Butterflies - BugGuide.Net

Common names for the order

Could we use "Butterflies, Moths, and Skippers" instead of "Butterflies and Moths" as the common name for Lepidoptera? It could help people who don't know the taxonomy, especially because the clickable guide only goes to moths and "Butterflies (excluding skippers)." I feel like the term "skipper" should appear in the breadcrumbs so people using the clickable guide can at least see where to go.

I know there is a link to skippers way down on the "Butterflies (excluding skippers)" info page, but it can be hard to find with so much butterfly info and photos to scroll through.

Hopefully I'm not beating this to death, but I didn't learn that skippers were taxonomically separated from butterflies until a few years ago, when reared some of those nifty bobble-headed caterpillars and couldn't find the adults in my little pocket butterfly guide!

… Abigail M. Parker, 6 September, 2009 - 8:37pm

Name change

I does make it easier to find the skippers (but those who consider skippers to BE butterflies may disagree). I like it for the ease of use to the average BG user.

… John R. Maxwell, 6 September, 2009 - 9:51pm

definitely not trying to argue about that...

The whole question of superfamilies is way over my head, but I figure as long as the Guide separates them on the taxonomy tree, they may as well be separate in the common name list.

… Abigail M. Parker, 7 September, 2009 - 7:57am

What about

something like "Butterflies (including skippers) and Moths"?

… John R. Maxwell, 7 September, 2009 - 8:43am

I think

that's the best solution.

… Charley Eiseman, 7 September, 2009 - 8:47am

I like the first option

The "(including skippers)" reads like footnotes added by a committee.

The fact is that butterflies (including skippers) are now considered to be an offshoot of the moths (probably somewhere in or around the Geometroidea).

We're already violating phylogenetic accuracy by saying "butterflies and moths", so we might as well go with simplicity and clarity.

… Chuck Entz, 7 September, 2009 - 11:35am

Any one

in favor of of trying to figure out how to follow a more correct/modern system and merge them?

… John R. Maxwell, 7 September, 2009 - 4:39pm

It's that way for a reason

This one of the cases where ease of use trumps strict phylogenetic accuracy. It makes the site easier to navigate and is less confusing for novice users.

Moths have much more in common with each other than they do with butterflies, in the same way that sharks and lungfish have much more in common with each other than with us- even though we are, phylogenetically speaking, just a highly-modified species of lungfish.

… Chuck Entz, 7 September, 2009 - 7:43pm

I think

that would just consist of deleting the "no taxon - Moths" node, so that all Lepidopteran superfamilies are at the same level. The main effect of this would be that clicking on the moth icon in the clickable guide would take you to Lepidoptera rather than to "moths," but there should be little difference in what you see when you get there, since any unidentified butterfly/skipper images should be placed at superfamily or family level. I have no problem with that, but I suspect that others might... There could still be a "no taxon - Butterflies and Skippers" node, since butterflies and skippers are sister groups.

… Charley Eiseman, 7 September, 2009 - 4:59pm

one level of superfamilies - numbers thereof

BugGuide currently has 30 nodes for moth superfamilies, vs. one each for butterflies and skippers. Having all 32 superfamilies on the same level, so the Lepidoptera taxonomy tree is one long list, might intimidate or discourage novices. Heck, I'm reasonably familiar w/ Lepidoptera, but the Moth superfamily list intimidates me a bit too!

… Abigail M. Parker, 8 September, 2009 - 11:12am

Thought I'd weigh in here with an opinion

First I went to the icons at the left, and clicked on the Butterfly - at the moment I get Butterflies (excluding Skippers). Got'a say, I don't like that. I click on the Moth, and I get Moths (but it also excludes both Butterflies and Skippers). Here's what I don't like. The Skippers have no direct link, you have to hunt for them. I think the Butterfly icon should go to both Butterflies and Skippers (the old Rhopolocera if you will - even if the name isn't used), and the split should be made after that. OR There should be a Skipper icon (seems a bit of overkill to me - three icons for Lepidoptera?).

Simple enough to write "Butterflies and Skippers", without all the parentheses and such that seem to be causing some hesitation. I agree with a node equivalent (in BugGuide organization) to "Moths. It's certainly a more "natural" grouping than all the Moths together is, and just as useful for navigation. :-)

Never did understand the debate over "Skippers vs. Butterflies" anyway. Skippers are just a group within Butterflies (just like Swallowtails or Pierids are) - I've thought of them that way for over 40 years.

… David J. Ferguson, 10 September, 2009 - 3:38pm

Clickable guide

If we could get the butterfly icon changed to go to "Buterflies and Skippers", at the same time I would like to see the dragonfly icon go to "Dragonflies and Damselflies"

… John R. Maxwell, 10 September, 2009 - 10:21pm

hear hear - clickable guide convenience

The clickable guide seems to me like the visual key to orders on the endpapers or first few pages of many field guidesOnce you click to the node (or metaphorically turn to the page) of the order/superfamily/family, there is more detailed information for narrowing it down. Getting to Order Odonata by clicking the dragonfly and then using the breadcrumbs to backtrack (one extra click) or going to the Taxonomy tab and moving up (two extra clicks) seems like too much extra navigation, especially for those who either aren't familiar with the differences between dragonflies and damselflies, or do know there's a difference but simply want quick access to the order.

Also, it's at the order level that the features common to all the families in it are explained (well, most of the time), and print or Internet references to the entire order are given. If I click on the dragonfly and only go to the dragonfly node, I won't find information on Odonata in general that might be useful or interesting.

(Actually the Odonata Info page is pretty sparse and doesn't have a lot of resources, but my point stands, I hope.)

… Abigail M. Parker, 11 September, 2009 - 10:21am

Good point

I'm happy as long as the actual taxonomic tree is correct, as currently understood--which it wasn't until I moved the skippers out of Papilionoidea in April. Ideally, I guess, the viceroy icon in the clickable guide would go to a "no taxon" butterflies node, including both the Papilionoidea and the Hesperioidea.

… Charley Eiseman, 7 September, 2009 - 11:54am

clickable guide -> butterflies & skippers = happy me

Clicking on a butterfly and getting to a page w/ both butterflies and skippers is exactly what I wanted, but I didn't know it was possible! Easier to navigate, especially for beginners and casual users, but doesn't interfere w/ the current taxonomy.

I edited a couple of links on the Lepidoptera info page so clicking "skipper" goes to April's Hesperoidea page, instead of the butterfly-only node 81. (I noticed how recently the split was made as I was doing that. I hope I haven't stirred up a hot topic again...)

… Abigail M. Parker, 7 September, 2009 - 12:56pm

Clickable guide

Making the "no taxon - butterflies" page would be easy; then I think we'd need John VanDyk to change the link in the clickable guide. I imagine that would be simple for him to do.

To streamline things, it's better to make skipper links go to Hesperiidae, since that's the only family in Hesperoidea. I edited one link on the Lepidoptera page (under "Identification") just now, but didn't see the other(s) you're referring to.

You're not stirring up a hot topic, I don't think... as far as I know it was never correct to put skippers in Papilionoidea, or at least not since BugGuide has existed.

… Charley Eiseman, 7 September, 2009 - 1:27pm

if I get time soon

I'll tackle some of these if they aren't already done when I get to it. I'll try to sort out the Apodemia mormo complex too. Another problem with the Greenies (Callophrys) is that the identification is sometimes really difficult to be accurate with, but I think most of them can be sorted properly. Same comment for Celastrina. I certainly can't tell them apart. There is too much variation within the one (or two, or three?) wide-ranging multivoltine species for me to see what makes a regionally, or seasonally, or worst of all host plant based "species" different.

… David J. Ferguson, 29 April, 2009 - 11:27am

New subject - Hesperiidae

Changing the subject from the Pelham list, but related, is the classification of the Hesperiidae presented in a recent paper. When Pelham's catalog and this paper came out in roughly the same time period, and show similarities, but there are differences. This is a paper proposing a classification of the Skippers based on DNA sequence data. The classification used by Pelham is still moderately traditional (with a few minor exceptions, such as the Eudaminae pulled out of the Pyrginae). The traditional classifications of Hesperiidae has never made much sense to me, with obviously related things in different subfamilies, and things not so close typically included in the same subfamily. This new proposal seems to make some sense, and it is based on hard data. Looking at the data presented, I do wonder at some of the ways things are grouped (i.e. why is the Eudamini still included in the Pyrginae?, when their presented pylogenetic tree would group it perhaps even more closely with the Heteropterinae+Trapezitinae+Hesperiinae, yet those three are still split).Thus the circumscriptions still seem perhaps a bit too influenced by tradition and a tad inconsistent. [note: on Tolweb, the same aurhors now recognize Eudaminae as a good subfamily.] Even so, the treatment in this paper is based more in reality than anything before, and problem areas still needing more attention are outlined. So, I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the group subscribing to this page. I expect it is near to what will be eventually generally accepted (and I suspect the next version of the Pelham list and Brower & Warren's treatment will converge??). I will not now go so far as rearranging the whole family in BugGuide based on this paper, but I wanted to throw the subject out for consideration. Here is the link to the paper.

Another note relating to Hesperiidae is that the Megathyminae is still recognized as a subfamily on BugGuide. It's a favorite little group of genera, but clearly they are just specialized Grass Skippers (subfamily Hesperiinae); perhaps they make a good subtribe?. I hesitate to move them, since it might cause a small riot! On Tolweb and in Pelham's catalogue they are treated as belonging tribe Erionotini of the subfamily Hesperiinae.

Phylogenetic relationships of subfamilies and circumscription of
Tribes in the Family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea)
Warren, Ogawac, & Brower; Cladistics 24 (2008) 1–35

… David J. Ferguson, 28 March, 2009 - 3:54pm

(never mind)

… Charley Eiseman, 12 June, 2009 - 10:12pm

As they affect BugGuide

...two relatively minor changes mentioned in the abstract of the paper could be easily accommodated this way:

1. Move genus Pyrrhopyge from subfamily Pyrrhopyginae to subfamily Pyrginae, and delete subfamily Pyrrhopyginae.

2. Move the three genera Agathymus, Megathymus, Stallingsia from subfamily Megathyminae to subfamily Hesperiinae, and delete subfamily Megathyminae.

This would reduce the number of Hesperiidae subfamilies from six to four in the list here. The changes have been made in the butterfliesofamerica.com Interactive Listing, which was last updated 6 days ago, and represents (I think) the online version of Pelham's list that I mentioned here.

The biggest change mentioned in the paper appears on page 7:
"In summary, our results imply that four subfamilies of Hesperiidae should be recognized: Coeliadinae, Heteropterinae, Trapezitinae and Hesperiinae."

Two of these (Coeliadinae and Trapezitinae) are new names that don't appear in Pelham's current online list linked to above, so I don't think it's time yet to make those major changes at BugGuide. The paper also has a lengthy discussion of tribes, but BugGuide has no tribes set up in Hesperiidae, so as long as genera are placed in the proper subfamily, tribal questions are not really a concern to us.

In my opinion, it shouldn't be a problem to make the two minor changes as long as we note what has been done on the appropriate pages and provide a link to the source of information.

… Robin McLeod, 17 April, 2009 - 9:19pm

Two problem genera

I would like to propose a couple of changes in arrangement that I think would make things a bit easier. These relate to two unrelated genera :)

Callophrys subgenus Callophrys is confusing and is a bit of a mess. Literature is conflicting, and I would like to go ahead and put things in the arrangement that is followed in Pelham's list, simply because it makes some sense, and it is current. A first step in following up on the line of discussion above. Overall, I think little change needs to be made to the way things are already arranged in the butterflies on BugGuide, since most of the listings are fundamentally in agreement. This group is a minor exception. Opler and Warren didn't fully break down subspecies in their on-line list, and left a lot of questions unanswered, with comments made as to posible relationships. Pelham has taken the treatment several steps further. It still may not be a fully natural or "real" treatment, but it is closer, and will put similar insects together in a logical way. So far, we've used the framework that was in place. Following Pelham will mean a few shifts in which photo is under which species.

Euphydryas is not quite so simple. Regarding the E. anicia/ chalcedona/ colon group, every treatment is different, yet every one seems to make some good points. There are a few ways to look at the group. One is orange (mostly mountain populations) vs. black and white (mostly lowland or near coastal populations). This would resolve as ''E. anicia - like'' and ''E. chalcedona/ colon/ bernadetta - like'', and puts (in my opinion) populations that truly are related and blend into one another in the same groups (this is still over simplified a bit though). The other way is to look solely at their genitalia, which splits them roughly [/i]E. chalcedona[/i] - west and E. anicia east (but tends to ignore coloring, habitat preference, and what flies alongside of what while staying distinctly different in the field). This second method is basically what has been followed by most workers, but in varying combinations, and has yielded some very confusing and obviously artificial results. Then there is the third approach. The confusing and often illogical results of previous attempts, and the fact that the butterflies don't read what is written about them, lead to the "hands up in the air" approach of lumping the whole mess as one "megaspecies" called the "Variable Checkerspot" with the oldest name E. chalcedona applied to all.

What I would like to do here, to stay "legal" is use the Opler and Warren list as a base for which species to recognize, but to follow the subspecies listing of Pelham (the difference is that Pelham leaves E. chalcedona and E. colon separate - an unnecessary complication). I would like to break the resulting two categories each into two groups of subspecies based on appearance, in order to group like with like. That way, they will be in taxonomically "legal" categories, but will also be sorted in a way that allows people to easily access ones that look alike. So, basically it will come out like this, with four species level groupings:

E. anicia
E. anicia (chalcedona - like)
E. chalcedona
E. chalcedona (anicia - like)

I know this is doing a bit of picking and choosing, but it also allows most populations (and thus submitted photos) to be placed into logical groupings and to be more easily identified by people tooning in. I could dump the subspecies categories, [and there are an excessive number of them published] but it is easy enough to assign them, and they do further put similar looking with similar looking. (opinions?)

I've made some progress in putting like with like, but would like to see how others feel about establishing this framework. (???)

There aren't many other groups of NA Butterflies so complicated, but there are a few (i.e. Blues, Fritillaries, some Swallowtails, etc.). At least most of those are treated in a fairly stable manor now.

Thanks

… David J. Ferguson, 2 December, 2008 - 9:52am

Don't know enough to comment on your plan,

but we say if it makes sense to you, then do it. All the work you have been doing on organizing the butterfly images certainly earns you the authority to make these few small decisions. You may wish to wait for a couple of days to see if someone who knows about butterflies (not us) has something substantive to add.

… john and jane balaban, 2 December, 2008 - 9:56pm

Getting back to

the basic first question. I thought I'd throw this into the mix. The following publication is fast becoming the standard that is being accepted by a large number of (if not the majority) of Lepidopterists in North America north of Mexico. The author has done a very thorough job of this publication, and has taken a generally middle of the road approach to many difficult problems of taxonomic and nomenclatural disagreement. I don't always agree with the end decision myself, but that can be said of all such publications. All and all, I think this is the best compendium of the names of butterflies and their classification available to date for this region, and it might be worth considering using it as the standard to follow for BugGuide?

I know that there are some differences between this listing and Opler and Warren's, but I have not compared them item for item. The Pelham list is probably the more up to date at this point. Unlike some of the other listings, it does recognize and treat subspecies.

If nothing else it gives another alternative for referencing in making decisions on how to treat various taxa.

Catalogue of the Butterflies of the United States and Canada, by Jonathan Pelham, 2008

… David J. Ferguson, 9 November, 2008 - 10:46pm

Can we go ahead with this?

It's been five months and there appears to be consensus on using Pelham as a reference for butterflies.

But wouldn't the online list be a better choice than the hard copy, as I mentioned below?

The old references to Opler and Warren would have to be changed to the new reference on several of BugGuide's Info pages.

… Robin McLeod, 17 April, 2009 - 9:29pm

We would support making the online list identified

as BugGuide's official butterfly reference and we would support the necessary taxonomic changes in the guidepages to get us into agreement with that list.

… john and jane balaban, 19 April, 2009 - 4:26pm

I agree

I'm not sure if the online list will be dynamic with updates, but it might be. That could cause the rare conflict requiring attention when something gets chaged, but overall I think it's the best choice for right now. [and changes are happening regardless of which list anyway]

… David J. Ferguson, 24 April, 2009 - 6:21pm

I assume that

the date at the top of the Interactive Listing represents the most recent update. Today it shows 19 Apr 2009, and a week ago it showed 11 Apr 2009, so updates are apparently happening frequently.

I haven't found a list of updates describing what particular changes were made on each occasion. Maybe there isn't one.

… Robin McLeod, 24 April, 2009 - 8:42pm

Let's do it!

I think it's safe to say that we all agree to go ahead and use the BOA list for the BugGuide butterfly taxonomy. I think we should just go ahead and start making the relevant changes.

What about common names, though? Are we sticking to the Pelham/BOA list? If so, there will be some significant changes. For example, many metalmarks are now called by their genus name (e.g. Emesis emesia is now Curve-winged Emesis). My opinion is that we should follow the new common names in the BOA list b/c these will likely become the standards.

… Nick Block, 28 April, 2009 - 9:14am

Callophrys changes

These are the changes needed within the genus Callophrys that involve changing the taxon level of a guide page:

1) C. affinis perplexa is a full species, C. perplexa.

2) C. apama needs to become a subspecies of C. affinis.

3) C. nelsoni needs to become a subspecies of C. gryneus.

… Nick Block, 28 April, 2009 - 12:14pm

Changes needed

I've started making the relevant changes to the taxonomy and went up to (but didn't include yet) the Nymphalidae. There are a few changes that I cannot make b/c a guide page needs to change taxon level. Can someone with these abilities please make the following changes to correspond to the Pelham list:

1) Anthocharis stella and A. thoosa need to become subspecies of A. sara.

2) Euchloe hyantis lotta needs to become the full species E. lotta, Desert Marble.

3) Lycaena ferrisi needs to become a subspecies of L. rubidus.

4) Lots of changes needed within the genus Callophrys, for which I'll include a separate post.

5) Celastrina cinerea needs to become a subspecies of C. echo.

6) Plebejus rustica needs to become a subspecies of P. glandon.

… Nick Block, 28 April, 2009 - 10:46am

hard copy versus online list

Although I haven't seen the hard copy version, I think the link Jason gave might represent an online version of Pelham's Catalogue named Butterflies of America. In the introduction it states "...nomenclature generally follows Pelham (2008) and/or Opler & Warren (2002, 2005) for taxa occurring in the United States and Canada...". Further down it states "This listing will be updated on a near daily basis, so please check back often for updates!"

The list itself has links to references and species/subspecies pages with many large photos of specimens, which is great for online comparison of BugGuide images.

In my opinion the main advantages of the online list are:
1. everyone (who has Internet access) has access to it
2. the authors have promised to keep it updated
3. it's free (whereas the hard copy, with shipping from BioQuip, costs US $47.50 or about $60 Canadian at today's exchange rates)

… Robin McLeod, 15 November, 2008 - 10:49am

another online version of Pelham's list

was a pre-publication version, and is basically identical to the interactive listing, but isn't being updated. However, as a quick reference it is easy to access here

… David J. Ferguson, 15 May, 2009 - 12:42pm

seconded

Been meaning to propose that myself. I believe the list from here is based on Pelham's work. Looking at the site, the graphics (ugh) of synonomy appear to be straight from the catalogue.

… Jason Forbes, 13 November, 2008 - 9:47pm

Thirded

I also think we should make the Pelham taxonomy the standard for BugGuide. In my mind, Opler & Warren was really just a stand-in until Pelham was finished. :-) And I also agree that the taxonomy at the Butterflies of America seems to be identical and will likely be updated accordingly.

As an aside, in accordance with this taxonomy, Celastrina cinerea should be a subspecies of C. echo. I don't think there's a good basis for including it as a separate species in BG, as it has yet to be recognized as such by any of the major taxonomy lists used here. If others agree, I can move it.

… Nick Block, 6 December, 2008 - 4:21am

Dr Tony Thomas in the past

would, at the end of each season, run all the new BugGuide Celastrina images past Dr David Wright and Henry Pavulaan. They would comment on the images and Tony would put them all away. Unfortunately, with Tony gone from BugGuide, this isn't getting done this year. We would suggest in this instance, that BugGuide follow whatever Wright and Pavulaan propose. We don't know what that is, though there are long comments on BugGuide, on the Celastrina page here for example, and we don't even know if they discuss western Celastrina. But if they do, since most of the images of Celastrina on BugGuide have been moved to guide pages based upon their advice, we would suggest continuing to follow their advice.
Other thoughts from folks?

Just checked the cinerea images on BugGuide and two of them had been confirmed by Dr Wright. (But we don't know if that was intended as species or subspecies.)

… john and jane balaban, 6 December, 2008 - 8:49am

Pelham

Couldn't agree more on Pelham..this is the way to go and is widely accepted as the best available taxonomic resourse. Sure taxonomy has changes already on many species but this is the most up to date guide I am aware of.

… Tom Bentley, 10 December, 2008 - 12:18pm

Crescent taxonomy

Since it looks like All-Leps is the default taxonomy for BugGuide, the genus Anthanassa should be created and the following crescents should be moved to it from the genus Phyciodes:
Cuban Crescent (A. frisia)
Pale-banded Crescent (A. tulcis)
Texan Crescent (A. texana)

This agrees with the O&W list, too.

… Nick Block, 17 July, 2007 - 2:20pm

Thanks

Done.

… Robin McLeod, 18 July, 2007 - 2:00am

followed at All-Leps too

Although not available a year and a half ago, it turns out that in every instance mentioned by Joel above, All-Leps uses the same genus and species names as in Opler and Warren's PDF list. All-Leps also lists synonyms and subspecies, which is a nice supplement to Opler and Warren's notes on the various lumpings and splittings.

All-Leps retains the 4 subfamilies of Lycaenidae already in place at BugGuide (and also used at butterfliesandmoths.org, nearctica.com, nhm.ac.uk, and CBIF) so I suggest keeping those instead of following Opler and Warren's reduction to 2 subfamilies and their creation of 4 tribes under Lycaeninae for Coppers (1), Hairstreaks (2), and Blues (1).

Only 2 of Joel's proposed changes have been made at BugGuide since his original post: species pages have been created for Celastrina echo and C. lucia, and Phyciodes selenis has been renamed P. cocyta. Should we go ahead with the remaining changes?

… Robin McLeod, 14 February, 2007 - 11:42am

Sounds good

If you and Joel agree, that's good enough for us. Now we need to hear from Tony Thomas, and that will solidify it!

… john and jane balaban, 14 February, 2007 - 5:10pm

Species Numbers

It would be nice to have species numbers, perhaps Hodges. This is probably a lot to ask and Hodges might not make sense since it looks like Opler and Warren have there own number system. That said, here are some sources I've found:

Index to the Common Names for the Florida Lepidoptera

Lepidoptera Species Represented in Dominick Collection

Funet (uses the term "NACL" - Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico)

… Steve Nanz, 29 November, 2005 - 4:13am

Limenitis

Joel, we are about to post some White Admirals / Red Spotted Purples and notice they are all mixed together on the same guide page. We were wondering if it wouldn't make sense to make subspecies pages for those two so we could get map data, for example, separately if visitors wanted instead of just combined. Our limited research seems to show a lot of disagreement on just what these two are, with Pyle even saying that genetic data imply these are two formerly separate species recently interbreeding where their ranges overlap. Wow! Anyway, we assume some of you will know much more than we on the issue and are curious to hear what people know.

… john and jane balaban, 6 November, 2005 - 6:19pm

makes sense

I think it's a good idea to make separate pages for the obvious subspecies (and leave the hybrids and questionables on the species page). The common names White Admiral (Limenitis arthemis arthemis) and Red-spotted Purple (L. a. astyanax) have been in use for ages; to avoid confusion, this CBIF page proposes the common name Redspotted Admiral for the species as a whole.
CBIF also notes that L. a. rubrofasciata flies from Manitoba westward, and has a row of completely red spots (rather than partly blue spots) on the upperside of the hindwing. This photo from Alaska is a good example of L. a. rubrofasciata, and could be called Western White Admiral, based on its range. Your photo from Quetico in western Ontario is close to the overlap area, and might be a hybrid.
Another subspecies (L. a. arizonensis) is called Arizona Red-spotted Purple in the link on this page, and presumably occurs in the southwestern area shown on this page but I don't know how it's visually different than the Red-spotted Purple.

… Robin McLeod, 10 November, 2005 - 12:00am

rubrofasciata

Thought a comment might be in order here. The rubrofasciata phenotype is a northern thing, not a western thing, and it ranges to the Atlantic Coast. Specimens from New England often have this coloration, as do specimens from north of the border between there and Manitoba. It seems to be basically the north end of a cline. The replacement of the orange spots by reflective blues does not coincide with the appearance of the white band, and the blue occurs in populations further north than does the lack of white bands. Thus the "typical" arthemis with blue is mostly found in the ne. US, and is really intermediate between "rubrofasiata" and "astyanax". However, both rubrofasciata and typical arthemis are fairly stable and look different over large areas. There has been a fair amount of discussion among Lepidopterists recently about this eastern group with rubrofasciata characteristics. In some places specimens from high on a mountain look like rubrofasiata, while those lower down don't (maybe Mt. Greylock is one of those places?). Of course traces of orange spots can show almost anywhere, even on the rare "astyanax", and some of these photos here show traces of the blue - but after-all, it is a continuum. The following would (in my opinion) be referable to rubrofasciata, or at least leaning strongly toward that "subspecies", though we can't see the underside of most. Note that they are primarily from north or high up - from colder places. The specimen from Ontario appears quite typical of rubrofasciata to me, and looks just like specimens from further west in Canada.

… David J. Ferguson, 18 July, 2008 - 1:12pm

We thought ours from Ontario

looked just like the one from Denali

that Robin indicated as rubrofasciata and moved it to that page. Dr Tony Thomas disagreed and moved it back. He said he disagreed with Robin's description above and would comment but he never did. He did comment on ours and also on

where he talked about the underside of the hind wing and whether the red was in spots or continuous bands. That description certainly seems to say that Tom's

is rubrofasciata as you say above. But we don't know what it says about

for example, dots or band?? And we don't know how that pattern would carry over to the upper surface of the hindwing. Since Tony is not here to clarify his position, it may make sense to follow your thoughts on this one. Can you suggest some reading material so Robin can check it out and then give an opinion too? We can also set up a rubrofasciata / arthemis overlap page too, if that seems like a good place for some of these images. Thanks

… john and jane balaban, 19 July, 2008 - 2:46pm

rubrofasciata

I'm not sure if there are any "official" references that talk about "rubrofasciata" east of Manitoba, though I actually seem to recall a reference in one book to specimens from Ontario refered to that name. When I look through books on Canadian Butterflies at photos of northern material, I find that the color pattern is variable everywhere, with some individuals having large red (orange) spots below (mostly males) and some a red band (mostly females). I see the same thing when looking at photos on BugGuide (but the sampling is lean). I'm not sure how constant this is, since I don't have a lot of field experience in the north, nor do I have long series to look at. However, there is a consistently for the presence of red above and a corresponding reduction of blue in material from Alaska to New Brunswick and south to South Dakota and upstate New York(basically anywhere there is no astyanax influence). The three individuals shown lower side here (in my limited experience) could all have easily been found in the same population, and based on other photos associated with a couple of them (same locations), I'd wager they have red spots above. The top one looks male, and the lower two are female.

I would suggest looking at (I don't have authors' names handy) books on butterflies in Canada, including the provincial treatments, and also on the northern Great Plains, prairie, New England, and Great Lakes areas in the US. Even just looking at the photos of specimens from those regions should show a regional pattern to what is where. I don't know if there are any books on butterflies in the Maritimes (I haven't looked for them), but that would tell a lot too. If the ones from Alaska, Alberta, South Dakota, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Vermont all look the same, then it seems to me that they should all be called "rubrofasciata". That is if the name "arthemis" (older name) truly wasn't originally based on the same thing too.

I'll post to some chat groups that have Canadian experts participating, and see if they bite.

… David J. Ferguson, 21 July, 2008 - 1:37pm

Butterfly taxonomy

There are several semi-official lists - it's tough to know which one would be best to use.

(1) The NABA list is used in the popular field guides and is the de facto standard - if we followed this, it might be easier for people who use these guides to find them in BugGuide.

(2) The Opler and Warren list is a thorough taxonomic treatment and probably more taxonomically correct. Here's a handy link to the
differences between the NABA and Opler/Warren lists

(3) There's also the treatment on Butterflies of North America by Opler, Stanford, and Pavulaan, which has some differences from Opler & Warren, despite having the same lead author.

(4) The TILS-TTR treatment at Standardized Common - North American Butterfly Names. Things are split a little too finely here, but it's more up-to-date with new species (e.g. Pterourus appalachiensis) than any of the above.

Perhaps we should use the best features of each, such as recognizing the new species, but not splitting the tiger swallowtails from Papilio to Pterourus.

… Will Cook, 11 August, 2005 - 10:27pm

Butterflies

Thanks for your comments, Will.

I prefer the Opler and Warren list for a couple of reasons. The nomenclature is more up-to-date than the NABA list (although it retains the original spelling for names rather than having adjectives agree in gender with the generic names, which can cause some problems). It is also annotated, which is good for knowing where lumps and splits have been made. The Butterflies of North America list is good, but a bit older, I think, and doesn't seem to include some Canadian species (eg. a few Colias, a couple of Boloria, maybe some others).

O&W also appeals more to me personally because I learned my butterflies from the Butterflies of Canada, which uses a fairly similar classification system. That is a good reference as well, since it has fairly detailed notes on taxonomic issues involving various species, but it obviously wouldn't work since it doesn't include a big chunk of the NA fauna.

A drawback to O&W is that it can be harder to find identification resources for some of the more recent splits that aren't in the field guides. The NABA list would work better in this respect.

I agree that we should add new species to any list we use, but having a central reference source is important for keeping things consistent. Opler and Warren is my preference for doing that. As for common names, I think the NABA list is becoming the standard for field guides (Glassberg's books, Brock and Kaufman, and Butterflies of Canada all follow it), while the TILS list has way too many names (I think having common names for every single named subspecies is kind of silly).

… Joel Kits, 12 August, 2005 - 6:49pm

OK by me

I feel that anyone that has done their homework (sounds like you have) and is willing to invest time here to arrange things pretty much gets the go ahead. The challenge of course is keeping it consistent as other editors add things and may forget or not have access to the classification. Having something available on line is definitely a plus in that regard.

… Troy Bartlett, 10 August, 2005 - 8:43am

Well, if no one has any objections to following Opler and Warren I'll go ahead and implement these changes, probably this weekend.

… Joel Kits, 10 August, 2005 - 10:13pm