USGS data -

[Ron Gatrelle]

Greetings.

The actual workings of the USGS site is certainly a mystery to me. The
three people listed as the, what's the word, compilers, are definitely not
co-equals in policy, decisions, etc. I can't speak about how "tight a ship"
the lists for other states are, but the South Carolina site is a mess.

Some background. The only modern published scientific lists of SC
butterflies and skippers are the two I've had published.

    The Hesperioidea of the South Coastal Area of South Carolina.
    J. Lepid. Soc, 29:1, 1975

    The Papilionoidea of the South Coastal Area of South Carolina.
    S. Lepid. Soc. Bulletin #2 1985

This second paper had a section that dealt with several records state wide.
A total of 116 taxa were listed in these two papers for the state. Opler's
dot maps which are the basis for the USGS list/locations, were supplied by
hundreds of collectors, literature searches, and Lep. Soc. season
summaries. For SC I was responsible for about 80% of its records.

Now to the SC USGS site and some specifics. There skippers list is in
pretty good shape. 60 of the 64 skipper records are mine. A record for
Euphyes conspicua is credited (dark blue) which is false - so how did it
get dark blue? (This skipper is correctly _not_ recorded from adjacent
states. So why is it here?) My record for Meg. cofaqui is not there - it is
mentioned in the 1985 publication listed above. Thuys, 61 of the 63
skippers recorded for SC are my records. (same may be duplicated by others
in additional counties, but a quick scan of just a few are still solely my
locations.)

Under Brush-footed butterflies there are _three_ listed and one of these is
a false record. The false record in (again) in dark blue. the species is C.
harrisi. This checker spot is properly _not_ recorded from NC. or TN USGS
sites. However, it is also falsely recorded (several times) for Georgia!!
(Also in dark blue). Harris, 1972, has no records for this species in GA.
The only thing I can think of is that C. gorgone records somehow got listed
as C. harrisi. The problem with this is that gorgone is also listed for GA.

The other two are the Queen and the Gulf Fritillary. Now how can this be
viewed as anything other than pathetic. If not official, this site is at
last supposed to be professional. My two papers, which were written long
before this SC USGS went on line, records 30 Brush-foots. And several more
have been found since then. The Monarch is not even listed for SC. There
are 42 listed on the Ga site.

The only SC  Lycaenidae listed are 9 blues - no hairstreaks. My 85 paper
listed 15 hairstreaks, 1 copper,  and 1 metalmark statewide in addition to
the blues .