Thanks for narrowing it down.

It could be that I've "over lumped them". Bernadetta was described from Nebraska, and as a bit of a disclaimer, there might be another more precise subspecies name for these E. chalcedona from northern Nevada or Utah that I don't know about. However, authors have called the ones from the northern Great Basin and north and east of there by this name, and it certainly looks about the same through the whole region to me (but then so do the ones from the rest of the Great Basin and down into Arizona that go by other names). Authors have also called bernadetta both a subspecies of E. chalcedona and of E. anicia. Since it seems to blend into other subspecies of E. chalcedona northward and westward, yet it flies right alongside of different-looking E. anicia in many areas, I've followed the E. chalcedona route. There may be discussion about this in the future, but I think the most useful thing about this placement, is that it gets things that look alike together in one file in a reasonably logical way.

I should also add that this particular photo (aside from the discussion above) was puzzling for me. I was sure when I moved it (didn't even consider E. anicia), but looking at it again, it is very red for an E. chalcedona. It is posible that I am wrong and that it belongs with E. anicia. Seeing more from the same population would make that an easier call. However, it still "looks" like E. chalcedona to me.

This group is very confusing. I hope this little blurb is helpful for enyone who stumbles onto it and not more fuel for more confusion!

Confusion is what makes science so interesting, I guess. Just about the time you have things figured out, they change all the names again and reclassify everything. I know that's what they do in the bird world. Thanks for the clarification and thanks, mostly, for your time.

I don't really have a firm answer, but it appears that the "black and white" ones from northern Utah are still being called ssp. bernadetta. They tend to favor lower and drier habitats than the orange ones, but they overlap in some of the mountain canyons and where habitats meet out in the Great Basin. Orange ones in the mountains of the Great Basin seem to still all be called ssp. wheeleri. Apparently in the Wasatch Mtns. in Utah there is some confusion about names. They apparently tend to all be called ssp. mariae regardless of type (apparently the name was given to an orange "anicia-looking" type, and Scott in his book seems to lump them in with the ssp. anicia from further north), but more black and white individuals that look like bernadetta are also there in the Wasatch. The more black and white type (similar to your photo) was illustrated from near Mt. Nebo in Howe's Butterflies of North America, but in Ferris and Brown's Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States they say "The figures in Howe (1975, pl. 37, 15-17) of mariae and windi appear to be interchanged, based upon the original descriptions of the two ssp. and my collecting in the region." I expect that the illustrations may be correct and that both orange and blackish populations occur in both the Wasatch (type locality of mariae is Park City, Utah) and the Tetons (type locality of windi is the Tetons). So, doesn't really resolve anything much, but adds a bit more information, and perhaps (hopefully not) confusion.

That's quite a moniker for that little butterfly to carry around. I appreciate your time and I think all this information will be helpful for any future checkerspots I find, although I don't come across them often.

isn't really part of the name. I'm going to try and figure out a better way to get the wording in, without it all written out as if a scientific name. So, you might see it get a little easier to read soon. Pretty butterflies, no matter what we do with our names and descriptions though.