Content uploaded by John V. Calhoun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John V. Calhoun on Jun 10, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Ohio State University
1987-09
Butterflies that are Endangered, Threatened,
and of Special Concern in Ohio
Shuey, John A.; Calhoun, John V.; Iftner, David C.
The Ohio Journal of Science. v87, n4 (September, 1987), 98-106
http://hdl.handle.net/1811/23205
Downloaded from the Knowledge Bank, The Ohio State University's institutional repository
Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu
Ohio Journal of Science (Ohio Academy of Science) Ohio Journal of Science: Volume 87, Issue 4 (September, 1987)
Butterflies that are Endangered, Threatened, and of Special Concern in Ohio1
JOHN A.
SHUEY,
JOHN V. CALHOUN2 AND
DAVID
C.
IFTNER/
Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
ABSTRACT. Four butterflies are endangered in Ohio. Three of these, Erynnis persius (Scudder), Incisalia irus
(Godart),
and Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov, are restricted to the Oak Openings and use Lupinus perennis L.
as the larval host. These species require early successional habitats and have probably declined since fire was
eliminated as a factor in the ecology of the Oak Openings. The fourth endangered species, Calepbelis muticum
McAlpine,
is currently known from two fens in west-central Ohio. The single threatened species, Boloria selene
(Denis and Shiffermuller) was once widespread in Ohio, but is now known from only three or four counties.
Species of special concern occupy very limited ranges (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot [Edwards}, Euchloe olympia
[Edwards],
Satyrium edwardsii [Grote and Robinson], and Speyeria idalia [Drury]). Extirpated species include
Neonympha mitchellii French, Pieris napi L., and Speyeria diana (Cramer). Several species {Erynnis lucilius {Scudder
and Burgess], Amblyscirtes belli Freeman, Pontia protodice [Boisduval and LeConte], Erora laeta [W. H. Edwards],
Lycaena epixanthe [Boisduval and LeConte], and Phyciodes pascoensis Wright) are vaguely recorded from Ohio, but
could be very rare residents deserving protected status once more of their biology is known.
Two major threats to butterfly diversity in Ohio are identifiable. Uncontrolled succession in the Oak
Openings may eliminate those species that require the unique, early successional communities found there.
Widespread insecticide application for gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar [L.]) control in southern Ohio could
negatively impact sensitive butterfly populations and other sensitive anthropods.
OHIO J. SCI. 87 (4): 98-106, 1987
INTRODUCTION
There has been considerable activity aimed at identi-
fying and evaluating rare and endangered taxa in Ohio
during the last 13 years. Predictably, early emphasis
was placed upon vertebrates (Smith et al. 1973), but
recently, definitive treatments of plants have appeared
(Cooperrider 1982, McCance and Burns 1984). Jezerinac's
(1986) discussion of endangered and threatened crayfishes
was the first authoritative treatment of imperiled in-
vertebrates in Ohio. Shuey et al. (1987) considered the
status of eight species of Lepidoptera that are potential
candidates for addition to the U.S. list of endangered
species,
including three of the species discussed here.
The history of Lepidoptera conservation is extensive,
although most conservation efforts have been limited to
North America and Europe (Pyle 1976, Pyle et al. 1981,
Thomas 1984). Recently, a few tropical countries have
become interested in Lepidoptera conservation, most
notably Papua New Guinea (Parsons 1984), Brazil (Otero
and Brown 1982-84[86]), and Mexico (Norman 1986).
Butterflies are viewed increasingly as conspicuous com-
ponents of ecosystems, and as such, endangered butter-
flies can be valuable tools for preserving endangered
communities.
Butterflies are taxomomically well known,
a group rich in species, with a wealth of distributional
data available relative to other terrestrial invertebrates.
Thus,
they are uniquely qualified as environmental indi-
cators.
This paper is the first to examine the status of rare
butterflies and skippers in Ohio and is the first such
treatment of a major group of terrestrial invertebrates
in the state. Included in each species discussion is an
overview of status, ecological requirements, and factors
negatively impacting their continued survival.
'Manuscript received 13 February 1987 and in revised form 17 June
1987 (#87-5).
2''Present address: c/o The Ohio Lepidopterists, 1241 Kildale
Square North, Columbus, OH 43229.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Specimen records were recorded from virtually all known public
and private collections available in Ohio and are a subset of the data
recorded for the survey of Ohio Lepidoptera, a project sponsored by
the Ohio Lepidopterists. To date, over 15,000 butterfly records have
been verified and recorded.
Habitat requirements are based upon field observations except as
noted. We have experience in Ohio with all the endangered, threat-
ened, and potentially threatened species and have observed all of
Ohio's extirpated species in adjacent states.
All of the species included are considered to be resident species, or
potential residents in the case of some of the species whose status is
undetermined. The species are grouped into five categories based
upon the number of known populations and the perceived sus-
ceptibility of the populations to perturbations that could lead to their
extinction. Endangered species are all known from five or less popu-
lations, and have very limited ranges in Ohio. These species occupy
unique habitats, ones that are susceptible to disturbance or other
factors that could render them unsuitable for the continued existence
of the butterflies. The single threatened species
{Boloria
selene
(Denis
and Schiffermiiller)] in Ohio is included because of its precipitous
range decline within the state, the cause of which remains unknown.
Viable populations of this species occur in only a fraction of its
historical range in Ohio, and its decline may continue to the point of
extirpation. Species of special concern in Ohio are those that occupy
very limited ranges in the state and for which identifiable threats may
exist. In one case, the species has undergone a range contraction in
Ohio,
but not to the point that it is in immediate danger of ex-
tinction. Extirpated species are those that were once resident in the
state, but for which there are no recently known populations. Species
that are vaguely recorded from Ohio, but which could be very rare
residents, are included under status unknown.
The nomenclature follows Opler and Krizek (1984). Subspecific
names are used only for those taxa for which the specific vs. subspecific
status is currently unsettled.
RESULTS
ENDANGERED
SPECIES IN OHIO
Erynnis persius (Scudder) - Persius Dusky Wing
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species has
never been reliably reported outside of the Oak Openings
of Lucas County and is one of the butterflies that charac-
terize this region of Ohio. Price (1970) reported cap-
Ohio J. ScienceENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES99
turing only two specimens (a third specimen mentioned
by Price has since been determined by Dr. J. Burns as
probably Erynnis lucilius [Scudder and Burgess]).
Three old reports of this species from Pickaway
(Bales 1909), Summit (Hine 1898a), and Seneca coun-
ties (Henninger 1910) probably refer to Erynnis baptisiae
Forbes, a common and closely related species that was not
yet described at the time that these papers were pub-
lished. Erynnis persius is single brooded, flying only in
mid-spring. Specimens captured after this period are re-
ferable to other Erynnis species.
Current Status in Ohio: There are only two known
active populations in and around the Oak Openings
Metro Park in Lucas County.
Habitat Requirements: This species is limited to
areas with its abundant host plant, lupine, (Lupinusperen-
nis L.), which is a potentially threatened plant in Ohio
(Cooperrider 1982). The two known populations occur in
oak savanna and dune communities.
Reasons for Decline: The biology of E. persius is
poorly known, so the factors responsible for its decline are
not understood. However, it is clear that as lupine be-
comes shaded through natural succession, the habitat
becomes less suitable for E. persius. Thus, the main rea-
son for decline of this and the other lupine-feeding but-
terflies is probably the recent advent of fire suppression,
which results in the eventual shading of the lupine
stands. The past policy of the Toledo Metropolitan Park
System, which owns many of the former population sites
of this and the other lupine-feeding butterflies, has been
to eliminate fire from the ecology of all the land under its
care.
This has resulted in many ecological changes,
of which the decline of lupine-feeding butterflies is
only one.
Incisalia irus (Godart) - Frosted Elfin
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: Except for two
records from Cincinnati, (a specimen dated May, 1937,
and a literature report [Dury 1900}), all of the known
captures are from the Oak Openings in Lucas County. In
the 1930s this species was very common and widespread
in the Oak Openings (J. Thomas, pers. comm.). During
the 1960s, Price (1970) knew of only two small colonies,
both associated with large stands of the host plant, lupine
(L.
perennis).
Current Status in Ohio: This species is presently
known from a few sites in and around the Oak Openings
Metro Park, Lucas County. Several recently active popu-
lations in the Oak Openings Metro Park have become
extinct (T. Carr, pers. comm.).
Habitat Requirements: This species is limited to
xeric dune communities where lupine is common. The
adults oviposit on the flower buds, which, along with
the developing seed pods, are the sole food of the larvae.
This species is efficient in using small stands of lupine,
and hence is the most widely distributed of the lupine-
feeding butterflies within the Oak Openings.
Reasons for Decline: Since the larvae feed only on
flowers and seed pods of lupine, any factor that impacts
on host plant reproduction will also have a profound
effect on /. irus. Shading of the host plant through natu-
ral succession is probably the primary factor reducing
lupine reproduction. Therefore, fire suppression is a
likely cause for the decline of this butterfly.
Lycaeides
melissa samuelis Nabokov - Karner Blue
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species has
never been captured outside of the Oak Openings of
Lucas County and is one of the characteristic butterflies
of the region. A record in Albrecht (1982) from Summit
County is based on a misidentification. In the early
1940s, this species was widespread and very common in
the Oak Openings (J. Thomas, pers. comm.). Price
(1970) reported that it "varies greatly in numbers from
year to year, but it is sometimes common at the Oak
Openings."
Current Status in Ohio: Possibly extirpated; one
adult male was seen in 1986 at the only known popu-
lation site, Kitty Todd Preserve. As recently as 1983,
a seemingly viable population existed on and adjacent
to the preserve. Since that time very few adults have
been seen. In 1986 only one adult male was observed
during an entire season of close scrutiny. This population
is best considered either extinct or on the verge of ex-
tinction. The few known population sites in the Oak
Openings Metro Park have not been active for approxi-
mately 10 years (T. Carr, pers. comm.). Given the highly
local nature of this species, it seems possible that un-
known populations may yet survive. The last known
population occupied an area of less than 2 ha. Efforts
should be directed at locating similar areas within the
Oak Openings.
Habitat Requirements: This species requires rela-
tively large expanses of the host plant, lupine (L.
perennis).
Adults will apparently not use shaded host
plants as oviposition sites, severely limiting the number
of suitable habitats available (see Discussion under E.
persius).
Populations are very localized around the host
plants, but healthy populations in other areas attain high
densities, with 20 or more adults visible at any given
moment.
Reasons for Decline: The primary factor in the
decline of L. m. samuelis is probably fire suppression in
the Oak Openings area, as is the case for E. persius and
/. irus. This is the most susceptible of the three lupine
feeders to habitat shading, and is the first to become
locally extinct.
Calephelis muticum McAlpine - Swamp Metalmark
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species has
been recorded from two sites in Champaign County, and
one site in southern Logan County (Albrecht 1974,
1982).
A literature record from Seneca County (Porter
1965) has not been verified, but Springville Marsh, a
once extensive fen complex in southern Seneca County,
may have been suitable habitat in the past. Unfortu-
nately, Springville Marsh is now highly disturbed and the
fen meadows that might have supported C. muticum are
gone. Additional literature records from Hamilton (Al-
brecht 1982) and Shelby counties (Hoying 1975) are
based upon misdeterminations. Ehrlich and Ehrlich
(1961) also reported this species from "near Cincinnati"
but this is probably a poor geographic reference to the
Cedar Bog population in Champaign County.
100J. A. SHUEY, J. V. CALHOUN, AND D. C. IFTNERVol. 87
Current Status in Ohio: There are two active
populations, the best known of which occurs in Cedar
Bog State Memorial, Champaign County (Albrecht
1974).
A second population occurs in a fen in Logan
County. Fens at Kaiser Lake State Park, Champaign
County, once supported a population, but recent at-
tempts to rediscover this population have been un-
successful. There are probably other populations in the
fens of west-central Ohio, but populations are easily over-
looked because of the diminutive size of this butterfly and
its low population densities.
Habitat Requirements: This species uses swamp
thistle, (Cirsium muticum Michx.) as the larval host. In
the Great Lakes region, Cirsium muticum is considered a
typical plant of alkaline peat deposits (fens) (Stuckey and
Denney 1981), and Calephelis muticum is restricted to this
habitat type (Shuey 1985).
Reasons for Decline: This species has undoubtedly
suffered population losses owing to habitat modification,
a problem that still exists. Many of the fens in west-
central Ohio have been altered or destroyed by draining
or flooding (see Andreas 1985). Certainly, the creation of
Kaiser Lake over the large fen complex that once existed
there did not benefit this species. The population discov-
ered there in the 1960s was probably a small remnant of
the pre-lake population.
An additional threat to this species is collecting
pressure. This species is one of two members of the
subfamily Riodininae in Ohio, and is very desirable to
collectors from that standpoint. Where it occurs, the
species is very localized, usually occupying less than
1 or 2 ha, and occurs at very low population densities
(generally six or fewer adults visible/h). Thus, known
populations are very susceptible to collecting pressures.
Conversely, the population structure and appearance of
this butterfly have probably resulted in many populations
being overlooked by casual collectors.
THREATENED SPECIES IN OHIO
Boloria selene (Denis and Schiffermuller) - Silver-
bordered Fritillary
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species was
once locally common from northern Ohio south to
Columbus and Dayton (Fig. 1), and older literature
records abound. Hine (1898a) reported it from Summit,
Hamilton, and Franklin counties; Kirtland (1854) and
Pilate (1882) reported it from Montgomery County;
Claypole (1897) listed it as common in Summit County;
Henninger (1910) reported it in Seneca County. Price
(1970) reported that this species occurred sporadically
from northwest Ohio, and noted that it was occasionally
common at Mud Lake, Williams County. The population
at Cedar Bog, Champaign County, apparently became
extinct approximately 15 years ago (Drees 1982), al-
though we have seen a specimen (probably captured in
1984) from a nearby fen in Logan County. Nothing is
known of the causes of this range contraction.
Status in Ohio: The only known extant populations
are in the Oak Openings (Lucas and Fulton counties), a
wetland in Trumbull County, and possibly a fen in Logan
County (Fig. 1). There may be additional populations in
the wetlands of northeastern Ohio.
Habitat Requirements: In the Oak Openings, this
species is common in wet, early succession fields domi-
FlGURE 1. The distribution of Boloria selene in Ohio. Open circles
represent historical records; closed circles represent known viable
populations.
nated by native species. In northeastern Indiana and
southern Michigan, B. selene is more often associated
with sedge meadows and fens. These are the habitats of
this species in Trumbull County. Andreas (1985) consid-
ered some of the botanical communities in which this
species occurs in the Oak Openings as fen remnants. In
general, these communities seem highly divergent from
typical fens, yet there are shared key species. Perhaps
some clue to the decline of this butterfly may yet
be drawn from the distribution of its remaining viable
populations.
The host plants of this species are reported to be
several species of violets (Viola) (Howe 1975). In Lucas
and Fulton counties, Viola lanceolata L. is common at
sites where we have encountered this butterfly, and at
Kitty Todd Preserve (Easterly 1983) where B. selene is
very common. Several adults have been observed hov-
ering over this violet, indicating that this may be the
primary host in the Oak Openings. Viola lanceolata oc-
curs in open, moist habitats, usually in acidic substrates.
Viola lanceolata is itself a threatened species in Ohio
(McCance and Burns 1984), where it has undergone a
range contraction. If V. lanceolata is the host plant in the
Oak Openings, then some other Viola species is used in
fens and sedge meadows. Two fens that at one time
harbored populations of B. selene are well known botani-
cally, and V. lanceolata is not reported from either Mud
Lake (Brodberg 1976) or Cedar Bog (Frederick 1974).
Reasons for Decline: At this time, too little is
known about the biology and ecology of this species
in Ohio to speculate on the factors that are reducing
its range. If V. lanceolata is a host of this butterfly, some
of the range contraction may be attributed to the
decline of this plant. However, this does not explain the
disappearance of B. selene from habitats where V.
Ohio J. ScienceENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES101
lanceolata does not occur. It is possible that agricultural
drainage has eliminated the moist habitats that this
species requires.
SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN OHIO
Pyrgus
centaureae
ivyandot (Edwards) - Grizzled Skipper
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species is
known from only four sites in Ohio: Lake Hope State
Park (Vinton County) (Wagner and Showalter 1976); The
Plains (Athens County) (Shuey 1983); south of Logan
(Hocking County) (J. Peacock pers. comm.); and an old
record (10 May 1916) from Lakewood (Cuyahoga
County).
Current Status in Ohio: With the exception of the
Lakewood record, all of the known sites are based upon
recent records and are presumed to represent viable popu-
lations. Because this species is easily overlooked and oc-
curs at low population densities, we feel that there are
probably several other populations within this limited
geographical area. The Lakewood record indicates that it
may occur much more widely in the state.
Habitat Requirements: This species is presently
known only from open ridge tops within mature decid-
uous forests in Ohio. At the three known population
sites,
it is closely associated with its presumed host plant,
dwarf cinquefoil {Potentilia
canadensis
L.). In Michigan,
wild strawberry {Fragaria virginiana Duchesne) is the
host plant, and might also support populations in Ohio.
Potentials for Decline: Because of the limited dis-
tribution of this species, its occurrence in small clearings
within deciduous forests, and its early spring-feeding
larvae, it is highly susceptible to aerial applications
of pesticides used for gypsy moth {Lymantria dispar
[L.]) control. Although spraying is not yet a threat to
this species, current practices in northeastern Ohio in-
dicate that if the gypsy moth spreads to southern
Ohio,
widespread control measures with the compound
diflubenzuron (trade name Dimilin) can be expected.
Dimilin is a synthetic chitin synthesis inhibitor that
interferes with molting in larvae (Matsumura 1985). It is
usually applied in spring when L. dispar larvae are most
susceptible. Widespread application of this compound in
southern Ohio could negatively affect most arthropod
species present as larvae when the compound is applied.
Euchloe olympia (Edwards) - Olympia Marblewing
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species
was only recently discovered in Ohio at Lake Vesuvius,
Lawrence County (Riddlebarger 1984).
Current Status in Ohio: E. Olympia is still too
poorly known in Ohio for us to classify its status. Since
its initial capture, a few additional specimens have been
taken, expanding its known range to a few miles north of
Lake Vesuvius. Captures in 1985 confirmed its resident
status.
It is possible that this species occurs more widely in
Ohio,
but is overlooked. Our experience over two years
indicates that it occurs in very low densities. Several
man-hours of search time are required to collect each
specimen. Complicating this situation is a closely related
species, Falcapica midea (Hubner), which occurs widely
and commonly throughout southeastern Ohio. Because
the females of
F.
midea are very difficult to separate from
E. olympia while in flight, it is likely that E. olympia
may easily be overlooked by collectors not actively
seeking it.
Habitat Requirements: So far, this species has
been captured on ridgetops in and adjacent to open oak
woodlands (Calhoun 1985(86}). It uses several species
of rock cress as host plants (Clench and Opler 1983).
The most likely candidate in Lawrence County is Arabis
laevigata (Muhl.) (Riddlebarger 1984), a common plant
species in southern Ohio that inhabits dry to moist woods
(Cusick and Silberhorn 1977).
Potentials for Decline: The limited range of this
species may make it susceptible to gypsy moth control
measures if they are implemented.
Satynum edivardsii (Grote and Robinson) - Edward's
Hairstreak
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: Reported in error
as being common in northwest Ohio (Price 1970,
Albrecht 1982), this species is actually known from just
a few records from outside of the Oak Openings (Shuey,
Iftner, and Calhoun 1985[86]). The few historical records
available indicate that it may have been fairly widespread
at one time.
Current Status in Ohio: Viable populations are
known from two widely separated regions of the state.
Several populations are known from the Oak Openings
region; one population is known from Scioto County, in
southern Ohio.
Habitat Requirements: In the Oak Openings this
species is associated with open oak savannas containing
native prairie understories. In Scioto County, it occurs on
a xeric ridgetop notable for the presence of several prairie
species (Cusick and Troutman 1978). Both areas in Ohio
where S. edivardsii occurs are xeric habitats supporting
numerous prairie plants. In both areas the host plants are
probably any of several species of oaks
{Quercus)
present.
In southern Michigan, this species is myrmecophilic with
the ant species, Formica integra Nylander (Webster and
Nielsen 1984). This may be the key to its limited distri-
bution in Ohio (Shuey, Iftner, and Calhoun 1985(86}).
Potentials for Decline: The Oak Openings popu-
lations will be at risk if the remaining oak savannas
are allowed through succession to become forests. The
policy of fire suppression in Lucas County has already
eliminated most of the suitable habitat for this butterfly
in the Oak Openings. The Scioto County population is
threatened by possible gypsy moth control measures in
southern Ohio.
Speyeria idalia (Drury) - Regal Fritillary
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species has
been recorded from over one-half of Ohio's counties, al-
though records for western Ohio are sparse (Shuey et al.
1987).
Status in Ohio: The majority of the recent records
for this species have come from unglaciated southeastern
Ohio,
although there are some records from a few north-
central counties (Shuey et al. 1987).
Habitat Requirements: Most literature reports
state that this is a species of the undisturbed prairie (e.g.,
Hammond and McCorkle (1983(84}, Opler and Knzek
1984).
This species is most often seen in mesic fields in
southeastern Ohio, often in pastures, recently abandoned
fields,
and hay fields, but always near a woodland border.
102J. A. SHUEY, J. V. CALHOUN, AND D. C. IFTNERVol. 87
At Resthaven Wildlife Area (Erie County) this species
occurs in undisturbed and disturbed prairie situations.
The usually reported host plant, bird's foot violet, (Viola
pedata L.), is too rare to be the host throughout Ohio, so
other violets are probably used (Shuey et al. 1987).
Potentials for Decline: Hammond and McCorkle
(1983[84]) reported that most populations of this species
declined concurrently with the destruction of vast expan-
ses of native prairie. Johnson (1982-84[86]) considered
this species to be sensitive to shifts in the species
composition of its habitat. We have noted the extinction
of one population in central Ohio that coincided with
the localized elimination of nectar sources. An explana-
tion (other than outright habitat destruction) for the
decline of this species has never been proposed. In Ohio,
this species seems relatively secure in the southeastern
counties, but the general decline of this species could
conceivably continue. This decline could be has-
tened if widespread gypsy moth control measures are
implemented.
EXTIRPATED SPECIES IN OHIO
Neonympha mitchellii French - Mitchell's Satyr
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: This species was
first reported by Pallister (1927) in Streetsboro Fen, Por-
tage County, where he found it on 4 July 1925 and 10
July 1926. According to McAlpine et al. (I960), it was
last reported from Streetsboro Fen on 19 June 1950. By
1954,
most of Streetsboro Fen had been converted to a
truck farm. Recent attempts to rediscover this species in
suitable fens in northeast Ohio have been unsuccessful
(Shuey et al. 1987). Although there are still seemingly
suitable habitats that have not been surveyed, we con-
sider this species to be extirpated, since it was last
reported from Ohio over 30 years ago.
Recently, a disturbing development regarding this
species has occurred. Larvae of N. mitchellii from southern
Michigan have been introduced into Gott Fen State Na-
ture Preserve, a remnant of Streetsboro Fen. The impli-
cations of this are two-fold. First, this jeopardizes any
attempts at preserving native Ohio populations (if
present) by putting in question their authenticity. The
state of Ohio has no responsibility to protect non-native
populations, thus jeopardizing conservation efforts for
undetected native populations. Second, if undiscovered
native populations do exist, they may be genetically
swamped by this introduction. The Streetsboro popu-
lations were approximately 200 km from the nearest
known populations in Michigan. Streetsboro is the only
known area where this species has been recorded between
Michigan and New Jersey. Thus, the Ohio populations
have probably been isolated for several thousand years
(Shapiro 1970) and are probably genetically unique. As
such, they are scientifically very important; hence the
introduction of N. mitchellii collected from other areas
would jeopardize the gene pool of the Ohio populations.
Habitat Requirements: All of the known popu-
lation sites for this species are fens (Shuey 1985).
The larval host plant is probably Carex stricta Lam.,
a common sedge in many fens. Reliable indicator
plants for potential N. mitchellii habitats include tama-
rack (Larix laricina [Du Roi]), poison sumac (Rhus vernax
L.),
shrubby cinquefoil
(Potentilla
fruticosa L.), and abun-
dant sedges. This species has a strong preference for
flying in open stands of tamarack surrounded by lush
stands of sedges. There are still fens in northeastern Ohio
that fit this general description; most have not been
checked for populations of N. mitchellii.
Reasons for Extirpation: The extinction of the
Streetsboro population was probably a direct consequence
of draining major portions of this wetland for agricultural
purposes. Many other potentially suitable wetlands in the
general vicinity suffered similar fates. In the past, the
fens occasionally burned, thus creating an open habitat.
Because of fire suppression, many of the fens in north-
eastern Ohio are now grown over by various dogwoods
(Cornus)
and willows (Salix), which make then unsuitable
as N. mitchellii habitat.
Pieris napi L. - Mustard White
Historical Status in Ohio: Henninger (1910)
reported that a specimen of this species was collected
on 6 July 1905 in Seneca County. Kirtland (1854) re-
ported that it occurred at Toledo, "but east of the latter
place (Toledo) it does not exist in our state". Scudder
(1889) reported this species from Toledo, and referenced
Kirtland as his source.
Habitat Requirements: The host plant in north-
eastern Indiana is watercress, (Nasturtium officinale R.
Br.) (Shull 1977), a completely naturalized species that is
often common in fens (Voss 1985). The native host plant
in these situations is unknown, but is certainly a mustard
(Cruciferae) (Chew 1977).
Reasons for Extirpation: In his description of
original flora of the Oak Openings, Moseley (1928) de-
scribed the area as containing large expanses of wet prai-
rie between the raised xeric dunes. It seems likely that
many of Moseley's wet prairies were fens (Andreas 1985),
and that these areas could have supported populations of
P.
napi as reported by Kirtland (1854). Virtually all of
these wet prairies are now destroyed and the butterfly
fauna of the few remnants is well known. There is little
chance that P. napi survives undetected in this area.
Speyeria diana (Cramer) - Diana Fritillary
Historical Occurrence in Ohio: The first reports
of this species in Ohio were in Edwards (1884) and
Holland (1898) who remarked that it was "occasionally
found in the southern portion of Ohio." Hine (1898b)
reported "a specimen . . . captured in Medina County
August 9, 1897," "much rubbed . . . and probably flew
there from farther south." Wyss (1932) reported that it
was rare near Cincinnati. Charles Oehler (pers. comm.)
reported that he and his friends collected specimens in
and around Cincinnati (Hamilton County) in the early
1900s. Several additional specimens with vague data
from southeastern Ohio and one from Franklin County (a
probable stray) are also known.
This species probably occurred throughout the hill
country of southern Ohio, but was very likely eliminated
by the rapid and thorough deforestation that occurred
during the iron smelting period in the late 1800s and
early 1900s. Hammond and McCorkle (1983[84]) re-
ported that S. diana suffered a similar decline throughout
its range, but is now beginning to return to previously
occupied areas as second-growth forests mature. It is
possible that this species will eventually be rediscovered
in southern Ohio.
Ohio J. ScienceENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES103
STATUS UNKNOWN IN OHIO
Erynnis lucilius (Scudder and Burgess) - Columbine
Dusky Wing
This species is known from two specimens collected
from the Oak Openings of Lucas County. These speci-
mens were determined as "probably E. lucilius" by Dr. J.
Burns (see E. persius). This species is usually closely asso-
ciated with its host plant, columbine {Aquilegia sp.). The
best determination of the species is the discovery of a
population that uses columbine as the host plant.
The two probable specimens of E. lucilius were
caught several years apart, indicating that populations
may exist in the Oak Openings. This species may be
overlooked because of its very similar appearance to the
six other Erynnis species that occur in Lucas county.
Amblyscirtes belli Freeman - Bell's Roadside Skipper
This species is known from a single specimen from
Clermont County (April, 1938) deposited in the
Cincinnati Museum of Natural History. The host plant,
wild oats (Uniola latifolia Michx.), occurs commonly
along the Ohio River and feeder streams in southern Ohio
(Braun 1967). In Missouri, A. belli is found in shaded
ravines that contain the host plant (Heitzman 1965).
This species could be resident in Ohio in similar habitats.
Opler and Krizek (1984) indicated that A. belli occurs
north to at least Louisville, Kentucky in the Ohio
River Valley.
Pontia
protodice
(Boisduval and LeConte) - Checkered
White
At least through the 1930s, this species was wide-
spread throughout the state and was reported by most
early collectors (Dury 1878, Kirtland 1854, Pilate 1882,
Hine 1898a, Bales 1909, Henninger 1910). The spring
brood of this species was last collected in Ohio in 1953.
We can find no specimens collected from 1967 through
1981.
All but one record since 1982 are from southern
Ohio,
and all are summer-brood adults.
At one time this species was probably a resident
species, and spring-brood specimens were common in
collections. Since 1982, efforts to obtain spring-brood
material from sites where specimens were taken the pre-
vious summer have been unsuccessful, indicating that it
may not overwinter in Ohio. However, this species is
consistently collected in summer at certain sites along the
Ohio River in Lawrence County and may be a resident
along the river.
Pontia
protodice
uses several mustards as larval host
plants and is usually seen in disturbed, open areas in
southern Ohio. There has been much speculation regard-
ing the decline of this species in the eastern United
States. Klots (1951) felt that the naturalized populations
of
Pieris
rapae L. may have competed with P.
protodice,
or
that the presence of large numbers of P. rapae may have
allowed parasites to build to large enough numbers to
negatively affect native Pieris and closely related species.
Pyle (1981) suggested that changing land use patterns
may have reduced this species. However, in Ohio, old
fields and other open, disturbed habitats have always
been common. Perhaps the best explanation (Chew 1977)
is that native whites cannot distinguish between native
and naturalized mustards when ovipositing. Most natu-
ralized mustards contain lethal quantities of mustard
oils,
and larvae are unable to develop on them. Given the
abundance of many naturalized mustards in disturbed
habitats, ovipositing females may not lay enough eggs on
suitable hosts to maintain populations in Ohio.
Erora laeta (W. H. Edwards) - Early Hairstreak
This species is known from two localities in Ohio:
Fort Hill State Memorial, Highland County (Porter and
Thomas 1970) and from Brecksville, Cuyahoga County.
Two captures, several years apart, are known from the
Fort Hill locality, indicating the presence of a popu-
lation. It has often been suggested (Opler and Krizek
1984,
Klots and dos Passos 1981) that this seemingly
very rare species may fly primarily in tree tops. Thus
its rarity in collections may not be a reflection of bio-
logical reality, but rather a reflection of a collector's
"good fortune."
Klots and dos Passos (1981) reported beech {Vagus
grandiflora Ehrh.) and possibly beaked hazelnut (Corylus
cornuta Marsh.) as the host plants of this species in New
England. Erora laeta usually occurs in Canadian zone and
transitional forests. Until more is known about the biol-
ogy of this species in Ohio, no determination can be
made of its status.
Lycaena epixanthe (Boisduval and LeConte) - Bog
Copper
Kirtland (1854) first reported this species from
Rockport, near Cleveland. Kirkpatrick (1864) also
recorded the species, stating that it was not plentiful
near Cleveland. He also reported the presence of two
other species of copper butterflies, increasing the like-
lihood that he was correctly referring to L. epixanthe.
Kirkpatrick was aware of material in Kirtland's pos-
session, and it is possible that both records refer to the
same material. Two general works (Klots 1951, Howe
1975) vaguely reported the occurrence of this species
in northeastern Ohio. Rawson (1948) reported that
J. Thomas and E. Thomas searched without success for
this species "in a few cranberry bogs which remain
in Ohio." We have no authenticated records for Ohio,
although it is known to occur in extreme north-
western Pennsylvania (Prescott 1984) and in southeastern
Michigan (Moore I960). The cranberry host plants
(Vaccinium macrocarpon L. and V. oxycoccos Ait.) and
habitat (acid bogs) occur in northeastern Ohio, and this
species may reside here. If populations are discovered,
they would certainly deserve endangered status, based on
the rarity of the habitat in Ohio.
Phyciodes pascoensis Wright ( = selenis (Kirby) -
Northern Pearl Crescent
This species is known from a single specimen col-
lected near Cincinnati, Hamilton County (deposited in
the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History and deter-
mined by C. Oliver). Viable populations are known from
areas near Ohio in West Virginia and Michigan (Opler
and Krizek 1984). This species is very similar to
Phyciodes
thaws (Drury), an abundant species throughout the state,
and may be overlooked.
Phyciodes pascoensis
was only re-
cently recognized as a distinct species from P. thaws
(Oliver 1980, referred to as P. thaws "type B"). Few
collectors have actively searched for P.
pascoensis
in Ohio.
The host plant of P. pascoensis is unknown, but
larvae will feed on panicled aster {Aster simplex Willd.) in
captivity (Opler and Krizek 1984). In nature, the adults
probably use asters as oviposition substrates.
104
J. A. SHUEY, J. V. CALHOUN, AND D. C. IFTNERVol. 87
DISCUSSION
Table
I
summarizes
the
relationships between environ-
ment
and
rare butterflies
in
Ohio.
The
majority
of the
butterflies discussed
are
restricted
to
unique
and
identi-
fiable habitats, whether fens,
oak
savannas,
or
clearings
within forests.
The
presence
of
these butterflies
can be
used
as a
gauge
of
ecological integrity
of
many
of
these
communities.
For
example,
the
lupine-feeding butter-
flies become extinct through succession long before
the
host plant becomes noticeably affected.
The
presence
of
lupine-feeding butterflies indicates
a
dynamic commu-
nity
in
which succession
has
been curtailed through peri-
odic disturbance,
a
natural feature
of the Oak
Openings
ecosystem.
The
other butterflies
may be
indicative
of
similar processes.
Two major threats
to
butterfly diversity
in
Ohio
are
easily identified.
The
first involves
the
loss
of the
five
or
more imperiled species
(E.
persius,
I.
irus,
L.
melissa
sam-
uelis,
B.
selene,
and S.
edwardsii)
in the Oak
Openings
owing
to
uninterrupted succession.
If
these species
are to
remain part
of
Ohio's natural heritage, their habitats,
especially
in the Oak
Openings Metro Park, Kitty Todd
Preserve,
and the
various State Nature Preserves, must
be
managed
in
such
a way as to
preserve
the
biotic diversity
that they were created
to
protect. Much
of the
critical
habitat
for
these species
has
already been preserved
be-
cause
of the
unique botanical communities present,
but
they have suffered from benign neglect.
The
butterflies
currently threatened
by
this trend
are
simply conspicuous
elements that
are
indicative
of a
larger process
of
insect
extirpation from
the
region.
The second threat
to
Ohio's butterflies
has far
reaching
consequences.
If
Dimilin
is
sprayed over major portions
of southern Ohio
to
protect
the
forests from gypsy moth
defoliation, there
may be
major extirpations
of
arthro-
TABLE
1
Summary
of
status,
occurrence,
and
habitat
requirements
of
critically rare Ohio butterflies. Factors negatively affecting
these
species
are
also given. Status abbreviations: Endang.
=
endangered,
Threat.
=
threatened,
Potent. Threat.
=
potentially
threatened,
Extir.
=
extirpated,
? =
unknown.
Occurrence
abbreviations:
A-Athens
Co.,
Cl-Clermont
Co.,
Ch-Champaign
Co.,
Cu-Cuyahoga
Co.,
Fr-Franklin
Co.,
Fu-Fulton
Co.,
Ha-Hamilton
Co.,
Hi-Highland
Co.,
Ho-Hocking
Co.,
La-Lawrence
Co.,
Lo-Logan
Co.,
Lu-Lucas
Co.,
P-Portage
Co.,
Sc-Scioto
Co.,
Se-Seneca
Co.,
Tr-Trumbull
Co..
Tu-Tuscarawas
Co., and V-Vinton Co.
Species
Erynnis
persius
Erynnis
lucilius
Pyrgus
centaureae
wyandot
Amblyscirtes
belli
Pontia
protodice
Pieris
napi
Euchloe
olympia
Lycaena
epixanthe
Satyrium
edwardsii
Incisalia
irus
Erora
laeta
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Calephelis
muticum
Speyeria
diana
Speyeria
idalia
Boloria
selene
Phyciodes
pascoensis
Neonympha
mitchellii
Status
Endang.
p
Potent.
Threat.
>
Extir.
Potent.
Threat.
p
Potent.
Threat.
Endang.
p
Endang.
Endang.
Extir.
Potent.
Threat.
Threat.
p
Extir.
Historical
occurrence
Lu
Lu
A, Cu, Ho
V
Cl
Statewide
Lu, Se
La
Cu, Fr, Lu,
Sc,
Tu
Ha, Lu
Cu, Hi
Lu
Ch, Lo,
Se?
Ha,
s-Ohio
Statewide
n-Ohio
Ha
Po
Present
occurrence
Lu
>
A, Ho, V
Southern
Ohio
—
La
5
Lu, Sc
Lu
>
Lu?
Ch, Lo
—
Unglaciated
Ohio
Fu, Lo?,
Lu, Tr
—
Host plant
Lupinus
Aquilegia
Potentilla
canadensis?
Uniola
latifolia
Cruciferae
p
Arabis?
Vaccinium
oxycoccos
&
macrocarpon
Quercus
Lupinus
Fagus,
Cory
I us?
Lupinus
Cirsium
muticum
Viola
Viola
Viola
Aster
Carex
stricta?
Habitat
Oak savanna/
dunes
Oak openings?
Forest
clearings
Shaded
ravines
Disturbed
fields
Fens
?
Oak
woodlands
Acid bogs
Oak savanna-
ridgetops
Oak savanna/
dunes
Beech forest
Oak savanna/
dunes
Fens
Deciduous
forests
Prairies,
old fields
Fens,
wet
meadows
Fens
Reasons/potentials
for decline
Habitat succession
>
Gypsy moth
control
'>
">
Habitat
modification
Gypsy moth
control
Succession,
gypsy moth control
Habitat succession
p
Habitat succession
Habitat modification
Deforestation
Habitat modification?
Habitat modification?
>
Habitat modification
Ohio
J.
ScienceENDANGERED BUTTERFLIES105
pods from the region. Various features such as topog-
raphy and proximity to the Appalachian Mountains make
this botanically the most diverse region of Ohio (Cusick
and Silberhorn 1977). It is likewise the most ento-
mologically diverse region of the state. Although we
identify only three butterflies (P. centaureae wyandot,
E. olympia, and S. edwardsii) that are highly susceptible
to widespread spraying, there are nearly a dozen species
of Noctuiidae that are readily identified as susceptible
(E.
Metzler pers. comm.). Given the failure of other
states in the eastern United States to control the gypsy
moth, any attempt to eradicate this species from Ohio
would seem futile. It seems obvious that the gypsy moth
is here to stay, and that it is economically infeasible to
spray for this species in perpetuity. Severe ecological
damage may be inflicted while trying to prevent short-
term defoliation by this moth. This could result in the
extirpation of untold numbers of arthropods from Ohio.
We hope that this paper will be used to guide future
research and land management decisions, and not as jus-
tification for statewide collecting restrictions on certain
species. Insect collecting, intelligently done, can yield
real benefits to society. This paper is based primarily
upon data obtained from private collections. Restrictions
on collecting may only make it more difficult for
researchers to obtain data while having little real impact
upon collecting. Those species that are truly sensitive
to collecting pressure are best protected through land
acquisition by conservation groups.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This research
was
funded
by
grants
to The
Ohio Lepidopterists
by the
Ohio Department
of
Natural Resources,
Division
of
Wildlife
and
Division
of
Natural Areas
and
Preserves,
and
by
a
grant
to the
senior author from
The
Nature Conservancy.
The
Nature Conservancy, Ohio Department
of
Natural Resources,
Di-
vision
of
Natural Areas
and
Preserves,
and the
Toledo MetroPark
District provided access
to
many
of
the areas protected
by
them during
the course
of
this study.
For providing access
to the
collections under their care,
we
thank
the curators
of
these institutions:
The
Ohio State Collection
of
Insects
and Spiders, Ohio University, Miami University, Marietta College,
The Ohio Historical Society,
The
Cleveland Museum
of
Natural
History,
The
Cincinnati Museum
of
Natural History,
The
Dayton
Museum
of
Natural History,
The
National Museum
of
Natural
History,
and the
Carnegie Museum
of
Natural History.
We
especially
thank
the
many members
of The
Ohio Lepidopterists
who
provided
access
to
private collections.
For
commenting upon earlier drafts
of
this manuscript
or for
providing information about some
of the
species,
we
thank:
J.
Peacock,
E.
Metzler,
R.
Rings,
R.
Watkins,
T. Carr,
J.
Thomas
and V.
Lucas,
all of
The Ohio Lepidopterists,
and
D.
Case,
The
Ohio Department
of
Natural Resources.
Dr. J.
Burns,
The Smithsonian Institution, provided determinations
of
Erynnis
spe-
cies
and Dr. C.
Oliver, Scottsdale,
PA,
determined
Phyciodes
species.
LITERATURE CITED
Albrecht,
C. W. 1974 The
Lepidoptera
of
Cedar Bog, Champaign
County, Ohio.
I. An
annotated checklist
of the
Rhopalocera. Ohio
J.
Sci. 74:
126-132.
1982
The
taxonomy, geography,
and
seasonal distribu-
tion
of the
Rhopalocera
in
Ohio.
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
The
Ohio
State Univ., Columbus.
512p.
Andreas,
B. K. 1985 The
relationship between Ohio peatland
dis-
tribution
and
buried river valleys. Ohio
J. Sci. 85:
116-125.
Bales,
B. R. 1909 A
partial list
of the
Lepidoptera
of
Pickaway
County, Ohio.
Ent.
News
20:
169-177.
Braun,
E. L. 1967 The
Monocotyledoneae
[of
Ohio]: Cat-tails
to
orchids. With Gramineae
by
Clara
G.
Weishaupt. Columbus: Ohio
State Univ. Press; 362p.
Brodberg,
R. K. 1976
Vascular macrophytes
of
Mud Lake, Will-
iams County, Ohio.
M.S.
Thesis, Bowling Green State Univ.,
Bowling Green, Ohio.
68p.
Calhoun,
J. V.
1985[86]
An
annotated list
of the
butterflies
and
skippers
of
Lawrence County, Ohio.
J.
Lepid.
Soc. 39:
284-298.
Chew,
F. S. 1977 The
effects
of
introduced mustards (Cruciferae)
on some native North American cabbage butterflies (Lepidoptera:
Piendae). Atala
5:
13-19.
Claypole,
E. W. 1897
Butterflies found
in
Summit County, Ohio.
Ohio State Acad.
Sci. Ann.
Report
5: 49-
Clench,
H. K. and P. A.
Opler
1983
Studies
on
neartic
Euchloe.
Part
8.
Distribution, ecology,
and
variations
of
Euchloe olympia
(Pieridae) populations.
Ann.
Carnegie
Mus. 52:
41-54.
Cooperrider,
T. S. (ed.) 1982
Endangered
and
threatened plants
of
Ohio.
Ohio Biol. Surv. Biol. Notes
No. 11,
Columbus.
92p.
Cusick,
A. W. and K. R.
Troutman
1978 The
prairie area survey
project.
A
summary
of
data
to
date. Ohio Biol. Surv. Inform.
Cir.
No.
10. 60p.
and
G. M.
Silberhorn
1977 The
vascular plants
of un-
glaciated Ohio. Ohio Biol. Surv.
Vol. V, New Ser. No. 4. 157p.
Drees,
B. M. 1982
Four additional butterflies from Cedar
Bog,
Champaign County, Ohio. OhioJ.
Sci. 82:
141-142.
Dury,
C. 1878
Catalogue
of
the Lepidoptera observed
in the
vicin-
ity
of
Cincinnati, Ohio.
J. Cin. Soc. Nat. His. 1:
12-23-
1900 Random notes
on
natural history.
J.
Cinn.
Soc.
Nat. Hist.
19: 171.
Easterly,
N. W. 1983
Endangered
and
threatened plant species
of
Schwamberger Preserve, Lucas County, Ohio. Ohio
J. Sci. 83:
97-102.
Edwards,
W. H. 1884
Revised catalogue
of the
diurnal Lepidop-
tera
of
America north
of
Mexico. Trans.
Am. Ent. Soc. 11:
245-337.
Ehrlich,
P. R. and A. H.
Ehrlich
1961 How to
know
the
butter-
flies.
Dubuque, Iowa:
W. C.
Brown; 262p.
Frederick,
C. M. 1974 A
natural history study
of the
vascular
flora
of
Cedar
Bog,
Champaign County, Ohio. Ohio
J. Sci. 74:
65-116.
Hammond,
P. C. and D. V.
McCorkle 1983[84]
The
decline
and
extinction
of
Speyeria
populations resulting from human environ-
mental disturbances (Nymphalidae: Argynninae).
J. Res.
Lepid.
22:
217-224.
Heitzman,
J. R. 1965 The
life history
of A
mblyscirtes belli
in Mis-
souri.
J. Res.
Lepid.
20:
177-181.
Hine,
J. S.
1898a List
of
butterflies known
to
have been taken
in
Ohio.
Ohio State Acad.
Sci. 6th
Annual Report: 22-27'.
1898b Ohio butterflies.
J.
Proc. Columbus Hort.
Soc.
12:
77-89.
Henninger,
W. F. 1910 The
macro-lepidoptera
of
Seneca County,
Ohio.
The
Ohio
Nat. 11:
233-242.
Holland, W.
J. 1898 The
butterfly book.
New
York: Doubleday
Page
and Co.;
382p.
Howe,
W. H. (ed.) 1975 The
butterflies
of
North America.
New
York: Doubleday; 633p-
Hoying,
L. A. 1975 A
list
of
west central Ohio butterflies. News
Lepid.
Soc. No. 2/3: 4.
Jezerinac,
R. F. 1986
Endangered
and
threatened crayfishes
(Decapoda: Cambaridae)
of
Ohio. OhioJ.
Sci. 86:
177-180.
Johnson,
K.
1982-84[86] Prairie
and
plains disclimax
and
disap-
pearing butterflies
in the
central United States. Atala 10-12:
20-30.
Kirkpatrick,
J. 1864
List
of
diurnal Lepidoptera found
in the
vicinity
of
Cleveland, Ohio. Proc.
Ent, Soc.
Phil.
3:
228-230.
Kirtland,
J. P. 1854
Diurnal Lepidoptera
of
northern
and
middle
Ohio.
Proc. Clev. Acad.
Nat. Sci. 2: 5,
45-46, 73-75.
Klots,
A. B. 1951 A
field guide
to the
butterflies
of
North
America, east
of the
Great Plains. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co.;
349p.
and
C. dos
Passos
1981
Studies
of
North American
Erora (Scudder) (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae).
J. N. Y.
Entomol.
Soc.
89:
295-331.
Matsumura,
F. 1985
Toxicology
of
insecticides.
2nd
edition.
New
York: Plenum Press, 598p.
McAlpine,
W. S., S. P.
Hubbell
and T. E.
Pliske I960
The
distri-
bution, habits,
and
life history
of
Euptychia mitchellii
(Satyridae).
J. Lepid.
Soc. 14:
209-226.
McCance,
R. M.
and
J. F.
Burns (eds.)
1984
Ohio endangered
and
threatened vascular plants.
Div.
Natural Areas
and
Preserves,
Dept. Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio. 635p.
Moore,
S.
I960
A
revised annotated list
of the
butterflies
of
Michigan. Occas.
Pap. Mus.
Zool., Univ. Michigan
No. 617.
34p.
106J. A. SHUEY, J. V. CALHOUN, AND D. C. IFTNERVol. 87
Moseley, E. L. 1928 Flora of the Oak Openings. Proc. Ohio Acad.
Sci.
8, Special paper No. 20: 80-134.
Nielsen, M. C. 1985 Notes on the habitat and foodplant of
Inci-
salia
henrici
(Lycaenidae) and Pyrgus
centaureae
(Hesperiidae). J.
Lepid. Soc. 39:
62-63.
Norman, C. 1986 Mexico acts to protect overwintering mon-
archs.
Science 233: 1252-1253.
Oliver, C. 1980 Phenotypic differentiation and hybrid breakdown
within
Phyciodes
'thaws' (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the North-
eastern United States. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 73:
715-721.
Opler, P. A. and G. O. Krizek 1984 Butterflies east of the Great
Plains. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press; 294p.
Otero, L. S. and K. S. Brown 1982-84{86] Biology and ecology of
Parides ascanius
(Cramer, 1775) (Lep., Papilionidae), a primitive
butterfly threatened with extinction. Atala 10-12: 2-16.
Pallister, J. C. 1927 Cissia
mitchelli
(French) found in Ohio with
notes on its habits. Lepidoptera-Satyridae. Ohio J. Sci. 27:
203-204.
Parsons, M.J. 1984 The biology and conservation of
Ornithoptera
alexandrae.
In: R.I. Vane-Wright and P. R. Ackery (eds.), The
biology of butterflies. Symp. Royal Entomol. Soc. London,
No.
11. New York: Academic Press; 429p.
Pilate, G. R. 1882 List of Lepidoptera taken in and around Day-
ton, Ohio. Papilio 2:
65-71.
Porter, M. A. and E. S. Thomas 1970 Fort Hill. Columbus, OH:
Ohio Hist.Soc; 38p.
Porter, W. P. 1965 An annotated list of butterflies for North-
western Ohio. J. Res. Lepid. 4: 109-112.
Prescott, J. M. 1984 The butterflies of Presque Isle State Park,
Erie County, Pennsylvania. Melsheimer Entomol. Ser. No. 34:
19-23.
Price, H. F. 1970 Butterflies of northwestern Ohio. Midcontinent
Lepidoptera Series No. 14, St. Paul, Minn. I6p.
Pyle,
R. M. 1976 Conservation of Lepidoptera in the United
States. Biol. Conserv. 9: 55-75.
1981 The Audobon Society field guide to North Ameri-
can butterflies. New York:
Knopf;
9l6p.
, M. Bentzien and P. Opler 1981 Insect conservation.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 26: 233-258.
Rawson, G. W. 1948 A new subspecies of Lycaena epixanthe
Boisduval and LeConte with comments on the identity of typical
epixanthe
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). J. New York Ent. Soc. 56:
55-62.