Satyrodes appalachia

[Ron Gatrelle]

Excerpts from the original description of Satyrodes appalachia leeuwi Gatrelle and Arbogast, 1974, Lep Soc. J. 28:2 359-363.

page one P4.
    "The northern populations of L. appalachia ranging from Massachusetts and Maryland westward to Wisconsin and Illinois were found to be sufficiently distinct from southern nominate appalachia populations to warrant a subspecific name. We name this new subspecies for Mr. Irwin Leeuw of Cary, Illinois, who first drew it to our attention through specimens that he collected in Michigan."

page three P5-7
    "The 31 males and 6 females of the type series are deposited in the following collections...."
    "In addition to the type series, material referable to leeuwi was examined from Devil's Lake State Park, Wisconsin; Illinois Beach State Park, Lake County, Illinois; Paulding and Lake Counties in Ohio; Bedford and Reading, Pennsylvania; and Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. Five males from Baltimore, Maryland which we examined were darker than typical leeuwi, but were still closer to the new subspecies than to nominate appalachia."
    "Eighty specimens were examined in the course of this study of nominate southern appalachia. We were not able to examine specimens of L. appalachia appalachia from the type locality, Connestee Falls, near Brevard, North Carolina, but we did examine material from Table Rock State Park, Pickens County, South Carolina which is just 13 miles south of Brevard. We found these specimens to agree in every respect with Chermock's description of appalachia... The specimens from Table Rock South Carolina are of the same phenotype as those from Brevard and unless a colony is located closer than 13 miles to the type locality, the Table Rock populations may be the closest thing to topotypes available to the taxonomist. The specimens which we examined of nominate appalachia were from the following areas. South Carolina: Pickens, Dorchester and Charleston counties. Georgia: Fannin and Cherokee Counties and the Atlanta area. Florida: Pasco County. Mississippi: Pontotoc, Lee, Lafayette, Choctaw, Oktibbeha, and Winston Counties. All the specimens from these localities closely resemble the material from Table Rock except that the specimens from Pasco County, Florida average somewhat darker."

    I am not sure of Leroy's point in his post. I agree with Leroy that Mo Nielson's comment in the Mich. book is reversed from what exists in nature. However, this is surely just a misprint as Mo describes leeuwi just as Leroy did (light grayish brown) and figures leeuwi well.  As an aside, Mo also figures and comments on the small dark upper Michigan pop of eurydice that I suggested to him 30 years ago was likely worthy of a name.  Leroy's comments are fairly accurate except the size difference from southern to northern populations are about the same on average. I have many specimens from Illinois that are just as large as anything in Florida. I have found that specimens in early June in the Mtns tend to be smaller. 
    In addition to the 80 southern specimens examined back in 1974 I have seen many many more since then. Also note that Mississippi was well represented in the 1974 material we examined. We probably saw 100 to 150 northern specimens in our study - we didn't record how many we saw. We were loaned a lot of specimens by individuals and institutions. 
    I don't keep long series of taxa in my collection. I only have 32 appalachia and 36 leeuwi spread (I have about 30-40 more of both in papers).  I have seen many many more over the years. My appalachia are from FL, GA, Miss, SC and NC. My leeuwi are all from Mich and IL except one from MASS.
    Fresh appalachia have a purplish cast to the ventral. This soon wears off. Aged and worn specimens loose a lot of the intensity of their color. Males of both subspecies are darker than their females. Nominotypical appalachia is very often concolorus on the ventral ground color. As stated before there is a broad blend zone. Many of Leroy's  specimens have to be these intermediates as they cover 11 states - these are true clinal subspecies. This means that there are many areas from Missouri to Maryland where populations are not assignable to either subspecies. It is scientifically incorrect to refer to these as either"leeuwi" or "appalachia". They should be referred to as what they are evolutionally and thus taxonomically - appalachia/leeuwi blend, or appalachia near appalachia, or appalachia near leeuwi, or leeuwi near appalachia.
    Of course, since 1974 I have seen a lot more of the Satyrodes. I am still sent specimens for identification. Eurydice, fumosa, appalachia and leeuwi were chronically  presented incorrectly in the lit much more often than correctly. This has finally turned around - esp. with fumosa. (I have seldom had authors of the popular books consult  me about these.) Those who put forth fumosa as a distinct species basically following the error (knowingly or unknowingly) started by dosPassos (e.g. Audubon book). DosPassos thought the pops in SC and FL were fumosa (1916) as the older name than appalachia (1947). I have his letters to me on this subject. What he called "fumosa" was _all_ the real dark pops whether in Nebraska or SC. (The USGS site has fumosa corrected to a subspecies of eurydice.)
    The picture of eurydice in Klots is an appalachia. The picture in B. of West Va is intermediate. The pops in Jew Jersey are likely intermediates also. NJ is one state from which I have never seen any specimens. Shull's taxonomy is correct in butterflies of Indiana and he has some good pictures. A leeuwi female and four eurydice. The eurydice are of particular interest as one pair is typical eurydice and one very fumosa-ish. Indiana is where these two subspecies blend - as does selene to nebraskensis and bimacula to illinois. The leeuwi in B. of Canada is accurate in the ventral and looks like a very fresh specimen from the dorsal - though a little atypical. The appalachia in Howe are paintings - but its ventral markings are strictly that of eurydice. Plate 14 in Scott is leeuwi-ish - it is definitely not appalachia appalachia - providing the exposure is accurate it is an intermediate. Scott's plate 16 while faded and old looking could be true appalachia - there is no noticeable light banding in the HW median area. The specimen on Flynn's Butterflies of Georgia web site is typical. There is a range of variation in appalachia and in leeuwi. And as I have said twice before, the appalachia type locality is near the northern limit of its inland range. An occasional intermediate looking specimen can be found in western NC, and N GA. It is most distinct from mid GA to south coastal NC south. My understanding (from Pavulaan) is that it also ranges up the coast into Virginia - The specimen figured in Clark and Clark (ex MD) is not appalachia appalachia.   
    Appalachia and eurydice are very easy to tell apart in the vast majority of specimens. Though I seldom see anyone point out the one most diagnostic feature (see Scott). I have two specimens I am sure are wild hybrids. The pictures in our original description were terrible reproductions of our photos. I will try to get the original pictures of the leeuwi types and the Table Rock phenotypic nr. "topotypes" of appalachia up on the TILS web site sometime within the next week.
Ron

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20010310/c6117bdd/attachment.html