Fwd: Re: Attn BF Count Compilers re: White/Common Checkered-Skipper

[Chris J. Durden]

>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:45:00 -0500
>To: be496 at lafn.org
>From: "Chris J. Durden" <drdn at mail.utexas.edu>
>Subject: Re: Attn BF Count Compilers re: White/Common Checkered-Skipper
>Cc: tX-BUTTERFLY at LISTSERV.UH.EDU
>
>Wanda,
>    Sight records of these species should be recorded as 
> "communis-complex". I have found no reliable pattern character for their 
> differentiation. I can only identify males by looking at the genitalia. 
> In Central Texas interspecific hybrids are commoner than *albescens* and 
> *communis* is by far the commonest species. In Texas we have no pattern 
> characters for differentiation of the two species.
>............Chris Durden
>
>At 12:07 AM 6/26/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>         The question arose about White vs. Common Checkered-Skippers (Pyrgus
>>albescens/P.communis) this weekend on a BF Count and did a bit of
>>research that you may find interesting and helpful or confusing....
>>
>>         John Burns (D/Ent., Smithsonian, Wash DC) did a research study over
>>many years of over 4200 genitalia of this Pyrgus group that looks very
>>similar.  (Ref. Journal of the Lep Society, Vol. 54, #2, Nov. 2000 pg
>>52-71; also presented at Lep Soc Mtg in Az 8/99.)
>>
>>         Burns' results are represented on a distributional map.  Working 
>> east,
>>Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, and So. Carolina
>>states north are all Common Checkered-Skippers.  Southern Cal is
>>entirely albescens, EXCEPT for 1 specimen (1936) taken in Tahquitz Cyn,
>>San Jacinto Mts. Riverside.   While White Ch.-Sk are primarily in the
>>southern areas of the other states, there are areas of overlap.  Should
>>you have a question, best to check the referenced issue, OR if you get
>>desperate, email me your County and aprx. location of county within
>>state and will check it out.
>>
>>         As a result, NABA also shows them as split: White 
>> Checkered-Skipper &
>>Common Checkered-Skipper in the first Common Names revision
>>(2001)--previously listed as subspecies of Common.   The new BTB-West
>>does not show the split since it went to the printer before publication
>>of the name revision.  Note also that the distribution maps don't quite
>>agree with the Burns study, especially for Common.  BTB-West does show
>>ventrals of both species--White from Imperial Co., Ca & Common from
>>Jefferson Co., Tx.; however by Burn distributional references the Common
>>pix is also likely of White.....
>>
>>                                         Good Luck, Wanda
>>
>>--
>>Wanda Dameron
>>Flutterby Press
>>LA-NABA, LepSoc, ATL, Lorquin, Xerces
>>23424 Jonathan St., Los Angeles, Ca. 91304
>>818-340-0365     be496 at lafn.org
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>>
>>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>>



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl