in the region. For instance, when travelling to Cedar Key, FL, in the spring months, I can determine when P. glaucus will be avai lable for observation or capture based on the abundance and flowering of thistles in the region (Figure 41). The same method can be used during summer months with Buttonbush. As seen in Figure 42, P. glaucus are most abundant during the Spring and Fall f light periods, although it should be noted that due to the large number of P. glaucus sampled in the spring flight period, the summer flight period may have been sampled less intensively due to the lengthy time requirements of rearing a large number of lar vae from adults collected during the spring months. On the other hand, when making observations while driving, more P. glaucus were sighted during the spring and fall flight periods, suggesting these may represent larger emergences than the summer brood.

PAGE 265

265 I n addition to noting the months when P. glaucus are most common ly observed in flight, populations in southern Florida were observed to begin flying first in relation to other more northern populations. In south Florida, P. glaucus adults seem to eclose in large number in midMarch, but are not common in large numbers until April in Georgia. These observations strongly suggest that warming temperatures, possibly coupled with an increase in daylength, influence emergence of adults during the spring flight period, as south Florida experiences warmer temperatures and longer daylengths before Georgia in the spring. Collecting P. glaucus was best accomplished early in the morning, while adults were still basking near nectar sources. As temperatures began to warm the butterflies became much more active, and were difficult to capture after a missed swing of the net as they tried to escape at speeds not much slower than my sprinting speed. Neither myself or the P. glaucus kept up this speed for long, as they were usually captured or would take flight upwards in altitude if I continued a pursuit. Females are seen throughout much of the warm periods of the day ovipositing in the canopy. As the day progresses P. glaucus became common again at lower (catchable) altitud es as temperatures cool, especially after short showers and quick passing thunderstorms move through the area. Color Analysis of Wild Captured P. glaucus Investigating color served three primary purposes: (1) to quantify diagnostic color characters of the two subspecies, (2) determine the northern range of P. glaucus maynardi and the southern range of P. g. glaucus and whether these ranges overlap the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone, and (3) to determine if seasonal fluctuations occur in overall color. As pr eviously mentioned, L*, a* and b* values were used when quantifying

PAGE 266

266 color. It was hypothesiz ed that southern populations would have a significantly higher a* value, as a higher a* value means there is more red in the overall color. The b* values were also of interest, as higher b* values represent more yellow. A combination of the a* and b* values should produce the orange color diagnostic of the southern subspecies. Northern populations were thought to have lower a* values and higher b* values, because ind ividuals from these populations are reported to be more yellow than P. g. maynardi (Scriber 1986) The L* values were the most difficult to predict, because this value correlates to the lightness of the combination of a* and b* values. When investigating the populations sampled individually, it was difficult to draw any strong correlations of color relative to location. The adults of both sexes in the most sout hern population, Lake Placid, FL, were not significantly different in a* values than females from northern populations, such as Vicksburg, MS (Table 33) M ales from Lake Placid did have the highest a* values of all populations, while females from Sebring, FL (~ 20 miles north of Lake Placid, FL) had the highest a* values When exam ining only a* values, it is clear these two southern populations have the most red in their wings compared to other populations. The b* values proved to be unreliable as a diagnostic color character for these subspecies. Overall, southern populations had a higher b* value t han northern populations, except in Lake Placi d where b* values were nearly the lowest in females. In general, b* values in males were higher in southern populations than northern populations. The a* values and b* values were hi gher in females than males. These overall trends suggest that a high a* value coupled with a high b* value is necessary to produce the orange color observed in the southern populations. In addit ion, females

PAGE 267

267 typically seem to contain more orange than males, which corresponds well to t hese measurements. The L* values proved to be difficult to assess as a diagnostic characteristic, as values showed no trend from northern populations to southern populations. However, males did have higher L* values than females in almost every population. When studying color in relation to each subspecies and in relation to the suture zone theory, it makes sense to study these individuals in regard to regions rather than populations Interestingly, the average a*, and b* values for wild collected P. glaucu s strongly correlate to the suture zone (Table 3 4) There were no trends in L* values, but the a* values in males and females south of the suture zone are significantly different and higher than within the suture zone and north of the suture zone. The b* values also had interesting results in that the individuals north of the suture zone had significantly lower values than the individuals within and south of the suture zone. This evidence strongly suggests that a transition in color does occur through the suture zone: P. glaucus of both sexes are more orange south of the suture zone, and the wing color becomes increasingly more yellow through the suture zone northwards ( F= 4 3). Investigating the color dynamics of regions north, south, and within the suture zone over time yielded interesting results. It is apparent that wing color does change over time, and that there are primar i ly shifts in a* and b* values from the spring brood to the fall brood. Interestingly, the changes in these values between these regi ons are not homologous. Males north of the suture zone experience a large shift in a* values over time, but only a small shift in b* values in relation to the other regions (Table 35) There is a similar trend in the a* and b* values within the suture zone. Males south of the

PAGE 268

268 suture zone also show a similar trend, but the shift in these values, although significant, are less than the enormous shift in colors north and within the suture zone. There were some shifts in L* values, but these were not as dramat ic as the other color values. The change in color values reported here suggest that male P. glaucus become more orange over time. The dynamics of females in these zones are slightly different than those observed in males. The regions lying north and south of the suture zone had no significant shifts in L* values between flight periods but there was a shift within the suture zone itself from lighter to darker colors. The a* values did greatly increase ( shift to more red ) in each zone. It should be noted that the maximum a* values in females north of the suture zone in the fall flight period were similar to the a* values seen in the spring brood females south of the suture zone, meaning that female wing color north of the suture zone at maximum orange values is equal to the lowest orange values south of the suture zone. There were no significant color shifts in the b* values within all of the regions. Interestingly, the color shift within each region changed more between flight periods than differences between each region during each flight period, meaning that P. glaucus had similar changes in color values over time within each region. These results present complex dynamics in color within and between regions over time. It seems that male and female P. glaucu s within each region shift in color with increasing a* values over time, in other words, become more orange. Males also experience a shift in every region with a decreasing L* value and an increasing b* value over time meaning they get darker and simultaneously have more yellow. T hese correlations are listed in Tables 3 11, 312, and 313. The spring flight period has the

PAGE 269

269 largest variation in male P. glaucus between regions sampled. Males south of the suture zone are similar to males within the suture zone, and both of these regions are different than males north of the suture zone. However, wing color changes over time, and males between these regions become more similar in appearance. The exception to this trend is that males within the suture zon e in the fall flight period have a very high b* value in relation to the other regions. Females have different color dynamics between regions than males Although the L* values do decrease over time, and the b* values fluctuate, this picture is not significant wit hin or between regions. Females experience a shift primarily in a* values over time (Table 36) During t he summer flight period, there was a large difference between a* values in females north, within and south of the suture zone, although only a* values from females north of the suture zone were significantly different from the other two regions Females between these regions like the males become more homogene ous over time. Females north become less different th an those within the suture zone, but sti ll remain s ignificantly different than those south of the suture zone. Females in the southern r egion, though, are always more orange than females north of the suture zone. The dynamics of these fluctuations could be explained by at least one of three fact ors. (1) C olor is strongly associated with an environmental cue. For instance, if temperature is correlated to a* values, this could explain why the a* values increase throughout the flight periods and why the region south of the suture zone is very differ ent than north of the suture zone in spring, but less so in the fall flight period, as temperatures in the spring are substantially warmer in south Florida than in Georgia, but

PAGE 270

270 become increasingly similar during the summer months As temperatures increase in Georgia and become similar to Florida, so do the color values in P. glaucus (2) As the spring flight period progresses, so does the home range of P. glaucus As the orange P. g. maynardi emerge in southern areas they literally fly to regions north of the suture zone throughout the summer months, perhaps stopping to oviposit allowing the next brood to continue to move northward. (3) The shift in color within these regions is an example of seasonal genetic introgression occurring annually The genes res ponsible for the high a* values move northward and spread as the flight periods progress. Judging by the results disc ussed here, it seems a combination of some of these events may be occurring. It is apparent that color values change over time within each region. This suggests that there is some environmental component that has an effect on the phenotype of adult P. glaucus but it is unclear what this component is. Temperature alone cannot be the only factor, as Florida and South Georgia have similar aver age temperatures during the summer months (Figure 43) It also seems likely that a genetic component is involved, as the southern subspecies appears to always be more orange than northern populations. Although it is likely that some of the more orange individual P. glaucus fly northward, possibly mating with yellow individuals, it is not likely that these events support the results of an increasing a* value north of the suture zone. From my personal observations, the latitudinal transition in color of P. g laucus is a gradual change that takes place within the suture zone. Individuals within populations look rather similar, and are not highly heterogeneous in wing color. I did not encounter P. g. maynardi looking specimens north of the suture zone, but indiv iduals captured

PAGE 271

271 th ere in the fall flight period look similar to P. g. maynardi collected south of the suture zone in the spring. Investigating the color values of dark morph females revealed a general trend whereas these females become increasingly darker in southern populations with decreasing L* values (Table 37). The b* values were also significantly lower (less yellow) in southern populations, but there was not much change in a* values throughout the populations sampled. Analyzing the mean color values according to regions sampled revealed that populations north of the suture zone are significantly lighter (high L* values) and more yellow (high b* values) than the other regions of study Interestingly, these butterflies also display a change in color v alues according to flight periods, but only in the region north of the suture zone (Table 39) and primarily during the fall flight period (Table 310). Dark morph females south of the suture remain relatively stable in color values across the flight periods. The data suggest that dark morph female P. g. maynardi may be darker than P. g. glaucus but more sampling may be required to draw any general conclusion. Yellow female P. glaucus were given preference in this study when sampling, because it is more li kely they will produce yellow female offspring. It should be noted that although these findings suggest the dark morph P. glaucus are dark er south of the suture zone, a relatively uncommon phenotype was encountered in south Florida where a yellow patch of scales is visible on the dorsal forewing in the distal portion of the discal cell Morphometrics As previously mentioned, larger average size in addition to wing color are the two primary diagnostic characters of Papilio glaucus maynardi The purpose of st udying different wing measurements was to determine if P. g. maynardi is in fact larger (FWL)

PAGE 272

272 than P. g. glaucus and to investigate a possible correlation in size with the suture zone. In addition to this research aim other wing measurements were recorded and analyzed to determine if any of these measurements can also be used as a diagnostic character for identifying or distinguishing the two subspecies. Male and females were analyzed separately due to the significant differences between their wing measurements (Table 3 22). The morphometric analysis presented interesting results. When comparing populations sampled, male and female P. glaucus had significant differences in every measurement, except there were no differences in the width of the black band in the anal cell (WABB) of females (Table 314) There was a trend in the data, particularly in the male and female FWL and HWL, of a longer length (mm) of these measurements in southern populations which become increasingly smaller northward. Although these measurements were significant, when populations were divided into regions the differences became more pronounced. The FWL in male and females was different between every region sampled, and individuals south of the suture are clearly larger than individuals from the other regions (Table 316, 317). With every measurement taken, the mean values are significantly different for males and females south of the suture zone from individuals north of the suture zone. The region within the suture zone serves as a transitional region in wing measurements. The values within the suture zone are either similar to regions south of the suture zone but different than northern specimens (WABB), similar to regions north of the suture zone but different than southern specim ens (female HWL and FWSMB, HWSMB of both sexes), significantly different than the other regions with values in

PAGE 273

273 between values north and south of the suture zone (FWL in both sexes, male WAC and HWL), or are not significantly different than either of these regions although the regions north and south of the suture zone are different (female WAC). Like wing color values, wing measurements also appear to change over time, and interestingly, have nearly homologous dynamics between regions over time as the color values. Using forewing length (FWL) as a character of overall size, males and females of the spring brood in every region are smaller than the fall brood (Table 318). Although there is a change in size between the spring and fall broods, most of this change seems to occur between the spring and summer broods. Unfortunately, females from north of the suture zone were not collected during the spring flight period, but a change is still observed between the summer and fall broods, with increasing morphometri c values. Interestingly, the WABB of females in all regions actually decreased over time, even though the width of the anal cell (WAC) that this band was contained in did increase. Males displayed a similar trend in wing measurement values over time as the females (Table 319), although the change in these values is more abrupt. However, the WABB measurement in males changes differently than it does in females. This measurement decreases from the spring to the summer flight periods in males north and withi n the suture zone, but increases during this time periods in males south of the suture zone. Males north of the suture possess a dramatic increase in values of this measurement, though, in the fall flight period, whereas it decreases in males south of the suture zone. These results suggest fluc tuations in the WABB values, but a lack of a trend.

PAGE 274

274 When com p aring these regions per flight period, there were no significant differences between female P. glaucus wing measurements during the spring flight period (Table 3 20). The arrival of the summer flight period, though, produced significant differences in wing measurements (WAC, HWL, HWSMB, and FWSMB) between females north and south of the suture zone, and these differences were maintained during the fall flight period with the addition of FWL. It should be noted that the FWL was very different between these regions during the summer flight period, even though they were not statistically significantly different. Males, on the other hand, had significant difference s in every wing measurement between regions north and south of the suture zone during every flight period (Table 321) There is clearly a trend in both sexes of an increase in size over time within each region in relation to the suture zone. From these data, it is important to note that most wing measurements in male and female P. glaucus north of the suture zone never attain the size of wing measurements in sexes south of the suture zone. When comparing the larger specimens captured during the fall flight period north of the suture zone ( P. g. glaucus ), they are considerably smaller than the small spring specimens south of the suture zone ( P. g. maynardi ). As with wing color, the region within the suture zone serves as a transition zone between the other r egions. It is difficult at this point to explain exactly why wing measurements, such as FWL, increase over time. Most of this change may be due to seasonal fluctuations in host plant quality and/or physiological properties associated with diapausing indiv iduals. For instance, although the quality of the host plants for larvae feeding in the fall may be sufficient for proper growth and development i t is likely not as nutritious as the quality of

PAGE 275

275 freshly growing leaves in the spring and summer months. Therefore, larvae feeding on newly fresh leaves in the spring produce large adults in the summer, and larvae feeding during the summer also produce large adults in the fall. The prolonged nature of energy requirements in a diapausing pupa may additionally impac t the size of the butterfly w hen it emerges in the spring, as energy stores are likely used to maintain necessary lif e processes during this period, decreasing the allocation of energy and nutrients available for wing size when adult structure organizing c enters are activated within the pupa in the early spring to complete metamorphosis. One of the purposes of the morphometrics investigation was to determine if there are other morphological wing characters that can be used as distinguish ing characters for e ach subspecies, and to see if these diagnosable characters have a transitional correlation to the suture zone. A MANOVA to test correlations between each measurement within each region did not produce results that could lead to a distinguishing characteris tic not simply associated with an overall larger size in specimens south of the suture zone (Tables 324, 325, 326). Nearly every wing measurement combination had a significant positive correlation. The exceptions to this, where a measurement did not inc rease with size (female WABB/FWL, HWL/WABB, HWSMB/WABB, FWSMB/WABB, male HWSMB/WABB) were similar in specimens within each region, and therefore could not be used as diagnostic subspecific characteristics. Interestingly, there were fewer significant co rrelations between wing measurements within the suture, primarily in the females. When looking more closely at the data, the lack of correlations within this region is strongly attribut able to the HWL. It is difficult to explain this, as FWL and HWL are ty pically strongly correlated and usually

PAGE 276

276 nearly equal in length, and yet FWL is correlated to the other measurements that the HWL is no t correlated to. I consider these data as unusable for distinguishing one subspecies from the other. In general, it seems that overall size, particularly FWL and HWL, are usable diagnostic characters for both subspecies. Although these measurements change over time, the largest individuals north of the suture zone during the fall are still smaller than the smallest P. g. mayn ardi a fact which label s these butterflies as morphologically distinguishable entities. It was hypothesized that the size of P. glaucus has a relationship with wing color, due to the two previous diagnostic characters for P. g. maynardi being larger size and more orange on the wing color. Specifically, I was expecting to observe an increase in a* values (reds) with an increase in FWL. Using a MANOVA test to determine correlations between size (FWL) and color yielded interesting results. North of the sutur e zone, females had no correlations between FWL and any of the color values (L*, a*, and b*), but males did have a positive correlation between FWL and and a* values and a negative correlation to L* values (Table 328). This relationship changed within the suture zone, as females had significant correlation between FWL and L* values, but no correlations to a* or b* values. Males, on the other hand, had a significant correlation between all color values and FWL. Females south of the suture zone, again, had no correlations between FWL and color values, but males from this region did have significant correlations between these measurements. When analyzing these same specimens without dividing them into the regions from where they were captured, completely different results were revealed in the females (Table 327). It was found that females have a significant correlation between

PAGE 277

277 FWL and the L* and a* values, but no correlation with b* values. Males had significant correlations between all measurements. These com plex results reveal that overall, male and female P. glaucus do have a relationship between size and color, although this relationship seems to be stronger in males than it is in females. Females south of the suture zone, for instance, although they are significantly larger and darker in wing color (more orange) than other regions, still possess some variation within this region some females are extremely large, but may not be as orange as another extremely large female. The male correlation between FWL and color, on the other hand, is very signficant. When looking at the big picture of these results, it is apparent that P. glaucus populations south of the suture are morphologically unique from populations north of the suture zone: they are larger and they a re more orange, and t he transition from these populations take s place with in the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. It should be emphasized that this study has utiliz ed individuals captured in relatively close proximity to each other when compared to the tot al distribution of P. glaucus but the data have revealed significant morphological differentiation that occurs within the suture zone. Oviposition P reference As shown in previous studies (Scriber, 1986; Bossart and Scriber 1995a, 1995b), P. glaucus maynar di as an adult displays a preference to oviposit on Sweetbay and when fed Sweetbay as a larva it has a more rapid relative growth rate (RGR) than when fed additional host plants commonly used by other P. glaucus populations (Scriber, 1986). It was hypothesized that the results from this study w ill mirror the previous studies: the most southern populations of P. glaucus will prefer to oviposit on Sweetbay and the resulting larvae will have the highest survival rate, shortest

PAGE 278

2 78 developmental period, and attai n the highest pupae weight. Sweetbay is the only host plant available in southern Florida, with the number of host plants available increasing northward (Figure 44 ). Therefore, it was hypothesized that the hierarchal rankings in ovipositon preference will change as the number of host plants available increase. Although the oviposition preference of southern populations of P. glaucus has been previously studied, these populations have not been examined until now for a correlation to suture zone theory. Res ults from the oviposition studies in 2006 will not be elaborated on here, as the location, temperature, and photoperiod of the oviposition setup were altered throughout this period. In addition, few female P. glaucus were set up, therefore lim iting signifi cant conclusions on oviposition preference The 2007 data, although from a more robust sample size, were only collected from two populations during the spring flight period: Lake Placid, FL, and Cedar Key, FL. The small number of collecting sites sampled w as the result of t he severe wild fires that occupied much of northern Florida and southern Georgia during this time period. When looking at the raw percentage data, it is apparent that Green Ash (GA) is the most preferred plant utilized by ovipositing females, followed by Sweetbay (SB), and then Black Cherry (BC). Although the hierarchal rankings of plants are the same, it is clear that females from Lake Placid, FL, have a stronger preference for Sweetbay than females from Cedar Key, FL (Figure 34). Tulip Tree (TT), when included as a host plant in the oviposition preference arenas, completely altered the ranking order, having a large impact on female preference (Figure 35). Every population used in the ANOVA analysis (north to south Vicksburg, MS, Cedar Key, FL, and Lake Placid, FL) had a significant prefence for Tulip Tree. The one exception to

PAGE 279

279 this is in the Lake Placid, FL population, where Tulip Tree oviposition preference was not significantly different that Sweetbay (Table 334). There was a lack, though, of significant differences in the order of plant preference between populations, meaning that all populations prefer Tulip Tree, usually followed by a preference for the other Magnoliaceae host plant, Sweetbay (Table 333). Similar results were fou nd when categorizing these populations into regions in relation to the suture zone. Papilio glaucus females north of the suture zone share a similar preference for Tulip Tree with females south of the suture zone (Table 336). Due to the intensive sampling in 2008, the sample size for the oviposition preference studies was robust particularly after the addition of Tulip Tree. As in 2007, the females captured during the spring flight period in 2008 and used for oviposition preference analysis did not have T ulip Tree as a host plant choice, as the leaves were still budding in Florida at this time. Without Tulip Tree, southern populations (Sebring, FL, Lake Placid, FL) have a strong preference for Sweetbay as was expected (Figure 3 6). Unfortunately, both of these populations did not have enough females lay eggs to use in the ANOVA analysis. The remainder of the populations sampled were within Florida, except for Waycross, GA. This population was the only population during this study period that did not rank S weetbay in the top two plants; instead, this population preferred Green Ash and Black Cherry but again this was only with one individual. The only populations sampled during the spring flight period that were represented by a large enough sample for a oneway ANOVA test were Barberville, FL, Cedar Key, FL, Pineland, FL, and Wakulla, FL (Table 337). These populations cover a lat itudinally short distance, but B arberville is near the Atlantic Ocean, whereas the other populations

PAGE 280

280 are located near the Gulf of Mexico. Cedar Key, FL and Wakulla, FL, were the only two populations that had a significant difference in preference for Sweetbay (low preference, high preference, respectively). The Cedar Key, FL, population seems to have a stronger preference for Black Cherry than the other plants. Overall, Sweetbay and Green Ash seem to be the most preferred plants from these populations sampled When dividing these populations into regions, the only significant difference in preference for host plant was with Green Ash ; the region within the suture zone had a stronger preference for this plant than the region south of the suture zone (Table 339). Willow was utilized the least for oviposition by all populations. When ranking these plants for oviposition preference, femal es south of the suture zone preferred Sweetbay followed by Green Ash although these were not significantly different, and Black Cherry and Willow were used the least. Females within the suture zone preferred Green Ash followed by Sweetbay (these were sign ificantly different), then Black Cherry and Willow (not significantly different) (Table 340). As shown with the 2007 data, the addition of Tulip Tree as a potential plant for oviposition completely altered the hierarchal rankings of oviposition preferenc e. Every population sampled during (Elkton, TN, the most northern population; Lake Placid, FL, the most southern) preferred to oviposit eggs on Tulip Tree (Figure 37). Although numerous populations were sampled, the only significant differences in Sweetba y preference were between Lake Placid, FL, (high preference) and Waycross, GA, and Elkton, TN (low preference) (Table 341) Tulip Tree was significantly different between Lake Placid, FL (low preference) and Waycross, GA, and Sebring, FL (high preference) This comes as a bit of a surprise, as Sebring is only about 25 km north of Lake Placid,

PAGE 281

281 FL, and represents the second most southern population of P. glaucus sampled. The Sebring, FL, population shared a nearly equal preference with Green Ash as Sweetbay both well below the strong preference for Tulip Tree. Black Cherry and Green Ash were not significantly different between any populations. The only significantly different population in oviposition preference for Willow was found in Fayette, AL, as no eggs were laid on this plant there. Tulip Tree was ranked as the number one host plant to use between all populations, significantly higher in every population except Lake Placid, FL, where Sweetbay and Green Ash were also ranked equally high (Table 342). Mo ving northwards, Sebring, FL, also used Sweetbay and Green Ash secondarily, but these were significantly different than Tulip Tree. Cedar Key, FL had similar rankings as Sebring, FL. Waycross, GA, and Farimount, GA, had similar rankings, but these populati ons had an increased preference for Black Cherry as the rankings of this plant were not significant from Sweetbay and Green Ash Fayette, AL, and Elkton, TN both showed a decreased preference for Sweetbay and an increased preference for Green Ash These findings present some expected and some unexpected results. It is not surprising that Tulip Tree is the most preferred host plant utilized for oviposition. This plant is consistently ranked high in the previously mentioned experiments (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a; Mercader and Scriber, 2007). Although Tulip Tree is typically the most preferred plant utilized by P. glaucus the lack of host plants other than Sweetbay in the most southern populations causes a local selective pressure to utilize these plants (B ossart and Scriber, 1995b). The Lake Placid, FL, population displayed results in

PAGE 282

282 accordance with previous studies. There is a strong preference for both Tulip Tree and Sweetbay The preference for Sweetbay is greater in this population than in all other populations. I was expecting to find similar results in Sebring, FL, but this population did n ot have as strong a preference for Sweetbay ; instead, Green Ash and Sweetbay were nearly equally preferred. The pattern seen in these southern populations corresponds well to the hierarchal threshold model: southern populations maintain a significant degree of preference for host plants that are not available in wild populations. Northern populations, particularly outside of the range of Sweetbay still utilize this plant, although less so than southern populations. The decreased preference for Sweetbay in northern populations conforms well to previous suggestions that Sweetbay utilization is a recently acquired trait, as southern populations are the only populations that have a strong preference for it (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a). Oviposition preference was also studied in relation to suture zone theory. It was hypothesized that females south of the suture zone would display a higher preference for the locally avai lable host plant, Sweetbay Regions within and north of the suture zone have other hos t plants available; therefore, it was expected that Sweetbay would be less preferred, but perhaps still more preferable than other plants, because Sweetbay and Tulip Tree (most preferred) are both in the same plant family. It was found that the hierarchal ranking of plants between regions was not significantly different (Table 343). There were trends however, that were found in the hierarchal rankings within each region (Table 344). Females from south of the suture zone preferred Tulip Tree,

PAGE 283

283 followed by Sweetbay and Green Ash Black Cherry and Willow were both hardly utilized. Female P. glaucus within the suture zone, again, preferred Tulip Tree, but these populations had a stronger preference for Green Ash than Black Cherry and Sweetbay (although not significantly different). Papilio glaucus females north of the suture zone had a strong preference for Tulip Tree, followed by Green Ash which was significantly higher in preference than Sweetbay and Black Cherry Obviously there is a trend in Sweetbay utilization when the population lies bet ween these regions that overlap the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. I suggest that the preference for Sweetbay may be a relic trait that was advanced in populations isolated in Florida during the Pleistocene. It is possible that populations of P. glaucus that retreated to higher elevations in Florida to avoid the rising sea levels during interglacial periods were limited to only one host plant choice, Sweetbay These populations faced local selection pressures that favored efficient detoxification and utilization of Sweetbay As the sea level receded, once isolated populations came into secondary contact with populations from the mainland where multiple host plants were available. The high level of gene flow from these populations discouraged complete monophagy of southern populations to feed on Sweetbay but the local pressures in modernday south Florida continue to enforce a preference for this plant, which is why these populations are properly labeled as ecologically monophagous (Bossart and Scriber, 1995a; Scriber, 1986). Larval Survival Larval survival was hypothesized to correlate closely to the number of host plants available in the populations where females were collected. Although it was expected that most larvae could utilize both Magnoliaceae plants tested in these experiments,

PAGE 284

284 there may be a differential response between larvae from north of the suture where Tulip Tree is avail able to larvae from south of the suture zone where only Sweetbay is available. The results from this investigation display no significant differences between any populations when fed Sweetbay ; they all had high survival (Table 347). Similar results were f ound with Black Cherry and Green Ash Interestingly, Tulip Tree, which was expected to have high survival (and did) had significant differences between Cedar Key, FL, and Sebring, FL, (southern populations lower survival ) and Elkton, TN (northern populations higher survival ). Waycross, GA, which is almost halfway (latitude) between these populations, was not significantly different than either of these. Within one population, l arval survival was only significa nt ly different in Cedar Key, FL, where Tul ip Tree and Black Cherry feeders had significantly higher survival than those larvae on the other plants tested, including Sweetbay When the populations studied were divided into regions there were significant differences between regions with only one pl ant, Tulip Tree (Table 349). Larvae from mothers collected north of the suture zone had a significantly higher survival on Tulip Tree when compared to those from south of the suture zone. Larvae from within the suture zone were not significant from either of these zones in Tulip Tree survival but had survival values between the values of the other two regions. When examining the data of larval survival within regions it is clear there is a shift in larval survival in Sweetbay (Table 350). Larvae from so uth and wi thin the suture zone have high survival that is not significantly different than the high survival of Tulip Tree, but larvae from north of the suture zone have a significantly different and lower survival of Sweetbay compared to Tulip Tree.

PAGE 285

285 These data are perplexing; I was expecting that there might be a decrease in Tulip Tree survival in populations south of the suture zone, as P. glaucus here do not encounter this plant in the wild, but I also assumed that larval survival would also be significa ntly lower with the other plants used in this study not found in south Florida. The data suggest that l arvae south of the suture zone are capable of surviving on plants that are not found there, and that larval survival is not significantly different between both Magnoliaceae plants and Black Cherry (Rosaceae) Interestingly, it was found that larvae are capable of surviving on Willow, although the survival is very low, similar to other reports comparing P. glaucus and P. canadensis (Hagen et al., 1991). Ov erall, these Florida populations do have high survival when fed Sweetbay but they also survive well on plants that are not found in this region. Papilio glaucus larvae north of the suture zone also survive well on all plants used, but the difference between larval survival on the two Magnoliaceae plants used in this investigation is more pronounced there. Larval Duration and Pupal Weight Larval duration on selected host plants and the subsequent pupal weight was investigated to determine if P. glaucus mal es and females develop faster or slower and attain different pupal weights within each region. It was hypothesized that male and female P. glaucus larvae would develop faster and attain higher pupal weights when fed SB compared to the other plants species tested. In addition, larvae from mothers that were collected from within the suture zone and north of the suture zone would display the highest pupal weight and fastest development on the other Magnoliaceae plant, Tulip Tree. The host plant that larvae dev elop quickest on (the shortest amount of time between neonate emergence and pupation) could be considered the best host plant to

PAGE 286

286 feed on, because a fast larval development period means the shortest time span until reproductive maturity. In addition, larvae are highly susceptible to predation from birds and other vertebrate predators, as well as other predaceous arthropods and parasitoids, perhaps more so than adult butterflies that are capable of avoiding predators through flight. Larvae collected in 2007 were reared at the same temperature (24 C), therefore temperature was not tested for correlation to either pupal weight or larval duration data. The data collected during this time period display a lack of significance in pupal weight regardless of host plants tested. Larvae fed Black Cherry Sweetbay and Tulip Tree were not significantly different in male or female P. glaucus (Table 351). The same lack of differences were found when dividing P. glaucus into regions in relation to the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. On the other hand, there were significant differences in larval duration. Both male and female P. glaucus larvae seem to develop quickest on Tulip Tree, followed by Sweetbay then Black Cherry A similar trend is observed when dividing larvae into regions; male and female larvae from south of the suture zone develop significantly faster on Tulip Tree than on Sweetbay but females within the suture zone lacked a significant difference between Tulip Tree and Sweetbay larval duration (Table 352). E ven though pupae here lack a significant difference, the average larval duration was shorter when larvae were fed Tulip Tree compared to those fed Sweetbay When examining the 2007 data comparing pupal weight and larval duration between regions on each host plant tested, there were no significant differences except in pupal weight between females from south and within the suture zone when fed Tulip

PAGE 287

287 Tree (Table 353). Larvae from south of the suture zone attain a heavier weight (g) than those fed Tulip Tree from within the suture zone. In addition, it seems that female pupae are heavier than male pupae, although this was not tested for significance. The 2008 data included different rearing temperatures which were taken into consideration on larval duration and pupal weight. It was hypothesized that rearing temperature would have a strong correlation on larval duration because insect growth and metabolism are highly influenced by ambient temperatures (poikilothermic). Studying the effect of temperature on lar val duration and pupal weight, without taking into account host plant or region where the larvae were sampled from, yields significant results. Male and female P. glaucus larvae develop faster at constant temperatures of 22 C, 24 C and 27 C (only females) than other temperatures, including the warmer fluctuating temperatures the simulate south Florida and northern summer temperatures (Table 355). The longest larval duration was observed in P. glaucus larvae reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures, wher e temperatures drop below the other temperatures testes. Significant differences were found in pupal weight too, as larvae reared at northern Georgia temperatures attained the heaviest weight. Conclusive remarks should not be drawn from these data on larva l duration or pupal weight, though, as the division of larvae from each region and the host plants on which they were fed was not equal between rearing temperatures. Larval stage duration at different temperatures when investigated with larvae fed the sa me host plants yielded significant results and similar trends with both male and female larvae. Larvae always had the longest larval duration when reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures, regardless of which plant they were fed (Table 356). The

PAGE 288

288 quickest development in male larvae fluctuated between temperatures depending on which host plant was fed to them. Males fed Black Cherry developed quickly at 24 C, north Georgia, and south Florida temperatures (no significant differences between temperatures). Males fed Tulip Tree developed faster at 24 C and south Florida temperatures than north Georgia temperatures. Interestingly, males fed Sweetbay developed very quickly at 22 C and 24 C; faster than all other male larvae fed the other host plants at all other temperatures. Female larvae displayed a similar trend as the males. When fed Sweetbay females had the shortest larval duration at the constant temperatures, although larvae reared at 27 C and Lansing, Michigan temperatures yielded significant result s (fastest and slowest development, respectively). Females had the shortest larval duration when reared at 24 C when fed either Black Cherry or Tulip Tree. Comparing pupal weight between temperatures when larvae were fed a particular host plant also disp layed trends. Males and females reared at the Lansing, Michigan temperatures produced the least heavy pupae, regardless of which host plant they were fed (Table 357), although these low weights were only significant in females fed Tulip Tree. Larvae of both sexes reared at the warmer temperatures (north Georgia, south Florida, and 24 C) typically attained the highest weights. The only exception to this was with females fed Sweetbay and reared at 22 C a regime which produced the heaviest larvae on this plant. The only pupae that were significantly heavier at a particular temperature were male and female P. glaucus fed Tulip Tree and reared at northern Georgia temperatures.

PAGE 289

289 When larval duration is divided into regions according to where t he mothers were collected, different, and perhaps more intriguing, results occur At 24 C, males south of the suture zone have the shortest larval duration on Sweetbay which is the only host plant available throughout much of this region (Table 358), and is significantl y shorter than larval duration on Black Cherry When males are fed Tulip Tree, their larval duration falls between the Sweetbay and Black Cherry values. Males from within the suture zone reared at the same temperature have the same trend in larval duration. When males from south of the suture zone are fed these plants at Lansing, Michigan temperatures there is a similar trend as those reared at 24 C, except larvae fed Tulip Tree develop slightly faster than those on Sweetbay (not significant), but larvae fed these two plants develop significantly faster than those fed Black Cherry Males from north of the suture zone, however, display a different ranking in larval duration at Lansing, Michigan temperatures when fed these plants. Larvae from this region hav e the shortest larval duration on Tulip Tree, followed by Black Cherry then Sweetbay and Tulip Tree and Sweetbay are significantly different. These results suggest that there may be different feeding strategies and abilities between larvae from north of the suture zone and those from south of the suture zone. There were no significant differences at north Georgia temperatures with males from south of the suture zone, but male larvae from this same region had significantly different larval durations between Tulip Tree (shortest duration) and Black Cherry (longest duration), with Sweetbay not being significant from either. Female from south of the suture zone differed in larval duration from those within the zone when fed Sweetbay and Black Cherry Females within the suture zone had a

PAGE 290

290 significantly shorter larval duration when fed Sweetbay than Black Cherry There were no significant differences in females from south of the suture zone. At Lansing, Michigan temperatures, like the male larvae, female larvae had significant differences in larval duration north of the suture zone, where they develop faster on Tulip Tree than Sweetbay The same trend was observed in females within the suture zone. Females from south of the suture zone, on the other hand, had no s ignificant differences in larval duration when fed these plants at Lansing, Michigan temperatures. Females south of the suture zone, when reared at northern Georgia temperatures, developed significantly faster on Sweetbay than Tulip Tree, but at south Flor ida temperatures, females developed faster on Tulip Tree than Sweetbay (no signifance here). Females within the suture zone had no significant differences in larval duration between Sweetbay and Tulip Tree. At Lansing, Michigan temperatures, these results suggest that male and female P. glaucus south of the suture zone have a shorter larval duration on Sweetbay than the other plants, although there is no significant difference between this plant and Tulip Tree, meaning that southern populations seem to grow rapidly on Magnoliaceae plants, regardless if it is Tulip Tree or Sweetbay Interestingly, male and female populations north of the suture zone differ from larvae south of the suture zone in that there is a significant difference in larval duration betwe en individuals fed Sweetbay and Tulip Tree; it is shorter when larvae are fed Tulip Tree. These data provide evidence that P. glaucus south of the suture zone have a strong preference for Magnoliaceae, likely due to only Sweetbay being available, but P. gl aucus north of the suture zone strongly prefer

PAGE 291

291 Tulip Tree, as these larvae perhaps rarely feed on Sweetbay when Tulip Tree is available. The only other trends in these data are in larvae from south of the suture zone and within the suture zone reared at south Florida temperatures. Male and female larvae from south of the suture zone have the shortest duration on Tulip Tree followed by Sweetbay then Black Cherry Only Black Cherry and Tulip Tree are significantly different. There were no significant differences in larval duration between Tulip Tree and Sweetbay at these temperatures with larvae from within the suture zone. When comparing pupal weight of individuals raised on different plants within each region, no significant differences are revealed in male larvae from south of the suture zone at 24 C and Lansing, Michigan temperatures (Table 359). At north Georgia and south Florida temperatures, however, there were significant differences. At both temperatures, male larvae attain the highest weight on Tul ip Tree, followed by Black Cherry then Sweetbay The weight of larvae fed Tulip Tree is significantly heavier than those fed Sweetbay Females south of the suture zone also displayed a similar trend at 24 C and north Georgia temperatures, but at south Fl orida temperatures larvae fed Sweetbay attained a larger weight than those fed Black Cherry (not significant), while larvae fed Tulip Tree were the heaviest (significant). Males and females from north of the suture zone had a similar trend at Lansing, Mic higan temperatures. W hen fed Tulip Tree, they attained a significantly higher weight than those fed Sweetbay These data suggest that larvae within each suture zone have a similar trend in the ranking of weights attained when fed certain host plants. It sh ould be noted, though, that the weights attained are different between suture zones (discussed in detail later).

PAGE 292

292 There are few significant differences in larval duration between regions sampled when reared on the same plant at the same temperature (Table 360). When rearing larvae at south Florida and north Georgia temperatures there are no significant differences in male or female larval duration on every host plant tested. Female larvae when reared at 24 C had significant differences in duration when fed Sweetbay ; females south of the suture zone had a longer larval duration than those within the suture zone. Most of the significant differences in larval duration on each host plant were exposed at Lansing, Michigan temperatures. Males from south of the s uture zone, at these temperatures, had a shorter larval duration than males north of the suture zone when fed Black Cherry The same trend was observed in males that fed on Sweetbay Females from south of the suture zone, though, when fed Tulip Tree at Lansing, Michigan temperatures possessed a significantly longer larval duration than females from within and north of the suture zone. It is difficult to determine any trends in these data, except that males from south of the suture zone develop faster on Swe etbay and Black Cherry than males from north of the suture zone, but females from south of the suture zone develop slower on Tulip Tree than females north of the suture zone. Host plant quality could be a possible explanation for these results. The individuals from south of the suture zone reared on Tulip Tree at Lansing, Michigan temperatures were collected in October. Host plant quality, particularly in this plant species, quickly deteriorates during this time, and finding green leaves without disease or that have not changed colors was difficult. Although this could explain why females at this treatment had a long larval duration, it does not explain why males developed differently. Males from this region and reared at this

PAGE 293

293 temperature setting are siblings to the females, but there were no significant differences in larval duration. Further experiments may be necessary to determine any general trends in this data. Some of the more interesting results produced from the pupal weight investigation consist of the comparison of male and female larvae between regions per temperature when fed on each host plant (Table 361). Although larvae reared at 24 C did not produce significant differences in pupal weight between males or females collected from south of the suture zone and those collected within the suture zone when reared on every host plant, larvae reared at Lansing, Michigan and south Florida temperatures did have significant results. Males and females from south of the suture zone always attained a signi ficantly higher weight than individuals from north of the suture zone, regardless of which plant they were fed. Individuals reared at south Florida temperatures also attained a significantly higher pupal weight than individuals from within the suture zone. Individuals collected within the suture zone typically were either significanty different than the other zones (females fed Sweetbay at Lansing, Michigan temperatures), were not significantly different (females fed Tulip Tree at Lansing, Michigan temperat ures), or were significantly different than those from north of the suture zone, but not different than those from south of the suture zone (males fed Tulip Tree at Lansing, Michigan temperatures). T he overall conclusions from these data are that individuals of both sexes from south of the suture zone always attain a higher weight than those from north of the suture zone. Individuals from within the suture zone typically have weights between the other two zones, except at 24 C where individuals within the suture zone were heavier

PAGE 294

294 (not significant). I interpret th ese data to mean that host plant choice, although it may impact and cause slight variations in the pupal weight attained within each region, does not influence the overall pattern that individuals are larger south of the suture zone than those north of the suture zone. In addition, Sweetbay the only host plant available to southern populations, when fed to larvae did not produce the heaviest pupal weights (Table 361). Heavier pupal weights were att ained when larvae were fed Tulip Tree and Black Cherry This portion of the investigation basically involved a study testing the phenotypic plasticity of these populations : pupal weight (which correlates to wing size in butterflies) (phenotype) is influenc ed by host plant choice (the environment), as size of individuals may be dependent to the host plants they were fed. It seems reasonable to assume from th ese data that the heavy pupal weight attained by individuals in the south is not a plastic trait that corresponds to the host plant they were fed. Instead, heavy pupal weight is likely a genetic trait of the southern subspecies, not highly i nfluenced by host plant choice, which further supports the uniqueness of these butterfies south of the suture zone. I n addition, the trend in decreasing pupal weight apparently overlaps the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. The effect of temperature, on the other hand, does not seem to have a relationship to P. glaucus that differs between regions. Temperature does impact l arval duration (not weight), but this impact affects similarly all tested P. glaucus populations. From these data, P. glaucus appear to develop faster when reared at constant temperatures at 22 C and 27 C. The fluctuating temperatures used in this study, although reaching warmer temperatures, yielded longer larval durations, but larvae reared at the south Florida

PAGE 295

295 temperature seemed to have a shorter larval duration than the northern Georgia temperatures. From th ese data, P. glaucus from each region tested apparently have an optimum rearing temperature near 24 C. It should be noted that host plant quality may have a large impact on the oviposition preference, larval survival, larval duration, and pupae weight results produced from this investigation. Host plant quality likely changes per location, but an emphasis was placed on using host plants that had new growth (fresh leaves) and were disease free. As an example of the potential impact that host plant quality could have on the results, Sweetbay was usual ly acquired from an area near Goethe State Park, FL, where the quality of the host plant appeared suitable for this investigation, but could have been less nutrient rich than Sweetbay from other locations in Florida. If Sweetbay from this area was less sui table, the results from this investigation may not accurately portray an even larger preference for this plant in P. glaucus populations south of the suture zone. Phenotypic Plasticity in A dult P. glaucus The effect of temperature on phenotype was addresse d because the southern United States is typically warm and becomes gradually cooler northward, and P. glaucus is found throughout this large temperature gradient. As seen in Figure 43 Florida and southern Georgia have average warmer summer months and a prolonged warmer period when compared to other States. Previous reports suggest that P. glaucus maynardi is restricted to the southeastern United States, where it is warmer than other areas where P. glaucus ranges, suggesting that temperature may be an impo rtant regulator of gene expression and phenotype in this species. Therefore, warm temperatures in the southeastern US may act as an environmental cue responsible for

PAGE 296

296 inducing the unique phenotype representative of the southern subspecies. As mentioned earl ier, temperature can induce a phenotypic response on butterfly wings. It was hypothesized that temperature may induce a shift in color hues, and the gradual change in average temperature from North to South in the United States directly correlates to the average yellow and/or orange hues of P. glaucus populations that reside within these areas, respectively (Figure 45 ). If the color hues observed on Eastern Tiger Swallowtail wings are in direct correlation with temperature, then I had expect ed to observe a gradual transition from one phenotype (bright yellow) to the other (yelloworange) from populations north of the suture zone to populations south of the suture zone. It was already determined earlier in this investigation that P. glaucus do gradually change in color values over time. This portion of the investigation focused on what envrinomental factors cause those changes. In relation to suture zone theory, and more specifically, the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone, if temperature alone is responsible for t he transition in color of P. glaucus wings, than this trait (color) was not likely influenced by the formation of this suture zone. As a hypothetical example, if larvae are reared from a yellow female P. glaucus collected from north of the suture zone at v arious temperatures (e.g., temperatures representing south Florida and Lansing, Michigan), and the subsequent adult phenotypes represent a range from orange to yellow, accordingly, then this trait is not only highly plastic, but likely independent of the N orthernFlorida Suture Zone. This case would fit the sample norm of reaction illustrated in Figure 45 P apilio glaucus populations susceptible to phenotypic change in response to temperature may be expected to express a gradual shift in phenotype over ti me,

PAGE 297

297 perhaps from the cooler months to the warmer months. It is also hypothesized that if P. glaucus phenotype (color) is based on an environmental cue such as temperature, and if warmer temperatures are required to produce the orange hue (hig h a* and b* va lues) then it would explain why the spring brood (eclosing in cool temperatures) appear more yellow (low a* and b* values) than the summer and fall broods (eclosing in warmer temperatures). The impact of host plant availability was also investigated on adult morphology of the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail, specifical ly on size (forewing length) and wing color. Papilio glaucus have a large variety of suitable host plants throughout the majority of its range, with the exception of south Florida where only one host plant, Sweetbay is available. It is also in south Florida where populations of P. glaucus display the largest average wingspan and orange hue. If P. glaucus are phenotypically plastic in response to which host plant they feed on, it is hypothesized that Sweetbay Magnolia virginiana, will induce this plastic response either in wing size, wing color, or both. As mentioned by Scriber (1986), it is reasonable to assume that P. glaucus maynardi has a close ecological association with Sweetbay as some publ ished predicted ranges of this southern subspecies closely overlap the range of Sweetbay In addition, previous reports portray low intrapopulation morphological variability in P. glaucus populations in south Florida; individuals there are clearly represe ntative of the maynardi subspecies (Scriber, 1986) Populations northward are more heterogeneous, displaying phenotypic (morphological) variation within and among populations. Outside the range of Sweetbay the P. g. maynardi morphology becomes increasingl y rare northward. In addition, the number of available host plants mirrors the morphological

PAGE 298

298 variability of P. glaucus within and among populations in Florida. As displayed in Scriber (1986) and refigured here (Figure 44 ), the number of host plants availa ble for P. glaucus increases from southern Flori da (one host plant) northward. Therefore, as the number of host plants increases in Florida, the more likely it is to encounter representative respresentative specimens of both subspecies, P. g. glaucus and P g. maynardi increasing intrapopulations variation (Figure 46 ). The P. g. maynardi phenotype may also be induced by a combination of Sweetbay and warm temperatures. If either of these variables (or both) influence P. glaucus specimens to become more ma ynardi like in phenotype, I expect to see higher a* values (more red) and higher b* values (more yellow) in the adult wing color. I also hypothesize that Sweetbay may be responsible for the larger wing size diagnostic of P. g. maynardi Only Sweetbay and Tulip Tree were used for the phenotypic plasticity investigation in 2007. There were no significant differences in forewing length, or the L*, a*, and b* values in males when examining the impact of host plant on adult color and size (Table 3 62). The same results were observed in female P. glaucus with the exception of L* values which had higher L* values in adults fed Sweetbay than adults fed Tulip Tree, but as determined earlier, L* values (lightness) are not a diagnostic trait of either subspecies Tem peratureshocking prepupae also had relatively little impact on the phenotype of adult P. glaucus males and females when analyzed without host plant or region of collection as a factor (Table 363). Only the L* values in male P. glaucus had a significant difference; individuals reared at 35 C had a lower L* value than the other cooler temperatures tested (17 C and 20 C). These results suggest that the host plants used here and temperatureshocking prepupa with these temperatures tested as

PAGE 299

299 independent var iables have relatively little impact on color or wing size and do not induce the morphological diagnostic characters of the southern subspecies Testing the combination of temperatureshocking prepupae with host plant species also had relatively little eff ect on wing color and wing size. The a* values (reds) and b* values (yellows) were both significantly higher in males temperatureshocked at a cool 17 C when fed Tulip Tree compared to males fed Sweetbay (Table 364) These results do not coincide with the environmental conditions observed in Florida. Female P. glaucus had significantly higher L* values when temperatureshocked at 35 C and reared on Sweetbay compard to those reared on Tulip Tree. When comparing forewing length, and the L*, a* and b* values between temperatures used for temperatureshocking on particular host plants no significant differences were found in females (dark morph and yellow), but some significant differences were found in males, but none of these results coincide with the predicted higher a* and/or b* values induced by warm temperatures and Sweetbay (Table 365). Overall, the 2007 temperatureshocking and host plant choice experiments did not produce a clear trend in color values or forewing length. Interestingly, the darker co lors produced in males (higher a* values) was associated with the 17 C temperatureshock Melanism in insects has been shown to have a close association with cooler temperatures, as darker colors absorb heat quicker than lighter colors. This association i s adaptive for insects in colder environments where absorbing heat is necessary for basic metabolic processes and proper function in flight muscles in butterflies (Guppy, 1985). Melanism, though, is usually associated with black and dark brown coloration, and the black areas of P. glaucus wings (tiger stripes and marginal bands) were not

PAGE 300

300 analyzed in this investigation. Even though darker colors were produced in P. glaucus temperatureshocked at 17 C these results do not correlate well to the predicted res ults of this investigation, because it was reasonably hypothesized that warm temperatures, not cool temperatures, would produce the unique orange hues (high a* values) in the maynardi subspecies. P apilio glaucus prepupae temperatureshocked at these vario us temperatures when fed these particular host plants does not produce the wing color and wing size differences witnessed in wild P. g. maynardi populations. Studies in 2008 of phenotypic plasticity in adult P. glaucus differed from the 2007 experiments i n that larvae were reared from the second instar through adult eclosion at the same temperature: prepupae were not temperatureshock ed. In addition, more host plants were used in these experiments: Black Cherry Willow, Sweetbay and Tulip Tree. When the impact of only host plants was tested on P. glaucus wing color and forewing length, the results did not correspond to what was expected if host plant alone was responsible for the darker color and larger wing size associated with populations south of the s uture zone (Table 3 66). Significant differences were found in male and female wing size between host plants tested, but interestingly, the largest wing sizes were produced when fed Tulip Tree and Black Cherry not Sweetbay which is the only host plant ava ilable to the large individuals found in the southern populations. Willow as a host plant produced the smallest individuals in males, which was expected considering this is likely a host plant rarely used by wild populations and P. glaucus have been shown to not survive well on plants within this family (Salicaceae) (Lindroth et al., 1986) Willow was not included in female analysis, as there were not enough females that survived through to the adult lifestage when fed this plant.

PAGE 301

301 There were no significant differences found in the a* values (reds) in male P. glaucus when fed the various host plants, but females did show some significant differences in this color value. Interestingly, the females fed Sweetbay produced the lowest a* values (significant), the plant that I predicted would produce the highest a* values if host plant was responsible for the orange phenotype in southern populations. Sweetbay did produce a significantly higher b* value in females compared to those fed Black Cherry These results su ggest that host plant alone is not responsible for the unique P. g. maynardi phenotype found south of the suture zone. When comparing the effect of different temperatures on P. glaucus wing color and forewing length without host plant as a factor, there was a small trend observed. Forewing length was greater in male and female P. glaucus reared at northern Georgia (significantly different in males) and south Florida temperatures than the other temperatures tested (22 C, 24 C, 27 C, and Lansing, Michigan temperatures), but there was a lack of significance between most of these values (Table 367). The L* values were significantly lower (less lightness) in male P. glaucus between the south Florida and northern Georgia temperatures (warm temperatures) and the cooler temperatures, but no trends were observed in L* values of female P. glaucus Male P. glaucus reared at the Lansing, Michigan, and south Florida temperatures had the highest a* values in wing color which were significantly higher than the other t emperatures tested. Females, on the other hand, had a significant difference between individuals reared at the warm south Florida temperature than those reared at the cool Lansing, Michigan temperatures. The lack of a significant trend (high a* values at t he coolest and warmest temperatures) suggest that none of t hese temperatures are

PAGE 302

302 responsible for t he unique phenotype of P. g. maynardi The b* values in male and female P. glaucus were higher when reared at the south Florida and northern Georgia temperatures, but these values were not significantly different than some cooler temperatures. Overall, there is a small trend where the warmer temperatures produce higher a* values and b* values, but these values were not significant ly different than some cooler t emperature tested. These data suggest that temperature, although not responsible for the significant color differences between P. glaucus populations residing north and south of the suture zone, is responsible for the subtle color changes (increase in a* and b* values orange color) observed in wild P. glaucus populations as the spring brood progresses to the fall brood. Dividing the P. glaucus reared into regions according to where the mother was collected yielded few significant results when comparing these regions according to each host plant within each rearing temperature (Table 368). When fed Black Cherry and reared at 24 C, male and female P. glaucus from south of the suture zone had significant higher a* values than males from within the suture zo ne. Although significant differences were found in these values at this temperature, there were no other significant values associated with Black Cherry with all other rearing temperatures. There were no significant differences in color values associated w ith Sweetbay There was a significant difference in forew ing length of males and females; both sexes were significantly larger south of the suture zone when fed Tulip Tree than those from within the suture zone. There were no significant differences in col or values associated with Tulip Tree. These results suggest that P. glaucus when reared at the same

PAGE 303

303 temperatures and fed the same host plants are not different between regions south and within the suture zone. Comparing forewing length and color values between host plants per rearing temperature within each region yielded few trends that suggest phenotypic plasticity as a strong component of P. glaucus morphology. Male P. glaucus from south of the suture zone had significantly smaller forewing lengths when fed Sweetbay compared to to Black Cherry and Tulip Tree and reared at North Georgia temperatures again suggesting that host plant is not responsible for the large phenotype observed in southern populations (Table 369). Males from within the suture zone also had significantly smaller forewing lengths when fed Sweetbay compared to those fed Black Cherry There were no significant differences in female forewing length between host plants. Regardless of the lack of significant differences, male and females forewing lengths are typically smaller than those fed Black Cherry or Tulip Tree, regardless of rearing temperature or region from where the mother was collected, suggesting that although there is high survival on Sweetbay individuals attain a heavier pupae weight and larger adult wing size when reared on other suitable host plant. In other words, Sweetbay does not produce the large size or unique wing color values in P. glaucus popul ations south of the suture zone. Although there are some significant diff erences reported here, there were no trends found in the data that pinpoint a specific combination of temperature and host plant that produces the unique phenotype of P. g. maynardi found in south Florida. Some intrapopulation (or region) s ignificant di f ferences were determined in f orewing length and color values when reared at different temperatures and tested

PAGE 304

304 according to which host plant was utilized. Male P. glaucus from south of the suture zone fed Black Cherry had a significantly larger forewing length at northern Georgia temperatures than other rearing temperatures tested (Table 370). When given Sweetbay as a host plant, the warmer temperatures (south Florida, northern Georgia) produced the largest forewing lengths, but these were not significant f rom most other temperatures; a similar trend was observed with males fed Tulip Tree. The a* values were significantly higher in male P. glaucus from south of the suture zone when fed Sweetbay and reared at Lansing, Michigan temperatures. Male P. glaucus sh owed a trend in higher L* values in the constant temperatures versus those rear ed at fluctuating temperatures, and fe male P. glaucus had a similar trend. Most of these results, again, reveal a lack of a trend in the data suggesting that rearing temperature coupled with host plant does not produce the phenotypic differences witnessed in wild populations. When dividing populations into regions, it is also apparent that P. glaucus behave similarly to temperature and host: there are no clear trends except the unsignificant increase in a* and b* values at higher temperatures. Hybridization Studies Papilio glaucus from regions north and south of the suture zone were hybridized throughout the investigation. Hybridization, as mentioned earlier refers to a liberal d efinition of the mating two distinct populations, regardless of their taxonomic status. The purpose of this portion of the investigation was to determine the viability and fertility of hybridized offspring. Low viability or fertility would suggest reproduc tive incompatibilities in P. glaucus between these regions, therefore post zygotic reproductive isolation. A previous study by Bossart and Scriber (1995b) determined a

PAGE 305

305 high level of gene flow between Florida and Georgia populations, which would suggest that butterflies from these regions reproduce regularly. The results from this study suggest that laboratory paired mating produces offspring that are no less viable or fertile than inter population offspring (Table 371) The majority of eggs oviposited by hybridized females were fertile (round and green), and many were viable and resulted in larval emergence, regardless of the distance between locations where the parents were captured. It has been suggested that factors such as age and mating frequency may have a large impact on the fertility and viability of eggs in P. glaucus (Lederhouse and Scriber, 1987). Although many of the mated pairs did not lay eggs in this study, there are numerous other possibilities, such as a lack of successful passing of the spermatophore (unsuccessful mating) or that males were not reproductively capable (freshly emerged and too young). An emphasis was placed on using only laboratory reared males that were at least two days old for mating to minimize this effect. If there were s ignificant reproductive incompatibilities between P. glaucus from north and south of the suture zone, I would have expected a lack of viable are fertile offspring (i.e., Haldanes rule) (Sperling, 1993). If H aldanes rule applied, female P. glaucus (heterozygotic sex) would have genetic incompatibilities that may impact reproductive capabi lities: this was not observed.

PAGE 306

306 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The results from this investigation clearly show that a morphological and ecological transition zone occurs in P. gla ucus populations within the NorthernFlorida Suture Zone. I hypothesize that these results suggest that P. glaucus populations were isolated in Florida during the interglacial periods of the Pleistocene Epoch when rising sea levels isolated islands of Flor ida from the mainland. Genetic accumulations occurred in these isolated populations different than the genotype dynamics occurring in the mainland population. Although different genetic accumulations occurred between the mainland and island populations, t his did not affect the reproductive compatibilities between these two isolated populations. Divergence in reproductive ability may not have occurred for a couple of reasons: perhaps these populations were not separated for a long enough period of time for reproductive incompatiblilites to accumulate (prezygotic reproductive isolation genetalic morphology, post zygotic reproductive isolation Haldanes rule) or perhaps gene flow although rare, did occur occasionally between islands: an example of parti al geographic isolation between the ancient islands Although there is no evidence presented here that would clarify these suggestions it is apparent in present day Florida that populations south of the suture zone are unique compared to populations north of the suture zone. The differences in color values between the regions tested and their dynamics over time are best explained by a combination of genetics and temperature. It is clear from the data that the color values of Papilio glaucus maynardi are unique to populations south of the suture zone. Although temperature does not have a significant impact on the color values, there were some general trends in the data that suggest

PAGE 307

307 temperature influences all P. glaucus populations by making their color dark er. This evidence provides an explanation of the different colors observed between flight periods. Importantly, although temperature does impact color, it is not significant to cause the color value differences observed between the two subspecies. Size, like color, is genetic in these butterflies; populations south of the suture zone are on average larger than those residing north of the suture zone, regardless of which host plant they are fed. Host plant, though, does influence intrapopulations wing size Interestingly, the only host plant found in south Florida for P. glaucus to utilize produced the smallest individuals when compared to host plants from other regions. This ability to utilize other host plants suggests that these southern populations poss ess the ancestral traits to maintain rapid larval growth and to attain large pupae weights. Although P. glaucus south of the suture zone can feed on other host plants from north of the suture zone, these populations perform the best on Sweetbay when compared to other populations fed Magnoliaceae plants ( Sweetbay and Tulip Tree). It is possible that Sweetbay being the only the only host plant in south Florida, was also the only, or one of the only host plants available to P. glaucus on isolated islands during the Pleistocene Epoch. Isolated P. glaucus possibly had no choice but to utilize this host plant, and gradually populations that resided there became proficient detoxifiers at utilizing this plant. Considering that the P. g. maynardi is obviously a se parate entity from the northern P. g. glaucus it is important to recognize the relatively small area in which this butterfly resides. South Florida is continuosly becoming more industrialized and urbanized, with habitat destruction taking out the wetlands and natural forest areas

PAGE 308

308 these butterflies inhabit. Although the current state of this butterfly is not in immediate danger, I suggest that P. g. maynardi should be monitored to prevent eradication of this unique butterfly.

PAGE 309

309 Figure 41. Male P. glaucu s photographed at Cedar Key, Fl collecting site. When Cirsium sp. are in full bloom, as photographed here, P. glaucus are sometimes very abundant.

PAGE 310

310 Figure 42. Total number of P. glaucus captured per month throughout investigations in 2007 and 2008.

PAGE 311

311 Fi gure 43 Average monthly temperatures from 19712000 at specific locations encompassing the collecting transect. As seen here, Florida temperatures (south and within the suture zone) during the summer months are not very different than temperature in Georgia (north of the suture zone).

PAGE 312

312 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of host plants available Figure 44 Number of host plants available for P. glaucus in Florida. The number of host plants decreases southward and only one host plant species, Sweetbay is available in south Flor ida.

PAGE 313

313 Figure 45 Hypothetical correlation of P. glaucus color and temperature. Papilio glaucus that develop in areas with warmer temperatures express an orange phenotype as adults, whereas individuals inhabiting areas with low temperatures are yellow.

PAGE 314

314 Phenotype Size/Color Small/ Yellow Large/ Orange Environmental Gradient Host plant diversity High multiple host plants available including Sweetbay Low 1 host plant, Sweetbay High multiple host plants, no Sweetbay Figure 4 6 Depicted example of potential influence of host plant availability on average adult P. glaucus phenotype within a population. The color of the bars represents the average color of the population and the error bars represent the variation within the population. The bar on the far left represents populations of P. glaucus that have only one host plant available, Sweetbay These populations would be primarily large in wing size and orange with little variation. The middle bar represents populations that have a large host plant choice including Sweetbay ; therefore, in these populations there would be individuals that are large and orange and other individuals small and yellow. The bar on the right represents populations that have a large host plant availability, but lack Sweetbay necessary to produce the large and orange phenotype.

PAGE 315

315 APPENDIX A RAW DATA OF MORPHOMETRICS FROM P. GLAUCUS COLLECTED IN 2006

PAGE 316

316 ID # Location Date Sex Color FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB TS 6001 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 56 2 5 57 13 9 C 6002 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 56 2 6 10 8 6003 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 57 2 5 58 12 8 C 6004 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 57 2 6 12 8 6005 Barberville, FL 27 Mar F Y ellow 60 06 Gainesville, FL 26 Mar F Y ellow 56 3 7 57 13 9 C 6007 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F Y ellow 61 3 7 12 C 6008 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 60 2 6 62 11 8 C 6009 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 57 2 6 58 11 8 C 6010 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 57 3 7 9 8 6 011 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 58 2 6 58 12 8 C 6012 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 57 3 7 61 12 7 C 6013 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar F D ark 3 7 66 16 10 C 6014 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar F Y e llow 3 7 6015 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 58 2 6 11 7 6016 Ceda r Key, FL 6 Apr M Y ellow 55 2 6 8 6017 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F d ark 60 2 6 13 10 6018 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F d ark 60 2 5 59 13 8 C 6019 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F d ark 61 2 6 14 7 6020 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar F Y ellow 4 7 10 6021 Cedar Key, FL 30 M ar F D ark 58 3 7 58 13 8 C 6022 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F Y ellow 59 2 6 14 9 6023 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar F Y ellow 62 3 7 13 9 6024 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar F Y ellow 61 7 6025 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F D ark 58 2 5 58 12 9 S c 6026 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F D a rk 63 3 7 14 10 6027 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F D ark 64 3 6 63 11 C 6028 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar F Y ellow 58 2 5 59 15 8 C 6029 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar F Y ellow 61 3 7 13 9 Appendix A Continued.

PAGE 317

317 6030 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar f D ark 65 3 6 63 14 C 6031 Ceda r Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 68 3 7 68 14 10 C 6032 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 61 3 6 15 9 6033 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 56 2 6 56 11 8 C 6034 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar f Y ellow 63 3 7 9 6035 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 66 3 7 66 15 11 C 6036 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 66 3 7 16 10 6037 Lake Placid, FL 6 Apr f D ark 66 3 7 64 20 10 C 6038 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 60 4 7 60 13 9 C 6039 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 53 2 4 12 9 6040 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 63 2 5 13 8 6044 Cedar Key, FL 2 Apr f Y ellow 65 3 6 14 9 6046 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr f D ark 3 7 67 14 9 C 6050 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 62 3 7 13 9 6051 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr f Y ellow 63 3 7 14 9 6053 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 3 7 14 10 6054 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 65 3 7 11 6055 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 61 3 7 12 9 6056 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 65 3 7 64 13 9 C 6057 Cedar Key, FL 2 Apr f D ark 64 3 6 6058 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr f D ark 3 7 6059 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 62 3 6 62 1 2 9 C 6060 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 62 3 7 62 14 10 C 6061 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 65 4 7 65 15 10 C 6062 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 4 8 12 10 6063 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 62 2 6 8 6064 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f D ark 63 4 7 12 9 60 65 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f Y ellow 63 2 5 9 6066 Cedar Key, FL 8 Apr f D ark 63 3 7 12 8 6067 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr f dark 62 3 7 14 9 6068 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 66 3 6 8 6069 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 64 4 7 61 14 9 S C Appendix A Conti nued.

PAGE 318

318 6070 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 62 3 7 62 14 10 C 6071 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f yellow 61 10 6072 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f yellow 6073 Cedar Key, FL 23 Apr f dark 60 3 7 14 10 6074 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 61 3 6 15 11 6075 Ceda r Key, FL 30 Mar f yellow 60 2 6 9 6076 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f yellow 55 2 6 57 13 9 C 6077 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 61 13 9 6078 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar f dark 71 4 8 18 10

PAGE 319

319 APPENDIX B WING MEASUREMENTS OF WILD COLLECTED P. GLAUCUS IN 2007 I D # Location Date Sex Color FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB TS 7001 Cedar Key, FL 21 Mar Male 57 2 6 58 13 8 I 7002 Cedar Key, FL 21 Mar Female Dark 68 3 7 14 9 7003 Cedar Key, FL 21 Mar Male 56 2 6 60 12 8 C 7004 Cedar Key, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 68 3 7 70 12 10 C 7005 Cedar Key, FL 21 Mar Male 64 2 7 62 14 9 I 7006 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 63 3 7 65 15 10 C 7007 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 62 2 6 12 7008 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 63 2 6 64 13 8 C 7009 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 63 2 5 15 11 7010 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 66 2 5 65 14 10 SC 7011 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 66 2 6 65 14 9 C 7012 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 64 2 5 15 12 7013 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 62 3 6 64 13 10 C 7014 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 60 2 5 61 10 8 C 7015 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 61 2 6 63 13 10 C 7016 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 61 2 7 62 12 10 C 7017 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Male 7018 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 60 2 5 57 12 9 I 7019 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 62 2 5 63 15 9 I 7020 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 61 2 6 63 10 9 SC 7021 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 61 2 5 13 9 7022 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 67 1 5 69 14 9 C 7023 Cedar Ke y, FL 23 Mar Female Dark 65 2 5 66 12 8 C 7024 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow ? 2 6 66 12 ? C 7025 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 65 2 5 67 15 9 C 7026 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 67 3 6 66 15 10 C 7027 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Yellow 63 2 5 62 13 10 C 7028 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Dark 66 1 5 66 14 9 C 7029 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 7030 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Dark 65 1 5 63 13 9 C 7020 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar Female Yellow 61 2 6 63 10 9 SC 7031 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Yellow 63 2 5 63 14 8 C 7032 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 61 1 5 63 13 8 C 7033 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Dark 7034 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Female Yellow

PAGE 320

320 Appendix B. Continued. 7035 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 60 2 6 7 7036 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 55 2 5 12 8 7037 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 60 2 5 62 14 8 C 7038 Cedar Key, FL 26 Mar Male 60 2 5 61 14 8 SC 7039 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar Male 57 2 5 13 8 7040 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar Male 61 2 5 62 14 9 C 7041 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar Male 58 2 5 11 7 7042 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar Male 60 2 5 8 7043 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 63 2 5 63 14 8 C 7044 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 66 3 7 68 10 7 C 7045 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 63 2 6 64 8 C 7046 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 61 2 6 61 12 7 C 7047 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 62 2 5 64 12 8 C 7048 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 63 2 6 13 8 7049 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 62 2 5 66 13 8 C 7050 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 59 3 7 60 13 8 C 7051 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Mal e 63 2 7 64 13 7 C 7052 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 61 2 6 62 14 8 C 7053 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Male 65 2 6 13 8 7054 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Female Yellow 67 3 8 65 15 8 C 7055 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Female Dark 70 2 6 70 15 9 C 7056 Lake Placid FL 31 May Female Yellow 73 4 8 17 10 7057 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Female Yellow 62 2 5 63 13 9 C 7058 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Female Yellow 67 2 6 68 15 9 C 7059 Lake Placid, FL 31 May Female Yellow 66 2 7 15 9 7060 Cedar Key, FL 12 Jun Female Yell ow 63 2 6 65 15 9 C 7061 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jul Female Yellow 70 2 5 69 13 10 C 7062 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jul Female Dark 69 2 6 13 10 7063 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jul Male 62 3 7 13 8 7064 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jul Male 62 2 6 62 11 8 SC 7065 Barberville, FL 27 Jul Male 65 2 7 66 15 9 C 7066 Barberville, FL 27 Jul Male 68 3 8 68 14 9 C 7067 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 68 2 6 15 9 7069 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 66 2 6 65 15 9 C 7070 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 76 2 6 20 11 7071 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 68 2 6 68 16 9 7072 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 72 3 7 72 16 11 SC 7073 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 65 3 7 15 10 7074 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 66 3 7 65 16 9 SC

PAGE 321

321 Appendix B. Continued. 7075 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 66 3 8 68 16 9 7076 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 67 3 7 68 15 9 C 7077 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 70 3 7 71 17 9 C 7078 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 69 3 8 16 11 7079 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Female Dark 68 2 8 69 18 9 C 7080 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Male 69 2 8 70 17 10 C 7081 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Male 67 3 7 65 15 10 C 7082 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Male 67 3 7 68 16 9 C 7083 Cedar Key, FL 29 Aug Male 68 2 7 68 16 10 C 7084 Gainesville, FL 29 Aug Female Yellow 66 2 6 65 16 10 C 7085 Gainesville, FL 29 Aug Male 60 2 6 60 10 8 C 7086 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 67 3 7 68 17 11 C 7087 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 65 2 7 65 15 10 C 7088 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 66 3 7 65 15 9 C 7089 Florida/Geor gia 441 31 Aug Male 65 3 7 16 10 7090 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 67 2 7 16 10 7091 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 67 3 7 63 14 9 SC 7092 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Male 67 2 7 63 15 9 C 7093 Florida/Georgia 441 31 Aug Female Yellow 72 2 7 71 18 10 C 7094 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 67 3 8 69 15 11 C 7095 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 66 3 8 67 14 8 C 7096 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 64 2 6 14 9 7097 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 67 2 7 14 8 7098 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 65 2 6 65 1 3 8 SC 7099 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 64 2 6 64 13 8 SC 7100 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 66 3 8 67 15 10 C 7101 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Male 67 3 8 69 15 11 C 7102 Lake Placid, FL 3 Sep Female Yellow 63 2 6 61 15 9 C 7103 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 67 2 6 68 14 8 C 7104 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 61 2 6 14 8 7105 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 62 2 7 62 13 8 C 7106 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 63 2 6 63 15 9 C 7107 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 64 2 7 65 15 10 C 7108 G oethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 65 2 7 65 13 9 C 7109 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Male 64 2 6 65 14 8 C 7110 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Female Yellow 72 2 8 71 10 7111 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Female Yellow 3 8 18 10 7112 Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep Female Dark 68 3 8 16 10 7113 Kentucky 8 Sep Female Dark 55 2 6 55 13 8 C

PAGE 322

322 Appendix B. Continued. 7114 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Yellow 63 3 7 62 16 10 C 7115 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 63 2 6 14 8 7116 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 62 2 6 64 15 10 C 7117 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Yellow 61 2 6 60 14 8 SC 7118 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Yellow 63 2 6 62 15 9 C 7119 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 60 2 6 59 16 8 C 7120 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 63 3 8 64 14 8 C 71 21 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 62 2 6 14 ? 7122 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 63 2 6 61 16 9 C 7123 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Yellow 66 2 6 17 10 7124 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Female Dark 67 2 6 66 15 9 C 7125 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 59 2 6 60 14 8 C 7126 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 60 2 7 60 15 8 C 7127 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 61 2 6 61 14 8 SC 7128 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 59 2 6 13 8 7129 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 58 2 6 58 13 7 SC 7130 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 59 2 6 60 13 8 I 7131 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 58 2 6 59 14 8 C 7132 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 55 2 6 57 13 8 C 7133 Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep Male 57 2 6 58 13 8 C 7134 Goethe State Park, FL 20 Sep Male 62 2 6 63 14 9 C 7135 Goethe State Park, FL 20 Sep Male 64 3 8 65 15 10 C 7136 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 61 2 6 61 13 8 C 7137 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 67 2 6 68 13 9 C 7138 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 64 3 7 65 14 8 SC 7139 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 63 2 6 14 8 7140 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 67 2 7 68 9 15 C 7141 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 65 2 7 66 15 10 C 7142 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 62 2 6 62 14 7 C 7143 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 64 2 6 68 14 9 C 7144 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 63 2 6 62 12 8 C 7145 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 63 2 6 64 14 8 C 7146 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 64 2 6 65 16 8 C 7147 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Female Yellow 70 2 6 70 17 10 C 7148 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Female Yellow 69 3 6 68 16 10 C 7149 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Female Yellow 68 2 6 16 10 7150 Lake Plac id, FL 3 Oct Female Dark 72 3 8 74 18 11 C 7151 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct Male 7152 Lake Placid, FL 2 Dec Female Yellow 68 3 8 69 16 10 C

PAGE 323

323 Appendix B. Continued. 7153 Lake Placid, FL 2 Dec Male 63 2 7 ? 17 9 7154 Lake Placid, FL 2 Dec Female Dar k 66 2 6 10 7155 Lake Placid, FL 9 Dec Male 61 2 6 ? 14 8 7156 Lake Placid, FL 9 Dec Female Yellow 65 2 6 15 10 7157 Lake Placid, FL 9 Dec Female Yellow 69 2 7 15 9

PAGE 324

324 APPENDIX C WING MEASUREMENTS OF WILD COLLECTED P. GLAUCUS IN 2008

PAGE 325

325 ID # Locat ion Date Sex Color FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB TS 8001 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 62 2 6 12 9 8002 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 60 2 6 60 11 8 C 8003 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 59 2 5 60 11 7 SC 8004 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 62 3 7 61 12 7 C 8005 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 59 2 6 8006 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 62 2 6 60 13 8 C 8007 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 59 2 5 59 15 10 C 8008 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 11 7 C 8009 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 68 2 6 69 14 10 C 8010 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 58 2 6 57 12 8 C 8011 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 63 2 7 12 8012 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 62 2 6 12 8 8013 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 66 2 6 13 10 8014 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 65 2 6 66 12 10 C 8015 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 62 2 6 62 12 8 C 8016 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 57 2 6 59 11 7 C 8017 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 61 3 7 12 8 8018 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 60 2 6 60 13 8 SC 8019 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 63 3 7 63 13 8 SC 802 0 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 62 2 6 10 8021 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 62 2 6 15 9 8022 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 59 2 6 10 7 8023 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 67 3 7 63 13 9 C 8024 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 60 2 6 61 11 7 SC 8025 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Yellow 63 3 7 63 13 9 C 8026 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 54 2 5 54 10 6 SC 8027 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 11 7 C 8028 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 60 2 6 13 9 8029 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 60 2 6 62 12 8 C 8030 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 62 3 7 12 8 C 8031 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 58 3 7 60 12 8 C 8032 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 62 2 5 63 C 8033 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 63 2 7 63 12 8 C 8034 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Ye llow 62 2 5 63 C 8035 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 63 2 6 60 12 9 SC 8036 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Male 58 3 7 12 7

PAGE 326

326 Appendix C. Continued 8037 Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar Female Dark 62 3 6 62 12 8 SC 8038 Lake Placid, FL 16 Mar Female Yellow 65 2 6 14 10 8039 Lake Placid, FL 16 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 12 8 C 8040 Lake Placid, FL 16 Mar Male 59 2 6 8 8041 Geothe State Park, FL 19 Mar Male 57 2 6 11 7 8042 Geothe State Park, FL 19 Mar Male 63 3 8 11 7 C 8043 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 63 2 6 64 10 7 C 8044 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 56 2 7 8045 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 62 2 5 64 12 8 C 8046 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 60 2 6 61 13 9 C 8047 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 57 2 6 12 7 8048 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 59 2 6 61 12 8 C 8049 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 65 3 6 63 13 9 C 8050 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 69 2 6 13 10 8051 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 62 2 6 64 12 9 C 8052 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 57 2 6 57 10 7 C 8053 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Mal e 61 2 6 10 7 8054 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 54 2 6 56 10 8 SC 8055 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 62 2 5 64 12 8 C 8056 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 58 3 7 59 11 8 C 8057 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 60 2 6 59 12 9 C 8058 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 57 2 6 12 8 8059 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 58 2 6 60 13 8 C 8060 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 54 2 5 12 8 8061 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 63 4 8 63 12 8 C 8062 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 63 2 7 63 13 9 C 8063 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 67 2 6 67 13 9 C 8064 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 67 3 7 67 14 10 C 8065 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 61 2 5 62 12 8 C 8066 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 62 2 7 63 12 8 C 8067 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 60 2 6 60 13 8 C 8068 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 67 3 7 68 14 10 C 8069 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 57 2 6 58 12 9 C 8070 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 66 3 7 67 13 9 C 8071 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Female Yellow 63 2 6 62 13 10 C 8072 Barberville FL 21 Mar Male 61 3 7 61 10 7 SC 8073 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 58 2 7 59 12 7 C 8074 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 58 3 6 11 8 8075 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 60 2 6 60 13 8 C

PAGE 327

327 Appendix C. Continued 8076 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 56 2 5 56 10 6 SC 8077 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 64 2 6 64 12 8 C 8078 Barberville, FL 21 Mar Male 61 2 6 60 11 7 C 8079 Gainesville, FL 26 Mar Female Yellow 2 6 8080 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 61 3 7 13 9 8081 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Mal e 63 3 7 62 12 8 C 8082 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 57 2 6 57 11 7 C 8083 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 61 3 7 13 8 C 8084 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 59 2 6 61 11 8 C 8085 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 59 3 7 59 11 8 C 8086 Florida/ Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 62 3 7 62 14 9 C 8087 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 11 8 C 8088 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 61 3 7 62 11 9 C 8089 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 61 3 7 12 8 8090 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Female Yellow 61 3 6 62 13 10 C 8091 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 12 7 C 8092 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 60 3 7 61 12 8 C 8093 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Female Yellow 60 2 5 61 10 8 SC 8094 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 60 2 5 59 11 8 C 8095 F lorida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Female Yellow 60 2 5 12 8 8096 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 60 2 6 60 11 8 C 8097 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 12 8 C 8098 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 64 2 6 63 11 8 C 8099 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar M ale 56 2 6 12 8 8100 Florida/Georgia 441 27 Mar Male 60 2 6 61 12 8 C 8101 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 56 3 5 55 12 8 C 8102 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 60 3 6 60 13 9 C 8103 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 62 2 5 60 14 9 C 8104 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 62 3 7 63 13 8 C 8105 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 55 3 5 54 11 7 SC 8106 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 57 2 5 56 11 8 C 8107 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 63 3 7 63 15 9 SC 8108 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 61 3 7 61 12 8 C 8109 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 61 3 7 63 14 10 C 8110 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Dark 58 2 6 59 14 8 C 8111 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 63 3 6 13 9 8112 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 54 2 5 11 8 8113 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Fema le Dark 64 2 6 65 13 9 C 8114 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Female Yellow 62 2 6 62 11 8 C

PAGE 328

328 Appendix C. Continued 8115 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 53 2 6 54 12 7 SC 8116 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 63 3 7 62 8 8117 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 54 2 6 55 10 7 8118 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 54 2 6 55 10 7 C 8119 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 62 2 6 62 13 8 C 8120 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 62 2 6 62 13 8 C 8121 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 59 12 8 C 8122 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 61 2 6 61 12 7 C 8123 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 57 2 5 59 12 8 C 8124 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 61 2 6 62 12 8 C 8125 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 55 2 5 57 11 7 SC 8126 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 61 2 6 13 8 8127 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 5 11 7 8128 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 57 2 6 58 12 7 C 8129 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 59 12 7 C 8130 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 5 56 11 8 I 8131 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 6 55 12 8 C 8132 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 54 2 5 55 11 7 C 8133 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 55 2 6 56 1 0 7 C 8134 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 60 2 7 61 11 8 C 8135 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 58 7 C 8136 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 13 8 C 8137 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 60 2 6 11 8 8138 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 61 12 8 C 8139 Pine land, FL 29 Mar Male 57 1 5 58 12 8 C 8140 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 11 8 C 8141 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 59 13 8 C 8142 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 57 2 6 11 8 8143 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 55 2 6 57 11 8 C 8144 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Ma le 57 2 5 59 12 8 C 8145 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 59 13 8 C 8146 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 11 7 C 8147 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 14 8 C 8148 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 60 11 8 C 8149 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 59 11 6 C 8150 Wakulla, FL 29 Mar Male 60 2 5 13 8 8151 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 6 56 11 8 C 8152 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 54 2 5 56 12 8 C 8153 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 60 2 6 60 13 9 C

PAGE 329

329 Appendix C. Continued 8154 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 62 2 6 14 8 8155 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 60 11 7 C 8156 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 59 12 8 C 8157 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 57 2 5 7 8158 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 60 3 7 62 12 7 C 8159 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 60 2 6 59 13 8 C 816 0 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 57 2 6 58 11 8 C 8161 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 50 2 5 51 11 7 C 8162 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 61 2 6 12 8 C 8163 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 59 2 6 60 11 8 C 8164 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 58 2 6 58 13 9 C 8165 Pineland, F L 29 Mar Male 60 2 6 62 12 8 C 8166 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 6 56 11 8 C 8167 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 56 2 6 57 13 8 C 8168 Pineland, FL 29 Mar Male 55 1 5 55 12 7 C 8169 Goethe State Park, FL 30 Mar Female Yellow 62 3 7 60 14 10 C 8170 Goet he State Park, FL 30 Mar Female Yellow 67 2 6 67 15 10 C 8171 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 60 2 5 13 9 8172 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 65 2 6 64 13 9 C 8173 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 64 3 7 62 12 10 C 8174 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yello w 60 2 6 61 11 9 C 8175 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 68 2 6 14 10 C 8176 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 58 2 5 58 13 9 C 8177 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 64 2 5 63 14 10 C 8178 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Dark 63 2 6 63 13 10 C 8179 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Yellow 61 2 6 61 11 8 C 8180 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Dark 64 2 6 14 10 8181 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Female Dark 67 10 8182 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 60 3 7 12 8 8183 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 60 2 6 59 9 7 C 8184 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 6 0 2 6 61 7 I 8185 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 62 2 6 62 12 8 C 8186 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 57 3 7 58 11 8 C 8187 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 62 2 6 62 11 8 C 8188 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 55 2 6 56 11 7 C 8189 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 61 3 7 62 12 8 C 8190 S ebring, FL 7 Apr Male 62 2 6 13 8 8191 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 60 2 6 59 12 8 C 8192 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 59 3 7 12 8

PAGE 330

330 Appendix C. Continued 8193 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 58 2 6 59 12 8 C 8194 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 61 2 6 60 10 7 C 8195 Seb ring, FL 7 Apr Male 62 2 6 13 7 8196 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 60 2 6 8 8197 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 62 3 7 63 11 8 C 8198 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 58 1 5 60 10 8 C 8199 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 64 2 7 65 13 8 C 8200 Sebring, FL 7 Apr Male 63 2 6 6 5 15 8 C 8201 Lake Placid, FL 7 Apr Male 56 1 5 56 11 8 C 8202 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Female Yellow 69 2 6 68 17 10 C 8203 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Female Yellow 8204 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Female Yellow 60 3 6 60 11 9 C 8205 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Female D ark 63 2 5 14 9 8206 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Female Yellow 8207 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 56 2 6 57 12 8 C 8208 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 62 3 8 63 13 9 C 8209 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 60 2 5 57 12 8 C 8210 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 60 2 6 61 12 8 C 8211 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 56 2 5 56 12 8 C 8212 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 57 2 5 58 11 7 C 8213 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 61 2 6 61 13 8 C 8214 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 54 2 6 54 12 8 SC 8215 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 56 2 6 57 12 8 C 8216 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 60 2 6 61 12 8 C 8217 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 59 2 6 59 11 8 C 8218 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 60 2 6 62 11 8 C 8219 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 59 2 6 61 12 8 C 8220 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 57 2 6 56 12 8 C 8221 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 2 5 59 12 8 C 8222 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 48 1 4 50 9 6 C 8223 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 60 2 5 59 12 9 C 8224 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 3 6 59 13 9 C 8225 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 57 2 6 57 10 8 C 8226 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Ma le 56 2 5 56 13 8 C 8227 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 57 2 5 56 11 7 C 8228 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 3 6 59 10 7 C 8229 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 2 6 58 12 8 C 8230 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 3 6 57 11 8 C 8231 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 7

PAGE 331

331 Appendix C. Continued 8232 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 61 2 6 61 12 8 C 8233 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 58 2 6 61 11 8 C 8234 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 55 2 6 55 11 8 C 8235 Waycross, GA 10 Apr Male 56 2 5 55 10 7 C 8236 Lake Placid, FL 17 Apr Male 60 2 5 59 12 8 C 8237 Lake Placid, FL 17 Apr Male 61 2 6 62 11 8 C 8238 Lake Placid, FL 17 Apr Male 60 1 5 62 12 8 C 8239 Lake Placid, FL 17 Apr Female Yellow 65 2 6 63 14 8 C 8240 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 64 3 7 67 15 9 C 8241 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr M ale 60 2 6 60 13 9 C 8242 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Female Dark 66 3 7 15 10 8243 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 60 2 6 11 8 8244 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 59 2 6 61 14 9 C 8245 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 57 2 6 58 13 8 C 8246 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 61 2 7 63 12 8 C 8247 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 60 2 6 62 11 8 C 8248 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Female Yellow 66 3 7 68 15 9 C 8249 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Female Dark 64 3 7 14 10 8250 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 58 12 8 C 8251 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 62 3 7 63 12 8 C 8252 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 54 2 5 56 10 7 C 8253 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 62 2 7 65 12 8 C 8254 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 60 11 8 C 8255 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 59 2 6 60 12 8 C 8256 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 61 2 6 62 12 8 C 8257 Wakulla FL 26 Apr Male 61 2 6 7 8258 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 59 2 6 61 12 8 C 8259 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 60 2 5 60 11 7 SC 8260 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 63 2 7 63 12 9 C 8261 Wakulla, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 11 7 8262 Hosford, FL 26 Apr Male 60 2 6 12 8 8263 Hosford, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 61 12 8 C 8264 Hosford, FL 26 Apr Male 57 1 5 59 10 8 C 8265 Hosford, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 57 12 8 C 8266 Hosford, FL 26 Apr Male 58 2 6 12 8 8267 La Fayette, GA 1 May Female Yellow 8268 La F ayette, GA 1 May Male 50 1 4 49 10 6 Sc 8269 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 56 2 5 11 8 8270 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 52 2 5 54 10 8 C

PAGE 332

332 Appendix C. Continued 8271 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 50 1 4 10 7 8272 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 44 2 4 44 7 5 C 8273 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 48 1 4 9 6 8274 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 53 3 5 51 11 8 C 8275 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 54 3 6 52 10 7 C 8276 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 50 1 4 49 9 6 8277 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 55 2 5 55 10 7 C 8278 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 54 2 5 54 12 8 C 8279 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 54 2 5 54 12 8 C 8280 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 56 2 5 57 12 8 C 8281 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 47 2 5 49 10 7 C 8282 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 54 2 5 55 10 7 C 8283 La Fayett e, GA 1 May Male 52 2 5 10 7 8284 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 55 2 5 55 11 8 C 8285 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 51 2 5 50 10 6 C 8286 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 54 2 5 54 11 7 C 8287 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 55 2 6 12 8 8288 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 51 2 5 50 9 6 C 8289 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 55 2 6 54 12 7 C 8290 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 51 2 5 52 10 7 C 8291 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 50 2 5 49 10 7 C 8292 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 52 2 5 51 11 7 C 8293 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 5 0 2 4 6 8294 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 53 2 5 52 10 7 SC 8295 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 52 2 5 53 11 8 C 8296 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 53 1 5 52 11 8 C 8297 La Fayette, GA 1 May Male 52 1 4 52 8 6 C 8298 Gainesville, FL 4 May Male 62 2 6 62 1 4 8 C 8299 Gainesville, FL 4 May Female Yellow 64 2 6 63 15 10 C 8300 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 56 1 5 12 7 8301 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 54 2 5 53 14 8 C 8302 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 56 2 6 55 13 8 C 8303 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 56 12 7 8304 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 58 2 5 13 8 8305 Horse Creek, GA 23 May Male 54 2 6 53 14 8 C 8306 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Female Yellow 69 2 6 68 15 10 C 8307 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Female Yellow 70 2 6 69 18 11 C 8308 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Fem ale Yellow 68 2 6 16 10 C 8309 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Female Dark 73 3 7 70 16 9 C

PAGE 333

333 Appendix C. Continued 8310 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 60 2 6 62 13 8 C 8311 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 60 2 6 60 13 8 C 8312 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 63 3 7 14 8 8313 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 64 2 6 64 14 9 C 8314 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Female Yellow 62 2 6 64 14 9 C 8315 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 63 3 7 62 15 9 C 8316 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 65 2 7 14 8 8317 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 63 2 7 14 9 8318 Cedar Ke y, FL 3 Jun Female Yellow 70 3 7 70 18 9 C 8319 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 61 2 5 62 14 8 C 8320 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 64 2 6 15 9 8321 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 65 2 6 65 13 8 C 8322 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 60 2 6 60 14 8 C 8323 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 62 2 6 14 8 8324 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Female Yellow 70 2 6 69 16 10 C 8325 Cedar Key, FL 3 Jun Male 65 2 7 13 9 8326 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 64 3 7 64 14 8 C 8327 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 62 2 6 15 9 8328 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 64 2 6 15 9 C 8329 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 62 2 6 61 15 9 C 8330 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 8331 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 64 2 6 64 13 8 C 8332 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 65 2 6 67 13 8 C 8333 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 66 3 7 66 15 10 C 8334 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 63 3 7 15 10 C 8335 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 63 3 8 62 14 9 C 8336 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 65 2 6 64 15 8 C 8337 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 67 2 6 67 15 10 C 8338 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 70 3 8 16 10 8339 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 69 3 8 68 16 11 C 8340 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 67 2 6 68 14 10 C 8341 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 64 3 7 64 16 11 C 8342 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 64 2 6 65 13 8 C 8343 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 65 2 6 17 10 8344 Sebri ng, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 63 3 7 15 10 8345 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 8346 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 62 2 6 63 12 8 C 8347 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Male 64 2 6 64 14 9 C 8348 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 64 2 6 64 16 10 C

PAGE 334

334 Appendix C. Continued 8349 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 70 3 8 69 16 10 C 8350 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 66 2 6 64 16 10 C 8351 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 70 2 6 70 17 10 C 8352 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 67 3 8 16 10 8353 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 7 2 3 8 71 17 11 C 8354 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 68 2 7 69 17 9 C 8355 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 69 3 7 69 14 10 C 8356 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 68 3 7 69 17 10 C 8357 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 65 2 6 13 9 8358 Sebring, FL 4 Ju n Male 65 3 8 65 15 9 C 8359 Sebring, FL 4 Jun Female Yellow 69 3 7 69 16 10 C 8360 Lake Placid, FL 4 Jun Female Dark 71 4 9 17 10 C 8361 Starksville, MS 11 Jun Male 8362 Starksville, MS 11 Jun Male 59 2 5 59 14 8 C 8363 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 53 2 5 11 7 8364 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 54 1 5 55 12 8 C 8365 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 54 1 5 55 12 7 I 8366 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 56 2 5 55 12 7 C 8367 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 54 2 5 54 12 8 C 8368 Coo per's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 59 1 5 54 13 7 I 8369 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 52 1 4 52 12 7 SC 8370 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 55 2 5 55 13 8 C 8371 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 51 2 5 21 11 7 C 8372 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 57 1 5 57 15 8 C 8373 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 55 2 5 13 8 8374 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 52 1 5 14 6 8375 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 55 2 5 55 13 7 C 8376 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 58 1 5 13 8 8377 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Ma le 52 1 4 52 12 8 C 8378 Cooper's Creek, GA 11 Jul Male 53 1 4 54 12 7 C 8379 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 59 1 4 14 8 8380 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 65 1 5 15 9 8381 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 60 1 5 13 7 8382 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 62 1 5 15 9 8383 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 64 1 5 16 10 8384 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 63 1 5 62 14 8 C 8385 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 59 2 6 61 13 10 C 8386 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 64 2 5 10 8387 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 1 5

PAGE 335

335 Appendix C Continued 8388 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 62 2 7 62 14 7 C 8389 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 62 3 7 62 14 8 C 8390 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 62 2 6 13 8 8391 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 64 2 6 62 15 10 C 8392 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 63 2 6 63 14 9 C 8393 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 65 2 7 15 9 8394 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 64 3 7 67 16 10 C 8395 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 68 2 6 15 10 8396 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Dark 67 3 7 67 17 10 C 8397 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Dark 69 2 6 17 10 8398 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 72 3 7 12 8399 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 3 7 16 9 8400 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 68 2 6 15 9 8401 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 8402 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Male 65 1 5 11 8 8403 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 69 3 7 14 10 8404 Waycross, GA 25 Jul Female Yellow 68 3 7 66 16 10 C 8405 Elkton, TN 28 Jul Male 55 1 4 15 8 8406 Elkton, TN 28 Jul Male 53 2 5 7 8407 Elkton, TN 28 Jul Male 59 2 5 11 8 8408 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Male 59 2 5 59 13 9 I 8409 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Female Yellow 60 3 7 14 9 8410 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Male 57 1 5 13 8 8411 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Male 59 1 5 14 8 8412 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Female Dark 8413 Elkton, TN 10 Aug Female Dark 8414 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 59 2 6 60 14 8 C 8415 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 56 2 5 13 9 8416 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 58 2 6 14 9 8417 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 56 2 5 56 8 6 C 8418 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 60 2 6 60 11 8 C 8419 Fayet te, AL 17 Aug Male 56 2 6 56 13 8 C 8420 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Yellow 59 2 6 59 14 9 C 8421 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Yellow 62 2 6 13 9 C 8422 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Dark 61 3 7 15 10 8423 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Yellow 8424 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Yellow 62 2 5 60 9 C 8425 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Dark 60 2 5 14 9 8426 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Dark 56 3 7 58 13 9 C

PAGE 336

336 Appendix C. Continued 8427 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Yellow 61 3 7 12 10 8428 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Da rk 60 2 5 14 9 8429 Elkton, TN 17 Aug Female Yellow 57 2 5 58 12 8 C 8430 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Dark 63 3 7 63 15 10 C 8431 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 58 2 5 58 12 8 SC 8432 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Female Yellow 56 2 5 12 9 8433 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Fe male Yellow 8434 Fayette, AL 17 Aug Male 8435 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 59 2 6 13 8 8436 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 2 6 55 14 8 C 8437 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 54 2 5 56 8 C 8438 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 61 2 5 14 9 8439 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 2 6 13 8 8440 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 55 2 5 55 13 9 C 8441 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 58 2 5 13 8 8442 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 60 2 6 60 15 9 C 8443 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 55 2 6 56 12 8 C 8444 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 54 2 5 54 14 8 C 8445 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 60 2 6 13 9 8446 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 59 2 5 57 13 8 C 8447 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 59 2 6 58 13 9 C 8448 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 55 2 6 13 10 8449 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 60 2 6 14 9 C 8450 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 2 6 57 14 8 C 8451 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 60 2 5 14 9 8452 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 62 2 6 14 9 8453 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 2 5 11 8 8454 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 61 2 6 16 10 8455 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 61 2 6 14 8 8456 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 1 5 55 13 9 C 8457 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 56 2 5 7 8458 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Dark 58 2 6 13 8 8459 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 54 2 5 55 13 8 8460 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Female Yellow 58 2 5 14 9 8461 Fairmount, GA 1 Sep Male 55 2 6 55 9 7 C 8462 Gainesville, FL 6 Sep Female Yellow 65 2 6 64 16 10 C 8463 Gainesville, FL 6 Sep Female Yellow 8464 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 66 2 6 68 17 9 C 8465 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 63 2 6 13 8

PAGE 337

337 Appendix C. Continued 8466 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 61 2 6 62 13 9 C 8467 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 63 2 6 62 15 9 C 8468 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 67 3 7 68 17 10 C 8469 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 68 3 7 17 10 8470 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 68 2 6 68 17 10 C 8471 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 69 2 6 11 8472 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 63 2 6 64 15 10 C 8473 Sebring, FL 11 Oct M ale 65 2 6 65 16 10 C 8474 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 64 2 6 65 14 8 C 8475 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 70 2 6 16 11 C 8476 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 67 2 6 14 8 8477 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 64 2 6 62 14 10 C 8478 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 70 2 7 69 16 9 C 8479 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Dark 70 2 5 69 17 10 C 8480 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 68 2 6 68 18 10 C 8481 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 68 2 7 69 15 9 C 8482 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 67 1 4 16 10 C 8483 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Fema le Yellow 69 2 6 16 10 8484 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 69 3 8 68 19 12 C 8485 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 71 2 5 18 10 C 8486 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 69 3 7 18 11 8487 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 72 2 6 72 18 11 C 8488 Sebring, F L 11 Oct Female Yellow 68 3 7 69 17 10 C 8489 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 65 3 8 15 8 8490 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 63 2 6 15 11 8491 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 70 2 6 18 10 8492 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 62 2 6 63 14 8 C 8493 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 68 3 7 68 15 10 C 8494 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 62 2 6 63 14 9 C 8495 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 64 2 6 65 15 9 C 8496 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 69 2 7 68 17 10 C 8497 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 66 2 7 15 8 8498 Sebring, FL 11 Oct Male 66 2 7 19 11 8499 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 70 2 7 69 17 10 C 8500 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Male 66 2 7 17 8 8501 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Male 66 2 7 66 16 9 C 8502 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Male 70 2 7 13 9 8503 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct M ale 64 2 6 64 13 8 C 8504 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 64 2 6 15 10

PAGE 338

338 Appendix C. Continued 8505 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 68 3 7 68 16 10 C 8506 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Male 69 2 6 68 15 9 C 8507 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Male 63 2 6 63 15 9 C 8508 Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct Female Yellow 69 2 6 15 11

PAGE 339

339 APPENDIX D OVIPOSITION PREFEREN C E RAW DATA 2006 ID # Locality Date SB WC GA Other Total 6005 Barberville, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 1 1 1 0 3 30 Mar 0 0 1 0 1 1 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 6006 Gainesville, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 2 2 11 6 21 30 Mar 0 0 2 0 2 6007 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 60 0 1 0 61 29 Mar 2 0 0 0 2 30 Mar 5 0 6 2 13 1 Apr 12 14 10 7 43 2 Apr 4 2 8 5 19 3 Apr 6 2 8 9 25 4 Apr 5 0 3 0 8 6008 Ce dar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6009 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 5 0 0 5 6010 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6011 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 1 1 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6012 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6013 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 1 4 3 10 18 29 Mar 1 3 32 2 38 30 Mar 3 2 10 4 19 1 Apr 22 16 11 18 67 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6014 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 3 0 3 3 9 29 Mar 5 1 7 4 17 30 Mar 14 6 5 6 31 1 Apr 10 2 16 16 44 2 Apr 1 1 20 4 26 3 A pr 0 0 0 0 0 6015 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6016 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6017 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6018 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6019 Cedar Key FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6020 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 1 0 1 30 Mar 7 5 0 2 14 1 Apr 4 6 38 0 48 2 Apr 2 1 16 1 20 3 Apr 7 5 14 3 29 4 Apr 3 5 12 2 22

PAGE 340

340 Appendix D. Continued. 5 Apr 12 3 4 7 26 6 A pr 3 0 0 0 3 6021 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6022 Cedar Key, FL 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6023 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 1 0 0 0 1 2 Apr 12 1 0 7 20 3 Apr 0 0 0 2 2 6024 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 2 Apr 3 1 1 7 12 3 Apr 4 0 4 0 8 6025 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 6026 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6027 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6028 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 1 0 0 0 1 1 Apr 0 1 0 0 1 6029 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 1 6 1 8 6030 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 1 2 1 4 2 Apr 0 0 0 2 2 6031 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6032 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 033 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6034 Cedar Key, FL 30 Mar 1 0 0 2 3 1 Apr 5 2 1 1 9 2 Apr 2 0 0 4 6 6035 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 1 0 0 0 1 2 Apr 2 1 0 1 4 3 Apr 6 0 3 11 20 4 Apr 1 1 0 1 3 5 Apr 3 0 1 0 4 6036 Cedar K ey, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6037 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 3 0 0 0 3 3 Apr 4 0 0 1 5 4 Apr 4 4 27 4 39 5 Apr 0 6 1 0 7 6038 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6039 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6040 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 2 0 2 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6041 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6042 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 341

341 Appendix D. Continued. 6043 Bradley Ave, FL 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6044 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6045 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6046 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6047 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 12 1 39 4 56 6048 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6049 Cedar Key, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6050 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6051 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6052 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6053 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 3 0 3 3 9 6 Apr 0 0 2 2 4 6054 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6055 Cedar Key, FL 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6056 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6057 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6058 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 3 0 3 6059 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 8 14 0 0 22 8 Apr 5 7 4 7 23 9 Apr 1 1 6 2 10 10 Apr 1 0 2 2 5 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6060 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6061 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr 0 1 1 9 11 6062 Cedar Key, FL 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 342

342 Appendix D. Continued. 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6063 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6064 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6065 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6066 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 6067 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6068 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6069 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6070 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6071 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6072 Cedar Key, FL 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6073 Cedar Key, FL 24 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6074 Cedar Key, FL 24 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 25 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 26 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6075 Bradley Ave, FL 27 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 28 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 29 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6076 Bradley Ave, FL 27 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 28 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 29 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6077 Bradley Ave, FL 12 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 13 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 14 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 15 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 6078 Bradley Ave, FL 12 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 14 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 15 Sep 0 0 0 1 1 16 Sep 0 0 0 1 1

PAGE 343

343 APPENDIX E OVIPOSITION PREFEREN CE RAW DATA 2007 ID# Locality Date SB WC GA TT Other Total 7002 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 25 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 26 M ar 0 0 0 0 0 7004 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 25 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 26 Mar 0 2 2 0 4 27 Mar 0 2 23 0 25 28 Mar 0 2 8 1 11 29 Mar 0 1 2 0 3 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 1 0 3 0 4 7007 Cedar Key, FL 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 25 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 7009 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar 0 1 1 0 2 28 Mar 1 1 2 0 4 29 Mar 1 0 2 0 3 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 7010 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Ma r 0 0 0 0 0 7011 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 7013 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 7014 Cedar Key, FL 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 7021 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7022 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 2 0 0 0 2 7023 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 2 0 2 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7024 C edar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 6 0 6 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7025 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7026 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 2 0 2

PAGE 344

344 Appendix E. Continued. 7028 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7029 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 1 0 1 0 2 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 1 0 0 1 7030 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 2 0 2 2 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 3 Apr 2 3 2 1 8 7031 Cedar Key, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7033 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 3 0 0 0 3 7 Apr 1 1 2 0 4 8 Apr 4 0 25 0 29 9 Apr 0 2 2 0 4 7034 Cedar Key, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7054 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 3 1 1 2 7 5 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7055 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 8 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 9 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7056 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7057 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 8 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7058 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 7 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 8 Jun 2 0 1 0 3 9 Jun 6 2 5 0 13 10 Jun 8 2 8 0 18

PAGE 345

345 Appendix E. Continued. 7059 Lake Placid, FL 3 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 4 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jun 0 1 0 1 2 6 Jun 1 4 3 0 8 7 Jun 20 10 38 0 68 8 Jun 12 5 12 0 29 9 Jun 0 5 0 0 5 7060 Cedar Key, FL 15 Jun 15 0 0 0 15 16 Jun 4 1 0 0 5 7061 Cedar Key, FL 4 Jul 0 0 1 0 1 5 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jul 1 1 2 0 4 7 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 8 Jul 21 7 14 0 42 9 Jul 33 5 24 1 63 10 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 7062 Cedar Key, FL 4 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 5 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 6 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 7 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 8 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 9 Jul 0 1 0 0 1 10 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 11 Jul 0 0 0 1 1 7067 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7068 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 2 6 6 21 0 35 2 Sep 0 0 0 6 0 6 3 Sep 3 8 17 32 0 60 4 Sep 1 2 4 3 0 10 5 Sep 0 2 6 6 0 14 6 Sep 0 0 5 10 0 15 7069 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7070 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7071 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 3 3 0 71 0 77 2 Sep 0 0 3 14 17 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7072 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 8 8 10 51 0 77 2 Sep 6 1 6 1 0 14 3 Sep 1 3 1 16 0 21 4 Sep 2 5 5 21 0 33 5 Sep 0 3 3 10 0 16 6 Sep 7 10 1 6 0 24 7073 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 15 1 3 20 0 39 7074 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7075 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 2 5 12 0 19 2 Sep 0 2 3 53 0 58 3 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Sep 1 0 0 3 0 4

PAGE 346

346 Appendix E. Continued. 7076 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7077 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Sep 1 1 2 10 0 14 7078 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 2 7 1 64 0 74 2 Sep 0 1 0 12 0 13 3 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Sep 2 6 8 5 0 21 7079 Cedar Key, FL 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sep 0 0 0 15 0 15 3 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Sep 0 0 0 28 0 28 5 Sep 0 0 0 7 0 7 6 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7084 Gainesville, FL 1 Sep 1 0 0 14 0 15 2 Sep 0 2 1 9 0 12 3 Sep 22 0 13 16 0 51 4 Sep 5 0 4 5 0 14 5 Sep 0 1 4 2 0 7 6 Sep 0 3 0 25 0 28 7093 Florida/Georgia 441 1 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sep 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 Sep 1 0 1 0 0 2 7102 Lake Placid, FL 5 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Sep 0 0 0 10 0 10 7110 Goethe State Park, FL 14 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7111 Goethe State Park, FL 14 Sep 0 0 0 2 0 2 18 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 7112 Goethe State Park, FL 14 Sep 16 2 6 25 0 49 18 Sep 3 0 1 4 0 8 7114 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7115 Vicksburg, MS 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7116 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 3 0 1 3 0 7 24 Sep 0 0 1 6 0 7 7117 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 7118 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 6 1 10 12 0 29 24 Sep 12 4 10 34 0 60 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7119 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 4 1 1 27 0 33

PAGE 347

347 Appendix E. Continued. 24 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7120 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7121 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 1 2 1 8 0 12 7122 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 7 1 0 8 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7123 Vicksburg, MS 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 0 0 0 15 0 15 24 Sep 0 0 0 1 0 1 7124 Goethe State Park, FL 22 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 7147 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Oct 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 Oct 35 11 53 33 2 134 9 Oct 8 4 0 25 0 37 7148 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Oct 4 0 2 14 0 20 5 Oct 2 0 5 1 0 8 7149 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 7150 Lake Placid, FL 3 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Oct 1 0 0 1 0 2 5 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Oct 35 0 1 15 0 51 9 Oct 36 10 0 34 0 80

PAGE 348

348 APPENDIX F OVIPOSITION PREFERENCE RAW DATA 2008 ID Location Date SB TT BC GA W Total 8001 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 3 3 0 0 6 25 Mar 1 2 0 0 3 26 Mar 0 1 1 0 2 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8007 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8009 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 5 0 1 6 24 Mar 3 0 1 0 4 25 Mar 2 0 9 0 11 26 Mar 0 0 2 0 2 8013 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8014 Cedar Key, FL 22 M ar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8020 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 8 2 18 3 31 25 Mar 7 4 7 0 18 26 Mar 1 0 9 2 12 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8022 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 2 54 0 18 74 24 Mar 5 5 14 2 26 25 Mar 1 0 7 0 8 26 Mar 0 2 1 1 4 8023 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8025 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8030 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8032 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 2 1 0 0 3 24 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 25 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8037 Cedar Key, FL 22 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 23 Mar 0 2 0 0 2 24 Mar 2 1 2 0 5 25 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8049 Barbervil le, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 349

349 Appendix F. Continued. 8050 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8057 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 1 1 4 0 6 30 Mar 8 2 19 0 29 31 Mar 5 2 12 1 20 1 Apr 1 0 2 0 3 8063 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 7 1 0 0 8 27 Mar 34 6 0 0 40 28 Mar 18 4 32 2 56 29 Mar 19 2 12 0 33 30 Mar 18 2 4 1 25 31 Mar 9 3 11 0 23 1 Apr 1 0 7 2 10 2 Apr 9 3 14 1 27 3 Apr 6 0 6 0 12 5 Apr 1 0 4 0 5 6 Apr 2 0 0 0 2 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8064 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 3 0 10 0 13 30 Mar 2 1 17 2 22 8068 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Mar 5 0 14 0 19 31 Mar 6 0 1 0 7 1 Apr 1 0 2 0 3 8070 Barberville, FL 26 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 28 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8079 Gainesville, FL 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 31 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 8093 Florida/Georgia 441 29 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 30 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 31 Mar 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8095 Florida/Georgia 441 29 Mar 6 2 1 0 9 30 Mar 8 0 0 1 9 31 Mar 3 0 2 1 6 1 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 2 Apr 5 0 0 2 7 3 Apr 1 0 1 0 2 8101 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 350

350 Appendix F. Continued. 8102 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 15 6 10 1 32 3 Apr 6 1 3 0 10 8103 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 1 0 3 0 4 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 2 0 9 0 11 4 Apr 11 13 4 4 32 8104 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 1 0 0 0 1 8105 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8106 Wakulla, FL 1 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 2 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8107 Pineland, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8108 Pineland, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 1 1 2 0 4 6 Apr 1 1 5 0 7 7 Apr 3 1 4 0 8 8 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8109 Pineland, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8110 Pineland, FL 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 1 0 0 0 1 8 Apr 18 4 5 1 28 9 Apr 18 7 23 1 49 11 Apr 1 0 1 0 2 8111 Pineland, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8112 Pineland, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 6 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 7 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8114 Pineland, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 5 Apr 38 3 25 0 66 6 Apr 4 0 3 0 7 7 Apr 0 0 6 0 6 8169 Goethe State Park, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 12 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 13 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8170 Goethe State Park, FL 3 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8172 Sebring, FL 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8173 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 12 Apr 0 2 0 0 2 13 Apr 18 2 3 0 23 14 Apr 10 0 0 0 10 15 Apr 5 0 1 0 6 16 Apr 2 0 1 0 3 8175 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 351

351 Ap pendix F. Continued. 11 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 Apr 23 0 32 0 55 12 Apr 23 0 7 0 30 13 Apr 9 0 1 0 10 14 Apr 4 0 17 0 21 15 Apr 5 2 10 0 17 16 Apr 9 0 6 0 15 8177 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8178 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 A pr 0 0 0 0 0 8179 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8180 Sebring, FL 9 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 11 Apr 0 0 1 0 1 8181 Sebring, FL 13 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8202 Waycross, GA 12 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 13 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 14 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 15 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8204 Waycross, GA 12 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 13 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 8205 Waycross, GA 12 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 13 Apr 1 4 5 2 12 8239 Lake Placid, FL 22 Apr 13 1 1 0 15 24 Apr 56 21 13 1 91 25 Apr 8 0 5 0 13 27 Apr 25 3 2 1 31 29 Apr 6 3 3 1 13 1 May 7 5 3 2 17 8242 Wakulla, FL 1 May 7 0 0 0 7 3 May 51 4 31 3 89 8248 Wakulla, FL 1 May 1 0 0 0 1 3 May 17 0 2 0 19 8249 Wakulla, FL 1 May 0 0 0 0 0 8299 Gainesville, FL 13 May 23 6 54 1 84 8307 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 0 20 0 0 1 21 9 Jun 29 39 3 14 7 92 8308 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 6 70 4 32 2 114 9 Jun 5 16 7 12 1 41 10 Jun 3 3 1 1 0 8 8309 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Jun 48 62 3 10 0 123 10 Jun 1 1 0 0 0 2 12 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 8314 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 9 21 1 9 3 43 9 Jun 4 3 4 3 2 16 8318 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 37 93 5 49 7 191 9 Jun 8 2 0 1 0 11 10 Jun 3 4 0 3 0 10 12 Jun 12 5 0 6 3 26 8324 Cedar Key, FL 6 Jun 8 53 4 33 13 111 9 Jun 0 12 0 6 1 19 10 Jun 0 12 1 5 0 18 12 Jun 1 1 0 0 0 2 8336 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 1 0 0 0 1 12 Jun 0 4 0 13 0 17

PAGE 352

352 Appendix F. Continued. 8339 Sebring, Fl 10 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 8341 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 31 42 0 0 0 73 12 Jun 23 39 3 0 0 65 8344 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 9 56 5 1 8 79 8348 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 27 16 7 2 52 8349 Sebring, F L 10 Jun 1 26 2 13 1 43 12 Jun 2 31 2 8 3 46 8351 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Jun 1 1 0 1 0 3 8353 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 6 44 1 7 0 58 12 Jun 3 22 0 1 1 27 8354 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 5 37 18 11 8 79 12 Jun 3 23 9 11 2 48 8355 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 6 1 1 1 9 12 Jun 3 36 6 19 7 71 8356 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 7 0 2 0 9 12 Jun 1 15 0 2 0 18 8359 Sebring, FL 10 Jun 0 5 0 0 0 5 12 Jun 0 0 0 0 0 0 8360 Lake Placid, FL 10 Jun 1 24 17 17 1 60 12 Jun 3 16 1 18 2 40 8391 Waycross, GA 30 Ju l 0 1 0 0 0 1 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Aug 2 83 3 0 0 88 5 Aug 0 0 0 0 1 1 8394 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 5 32 0 42 0 79 31 Jul 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 Aug 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 Aug 2 43 2 3 1 51 5 Aug 0 0 5 0 0 5 6 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8395 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8396 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 2 0 2 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 8397 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jul 0 1 0 0 0 1 8398 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 8399 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Aug 1 14 3 9 0 27 4 Aug 0 2 0 2 0 4 8400 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8403 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 2 46 21 22 15 106 31 Jul 0 22 3 0 2 27 1 Aug 2 8 0 0 0 10 8404 Waycross, GA 30 Jul 1 9 0 1 0 11 31 Jul 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Aug 1 3 0 0 0 4

PAGE 353

353 Appendix F. Continued. 4 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8409 Elkton, TN 13 Aug 0 4 0 1 0 5 15 Aug 0 19 0 1 0 20 16 Aug 3 0 3 18 0 24 18 Aug 1 110 0 5 3 119 8412 Elkton, TN 13 Aug 0 3 1 1 0 5 15 Aug 1 8 5 33 7 54 16 Aug 15 15 3 7 0 40 18 Aug 0 22 7 1 0 30 20 Aug 3 25 1 12 0 41 21 Aug 0 1 0 0 0 1 8413 Elkton, TN 13 Aug 0 18 7 27 0 52 15 Aug 1 17 7 0 1 26 Yellow Tennessee Elkton, TN 1 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Aug 2 0 0 0 0 2 Black Tennessee Elkton, TN 1 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8420 Elkton, TN 27 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8422 Elkton, TN 27 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8423 Elkton, TN 27 Au g 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Aug 0 2 0 0 0 2 Dark morph with yellow Elkton, TN 27 Aug 0 5 0 3 0 8 8424 Elkton, TN 27 Aug 9 42 1 22 0 74 29 Aug 0 12 0 11 0 23 8426 Fayette, AL 27 Aug 1 15 5 29 0 50 8427 Elkton, TN 27 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 842 8 Fayette, AL 27 Aug 2 7 2 1 0 12 8429 Elkton, TN 27 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Aug 8 0 0 0 0 8 8430 Fayette, AL 27 Aug 0 12 0 8 0 20 29 Aug 6 11 0 4 0 21 8432 Fayette, AL 27 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Aug 0 0 0 0 0 0 8438 Fairmount, GA 10 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Sep 3 17 3 0 0 23 12 Sep 9 14 0 0 0 23 13 Sep 21 35 7 5 8 76 15 Sep 1 0 3 1 0 5 8446 Fairmount, GA 10 Sep 17 47 20 7 2 93 11 Sep 2 14 2 2 0 20 12 Sep 3 3 1 0 2 9 8454 Fairmount, GA 9 Sep 35 18 5 17 0 75 10 Sep 1 1 9 7 5 1 33 11 Sep 4 25 2 6 0 37 12 Sep 6 5 9 7 0 27

PAGE 354

354 Appendix F. Continued. 13 Sep 7 1 2 3 0 13 8455 Fairmount, GA 9 Sep 2 31 1 9 0 43 10 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thompson Paris Gainesville, FL 10 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 8463 Gainesville, FL 19 Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 8469 Sebring, FL 20 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Oct 14 50 2 3 2 71 22 Oct 4 10 3 0 4 21 23 Oct 1 13 1 1 0 16 24 Oct 8 27 0 1 2 38 8470 Sebring, FL 21 Oct 34 9 1 0 1 45 22 Oct 8 14 0 3 1 26 23 Oct 15 44 0 5 0 64 24 Oct 9 20 2 9 1 41 8471 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 10 34 1 0 0 45 17 Oct 7 1 0 1 0 9 20 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 8475 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Oct 0 1 0 0 0 1 20 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Oct 0 3 0 0 0 3 22 Oct 0 1 0 0 0 1 8479 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 0 5 0 0 0 5 17 Oct 10 80 18 9 5 122 20 Oct 1 7 0 3 1 12 21 Oct 13 17 0 0 2 32 22 Oct 9 0 1 6 0 16 23 Oct 7 9 0 1 1 18 24 Oct 2 7 0 11 0 20 8482 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Oct 0 4 0 0 0 4 20 Oct 2 6 0 0 0 8 21 Oct 6 58 1 4 2 71 22 Oct 0 9 4 9 1 23 23 Oct 1 2 0 2 0 5 24 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 8485 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 27 34 1 1 2 65 17 Oct 22 4 0 1 1 28 20 Oct 1 0 0 5 0 6 21 Oct 15 6 0 6 0 27 22 Oct 2 1 2 4 3 12 23 Oct 3 5 1 4 0 13 8488 Sebring, FL 20 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Oct 2 9 0 2 0 13 22 Oct 0 2 0 2 1 5 23 Oct 0 0 0 1 0 1 8490 Sebring,FL 20 Oct 9 22 7 5 2 45 21 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 8491 Sebring, FL 16 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 355

355 Appendix F. Continue d. 17 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Oct 1 3 1 0 0 5 21 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 8504 Lake Placid, FL 16 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Oct 10 3 0 0 0 13 22 Oct 0 2 0 0 0 2 23 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 8505 Lake Placid, FL 20 Oct 19 3 1 1 0 24 21 Oct 10 5 0 1 3 19 8508 Lake Placid, FL 20 Oct 0 5 0 0 0 5 21 Oct 2 17 0 8 0 27 22 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Oct 0 1 0 0 0 1 24 Oct 0 0 0 0 0 0

PAGE 356

356 A PPENDIX G LARVAL DURATION AND SURVIVAL

PAGE 357

357 Mother ID # Region Host plant Date emerged # of larvae emerged # of larvae survived (2nd instar) Pupa tion date Pupa weight (g) Larval duration (days) Temp. (C) Photoperiod Offspring ID # Sex 7067 South BC 1 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.06 43 35 15:09 7067-2 F 7067 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 15-Oct 1.28 38 35 15:09 7067-1 F 7068 South SB 6 -Sep 11 7 12-Oct 1.13 36 35 15:09 7068-1 F 7068 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 1.34 35 35 15:09 7068-2 F 7068 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.17 38 20 9 :15 7068-3 F 7068 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.36 38 17 15:09 7068-4 M 7068 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.34 46 35 15:09 7068-6 M 7068 South SB 7 -Sep 3 3 16-Oct 1.40 39 35 15:09 7068-7 M 7068 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 16-Oct 1.18 39 24 15:09 7068-8 M 7068 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 16-Oct 0.97 39 35 15:09 7068-9 M 7068 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.54 48 17 15:09 7068-10 F 7068 South SB 7 -Sep 12 3 25-Oct 1.27 48 17 15:09 7068-5 F 7068 South BC 9 -Sep 15 14 7068 South GA 9 -Sep 15 0 7068 South SB 9 -Sep 15 8 7071 South SB 5 -Sep 4 4 7071 South SB 6 -Sep 9 7 12-Oct 0.79 36 35 9:15 7071-7 F 7071 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.05 38 35 15:09 7071-10 M 7071 South SB 6 -Sep 8 7 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 5 3 7 -Oct 1.11 31 35 9:15 7071-1 M 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 0.96 31 35 9:15 7071-2 M 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 0.97 31 35 15:09 7071-4 M 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 1.25 31 35 9:15 7071-5 M 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 1.05 31 35 15:09 7071-6 M 7071 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 0.89 36 3 5 15:09 7071-8 M 7071 South BC 6 -Sep 5 5 24-Oct 0.93 48 35 9:15 7071-13 M 7071 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 21-Oct 0.94 46 35 15:09 7071-15 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 358

358 7071 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.15 49 24 15:09 7071-17 F 7071 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.22 4 9 17 15:09 7071-18 F 7071 South SB 6 -Sep 8 6 7071 South BC 6 -Sep 10 9 7071 South TT 7 -Sep 4 1 7 -Oct 0.96 30 35 15:09 7071-3 M 7071 South TT 7 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 0.90 34 35 15:09 7071-9 M 7071 South TT 7 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 1.32 35 24 15:09 7071-1 2 M 7071 South SB 7 -Sep 8 3 14-Oct 1.27 37 17 15:09 7071-11 F 7071 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 24-Oct 1.41 47 20 9:15 7071-14 F 7071 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 7071 South SB 7 -Sep 12 7 7071 South SB 9 -Sep 1 1 7071 South SB 9 -Sep 1 1 7072 South TT 6 -Sep 6 5 11-Oct 0.85 35 20 9:15 7072-1 M 7072 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 0.85 34 17 15:09 7072-2 M 7072 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 14Oct 1.14 38 35 15:09 7072-7 F 7072 South SB 6 -Sep 5 5 11-Oct 1.52 35 35 9:15 7072-8 F 7072 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 16-Oct 1.36 40 35 15:09 7072-3 F 7072 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 28-Oct 1.34 52 17 15:09 7072-17 F 7072 South BC 6 -Sep 8 6 22-Oct 0.99 46 35 15:09 7072-14 F 7072 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.23 49 17 15:09 7072-16 F 7072 South SB 6 -Sep 8 8 8 -Oct 32 35 15:09 7072-20 F 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 6 1 10-Oct 1.36 33 35 15:09 7072-5 M 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.18 33 35 9:15 7072-4 M 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.36 33 35 9:15 7072-12 F 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 0.74 34 35 15:09 7072-6 M 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 1.14 34 35 9:15 7072-10 M 7072 South BC 7 -Sep 10 3 17-Oct 40 35 15:09 7072-19 M 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 8 2 16-Oct 0.97 39 35 15:09 7072-9 M 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.16 48 20 15:09 7072-15 F 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.28 48 20 15:09 7072-18 F 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 10 6 9 -Oct 32 20 15:09 7072-22 7072 South SB 7 -Sep 6 4 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 359

359 7072 South SB 9 -Sep 12 3 14-Oct 0.82 35 35 15:09 7072-11 F 7072 South SB 14-Sep 6 2 16-Oct 0.93 32 35 15:09 7072-13 M 7072 South SB 14-Sep 1 1 7073 South SB 6 -Sep 5 5 16-Oct 1.40 40 35 15:09 7073-3 F 7073 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 16-Oct 0.99 40 35 15:09 7073-4 M 7073 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 16-Oct 0.98 40 35 15:09 7073-5 M 7073 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 0.97 49 17 15:09 7073-6 M 7073 South GA 6 -Sep 8 1 7073 South TT 6 -Sep 7 3 11-Oct 1.52 35 20 9:15 7073-1 F 7073 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.51 34 20 15:09 7073-2 F 7073 South BC 6 -Sep 7 5 28-Oct 1.37 52 17 15:09 7073-7 F 7073 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 7075 South TT 5 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.35 39 20 9:15 7075-15 F 7075 South TT 5 -Sep 1 1 7075 South TT 6 -Sep 2 2 12-Oct 1.18 36 35 9:15 707516 F 7075 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.05 34 20 9:15 7075-17 F 7075 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 1.27 31 35 9:15 7075-1 M 7075 South TT 6 -Se p 1 1 7 -Oct 1.19 31 35 15:09 7075-2 F 7075 South SB 6 -Sep 4 4 10-Oct 1.21 34 35 9:15 7075-8 F 7075 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.32 38 35 15:09 7075-13 F 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 10 5 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 6 3 22-Oct 0.91 45 35 15:09 7075-14 F 7075 Sout h SB 7 -Sep 6 4 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 2 1 11-Oct 1.33 34 35 9:15 7075-3 M 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.24 33 35 15:09 7075-4 M 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 0.83 35 35 15:09 7075-5 M 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 1.03 35 35 15:09 7075-6 F 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 1.22 34 35 15:09 7075-7 M 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.13 37 35 15:09 7075-9 F 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.01 37 35 15:09 7075-10 F 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 24-Oct 1.11 47 20 9:15 7075-11 M 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 2 2 -Oct 1.13 45 35 15:09 7075-12 F 7075 South SB 7 -Sep 10 8 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 360

360 7075 South SB 9 -Sep 1 1 7075 South SB 9 -Sep 1 1 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 3 3 7 -Oct 1.14 31 35 9:15 7078-1 M 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.17 34 20 15:09 7078-2 M 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1.03 38 35 15:09 7078-6 F 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 1.18 34 17 15:09 7078-7 M 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 1.04 36 20 9:15 7078-8 M 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.14 49 20 15:09 7078-11 M 7078 South BC 6 -Sep 8 6 12-Oct 1.43 36 20 9:15 7078-9 F 7078 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.12 49 20 15:09 7078-14 M 7078 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.14 46 35 15:09 7078-15 F 7078 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 26-Oct 1.01 50 24 15:09 7078-12 F 7078 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 1 .02 38 35 9:15 7078-4 M 7078 South SB 6 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 0.75 38 35 9:15 7078-5 M 7078 South BC 6 -Sep 1 1 7078 South TT 6 -Sep 8 6 7078 South SB 7 -Sep 8 2 14-Oct 1.14 37 35 15:09 7078-3 F 7078 South SB 7 -Sep 1 1 7078 South SB 9 -Sep 9 8 7078 South SB 9 -Sep 13 4 16-Oct 1.03 37 35 15:09 7078-10 F 7078 South SB 9 -Sep 1 1 7079 South BC 7 -Sep 4 0 7079 South SB 7 -Sep 7 6 10-Oct 1.26 33 35 15:09 7079-1 M 7079 South SB 7 -Sep 4 4 14-Oct 0.97 37 20 15:09 7079-2 F 7079 South SB 9 -Sep 4 0 7079 South TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7084 Within BC 6 -Sep 8 6 7084 Within SB 6 -Sep 6 5 16-Oct 1.05 40 35 15:09 7084-9 M 7084 Within TT 6 -Sep 3 3 7 -Oct 0.98 31 35 15:09 7084-1 M 7084 Within TT 6 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 0.97 35 35 15: 09 7084-2 F 7084 Within TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 1.09 31 35 15:09 7084-3 F 7084 Within TT 6 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 0.71 31 35 15:09 7084-4 F 7084 Within TT 6 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 0.92 34 35 9:15 7084-5 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 361

361 7084 Within SB 7 -Sep 11 7 11-Oct 1.15 34 35 15:09 7084-6 F 7084 Within SB 7 -Sep 1 1 14-Oct 0.97 37 35 15:09 7084-10 M 7084 Within SB 7 -Sep 1 1 7084 Within BC 9 -Sep 18 9 24-Oct 1.09 45 35 15:09 7084-14 F 7084 Within TT 9 -Sep 15 10 7084 Within SB 9 -Sep 10 1 17-Oct 0.96 38 24 15:09 7 084-11 M 7084 Within SB 9 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 1.10 32 20 9:15 7084-12 M 7084 Within SB 9 -Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.13 46 17 15:09 7084-13 M 7084 Within SB 9 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 1.33 33 20 9:15 7084-7 M 7084 Within SB 9 -Sep 1 1 1.24 24 15:09 7084-8 F 7089 Within TT 6 -Sep 8 8 7089 Within SB 7 -Sep 12 6 16-Oct 1.02 39 35 15:09 7089-1 M 7089 Within SB 7 -Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.33 45 35 15:09 7089-2 F 7093 Within SB 7 -Sep 1 1 7093 Within SB 9 -Sep 1 0 7102 South SB 12-Sep 1 0 7112 South SB 16-Sep 6 6 4 -Nov 1.54 49 17 15:09 7112-1 F 7112 South SB 16-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 1.39 44 20 9:15 7112-2 M 7112 South SB 16-Sep 1 1 4 -Nov 1.44 49 17 15:09 7112-3 F 7112 South BC 20-Sep 2 2 7112 South TT 16-Sep 13 11 7121 North BC 28-Sep 1 1 7147 South TT 10-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.25 37 17 15:09 7147-1 M 7147 South TT 10-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.15 37 35 15:09 7147-7 M 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 15-Nov 1.20 35 24 15:09 7147-2 M 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.25 36 20 9:15 7147-5 M 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 13-Nov 1.16 33 35 9:15 7147-6 M 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.00 36 17 15:09 7147-8 M 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.28 36 35 15:09 7147-13 F 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.34 36 35 15:09 7147-14 F 7147 South TT 11-Oct 1 1 14-Nov 0.88 34 35 1 5:09 7147-15 M 7147 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 1.13 38 35 15:09 7147-3 F 7147 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.15 35 35 15:09 7147-11 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 362

362 7147 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.11 35 35 15:09 7147-10 M 7147 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 13-Nov 1.42 30 35 15:09 7147-4 M 7147 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.32 33 35 15:09 7147-9 F 7147 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 1.12 36 35 9:15 7147-12 M 7147 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 7147 South SB 11-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.34 36 17 15:09 7147-17 F 7148 South SB 10-Oct 1 2 7148 South SB 10-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.15 35 35 15:09 7150-2 M 7150 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.55 35 35 15:09 7150-3 M 7150 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 1.52 32 35 15:09 7150-1 M 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 21-Nov 1.59 37 35 15:09 7150-5 F 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 7150 South TT 21-Oct 1 1 7 150 South SB 12-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 0.97 46 17 15:09 7150-4 M 7150 South SB 12-Oct 1 1 7150 South SB 17-Oct 1 1 22-Nov 36 17 15:09 7150-6 M 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 14-Nov 30 20 15:09 7150-7 F 7150 South SB 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 35 17 15:09 7150-8 M 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 35 17 15:09 7150-9 F 7150 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 20-Nov 37 17 15:09 7150-10 M 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 35 35 15:09 7150-11 M 7150 South TT 21-Oct 1 1 22-Nov 32 35 15:09 7150-12 F 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 24-Nov 40 35 15:09 7150-13 F 7150 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 18-Nov 35 35 15:09 7150-14 M 7150 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 16-Nov 35 35 15:09 7150-15 M 7150 South TT 12-Oct 1 1 21-Nov 40 35 15:09 7150-16 M 7150 South TT 14-Oct 1 1 21-Nov 38 35 15:09 7150-17 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 363

363 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 35 35 15:09 7150-18 F 7150 South TT 21-Oct 1 1 22-Nov 32 35 15:09 7150-19 F 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 15-Nov 31 35 15:09 7150-20 M 7150 South TT 15-Oct 1 1 15-Nov 31 35 15:09 7150-21 F 7152 South TT 16-Sep 1 1 28-Oct 42 35 15:09 7152-1 M 8009 South SB 27-Mar 2 2 25-Apr 1.141 29 24 15:09 8009-1 M 8009 South SB 27-Mar 1 1 25-Apr 1.035 29 24 15:09 8009-2 M 8020 South W 29-Mar 6 0 8020 South BC 29-Mar 3 3 8020 South GA 30-Mar 5 2 8022 South SB 31-Mar 1 1 25-Apr 1.083 25 24 15:09 8022-15 M 8022 South SB 31-Mar 1 1 25-Apr 1.105 25 22 15:09 8022-1 M 8022 South SB 31-Mar 1 1 25-Apr 1.386 25 22 15:09 8022-10 F 8022 South SB 31-Mar 1 1 25-Apr 1.168 25 24 15:09 8022-6 M 8022 South SB 30-Mar 4 2 25-Apr 1.105 26 22 15:09 8022-11 M 8022 South SB 30-Mar 1 1 27-Apr 0.927 28 22 15:09 8022-12 M 8022 South SB 30-Mar 5 3 27-Apr 1.115 28 22 15:09 8022-14 M 8022 South SB 30-Mar 4 4 24-Apr 0.91 25 27 15:09 8022-16 F 8022 South SB 30-Mar 7 6 2 5 -Apr 1.013 26 27 15:09 8022-13 F 8022 South SB 30-Mar 1 1 26-Apr 1.389 27 27 15:09 8022-3 F 8037 South SB 28-Mar 1 1 8037 South W 30-Mar 1 1 29-Apr 0.836 30 24 15:09 8037-1 M 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 5 4 26-Apr 1.245 24 22 15:09 8063-7 M 8063 With in SB 2 -Apr 1 1 26-Apr 1.331 24 27 15:09 8063-8 F 8063 Within SB 31-Mar 7 7 25-Apr 25 32 15:09 8063 Within SB 30-Mar 1 1 24-Apr 1.461 25 22 15:09 8063-12 M 8063 Within GA 2 -Apr 3 0 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 2 2 25-Apr 1.163 23 24 15:09 8063 Wit hin SB 2 -Apr 1 1 29-Apr 1.205 27 24 15:09 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 1 1 2 -May 1.083 30 24 15:09 8063-6 M 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 1 1 8 -May 1.228 36 22 15:09 8063-9 F 8063 Within W 2 -Apr 6 2 8063 Within GA 3 -Apr 3 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 364

364 8063 Within SB 3 -Apr 3 2 25-Apr 1.332 22 27 15:09 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 1 1 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 1 1 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 1 1 8063 Within BC 3 -Apr 1 1 8063 Within BC 3 -Apr 1 1 8063 Within BC 3 -Apr 1 1 8063 Wit hin SB 3 -Apr 3 3 2 -May 1.337 29 27 15:09 8063-1 M 8063 Within SB 3 -Apr 4 4 29-Apr 1.34 26 24 15:09 8063-5 F 8063 Within SB 3 -Apr 1 1 29-Apr 1.12 26 24 15:09 8063-3 F 8063 Within SB 3 -Apr 1 1 1 -May 1.417 28 27 15:09 8063-11 M 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 6 4 8063 Within W 3 -Apr 1 1 3 -May 1.101 30 24 15:09 8063-33 F 8063 Within W 3 -Apr 1 1 3 -May 1.075 30 24 15:09 8063-29 M 8063 Within W 3 -Apr 1 1 15-May 0.811 42 24 15:09 8063-32 F 8063 Within W 3 -Apr 1 1 16-May 0.991 43 24 15:09 8063 Within GA 2 -Apr 5 2 8063 Within SB 1 -Apr 3 3 25-Apr 1.466 24 24 15:09 8063-26 F 8063 Within SB 1 -Apr 1 1 25-Apr 1.035 24 32 15:09 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 4 3 27-Apr 1.101 25 24 15:09 8063-4 F 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 1 1 29-Apr 1.001 27 24 15:09 8063 Within BC 1 -Apr 4 4 8 -May 1.158 37 24 15:09 8063-30 M 8063 Within BC 1 -Apr 1 1 8 -May 1.63 37 24 15:09 8063-31 F 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 5 5 27-Apr 1.254 25 22 15:09 8063-16 F 8063 Within SB 2 -Apr 1 1 28-Apr 1.304 26 24 15:09 8063-15 M 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 7 3 8063 Within GA 6 -Apr 5 3 8063 Within BC 6 -Apr 3 1 8063 Within BC 3 -Apr 3 3 8 -May 1.536 35 24 15:09 8063-22 M 8063 Within SB 6 -Apr 4 2 29-Apr 1.277 23 24 15:09 8063-21 F 8063 Within SB 6 -Apr 1 1 2 -May 1.091 26 24 15:09 8063-14 M 8063 Wi thin SB 6 -Apr 1 1 9 -May 1.01 33 15:09 8063-2 M 8063 Within BC 2 -Apr 5 4 2 -May 1.584 30 24 15:09 8063-19 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 365

365 8063 Within BC 4 -Apr 5 4 11-May 1.432 37 24 15:09 8063-23 M 8063 Within BC 4 -Apr 1 1 9 -May 1.223 35 24 15:09 8063-28 M 8 063 Within BC 4 -Apr 8 5 9 -May 1.604 35 24 15:09 8063-25 M 8063 Within BC 4 -Apr 1 1 11-May 1.076 37 24 15:09 8063-34 M 8063 Within BC 4 -Apr 7 6 2 -May 1.491 28 27 15:09 8063-31 F 8063 Within SB 4 -Apr 7 7 8063 Within GA 5 -Apr 7 0 8063 Withi n BC 5 -Apr 5 3 9 -May 1.661 34 24 15:09 8063-17 F 8063 Within SB 5 -Apr 2 2 29-Apr 1.152 24 24 15:09 8063-18 M 8063 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 29-Apr 1.044 24 24 15:09 8063 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 2 -May 0.979 27 24 15:09 8063-13 F 8063 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 6 -May 1 .323 31 24 15:09 8063-10 F 8063 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 6 -May 1.12 31 24 15:09 8063-12 M 8063 Within W 7 -Apr 3 2 3 -May 0.977 26 24 15:09 8063-24 M 8063 Within GA 7 -Apr 5 0 8063 Within BC 7 -Apr 5 2 8063 Within SB 7 -Apr 6 4 29-Apr 1.307 22 24 15:09 8063-20 F 8063 Within W 7 -Apr 4 1 9 -May 1.027 32 24 15:09 8063-27 M 8063 Within W 7 -Apr 1 1 11-May 1.027 34 24 15:09 8063 Within GA 8 -Apr 5 0 8063 Within SB 8 -Apr 7 7 8063 Within BC 8 -Apr 5 4 8063 Within SB 9 -Apr 3 3 8064 Within BC 5 -Apr 2 0 8095 Within SB 3 -Apr 3 3 25-Apr 1.408 22 24 15:09 8095-2 M 8095 Within SB 3 -Apr 1 1 27-Apr 1.024 24 24 15:09 8095-1 F 8095 Within SB 3 -Apr 1 1 27-Apr 1.203 24 24 15:09 8095-4 F 8095 Within SB 2 -Apr 1 1 27-Apr 1.267 2 5 24 15:09 8095-6 M 8095 Within GA 6 -Apr 1 1 27-Apr 21 24 15:09 8095 Within GA 5 -Apr 5 0 8095 Within SB 5 -Apr 3 1 29-Apr 1.425 24 24 15:09 8095-5 F 8095 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 27-Apr 1.197 22 24 15:09 8095-3 M 8095 Within SB 5 -Apr 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 366

366 8095 Within BC 4 -Apr 8 5 8102 Within SB 7 -Apr 5 2 2 -May 1.087 25 24 15:09 8102-1 M 8103 Within GA 9 -Apr 1 0 8108 Within SB 11-Apr 2 2 8108 Within SB 13-Apr 1 1 8110 Within SB 14-Apr 2 1 11-May 1.007 27 24 15:09 8110-3 M 8110 Within SB 14-Apr 1 1 11-May 0.969 27 24 15:09 8110-1 F 8110 Within SB 14-Apr 1 1 14-May 0.842 30 24 15:09 8110-2 M 8110 Within SB 15-Apr 4 4 11-May 26 24 15:09 8110 Within SB 15-Apr 4 4 14-May 1.153 29 27 15:09 8114 With in GA 11-Apr 5 0 8114 Within BC 11-Apr 6 0 8114 Within W 11-Apr 6 3 8114 Within SB 11-Apr 5 2 7 -May 1.118 26 24 15:09 8114-1 M 8114 Within SB 11-Apr 1 1 7 -May 0.959 26 24 15:09 8114-2 F 8114 Within SB 12-Apr 3 1 3 -May 21 24 15:09 8114 Within BC 12-Apr 5 15-May 1.549 33 24 15:09 8114-3 F 8173 South SB 18-Apr 4 2 8173 South W 18-Apr 3 2 8173 South BC 20-Apr 2 0 8173 South W 20-Apr 3 1 8173 South SB 18-Apr 4 1 15-May 1.276 27 24 15:09 8174 Sout h BC 14-Apr 5 0 8174 South BC 15-Apr 2 1 16-May 1.391 31 24 15:09 8174-3 F 8174 South SB 14-Apr 3 3 8174 South SB 15-Apr 7 7 10-May 1.111 25 24 15:09 8174 South SB 15-Apr 4 4 15-May 0.976 30 22 15:09 8174-8 M 8174 South SB 15-Apr 1 1 1 6 -May 0.985 31 22 15:09 8174 South SB 15-Apr 1 1 13-May 1.022 28 22 15:09 8174 South SB 15-Apr 1 1 15-May 0.814 30 22 15:09 8174-4 M 8174 South SB 14-Apr 5 9 -May 0.842 25 22 15:09 8174-1 M 8174 South GA 14-Apr 3 0 8174 South SB 15-Apr 4 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 367

367 8174 South GA 16-Apr 5 0 8174 South SB 15-Apr 6 6 12-May 1.272 27 22 15:09 8174-6 F 8174 South SB 15-Apr 1 1 14-May 1.099 29 22 15:09 8174-7 F 8174 South SB 13-Apr 1 1 8174 South SB 16-Apr 8 8 8174 South SB 15-Apr 5 5 15-May 1.027 30 24 15:09 8174-12 F 8174 South SB 15-Apr 1 1 16-May 1.089 31 24 15:09 8174-13 M 8174 South BC 16-Apr 4 1 17-May 31 24 15:09 8174 South BC 16-Apr 1 1 15-May 1.206 29 24 15:09 8174-14 M 8174 South SB 18-Apr 5 5 8174 South SB 16-Apr 1 1 11-May 25 24 15:09 8174-9 M 8174 South SB 16-Apr 1 1 18-May 0.895 32 24 15:09 8174 South SB 16-Apr 1 1 20-May 0.748 34 24 15:09 8174 South SB 16-Apr 1 1 11-May 0.81 25 24 15:09 8174-2 M 8174 South SB 16-Apr 1 1 15-May 1 .129 29 24 15:09 8174-6 M 8174 South BC 16-Apr 2 1 20-May 1.22 34 24 15:09 8174-15 M 8174 South BC 16-Apr 1 1 15-May 1.061 29 24 15:09 8174 South BC 16-Apr 2 2 20-May 1.283 34 24 15:09 8174-10 F 8205 Within SB 18-Apr 1 8205 Within SB 20-Apr 2 1 8208 Within SB 18-Apr 1 0 8239 South SB 29-Apr 3 2 27-May 1.268 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-13 M 8239 South SB 29-Apr 1 1 28-May 1.274 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-1 F 8239 South SB 29-Apr 1 1 25-May 1.135 26 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 3 3 8239 South SB 3 -May 2 2 26-May 1.292 23 S. Florida 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 28-May 1.216 25 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-14 M 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 30-May 1.163 27 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 2 2 1 -Jun 1.146 29 N. Georgi a 15:09 8239 South W 3 -May 2 2 8239 South W 3 -May 1 1 6 -Jun 1.054 34 24 15:09 8239-6 M 8239 South BC 29-Apr 1 1 27-May 1.415 28 24 15:09 8239-4 F 8239 South BC 29-Apr 1 1 25-May 1.639 26 24 15:09 8239-5 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 368

368 8239 South B C 29 Apr 1 1 26 May 1.042 27 24 15:09 8239 South BC 1 -May 5 1 1 -Jun 1.031 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-15 M 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 25-May 1.082 22 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-2 M 8239 South SB 1 -May 3 3 30-May 1.266 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 1 -May 1 1 1 -Jun 1.066 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 1 -May 3 3 30-May 1.266 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 1 -May 1 1 25-May 1.242 24 S. Florida 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 26-May 1.378 23 S. Florida 15:09 8239-5 F 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 30-May 1.122 27 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 1 -Jun 1.118 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 30-May 1.303 27 N. Georgia 15:09 8239 South SB 3 -May 2 2 30-May 1.163 27 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-11 F 8239 South SB 3 -May 1 1 26-May 1.049 23 N. Georgia 15:09 8239-3 F 8239 South BC 3 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.383 30 24 15:09 8239-12 M 8239 South BC 3 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.61 30 24 15:09 8239-9 M 8239 South BC 3 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.336 30 24 15:09 8239 South BC 3 -May 1 1 3 -Jun 1.509 31 24 15:09 8239-16 F 8239 South W 29-Apr 3 3 8239 South GA 3 -May 2 1 6 -Jun 34 24 15:09 8239-10 M 8239 South GA 3 -May 1 1 5 -Jun 1.715 33 24 15:09 8239 South W 3 -May 1 1 4 -Jun 0.86 32 24 15:09 8242 Within SB 7 -May 6 6 8 -Jun 1.268 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8242-5 M 8242 W ithin BC 7 -May 1 1 1 -Jun 1.482 25 24 15:09 8242-9 F 8242 Within BC 7 -May 1 1 6 -Jun 1.234 30 24 15:09 8242 Within BC 7 -May 1 1 3 -Jun 1.565 27 24 15:09 8242 Within BC 7 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.314 26 24 15:09 8242-8 M 8242 Within BC 7 -May 1 1 1 -Jun 1.428 25 24 15:09 8242 Within W 7 -May 5 4 8242 Within BC 6 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.457 27 24 15:09 8242-7 F 8242 Within BC 6 -May 1 1 2 -Jun 1.469 27 24 15:09 8242-3 M 8242 Within BC 6 -May 1 1 31-May 1.542 25 24 15:09 8242 Within BC 6 -May 1 1 1 -Jun 1.272 26 2 4 15:09 8242-12 F 8242 Within BC 6 -May 1 1 5 -Jun 1.485 30 24 15:09 8242-6 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 369

369 8242 Within SB 9 -May 1 1 4 -Jun 1.282 26 24 15:09 8242 Within SB 9 -May 1 1 3 -Jun 1.727 25 24 15:09 8242 Within SB 10-May 1 1 30-May 1.097 20 N. Geor gia 15:09 8242-7 M 8242 Within SB 10-May 1 1 30-May 1.473 20 S. Florida 15:09 8242 Within BC 7 -May 5 3 5 -Jun 1.189 29 24 15:09 8242-10 F 8248 Within SB 10-May 3 3 6 -Jun 1.216 27 S. Florida 15:09 8248 Within SB 10-May 3 3 10-Jun 1.104 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8248-1 F 8248 Within SB 11-May 1 1 8 -Jun 1.207 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8248-1 M 8248 Within SB 11-May 2 0 8307 South BC 10-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.452 31 S. Florida 15:09 8307-3 F 8307 South BC 10-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.832 34 24 15:09 8307 South BC 10-Jun 1 1 8307 South BC 10-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.686 43 N. Georgia 15:09 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.355 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.248 32 S. Florida 15:09 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.572 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8307-5 M 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.795 33 N. Georgia 15:09 8307-4 M 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.536 28 S. Florida 15:09 8307-2 M 8307 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.303 28 S. Florida 15:09 8307-1 M 8308 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 30 S. Florida 15:09 8308-3 F 8308 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 9 -Jun 5 5 13-Jul 1.25 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8308 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.277 29 S. Florida 15:09 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 3 -Jul 23 S. Florida 15:09 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 7 -Jul 1.246 27 S. Florida 15:09 8308 South GA 11-Jun 2 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 12-Jul 31 S. Florida 15:09 8308-3 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 370

370 8308 South TT 12-Jun 5 1 13-Jul 1.646 31 S. Florida 15:09 8308-2 M 8308 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.726 32 24 15:09 8308 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.552 41 N. Georgia 15:09 8308-8 F 8308 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 24-Jul 1.373 42 N. Georgia 15:09 8308 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.546 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8308-4 M 8308 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.881 27 S. Florida 15:09 8308-1 F 8308 South SB 11-Jun 4 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8 -Jul 1.16 27 S. Florida 15:09 8308-2 M 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.144 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 3 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.675 38 24 15:09 8308-7 M 8308 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.498 29 24 15:09 8308-5 M 8308 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.936 30 24 15:09 8308-6 F 8308 South GA 11-Jun 2 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 12-Jun 5 1 8308 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 8308 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 11-Aug 60 24 15:09 8308 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 8308 South SB 12-Jun 4 1 8308 South SB 12-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.233 37 24 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 371

371 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 0.904 40 S. Florida 15:09 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.366 38 N. Georgia 15:09 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.459 38 N. Georgia 15:09 8309-4 F 8309 South TT 15-Jun 4 1 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.025 40 24 15:09 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.638 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8309-1 M 8309 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 0.899 34 24 15:09 8309-2 M 8309 South W 15-Jun 10 1 8309 South SB 15-Jun 2 2 8309 South B C 15-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.204 34 24 15:09 8309-3 F 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 7 2 8313 South SB 10-Jun 3 3 8313 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 6 -Jul 1.168 26 S. Florida 15:09 8313-1 M 8313 South W 9 -Jun 4 1 8313 South W 9 -Jun 1 1 24-Jul 0.736 45 N. Georgia 15:09 8313 South W 9 -Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 7 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 7 -Jul 1.089 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8313-2 M 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.191 30 S. Florida 15:09 8313-3 M 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 5 -Jul 1.13 26 24 15:09 8313 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 7 -Jul 1.12 28 24 15:09 8313-7 M 8313 South TT 11-Jun 2 1 8313 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.283 30 S. Florida 15:09 8313-5 F 8313 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 8313 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.587 32 24 15:09 8313-6 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 372

372 8313 South SB 11 Jun 1 1 23 Jul 1.326 42 S. Florida 15:09 8313 6 F 8313 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.46 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8313 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.378 28 S. Florida 15:09 8313-4 M 8313 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1 .139 36 S. Florida 15:09 8313 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.351 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8313-10 F 8313 South GA 12-Jun 3 1 8313 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 8313 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 8313 South GA 12-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.321 43 24 15:09 8313-11 F 8313 South GA 11-Jun 2 1 8313 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8313 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8313 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8313 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.326 42 S. Florida 15:09 8313-8 F 8313 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.139 36 S. Florida 15: 09 8313-9 M 8314 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8314 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.302 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-J un 1 1 9 -Jul 1.044 29 S. Florida 15:09 8318-1 M 8318 South GA 10-Jun 3 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 8318 Sout h SB 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 10-Jun 9 8 8318 South SB 10-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.043 29 24 15:09 8318-7 M 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 5 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.173 35 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-5 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 373

373 8318 South SB 9 Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.241 30 S. Florida 15:09 8318-14 M 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South W 9 -Jun 2 1 8318 South W 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South W 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South W 9 -Jun 1 0 8318 South W 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.662 35 N. Georgia 15:09 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 7 -Jul 1.323 28 S. Florida 15:09 8318-4 M 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.806 32 N. Georgia 1 5:09 8318-18 F 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.27 30 S. Florida 15:09 8318-3 M 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 2 1 11-Jul 1.694 32 S. Florida 15:09 8318-6 M 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.457 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-20 M 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.55 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-9 M 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.837 35 24 15:09 8318-15 F 8318 South BC 9 -Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.647 30 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 9 -Jun 7 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 29-Jul 1.073 49 24 15:09 8318-26 F 8318 South GA 10-Jun 1 1 8318 South TT 11-Jun 2 1 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.26 28 S. Florida 15:09 8318-13 M 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.615 30 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.618 28 S. Florida 15:09 8318-2 F 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.337 29 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.043 28 S. Flor ida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 374

374 8318 South BC 13 Jun 1 1 11 Jul 1.455 28 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.519 33 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.634 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-24 M 8318 South SB 13-Jun 2 1 8318 South SB 13-Jun 1 0 8318 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.605 33 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-25 F 8318 South SB 12-Jun 4 1 13-Jul 1.515 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-21 M 8318 South SB 12-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.225 29 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South SB 12-J un 1 1 19-Jul 1.172 37 24 15:09 8318 South SB 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.345 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-23 M 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.622 32 24 15:09 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1 .504 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-8 M 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.295 32 24 15:09 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.701 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-12 F 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.22 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8318 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.77 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-17 F 8318 South W 12-Jun 3 1 8318 South W 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South W 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South TT 12-Jun 2 1 8318 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.585 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-16 F 8318 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.742 36 S. Florida 15:09 8318 South TT 12-Jun 2 1 8318 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 8318 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.33 38 S. Florida 15:09 8318-11 F 8318 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.418 29 S. Florida 15:09 8318-19 F 8318 South SB 15 -Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.383 38 N. Georgia 15:09 8318-22 M 8324 South TT 10-Jun 2 1 13-Jul 1.677 33 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-13 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 375

375 8324 South TT 1 0 Jun 1 1 6 Jul 1.116 26 24 15:09 8324 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 8324 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.806 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-8 F 8324 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.373 30 S. Florida 15:09 8324-1 M 8324 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.693 31 N. Georgi a 15:09 8324-12 F 8324 South TT 10-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.337 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-5 M 8324 South W 10-Jun 1 1 8324 South W 10-Jun 1 1 8324 South W 10-Jun 1 1 8324 South GA 9 -Jun 1 1 8324 South GA 9 -Jun 1 1 8324 Sout h SB 11-Jun 1 1 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 5 -Jul 1.067 24 24 15:09 8324-10 M 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.536 31 S. Florida 15:09 8324-4 F 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.262 33 24 15:09 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.252 41 N. Georgia 15:09 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.312 31 S. Florida 15:09 8324-13 F 8324 South BC 12-Jun 1 1 8324 South TT 13-Jun 1 1 8324 South T T 13-Jun 1 1 8324 South TT 13-Jun 1 1 8324 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.736 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-7 F 8324 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.025 28 24 15:09 8324-2 M 8324 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.314 31 S. Florida 15:09 8324-9 M 8324 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.587 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-11 M 8324 South SB 11-Jun 2 1 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.518 32 N. Georgia 15:09 8324-6 F 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 8324 South SB 11-Jun 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 376

376 8324 South GA 11 Jun 1 1 8324 South GA 11-Jun 1 1 8324 South TT 11-Jun 3 1 13-Jul 1.787 32 S. Florida 15:09 8324 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.683 33 N. Georgia 15:09 8324 South TT 11-Jun 1 1 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.604 31 S. Florida 15:09 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.541 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.619 31 S. Florida 15:09 8336-1 M 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.453 31 S. Florida 15:09 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 24-Jul 41 S. Florida 15:09 8336-3 M 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.812 26 S. Florida 15:09 8336-4 M 8336 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.525 31 S. Florida 15:09 8336-2 F 8336 South SB 13-Jun 3 1 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.404 40 S. Florida 15:09 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 0 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 8336 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 8336 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 23-Ju l 1.734 38 N. Georgia 15:09 8336-5 M 8336 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 8336 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 8336 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 0.972 34 24 15:09 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 0 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.53 32 S. Florida 15:09 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.691 26 S. Florida 15:09 8341-1 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 377

377 8341 South TT 16 Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.465 26 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-8 M 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.33 29 24 15:09 8341-5 M 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8 341 South SB 15-Jun 1 0 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.601 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-15 M 8341 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.205 30 24 15:09 8341-9 M 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.245 28 S. Florida 15:09 8341-2 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.343 29 S. Florida 15:09 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.485 28 S. Florida 15:09 8341 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 14-J ul 1.124 29 S. Florida 15:09 8341-4 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8341 South TT 16-Jun 2 1 14-Jul 1.566 28 S. Florida 15:09 8341-7 M 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.547 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.519 28 N. Georgia 15: 09 8341-12 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.765 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-11 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.49 28 S. Florida 15:09 8341-6 M 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.244 28 S. Florida 15:09 8341-3 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.41 3 7 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-9 F 8341 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.596 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-13 M 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.612 30 24 15:09 8341-24 F 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 34 24 15:09 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.534 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-16 M 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.278 33 S. Florida 15:09 8341 South TT 15Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.583 38 N. Georgia 15:09 8341-17 F 8341 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.592 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8341 South W 15-Jun 3 1 8341 South W 15-Jun 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 378

378 8341 South W 15 Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 0.973 25 S. Florida 15:09 8341 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.423 32 S. Florida 15:09 8341-19 F 8341 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8341 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.319 36 S. Florida 15:09 8341-18 M 8341 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.511 32 24 15:09 8341 South BC 17-Ju n 1 1 20-Jul 1.326 33 24 15:09 8341-12 M 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.387 32 24 15:09 8341-10 F 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.188 32 24 15:09 8341-22 F 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.368 32 24 15:09 8341-14 M 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.109 32 24 15:09 8341-20 F 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 0.926 31 24 15:09 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.202 32 24 15:09 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.235 32 24 15:09 8341-21 F 8341 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.203 32 24 15:09 8341-23 F 8344 South TT 12-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.058 33 24 15:09 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.108 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.225 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8344-1 F 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.041 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8344-2 M 8344 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8344 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 8344 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 8348 South TT 17-Jun 4 1 23-Jul 1.43 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8348-10 F 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.47 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8348-9 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 379

379 8348 South TT 17 Jun 1 1 15 Jul 1.101 28 24 15:09 8348 7 F 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.536 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.531 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.32 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.346 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8348-4 F 8348 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.183 27 S. Florida 15:09 8348-6 F 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.136 31 N. Georgia 15:09 8348-2 F 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.251 31 S. Florida 15:09 8348-8 F 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.898 32 24 15:09 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.891 32 24 15:09 8348-11 M 8348 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8348 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8348 South SB 16-Jun 1 1 8348 South BC 18-Jun 1 1 20-Jul 1.323 32 24 15:09 8348-1 F 8348 So uth BC 18-Jun 1 1 27-Jul 1.313 39 S. Florida 15:09 8348 South BC 18-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.313 31 24 15:09 8348-5 F 8348 South BC 18-Jun 1 1 20-Jul 1.234 32 24 15:09 8348-3 M 8348 South BC 14-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.102 31 24 15:09 8349 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 8353 South BC 13-Jun 1 1 8353 South W 13-Jun 1 1 8353 South W 13-Jun 1 1 8353 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 8353 South SB 13-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.197 28 S. Florida 15:09 8353 South SB 15-Jun 3 1 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.201 28 S. Florida 15:09 8353-4 M 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 10-Jul 1.076 25 S. Florida 15:09 8353-1 M 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 11-Jul 1.328 26 S. Florida 15:09 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.324 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8353 South SB 15-Jun 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 380

380 8353 South SB 15 Jun 1 1 8353 South TT 16-Jun 3 1 14-Jul 1.597 28 S. Florida 15:09 8353-2 F 8353 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8353 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.29 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8353 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.277 28 24 15:09 8353-6 M 8353 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.253 28 24 15:09 8353-5 M 8353 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 8353 South SB 17-Jun 3 1 17-Jul 1.626 30 S. Florida 15:09 8353-6 F 8353 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8353 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.467 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8353-8 F 8353 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.434 36 S. Florida 15:09 8354 South TT 16-Jun 3 1 16-Jul 1.651 30 S. Florida 15:09 8354(1) F 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 0 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 9 -Jul 1.344 23 S. Florida 15:09 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.608 37 S. Florida 15:09 8354-18 M 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.57 37 S. Florida 15:09 8354-4 F 8354 South TT 16-J un 1 1 17-Jul 1.285 31 S. Florida 15:09 8354-1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.267 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8354-25 M 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.506 28 S. Florida 15:09 8354-23 F 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.727 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 4 -Aug 1.344 49 S. Florida 15:09 8354-21 F 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.553 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8354 South GA 15-Jun 3 1 8354 South GA 15-Jun 1 1 9 -Aug 0.834 55 24 15:09 8354 South GA 15-Jun 1 1 9 -Aug 0.834 55 24 15:09 8354 South GA 15-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 17-Jun 2 1 23-Jul 1.617 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8354-15 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.321 31 S. Florida 1 5:09 8354-3 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 381

381 8354 South TT 17 Jun 1 1 15 Jul 1.218 28 24 15:09 8354 16 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.457 31 S. Florida 15:09 8354-6 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.36 38 24 15:09 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.958 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.639 29 S. Florida 15:09 8354-17 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.406 31 24 15:09 8354-7 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.4 73 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8354-13 F 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.602 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8354-19 M 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.506 34 S. Florida 15:09 8354-2 M 8354 South SB 19-Ju n 1 1 8354 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8354 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8354 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 2 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 27-Jul 1.296 40 24 15:09 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 24-Jul 1.178 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8354-9 F 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 8354 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.203 30 24 15: 09 8354-14 M 8354 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 20-Jul 1.265 31 24 15:09 8354-10 F 8354 South SB 20-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.145 27 24 15:09 8354-7 M 8354 South SB 20-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.179 27 24 15:09 8354-8 F 8354 South SB 21-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 26 24 15:09 8354-22 F 8354 South BC 22-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.406 33 24 15:09 8354 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.215 33 24 15:09 8354-11 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 382

382 8354 South BC 22 Jun 1 1 27 Jul 1.162 35 24 15:09 8354 South BC 22-Jun 1 1 25-Jul 1.416 33 24 15:09 8354 South BC 22-Jun 1 1 26-Jul 1.406 34 24 15:09 8354 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 27-Jul 1.036 39 24 15:09 8354-20 F 8354 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 4 -Aug 1.344 43 24 15:09 8354 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 4 -Aug 1.023 43 24 15:09 8354 South SB 22-Jun 1 1 5 -Aug 1.252 44 24 15:09 8355 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8355 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.67 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8355-8 F 8355 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.23 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8355 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.76 29 S. Florida 15:09 8355-5 F 8355 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.26 30 24 15:09 8355-13 F 8355 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 8355 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8355 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.563 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8355-12 F 8355 South TT 16Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.428 28 S. Florida 15:09 8355-1 F 8355 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.548 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8355-9 F 8355 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.488 28 S. Florida 15:09 8355 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.457 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8355-4 M 8355 South W 19-Jun 1 1 8355 South W 19-Jun 1 1 8355 South TT 18-Ju n 7 1 17-Jul 1.51 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8355-10 M 8355 South TT 18-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.682 29 S. Florida 15:09 8355-3 F 8355 South TT 18-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.343 27 S. Florida 15:09 8355 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 8355 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 8355 South T T 17-Jun 1 1 8355 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8355 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.107 30 24 15:09 8355 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.212 34 N. Georgia 15:09 8355 South BC 19Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.434 34 S. Florida 15:09 8355-2 F 8355 South BC 19-Jun 1 1 8355 South SB 16-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 33 S. Florida 15:09 8355-6 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 383

383 8355 South SB 17 Jun 1 1 19 Jul 1.53 32 S. Florida 15:09 8355 7 M 8355 South BC 18-Jun 7 1 19-Jul 1.3 31 S. Florida 15:09 8355-11 M 8356 South TT 13-Jun 1 1 8356 South SB 20-Jun 1 1 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.73 28 N. Georgia 15:09 8356-3 F 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.346 37 N. Georgia 15:09 8356-4 M 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 13-Jul 1.302 27 S. Florida 15:09 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8356 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 16-Jul 1.178 30 N. Georgia 15:09 8356-1 M 8356 South GA 19-Jun 5 0 8356 South SB 18-Jun 2 1 11-Jul 0.924 23 S. Florida 15:09 8356 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 8356 South TT 19-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.633 25 S. Florida 15:09 8356 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.36 31 24 15:09 8356-2 F 8356 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.067 30 24 15:09 83563 M 8356 South BC 17-Jun 1 1 17-Jul 1.194 30 24 15:09 8359 South TT 15-Jun 3 1 13-Jul 1 .331 28 S. Florida 15:09 8359-1 M 8359 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.374 29 S. Florida 15:09 8359-2 M 8360 South SB 18-Jun 1 1 8360 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1.286 29 24 15:09 8360 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 8360 South TT 15-Jun 1 1 14-Jul 1. 554 29 S. Florida 15:09 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.615 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.587 28 S. Florida 15:09 8360-1 M 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.673 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 15-Jul 1.683 2 8 N. Georgia 15:09 8360-5 M 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.578 31 S. Florida 15:09 8360-4 F 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.409 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8360-2 F 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 23-Jul 1.485 36 N. Georgia 15:09 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 14-Ju l 1.276 27 24 15:09 8360-7 M 8360 South TT 17-Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 384

384 8360 South SB 17 Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 17-Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 1.581 29 N. Georgia 15:09 8360-6 M 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 30 24 15:09 8360-3 F 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 8360 South SB 19-Jun 1 1 19-Jul 1.027 30 24 15:09 8360 South TT 16-Jun 2 1 8360 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8360 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 8360 South TT 16-Jun 1 1 18-Jul 32 S. Florida 15:09 8360-8 F 8360 South BC 17-Jun 7 1 19-Jul 1.826 32 24 15:09 8391 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.178 30 S. Florida 15:09 8394-2 F 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.074 28 S. Florida 15:09 8394-8 F 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.124 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-20 F 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 12-Sep 1.117 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-21 F 8394 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within GA 4 -Aug 1 0 24 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 0.91 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 19-Sep 0.946 46 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 385

385 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 15-Sep 0.863 42 Lansing, Michiga n 15:09 8394-18 F 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 6 -Sep 0.99 33 S. Florida 15:09 F 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.08 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 F 8394 W ithin SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 0.92 29 S. Florida 15:09 8394-23 M 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 10-Sep dead 37 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 0.846 34 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.043 29 S. Florida 15:09 8394-22 M 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.105 29 Lansing, M ichigan 15:09 8394-9 M 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.012 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 15-Sep 0.866 42 MI 15:09 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 4 -Sep 0.818 31 S. Florida 15:09 8394-2 4 M 8394 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 17-Sep 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 15-Sep 1.093 41 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-19 M 8394 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.186 29 S. Florida 15:09 8394-4 F 8394 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.269 28 S. Florida 15:09 8394-6 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 386

386 8394 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.102 28 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 F 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.225 29 S. Florida 15:09 8394-1 F 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.031 34 S. Florida 15:09 8394-7 M 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 1 -Sep 1.315 27 S. Florida 15:09 8394-5 M 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.118 29 S. Florida 15:09 8394-10 F 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 30-Aug 1.087 26 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.082 29 S. Florida 15: 09 8394-3 M 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.289 30 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-11 F 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 5 -Sep 1.166 31 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-15 M 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.005 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-13 M 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.256 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-12 F 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.1 29 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-14 F 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.07 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8394-16 M 8394 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 0.863 34 Lansing, Mic higan 15:09 8394-17 M 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 28 S. Florida 15:09 8394 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 1 -Sep 0.9 27 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 8 -Sep 0.926 35 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 29 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 30 S. Florida 15:09 8403 -10 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 387

387 8403 Within SB 4 Aug 1 1 9 Sep 1.245 36 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.01 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-14 M 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 4 -Aug 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15: 09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.138 30 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.3 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-7 M 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 9 -Sep 1.032 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-1 5 F 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 30 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 30 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 5 -Sep 1.134 32 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.194 29 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1 .237 30 S. Florida 15:09 8403-3 M 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 28-Aug 24 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 388

388 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 9 -Sep 1.269 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-6 F 8403 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within SB 5 -Aug 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 5 -Sep 1.263 32 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-8 M 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 9 -Sep 1.242 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.205 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-13 M 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 0 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 4 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.109 29 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.107 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.195 29 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 4 -Sep 1.095 31 24 15:09 8403-1 F 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Wi thin TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 389

389 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Mi chigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 1 -Sep 1.163 28 S. Florida 15:09 8403-11 M 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep 1.262 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 3 -Sep 1.07 30 S. Florida 15:09 8403-9 M 8403 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 8 -Sep dead 34 24 15:09 8403 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 8 -Sep 1.522 34 24 15:09 8403-5 F 8403 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 7 -Sep dead 33 24 15:09 8403 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 8 -Sep 1.1 34 24 15:09 8403-14 M 8403 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within SB 6 -Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8403 Within TT 6 -Aug 1 1 11-Sep 0.954 36 S. Florida 15:09 8403 Within TT 6 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 6 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.391 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within T T 5 -Aug 1 1 11-Sep 1.032 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 6 -Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403 Within TT 5 -Aug 1 1 9 -Sep 1.028 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8403-12 F 8403 Within SB 6 -Aug 1 1 6 -Sep 1.211 31 S. Florida 15:09 8404 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.26 29 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8404-1 M 8404 Within TT 4 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.144 29 S. Florida 15:09 8404 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 2 -Sep 1.16 28 S. Florida 15:09 8404 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 19-Sep 1.224 45 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8404 Wi thin BC 5 -Aug 1 1 13-Sep 1.567 39 S. Florida 15:09 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 390

390 8404 Within BC 5 Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8404 Within BC 5 -Aug 1 1 9 -Sep 0.947 35 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 21-Sep 1.05 31 24 15:09 8409-2 M 8409 Nort h TT 21-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 20-Sep 30 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 M 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 20-Sep 30 S. Florida 15:09 M 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 29-Sep 0.682 39 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 27 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 1 -Oct 41 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 2 -Oct 1.019 42 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 20-Sep 0.873 32 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 22-Sep 0.782 34 S. F lorida 15:09 8409 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.661 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 23-Sep 0.656 34 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 11-Oct 0.611 52 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409-3 M 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 28-Sep 0.768 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409-4 M 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 20-Sep 0.9 31 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 0 24 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 28-Sep 0.702 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 391

391 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 8 -Oct 0.964 45 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8409 North SB 24-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North BC 24-Aug 1 1 23-Sep 0.837 30 S. Florida 15:09 8409 North GA 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8409 North SB 20-Aug 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 27-Sep 1.11 38 24 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.723 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 11-Oct 0.711 52 Lansing, Mich igan 15:09 8412-3 M 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 20-Sep 0.722 31 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 0 24 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.856 3 6 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.783 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendi x G. Continued.

PAGE 392

392 8412 North SB 20 Aug 1 1 1 Oct dead 42 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 10-Oct 0.856 51 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 Nort h SB 20-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 27-Sep 0.719 38 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 24-Sep 0.768 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North SB 20-Aug 1 1 22-Sep 0.891 33 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 21-Sep 0.942 32 S. Florida 15:09 8412-2 F 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 18-Sep 0.885 29 24 15:09 8412 North TT 20-Aug 1 1 21-Sep 0.987 32 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 2 -Oct 0.718 44 Lansing, Michigan 15: 09 8412 North BC 23-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8412 North BC 23-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 1.014 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North BC 23-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North TT 23-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.892 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8412 North TT 23-Aug 1 1 2 5 -Sep 0.877 33 S. Florida 15:09 8412 North BC 23-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 23-Sep 1.162 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 F 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 0.996 29 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 15-Sep 0.937 27 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 22-Sep 1.084 34 S. Florida 15:09 8413-1 F 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 0.762 29 S. Florida 15:09 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 393

393 8413 North TT 19 Aug 1 1 20 Sep 0.81 3 32 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 0.949 29 S. Florida 15:09 F 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 19-Sep 1.065 31 S. Florida 15:09 F 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 0.938 29 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 23-Sep 1.072 35 Lansi ng, Michigan 15:09 8413 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North SB 19-Aug 1 1 27-Sep 0.662 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 24-Sep 0.894 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413-12 M 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 24-Sep 1.0 97 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413-13 M 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 25-Sep 0.925 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413-14 M 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 23-Sep 0.963 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 24-Sep 0.963 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413-1 5 M 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 28-Sep 0.864 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 13-Sep 0.977 25 S. Florida 15:09 8413-11 M 8413 North TT 19 -Aug 1 1 26-Sep 0.741 38 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 21-Sep 0.97 33 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 15-Sep 0.814 27 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 17-Sep 0.926 29 S. Florida 15:09 8413-16 M 8413 North BC 21-Aug 1 0 24 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 27-Sep 0.928 39 24 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 26-Sep 0.928 38 S. Florida 15:09 8413 North TT 19-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 394

394 8413 North TT 20 Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8421 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8421 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 24 15:09 8421 North TT 21-Aug 1 1 26-Sep 0.905 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8421-1 F 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 0.796 34 Lansing, Mic higan 15:09 8424-3 M 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 1 15-Oct 0.875 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424-4 F 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8424 North SB 8 -Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 1 -Oct 0.606 28 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 4 -Oct 0.648 31 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8424 North SB 3 -Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8424 North TT 2 -Sep 1 1 1 -Oct 0.786 29 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North TT 2 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North TT 2 -Sep 1 1 30-Sep 1.096 28 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North TT 5 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 0.936 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 395

395 8424 North TT 5 Sep 1 1 2 Oct 0.728 27 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North TT 5 -Sep 1 1 9 -Oct 1.124 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424-5 F 8424 North TT 8 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 0.823 1129 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424-6 F 8424 North TT 5 -Sep 1 1 5 -Oct 0.852 30 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North TT 5 -Sep 1 1 2 -Oct 1.08 27 S. Florida 15:09 M 8424 North TT 5 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 0.761 32 24 15:09 8424 North SB 4 -Sep 1 1 9 -Oct 0.65 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8424 North SB 4 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 4 -Sep 1 1 2 -Oct 0.642 28 S. Florida 15:09 8424 North SB 4 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8426 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 30-Sep 28 S. Florida 15:09 F 8426 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 11-Oct 0.876 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8426 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 0.824 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8426-1 M 8426 Nort h BC 2 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 0.99 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8426 North BC 4 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8426 North BC 4 -Sep 1 1 2 -Oct 1.057 28 S. Florida 15:09 8426 North SB 2 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8426 North SB 2 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Mic higan 15:09 8426 North SB 2 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8426 North SB 2 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8426 North TT 2 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8426 North TT 2 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 396

396 8428 North BC 2 Sep 1 1 2 Oct 0.824 30 24 15:09 8428 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 12-Oct 0.825 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8428 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 4 -Oct 0.745 32 S. Florida 15:09 8428 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 F 8428 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8428 North BC 2 -Sep 1 1 7 -Oct 1.052 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8428-1 M 8428 North SB 2 -Sep 1 1 2 -Oct 0.79 30 S. Florida 15:09 8430 North TT 3 -Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8430 North TT 3 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 1 5:09 8430 North TT 3 -Sep 1 1 1 -Oct 1.169 28 S. Florida 15:09 8430-1 F 8430 North TT 3 -Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8430 North TT 3 -Sep 1 1 28-Sep 1.03 25 24 15:09 8438 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 15:09 8438 North SB 19-Sep 1 0 15:09 8438 Nor th SB 19-Sep 1 0 15:09 8446 North SB 16-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North SB 16 -Sep 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North SB 16-Sep 1 1 21-Oct 0.807 35 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North SB 16-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8446 No rth SB 16-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North SB 16-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8446 North SB 16-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 9 -Oct 0.799 21 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North SB 15-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Append ix G. Continued.

PAGE 397

397 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 25-Oct 1.128 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446-4 M 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 21-Oct 1.459 32 S. Florida 15:09 8446-1 M 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 25-Oct 0.914 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446-3 F 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 1.211 41 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North BC 19-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 1.139 35 24 15:09 8446-5 M 8446 North SB 24-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 0.94 30 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North SB 20-Sep 1 1 17-Oct 0 .871 27 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446 North SB 20-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 0.838 34 24 15:09 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.765 32 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 19-Oct 1.135 31 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 19-Oct 31 S. Florida 15:09 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 19-Oct 1.357 31 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8446-2 F 8446 North TT 18-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.96 30 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 15-Oct 0.731 28 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 22-Oct 0.767 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 0.682 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-6 F 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 28-Oct 1.017 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 398

398 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 1.074 42 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-7 M 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.907 30 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.184 34 24 15:09 8454-1 M 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 15-Oct 0.964 27 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.999 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-8 M 8454 North TT 15 -Sep 1 1 10-Oct 0.846 25 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.832 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-9 M 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 19-Oct 1.027 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-10 F 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 13-Oct 1.003 28 S. Florida 15:09 8454-11 F 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 14-Oct 0.781 29 24 15:09 8454-2 M 8454 North TT 15-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 399

399 8454 North BC 13-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.571 37 Lansing, Mich igan 15:09 8454-12 M 8454 North BC 13-Sep 1 1 15-Oct 0.682 32 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 13-Sep 1 1 9 -Oct 0.834 26 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 13-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 27-Oct 0.805 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-13 F 8454 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 0.768 47 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454-14 F 8454 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 15-Oct 0.815 32 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North TT 13-Sep 1 1 11-Oct 1.03 28 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North TT 13-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North TT 13-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 19-Oct 0.757 32 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 Lansing, M ichigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.657 31 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 0.67 37 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 15-Sep 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North BC 1 5 -Sep 1 1 22-Oct 1.001 37 24 15:09 8454-3 F 8454 North BC 15-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.826 31 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 28-Oc t 0.932 41 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 400

400 8454 North SB 17 Sep 1 1 28 Oct 41 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.751 33 S. Florida 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 25-Oct 0.742 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 Nor th SB 17-Sep 1 0 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 24 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 0 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 15:09 8454 North BC 18-Sep 1 1 15:09 8454 North SB 1 7 -Sep 1 1 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 0.747 37 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 27-Oct 0.784 40 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 24-Oct 0.623 37 24 15:09 8454-4 M 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 22-Oct 0.788 35 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 22-Oct 0.72 35 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 27-Oct 0.656 40 24 15:09 8454-4 F 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.904 31 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 18-Oct 0.674 31 24 15:09 8454-5 F 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 20-Oct 0.782 33 24 15:09 8454 North SB 17-Sep 1 1 30-Oct 0.65 43 24 15:09 8455 North SB 13-Sep 1 1 19-Oct dead 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Mi chigan 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.215 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.194 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 401

401 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 Lansi ng, Michigan 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 0.931 33 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.121 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.185 27 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.321 25 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.133 37 S. Florida 15:09 8469-19 F 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 0.978 31 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.096 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 4 -Dec 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469-17 F 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 0.98 31 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469-9 M 8469 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 26-Nov 1.029 27 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.801 36 S. Florida 15:09 8469-2 M 8469 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.701 36 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.122 43 S. Florida 15:09 8469-23 F 8469 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.927 37 S. Florida 15:09 8469-15 M 8469 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.12 41 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469-18 F 8469 South BC 29-O ct 1 1 3 -Dec 0.942 35 S. Florida 15:09 8469 South SB 28-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.048 32 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8469-4 M 8469 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 15-Dec 1.255 45 24 15:09 8469-22 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 402

402 8469 South BC 31 Oct 1 1 15 Dec 0.972 45 24 15:09 8469 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 0.921 39 24 15:09 8469 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 0.851 39 24 15:09 8469 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.039 35 24 15:09 8470 South SB 1 -Nov 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South TT 1 -Nov 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.277 33 S. Florida 15:09 8470-14 M 8470 South BC 1 -Nov 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South GA 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.243 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-7 M 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-13 F 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.152 35 S. Florida 15:09 8470-12 F 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 29-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 403

403 8470 South SB 29 Oct 1 1 25 Nov 1.139 27 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.102 27 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 10-Dec 1.295 41 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.122 34 S. Florida 15:09 8470-8 F 8470 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.093 26 S. Flo rida 15:09 8470 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.249 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-16 M 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.295 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-11 M 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 10-Dec 41 L ansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-9 F 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 0.981 34 S. Florida 15:09 8470-5 M 8470 South B C 30-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.139 36 S. Florida 15:09 8470-18 M 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-6 F 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.069 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-4 M 8470 Sout h BC 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.914 36 S. Florida 15:09 8470-15 M 8470 South GA 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 404

404 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.279 31 Lansing, Michigan 15: 09 8470-10 F 8470 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.071 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8470-17 F 8470 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South BC 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South GA 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8470 South GA 30-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8470 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 12-Dec 1.204 42 24 15:09 8470-1 F 8470 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 12-Dec 1.348 42 24 15:09 8470 South BC 31-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.232 41 24 15:09 8470 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.236 39 24 15:09 8470-3 M 8470 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.005 39 24 15:09 8470 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 10-Dec 0.953 40 24 15:09 8470-2 F 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.023 32 S. Florida 15:09 8471-13 M 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South SB 21-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.11 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-3 M 8471 South SB 21-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 26-Nov 1.139 35 S. Florida 15:09 8471-9 M 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.317 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-5 F 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.147 42 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-8 M 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.198 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 405

405 8471 South BC 22 Oct 1 1 1 Dec 1.288 40 S. Florida 15:09 8471 10 F 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.357 48 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-1 M 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.181 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-14 M 8471 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 0.935 35 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.012 36 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 28 S. Florida 15:09 M 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.396 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South BC 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South TT 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8471 South SB 24-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.255 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.226 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-6 F 8471 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.43 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-15 M 8471 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.071 26 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 24-Nov 1.029 25 S. Florida 15:09 8471-12 M 8471 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 2 -Dec 1.053 35 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.179 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-7 M 8471 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 0.953 3 6 S. Florida 15:09 8471-11 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 406

406 8471 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.088 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471-2 M 8471 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8471 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.331 31 S. Florida 15:09 8471 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.915 38 24 15:09 8471-16 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.135 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 27 S. Florida 15:09 M 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 Lansi ng, Michigan 15:09 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 24-Nov 0.816 32 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.128 45 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-22 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.143 31 S. Florida 15:09 8479-12 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.42 31 S. Florida 15:09 8479-13 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 26-Nov 1.07 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.195 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-11 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.185 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-2 F 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.113 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-35 F 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 1. 469 27 S. Florida 15:09 8479-1 M 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.071 32 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.183 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-34 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 407

407 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.147 36 Lansing Michigan 15:09 8479-9 M 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.182 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-6 F 8479 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.107 40 24 15:09 8479-4 F 8479 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8479 So uth TT 31-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South BC 1 -Nov 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 5 -Dec 1.129 34 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-10 M 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 7 -Dec 1.188 36 L ansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-29 F 8479 South SB 1 -Nov 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 1.244 40 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-28 F 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 28-Nov 1.147 27 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 1 5:09 8479 South TT 30-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.224 30 S. Florida 15:09 8479-5 M 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 31-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 1 -Nov 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 1 -Nov 1 1 9 -Dec 1.266 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-19 F 8479 South SB 1 -Nov 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 408

408 8479 South SB 31-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 31-Oct 1 0 15:09 8479 South SB 31-Oct 1 0 15:09 8479 South SB 30-Oct 1 0 15:09 8479 South SB 30-Oct 1 0 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Flo rida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.104 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-30 M 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.208 33 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oc t 1 1 27-Nov 1.121 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.247 35 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-26 M 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.983 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-7 M 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.353 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-24 M 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 10-Dec 1.376 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-21 F Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 409

409 8479 South SB 27 Oct 1 1 27 Nov 1.054 31 S. Florida 15:09 8479 14 F 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 24-Nov 1.263 28 S. Florida 15:09 8479-15 M 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.169 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-31 F 8479 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South TT 2 7 -Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 24-Nov 1.319 28 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.238 31 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South TT 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.146 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-25 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.511 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.28 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-3 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.127 41 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-33 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 1.287 27 S. Florida 15:09 8479-16 F 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 20-No v 1.028 28 S. Florida 15:09 8479-17 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 27 S. Florida 15:09 M 8479 South TT 23-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.03 41 24 15:09 8479-36 F 8479 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 0.945 37 S. Florida 15:09 8479 -8 M Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 410

410 8479 South BC 23 Oct 1 1 28 Nov 1.162 36 S. Florida 15:09 8479 29 F 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 17-Dec 0.98 55 S. Florida 1 5:09 8479-20 F 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South GA 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 6 -Dec 1.038 44 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.508 33 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.024 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-32 F 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.073 35 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1 .227 41 24 15:09 8479-18 F 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8479 South SB 23 -Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.24 39 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-23 M 8479 South GA 27-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 0.914 45 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8479-27 M 8482 South GA 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8482 South BC 27-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.228 41 24 15:09 8479-37 F 8482 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 15:09 8482 South SB 28-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.204 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482-4 F 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 0.986 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482-2 M 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.19 29 S. Florida 15:09 8482-6 F 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.178 29 S. Florida 15:09 8482-3 F Appendix G. Co ntinued.

PAGE 411

411 8482 South TT 27 Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 29-Nov dead 33 S. Florida 15:09 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482 South TT 28-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.179 26 S. Florida 15:09 8482-5 F 8482 South TT 2 7 -Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.076 35 S. Florida 15:09 8482 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.135 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482-1 M 8482 South SB 28-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8482 South SB 26-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.337 42 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482-7 F 8482 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.43 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8482-8 M 8485 South SB 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.081 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 21-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South BC 21-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 21-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.141 43 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1. 252 34 S. Florida 15:09 8482-3 F 8485 South GA 21-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.297 50 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 21-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.135 37 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-3 F 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.02 34 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 21-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 1.191 33 S. Florida 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 412

412 8485 South TT 22 Oct 1 1 18 Nov 27 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 21-Oct 1 1 19-Nov 1.631 29 S. Florida 15:09 8485-1 M 8485 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.198 34 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 9 -Dec 0.737 48 S. Florida 15:09 8485-9 F 8485 South SB 21-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South GA 21-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South TT 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 30-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South TT 31-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 30-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.146 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-11 M 8485 South W 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South W 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South W 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 24 15:09 8485 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 27-Nov 1.146 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-2 F 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 23-Nov 0.829 32 S. Florida 15:09 8485-10 M 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.857 44 24 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South SB 22-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 Appendix G. Continued.

PAGE 413

413 8485 South TT 22-Oct 1 1 29-Nov 1.364 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 28-Oct 1 0 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 28-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South SB 28-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South BC 23-Oct 1 0 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South BC 23-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South SB 23-Oct 1 1 25-Nov 1.29 33 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-7 M 8485 South BC 23-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South BC 24-Oct 1 0 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 0 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 15:09 8485 South BC 22-Oct 1 1 15:09 8485 South TT 28-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South W 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.287 45 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-8 F 8485 South TT 27-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 8485 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 11-Dec 1.143 44 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 28-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.167 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-5 M 8485 South TT 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 0.86 38 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 28-Oct 1 0 24 15:09 Appendix G. Conti nued.

PAGE 414

414 8485 South BC 28 Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South TT 28-Oct 1 1 3 -Dec 1.353 36 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8485-6 F 8485 South W 27-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8485 South BC 28-Oct 1 1 S. Florida 15:09 8488 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1 .129 35 24 15:09 8485-4 M 8505 South SB 27-Oct 1 1 1 -Dec 1.042 35 24 15:09 8508 South TT 28-Oct 1 1 5 -Dec 1.254 38 Lansing, Michigan 15:09 8488-1 M 8508 South SB 29-Oct 1 1 30-Nov 1.004 32 S. Florida 15:09 M 8508 South BC 25-Oct 1 1 7 -Dec 1.052 43 S. Florida 15:09 8508-2 F 8508 South GA 27-Oct 1 0 8508 South GA 27-Oct 1 0

PAGE 415

415 APPENDIX H PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY

PAGE 416

416 Morphometrics Color values ID # Region Host plant pupa weight (grams) Temp. (C) Sex FWL WABB WAC HWL HWSMB FWSMB TS L a b 7067-2 South BC 1.06 35 F 52 2 5 52 13 7 C 14.8 5.15 16.56 7067-1 South SB 1.28 35 F 60 2 5 59 15 9 C 78.9 6.54 67.06 7068-1 South SB 1.13 35 F 55 2 5 52 14 9 SC 80.5 4.68 55.29 7068-2 South SB 1.34 35 F 58 2 5 56 13 8 C 75.7 6.47 61.03 7068-3 South SB 1.17 20 F 56 2 5 55 14 10 C 79.4 6.98 62.08 7068-4 South SB 1.36 17 M 59 2 5 59 14 8 C 83.4 4.2 56.72 7068-6 South SB 1.34 35 M 54 2 5 55 13 8 C 82.3 5.72 62.55 7068-7 South SB 1.40 35 M 58 2 5 56 13 8 C 83.5 4.27 56.36 7068-8 South SB 1.18 24 M 57 2 5 57 14 8 C 85.7 4.45 56.93 7068-9 South SB 0.97 35 M 54 2 5 54 13 8 C 82.5 6 65.36 7068-10 South SB 1.54 17 F 78.4 5.76 62.41 7068-5 South SB 1.27 17 F 58 2 6 58 14 9 C 76.4 8.47 70.12 7071-7 South SB 0.79 35 F 44 2 5 45 11 5 C 707110 So uth SB 1.05 35 M 52 2 5 51 12 8 C 82.3 4.7 57.98 7071-1 South TT 1.11 35 M 55 2 6 53 13 8 C 81.6 4.26 54.55 7071-2 South TT 0.96 35 M 51 2 6 51 14 8 C 82.6 4.47 57.54 7071-4 South TT 0.97 35 M 52 2 5 51 11 7 C 82.4 3.95 55.74 7071-5 South TT 1.25 35 M 56 2 5 55 12 8 C 78.9 3.52 56.94 7071-6 South TT 1.05 35 M 55 2 6 57 11 8 C 81.3 4.44 58.02 7071-8 South TT 0.89 35 M 50 2 5 51 12 8 C 79.5 5.83 61.42 7071-13 South BC 0.93 35 M 46 2 5 47 9 6 C 81.1 3.45 56.77 7071-15 South BC 0.94 35 F 46 2 5 51 11 6 C 7071-17 South BC 1.15 24 F 57 3 6 55 13 9 C 77.5 4.61 58.54 7071-18 South BC 1.22 17 F 59 2 5 57 15 9 C 78 6.01 61.6 7071-3 South TT 0.96 35 M 53 2 5 53 12 7 C 81.4 5.29 60.21 7071-9 South TT 0.90 35 M 53 2 5 54 12 5 SC 81.2 4.33 57.55 7071-12 So uth TT 1.32 24 M 60 2 5 57 13 8 C 84 5.13 58.46 Appendix H. Continued. 7071-11 South SB 1.27 17 F 53 2 5 51 13 9 C 77.5 6.63 62.33 7071-14 South SB 1.41 20 F 58 3 6 58 13 9 C 75.5 7.48 63.6

PAGE 417

417 7072 1 South TT 0.85 20 M 55 2 6 55 13 8 I 83.6 4.61 54.35 7 072-2 South TT 0.85 17 M 53 2 5 53 13 7 SC 82.7 5 59.16 7072-7 South TT 1.14 35 F 52 2 5 49 12 8 C 19.5 5.35 22.82 7072-8 South SB 1.52 35 F 61 2 6 59 15 10 SC 77.8 7.82 65.61 7072-3 South SB 1.36 35 F 55 2 5 55 13 9 I 15.5 6.27 18.42 7072-17 South SB 1.34 17 F 60 1 5 59 13 9 C 15.7 4.85 16.02 7072-16 South BC 1.23 17 F 58 2 5 58 13 9 C 19.4 5.25 20.52 7072-20 South SB 35 F 57 2 6 56 13 10 c 80.5 4.53 59.03 7072-5 South SB 1.36 35 M 60 2 5 60 13 8 C 83.2 3.63 53.11 7072-4 South SB 1.18 35 M 51 2 6 52 13 8 C 83.6 3.91 56.2 7072-12 South SB 1.36 35 F 57 2 5 56 15 10 C 12.5 5.39 13.53 7072-6 South SB 0.74 35 M 48 2 5 49 10 7 C 81.9 4.03 56.02 7072-10 South SB 1.14 35 M 55 2 6 53 12 8 C 82.6 4.01 56.92 7072-19 South BC 35 M 53 2 5 51 10 7 sc 79.4 6 .82 65.26 7072-9 South SB 0.97 35 M 49 2 5 49 12 8 c 82.2 5.15 59.67 7072-15 South SB 1.16 20 F 57 2 6 57 14 8 C 15.6 5.32 16.87 7072-18 South SB 1.28 20 F 55 2 5 54 13 8 C 81.1 4.66 58.19 7072-22 South SB F 57 2 5 59 12 8 c 80.6 5.46 59.26 7072-11 South SB 0.82 35 F 50 2 5 52 14 8 C 20.2 6.28 18.49 7072-13 South SB 0.93 35 M 51 50 8 C 7073-3 South SB 1.40 35 F 61 2 5 59 15 10 C 77.9 7.28 65.77 7073-4 South SB 0.99 35 M 54 2 5 55 12 8 C 82.9 4.45 58.09 7073-5 South SB 0.98 35 M 54 2 6 55 12 8 C 83.3 4.99 62.71 7073-6 South SB 0.97 17 M 57 2 6 57 13 8 C 81.5 3.97 55.47 7073-1 South TT 1.52 20 F 61 2 6 61 13 10 C 76.4 8.11 66.11 7073-2 South TT 1.51 20 F 58 2 5 57 13 9 C 75.6 6.86 61.9 7073-7 South BC 1.37 17 F 60 2 6 58 15 9 C 79.5 6.29 6 0.35 7075-15 South TT 1.35 20 F 59 2 6 59 14 8 C 79.3 4.69 57.35 7075-16 South TT 1.18 35 F 55 2 6 54 14 8 C 77.2 5.06 57.38 7075-17 South TT 1.05 20 F 56 2 6 55 13 8 C 81.5 5.9 57.86 7075-1 South TT 1.27 35 M 55 2 6 53 13 8 SC Appendix H. Continu ed. 7075-2 South TT 1.19 35 F 54 2 6 55 12 9 C 7075-8 South SB 1.21 35 F 55 2 5 55 13 9 C

PAGE 418

418 7075 13 South SB 1.32 35 F 56 2 5 56 14 9 C 78.8 5.01 60.44 7075-14 South SB 0.91 35 F 48 2 5 48 10 5 SC 75.2 6.49 57.72 7075-3 South SB 1.33 35 M 58 2 5 5 5 14 8 SC 7075-4 South SB 1.24 35 M 58 2 6 58 14 8 C 7075-5 South SB 0.83 35 M 48 2 5 46 13 7 SC 7075-6 South SB 1.03 35 F 50 2 5 50 13 8 I 7075-7 South SB 1.22 35 M 56 2 5 54 12 8 SC 7075-9 South SB 1.13 35 F 52 2 5 48 12 9 C 7075-10 South SB 1.01 35 F 52 2 5 49 12 8 C 74 8.04 67.82 7075-11 South SB 1.11 20 M 56 2 6 54 13 8 C 7075-12 South SB 1.13 35 F 57 2 5 55 13 8 SC 72.7 10.35 70.23 7078-1 South TT 1.14 35 M 47 2 5 46 11 8 C 82 5.76 61.88 7078-2 South TT 1.17 20 M 54 2 6 55 11 7 C 83.5 3.87 58.66 7078-6 South TT 1.03 35 F 53 2 6 55 13 8 C 76.1 9.32 70.31 7078-7 South TT 1.18 17 M 55 2 6 12 8 82 4.64 57.01 7078-8 South TT 1.04 20 M 56 2 6 54 11 8 C 83.5 3.39 55.07 7078-11 South TT 1.14 20 M 57 1 5 57 13 9 C 82.5 3.64 58.19 7078-9 South BC 1.43 20 F 58 2 5 58 13 9 C 73.2 12.96 75.47 7078-14 South SB 1.12 20 M 52 2 5 52 12 8 C 82.9 3.8 53.75 7078-15 South SB 1.14 35 F 55 2 6 55 13 9 C 73.1 8.83 64.49 7078-12 South SB 1.01 24 F 56 2 5 54 13 9 C 73 11.44 68.62 7078-4 South SB 1.02 35 M 55 2 5 55 13 8 C 81 5.63 57.87 7078-5 South SB 0.75 35 M 47 2 5 47 11 7 C 80.3 5.79 59.5 7078-3 South SB 1.14 35 F 50 1 4 11 7 76 4.37 53.8 7078-10 South SB 1.03 35 F 58 2 5 56 15 10 C 78.8 7.63 68.34 7079-1 South SB 1.26 3 5 M 53 2 5 50 10 7 C 82.9 3.11 53.83 7079-2 South SB 0.97 20 F 50 2 5 48 11 7 C 23.8 5.59 25.93 7084-9 Within SB 1.05 35 M 53 2 5 51 12 8 C 82.7 5.07 59.42 7084-1 Within TT 0.98 35 M 55 2 6 54 11 8 C 82.2 5.43 59.62 7084-2 Within TT 0.97 35 F 51 2 5 48 13 8 C 7084-3 Within TT 1.09 35 F 62 3 7 61 14 10 C Appendix H. Continued. 7084-4 Within TT 0.71 35 F 47 2 5 44 10/ 5 C 7084-5 Within TT 0.92 35 M 56 2 6 55 12 8 C 82.7 3.76 57.93

PAGE 419

419 7084 6 Within SB 1.15 35 F 51 2 5 49 12 7 SC 77.4 8.91 70.46 7084-10 Within SB 0.97 35 M 52 1 5 51 12 7 C 83.1 5.74 62.67 7084-14 Within BC 1.09 35 F 56 2 5 55 13 8 C 82.4 5.42 57.44 7084-11 Within SB 0.96 24 M 51 2 5 49 12 8 C 83.4 4.54 59.33 7084-12 Within SB 1.10 20 M 1 5 54 13 8 C 7084-13 Within SB 1.1 3 17 M 54 2 5 52 13 8 C 84.7 4.3 56.59 7084-7 Within SB 1.33 20 M 58 2 6 58 14 8 C 82.3 6.1 63.24 7084-8 Within SB 1.24 24 F 54 2 6 51 14 9 C 79.5 5.92 60.51 7089-1 Within SB 1.02 35 M 7089-2 Within SB 1.33 35 F 55 2 5 10 C 7112-1 South SB 1.54 17 F 62 3 7 61 15 10 C 14.6 6 17.55 7112-2 South SB 1.39 20 M 59 3 7 60 14 8 C 7112-3 South SB 1.44 17 F 62 2 6 61 16 10 C 15.2 7.14 19.14 7147-1 South TT 1.25 17 M 55 2 5 54 11 8 C 82 6.35 68.06 7147-7 South TT 1.15 35 M 59 2 6 61 15 8 C 8 1.7 6.26 67.15 7147-2 South TT 1.20 24 M 61 2 7 63 15 10 C 79.9 8.58 68.87 7147-5 South TT 1.25 20 M 55 1 5 57 14 8 C 83.1 5.97 65.75 7147-6 South TT 1.16 35 M 58 2 6 54 11 7 C 7147-8 South TT 1.00 17 M 55 1 5 55 14 8 C 83.7 6.22 65.08 7147-13 Sout h TT 1.28 35 F 57 2 5 55 14 10 C 77.9 7.84 69.79 7147-14 South TT 1.34 35 F 43 2 5 40 11 83.4 5.58 63.07 7147-15 South TT 0.88 M 53 1 5 57 13 8 C 83.4 5.58 63.07 7147-3 South TT 1.13 35 F 58 2 5 56 13 8 C 79.4 7.31 67.91 7147-11 South TT 1.15 35 F 5 7 2 5 57 12 8 C 77.6 6.9 65.53 7147-10 South TT 1.11 35 M 52 2 5 55 14 7 C 81.3 6.01 63.59 7147-4 South TT 1.42 35 M 60 2 7 60 13 10 C 82.2 5.66 66.89 7147-9 South TT 1.32 35 F 61 2 6 61 15 10 C 76.5 10.48 77.5 7147-12 South TT 1.12 35 M 58 2 5 58 13 9 C 81.9 3.54 56.08 7147-17 South SB 1.34 17 F 61 1 5 60 14 9 C 78.6 7.11 63.74 7150-2 South TT 1.15 35 M 61 2 5 64 14 10 C 83.7 4.83 60.07 7150-3 South TT 1.55 35 M 53 2 5 52 13 11 C 82 4.52 58.73 Appendix H. Continued. 7150-1 South TT 1.52 35 M 54 2 6 53 14 9 C 82.6 5.29 62.84 7150-5 South TT 1.59 35 F 65 2 5 62 13 10 C 12.1 5.29 13.86

PAGE 420

420 7150 4 South SB 0.97 17 M 61 2 6 60 13 8 C 83.9 3.83 53.96 7150-6 South SB M 60 2 5 59 15 9 C 83.7 4.21 56.38 7150-7 South TT 20 F 60 2 5 60 16 9 C 14.5 5.89 17.4 7150-8 South SB 17 M 54 1 5 54 13 8 C 84.4 3.84 52.58 7150-9 South TT 17 F 62 2 6 60 16 10 C 11.1 6.55 14.03 7150-10 South TT 17 M 61 1 5 63 16 9 C 82.8 5.16 63.16 7150-11 South TT 35 M 81.3 4.3 58.32 7150-12 South TT 35 F 68 2 6 67 17 11 C 11.8 6.24 15.83 7150-14 South TT 35 M 59 2 6 59 15 11 C 80.7 4.8 60.27 7150-15 South TT 35 M 51 2 5 52 11 8 c 83 3.45 51.81 7150-16 South TT 35 M 61 2 6 14 9 80.5 5.94 63.76 7150-17 South TT 35 F 62 2 5 15 11 14.3 5.65 17.85 7150-18 South TT 35 F 62 1 5 62 13 9 c 7150-19 South TT 35 F 61 1 5 60 13 9 c 82.5 5 58.06 7150-20 South TT 35 M 56 2 6 58 14 8 c 80.7 4.55 56.51 7150-21 South TT 35 F 56 2 5 12 8 10.7 6.17 12.36 7152-1 South TT 35 M 58 2 6 56 11 7 c 8009-1 South SB 1 .141 24 M 57 2 5 57 13 8 c 82.8 3.46 50.34 8009-2 South SB 1.035 24 M 8022-15 South SB 1.083 24 M 50 2 5 50 11 7 c 82.7 4.58 50.96 8022-1 South SB 1.105 22 M 80.3 4.54 53.22 8022-10 South SB 1.386 22 F 58 2 6 58 15 9 c 77.6 6.45 54.31 8022-6 South SB 1.168 24 M 53 2 6 53 12 7 c 81.5 5.24 54.01 8022-11 South SB 1.105 22 M 50 1 5 50 13 7 c 81.7 4.31 51.05 8022-12 South SB 0.927 22 M 54 2 6 53 13 7 c 80.8 3.73 49.62 8022-14 South SB 1.115 22 M 53 1 4 53 12 7 c 82.7 3.29 45.33 8022 -16 South SB 0.91 27 F 48 1 4 47 11 8 c 77.2 5.92 53.02 8022-13 South SB 1.013 27 F 53 2 5 50 13 8 c 80.2 4.59 51.19 8022-3 South SB 1.389 27 F 55 2 6 55 15 8 c 80.9 5.99 55.34 8037-1 South W 0.836 24 M 51 2 5 50 12 7 c 83.6 3.59 50.24 8063-7 Within SB 1.2 45 22 M 59 2 6 58 14 7 c 83.4 3.43 52.38 Appendix H. Continued. 8063-8 Within SB 1.331 27 F 60 2 6 58 15 9 c 76.6 8.23 63.03 8063-12 Within SB 1.461 22 M 58 2 5 58 13 7 c 81.8 3.99 54.75

PAGE 421

421 8063 6 Within SB 1.083 24 M 53 2 6 53 12 7 c 82.2 4.33 54.6 8063 -9 Within SB 1.228 22 F 59 56 2 5 15 8 c 77.9 8.21 65.03 8063-1 Within SB 1.337 27 M 56 2 5 54 13 8 c 79.4 7.04 59.41 8063-5 Within SB 1.34 24 F 61 2 6 59 16 9 c 79.8 6 63.57 8063-3 Within SB 1.12 24 F 8063-11 Within SB 1.417 27 M 61 2 6 60 15 9 c 81.8 4.55 53.3 8063-33 Within W 1.101 24 F 50 1 4 50 12 8 c 8063-29 Within W 1.075 24 M 51 2 5 52 13 7 c 8063-32 Within W 0.811 24 F 49 1 4 48 10 7 c 8063-26 Within SB 1.466 24 F 58 2 5 58 13 8 c 76.9 7.66 66.06 8063-4 Within SB 1.101 24 F 57 2 5 55 13 8 c 78 7.51 65.08 8063-30 Within BC 1.158 24 M 53 2 5 51 11 8 c 82.8 3.37 53.95 8063-31 Within BC 1.63 24 F 57 2 5 58 13 9 c 76.7 6.71 60.27 8063-16 Within SB 1.254 22 F 55 2 5 13 8 8063-15 Within SB 1.304 24 M 57 2 6 58 15 8 c 8 1.9 5.19 56.72 8063-22 Within BC 1.536 24 M 60 2 6 13 8 81.6 5.58 57.91 8063-21 Within SB 1.277 24 F 54 2 5 53 13 8 c 80.3 5.45 58.65 8063-14 Within SB 1.091 24 M 54 2 5 56 12 7 c 83.3 3.54 52.16 8063-2 Within SB 1.01 M 50 2 5 12 8 78.9 9.19 65.13 8063-19 Within BC 1.584 24 M 60 2 6 60 14 8 c 80.8 5.8 61.21 8063-23 Within BC 1.432 24 M 60 2 5 60 14 9 c 82.5 4.52 56.1 8063-28 Within BC 1.223 24 M 60 2 5 60 14 9 C 80.8 4.17 55.21 8063-25 Within BC 1.604 24 M 61 2 5 15 8 8063-34 Within BC 1. 076 24 M 54 2 5 54 11 8 c 83.5 3.93 52.35 8063-31 Within BC 1.491 27 F 57 2 5 58 13 9 c 8063-17 Within BC 1.661 24 F 62 2 6 61 17 10 c 75.7 8.55 72.22 8063-18 Within SB 1.152 24 M 52 2 5 52 12 7 c 82.4 5.29 56.53 8063-13 Within SB 0.979 24 F 55 2 5 53 13 8 c 80.4 5.76 57.21 8063-10 Within SB 1.323 24 F 56 2 5 56 13 8 c 81.9 4.54 54.35 8063-12 Within SB 1.12 24 M 58 2 5 58 13 7 c 8063-24 Within W 0.977 24 M 53 1 4 51 12 7 c 82.8 3.73 51.31 Appendix H. Continued. 8063-20 Within SB 1.307 24 F 5 7 2 6 13 8 76 7.16 60.99 8063-27 Within W 1.027 24 M 53 2 6 52 11 8 c 81.7 3.63 53.95

PAGE 422

422 8095 2 Within SB 1.408 24 M 59 2 6 58 13 7 c 83.5 4.44 52.75 8095-1 Within SB 1.024 24 F 54 2 6 13 8 82.2 5.33 59.31 8095-4 Within SB 1.203 24 F 58 2 5 57 12 9 c 81.6 5.03 54.44 8095-6 Within SB 1.267 24 M 58 2 6 59 13 9 c 80.6 6.49 57.58 8095-5 Within SB 1.425 24 F 61 2 6 60 11 9 C 78.7 6.43 58.66 8095-3 Within SB 1.197 24 M 2 6 58 13 8 C 82.9 4.55 52.27 8102-1 Within SB 1.087 24 M 55 2 6 54 13 7 C 84.3 3.67 49.48 8110-3 Within SB 1.007 24 M 48 1 4 50 12 8 C 82.2 3.39 60.12 8110-1 Within SB 0.969 24 F 51 2 5 50 13 8 C 8110-2 Within SB 0.842 24 M 45 1 4 46 11 7 sc 82.8 4.07 48.79 8114-1 Within SB 1.118 24 M 53 2 5 53 12 8 C 83 5.33 56.21 8114-2 Within SB 0.959 24 F 55 2 6 14 7 79.5 5.87 55.2 8114-3 Within BC 1.549 24 F 56 1 4 59 4 8 C 77.2 7.12 61.79 8174-3 South BC 1.391 24 F 60 2 6 59 14 9 C 73.7 10.92 72.02 South SB 1.111 24 8174-8 South SB 0.976 22 M 54 2 5 52 12 7 C 81.7 3.4 50.08 8174-4 South SB 0.814 22 M 48 2 5 50 12 7 C 84 5.07 56.07 8174-1 South SB 0.842 22 M 48 1 4 48 11 7 C 84.3 3.78 49.51 8174-6 South SB 1.272 22 F 58 2 5 13 9 84.2 5.11 59.14 8174-7 South SB 1.099 22 F 52 2 5 12 7 81.9 3.83 53.2 8174-12 South SB 1.0 27 24 F 53 2 5 13 8 8174-13 South SB 1.089 24 M 51 2 5 51 10 7 C 83.3 2.34 46.43 8174-14 South BC 1.206 24 M 55 2 5 57 13 7 C 80.7 5.55 55.21 8174-9 South SB 24 M 1 4 48 8 6 C 8174-2 South SB 0.81 24 M 55 2 6 56 13 8 C 82.6 3.36 50.75 8174-6 South SB 1.129 24 M 49 1 5 49 11 7 C 8174-15 South BC 1.22 24 M 50 2 5 50 10 7 C 80.3 5.6 55.5 8174-10 South BC 1.283 24 F 58 2 5 57 13 9 C 70.8 12.24 70.15 8239-13 South SB 1.268 N. Georgia M 54 2 5 52 13 7 sc 82.8 5.71 56.63 8239-1 South SB 1.274 N. Georgia F 59 2 5 55 14 9 C 81 4.04 56.43 8239-14 South SB 1.216 N. Georgia M 54 2 5 12 7 80.3 7.7 59.05 Appendix H. Continued. 8239-6 South W 1.054 24 M 50 1 4 50 13 7 sc 82.7 5.42 60.3 8239-4 South BC 1.415 24 F 62 2 5 14 12 76.8 6.05 58.4

PAGE 423

423 8 239 5 South BC 1.639 24 F 59 2 5 56 14 9 C 78.6 7.33 61.26 8239-15 South BC 1.031 N. Georgia M 50 1 4 50 13 7 I 8239-2 South SB 1.082 N. Georgia M 52 2 5 13 9 C 79.6 6.13 57.83 8239-5 South SB 1.378 S. Florida F 59 2 5 56 14 9 C 8239-11 South SB 1.163 N. Georgia F 53 1 4 12 9 8239-3 South SB 1.049 N. Georgia F 53 2 5 51 12 8 C 77.2 5.44 50.45 8239-12 South BC 1.383 24 M 45 1 4 45 1 6 C 81.2 6.07 54.14 8239-9 South BC 1.61 24 M 60 2 5 15 9 80.2 4.79 63.7 8239-16 South BC 1.509 24 F 60 2 5 15 9 8239-10 South GA 24 M 60 1 4 62 15 9 C 80.7 5.14 54.6 8242-5 Within SB 1.268 N. Georgia M 59 1 4 62 14 8 C 81.7 4.58 55.92 8242-9 Within BC 1.482 24 F 68 2 5 13 9 79 4.7 52.58 8242-8 Within BC 1.314 24 M 60 2 5 60 14 9 C 82.1 4.51 52.78 8242-7 Within BC 1.457 24 F 60 2 5 15 10 77.6 6.84 54.33 8242-3 Within BC 1.469 24 M 59 2 5 60 14 9 C 81.8 2.96 59.28 8242-12 Within BC 1.272 24 F 55 1 4 14 9 8242-6 Within BC 1.485 24 F 59 1 4 15 10 79.5 4.86 52.29 8242-7 Within SB 1.097 N. Georgia M 50 1 4 45 11 8 C 8242-10 Within BC 1.189 24 F 55 1 4 14 9 79.2 6.38 50.34 8248-1 Within SB 1.104 N. Georgia F 53 2 5 2 13 8 C 8248-1 Within SB 1.207 N. Georgia M 50 1 4 11 9 C 79 6.79 63.84 8307-3 South BC 1.452 S. Florida F 64 2 5 62 15 11 C 8307-5 South TT 1.572 N. Georgia M 59 2 6 60 15 10 C 78.7 4.26 55.34 8307-4 South TT 1.795 N. Georgia M 61 2 6 15 9 76.8 5.71 51.91 8307-2 South TT 1.536 S. Florida M 64 2 6 64 15 10 C 79.4 5.55 54.15 8307-1 South TT 1.303 S. Florida M 60 2 6 60 16 11 C 80.2 7.5 63.58 8308-3 South SB S. Florida F 63 1 5 60 18 10 C 75.4 7.72 62.08 8308-3 South GA S. Florida F 64 2 5 62 15 11 C 8308-2 South TT 1.646 S. Florida M 63 61 c C 75.7 8.74 65.98 South TT 1.726 24 8308-8 South TT 1.552 N. Georgia F 61 2 6 60 16 10 C 74.7 6.76 58.07 Appendix H. Continued. 8308-4 South TT 1.546 N. Georgia M 60 1 5 12 9 8308-1 South TT 1.881 S. Florida F 69 2 6 19 11 C 72.6 13.6 74.65

PAGE 424

424 8308 2 South SB 1.16 S. Florida M 8308-7 South TT 1.675 24 M 63 2 6 64 15 9 C 78.1 5.34 56.94 8308-5 South TT 1.498 24 M 59 2 5 60 16 9 C 77.7 5.33 58.71 8308-6 South TT 1.936 24 F 66 2 5 64 20 12 I 73.5 9.33 62.4 8309-4 South TT 1.459 N. Georgia F 62 2 6 61 12 9 C 8309-1 South TT 1.6 38 N. Georgia M 62 2 5 15 8 80.7 3.75 56.1 8309-2 South TT 0.899 24 M 51 2 5 11 8 75.8 7.96 58.31 8309-3 South BC 1.204 24 F 54 1 4 51 13 7 C 8313-1 South SB 1.168 S. Florida M 54 2 5 52 15 8 C 8313-2 South SB 1.089 N. Georgia M 54 2 6 13 8 8313-3 South SB 1.191 S. Florida M 57 2 5 55 16 8 C 8313-7 South SB 1.12 24 M 55 1 4 55 13 8 C 8313-5 South TT 1.283 S. Florida F 58 2 5 56 14 9 76.2 7.27 49.64 8313-6 South BC 1.587 24 F 65 1 4 62 12 10 C 8313-6 South SB 1.326 S. Florida F 64 3 7 64 16 9 C 8313-4 South BC 1.378 S. Florida M 61 1 5 60 14 9 C 8313-10 South BC 1.351 N. Georgia F 60 2 5 59 14 10 sc 8313-11 South GA 1.321 24 F 61 2 5 59 14 9 I 8313-8 South SB 1.326 S. Florida F 62 2 5 62 12 9 I 8313-9 Sout h SB 1.139 S. Florida M 56 2 5 14 7 C 8318-1 South SB 1.044 S. Florida M 54 2 5 55 15 8 C 8318-7 South SB 1.043 24 M 51 1 4 12 8 8318-5 South SB 1.173 N. Georgia M 58 1 5 55 14 8 I 8318-14 South SB 1.241 S. Florida M 58 1 4 64 16 9 C 81. 8 3.28 51.22 8318-4 South BC 1.323 S. Florida M 8318-18 South BC 1.806 N. Georgia F 66 2 5 65 16 9 C 8318-3 South BC 1.27 S. Florida M 58 2 5 57 15 8 C 8318-6 South BC 1.694 S. Florida M 66 2 6 64 18 9 C 8318-20 South BC 1.457 N. Georgia M 60 1 5 62 15 8 sc 77.6 6.56 60.27 8318-9 South BC 1.55 N. Georgia M 63 2 6 16 9 78.5 6.69 56.48 8318-15 South BC 1.837 24 F 61 2 5 65 17 10 sc Appendix H. Continued. 8318-26 South GA 1.073 24 F 55 2 4 53 13 8 C 8318-13 South TT 1.26 S. Florida M 53 1 4 55 14 7 C 79.8 4.93 51.76

PAGE 425

425 8318 2 South TT 1.618 S. Florida F 63 2 5 17 10 8318-24 South BC 1.634 N. Georgia M 64 2 6 66 16 9 C 78.7 3.13 51.28 8318-25 South SB 1.605 N. Georgia F 62 2 6 17 9 8318-21 South SB 1.515 N. Georgi a M 58 2 6 14 8 79.2 5.38 61.44 8318-23 South SB 1.345 N. Georgia M 57 2 5 60 14 8 C 78.2 3.1 50.78 8318-8 South BC 1.504 N. Georgia M 62 2 6 61 16 9 C 77.2 8.39 60.35 8318-12 South BC 1.701 N. Georgia F 65 1 4 64 16 9 C 79.3 5.97 56.35 8318-17 South BC 1.77 N. Georgia F 63 2 5 65 15 9 C 8318-16 South TT 1.585 N. Georgia F 64 2 5 64 18 10 C 8318-11 South SB 1.33 S. Florida F 60 2 6 58 15 9 C 78.6 3.74 53.76 8318-19 South SB 1.418 S. Florida F 60 2 5 58 16 10 C 8318-22 South SB 1.383 N. Georgia M 58 2 6 57 14 8 C 79.4 3.55 52.82 8324-13 South TT 1.677 N. Georgia F 64 2 5 15 11 8324-8 South TT 1.806 N. Georgia F 63 2 5 17 10 77.5 7.37 62.56 8324-1 South TT 1.373 S. Florida M 59 2 6 15 8 C 79.6 5.24 56.68 8324-12 South TT 1.693 N. Georgia F 60 1 5 62 14 9 sc 76.6 6.28 60.01 8324-5 South TT 1.337 N. Georgia M 56 2 5 56 14 8 C 77.6 7.5 60.95 8324-10 South SB 1.067 24 M 58 2 5 57 14 8 C 79.8 2.5 52.78 8324-4 South BC 1.536 S. Florida F 61 2 6 61 16 10 C 77.5 7 52.66 8324-13 South BC 1.312 S. Florida F 64 2 5 15 11 75 6.96 62.45 8324-7 South TT 1.736 N. Georgia F 61 2 5 16 11 8324-2 South TT 1.025 24 M 53 2 6 12 7 C 80 8.99 59.15 8324-9 South TT 1.314 S. Florida M 58 1 5 56 14 10 C 80.1 3.54 53.87 8324-11 South TT 1.587 N. Georgia M 58 1 5 58 13 8 C 8324-6 South SB 1.518 N. Georgia F 60 2 5 62 16 10 C 76.6 6.56 60.55 8336-1 South BC 1.619 S. Florida M 65 2 6 64 18 10 C 8336-3 South BC S. Florida M 59 2 5 58 15 10 C 8336-4 South BC 1.812 S. Florida M 61 1 5 6 2 16 11 I 8336-2 South BC 1.525 S. Florida F 64 1 5 17 11 8336-5 South TT 1.734 N. Georgia M 64 3 7 15 10 77.4 8.9 66.91 8341-1 South TT 1.691 S. Florida F 63 2 5 10 71.9 12.76 74.17 Appendix H. Continued. 8341-8 South TT 1.465 N. Georgi a M 57 1 5 59 15 9 C 8341-5 South TT 1.33 24 M 58 1 4 14 9 77.7 9.4 64.68

PAGE 426

426 8341 15 South TT 1.601 N. Georgia M 58 57 15 10 C 8341-9 South SB 1.205 24 M 56 1 5 54 14 9 C 8341-2 South SB 1.245 S. Florida F 63 2 6 18 10 76.5 8.86 63.26 8341-4 South SB 1.124 S. Florida F 51 1 4 54 14 8 C 73 8.27 54.69 8341-7 South TT 1.566 S. Florida M 60 1 5 61 15 9 C 77.3 9.71 61.73 8341-12 South TT 1.519 N. Georgia F 60 2 5 15 8 8341-11 South TT 1.765 N. Georgia F 65 2 6 63 16 10 C 70.4 11.76 68.79 8341-6 South TT 1.49 S. Florida M 59 2 5 60 15 9 C 79 6.31 54.03 8341-3 South TT 1.244 S. Florida F 58 2 5 57 14 9 C 75.8 5.64 53.4 8341-9 South TT 1.41 N. Georgia F 59 2 6 60 14 8 71.8 12.87 67.88 8341-13 South TT 1.596 N. Georgia M 60 2 6 60 14 9 C 77.8 3.95 54.06 8341-24 South TT 1.612 24 F 61 2 6 63 18 10 C 70.8 9.85 68.8 8341-16 South TT 1.534 N. Georgia M 58 2 5 59 15 10 C 79.4 2.72 51.41 8341-17 South TT 1.583 N. Georgia F 57 2 5 59 15 10 C 76.3 8.51 66.7 8341-19 South TT 1.423 S. Florida F 60 2 5 59 16 12 C 74.8 7.42 63.03 8341-18 South SB 1.319 S. Florida M 60 2 5 60 13 10 C 78.9 5.77 57.41 8341-12 South BC 1.326 24 M 57 2 6 57 14 9 C 76.1 7.28 63.18 8341-10 South BC 1.387 24 F 58 2 6 58 14 8 C 72 8.72 66.49 8341-22 South BC 1.188 24 F 54 2 5 54 14 9 C 8341-14 South BC 1.368 24 M 57 2 6 57 15 8 C 79.9 4.57 47.59 8341-20 South BC 1.109 24 F 52 2 5 51 12 8 C 75.3 9.13 60.09 8341-21 South BC 1.235 24 F 57 2 5 56 14 9 C 76.4 6.05 56.27 8341-23 South BC 1.203 24 F 57 2 5 14 9 74.9 6 .84 53.68 8344-1 South SB 1.225 N. Georgia F 58 2 5 56 14 9 C 8344-2 South SB 1.041 N. Georgia M 55 2 5 56 12 8 C 80.3 3.24 46.79 834810 South TT 1.43 N. Georgia F 57 1 5 58 13 10 C 77.1 6.93 59.67 8348-9 South TT 1.47 N. Georgia F 58 2 5 59 13 9 C 74.2 10.5 68.77 8348-7 South TT 1.101 24 F 54 2 5 53 13 8 C 75.8 5.07 53.19 8348-4 South TT 1.346 N. Georgia F 60 1 5 60 15 9 C 77.6 8.92 71.57 8348-6 South TT 1.183 S. Florida F 57 2 6 13 9 77.8 10.13 66.09 8348-2 South SB 1.136 N. Georgia F 57 2 5 55 13 9 C 74.4 6.69 61.93 Appendix H. Continued. 8348-8 South SB 1.251 S. Florida F 59 2 5 56 14 10 C 77.5 5.25 52.14 8348-11 South SB 1.891 24 M 50 1 4 50 11 7 C 80.9 4.81 56.23

PAGE 427

427 8348 1 South BC 1.323 24 F 58 2 6 58 13 9 C 76.8 6.35 63.45 8348-5 South BC 1.313 24 F 57 2 5 56 14 10 C 77.7 8.58 66.74 8348-3 South BC 1.234 24 M 57 2 6 58 14 9 C 77.4 7.94 60.71 8353-4 South SB 1.201 S. Florida M 53 1 5 53 13 8 C 77.7 8.42 63.85 8353-1 South SB 1.076 S. Florida M 52 2 5 53 11 7 C 79.2 8.98 65.08 8353-2 South TT 1.597 S. Florida F 65 3 7 63 17 10 C 75.5 7.31 54.34 8353-6 South TT 1.277 24 M 57 2 5 58 14 8 C 71.7 8.29 64.66 8353-5 South TT 1.253 24 M 58 1 5 56 13 8 C 8353-6 South SB 1.626 S. Florida F 64 2 5 14 10 8353-8 South SB 1.467 N. Geo rgia F 60 3 7 61 13 10 C 73.7 7.1 63.46 8354(1) South TT 1.651 S. Florida F 60 2 6 14 8 8354-18 South TT 1.608 S. Florida M 63 2 6 62 13 8 C 80.4 4.43 56.86 8354-4 South TT 1.57 S. Florida F 60 2 5 62 11 10 C 8354-1 South TT 1.285 S. Florida F 54 2 6 55 13 9 C 80.6 6.45 61.09 8354-25 South TT 1.267 N. Georgia M 56 2 5 57 13 8 C 8354-23 South TT 1.506 S. Florida F 58 2 6 60 15 8 C 8354-21 South TT 1.344 S. Florida F 60 2 6 15 9 8354-15 South TT 1.617 N. Georgia F 61 2 6 61 15 10 C 8354-3 South TT 1.321 S. Florida F 59 1 5 60 14 8 I 75.7 7.35 61.97 8354-16 South TT 1.218 24 F 54 5 2 53 12 8 C 8354-6 South TT 1.457 S. Florida F 62 2 5 61 15 9 C 8354-17 South TT 1.639 S. Florida F 62 2 6 16 9 8354-7 South TT 1.406 24 F 60 1 5 59 19 8 C 8354-13 South TT 1.473 N. Georgia F 60 2 6 60 14 10 C 8354-19 South TT 1.602 N. Georgia M 60 1 5 61 13 8 C 75.7 8.3 62.35 8354-2 South SB 1.506 S. Florida M 63 1 4 61 15 10 sc 8354-9 South BC 1.178 N. Georgia F 58 2 5 56 14 8 C 8354-14 South BC 1.203 24 M 56 1 5 55 9 7 C 80.9 6.47 60.14 8354-10 South BC 1.265 24 F 60 2 5 58 15 9 C 8354-7 South SB 1.145 24 M 54 1 4 52 11 8 C 8354-8 South SB 1.179 24 F 52 2 5 51 12 8 C Appendix H. Continued. 8354-22 South SB 24 F 58 2 5 57 14 8 C 8354-11 South SB 1.215 24 F 57 2 5 14 9

PAGE 428

428 8354 20 South SB 1.036 24 F 57 2 5 14 9 8355-8 South TT 1.67 N. Georgia F 64 2 6 13 9 76.4 5.13 61.94 8355-5 South TT 1.76 S. Florida F 61 2 5 14 10 71.9 8.94 60.86 8355-13 South TT 1.26 24 F 56 2 5 54 11 8 C 75.1 7.53 57.17 8355-12 South TT 1.563 N. Georgia F 60 2 5 14 8 8355-1 South TT 1.428 S. Florida F 63 2 6 60 13 9 C 77.6 6.47 56.66 8355-9 South TT 1.548 N. Georgia F 61 2 6 13 9 8355-4 South TT 1.457 N. Georgia M 59 1 5 61 14 8 C 80.4 3.77 58.87 8355-10 South TT 1.51 N. Georgia M 64 2 6 13 8 77 5.27 53.12 8355-3 South TT 1.682 S. Florida F 58 2 5 57 9 C 8355-2 South BC 1.434 S. Florida F 62 2 6 61 14 9 C 8355-6 South SB S. Florida M 59 1 5 13 7 78.6 6.75 54.58 8355-7 South SB 1.53 S. Florida M 60 2 6 14 8 77.4 7.52 56.89 8355-11 South BC 1.3 S. Florida M 58 1 5 58 13 8 C 79.4 5.11 55.34 8356-3 South TT 1.73 N. Georgia F 60 2 5 14 8 80.7 5.69 53.74 8356-4 South TT 1.346 N. Georgia M 52 2 5 52 14 8 C 76.3 7.9 59.43 8356-1 South TT 1.178 N. Georgia M 63 2 6 64 16 8 C 79.8 4.72 53.99 8356-2 South BC 1.36 24 F 57 3 7 14 8 75.2 7.41 61.59 8356-3 South BC 1.067 24 M 53 2 5 53 14 8 C 8359-1 South TT 1.331 S. Florida M 59 1 5 58 10 10 C 79.2 7.26 59.41 8359-2 South TT 1.374 S. Florida M 2 5 12 7 55.6 26.3 63.5 8360-1 South TT 1.587 S. Florida M 62 1 5 62 15 10 C 8360-5 South TT 1.683 N. Georgia M 61 2 6 13 8 74.7 7.52 60.15 8360-4 South TT 1.578 S. Florida F 61 2 6 61 15 10 C 8360-2 South TT 1.409 N. Georgia F 64 2 6 64 14 C 8360-7 South TT 1.276 24 M 55 2 5 56 13 9 C 78 6.66 53.78 8360-6 South SB 1.581 N. Georgia M 63 2 6 16 9 75.3 6.43 57.59 8360-3 South SB 24 F 52 2 5 52 15 9 C 8360-8 South TT S. Flor ida F 65 3 7 64 14 9 C 7.99 4.78 7.75 8394-2 Within TT 1.178 S. Florida F 50 2 5 50 15 9 C 79.5 6.52 54.27 8394-8 Within SB 1.074 S. Florida F 56 2 5 55 14 9 I 77.2 4.98 52.12 Appendix H. Continued. 8394-20 Within SB 1.124 Lansing, Michigan F 54 2 5 5 3 14 9 C 79 5.54 55.95

PAGE 429

429 8394-21 Within SB 1.117 Lansing, Michigan F 52 1 4 13 9 76.8 7.2 58.43 8394-18 Within SB 0.863 Lansing, Michigan F 46 1 4 44 11 7 I 77.5 4.83 53.5 8394-23 Within SB 0.92 S. Florida M 51 2 5 50 13 8 C 77 8.63 63.55 8394-22 Withi n SB 1.043 S. Florida M 54 2 5 53 13 8 C 8394-9 Within SB 1.105 Lansing, Michigan M 55 2 5 55 13 7 C 79.8 5.38 55.94 8394-24 Within SB 0.818 S. Florida M 45 1 4 10 6 70.1 12.6 58.34 8394-19 Within BC 1.093 Lansing, Michigan M 54 1 5 54 13 8 C 80.5 6.09 57.99 8394-4 Within BC 1.186 S. Florida F 57 1 5 54 16 9 C 77.4 7.63 60.76 8394-6 Within BC 1.269 S. Florida M 57 1 5 57 15 8 C 78.6 5.02 54.68 8394 Within BC 1.102 Lansing, Michigan F 55 2 5 53 14 9 C 8394-1 Within TT 1.225 S. Florida F 55 2 5 52 14 8 C 77.5 7.86 59.74 8394-7 Within TT 1.031 S. Florida M 55 1 5 53 15 8 C 79 6.03 57.99 8394-5 Within TT 1.315 S. Florida M 58 1 5 57 11 9 C 80.2 5.07 52.48 8394-10 Within TT 1.118 S. Florida F 55 2 5 54 14 9 C 77.6 6.12 55.26 8394-3 Within TT 1. 082 S. Florida M 52 1 5 53 12 9 C 78.1 7.96 61.39 8394-11 Within TT 1.289 Lansing, Michigan F 59 2 5 57 14 9 C 76.4 7.18 57.42 8394-15 Within TT 1.166 Lansing, Michigan M 55 2 5 54 13 8 sc 78.8 6.86 56.28 8394-13 Within TT 1.005 Lansing, Michigan M 51 2 5 52 12 8 C 80.3 4.12 52.13 8394-12 Within TT 1.256 Lansing, Michigan F 57 2 5 15 9 76.3 6.83 58.84 8394-14 Within TT 1.1 Lansing, Michigan F 50 2 4 50 12 8 C 77.7 4.97 49.98 Appendix H. Continued. 8394-16 Within TT 1.07 Lansing, Mi chigan M 54 2 5 12 7 sc 79.9 4.4 52.85

PAGE 430

430 8394-17 Within TT 0.863 Lansing, Michigan M 48 1 4 47 12 7 C 82 2.82 49.24 8403-10 Within SB S. Florida F 60 2 6 60 14 10 C 74.3 8.86 62.08 8403-14 Within SB 1.01 Lansing, Michigan M 60.3 21.86 63.47 8403-7 Within TT 1.3 Lansing, Michigan M 56 2 5 14 8 78.1 7.03 54.39 8403-15 Within TT 1.032 Lansing, Michigan F 8403-3 Within TT 1.237 S. Florida M 54 1 4 54 13 8 C 79.9 6.07 56.32 8403-6 Within TT 1.269 Lansing, Michigan F 57 2 5 14 9 C 77.2 6.67 55.46 8403-8 Within TT 1.263 Lansing, Michigan M 56 1 5 56 15 8 SC 79.8 7.42 56.48 8403-13 Within TT 1.205 Lansing, Michigan M 54 1 5 11 7 80.4 7.05 53.67 8403-1 Within TT 1.095 24 F 53 1 4 53 14 7 C 80.1 6.25 55.11 8403-11 Within TT 1.163 S. Florida M 57 1 5 56 14 8 C 77.6 7.53 56.81 8403-9 Within TT 1.07 S. Florida M 53 2 5 51 12 8 C 74.8 10.71 67.42 8403-5 Within BC 1.522 24 F 63 2 6 63 15 10 C 78.1 5.88 58.98 8403-14 Within BC 1.1 24 M 51 1 4 10 7 80.9 4.92 49.01 8403-12 Within TT 1.028 Lansing, Michigan F 50 2 5 10 7 i 8404-1 Within TT 1.26 Lansing, Michigan M 55 2 6 56 14 8 sc Within BC 1.567 S. Florida F 8409-2 North TT 1.05 24 M 55 2 5 57 12 8 C 80.7 4.75 50.56 North TT Lansing, Michigan M North TT S. Florida M Appendix H. Continued. 8409-3 North SB 0.611 Lansing, Michigan M 81.9 2.84 46.92

PAGE 431

431 8409-4 North SB 0.768 Lansing, Michigan M 81.8 6.05 52.66 8412-3 North SB 0.711 Lansing, Michigan M 8412-2 North TT 0.942 S. Florida F 42 1 10 7 c 21.6 1.4 22.11 North TT 1.162 Lansing, Michigan F 55 2 6 55 12 7 C 8413-1 North SB 1.084 S. Florida F 56 1 4 55 13 8 I 16.8 5.25 16.99 North TT 0.762 S. Florida F North TT 0.949 S. Florida F North TT 1.065 S. Florida F 8413-12 North TT 0.894 Lansing, Michigan M 77.9 5.34 53.02 8413-13 North TT 1.097 Lansing, Michigan M 81.1 5.37 53 8413-14 North TT 0.925 Lansing, Michigan M 81.7 6.67 54.72 8413-15 North TT 0.963 Lansing, Michigan M 80 5.85 52.79 8413-11 North TT 0.977 S. Florida M 79 7.18 54.47 8413-16 North TT 0.926 S. Florida M 82.4 3.84 50.85 8421-1 North TT 0.905 Lansing, Michigan F 31.7 2.63 22.84 8424-3 North SB 0.796 Lansing, Michigan M 81.6 5.93 53.99 8424-4 North SB 0.875 Lansing, Michigan F 80 6.51 54.14 8424-5 North TT 1.124 Lansing, Michigan F 78.2 7.89 58.68 8424-6 North TT 0.823 Lansing, Michigan F 79.6 5.85 52.72 Appendi x H. Continued. North TT 1.08 S. Florida M 55 2 5 13 9 North BC S. Florida F

PAGE 432

432 8426-1 North BC 0.824 Lansing, Michigan M 81.8 6 53.09 North TT Lansing, Michigan F North BC Lansing, Michigan F 8428-1 Nort h BC 1.052 Lansing, Michigan M 81.1 5.86 55.15 8430-1 North TT 1.169 S. Florida F 20.7 0.17 19 8446-4 North BC 1.128 Lansing, Michigan M 53 1 4 53 12 8 C 8446-1 North BC 1.459 S. Florida M 57 2 5 57 14 9 C 8446-3 North BC 0.914 Lans ing, Michigan F 52 1 4 51 10 7 C 8446-5 North BC 1.139 24 M 50 1 4 51 12 8 sc 8446-2 North TT 1.357 Lansing, Michigan F 57 2 5 56 12 8 C 10.75 1.63 11.69 8454-6 North SB 0.682 Lansing, Michigan F 76.3 2.67 43.15 8454-7 North BC 1.074 Lansi ng, Michigan M 80.7 5.87 56.1 8454-1 North BC 1.184 24 M 53 2 5 13 9 79.75 8.36 52.68 8454-8 North TT 0.999 Lansing, Michigan M 76.4 8.41 57.43 8454-9 North TT 0.832 Lansing, Michigan M 78.5 6.51 53.78 8454-10 North TT 1.027 Lans ing, Michigan F 78.9 6.01 50.96 8454-11 North TT 1.003 S. Florida F 79.3 5.43 49.09 8454-2 North TT 0.781 24 M 51 1 4 13 8 Appendix H. Continued. 8454-12 North BC 0.571 Lansing, Michigan M 79.3 7.91 59.17

PAGE 433

433 8454 -13 North SB 0.805 Lansing, Michigan F 79.7 5.15 50.19 8454-14 North SB 0.768 Lansing, Michigan F 74 5.38 49.09 8454-3 North BC 1.001 24 F 52 12 9 67.9 18.48 64.5 8454-4 North SB 0.623 24 M 39 1 3 9 6 i 76.1 9.71 57.54 8454-4 North SB 0.656 24 F 40 1 3 11 7 70.2 15.1 61.97 8454-5 North SB 0.674 24 F 74.8 7.59 53.87 8469-19 South SB 1.133 S. Florida F 55 3 5 55 14 8 sc 8469-17 South SB Lansing, Michigan F 56 1 4 56 15 7 sc 8469-9 South SB 0.98 Lansing, Michigan M 5 0 1 4 50 14 7 C 8469-2 South BC 0.801 S. Florida M 47 1 5 47 12 6 C 8469-23 South BC 1.122 S. Florida F 54 2 5 54 11 9 C 78.36 14.47 64.04 8469-15 South BC 0.927 S. Florida M 50 1 4 50 12 7 C 8469-18 South BC 1.12 Lansing, Michigan F 55 1 5 55 14 8 sc 8469-4 South SB 1.048 Lansing, Michigan M 53 1 4 50 12 6 C 8469-22 South BC 1.255 24 F 57 2 5 56 14 9 C 8470-14 South BC 1.277 S. Florida M 58 2 6 59 14 9 C 82.11 9.79 54.6 8470-7 South BC 1.243 Lansing, Michigan M 57 2 5 58 15 10 C 8 0.39 13.79 62.71 8470-13 South BC Lansing, Michigan F 61 2 6 60 15 8 C 11.89 3.57 13.37 8470-12 South BC 1.152 S. Florida F 57 2 5 15 10 15.78 1.51 16.98 8470-8 South BC 1.122 S. Florida F 58 2 5 57 15 10 C 17.81 3.88 21.84 8470-16 South SB 1.249 La nsing, Michigan M 54 2 5 53 14 8 C 84.69 5.22 47.09 Appendix H. Continued. 8470-11 South BC 1.295 Lansing, Michigan M 60 2 5 60 15 9 C 83.22 7.12 52.57

PAGE 434

434 8470-9 South BC Lansing, Michigan F 9.39 2.49 9.63 8470-5 South BC 0.981 S. Florida M 56 2 5 57 16 9 C 82.82 8.98 53.85 8470-18 South BC 1.139 S. Florida M 56 2 6 56 13 9 C 80.92 10.3 57.88 8470-6 South BC Lansing, Michigan F 61 2 6 61 16 9 C 10.61 3.42 12.35 8470-4 South BC 1.069 Lansing, Michigan M 56 2 5 57 13 8 C 83.08 5. 95 49.21 8470-15 South BC 0.914 S. Florida M 53 2 5 52 13 8 C 84.59 3.6 52.98 8470-10 South SB 1.279 Lansing, Michigan F 7.94 2.08 7.12 8470-17 South SB 1.071 Lansing, Michigan F 57 2 5 15 8 11.28 2.11 10.98 8470-1 South BC 1.204 24 F 58 2 5 5 7 14 9 C 8.65 1.47 8.51 8470-3 South SB 1.236 24 M 54 2 5 54 13 9 C 84.34 6.58 50.48 8470-2 South SB 0.953 24 F 53 2 5 53 13 9 C 8471-13 South TT 1.023 S. Florida M 55 1 5 53 14 8 I 8471-3 South SB 1.11 Lansing, Michigan M 57 2 5 55 13 8 C 85.71 6.9 50.82 8471-9 South SB 1.139 S. Florida M 53 1 5 52 15 8 I 81.96 6.67 48.57 8471-5 South SB 1.317 Lansing, Michigan F 60 1 5 59 13 9 C 78.75 12.62 61.93 8471-8 South SB 1.147 Lansing, Michigan M 57 2 6 55 14 9 C 81.15 8.68 52.37 8471-10 South BC 1.2 88 S. Florida F 60 2 6 58 14 10 C 77.41 10.48 57.13 8471-1 South BC 1.357 Lansing, Michigan M 58 2 5 57 13 8 C 82.94 5.33 49.1 8471-14 South BC 1.181 Lansing, Michigan M 55 2 5 55 13 7 C 85.04 5.45 47.66 South TT S. Florida M Appendix H. Continued. 8471-6 South TT 1.226 Lansing, Michigan F 58 2 5 13 8 23.32 2.31 20.71

PAGE 435

435 8471-15 South TT 1.43 Lansing, Michigan M 58 2 5 13 8 8471-12 South TT 1.029 S. Florida M 48 45 11 7 c 8471-7 South BC 1.179 Lansing, Michigan M 55 1 5 54 11 7 c 80.84 13.74 61.17 8471-11 South BC 0.953 S. Florida F 51 2 5 50 12 8 c 17.4 3.37 18.36 8471-2 South BC 1.088 Lansing, Michigan M 53 2 5 54 13 8 c 83.85 4.85 46.91 8471-16 South BC 0.915 24 M 49 2 4 50 12 7 c 84.79 5.2 47.55 8471 Sout h TT 1.135 Lansing, Michigan M 50 1 4 54 7 c 8471 South TT S. Florida M 8479-22 South BC 1.128 Lansing, Michigan M 52 1 5 52 12 7 c 8479-12 South TT 1.143 S. Florida F 55 1 4 14 7 8479-13 South TT 1.42 S. Florida F 58 2 5 56 15 9 c South TT 1.07 Lansing, Michigan M 50 1 4 12 8 8479-11 South TT 1.195 Lansing, Michigan M 53 1 4 54 13 7 c 8479-2 South TT 1.185 Lansing, Michigan F 57 1 4 57 14 9 sc 13.76 3.54 15.64 8479-35 South SB 1.113 Lansing, Michigan F 53 2 5 12 7 13.74 -0.05 12.88 8479-1 South TT 1.469 S. Florida F 60 2 5 54 13 8 sc 21.14 3.68 21.21 8479-34 South TT 1.183 Lansing, Michigan F 55 1 5 55 12 7 15.59 0.54 14.34 8479-9 South SB 1.147 Lansing, Michigan M 52 1 5 55 13 7 c 8479-6 South SB 1.182 L ansing, Michigan F 55 1 4 55 13 6 c Appendix H. Continued. 8479-4 South SB 1.107 24 F 54 1 5 55 13 7 c 8479-10 South TT 1.129 Lansing, M 55 1 5 55 12 7 c

PAGE 436

436 Michigan 8479-29 South TT 1.188 Lansing, Michigan F 57 1 5 14 10 8479-28 South TT 1.244 Lansing, Michigan F 54 1 5 55 14 8 c 8479-5 South TT 1.224 S. Florida M 54 2 6 55 12 6 c 8479-19 South TT 1.266 Lansing, Michigan F 57 1 4 14 7 8479-30 South SB 1.104 Lansing, Michigan M 52 1 5 55 12 7 c 84.48 6.08 51.2 South SB 1.208 S. Florida 55 50 12 5 c 8479-26 South SB 1.247 Lansing, Michigan M 55 1 5 56 13 7 sc 82.87 10.05 55.53 8479-7 South SB 0.983 Lansing, Michigan M 50 1 4 49 12 7 c 8479-24 South SB 1.353 Lansing, Michigan M 57 1 4 55 11 7 c 79.11 14.03 63.67 8479-21 South SB 1.376 Lansing, Michigan F 60 1 5 60 15 9 c 8479-14 South SB 1.054 S. Florida F 52 1 4 51 12 7 c 8479-15 South SB 1.263 S. Florida M 55 1 4 13 9 8479-31 South SB 1.169 Lansing, Michigan F 56 1 5 57 13 9 c 15.07 0.2 11.93 8479-2 5 South TT 1.146 Lansing, Michigan F 48 1 5 55 12 6 sc 8479-3 South TT 1.28 Lansing, Michigan F 57 1 5 56 14 8 sc 13.72 -0.46 15.57 8479-33 South TT 1.127 Lansing, Michigan F 58 1 5 10 9 8479-16 South TT 1.287 S. Florida F 55 1 3 50 13 8 c 8 479-17 South TT 1.028 S. Florida M 50 1 4 45 10 6 sc Appendix H. Continued. 8479-36 South BC 1.03 24 F 57 3 7 14 9 8479-8 South BC 0.945 S. Florida M 50 1 4 50 12 6 c

PAGE 437

437 8479 29 South BC 1.162 S. Florida F 57 1 5 10 10 19.96 3.89 19.65 8479-20 South GA 0.98 S. Florida F 49 1 4 14 7 8479-32 South SB 1.024 Lansing, Michigan F 52 1 5 52 12 7 c 17.46 0.8 15.43 8479-18 South SB 1.227 24 F 54 1 4 55 10 10 sc 8479-23 South SB 1.24 Lansing, Michigan M 55 1 5 14 8 80.75 12.04 59.98 8479-27 South GA 0.914 Lansing, Michigan M 50 2 5 50 11 7 sc 79.44 11.62 59.7 8479-37 South BC 1.228 24 F 56 2 5 14 9 7.52 1.97 6.89 8482-4 South SB 1.204 Lansing, Michigan F 54 1 4 55 13 7 sc 8482-2 South TT 0.986 Lansing, Michigan M 50 1 4 50 12 7 c 8482-6 South TT 1.19 S. Florida F 56 2 5 51 14 8 sc 8482-3 South TT 1.178 S. Florida F 54 1 4 50 14 9 c 8482-5 South TT 1.179 S. Florida F 55 2 5 54 15 8 sc 8482-1 South TT 1.135 Lansing, Michigan M 53 1 4 53 13 9 c 8482-7 South SB 1.337 Lansing, Michigan F 55 1 4 14 8 8482-8 South SB 1.43 Lansing, Michigan M 56 1 5 57 15 9 c 8482-3 South SB 1.252 S. Florida F 54 1 4 50 14 9 c 8485-3 South SB 1.135 Lansing, Michigan F 50 1 4 50 14 9 8485-1 South TT 1.631 S. Florida M 6 3 2 7 64 14 9 c 8485-9 South BC 0.737 S. Florida F 56 1 4 55 13 8 sc 8485-11 South SB 1.146 Lansing, Michigan M 52 1 4 56 13 8 c Appendix H. Continued. 8485-2 South TT 1.146 Lansing, Michigan F 50 1 4 14 7

PAGE 438

438 8485 10 South SB 0.829 S. Florida M 50 1 4 50 12 7 c 8485-7 South SB 1.29 Lansing, Michigan M 56 1 4 57 13 7 c 8485-8 South TT 1.287 Lansing, Michigan F 55 1 3 57 13 9 c 8485-5 South TT 1.167 Lansing, Michigan M 54 1 4 55 13 9 c 8485-6 South TT 1.353 Lansing, Michigan F 52 3 5 45 10 7 8485-4 South SB 1.129 24 M 53 1 4 50 14 7 c 8488-1 South TT 1.254 Lansing, Michigan M 57 2 6 13 9 81.03 10.15 56.86 8508-2 South BC 1.052 S. Florida F 57 2 5 57 14 10 c 82.11 10.06 58.66

PAGE 439

439 APPENDIX I COLOR ANALY SIS OF WILD CAPTURED P. GLAUCUS ID Sex L* a* b* Average color Location capture Date captured 7065 M 79.53 9.27 66.13 strong orange yellow Barberville, FL 27-Jul 7066 M 81.23 7.39 63.29 strong yellow Barberville, FL 27-Jul 7067 F 12.64 8.73 16.89 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7068 F 73.31 14.02 76.93 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7069 F 17.01 8.99 23.74 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7070 F 80.98 8.41 57.45 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7071 F 74.31 10. 58 76.36 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7072 F 15.89 8.26 21.53 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7073 F 80.9 8.91 60 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7074 F 80.93 8.32 60.84 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7075 F 75.23 10.76 69.97 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7076 F 17.72 8.11 25.04 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7077 F 20.54 9 26.96 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7078 F 81.4 8.71 60.09 light orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7079 F 17.69 8.73 25.72 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7080 M 78.31 8.85 62.59 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7081 M 76.83 10.83 66.83 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7082 M 75.92 10.14 66.5 strong orange yellow Ce dar Key, FL 29-Aug 7083 M 75.69 11.75 75.6 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7084 F 73.96 12.36 76.58 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7085 M 81.52 7.35 67.19 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 29-Aug 7086 M 81.49 6.75 69.51 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7087 M 81.09 7.64 72.89 strong yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7088 M 77.92 10.52 74.21 strong orange yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7089 M 82.5 7.66 69.78 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7090 M 81.66 7.28 66.98 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7091 M 78.09 10.73 70.56 strong orange yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7092 M 79.55 9.05 73.13 vivid yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7093 F 73.57 12.56 76.01 strong orange yellow Florida/Georgia 441 31-Aug 7094 M 79.76 10.29 67.5 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7095 M 80.49 9.41 69.89 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7096 M 78.28 10.67 71.76 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7097 M 79 9.38 66.87 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7098 M 80.48 8.83 68.67 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7099 M 80.24 8.41 67.57 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7100 M 82.13 7.78 66.7 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7101 M 82.28 7.72 66.77 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7102 F 73.47 11.55 72.61 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Sep 7103 M 79.99 6.81 63.85 strong yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7104 M 81.67 5.95 63.28 brilliant yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7105 M 80.51 7.3 62.72 strong yell ow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7106 M 81.74 5.81 59.26 brilliant yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 Sep 7107 M 80.32 7.12 64.81 strong yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep

PAGE 440

440 Appendix I. Continued. 7108 M 75.39 10.15 68.1 strong orange yellow Goethe State Park FL 8 -Sep 7109 M 80.91 7.05 65.28 strong yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7110 F 78.17 9.88 63.34 moderate orange yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7111 F 78.25 8.37 57.57 moderate orange yellow Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7112 F 17.85 6.62 22.92 dark yellowish brown Goethe State Park, FL 8 -Sep 7113 F 21.23 7.66 30.68 dark yellowish brown Kentucky 8 -Sep 7114 F 79.97 8.19 62.27 moderate orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7115 F 20.13 7.03 26.46 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7116 F 17. 99 7.13 21.13 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7117 F 79.73 7.45 58.48 moderate orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7118 F 79.89 7.43 59.6 strong yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7119 F 16.17 6.4 20.29 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18 Sep 7120 F 15.58 7.15 20.92 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7121 F 18.99 7.31 24.39 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7122 F 20.1 7.43 25.36 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7123 F 77.92 8.36 54.82 moderate orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7124 F 16.89 6 21.52 dark yellowish brown Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7125 M 77.66 8.16 60.05 moderate orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7126 M 77.56 7.96 62.7 strong yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7127 M 81.97 5.15 57.52 brilliant yellow Vicksburg, MS 1 8 -Sep 7128 F 80.14 7.44 57.08 moderate orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7129 M 79.39 7.67 60.34 strong yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7130 M 77.67 8.37 64.19 strong yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7131 M 77.42 9.1 65.47 strong orange yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7132 M 83.36 5.86 54.77 brilliant yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7133 M 80.58 6.73 56.19 strong yellow Vicksburg, MS 18-Sep 7134 M 78.89 7.22 61.55 strong yellow Goethe State Park, FL 20-Sep 7135 M 76.78 8.53 62.12 moderate orange yellow Goethe State Park, FL 20-Sep 7136 M 82.21 6.1 60.88 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7137 M 77.19 11.03 68.7 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7138 M 77.9 8.19 63.01 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7139 M 77.19 8.72 63.31 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7140 M 80.13 6.86 62.26 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7141 M 82.42 5.77 61.1 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7142 M 78.19 9.19 65.33 strong orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7143 M 78.99 7.67 64.26 strong yellow Lak e Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7144 M 79.19 7.77 62.55 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7145 M 80.5 7.91 63.95 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7146 M 81.73 6.22 60.41 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7147 F 75.58 7.95 67.51 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7148 F 80.34 6.43 49.43 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7149 F 79.76 7.46 53 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 7150 F 14.31 6.86 18.05 dark yellowish brown Lake Placid, FL 3 -Oct 8001 F 15.48 7.21 19.54 dark yellowish br own Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8002 M 82.27 6.6 57.52 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8003 M 82.08 6 62.43 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8004 M 83.07 5.11 58.43 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar

PAGE 441

441 Appendix I. Continued. 8005 M 81.8 5.11 63. 06 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8006 M 80.74 6.98 61.83 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8007 F 11.32 7.08 13.14 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8008 M 80.16 6.79 58.83 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8009 F 8.29 5.76 8.81 dark brown Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8010 M 82.16 4.75 53.5 light yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8011 M 82.03 5.29 60.05 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8012 M 83.31 5.49 58.45 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8014 F 81.34 5.88 58.66 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8015 M 80.4 6.51 64.29 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8016 M 81.09 6.27 62.72 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8017 M 81.28 6.23 60.43 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8018 M 82.22 5.8 57.24 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8019 M 82.12 6.39 61.15 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8022 F 81.01 5.64 57.09 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8024 M 81.39 4.83 59.38 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8025 F 79.91 4.84 62.28 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8026 M 80.91 8.21 69.27 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8027 M 82.45 4.1 58.89 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8028 M 79.95 6.02 61.72 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8029 M 84.38 4 54.09 light yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8030 F 7.58 6.59 8.13 dark brown Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8031 M 81.82 4.23 59.36 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15 Mar 8032 F 12.44 5.22 15.34 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8033 M 83.64 4.57 55.41 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8034 F 80.71 6.96 58.35 strong yell ow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8035 M 80.5 6.14 62.36 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8036 M 82.81 4.48 61.62 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 15-Mar 8038 F 75.55 7.7 63.98 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 16-Mar 8039 M 78.71 8.02 60.46 moderate orange yellow L ake Placid, FL 16-Mar 8040 M 80.83 4.73 59.51 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 16-Mar 8041 M 82.67 5.22 48.54 light yellow Geothe State Park, FL 19-Mar 8042 M 79.85 6.37 55.37 strong yellow Geothe State Park, FL 19-Mar 8043 M 80.32 6.82 65.47 strong yello w Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8045 M 82.66 4.94 59.09 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8046 M 82.6 4.01 59.84 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8047 M 84.04 6.16 47.04 light orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8048 M 78.55 8.86 64.52 moderate orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8049 F 78.34 7.51 63.52 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8050 F 78.27 8.26 68.54 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8051 M 81.68 6.05 60.47 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8052 M 81.27 5.9 59.57 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8053 M 80.41 8.43 59.47 moderate orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8054 M 82.04 6.17 51.29 light orange yellow Barberville, FL 21 Mar 8055 M 82.18 6.11 63.75 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8056 M 81.06 4.85 57.12 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar

PAGE 442

442 Appendix I. Continued. 8057 F 79.58 7.15 70.83 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8058 M 79.31 8 64.78 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8059 M 83.92 4.41 58.22 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8060 M 80.9 7.23 58.65 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8061 M 81.12 6.24 62.76 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8062 M 79.2 7.86 65.1 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8063 M 78.47 6.51 65.47 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8064 F 77.94 7 .16 65.09 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8065 M 82.37 5.11 58.22 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8066 M 81.4 5.72 59.08 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8067 F 80.81 7.21 61.9 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8068 F 76.34 9.34 71.32 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21 Mar 8069 M 80.99 7.21 60.32 strong yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8072 M 82.91 6.44 60.96 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8073 M 82.42 5.02 58.52 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8074 M 82.73 4.81 55.85 brilliant yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8075 M 79.46 8.8 65.36 strong orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8076 M 81.63 7.86 57.23 light orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8077 M 79.01 9.14 62.52 moderate orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8078 M 79.66 8.61 63.19 moderate orange yellow Barberville, FL 21-Mar 8080 M 81.95 5.72 57.39 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8081 M 83.95 3.75 59.56 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8082 M 84.28 5.38 67.71 brilliant yellow Florida/Ge orgia 441 27-Mar 8083 M 82.86 6.14 65.49 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8084 M 82.3 5.39 60.7 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8085 M 81.96 7.54 66.41 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8086 M 81.86 5.02 59.67 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8087 M 82.75 4.7 55.68 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8088 M 82.88 5.76 58.63 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8089 M 82.49 4.84 56.35 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8090 F 80.46 5 .35 62.3 strong yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8091 M 83.28 5.98 65.77 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8092 M 83.23 5.1 58.37 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8094 M 84.68 4.44 57.5 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8095 F 81.98 5.05 59.92 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8096 M 83.18 5.12 57.21 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8097 M 84.1 3.77 58.7 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8098 M 84.72 4.69 51.89 light yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8099 M 82.65 3.98 52.15 light yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8100 M 82.2 6.05 60.03 brilliant yellow Florida/Georgia 441 27-Mar 8101 F 13.86 6.89 16.25 dark yellowish brown Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8102 F 8.77 5.19 9.68 dark yellowish brown W akulla, FL 29-Mar 8103 F 78.97 5.69 61.45 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8105 F 14.58 6.64 17.96 dark yellowish brown Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8107 F 81.3 5.93 70.1 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8108 F 10.63 6.71 13.32 dark yellowish brown Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8110 F 14.48 8.17 19.98 dark yellowish brown Pineland, FL 29-Mar

PAGE 443

443 Appendix I. Continued. 8111 F 18.62 7.82 24.75 dark yellowish brown Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8112 F 78.87 7.92 67.1 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8113 F 9.46 6.65 12.06 dark yell owish brown Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8114 F 78.36 8.73 71.21 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8115 M 80.73 7.75 68.03 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8116 M 82.56 6.2 65.79 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8118 M 81.06 7.43 69.86 strong yellow Pinela nd, FL 29-Mar 8119 M 81.56 6.48 68.38 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8120 M 82.98 5.58 62.23 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8121 M 82.28 5.61 65.07 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8122 M 81.16 6.5 69.69 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Ma r 8123 M 81.85 5.73 65.06 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8124 M 81.65 6.27 65.85 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8125 M 82.01 6.53 65.62 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8126 M 82.01 6.53 65.62 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8127 M 82.38 4.77 60.31 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8128 M 83.45 4.59 60.65 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8129 M 83.6 4.61 62.44 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8130 M 81.23 5.71 63.13 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8131 M 82.91 4.57 59.69 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8132 M 82.91 4.57 59.69 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8133 M 81.43 5.25 61.15 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8134 M 82.83 4.43 60.39 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29 Mar 8135 M 80.58 7.44 61.35 s trong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8136 M 81.87 5.2 61.54 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8137 M 80.28 6.62 65.12 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8138 M 80.75 6.75 60.17 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8139 M 81.45 5.88 60.78 brilliant yellow Pi neland, FL 29-Mar 8140 M 82.93 4.16 57.73 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8141 M 83.5 4.57 58.12 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8142 M 82.35 4.66 59.14 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8143 M 80.88 5.48 60.22 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 29-M ar 8144 M 82.67 4.21 56.7 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8145 M 82.42 3.83 56.29 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8146 M 83.14 4.76 55.71 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8147 M 81.23 5.62 59.52 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8148 M 82.37 4.45 58.36 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8149 M 82.09 5.24 58.69 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8150 M 82.02 5.68 59.81 brilliant yellow Wakulla, FL 29-Mar 8151 M 81.53 5.8 56.42 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8152 M 81.27 5.29 59.87 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8153 M 79.19 7.18 64.47 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8154 M 80.44 4.88 57.24 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8155 M 79.56 6.52 63.22 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29 Mar 8156 M 79.9 6.53 62.49 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8157 M 80.51 5.45 60.3 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar

PAGE 444

444 Appendix I. Continued. 8158 M 81.99 5.28 58.71 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8159 M 79.89 7.16 61.44 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8160 M 81.81 5.67 60.87 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8161 M 82.27 6.64 62.82 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8162 M 83.99 3.97 60.47 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8163 M 81.63 4.68 59.43 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8164 M 80.38 6.53 61.6 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8165 M 80.94 5.32 60.27 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8166 M 79.98 6.83 64.56 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8167 M 81.63 4.68 57.99 brilliant yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8168 M 80.78 5.94 60.25 strong yellow Pineland, FL 29-Mar 8169 F 77.04 8.32 69.65 strong yellow Geothe State Park, FL 30 Mar 8170 F 77.84 5.87 60.77 strong yellow Geothe State Park, FL 30-Mar 8174 F 72.73 11.58 73.39 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8175 F 72.03 10.22 68.45 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8178 F 13.91 6.97 15.28 dark yellowish brown Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8180 F 16.67 8.14 19.89 dark yellowish brown Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8182 M 79.1 9.04 62.76 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8185 M 78.1 8.26 66.44 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8186 M 81.71 6 60.2 brilliant yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8187 M 79.34 7.27 60.53 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8188 M 79.22 7.13 64.58 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8189 M 78.5 8.78 60.35 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8191 M 75.57 8.54 65.11 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8192 M 81.34 5.2 58.33 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8193 M 78.2 9 60.16 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8194 M 78.37 7.54 63.79 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8196 M 79.02 8.67 59.18 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8198 M 77.4 9.9 63.31 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8200 M 79.27 6.26 63.01 strong yellow Sebring, FL 7 -Apr 8202 F 76.22 7.33 62.89 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8203 F 77.04 7.5 62.95 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8204 F 79.15 6.32 63.17 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8205 F 13.79 6.19 16.68 dark yellowish brown Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8207 M 77.11 8.73 64.21 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8208 M 83 4.42 59.04 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8209 M 79.05 7.13 64 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8210 M 80.05 6.3 65.23 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8211 M 76.52 9.59 66.35 strong orange yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8212 M 78.55 7.68 64.05 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8213 M 81.52 5.03 64.81 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8214 M 79.11 7.99 62.24 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8215 M 78.51 7.76 62.45 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8216 M 83.54 4.17 56.36 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8217 M 79.48 8.66 63.61 moderate o range yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8218 M 80.94 5.33 61.83 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8219 M 78.75 7.93 60.52 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr

PAGE 445

445 Appendix I. Continued. 8220 M 81.49 4.92 58.33 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8221 M 8 1.7 4.73 58.15 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8222 M 79.41 6.05 59.09 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8223 M 82.91 3.81 53.32 light yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8224 M 82.59 3.76 55.17 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8225 M 81.96 4.71 57.67 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8226 M 82.28 3.68 56.84 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8227 M 81.54 3.6 56.78 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8228 M 79.41 8.83 75.29 vivid yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8229 M 82.68 5.66 60.34 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8230 M 82.42 5.13 62.45 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8232 M 81.68 6.71 66.33 brilliant yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8233 M 81.32 6.79 65.28 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8234 M 77.28 10.56 69.63 strong orange yellow Wa ycross, GA 10-Apr 8235 M 78.78 8.3 69.19 strong yellow Waycross, GA 10-Apr 8236 M 81.73 5.34 61.08 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 17-Apr 8237 M 82.56 4.09 59.52 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 17-Apr 8238 M 79.79 6.64 61.09 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 17-Apr 8239 F 78.26 5.28 62.11 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 17-Apr 8241 M 79.36 6.78 61.95 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8242 F 9.33 5.93 9.07 dark brown Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8243 M 79.37 6.58 64.03 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8244 M 79.34 5.8 62.72 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26 Apr 8245 M 80.99 7.69 60.9 moderate orange yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8246 M 79.7 6.79 62.05 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8247 M 81.02 5.69 52.86 moderate yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8249 F 14.68 8.16 18.94 dark yellowish brown Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8250 M 80.23 5.3 58.7 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8251 M 80.44 6.15 58.11 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8253 M 80.3 5.86 61.71 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8254 M 79.51 7.3 62.04 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8255 M 79.58 7.23 59.81 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8256 M 79.69 8.23 65.57 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8257 M 81.08 7.17 62.05 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8258 M 80.24 6.64 59.25 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8260 M 78.85 6. 35 61.56 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8261 M 80.69 7.07 58.98 strong yellow Wakulla, FL 26-Apr 8262 M 80.19 7.01 62.55 strong yellow Hosford, FL 26-Apr 8263 M 79.78 6.69 57.07 strong yellow Hosford, FL 26-Apr 8265 M 80.83 6.31 53.28 strong yellow Hosford, FL 26-Apr 8266 M 80.2 5.83 55.18 strong yellow Hosford, FL 26-Apr 8268 M 81.83 4.73 60.38 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8269 M 83.75 4.26 57.34 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8270 M 84.73 3.42 53.92 light yellow La Fayette, GA 1 May 8271 M 82.35 4.49 59.31 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8272 M 82.2 4.13 57.12 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May

PAGE 446

446 Appendix I. Continued. 8273 M 81.3 5.86 60.86 strong yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8274 M 80.08 6.32 61.72 strong yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8275 M 82.79 4.3 59 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8276 M 84.8 4.15 47.54 light yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8277 M 82.83 4.48 62.16 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8278 M 84.42 3.42 59.86 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8279 M 84.5 3.5 56.53 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8280 M 83.5 4.62 59.35 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8281 M 79.9 5.7 63.24 strong yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8282 M 83.19 4.82 61.53 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8283 M 82.73 4.28 58.89 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8284 M 84.11 4.13 56.59 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 May 8285 M 81.77 5.2 57.34 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8286 M 81.6 4.01 56.15 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8287 M 81.85 4.65 60.24 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8288 M 84.37 4.1 52.38 light yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8289 M 82.21 4.44 56.28 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8290 M 80.77 4.6 59.7 strong yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8291 M 81.71 5.1 59.12 bril liant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8292 M 82.07 4.42 59.71 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8293 M 82.29 4.55 53.18 light yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8294 M 83.08 4.43 55.74 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8295 M 83.4 4.14 58.33 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8296 M 82.64 4.84 62.03 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8297 M 82.85 4.1 58.95 brilliant yellow La Fayette, GA 1 -May 8298 M 80.7 5.47 60.84 strong yellow Gainesville, FL 4 -May 8300 M 80.65 5.8 61.38 strong yellow Horse Cr eek, GA 23-May 8301 M 79.36 5.85 60.82 strong yellow Horse Creek, GA 23-May 8302 M 81.16 5.46 61.68 strong yellow Horse Creek, GA 23-May 8303 M 81.77 5.13 55.23 brilliant yellow Horse Creek, GA 23-May 8304 M 82 5.47 59.23 brilliant yellow Horse Creek, GA 23-May 8305 M 82.27 6.53 59.39 brilliant yellow Horse Creek, GA 23-May 8306 F 75.02 7.82 60.91 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8307 F 7.91 5.62 8.79 dark brown Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8308 F 74.3 10.5 75.12 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8309 F 9.74 6.74 11.79 dark yellowish brown Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8309 M 75.48 7.98 57.65 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8310 M 80.72 6.38 64.58 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8311 M 79.94 7.58 60 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8312 M 79. 6 8.33 69.37 strong yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8320 M 77.32 9.8 67.3 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8321 M 78.88 9.5 68.14 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8322 M 78.92 9.01 62.82 moderate orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8323 M 78.63 9.41 65.29 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8324 F 76.63 10.05 70.88 strong orange yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8325 M 81.65 6.46 61.29 brilliant yellow Cedar Key, FL 3 -Jun 8326 M 78.53 6.25 56.24 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun

PAGE 447

447 Appendix I. Co ntinued. 8327 M 77.77 6.42 59.7 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8328 M 80.52 4.61 57.18 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8329 M 77.54 7.42 62.9 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8330 M 79.7 5.39 58.37 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8331 M 80.54 3.94 55. 9 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8332 M 78.54 5.87 59.32 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8333 M 78.3 6.57 61.05 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8334 M 82.61 3.19 51.67 light yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8335 M 82.1 3.48 52.65 light yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Ju n 8337 F 12.05 4.93 13.96 dark yellowish brown Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8338 F 14.56 5.56 16.2 dark yellowish brown Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8339 F 73.72 9.2 66.82 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8340 F 78.5 6.24 47.77 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8341 F 71.22 10.81 68.66 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8342 M 77.28 7.92 60.78 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8343 F 77.16 7.09 57.73 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8346 M 77.67 6.74 61.07 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8347 M 76.58 7.87 64.39 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8348 F 75.9 6.48 61.78 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8351 F 75.27 7.52 63.39 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8353 F 74.76 8.56 63.76 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8355 F 74.49 7.79 63.82 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8356 F 70.05 10.79 71.21 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 4 Jun 8358 M 78.83 5.83 58.22 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8359 F 73.86 8.89 67.51 strong yellow Sebring, FL 4 -Jun 8361 M 80.99 5.24 55.18 strong yellow Starkville, MS 11-Jun 8362 M 82.38 3.38 56.86 brilliant yellow Starkville, MS 11-Jun 8363 M 79.52 6.7 60.92 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8364 M 82.04 4.3 56.7 brilliant yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8365 M 82.32 5.03 52.86 light yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8367 M 77.81 7.21 55.73 moderate orange yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8368 M 81.59 5.54 54.88 brilliant yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8369 M 78.57 8.56 66.48 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8370 M 81.19 5.39 65.49 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8371 M 78.14 9.04 63.94 moderate orange yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8372 M 79.87 6.25 58.34 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8373 M 79.44 6.43 55.43 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8374 M 77.28 7.97 58.67 moderate orange yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8375 M 80.79 5.63 55.6 strong yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8376 M 77.7 7.93 58.85 moderate orange yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8377 M 82.45 4.25 60.93 brilliant yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8378 M 81.97 4.6 56.88 brilliant yellow Cooper's Creek, GA 11-Jul 8379 M 76.08 9.25 59.91 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8380 M 76.71 8.53 63.38 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25 Jul 8381 M 75.02 9.31 64.44 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8382 M 77.92 7.02 56.89 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul

PAGE 448

448 Appendix I. Continued. 8383 M 73.26 11.55 70.09 strong orange yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8384 M 79.51 6.74 58.84 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8386 F 74.22 8.4 63.05 strong yellow Waycross, G A 25-Jul 8388 M 81 5.08 53.68 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8389 M 81.1 5.25 54.72 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8390 M 75.98 8.94 60.44 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8392 M 76.87 7.19 61 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8393 M 7 9.76 5.5 54.5 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8394 F 75.48 7.55 61.52 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8401 F 75.4 8.55 58.88 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8403 F 76.5 6.42 60.81 strong yellow Waycross, GA 25-Jul 8404 M 78.36 7.37 57.2 moderate orange yellow Waycross, GA 25 Jul 8405 M 76.55 8.7 59.98 moderate orange yellow Elkton, TN 10-Aug 8407 M 75.43 7.59 63.95 strong yellow Elkton, TN 10-Aug 8408 M 77.37 9.99 69.22 strong orange yellow Elkton, TN 10-Aug 8409 F 75.17 8.24 65.54 st rong yellow Elkton, TN 10-Aug 8410 M 79.92 5.8 59.04 strong yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8414 M 76.94 7.46 59.8 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8415 M 76.01 8.08 63.49 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8416 M 75.32 8.9 64.19 moderate orange yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8417 M 75.06 9.89 65.08 strong orange yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8418 M 79.77 5.98 60.7 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8419 M 76.46 7.24 60.12 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8420 F 80.43 4.43 48.28 moderate yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8421 F 12.26 6.17 15.25 dark yellowish brown Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8423 F 78.09 5.35 50.09 moderate yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8424 F 75.77 4.98 59.6 strong yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8426 F 14.04 5.74 15.72 dark yellowish brown Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8427 F 80.05 4.1 5 42.62 moderate yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8428 F 14.52 5.6 15.88 dark yellowish brown Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8429 F 76.37 6.87 58.6 strong yellow Elkton, TN 17-Aug 8431 M 78.51 5.71 60.41 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8432 F 73.97 5.99 53.6 strong yello w Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8433 F 79.5 5.66 66.67 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8434 M 76.8 6.59 62.77 strong yellow Fayette, AL 17-Aug 8436 M 78.52 5.63 60.9 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8437 M 77.16 8.15 59.43 moderate orange yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8438 F 14.1 8.2 17.63 dark yellowish brown Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8439 M 75.89 7.25 64.35 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8440 F 74.47 7.84 66.6 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8441 M 76.29 8.55 64.86 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8442 F 76. 29 7.19 61.61 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8443 M 78.58 7.58 65.11 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8444 M 75.73 10.09 70.39 strong orange yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8445 F 23.98 9.62 27.64 dark yellowish brown Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8448 M 75.88 9. 42 68.72 strong orange yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8449 F 15.16 8.01 19.16 dark yellowish brown Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep

PAGE 449

449 Appendix I. Continued. 8450 M 79.05 7.84 65.64 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8452 F 76.06 7.68 58.59 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8453 M 80.22 5.27 54.87 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8454 M 81.11 4.57 48.33 moderate yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8456 M 76.95 7.29 59.27 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8458 F 15.92 6.4 15.88 dark yellowish brown Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8459 M 7 7.1 5.77 58.24 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8461 M 75.99 7.56 63.7 strong yellow Fairmount, GA 1 -Sep 8462 F 78.51 7.77 51.13 moderate orange yellow Gainesville, FL 6 -Sep 8463 F 71.56 10.34 61.84 moderate orange yellow Gainesville, FL 6 -Sep 8464 M 78.71 7.76 62.71 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8466 M 81.24 6.35 60.37 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8467 M 80.55 6.43 58.34 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8468 F 76.87 7.48 64.32 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8469 F 70.77 12.56 73.19 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8470 F 10.05 7.15 11.24 dark brown Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8471 F 73.25 10.94 69.55 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8472 M 76.87 9.01 64.92 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8474 M 75.32 9.93 65.95 strong or ange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8475 F 74.59 9.73 61.84 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8476 M 74.61 11.52 66.87 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8477 M 75.01 10.28 65.74 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8478 M 75.58 9.43 65.19 s trong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11 Oct 8479 F 7.03 6.82 6.74 dark brown Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8480 F 78.11 7.65 55.67 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8481 M 79.42 7.51 61.38 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8482 F 71.01 13.43 74.64 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8483 F 10.61 7.62 11.33 dark brown Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8484 F 75.98 9.26 60.3 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8485 F 74.37 10.77 67.45 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8487 F 70.99 13.5 76.15 strong orange yel low Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8488 F 72.3 11.92 69.48 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8489 M 76.4 10.44 62.55 moderate orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8490 F 74.25 10.49 66.51 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8491 F 76.18 8.8 65.82 strong yell ow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8492 M 79.72 7.18 58.25 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8493 M 80.98 5.78 55.75 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8494 M 75.36 10.49 69.15 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8495 M 74.55 10.38 64.69 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8496 M 74.71 10.69 67.43 strong orange yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8497 M 79.64 7.05 61.36 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8498 M 77.59 7.62 64.68 strong yellow Sebring, FL 11-Oct 8499 F 82.39 5.74 41.32 light orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 11-Oct 8500 M 80.06 7.96 56.18 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 11 Oct 8501 M 79.61 6.98 59.76 strong yellow Lake Placid, FL 11-Oct 8503 M 82.07 6.07 54.89 brilliant yellow Lake Placid, FL 11-Oct

PAGE 450

450 Appendix I. Continued. 8505 F 76.02 10.04 62.86 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 11-Oct 8507 M 77.99 8.27 59.77 moderate orange yellow Lake Placid, FL 11-Oct

PAGE 451

451 LIST OF REFERENCES Agrawal, A. A. 2 001. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science 294: 321326. Anderson, E. and L. Hubricht. 1938. Hybridization in Tradescantia. III. The evidence for introgressive hybridiz ation. Am. J. Bot. 25: 396402. Anderson, E. 1948. Hybridization of the habitat. Evolution 2: 19. Angelo, M. J. and F. Slansky, Jr. 1984. Body buildin g by insects: tradeoffs in resource allocation with particular reference to migratory species. Fla. Entomol. 67: 2241. Atchley, W. R. 1983. Some genetic aspects of morphometric variation, pp. 346363. In J. Felsenstein (ed.), Numerical T axonomy: Springer Verlag, Berlin. Atsatt, P. R. 1981. Lycaenid butterflies and ants: selection for enemy free space. Am. Nat. 118: 638654. Aubret, F., R. Shine, and X. Bonnet. 2004. Evolutionary biology: adaptive developmental plasticity in snakes. Nature 431: 261262. A ustin, A. and J. Emmel. 1998. A review of Papilio multicaudatus Kirby (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) pp. 691700. In T. C. Emmel (ed.), Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, FL. Babik, W. and J. Rafinski. 2004. Relat ionship between morphometric and genetic variation in pure and hybrid populations of the S mooth and Montandons newt ( Triturus vulgaris and T. montandoni ). J. Zool., Lond. 262: 135143. Baldwin, J. M. 1896. A new factor in evolution. Am. Nat. 30: 441451, 536553. Balaban, M. O. 2008. Quantifying nonhomogeneous colors in agricultural materials Part 1: M ethod development. J. Food Sci. 16. Barron, A. B. 2001. The life and death of Hopkins Host selection Principle. J. Insect Behav. 14: 725738. Baum, D. A. and M. J. Donoghue. 1995. Choosing among alternative "phylogenetic" species concepts. Syst. Bot. 20: 560573. Beldade, P. and P. M. Brakefield. 2002. The genetics and evo devo of butterfly wing patterns. Nat Rev. Genet. 3: 442452.

PAGE 452

452 Beldade, P. and S. V. S aenko. 2009. Evolution and development of butterfly wing patterns: focus on Bicyclus anynana eyespots, pp. 89104. In M. Goldsmith and F. Marec (eds.), Molecular Biology and G enetics of the Lepidoptera. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Beldade, P., P. M. Brakef ield, and A. D. Long. 2005. Generating phenotypic variation: prospects from evo devo research on Bicyclus anynana wing patterns. Evol. Dev. 7: 101107. Berenbaum, M. R. 1995. Chemistry and oligophagy in the Papilionidae, pp. 2738. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.) Swallowtail B utterflies: their E cology and E volutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Berenbaum, M. R., C. Favret, and M. A. Schuler. 1996. On defining key innovations in an adaptive radiation: cyt ochrome P450s and Papilionidae. Am. Nat. 148: S139S155. Blair, F. W. 1955. Mating call and stage of speciation in the Microhyla olivacea M. carolinensis complex. Evolution 9: 469480. Bossart, J. L. and J. M. Scriber. 1995a. Genetic variation in oviposit ion preference in tiger swallowtail butterflies: interspecific interpopulation and interindividual comparisons, pp. 183194. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowtail Butterflies: their Ecology and Evolutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Bossart, J. L. and J. M. Scriber. 1995b. Maintenance of ecologically significant genetic variation in the tiger swallowtail butterfly through differential selection and gene flow. Evolution 49: 11631171. Bossart, J. L. and J. M. Scriber. 1999. Preference variation in the polyphagous tiger swallowtail butterfly (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Environ. Entomol. 28: 628637. Brakefield, P. M. and A. Monteiro. 2003. The evolution of butterfly eyespot patterns, pp. 243258. In Ecol ogy and Evolution Taking Flight: Butterflies as Model S tudy S ystems. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Brakefield, P. M., F. Kesbeke, and P. Bernhardt Koch. 1998. The regulation of phenotypic plasticity of eyespots in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Am. Nat. 15 2: 853860. Brakefield, P. M., J. Gates, D. Keys, F. Kesbeke, P. J. Wingaarden, and A. Monteiro. 1996. Development, plasticity and evolution of butterfly wing patterns. Nature 384: 236242. The British Museum. www.britishmuseumshoponline.org. Accessed February 16, 2010.

PAGE 453

453 Brower, J. V. Z. 1958. Experimental studies of mimi cry in some North American butterflies. Part 1. The monarch, Danaus plexippus and viceroy, Limenitis archippus archippus Evolution 1 2: 3247. Brower, L. P. 1959a. Speciation in butterflies of the Papilio glaucus g roup. I. M orphological relationships and hybridization. Evolution 13: 4063. Brower, L. P. 1959b Speciation in butterflies of the Papilio glaucus g roup. II E cological relati onships and interspecific sexual behavior. Evolution 13: 212228. Brown, Jr., K. S., C. F. Klitzke, C. Berlingeri, and P. Euzebio Rubbo dos Santos. 1995. Neotropical swallowtails: chemistry of food plant relationships, population ecology, and biosystemati cs pp. 405446. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowtail Butterflies: their Ecology and E volutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Burbrink, F. T., R. Lawson, and J. B. Slowinski. 2000. Molecular phylogeogr aphy of the North American rat snake ( Elaphe obsoleta): a critique of the subspecies concept. Evolution 54: 21072114. Burke, J. M., and L. H. Rieseberg. 2000. Hybrids and hybridization. pp. 3235. In R. Robinson (ed), Plant Sciences for S tudents. Macmill an Reference USA, New York. Campbell, T. S. 1996. Northern range expansion of the brown anole Anolis sagre in Florida and Georgia. Herp. Rev. 27: 155157. Campbell, T. S. and A. C. Echternacht. 2003. Introduced species as moving targets: changes in body s izes of introduced lizards following experimental introductions and historical invasions. Biol. Invasions 5: 193212. Catesby, M. 1736. The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands. Printed by author, London. Cicera, C. and N. K. Johnson. 2006. Diagnosability of subspecies: lessons from sage sparrows ( Amphispiza Belli) for analysis of geographic variation in birds. Auk 123: 26274. Clarke, C. A. and P. M. Sheppard. 1956. Hand pairing of butterflies. Lepid. News 10: 4753. Clarke, C. A. and P. M. Sheppard. 1959. The genetics of some mimetic forms of Papilio dardanus Brown, and Papilio glaucus L. J ourn. Genetics 56: 236260. Clarke, C. A. and P. M. Sheppard. 1962. The genetics of the mimetic butterfly Papilio glaucus Ecology 43: 159161.

PAGE 454

454 Clench, W. J. and R. D. Turner. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 1: 97239. Collins M. M. 1984. Genetics and ecology of a hybri d zone in Hyalophora (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Entomol. 104: 193. Collins, M. M. 2007. Moth Catcher: an E volutionis t's Journey through Canyon and P ass. University of Nevada Press, Nevada. Collins, N. M. and M. G. Morris. 1985. Threat ened Swallowtail Butterflies of the W orld, The IUCN Red Data B ook. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, UK. Collins, M. M. H. B. Britten, V. Rivers. 1993. Allozyme analysis of a known hybrid zone between Hyalophora euryalus and H. coumbia gloveri (Lepidoptera: Sat urniidae) in the California Sierra Nevada. J. Res. Lepidoptera 32: 7988. Courtney, S. P. 1981. Coevolution of pierid butterflies and their cruciferous foodplants III. Anthocharis cardamines (L.) survival, development and oviposition on different hostplants. Oecologia 51: 9196. Courtney, S. P., G. K. Chen, A. Gardner. 1989. A general model for individual host selection. Oikos, 55: 5565. Cracraft, J. 1982. A non equilibrium theory for the ratecontrol of speciation and extinction and the origin of macroev olutionary patterns. Syst. Zool. 31: 348365. Cramer, P. 1775. De Uitlandsche Kappelen Voorkomende in de drie Waereld Deelen Asia, Africa en America, by een verzameld en beschreeven. Vol. 1. Baalde, Utrecht, Wild, Amsterdam. Crispo, E. 2007. The Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation: revisiting two mechanisms of evolutionary change mediated by phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 61: 24692479. DeJong, G. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: patterns of plasticity and the emergence of ecotypes. New Phyt ol. 166: 101118. Dethier, V. G. 1941. The function of the antennal receptors in lepidopterous larvae. Biol. Bull. Woods Hole. 80: 403414. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of S pecies. Columbia University Press, New York. Dobzhansky, T. 1940. S peciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence. Amer. Natur. 74: 312321.

PAGE 455

455 Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 35: 125129. Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88: 172181. Donovan, J. and J. M. Scriber. 2003. Why natural hybrids are hard to detect and verify: exemplified by a rare primary hybridization event between two tiger swallowtail butterfly species in northern Michigan. J. Lep. Soc. 57: 2535. Dubuc, C., L. J. N. Brent, A. K. Accamando, M. S. Gerald, A. MacLarnon, S. Semple, M. Heistermann, and A. Engelhardt. 2009. Sexual skin color contains information about the timing of the fertile phase i n freeranging Macaca mulatta. Int. J. Primatol. 30: 777789. Dudley, S. A. and J. Schmitt. 1996. Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: density dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis. Am. Nat. 147: 445465. Echternacht, A. C. 1999. Possible causes for the rapid decline in population density of green anoles following invasion by the brown anole in the Southeastern United States. Anolis Newsletter V: 22 27. Ehrlich, P. R. and P. H. Raven. 1964. Butterflies and plants: a st udy in coevolution. Evolution 18: 586608. Emmel, J. F. and O. Shields. 1978. Larval foodplant records for Papilio zelicaon in the Western United States. J. Res. Lepid. 17: 5667. Endler, J. A. 1977. Geographic Variation, Speciation, and C lines. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Eyre, F. H. 1980. Forest C over types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, D. C. Feeny, P. 1995. Ecological opportunism and chemical constraints on the host associations of swallowtail butterflies, pp. 916. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowtail butterflies: their ecology and evolutionary biology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Feeny, P. E., I. A. Stadler, and M. Carter. 1989. Effects of plant odor on oviposition by the black swallowtail butterfly, Papilio polyxenes (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). J. Insect Behav. 2: 803827. Feeny, P. E., L. Rosenberry, and M. Carter. 1983. Chemical aspects of oviposition behavior in butterflies, pp. 2776. In S. Ahmad (ed.), Herbivorous Insects: H ost seeking Behavior and M echanisms. Academic Press, New York.

PAGE 456

456 Forbes, W. T. M. 1960. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states Part IV. Agaristidae through Nymphalidae. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. St. Mem. 371: 1188. Fordyce, J. A., C. C. Nice, M. L. Forister, and A. M. Shapiro. 2002. The significance of wing pattern diversity in the Lycaenidae: mate discrimination by two recently diverged species. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 871879. Frankfater, C., W. Schuhly, F. R. Froncz ek, and M. Slattery. 2005. Processing of a sesquiterpene lactone by Papilio glaucus caterpillars. J. Chem. Ecol. 31: 25412550. Futuyma, D. J. 1986. Evolutionary B iology 2nd ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. Futuyma, D. J. 1987. The role of behavior in host ass ociated divergence in herbivorous insects, pp. 295302. In M. D. Huettel (ed.), Evolutionary Genetics of Invertebrate B ehavior. Plenum, NY. Ghalambor, C. K., J. K. McKay, S. Carroll, and D. N. Reznick. 2007. Adaptive versus nonadaptive phenotypic plastic ity and the potential for contemporary adaption to the new environments. Funct. Ecol. 21: 394407. Google. www.googleearth.com Accessed February 16, 2010. Google. http://map s.google.com/ Accessed February 16, 2010. Grether, G. F. 2005. Environmental change, phenotypic plasticity, and genetic compensation. Am. Nat. 166: E115E123. Guppy, C. S. 1985. The adaptive significance of alpine melanism in the buttefly Parnassius phoebus F. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Oecologia 70: 205213. Gutteling, E. W., A. Doroszuk, J. A. G. Riksen, Z. Prokop, J. Reszka, J. E. Kammenga. 2007. Environmental influence on the genetic correlations between life history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans. Heredity 98: 206213. Haffer, J. 1969. Speciation in Amazonian forest birds. Science 165: 131137. Hagen, R. H. 1990. Population structure and host use in hybridizing subspecies of Papilio glaucus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Evolution. 44: 19141930. Hagen R. H. and J. M. Scriber. 1989. Sex linked diapauses, color and allozyme loci in Papilio glaucus : linkage analysis and significance in a hybrid zone. J. Hered. 80: 179185. Hagen, R. H., R. C. Lederhouse, J. L. Bossart, and J. M. Scriber. 1991. Papil io canadensis and P. glaucus (Papilionidae) are distinct species. J. Lepid. Soc. 45: 245258.

PAGE 457

457 Harris, L. 1972. Butterflies of Georgia. University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma. Hegnauer, R. 1983. Chemical characters and the classification of the Rutales, pp 401440. In P. G. Waterman and M. F. Grundon (eds.), Chemistry and chemical taxonomy of the Rutales. Academic Press, London. Hewitt, G. M. 1988. Hybrid zones: natural laboratories for evolution studies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 158 166. Hewitt, G. M. 1996. So me genetic consequences of ice ages, and their role in divergence and speciation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58: 247276. Howard, D. J. 1993. Reinforcement: origin, dyamics, and fate of an evolutionary hypothesis. In R. G. Harrison (ed.), Hybrid Zones and the Evo lutionary P rocess. Oxford University Press, New York. Howard, D. J., S. C. Britch, and W. E. Braswell. 2003. Evolution in hybrid zones, pp. 297314. In R. K. Singh and M. K. Uyenoyama (eds.), The Evolution of Population B iology. Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Howe, W. H. 1975. The B utterflies of North America. Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Johnson, N. K., J. V. Remsen Jr., C. Cicero. 1998. Refined colorimetry validates endangered subspecies of the least tern. The Condor 100: 1826. Jiggins, C. D. and J. Mallet 2000. Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 250255. Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1961. The phenomenon of industrial melanism in Lepidoptera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 6: 245 262. Knowles, L. L. and C. L. Richards. 2005. Importance of genetic drift during Pleistocene divergence as revealed by analyses of genomic variation. Mol. Ecol. 14: 40234032. Koch, P. B., U. Lorenz, P. M. Brakefield, and R. H. ffrenchConstant. 2000. Butterfly wing pattern mutants: developmental heterochrony and co ordinately regulated phenotypes. Dev. Genes Evol. 210: 536544. Kolbe, J. J. and J. B. Losos. 2005. Hind limb length plasticity in Anolis carolinensis J. Herpetol. 39:674678. Kolbe, J. J., R. E. Glor, L. Rodriguez Schettino, A. C. Lara, A. Larson, and J. B. Losos. 2004. Genetic variation increases during biological invasion by a Cuban lizard. Nature 431: 177181. Kunte, K. 2009. The diversity and evolution of Batesian mimicry in P apilio swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 63: 27072716.

PAGE 458

458 Lamarck, J. B. M. 1809. Philosophie Zoologique. Dentu, Paris. Lane, E. 1994. Florida's geological history and geological resources. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. Larsen, M. L., J. M. Scriber, and M. P. Zalucki. 2008. Significance of a new field oviposition record for Graphium eurypylus (L.) (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) on Michelia champaca (Magnoliaceae). Aust. J. Entomol. 47: 5863. Laurila, A., S. Karttunen, and J. Merila. 2002. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity and genetics of larval life histories in two Rana Temporaria populations. Evolution 56: 617627. Lederhouse, R. C. and J. M. Scriber 1987. Ecological significance of a postmating decline in egg viability in the tiger swallowtail. J. Lep. Soc. 41: 8393. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Tomus I. Systema naturae per reg na tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Holmiae. (Laurentii Salvii).: [1 4], 1 824. Lindroth, R. L., J. M. Scriber, and M. T. S. Hsia. 1986. Differential resp onses of tiger swallowtail subspecies to secondary metabolites from Tulip Tree and quaking aspen. Oecologia 70: 1319. Lindroth, R. L., J. M. Scriber, and M. T. S. Hsia. 1988a Effects of the quaking aspen compounds catechol, salicin and isoniazied on two subspecies of tiger swallowtails. Am. Midl. Nat. 119: 16. Lindroth, R. L., J. M. Scriber, and M. T. S. Hsia. 1988b. Chemical ecology of the tiger swallowtail: mediation of host use by phenolic glycosides. Ecology 69: 814822. Losos, J. B., D. A. Creer, D Glossip, R. Goellner, A. Hampton, G. Roberts, N. Haskell, P. Taylor, and J. Ettling. 2000. Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in the hindlimb of the lizard Anolis sagrei Evolution 54: 301305. Losos, J. B., J. C. Marks, and T. W. Schoener. 1993. Habitat use and ecological interactions of an introduced and a native species of Anolis lizard on Grand Cayman. Oecologia 95: 525532. Losos, J. B., K. I. Warheit, and T. W. Schoener. 1997. Adaptive differentiation following experimental island co lonization in Anolis lizards. Nature 387: 7073. Losos, J. B., T. W. Schoener, K. I. Warheit, and D. Creer. 2001. Experimental studies of adaptive differentiation in Bahamian Anolis lizards. Genetica 112113: 399415.

PAGE 459

459 Lucus, L. K., J. A. Fordyce, and C. C. Nice. 2008. Patterns of genitalic morphology around suture zones in North American Lycaeides (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Implications for taxonomy and historical biogeography. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 101: 172180. Luebke, H. J., J. M. Scriber, and B. S. Yan dell. 1988. Use of multivariate discriminate analysis of male wing morphometrics to delineate the Wisconsin hybrid zone for Papilio glaucus glaucus and P. g. canadensis Am. Midl. Nat. 119: 366379. Maddrell, S. H. P., and B. O. C. Gardiner. 1976. Excreti on of alkaloids by Malphigian tubules of insects. J. Exp Biol. 64: 267281. Mallet, J. 1995. A species definition for the modern synthesis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 294298. Mallet, J. and M. Joron. 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 201233. Mallet, J. and N. H. Barton. 1989. Strong natural selection in a warningcolor hybrid zone. Evolution 43: 421431. Mather, B. and K. Mather. 1985. The B utterflies of Missi ssippi: supplement No. 3. J. Lepid. Soc. 39: 134138. Martin, P. S. and B. E. Harrell. 1957. The Pleistocene history of temperate biotas in Mexico and Eastern United States. Ecology 38: 468480. Maynard, C. J. 1891. A Manual of North American B utterflies. De Wolfe, Fiske & Co., Boston, MD. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of S pecies. Columbia University Press, New York. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and E volution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McMillan, W. O., A. Monteiro, and D. D. Kap an. 2002. Development and evolution on the wing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 125133. Mercader, R. J. and J. M. Scriber. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity of host selection in adult tiger swallowtail butterflies, Papilio glaucus L. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae), pp. 2 5 57. In T. N. Ananthakrishnan and D. Whitman (eds ), Insect Phenotypic P lasticity. Science Publisher Inc., Enfield. Mercader, R. J. and J. M. Scriber, 2007. Divergence in the ovipositional behavior of the Papilio glaucus group. Insect Sci. 15: 361367.

PAGE 460

460 Me rcader, R. J., M. L. Aardema, and J. M. Scriber. 2009. Hybridization leads to host use divergence in a polyphagous butterfly sibling species pair. Oecologia 158: 651662. Merlin C. R. J. Gegear, S. M Reppert. 2009. Antennal circadian clocks coordinate su n compass orientation in migratory monarch butterflies. Science 325: 17001704. Merret, C. 1666. Pinax rerum naturalium britanni carum, continens vegetabilia, animalia, et. F. and T. Warren, London. Miller, J. S. 1987. Phylogenetic studies in the Papilion inae (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). B ull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 186: art. 4. Miller, J S., and P. P. Feeny. 1983. Interspecific differences among swallowtail larvae (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) in susceptibility to aristolochic acids and berberine. Ecol Entomol 14: 287296. Moffett, T. 1634. Insectorum sive mimimorum anumalium theatrum: olim ab ab Edoardo Wottono, Conrado Gesnero, Thomaque Pennio inchoatum: tandem Tho. Morfeti Londinatis operasumptibusq: maximis concinnatum, auctum, perfectum: et ad vivum expressis iconibus supra quingentis illustratum. Thomas Cotes, London. Monteiro, A., G. Glaser, S. Stockslagger, N. Glansdorp, and D. M. Ramos. 2006. Comparative insights into questions of lepidopteran wing pattern homology. BMC Devel. Biol. 6: 52. Moritz, C., C. J. Hoskin, J. B. MacKenzie, B. L. Phillips, M. Tonione, N Silva, J. VanDerWal, S. E. Williams and C. H. Graham. 2009. Identification and dynamics of a cryptic suture zone in tropical rainforest. Proc. R. Soc. B. 276: 12351244. Munroe, E. 1961. The classification of the Papilionidae (Lepidoptera). Can. Entomol Suppl. 17: 151. Munsell (Color Company). 1976. Munsell book of color, glossy finish collection. Baltimore: Munsell/Macbeth/Kollmorgan Corporation. Nakayama, T., K. Honda, and N. Hayashi. 2002. C hemical mediation of differential oviposition and larval survival on rutaceous plants in a swallowtail butterfly, Papilio polytes Entomol. Exp. Appl. 105: 3542. Neill, W. T. 1957. Historical biogeography of present day Florida. Bull. Fl. St. Mus. Bio. Sc i. 2: 176220. Nice, C. and J. A. Fordyce. 2006. How caterpillar avoid overheating: behavioral and phenotypic plasticity of pipevine swallowtail larvae. Oecologia 146:541548.

PAGE 461

461 Nijhout, H. F. 1984. Colour pattern modification by coldshock in Lepidoptera. J. Embryol. Exp. Morph. 81: 287305. Nijhout, H. F. 1991. The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wing P atterns. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Nijhout, H. F. 2003. Development and evolution of adaptive polyphenisms. Evol. Devel. 5: 918. Nishida, R. 1995. Oviposition stimulants of swallowtail butterflies, pp. 1726. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowt ail Butterflies: their Ecology and Evolutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. National O ceanic and Atmospheric Administration. www.noaa.com Accessed Feb 1, 2010. Ostenfeld, C. H. 1927. The present state of knowledge of hybrids between species of flowering plants. J. R. Hort. Soc. 53: 3144. Otaki, J. M. 20 03. Asymmetrical color pattern of Vanessa cardui : a case report of a field caught individual and experimental pattern modifications. Butterflies 35: 5056. Otaki, J. M. 2008. Phenotypic plasticity of wing color patterns revealed by temperature and chemical applications in a nymphalid butterfly Vanessa indica J. Therm. Biol. 33: 128139. Otaki, J. M. and H. Yamamoto. 2004. Species specific color pattern modifications of butterfly wings. Develop. Growth Differ. 46: 114. Otaki, J. M., T. Ogasawara, and H. Y amamoto. 2005. Morphological comparison of pupal wing cuticle patterns in butterflies. Zoolog. Sci. 22: 2134. Parsons, K. J. and B. W. Robinson. 2006. Replicated evolution of integrated plastic responses during early adaptive divergence. Evolution 60: 801813. Patten, M. A. and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies. Auk 119: 2635. Patterson, J. T. and T. H. Dobzhansky. 1945. Incipient reproductive isolation between two subspecies of Drosophila pallidipennis Gen etics 30: 429438. Pavulaan, H., and D. M. Wright. 2002. Pterourus appalachiensis (Papilionidae: Papilionindae), a new swallowtail butterfly from the Appalachian region of the United States. The Taxanomic Report 3: 110. Pedreschi, F., J. Leon, D. Mery, P. Moyano. 2006. Development of a computer vision system to measure the color of potato chips. Food Res. Int. 39: 10921098.

PAGE 462

462 Petiver, J. 1699. Musei Petiverinai centuria [secundadecima] Rariora Naturae continens: viz. Animalia, fossilia, plantas. Smith and W alford, London. Pigliucci, M. 2001. Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and N urture. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Pigliucci, M. 2005. Evolution of phenotypic plasticity: where are we going now? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 481 486. Pigliucci, M., C. J. Murren, and C. D. Schlichting. 2006. Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation. J. Exp. Bio. 209: 23622367. Priester, D. S. 1990. Magnolia virginiana L., Sweetbay pp 449454. In R. S. Burns and B. H. Honkala (eds.) Silvics o f North America, vol. 2. USDA, Washington, DC. Ramaswamy, S. B. 1987. Behavioural responses of Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to stimulation with sugars. J. Insect Physiol. 33: 755760. Rausher, M. D. 1995. Behavioral ecology of oviposition i n the pipevine swallowtail, Battus philenor, pp. 5362. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowtail Butterflies: their Eco logy and Evolutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Rausher, M. D. 1978. Search image f or leaf shape in a butterfly. Science, 200: 10711073. Remington, C. L. 1968. Suturezones of hybrid interaction between recently joined biotas. Evol. Biol. 2: 321428. Renwick, J. A. A., C. D. Radke, K. SachdevGupta, and E. Stadler. 1992. Leaf surface c hemicals stimulating oviposition by Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) on cabbage. Chemoecology 3: 14231445. Reuter, H., F. Jopp, F. Holker, C. Eschenbach, U. Middelhoff, and B. Breckling. 2007. The ecological effect of phenotypic plasticity: analyzing complex interaction networks (COIN) with agent based models. Ecol. Inform. 3: 3545. Rhymer, J. M. and D. Simberloff. 1996. Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 83109. Ritland, D. B. 1986. The effect of temperature on the expression of the dark morph phenotype in female Papilio glaucus (Papilionidae). J. Res. Lepid. 25: 179187. Ritland, D. B. and J. M. Scriber. 1985. Larval development rates of three putative subspecies of tiger swallowtail butterflies. Oceologia 65: 185193.

PAGE 463

463 Roe, A. D. and F. A. H. Sperling. 2007. Population structure and species boundary delimitation of cryptic Dioryctria moths: an integrative approach. Mol. Ecol. 16: 36173633. Rocky, S. J., J. H. Hainze, and J. M. Scriber. 1987. A latitudinal and obligatory diapauses response in three subspecies of the Eastern swallowtail, Papilio glaucus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Am. Midl. Nat. 118: 162168. Rodrigo, J., J. Mercader, and J. M. Scriber. 2008. Divergence in the ovipositional behavior of the Papilio glaucus group. Insect Sci. 15: 361367. Roland, J. 2006. Effect of melanism of alpine Colias nastes butterflies (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) on activity and predation. Can. Entomol. 138: 5258. Rothschild, W. and K. Jordan. 1906. A revision of the American Papilios Novitates Zool. 13: 411744. Roundtree, D. B. and H. F. Nijhout. 1995. Genetic control of a seasonal polyphenism in (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J. Insect Physiol. 41: 11411145. Saito A. 2002. Mimicry in butterflies: microscopic structure. Form a 17: 133139. Scheiner, S. M. 1993. Genetics and evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 35 68. Schlichting, C. D. 2004. The role of phenotypic plasticity in diversification, pp. 191200. In T. J. DeWitt and S. M. Scheiner (eds.), Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual A pproaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schlichting, C. D. and M. Pigliucci. 1993. Control of phenotypic plasticity via regulatory genes. Am. Nat. 142: 366370. Scriber, J. M. 1973. Latitudinal gradients in larval feeding specialization of the world Papilionidae (Lepidoptera). Psyche 80: 355373. Scriber, J. M. 1983. The evolution of feeding specialization, physiological efficiency, and host races in selected Papilionidae and Saturniidae, pp. 373412. I n R. F. Denno and M. S. McClure (eds.), Variable Plants and H er bivores in Natural and Managed S ystems. Academic Press, New York. Scriber, J. M. 1984. Host plant suitability, pp. 159202. In W. Bell and R. Carde ( eds.). The Chemical Ecology of I nsects. Chapman and Hall, London. Scriber, J. M. 1986. Origins of the regional feeding abilities in the tiger swallowtail butterfly: ecological monophagy and the Papilio glaucus australis subspecies in Florida. Oecologia 71: 94103.

PAGE 464

464 Scriber, J. M. 1988. Tale of the tiger: B eringial biogeography, binomial classification, and breakfast choices in the Papilio glaucus complex of butterflies, pp. 240301. In K. C. Sp encer (ed.), Chemical Medication of C oevolution. Academic Press, New York. Scriber, J. M. 1990. Int eraction of introgression from Papilio glaucus canadensis and diapause in producing "spring form" eastern tiger swallowtail butterflies, P. glaucus Great Lakes Entomol. 23: 127138. Scriber, J. M. 1993. Absence of behavioral induction in oviposition preference of Papilio glaucus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Great Lakes Entomol. 26: 81 95. Scriber, J. M. 1995. Overview of swallowtail butterflies: taxanomic and distributional latitude. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. Lederhouse (eds.). Swallowtail Butterflies : their Ecology and Evolutionary B iology. Scientific publishers, Inc. Gainesville, FL. Scriber, J. M. 1996. Tiger tales: Natural history of native North American swallowtails. Am. Ent. 42: 1932. Scriber, J. M. 2002. Evolution of insect plant relationships: chemical constraints, coadaptation, and concordance of insect/plant traits. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 104: 217235. Scriber, J. M., G. R. Allen, and P. W. Walker. 2006. Ecological monophagy in Tasmanian Graphium macleayanum moggana with evolutionary reflections of ancient angiosperm hosts. Insect Sci. 13: 451460. Scriber, J. M. and M. H. Evans. 1988. Bilateral gynandromorphs, sexual and/or color mosaics in the tiger swallowtail butterfly, Papilio glaucus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). J. Res. Lepid. 26: 3957. Scriber, J. M. and R. C. Lederhouse. 1992. The thermal environments as a resource dictating geographic patterns of feeding specialization of insect herbivores, pp. 429458. In M. R. Hunter, T. Ohgushi, and P. W. Price (eds.), Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal Plant I nteractions. Academic Press, New York. Scriber, J. M., B. L. Giebink, and D. Snider. 1991. Reciprocal latitudinal clines in oviposition behavior of Papilio glaucus and P. Canadensis across the Great Lakes hybrid zone: possible sex link age of oviposition preferences. Oecologia 87: 360368. Scriber, J. M., R. C. Lederhouse, and R. V. Dowell. 1995. Hybridization studies with North American swallowtails pp. 269 281. In J. J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, & R. C. Lederhouse (eds ), Swallowtail But terflies: their Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 465

465 Scriber, J. M., R. H. Hagen, and R. C. Lederhouse. 1996. Genetics of mimicry in the tiger swallowtail butterflies, Papilio glaucus a nd P. canadensis (Lepidoptera, Pa pilionidae). Evolution 50: 222236. Seehausen, O. 2004. Hybridization and adaptive radiation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 198207. Shaffer, H. B. and M. L. McKnight. 1996. The polytypic species revisited: genetic differentiation and molecular phylogenetics of t he tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum ) (Amphibia: Caudata) complex. Evolution 50: 417433. Shapiro, A. M. 1984. Polyphenism, phyletic evolution, and the structure of the pierid genome. J. Res. Lepid. 23: 177195. Singer, M. C., D. Ng and C. D. Thomas. 1988. Heritability of oviposition preference and its relationship to offspring performance within a single insect population. Evolution 42: 977985. Singer, M. C., D. Ng and R. A. Moore.1991. Genetic variation in oviposition preference between butterfly population. J. Insect Behav. 4: 531535. Smith, C. I. and B. D. Farrell. 2005. Phylogeography of the longhorn cactus beetle Moneilema appressum LeConte (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae): was the differentiation of the Madrean sky islands driven by Pleistocene climate changes? Mol. Ecol. 14: 30493065. Smith, H. M., D. Chiszar, and R. R. Montanucci. 1997. Subspecies and classification. Herpetol. Rev. 28: 1316. Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. A mer Nat. 104: 127153. Sperling, F. A. H. 1990. Natural hybrids of Papilio (Insecta: Lepidoptera): poor taxonomy or interesting evolutionary problem? Can. J. Zool. 68: 17901799. Sperling, F. A. H. 1993. Mitochondrial DNA variation and Haldanes rule in the Papilio g laucus and P. troilus species groups. Heredity 71: 227233. Sperling, F. A. H. 2003. Butterfly molecular systematic s: from species definitions to higher level phylogenies, pp. 431458. In C. L. Boggs, W. B. Watt, and P. R Ehrlich (eds.), Butterflies: Ecol ogy and Evolution Taking Flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Starnecker G. and W. Hazel. 1999. Convergent evolution of neuroendocrine control of phenotypic plasticity in pupal colour in butterflies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 266: 24092412.

PAGE 466

466 Stear ns, S. C. 1989. The evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity. Bioscience 39:436445. Stevens, M. C. A. Parraga, I. C. Cuthill, J. C. Partridge, and T. S. Troscianko. 2007. Using digital photography to study animal coloration. Bio. J. Linn. Soc. 90: 211237. Straatman, R. 1962. The life history of Ornithoptera alexandrae Rothschild. J. Lep. Soc. 25: 5864. Strong, D. R. 1988. Insect host range. Ecology 69: 885. Suzuki, Y. and F. Nijhout. 2006. Evolution of a polyphenism by genetic accommodation. S cience 311: 650652. Swenson, N. G. 2006. GIS based niche models reveal unifying climatic mechanisms that maintain the location of avian hybrid zones in a North American suture zone. J. Evolution Biol. 19: 717725. Swenson, N. G. and D. J. Howard. 2004. D o suture zones exist? Evolution 58: 23912397. Swenson, N. G. and D. J. Howard. 2005. Clustering of contact zones, hybrid zones, and phylogeographic breaks in North America. Am. Nat. 116: 581591. Templeton, A. R. 1998. Human races: a genetic and evoluti onary perspective. Am. Anthropol. 100: 632650. Thompson, J. N. 1988. Evolutionary genetics of oviposition preference in swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 42: 12231234. Thompson, J. N. 1993. Preference hierarchies and the origin of geographics specializa tion in host use in swallowtail butterflies. Evolution 47: 15851594. Thompson, J. N. 1995. The origins of host shifts in swallowtail butterflies versus other insects, pp. 195203. In J. M. Scriber, Y. Tsubaki, and R. C. Lederhouse (eds.), Swallowtail But terflies: their Ecology and Evolutionary B iology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. Thompson, J. N. 1998. The evolution of diet breadth: monophagy and polyphagy in swallowtail butterflies. J. Evol. Biol. 11: 563578. Thompson, J. N. and O. Pellmyr. 1991. Evolution of oviposition behavior and host preference in Lepidoptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36:6589. Thompson, J. N., W. Wehling, and R. Podolsky. 1990. Evolutionary genetics of host use in swallowtail butterflies. Nature 344: 148150.

PAGE 467

467 Tyler, H. A., K. S. Brown, and K. H. Wilson. 1994. Swallowtail Butterflies of the Americas: a Study in Biological Dynamics, Ecological Diversity, Biosystematics, and C onservation. Scientific Publishers, Los Angeles, CA. Vaidya, V. G. 1969. Form perception in Papilio dem oleus L. (Papilionidae, Lepidoptera). Behaviour 33: 212221. Via, S., R. Gomulkiewicz, G. De Jong, S. M. Scheiner, C. D. Schlichting, P. H. Van Tienderen. 1995. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 212217. Vi llafuerte, R and J. J. Nigro. 1998. Digital imaging for colour measurement in ecological research. Ecol. Lett. 1: 151154. Waddington, C. H. 1953. Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7: 118126. Waddington, C. H. 1956. Genetic assimil ation of the bithorax phenotype. Evolution 10: 1 13. Warren, A. D., K. J. Davis, N. V. Grishin, J. P. Pelham, E. M. Stangeland. 2010. Interactive Listing of American Butterflies. http://www.butterfliesofameri ca.com Accessed January 15, 2010. Webb, S. D. 1990. Historical biogeography, pp. 70102. In R. L. Myers and J. J. Ewel (eds.), Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, FL. Wehling, W. F. and J. N. Thompson. 1997. Evolutionary conservatism of oviposition preference in a widespread polyphagous insect herbivore, Papilio zelicaon Oecologia 111: 209215. Weismann, A. 1885. Die Kontinuitat des Keimplasmas als Grundlage einer Theorie der Vererbung. Gustav Fischer, Jena, Germany. West Eberhard, M. J. 1989. Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20: 249278. West Eberhard, M. J. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and E volution. Oxford University Press, New York. Whinnett, A., M. Zimmermann, K. R. Willmott, N. Herrera, R. Mallarino, F. Simpson, M. Joron, G. Lamas, and J. Mallet. 2005. Strikingly variable divergence times inferred across Amazonian butterfly suture zone. Proc. R. Soc. B. 272. 25252533. Wicklund, C. 1975. The evolutionary relationship bet ween adult oviposition preference and larval host plant range in Papilio machaon L. Oecologia 18: 186197.

PAGE 468

468 Willmot, K. R., and J. Mallet. 2004. Correlations between adult mimicry and larval hostplants in ithomiine butterflies. P. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. Bio. 271: S266S269. Wolterek, R. 1909. Weitere experimentelle untersuchungen uber artveranderung, speziell uber das wesen quantitativer artunterschiede bei daphniden. Verhandlungen de Deutschen Zooligischen Gesellschaft 19: 110 172. Yagiz, Y., M. O. Balaban, H. G. Kristinsson, B. A. Welt, and M. R. Marshall. 2009. Comparison of Minolta colorimeter and machine vision system in measuring colour of irradiated Atlantic salmon. J. Sci. Food Agric. 89: 728 730. Zakharov, E. V., M. S. Caterino, and F. A. H. Sperling. 2004. Molecular phylogeny, historical biogeography, and divergence time estimates for swallowtail butterflies of the genus Papilio (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst. Biol. 53: 193215.

PAGE 469

469 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Matthew Steven Lehnert grew up on a small sheep farm in DeWit t, Michigan, where he first acquired an early hobby of natural history His interest in inse ct s began at the age of four when he started his first insec t collection, a passion he shared with collecting live reptiles. He graduated from DeWitt High School in 1996, and completed his Bachelor of S cience degree at Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, in 2001 with a degree in biology and an emphasis in zoology. During this time period, he was fortunate to become acquainted with the Entomology Department at Mi chigan State University, where he spent his last two summers as an undergraduate student working in a lab oratory with his favorite l epidopteran species, the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail. He started his m aster s degree at University of Flori da, Gainesville in 2003 working on a dream project for any biologist : studying the rare and endangered H omerus Swallowtail in Jamaica. He graduated with his Master of S cience degree in 2005 and immediately started on his doctorate working with the Eastern Tiger Swallowtail and its population biology at the Universit y of Florida. He has been very fortunate to have worked with close friends, fami ly, and colleagues throughout his studies. He currently live s with his lovely wife, Margie, and they are expecting their first baby Logan. In addition, they live with three dogs they treat as thei r children, even though the dogs continue to eat them out of house and home.