Al 5S 156 Et Journal of the Lepidopterists Society Volume 58 Number 3 27 October 2004 ISSN 0024-0966 Published quarterly by The Lepidopterists’ Society THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL James K. Apams, President Nikias WanLperc, Vice President Susan J. WELLER, Immediate Past President Ernest H. Wintiams, Secretary Gary G. ANweiLer, Vice President Keviy M. Ricuers, Treasurer Marc Epstein, Vice President Members at large: William E. Conner Akito Kawahara Robert M. Pyle Rebecca Simmons Jane M. Ruffin John A. Shuey Charles V. Covell Jr. Erik B. Runquist Andrew D. Warren EprroriAL Boarp Joun W. Brown (Chairman) Micuaer E. Torwver (Journal) LawrkENCE F. Gaui (Memoirs) Pru J. SCHAPPERT (News) Joun A. Snyper (Website) Carta M. Penz (at large) Honorary Lire MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY Cuarves L. Remincron (1966), E. G. Munroe (1973), Ian F. B. Common (1987), Joun G. Franciemont (1988), Lincotn P. Brower (1990), Douctas C. Fercuson (1990), Hon. Mirram Roruscnitp (1991), Cuaupe Lemaire (1992), Freperick H. Rinpce (1997) The object of The Lepidopterists’ Society, which was formed in May 1947 and formally constituted in December 1950, is “to pro- mote the science of lepidopterology in all its branches, . . . to issue a periodical and other publications on Lepidoptera, to facilitate the exchange of specimens and ideas by both the professional worker and the amateur in the field; to secure cooperation in all mea- sures” directed towards these aims. Membership in the Society is open to all persons interested in the study of Lepidoptera. All members receive the Journal and the News of The Lepidopterists’ Society. Prospective members should send to the Assistant Treasurer full dues for the current year, to- gether with their full name, address, and special lepidopterological interests. In alternate years a list of members of the Society is is- sued, with addresses and special interests. Active members—annual dues $45.00 within the U.S., $50.00 outside the U.S. Affiliated members—annual dues $10.00 within the U.S., $15.00 outside the U.S. Student members—annual dues $20.00 within the U.S., $25.00 outside the U.S. Sustaining members—annual dues $60.00 within the U.S., $65.00 outside the U.S. Life members—single sum $1,800.00 Institutional subscriptions—annual $60.00 Airmail postage for the News $15.00 Send remittances, payable to The Lepidopterists’ Society, to: Kelly M. Richers, Treasurer, 9417 Carvalho Court, Bakersfield, CA 93311; and address changes to: Julian P. Donahue, Natural History Museum, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007-4057. For information about the Society, contact: Ernest H. Williams, Department of Biology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323. To order back issues of the Memoirs, write for availability and prices to Kenneth R. Bliss, 28 DuPont Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854. The additional cost for members outside the U.S. is to cover mailing costs. Journal of The Lepidopterists’ Society (ISSN 0024-0966) is published quarterly by The Lepidopterists’ Society, “/o Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007 -4057. Periodicals postage paid at Los Angeles, CA and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Lepidopterists’ Society, ‘> Natural History Museum, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007-4057. Cover illustration: Painted Lady, Vanessa cardui L., from the 2003 influx to central Illinois, USA. Photo by Mike Toliver JOURNAL OF THe Peer Dpo rt eR sa Se DOC LEY Volume 58 2004 Number 3 Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 58(3), 2004, 125-142 PAPILIONOIDEA OF THE EVERGREEN TROPICAL FORESTS OF MEXICO JosE L. SALINAS-GUTIERREZ', ARMANDO LUIS-MARTINEZ* AND JORGE LLORENTE-BOUSQUETS® Museo de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, Apdo. Postal 70-399, México, 04510 D. F., MEXICO ABSTRACT. The diurnal butterflies in 11 geographical units of evergreen tropical forest in Mexico were studied, giving in a to- tal list of 683 species of Papilionoidea (excluding Hesperiidae). This is ane first list of Mexican butterflies which covers a specific type of vegetation. The species richness in this zone makes evident the need for adequate conservation strategies for these ecosystems, wines extent is rapidly decreasing. The results are compared with other areas of Neotropical rain forest. Additional key words: butterflies, distribution, evergreen tropical forest, Neotropical region, richness. RESUMEN .. Se efectu6 un trabajo de mariposas diurnas en 11 unidades geograficas con bosque tropical perennifolio en México, registrandose una lista total de 683 especies de Papilionoidea (sin incluir Hesperiidae). Esta es la primera lista de mariposas en Méx- ico que involucra la cobertura de un tipo de vegetacion especifico. La riqueza de especies presentes en la zona hace patente la necesidad de crear estrategias de conservacion en este ecosistema que esta disminuyendo su extensi6n rapidamente. Los resultados se comparan con otros sitios de bosque tropical del Neotrépico. Palabras claves: mariposas, distribuci6n, bosque tropical perennifolio, regi6n Neotropical, riqueza. The rain forests, or evergreen tropical forest (ETF) ecosystems are considered top priority for world conservation. This is because these forests shelter approximately 50% of the species of the planet Earth. In addition, their rate of decrease is one of the fastest (Wilson 1988, Dirzo & Garcia 1992). The Neotropical region contains approximately 20% of the species on the Earth (Myers 1988); within this region, the ETF has the largest extent of all the regions. The Brhornnaet ditibuton of the ETF in America is in México. Originally, the ETF covered 13% of the nation, but Granillo (1985) and Toledo (1988) remark that at present it covers from 10 to a ' sojl@att.net.mx * alm@hp .fciencias.unam.mx ° Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colom- bia, Santa Fe de Bogota, Columbia, email:jlb@hp.fciencias.unam.mx 15% of the original area, being replaced by pastures and other agroecosystems. An annual deforestation rate of 4% was registered for the last 25 years by Dirzo & Garcia (1992) in the ETF of the Los Tuxtlas region in Veracruz, México. The ETF was once distributed in México from southern San Luis Potosi and northern Veracruz, in the north, through parts of the states of Hidalgo, Puebla, Oaxaca, southern Veracruz, to the north and northeast of Chiapas and in some parts of Tabasco, Campeche and Quintana Roo (Fig. 1). Along the Pacific slope, it occupied the southernmost area of Sierra. Madre de Chiapas and the Tapachula- Mapastepec (low Soconusco region), isolated by the Sierra Madre, the Tehuantepec isthmus and the Central Depression of Chiapas (Rzedowski 1978). Rzedowski (1996) estimated that the plant species in the ETF include over a third of the total flora of the country. h » ) TCEAAG a / CERRO COCONA CC SSR i 2 AGUABLANCA AB San el 3 TENOSIQUE TEN Luis & \ 4 CHAJUL Cry Potosi 1! > SS 5 YAXCHILAN YA NA ) 6 SOCONUSCO soc Say 7 LAGRINGA LG | af \ 8 CHALCHVAPA CHA f Sy & 9 SIERRADE JUAREZ SJ i NS 10 LOS TUXTLAS ur \ i NY 44 HUICHHUAYAN LP j { ; ~ SSR gf Oaxaca Foi y) \ VAS Pe Chiapas P) So peed ENS uy, 4 ee SS e / Wy Fic. 1. Distribution in México of the geographical units having evergreen tropical forests. Although Papilionoidea have been the subject of many studies, the knowledge of this lepidopteran superfamily is still very incomplete. Robbins & Opler (1997) estimated its approximate richness as 17,500 species; furthermore, they pointed out that this is one of the most studied groups of insects, with 90% of its species being known. These authors assumed that the greatest richness of this group is within the Neotropical region; similar results were obtained by Heppner (1991). There are not enough faunistic studies in the region and many of the studies were based on sporadic collections in extensive, ecologically heterogeneous areas. The situation becomes more critical in the ETF, whose understanding is based on very few studies, most of which were made during this century in a few areas, such as Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz and Sierra de Juarez, Oaxaca in México. The studies made by Lamas et al. (1991, 1996), Brown (1984), Emmel & Austin (1990), and Austin et al. (1996), among others, show the need for making more intensive systematic collections in these communities, especially in areas located close to mountains (increasing the diversity; G. Lamas pers. com.). Because of the inaccessibility of the areas occupied by the ETF and the consequent logistic and financial problems for systematic studies there, methods have been proposed to estimate the potential number of species living in each community in a quick and accurate way (Soberén & Llorente 1993, Colwell & Coddington 1994). The large diversity of butterflies living in the ETF of México has attracted attention of interested students since the 19th century; nevertheless, only about 10 faunistic studies are available which can be compared JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY with some accuracy, such as those made by Hoffmann (1933), Ross (1964, 1976-1977), Routledge (1977), de la Maza & de la Maza (1985a, b), de la Maza & White (1990), Luis et al. (1991, 1995), Raguso & Llorente (1991, 1997), Martinez (1994), and Villegas (1998). MATERIALS AND METHODS The first step to obtain a list of the butterflies species inhabiting the ETF in México was to compile, systematize and summarize the studies made in these communities. A specialized bibliography was consulted for five states: Tabasco, Routledge (1977), Martinez (1994) and Villegas (1998); Chiapas, Hoffmann (1933), de la Maza & de la Maza (1985a, 1985b), and unpublished data of faunistic surveys made in Yaxchilén by members of the Museo de Zoologia de la Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM; Oaxaca, the data available for the Chimalapas region and Luis et al. (1991); Veracruz, Ross (1964, 1976-1977), Raguso & Llorente (1991, 1997) and Luis et al. (1995): for San Luis Potosi, de la Maza & White (1990). The bibliography was used to obtain comparable lists, in order to be able to tabulate the data by region and by locality. Only records with vouchers collected in ETF were considered. Once the areas in each report were analyzed, “geographical units” were defined for each collection site, giving 11 units (Fig. 1): in Tabasco, Cerro del Cocona (CC), Agua Blanca (AB) and Tenosique (TEN); in Chiapas, Chajul (CHJ), Yaxchilan (YAX) and Soconusco (SOC); in Oaxaca, La Gringa (LG), Chalchijapa (CHA) and Sierra de Judrez (SJ); in Veracruz, Los Tuxtlas (LT); and in San Luis Potosi, Huichihuayén (SLP). For the geographical units LT, SJ and SLP, only the localities having ETF were included, since the original studies were made in several plant communities. As these studies included sites whose altitudes do not correspond to the distribution of the ETF, a detailed revision was made so as not to overestimate the richness of the fauna by inclusion of montane species or those of semideciduous tropical forest. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on the above defined 11 units, 683 species living in the ETF of México were registered, in 272 genera, 18 subfamilies and 4 families, about 53% of the total butterfly fauna of the country (assuming a total of 1,295 species of Papilionoidea and excluding the Hesperiidae). The percentage of species in each family is similar to that reported in other regions of México (Sierra de Manantlan, Jalisco-Colima: Vargas et al. 1999; VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 Sierra de Atoyac de Alvarez, Guerrero: Vargas et al. 1992): Papilionidae 5.4%, Pieridae 7.7%, Nymphalidae 45.1%, and Lycaenidae 41.7%. Even though the studies chosen for this analysis used different methods, time periods and objectives, a general comparison is presented for each of the 11 geographical units by species in each family and subfamily, together with the estimated total number of species inhabiting the ETF in México (Table 1). According to Llorente et al. (1993) and Luis et al. (2000) the butterfly fauna of México represents about 10% of the wold total, thus indicating that México is a megadiversity country. In this paper ony a single plant community was analyzed, covering 13% of the total land surface; due to deforestation over the last 50 years, this is now reduced to less than 2%. The percentage of species living in this plant community is surprisingly high, representing 50% of the Mexican butterfly fauna. Heppner (1991) gave a total of 7,927 species of butterflies in the Neotropical region, including the family Hesperiidae, which was excluded in the present paper; even so the ETF included 8.6% of this fauna. If only the 4,800 species of Papilionoidea are considered, the ETF in México holds 14.2% of this figure. Table 1 also includes the percentage a the Mexican total in each subfamily. This table shows that LT is the most diverse geographical unit, with 482 species (70.6%), followed by SJ with 355 (52%), CHJ with 352 (51.5%), and SLP with 300 (43.9%). The latter geographical unit is the northernmost ETF site in México, followed by LT and SJ]. Considering that México is in a transitional biogeographical zone between the Nearctic and the Neotropical regions, and that the predominance of these elements varies with latitude and altitude, this suggest an increase of species with clear Nearctic affinity, which do not belong to the ETF in a strict sense. The geographical units LT, SJ and CH] have similar patterns of number of species per subfamily, with the exception of the Theclinae in LT, which include 54.78% of the species mentioned for ETF, or 50% of those for all of México. This may be due to the fact that, for many years, amateur collectors have paid local people for hairstreak specimens (L. Gonzdlez-Cota pers. com.). This collecting effort is clearly seen in the percent representation (Table 1). The geographical unit LT has the highest representation for 8 out of 18 subfamilies collected. Heppner (1991) mentioned the importance of the Ithomiinae, Morphinae and Brassolinae, which have maximum number of species in the following geographical units: Ithomiinae in SJ] with 21 species; Morphinae in CHJ, CHA, SJ and LT with three species: and Brassolinae in CHJ and LT with 11 species. TABLE 1. Species richness of Papilionoidea by geographical unit. See 'Methods' for abbreviations. CC AB TEN CHI YAX SOC LG CHA SJ LT SLP ETF MEX Papilionidae 6 5 a 9 8 4 8 5 11 10 9 12 Papilionmae 15(18.29) 11(13.41) 14(17.07) 24(29.27) 15(18.29) 9(10.98) 16(19.51) 12(14.63) 29(35.37) 30(36.59) 20(24.39) 37(45.12) 82 Pieridae 12 8 11 19 15 14 10 12 25 26 21 27 Dismorphunae 2(9.52) —1(4.76) 0 4(19.05) 2(9.529 2(9.52) 2(9.52) —-1(4.76) — 4(19.05) _-7(33.33) + 4(19.05) 10(47.62) 21 Cohiadinae 14(40) 13(37.14) 17(48.57) 17(48.57) 16(45.71) 13(37.14) 12(34.29) 14(40) 21(60) 22(62.86) 20(57.14) 2NG8: 57) 35 Pierinae 711.29) 101.61) —4(6.45) 10(16.13) 6(9.68) —_5(8.06) —5(8.06) —4(6.45) —16(25.81) 16(25.81) 11(17.74) 62 Nynphalidae 69 59 St 94 70 62 64 68 94 98 78 Heliconinae 19(46.34) 17(41.46) 13(31.71) 19(46.34) 12(29.27) 13(31.71) 14(34.15) 16(39.02) 23(56.10) 19(46.34) 13(31.71) 28(68.29) 41 Nymphalinae 16(10.88) 14(9.52) 149.52) 21(14.29) 17(11.56) 18(12.24) 11(7.48) 15(10.20) 27(18.37) 27(18.37) 38(25.85) 51(34.69) 147 Limenitidinae § — 37(25.87) 28(19.58) 30(20.98) 56(39.16) 37(25.87) 33(23.08) 31(21.68) 32(22.38) 56(39.16) 59(41.26) 40(27.97) 90(62.94) 143 Charaxinae 14(21.88) 4(6.25) 3(4.69) 22(34.38) 11(17.19) 7(10.94) 17(26.56) 10(15.63) 26(40.63) 23(35.94) 14(21.88) 38(59.38) 64 Apaturmae 3(27.27) 1(9.09) 1(9.09) 4(36.36) 2(18.18) 3(27.27) 1(9.09) 0 5(45.45) 4(36.36) 4(36.36) 5(45.45) 11 Morphinae 1(10) 1(10) 1(10) 3(30) 1(10) 1(10) 1(10) 3(30) 3(30) 3(30) 1(10) 6(60) 10 Brassolinae 4(22.22) 3(16.67) 6(33.33) 11(61.11) 6(33.33) 5(27.78) 7(38.89) 6(33.33) 9(50) 11(61.11) 7(38.89) 12(66.67) 18 Satyrinae 87.41) 6(5.56) 5(4.63) 20(18.52) 15(13.89) 9(8.33) 11(10.19) 8(7.41) 21(19.44) 25(23.15) 16(14.81) 4167.96) 108 Danainae 4(52.14) 4(57.14) 2(28.57) 4(57.14) 3(42.86) 2(28.57) 4(57.14) 4(57.14) 4(57.14) 6(85.71) 4(57.14) 685.71) 7 Ithomimae 11(23.40) 12(25.53) 6(12.77) 20(42.55) 11(23.40) 12(25.53) 15(31.91) 17(36.17) 21(44.68) 20(42.55) 8(17.02) 30(63.83) 47 Libythemae 1(50) 1(50) 1(50) 1(50) 1(50) 0 1(50) 1650) 1(50) 1(50) 1(50) 1(50) 2 Lycaenidae 36 9 12 71 43 13 11 23 55 97 58 116 Riodininae 18(7.96) 6(2.65) 8(3.54) 64(28.32) 21(9.29) 8(3.54) 0 1(0.44) 54(23.89) 76(33.63) 42(18.58) 125(55.31 226 Theclinae 2912.61) 6(2.61) 5(2.17) 49(21.30) 33(14.35) aay 8(3.48) 28(12.17) 30(13.04) 126(54.78 50(21.74) 150(65.22 230 Polyommatinae 49.76) 0 0 3(7.32) _ 4(9.76) 4(9.76) 1(2.44) —5(12.20) 7(17.07) _7(17.07) 10(24.39) 41 TOTAL 207 m129 3 0 m2) _ 213 oe 160 173 355 482 300 683 _ 1295, NOTE: The numbers in family rows correspond to the total genera in each geographical unit and, in parentheses, the percentage of species per subfamily in relation to the total in México. ETF: represents the total for México ETF MEX: represents the total for all of México Table 1 also details the total number of species in the ETF of México for Papilionidae (37), Pieridae (53), Nymphalidae (308), and Lycaenidae (285), and the total 0.30 0.36 0.42 Sip SOC Fic. 2. UPGMA DENDROGRAM OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL UNITS BASED ON THE JACCARD SIMILARITY COEFFICIENT. number of genera per family for each geographical unit. The geographical units having the highest number of exclusive species are LT (84), CHJ ( (40), and SJ (23). When the geographical units were gr uped by state, the three in Tabasco (CC-AB-TEN) shared 78 species; in Oaxaca (LG-CHA-SJ), 105; and in Chiapas (CH]-YAX- SOC) 84. In Chiapas, the units CHJ-SOC share 114 species, while CHJ-YAX share 170; this makes sense since the latter two geographical units belong to the same biogeographical "island" of ETF, while SOC, on the Pacific slope, belongs to a different biogeographical area. TABLE 2. Synthetic matrix of species shared by the geographical units. JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY The SLP and LIT, the northernmost localities of ETF, share 243 species, this geographical — units large figure suggests that both belong to the same biogeographical "island." If the four geographical units having that largest number of species are grouped (LT- SJ-CHJ-SLP), these share only 138 species, again emphasizing the importance of the geographical history of such units, with mixture of species in the northern units having influence over the total number of species. The UPGMA (unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic averages) dendrogram of all geographical units (Fig. 2) was prepared, based on the Jaccard of similarity. This similarity between the ge ographical units was based in part on the synthetic data matrix (Table 2) that groups the species shared by each unit. As mentioned above, SOC belongs to a distinct geographical “island” of ETF, a fact seen in the dendrogram where it appears as the most dissimilar coefficient to assess the degree from all other geographical units. An important group is that whose geographical units have the largest collection effort (SJ-LT-CH]) and number of The remaining group whose geographical units have the species. lowest number of species, may need more collecting effort. The similarities between LG and CHA, and that between AB and TEN are probably due to their geographical proximity (Fig. 1). Table 3 compares the numbers of species in various areas of ETF in the Neotropical region, such as Tikal, Guatemala (Austin et al. 1996); Jaru, Manaus, Campinas and Rondonia in Brazil (Brown 1984, Emmel & Austin 1990); Pakitza, Tambopata and Rio Napo in Peru NB yee NCE aX 116 114 81 1S) eae Oil SOC) LG) CHA SSI a ine site, iS © 142 0 tS AASB) Ve ss AA @ VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 129 TABLE 3. Butterfly species richness in some localities in the Neotropical region. LOCALITIES FAMILIES GUATEMALA BRASIL PERU COSTA RICA ECUADOR Tikal Jaru Manaus Campinas Rondonia Pakitza Tambopata Rio Napo AL PE Misahualli Papilionidae 18 23 7 17 18 25 26 26 16 17 36 Pieridae 23 26 i 29 29 31 27 23 26 26 34 Nymphalidae 141 SHB) 0 1Si1/ 208 275 37) 341 238 219 174 317 Lycaenidae 98 89 50 54 87 181 172 68 i = * Riodinidae 48 1965 Th 60 203 251 242 153 97 79 TOTAL 328 Cia 2 368 612 859 808 508 358 296 387 NOTE: Asterisks indicate missing data. ABBREVIATIONS: AL = Atlantic lowland; PE = Pacific evergreen (DeVries 1997). (Lamas et al. 1991, 1996); several localities in Costa Rica (DeVries 1997): and Misahuallf in Ecuador (Racheli & Racheli 1998). When these data are compared with those from México (Table 1), the species richness of geographical units such as LT or SJ becomes obvious, comparable with that of areas such as Tikal (328 species) or Campinas (368). LT and SJ have the largest know numbers of Pieridae (45 and 41, respectively), for México (and also the Neotropical region). CONCLUSIONS The ETF of México show a total of 683 species of Papilionoidea (excluding Hesperiidae). Robbins & Opler (1997) state that the higher diversity of butterflies follows the amount of rainfall. The data in this paper include collections made in sites having 1,500 mm minimum average annual rainfall, supporting the empirical observation that wet sites have a large species diversity. However, other parameters must be considered to explain and compare the diversity and richness of species, such as area and topographical or ecological heterogeneity. Emmel & Austin (1990) discussed the role played by the great “microheterogeneity” present in the locality of Jari. Environmental heterogeneity is also relevant in our observations; for example SLP and LT are more heterogeneous, giving mixture of species from montane and lowland areas, due to altitude (montane effect) in LT and latitude in SLP. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Dr. Juan José Morrone Lupi for reviewing the manuscript. Also, we thank the “Consejo Nacional para la Ciencia y la Tecnologia” (CONACYT) project 32002, Direccién General de Asuntos del Pesonal Académico (DGAPA-IN) pro- ject 209900 and the “Comision para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad” (CONABIO) for financial aid for field work in the regions of Chimalapas, Oaxaca and Yaxchilan, Chiapas. LITERATURE CITED AUSTIN, G. T., N. M. HADDAD, C. MENDEZ, T. D. Sisk, D. D. Murpny, A. E. LAUNER & P. E. EHRLICH. 1996. Annotated checklist of the butterflies of the Tikal National Park Area of Guatemala. Tropical Lepidoptera, 7: 21-37. Brown, K. S. 1984. Species diversity and abundance in Jaru, Rondo6nia (Brazil). News Lep. Soc., 1984: 45-47. COLWELL, R. & J. CODDINGTON. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London. B., 345: 101-118. DE LA Maza, J. E. & R. G. DE LA MAZA. 1985a. La fauna de mariposas de Boca de Chajul, Chiapas, México (Rhopalocera). Parte I. Rev. Soc. Mex. Lep., 9: 23-44. DE LA Maza, J. E. & R. G. DE LA Maza. 1985b. La fauna de mariposas de Boca de Chajul, Chiapas, México (Rhopalocera). Parte II. Rev. Soc. Mex. Lep., 10: 1-17. DE LA Maza, R. G. & A. WuirTe. 1990. Rhopaloceros de la Huasteca Potosina, su distribucién, composicion, origen y evolucion. Rey. Soc. Mex. Lep., 13(2): 31-88. DE LA Maza, R. G. & D. GuTIERREZ. 1994. Rhopaloceros de Quintana Roo, su distribucién, origen y evolucién. Rev. Soc. Mex. Lep., 15(1): 3-43. DEVriIES, P. J. 1997. The Butterflies of Costa Rica and Their Natural History. Volume II: Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. 288 pp. Dirzo, R. & M. C. Garcia. 1992. Rates of deforestacion in Los Tuxtlas, a Neotropical Area in Southeast Mexico. Conservation Biology, 6(1): 84-90. EMMEL, T. C. & G. T. AusTIN. 1990. The tropical rain forest butterfly fauna of Rondonia, Brazil: Species diversity and conservation. Tropical Lepidoptera, 1:1-12. GRANILLO, V. S. 1985. Uso y abuso de la selva. Informacion Cientifica y Tecnolégica, 7: 35-38. HEPppNER, J. B. 1991. Faunal regions and diversity of Lepidoptera. Tropical Lepidoptera. 2 (suppl. 1): 1-85. HOFFMANN, C. 1933. La fauna de lepiddpteros del Distrito del Soconusco (Chiapas). Un estudio zoogeografico. Anales Inst. Biol. (Zoologia), UNAM, 4(3-4): 207-307. Lamas, G., D. J. Harvey & R. K. Ropsins. 1996. Mariposas del alto Rio Napo, Loreto, Pert (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea y Hesperioidea). Rev. Peru. Ent. 39: 63-74. Lamas, G., R. K. Ropsins & D. J. Harvey. 1991. A preliminary butterfly fauna of Pakitza, Parque Nacional del Mani, Peru, with an estimate of its species richness. Publ. Mus. Hist. Nat. UNMSM (A), 40: 1-19. LLORENTE, J., A. Luts, I. VARGAS & J. SOBERON. 1993. Biodiversidad de las mariposas: su conocimiento y conservaci6n en México. Rev. Soc. Mex. Hist. Nat., 44: 513-324. Luis, A, I. VARGAS & J. LLORENTE. 1991. Lepidopterofauna de Oaxaca I: Distribucién y fenologfa de los papilionoidea de 130 la Sierra de Juarez. Publicaciones Especiales del Museo de Zoologia. Fac. Ciencias. No. 3, Mexico City. 119 pp. Luis, A., I. VARGAS & J. LLORENTE. 1995. Sintesis de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) del Estado de Veracruz. Folia Entomol. Mex. 93: 91-133. Luis, A., J. LLORENTE, I. VARGAS & A. L. GUTIERREZ V. 2000. Sintesis preliminar del conocimiento de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Insecta) de México, pp. 275-285. In: Martin-Piera, F., J. |. Morrone & A. Melic (eds.). Hacia un proyecto CYTED para el inventario y estimacién de la diversidad Entomologica en Iberoamérica: PrIBES-2000, Sociedad Entomolégica Aragonesa, Vol. 1. Martinez, G. L. 1994. Inventario de la division Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera: Frenatae) del parque estatal de Agua Blanca, Tabasco. Tesis Profesional. Divisi6n Académica de Ciencias Biolégicas. Universidad Judrez Autonoma de Tabasco. 54 pp. Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and their species. In: E.O. Wilson (ed). Biodiversity, pp. 28-35, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. RACHEL, T. & L. RACHELI. 1998. Lepidoptera diversity of an Ecuadorian lowland rain forest (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae). Neue Ent. Nachr. 41: 95-117. Racuso, R. A. & J. LLORENTE. 1991. A comparative analysis of the butterflies (Lepidoptera:Papilionoidea) of the Tuxtlas mountains, Veracruz, México. J. Res. Lep., 29: 105-133. Racuso, R. A. & J. LLORENTE. 1997. Las mariposas de la estacion de Biologia Tropical Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, de la UNAM, pp 257-291. In: E. Gonzalez, R Dirzo & R. C. Vogt (eds.). Historia Natural de la Regién de Los Tuxtlas. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México. Ropsins, R. K. & P. A. OPLER. 1997. Butterfly diversity and preliminary comparison with bird and mammal diversity, pp 69-82. In: D.E. Wison, M.L. Reaka-Kudla & E.O. Wilson (eds.). Biodiversity II, Understanding and Protecting our Biological Resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D. C. Ross, G. N. 1964. A distributional study of the butterflies of the Sierra de Tuxtla in Veracruz, México. Ph. D. Louisiana State University. 265 pp. JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY ___. 1976-1977. An ecological study of the butterflies of the Sierra de Tuxtla, Veracruz, México. Jour. Res. Lep. 14(2): 103- 124, (3): 169-188, (4): 233-252; 15(1): 41-60, (2): 109- 128, (3): 185-200, (4): 225-240; 16(2): 87-130. ROUTLEDGE, C. E. 1977. El suborden Rhopalocera (Lepidoptera) del estado de Tabasco. Su lista, frecuencia, diversidad y distribucioén. Rev. Soc. Mex. Lep., 3: 57-73. RZEDOWSKI, J. 1978. La vegetaci6n de México. Edit. Limusa, México, 432 pp. ___. 1996. Diversidad y origenes de la flora fanerogamica en México, pp. 27-40. In: J. Llorente, A. Garcia y E, Gonzélez (eds.). Biodiversidad, taxonomia y biogeografia de artrépodos de México: Hacia una sintesis de su conocimiento, Volumen 1, UNAM-CONABIO, México, D. F. SOBERON, J. & J. LLORENTE. 1993. The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. Conservation Biology. 7(3): 480-488. TOLEDO, V. M. 1988. La diversidad biolégica de México. Ciencia y Desarrollo, 81: 17-30. Varcas, I., J. LLORENTE & A. Luis. 1992. Listado lepidopetrofaunistico de la Sierra de Atoyac de Alvarez en el estado de Guerrero: notas acerca de su distribucién local y estacional (Rhopalocera: Papilionoidea). Folia Entomolgica Mexicana. 86:41-178. Varcas, L., J. LLORENTE & A. Luls. 1999. Distribucién de los Papilionoidea (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) de la Sierra de Manantlan (250-1,650 m) en los estados de Jalisco y Colima. Publicaciones Especiales del Museo de Zoologia. 11: 1-153. VILLEGAS, I. S. 1998. Inventario de los Papilionoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) del Monumento Natural Cerro del Cocona, Teapa, Tabasco y algunos aspectos de su fenologfa. Tesis Profesional. Division Académica de Ciencias Biolégicas. Universidad Judrez Aut6noma de Tabasco. iii + 87 pp. WILSON, E. O. 1988. The current state of biological diversity, pp. 3- 18. In: E.O. Wilson (ed). Biodiversity. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. Received for publication 1 November 2001; revised and accepted 5 September 2003 Appendix 1: Preliminary list of species. Data for each species are represented in the following format first column is the species name and sub- sequent columns mention the sites where the butterflies were collected.Asterisks (° indicate doubtful data. Taxon Papilionidae Battus philenor philenor B. polydamas polydamas B. laodamas copanae B. ingenuus B. lycidas Parides photinus P. montezuma P. eurimedes mylotes P. sesostris zestos P. panares panares P. panares lycimenes P. erithalion polyzelus P. iphidamas iphidamas Protographium epidaus epidaus P. philolaus philolaus CC AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA Sj LI SLP xX X xX X X xX xX xX Xx xX X Xx X xX X xX XxX xX xX xX Xx xX XxX xX xX xX x xX xX XxX xX xX xX xX xX xX xX xX xX X x x x xX xX XxX xX xX Xx xX xX x xX xX x xX xX xX xX x xX x X xX X xX xX xX xX xX xX XxX xX X XxX xX xX xX XxX xX XxX xX xX xX X xX xX xX Xx xX Xx xX X xX xX xX X VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 131 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CG CABS TEN CH] VYAXSsSOCTILG TGHAYSS iey Se P. agesilaus neosilaus XxX x X XxX xX x P. dioxippus lacandones x xX P. calliste calliste xX xX x P. thyastes marchandi xX xX xX xX Eurytides salvini xX x x Protesilaus macrosilaus penthesilaus X X xX Xx Mimoides thymbraeus thymbraeus xe axe x M. ilus branchus X xX xX xX xX x x x M. phaon phaon xX x EX XS, eX yr XG oXs eX Priamides pharnaces xX xX xX xX P. anchisiades idaeus xX Xx xX xX xX X xX xX xX P. erostratus erostratinus xX P. erostratus erostratus xX Troilides torquatus tolus xX Calaides ornythion ornythion Kel OX C. astyalus pallas xX x x Xx xX x C. androgeus epidaurus XxX XxX xX X xX XxX xX xX Heraclides thoas autocles xX X xX xX xX xX xX xX xX XxX H. cresphontes xX xX xX x xX xX xe xX Papilio polyxenes asterius De eee O46 Pyrrhosticta victorinus victorinus x X x P. abderus abderus XxX Pieridae Enantia lina marion XxX xX XxX x E. albania albania xX x xX E. jethys x xX E. mazai mazai X Lieinix nemesis atthis xX xX Dismorphia amphiona praxinoe xX X xX xX xX xX xX xX Dismorphia crisia virgo X D. eunoe eunoe xX D. eunoe popoluca xX D. theucharila fortunata xX X Xo i ePXGaG EX: Zerene cesonia cesonia x xX X xX Xx x Anteos clorinde nivifera xX xX xX xX xX x xX xX A. maerula lacordairei xX X X X xX xX xX XxX xX Phoebis agarithe agarithe X xX xX xX xX xX xX XxX X P. argante argante Xx Xx XxX Xx XxX X Xx xX x X P. neocypris virgo xX X XxX X X P. philea philea Oa ERG OG OC CLO OG OS OK P. sennae marcellina XxX XxX xX XxX xX xX X xX X X X Rhabdodryas trite ssp. X x xX xX XxX xX Xx Aphrissa statira jada xX xX X xX X xX xX X xX Xx xX Abaeis nicippe xX xX Xx X Pyrisitia dina westwoodi ox x xX x xX xX xX X xe XxX P. lisa centralis xX xX xX X Xx xX P. nise nelphe x xX x x Ox xX xX’ X x x xX P. proterpia proterpia xX x xX X x Xx X X X Xx X Eurema agave millerorum ox E. albula celata X x XxX XxX XxX xX XxX XxX XxX X XxX E. boisduvaliana X xX X xX X Xx Xx E. daira xX xX X X xX Xx X Xx x Xx E. mexicana mexicana x XxX Xx xX X XxX X E. salome jamapa xX x X E. xantochlora xantochlora xX Xx XxX 132 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CCEVABE DENEGCE 1] YAX SOC LG CHA SJ LT SER Nathalis iole X xX xX xX xX xX Kricogonia lyside xX x Hesperocha ris costaricensis pasion xX Xx Xx Archonias brassolis aproximata xX x x x Charonias theano nigrescens X xX xX xX Catasticta flisa flisa xX Xx xX Catasticta nimbice nimbice Xx x C. ochracea ochracea xX Pereute charops charops x Xx xX Melete lycimnia isandra xX X x x xX xX xX M. polyhymnia florinda Xx x Glutophrissa drusilla tenuis x x xX X Xx x xX x x xX Pontia protodice X X xX Leptophobia aripa elodia xX X xX x x Itaballia demophile centralis xX xX xX xi xX I. pandosia kicaha xX x Xs x xX Pieriballia viardi viardi X xX X xX xX xX Xi x Perrhybris pamela chajulensis x Xx x Ascia monuste monuste X X Xx x Xx x x xX Xx xX Ganyra josephina josepha xX xX xX x xX xX G. phaloe tiburtia xX Nymphalidae Altinote ozomene nox x X x xX Xx Actinote guatemalena veraecrusis Xx Xx X xX xX A. guatemalena guatemalena Xx xX xX Xx A. thalia anteas xX Philaethria diatonica xX xX x x Dione juno huascuma X X X x Xx xX xX xX xX xX x D. moneta poeyii x x xX xX xX Agraulis vanillae incarnata X X X xX x xX x x x xX xX Dryadula phaetusa x X xX xX xX X Xx xX xX Dryas iulia moderata xX X X xX xX x x X xX x xX Eueides aliphera gracilis xX X X xX Xx x xX x xX E. isabella eva xX xX X x xX X X E. lineata x X X xX X X xX E. procula asidia x xX E. vibilia vialis xX x X X Laparus doris viridis xX xX x xX xX xX Heliconius charitonia vazquezae xX xX Xx xX xX Xx xX Xx x xX xX Heliconius cydno galanthus xX xX x x Xx H. erato petiveranus xX X Xx xX xX Xx Xx Xx xX Xx xX H. hecale zuleika xX xX xX XxX H. hecale fornarina X H. hecalesia octavia x xX xX xX H. hortense x xX XxX xX XxX H. ismenius telchinia X xX xX XE xX xX x xX xX xX Xx H. sapho leuce xe xX x xX xX x xX XxX xX H. sara veraepacis X xX xX Euptoieta claudia daunius xX x E. hegesia hoffmanni XG xX x x X X XxX Xx XxX xX xX Vanessa atalanta rubria X Xx Cynthia cardui x x C. virginiensis X Xx Xx C. anabella Xx Nymphalis antiopa antiopa x VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 133 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CG AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA S$ ee SIGE: Polygonia interrogationis x Hypanartia dione xX X H. godmanii x x xX X XxX H. lethe xX XxX x XxX x x H. kefersteini x Anartia amathea venusta Xx xX x x x x Xx x Xx x x A. jatrophae luteipicta x xX x xX x xX x x xX Xee eX Siproeta epaphus epaphus xX xX xX xX x x Xx x x x S. stelenes biplagiata xX x xX Xx xX xX x »4 eK S. superba superba xX xX xX x x xX Xx Junonia coenia XxX x x x J. evarete X X Xx X x Xx Xx x Chlosyne erodyle erodyle XG SSE xX xX Xs DeXGih ax C. gaudialis gaudialis xX x xX xX X xe xX xX XxX C. hippodrome hippodrome xX xX x 2S | 8 C. janais Xx xX Xx x Xx Xx x x x x xX C. lacinia lacinia xX x xX X x X xX xX Xx C. marina marina xX C. rosita browni x Thessalia theona theona xX xX xX XxX XxX x T. theona thekla xX Texola elada elada X T. elada ulrica x Microtia elva horni xX x Phyciodes mylitta mexicana xX xX P. vesta graphica Xx XG SGN P. phaon oxe Phyciodes tharos tharos x X Anthanassa ardys ardys X xX XxX A. argentea x X X A. atronia sydra X Xx A. atronia atronia x A. drusilla lelex x X xX XxX X XxX x A. frisia tulcis xX xX xX xX xX A. ptolyca ptolyca xX x xX A. texana texana x A. annulata xX Tegosa anieta cluvia XxX T. anieta luka XxX X T. guatemalena x xX xX xX X T. similis x X Eresia clara clara xX xX xe xX xX XxX X E. phillyra phillyra Xo ex xX AR, em ENG) ARON Gu Baye Castilia eranites mejicana xX Xx x x xX C. myia myjia xX x xX x xX xX X xX X Xx C. ofella ofella X Xx Historis odius dious X xX xX xX xX XxX x xX x Coea acheronta acheronta x Xx Xx Xx x Xx xX x xX x xX Baeotus beotus beotus xX Smyrna blomfildia datis xX xX xX x xX x Xx xX xX xX S. karwinskii x x x xX x Colobura dirce dirce x xX x xX xX XxX x xX € xX xX Tigridia acesta ssp. XG OX Biblis hyperia aganisa XxX xX xX xX X X X X xX X Xx Mestra dorcas amymone x x xX x Xx X xX X X Myscelia cyananthe cyananthe X 134 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX 1, Continued Taxon CC AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA S&S Myscelia cyaniris cyaniris xX xX Xx x Xx xX xX xX X M. ethusa ethusa xX X Xx xX Catonephele mexicana X X X X xX X »G xX xX C. numilia esite X X xX X xX xX X xX xX X X Catonephele cortesi xX Nessaea aglaura aglaura x xX x x xX x Eunica alemena xX xX xX xX xX xX E. alpais excelsa X Eunica sydonia caresa Xx xX xX E. malvina albida xX xX xX E. monima Xx X Xx Xx x XxX Xx xX XxX XxX E.m, gdonia omoa x XxX 4 E. olympias augusta XxX xX XxX xX xX XxX XxX E. venusia Xx E. tatila tatila xX xX Hamadryas amphinome mexicana X X xX xX X X D6 X x x H. februa ferentina X xX xX xX X xX xX xX X x xX H. feronia farinulenta X X X xX xX xX xX »4 xX xX xX H. fornax fornacalia x X xX H. glauconome glauconome xX X xX x xX H. guatemalena marmarice X X xX Xx x xX XxX xX H. guatemalena guatemalena X x H. iphthime joannae xX xX X xX XxX xX xX xX xX H. laodamia saurites xX X »4 xX X xX xX xX X xX Ectima erycinoides ssp. x Pyrrhogyra edocla edocla xX BO PSS P. neaerea hypsenor Xx xX x X XxX xX X Xx P. otolais otolais xX xX xX xX xX xX xX xX xX Temenis laothoe hondurensis X xX xX xX X xX xX xX xX XxX Epiphile adrasta adrasta xX xX xX E. hermosa xX E. orea plutonia XxX xX Bolboneura sylphis veracruzana x B. sylphis lacandona x Nica flavilla bachiana x xX xX xX X xX xX xX xX xX Dynamine artemisia glauce xX xX Xx xX D. ate X D. dyonis x xX D. postverta mexicana xX xX X X X xX x D. theseus X Diaethria anna xX xX xX xX xX X xX X xX D. astala astala X xX xX XxX X xX X Cyclogramma bacchis xX Cyclogramma pandama X x X Callicore astarte casta XxX xX XxX Callicore astarte patelina xX X C. lyca lyca xX X xX X xX xX C. texa grijalva xe xX xX xX xX xX xX C. texa titania XxX Xx x C. tolima tehuana xX C. tolima pacifica X C. pitheas Xx Adelpha basiloides basiloides xX xX xX xX xX xX xX xO A. baeotia milleri X A. baeotia oberthurii xX A. celerio diademata xX xX xX x xX xX xX xX VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 135 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CC AB TEN CHJ YAX SOC LG CHA S&S LE SEP x Adelpha bredowii eulalia A. cytherea marcia xX x xX Xx A. escalantei X A. felderi jarias X xX xX xX A. iphiclus iphicleola X xX xX xX xX xe A. diazi xX X D6 A. ixia leucas x xX xX xX A. leuceria leuceria xX X xX Xx x A. leucerioides leucerioides x A. lycorias melanthe XxX xX X x A. naxia epiphicla xX xX xX xX xX A. paroeca emathia xe A. phylaca phylaca xX Xe x Xe Gu. Adelpha pithys x A. salmoneus salmonides xX A. serpa massilia X X X xX dK A. zalmona sophax ».4 A. fessonia fessonia xX Basilarchia archippus hoffmanni Xie Xe aX Marpesia chiron marius xX xX X xX xX xX xX xX Xx xX »4 M. corita corita x x xX x xX M. harmonia xX XxX xX xX xX xX xX XxX XxX xX M. petreus tethys XX OK XG EX XG XG mK OK OK M. zerynthia dentigera X xX xX x Archaeoprepona amphimachus amphiktion xX x xX x X x A. demophon centralis xX ».4 xX X x xX xX xX xX A. demophoon gulina xX xX X xX xX XxX Xx X xX A. meander phoebus x xX A. phaedra aelia xX Prepona deiphile brooksiana x P. deiphile escalantiana x X P. dexamenes medinai xX P. laertes octavia xX xX xX xX X XxX P. pylene philetas xX X Agrias aedon rodriguezi xX A. amydon oaxacata xX xX Zaretis callidryas xX XxX xX Z. itus ellops x x xX xX xX xX xX Siderone galanthis ssp. xX xX S. syntiche syntiche xX xX X xX X X Anaea troglodyta aidea x X eee oY TOS Consul electra electra xX xX xX xX a XG XS XxX xX C. fabius cecrops XE Xe, MX Xe 6 SeXe XG Xi Xe ee EX Fountainea eurypyle confusa X xX xX xX xX xX xX X xX F. glycerium glycerium xX xX X F. halice martinezi xX F. ryphea ryphea XG EX Memphis artacaena »4 xX xX xX X M. aureola xX M. dia ssp. xX M. forreri X Xx x M. hedemanni X xX M. herbacea xX M. mora orthesia XxX xX xX X M. phila boisduvali xX xX X xX X M. neidhoeferi axe X x 136 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CG AB TEN CH] VAX SOGE LEG IGHATSS os Memphis oenomais xX xX xX Xx Xx xX M. philumena xenica x x x x M. pithyusa xX xX XxX x XxX xX X X X M. proserpina xX xX x xX X M. xenocles carolina xX M. perenna perenna xX Asterocampa idyja argus x Xx x Xx Doxocopa cyane mexicana x D. laure laure xX x xX xX xX x axe xX xX D. laurentia cherubina X xX xX xX xX xX D. pavon theodora Xx x Xx XxX Xx x x XxX Morpho achilles montezuma X xX X xX xX xX X x X M. achilles octavia x X Pessonia luna luna X xX xX xX Iphimedeia telemachus justitiae xX I. telemachus ssp. X I. telemachus oaxacensis xX xX Dynastor darius stygianus xX D. macrosiris strix Xx XxX x Opsiphanes boisduvalii X xX x x xX xX O. cassiae X xX xX xX XxX O. tamarindi xX xX xX xX x xX xX xX xX xX O. invirae fabricii xX x xX x xX x xX Xx xX X x O. quiteria quirinus xX »4 X x Xx Caligo atreus uranus Xx Xx x XxX x X x x C. oileus scamander X Xx Xx XxX Xx x C. prometheus memnon xX xX xX xX x Xx xX x X x Eryphanis aesacus aesacus xX xX xX xX xX xX xX Narope cyllastros testacea xX xX xX Pierella luna rubecula xX X xX x xX xX X XxX xX Manataria maculata xX xX xX XxX XxX Cepheuptychia glaucina xX x x xX xX Chloreuptychia sericeella x xX Xx xX Cissia confusa xX xX x C. labe x xX xX xX C. terrestris x X Cyllopsis hedemanni hedemanni x C. hedemanni tamaulipensis x C. hilaria xX C. suivalens escalantei xX C. pyracmon x C. gemma freemani xX C. dospassosi xX Euptychia mollina xX X XxX xX Hermeuptychia hermes xX xX X xX X X XxX XxX XxX H. alcinoe XxX Oxeoschistus hilara hilara xX Magneuptychia libye xX xX X xX xX xX xX xX Xx Megeuptychia antonoe xX Xx xX xX Pareuptychia binocula metaleuca xX Xx xX Xx xX x OK P. interjecta xX P. ocirrhoe xX xX x x xX xX xX xX XxX XxX Pseudodebis zimri xX xX X Satyrotaygetis satyrina xX Splendeuptychia kendalli x Xx Paramacera xicaque xicaque xX VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taygetis kerea kerea T. leuctra T. mermeria excavata T. uncinata T. virgilia T. weymeri T. thamyra Vareuptychia usitata pieria V. themis V. similis V. undina Yphthimoides renata disaffecta Dioriste tauropolis tauropolis Pedaliodes dejecta circumducta Danaus eresimus montezuma D. gilippus thersippus D. plexippus plexippus Lycorea halia atergatis L. ilione albescens Anetia thirza thirza Tithorea harmonia hippothous T. tarricina duenna Aeria eurimedea pacifica Olyras crathis theon Melinaea lilis flavicans M. lilis imitata Mechanitis lysimnia utemaia M. menapis doryssus M. polymnia lycidice Hyposcada virginiana virginiana Oleria paula Napeogenes tolosa tolosa Hypothyris euclea valora H. lycaste dionaea Ithomia leila L. patilla patilla Callithomia hezia hedila C. hezia wellingi Dircenna dero ssp. D. jemina ssp. D. klugii Klugii Episcada salvinia salvinia Pteronymia artena artena P. cotytto P. simplex fenochioi Godyris zavaleta sosunga Hypomenitis annette annette Greta morgane oto G. nero nero Hypoleria lavinia cassotis Libytheana carinenta mexicana Lycaenidae Euselasia cataleuca E. chrysippe E. regipennis regipennis E. sergia sergia mM Xx xX x wm KM MK Pa X 137 SJ LT SLP X x xX x xX xX Xx x xX x XxX x x x X x xX xX xX x xX x x XxX xX xX xX x xX x xX xX X Xx x xX x x xX » xX xX xX Xx xX xX Xx xX xX XxX xX Xx xX xX Xx xX xX XxX xX x xX xX x XxX xX x x Xx X x x Xx xX xX Xx xX XxX xX Xx xX xX X X Xx X XxX Xx xX x Xx xX Xx Xx X Xx Xx X x Xx xX Xx XxX XxX xX Xx Xx xX xX Xx X X xX xX Xx X X X xX X xX Xx X x xX Xx x XxX Xx x xX X xe Xx Xx xX xX X XxX Xx Xx xX xX Xx XxX xX x xX X X X XxX Xx CC __AB_ TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA 138 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX |. Continued CC) AB STENCH Euselasia procula xX YAX SOC LG CHA Taxon E. hieronymi hieronymi E. inconspicua wm KM ws E. pusilla > E. eubule eubule xX X E. aurantiaca aurantiaca X xX xX Hades noctula X xX xX Perophthalma tullius lasus Xx X Leucochimona vestalis vestalis X X X L. lepida nivalis XxX X X X X xX Mesosemia telegone telegone xX x D4 x XxX XxX x M. gaudiolum X xe M. gemina X x x Eurybia patrona persona x E. lycisca X xX X xX E. halimede elvina x xX xX X xX xX Hermathena oweni xX Diophtalma lagora iphias x Napaea eucharila picina xX N. theages theages X N. umbra umbra xX x xX x Cremna actoris X C. thasus subrutila xX xX Lyropteryx lyra cleadas X xX Ancyluris jurgensenii montezuma xX x x A. inca mora Xx x XxX Rhetus arcius thia xX xX XxX xX X X x xX R. periander naevianus xX xX Isapis agyrtus hera x X Brachyglenis dodone xX Notheme erota diadema X xX xX Lepricornis melanchroia xX xX xX Calephelis nemesis nemesis X C. mexicana X C. fulmen X x xX C. stallingsi xX xX C. huasteca XxX xX C. acapulcoensis Xx C. yucatana xX C. perditalis perditalis x C. montezuma xX C. laverna laverna xX Charis gynaea zama X xX x C. velutina xX XxX Xx Chalodeta chaonitis X Caria ino melicerta xX xX xX C. domitianus vejento xX C. rhacotis rhacotis xX xX C. lampeto xX xX Baeotis zonata simbla xX XxX xX x B. sulphurea macularia xX B. sulphurea sulphurea xX Lasaia meris X L. agesilas callaina xX X xX Xx xX L. sessilis xX L. maria anna xX x Xx x VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 139 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CC __AB TEN CHJ YAX SOC LG CHA SJ _ LT _ SLP L. narses* Xx L. sula peninsularis xX Melanis pixe pixe x Xx x xX x xX x Xx x M. cephise cephise xX M. cephise huasteca xX Mesene croceella x xX xX xX M. margaretta margaretta Xx xX x xX Xenandra caeruleata X X Chimastrum argenteum argenteum xX Symmachia rubina rubina x XxX S. accusatrix xX x xX Symmachia probetor championi xX x xX S. tricolor hedemanni xX xX xX Pterographium sagaris tyriotes xX Sarota gamelia xX S. acanthoides myrtea x xX S. chrysus dematria X Xx xX x Anteros formosus micon X A. carausius carausius xX x XxX Xx xX Calydna lusca venusta x C. sturnula hegias X X C. sinuata XxX Emesis aurimna X »« E. saturata »« xX x E. liodes xX: E. mandana furor xX xX xX xX E. vulpina X xX XxX E. fatimella nobilata xX xX E. tenedia tenedia xX xX X xX x xX E. lupina xX x E. ocypore aethalia x E. zela zela xX E. emesia emesia xX » Xx E. cypria paphia x E. tegula X E. zela cleis xX Argyrogrammana holosticta xX xX XxX xX Pseudonymphidia clearista X xX Pachythone gigas XxX Apodemia multiplaga X A. hypoglauca hypoglauca x X A. walkeri D6 Thishe irenea belides x X x xX T. lycorias lycorias DO OS BS OS NGPA ON GS Lemonias caliginea xX xX L. agave X Xx xX Juditha molpe XxX xX xX xX xX XxX x Synargis calyce mycone xX Xx XxX X XxX xX S. ethelinda nymphidioides XxX S. nycteus X Menander menander purpurata xX xX xX X xX xX Pandemos godmanii XxX X Calospila pelarge xX xX C. sudias X xX xX xX X Theope pedias isia Xx T. virgilius virgilius xX xX X 140 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX |. Continued Taxon CC __AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA SJ Wak SLAP Theope eupolis xX T. cratylus xX T. publius xX xX T. eleutho xX xX T. mania Xx T. diores xX Calociasma lilina Ds Nymphidium ascolia ascolides xX Brephidium exilis exilis Ox Leptotes marina xX xX L. cassius striata xX Xx xX Xx Xx Xx xX Zizula cyna cyna xX X xX xX xX XxX Hemiargus ceraunus Xx Xx XxX x xX xX x H. isola isola x H. huntingtoni hannoides xe Everes comyntas xX X xX XxX XxX x xX E. amyntula amyntula x Celastrina argiolus gozora XxX XxX Eumaeus childrenae X xX Ds xX E. toxea x x D4 xX xX xX Paiwarria antigonus Xx Theorema eumenia x XxX x “Thecla” (busa group) busa xX Xx Xx Evenus regalis XxX Xx Xx Xx E. coronata xX E. batesii XxX “Thecla” (gibberosa group) barajo xs x X xX “Thecla” (eunus group) eunus x Allosmaitia strophius xX XxX Pseudolycaena damo xX x xX xX x Xx xX Xx x Arcas imperialis x x XxX A. cypria x xX Xx Xx Xx Theritas mavors X Xx Xx Xx Xx “Thecla” (hemon group) augustinula Xx “Thecla” (hemon group) theocritus x x “Thecla” (hemon group) hemon X “Thecla” (hemon group) lisus Xx Atlides gaumeri x A. polybe x xX xX x A. inachus Xx A. carpasia x Xx A. halesus X A. caranus® Xx Radissima umbratus x “Thecla” (ligurina group) ligurina xX X xX “Thecla” (ligurina group) lyde x Denivia theocritus x Contrafacia ahola x C. imma x xX Thereus cithonius xX T. oppia xX x T. ortalus xX Arawacus togarna x Xx x x x x x xX XxX A. sito XxX xX xX xX x Xx xX XxX x x A. jada xX xX Rekoa meton xX xX xX X Xx xX VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 141 APPENDIX 1. Continued Taxon CC AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA SJ jin ue Rekoa palegon x SOX XG ge XCa EXC EEX: R. zebina x R. marius x Xx R. stagira xX Ocaria petelina xX O. thales x x O. ocrisia xX xX Magnastigma elsa xX Chlorostrymon simaethis xX xX xX x C. telea X x Cyanophrys goodsoni xX xX C. amyntor x Xx xX C. fusius x x x C. herodotus x: xX x xX C. miserabilis XxX xX XxX C. longula xX Panthiades bitias Xx Xx XxX Xx xX xX xX x P. ochus xX xX XxX xX XxX P. bathildis XxX ».4 D4 XxX xX x XxX x x XxX P. phaleros xX x X Oenomaus ortygnus xX x x x O. atesa XxX Parrhasius polibetes xX X xX X P. orgia xX xX xX P. moctezuma x x Michaelus jebus xX XxX xX M. thordesa xX xX M. hecate xX M. vibidia x M. zenaida xX Ignata gadira XxX X I. nr. gadira xi I. norax Xx X Strymon melinus xX Xx S. albata x Xx X S. alea xX S. bazochii Xe x x x S. mulucha xX x S. yojoa xX xX XxX X X S. cestri xX X xX X S. astiocha xe S. istapa xX X X X S. ziba axe XxX Xx S. nr. megarus #1 X S. serapio xX xX S. basalides* xX Lamprospilus collucia xX “Thecla” (aruma group) galliena XG Kisutam syllis xX XxX X X K. hesperitis Xx xX X X K ceromia Xx K. denarius X X K guzanta Xx X xX K. sethon xX “Thecla” (camissa group) vespasianus xe x Electrostrymon mathewi xX X 142 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY APPENDIX 1. Continued CC AB TEN CH] YAX SOC LG CHA S Taxon Electrostrymon sangala X X xX E. canus X Calycopis calus X C. demonassa xX Xx xX Xx C. atnius Xx X C. clarina xX x xX C. isobeon xX X xX X x xX OK C. susanna XxX C. drusilla X C. trebula xX x xX xX Tmolus echion X xX xX xX x X T. crolinus xX T. cydrara xX xX xX Crimsinota phobe xX “Tmolus” (heraldica group) heraldica xX “Thecla” (empusa group) halciones X x “Thecla” (keila group) keila x Siderus philinna X S. gargophia xX S. caninius xX S. thoria xX Aubergina paetus xX “Thecla” (mycon group) mycon Xx xX X X xX xX xX xX “Thecla” (tephraeus group) tephraeus Xs xX “Thecla” (tephraeus group) syedra xX x “Thecla” (tephraeus group) ambrax x Ministrymon clytie XN eX M. arola xX x M. una Xx XxX M. inoa xX M. phrutus Xo ae M. azia XxX X XxX Janthecla janthodonia xX J. janthina x xX xX X XxX Ipidecla schausi xX Brangas neora Xx X XxX B. getus , Xx B. coccineifrons x xX x B. carthaea x “Thecla” (cupentus group) cupentus xX Chalybs janias x xX xX x xX C. hassan xX “Thecla” (theia group) theia xX Hypostrymon critola xX xX Taspis nr castitas X x I. temesa XxX XxX Xx Nesiostrymon calchinia x N. celona xe N. dodava xX Erora carla X xX E. opisena xX E. muridosca xX “Thecla” (ares group) semones Xx Caerofethra carnica xX X Celmia celmus xX xX xX “Thecla” (color group) conoveria xe Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 58(3), 2004, 143-168 HISTOIRE GENERALE ET ICONOGRAPHIE DES LEPIDOPTERES ET DES CHENILLES DE L’AMERIQUE SEPTENTRIONALE BY BOISDUVAL & LE CONTE (1829-[1837]): ORIGINAL DRAWINGS USED FOR THE ENGRAVED PLATES AND THE TRUE IDENTITIES OF FOUR FIGURED TAXA JOHN V. CALHOUN! 977 Wicks Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida 34684-4656, USA ABSTRACT. A set of 149 Lepidoptera drawings is currently deposited in the Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Car- olina. Forty of the 55 butterfly drawings include figures that were copied for the engraved plates in Histoire Générale et Iconogra- phie des Lépidoptéres et des Chenilles de ’Amérique Septentrionale (Boisduval & Le Conte 1829-[1837]). Identifications are pro- vided herein for the 80 butterfly species in these drawings, as well as manuscript notes that likely accompanied 21 other drawings reproduced in Histoire Générale. Pieris cleomes Boisduval & Le Conte is shown to be synonymous with Ascia monuste phileta (Fabricius). The figures identified as Thecla favonius (J. E. Smith) represent both Satyriwm favonius and Strymon melinus (Hiib- ner). The figures identified as Libythea motya (Hiibner) represent Libytheana motya and Libytheana carinenta bachmanii (Kirt- land). Also included are remarks about the identity of Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte and the validity of the Boisduval type specimens of North American Lepidoptera. Additional key words: John Abbot, Emile Blanchard, Paul Duménil, Georgia, South Carolina, type locality. I recently traced the history of a set of 149 Lepidoptera drawings now deposited in the Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Carolina (Calhoun 2003). These were rendered in graphite and watercolor by at least four artists: English naturalist John Abbot (1751-ca.1840), who resided in Virginia and Georgia from 1773 until his death; French zoologist Emile (or Charles Emile) Blanchard (1819- 1900); French engraver and publisher Paul C. R. C. Duménil (1779-?); and probably American naturalist John E. Le Conte, Jr. (1784-1860). My analysis of these drawings confirmed the claim of art historian Vivian Rogers-Price (1983) that some were copied for plates in Histoire Générale et Iconographie des Lépidoptéres et des Chenilles de lAmérique Septentrionale [General History and Iconography of the Lepidoptera and the Caterpillars of Northern America] by Jean B. A. D. de Boisduval and J. E. Le Conte, Jr., published in 26 livraisons from 1829 to 1837 (usually cited as [1833]). After the publication of Histoire Générale, Boisduval retained these drawings for many years and they eventually passed into the hands of lepidopterist Charles M. Oberthiir. Oberthiir died in 1924 and the drawings have not been examined by another lepidopterist since that time. These 149 drawings are of great relevance to American lepidopterists. The Thomas Cooper Library has digitized all 149 drawings and made them available for viewing on the Internet (USC 2003). As part of their study, I was afforded the opportunity to offer identifications and other pertinent information. Due ‘Research Associate, Florida State Collection of Arthropods, DPI, FDACS, Gainesville, Florida 32614, USA to the ephemeral nature of Internet web sites, I have decided to also present this data in print and incorporate many additional details. I also provide information on three sets of surviving manuscript notes by John Abbot that contain entries relevant to published plates in Boisduval & Le Conte (1829- [1837]). Evidence from this research clarifies the origin of specimens figured in Boisduval & Le Conte (1829-[1837]) and resolves the status of Pieris cleomes Boisduval & Le Conte, as well as the butterflies figured as Thecla favonius (J. E. Smith) and Libythea motya (Hiibner). Further evidence regarding the identity of Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte augments Calhoun (2003). MATERIALS AND METHODS The butterfly drawings at the University of South Carolina were Eearnnied (in person and through digital scans) and compared with the published plates in Boisduval & Le Conte (1829-[1837]). Also consulted were the plates in Smith & Abbot (1797), as well as original drawings and manuscript notes by John Abbot deposited in the Alexander Turnbull Library (Wellington, New Zealand), the Houghton Library (Harvard University), and The Natural History Museum, London. Inscriptions on the drawings were compared with the known handwriting of Abbot, Boisduval, and Le Conte. The National Museum of Natural History (Washington, D. C.) and The Natural History Museum, london: were searched for relevant specimens from Boisduval’s collection. RESULTS Original butterfly drawings. Fifty-five of the 144 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY TABLE 1. Butterfly species depicted in original drawings at the Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Carolina. B&L = Boisduval & Le Conte (1829-[1837]). Figures: D = dorsal, V = ventral, m = male, f = female, L = larva, P = pupa. Figures Artist B&L copied credited on No. Artist Species depicted Figures plate for B&L B&L plate B&L name 1 Abbot Papilio cresphontes Cramer DE£VEL,P 1213 D£V£L,P Abbot Papilio Thoas NOTES: drawing has a penciled reference to B&L Plates 12 and 13. 9} Abbot Eurytides marcellus (Cramer) Dm,Vm,L,P 2} Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Papilio Marcellus NOTES: depicts the summer form "lecontei" (Rothschild & Jordan), named in honor of B&L coauthor J. E Le Conte. Includes Abbot's inscription, "Autumnal Ajax." 3 Abbot Eurytides marcellus (Cramer) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 1 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Papilio Ajax NOTES: depicts the spring form "marcellus" and has a penciled reference to B&L Plate 1. Includes Abbot's inscription, "Spring Ajax." Drawing was figured by Rogers-Price (1983). 4 Duménil? Eurytides celadon (Lucas) Df, Vf 3 Df,Vf Abbot Papilio Sinon NOTES: the style seems consistent with drawing 37 that Boisduval attributed to Duménil. 5 Abbot Papilio polyxenes (Fabricius) Df — — — — NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription “Ni Female.” 6 Abbot Papilio polyxenes (Fabricius) Dm,Vm,L,P 4 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Papilio Asterias NOTES: includes a penciled reference to B&L Plate 4. Includes Abbot's inscription “Ni Male Troilus.” 7 Abbot Ascia monuste (Linnaeus) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 16 Dm, D£EVE,L,P = Abbot Pieris Cleomes NOTES: includes a penciled reference to B&L Plate 16, which was copied from this drawing and another from Abbot with a hostplant (see text). Figures in this drawing were probably used for the original description of P. cleomes. See Figs 10, 11. 8 Abbot | Phoebis sennae (Linnaeus) Df,Dm,Vf,L,P 24 Df£,Dm,Vf£L,P Abbot Callidryas Eubule NOTES: includes a penciled reference to B&L Plate 24 and Abbot's inscription, "Eubule." The ventral female on B&L Plate 24 was misidentified as a male. Scudder (1888-1889, PI. 76, fig. 2) copied the larva. Holland (1898, PI. 2, fig. 2) and Klots (1951, PI. 5, fig. 25) reproduced Scudder's larva. 9 Abbot Zerene cesonia (Stoll) Dm,D£,Vf,L,P 22 Dm,Df£,V£L,P Abbot Colias Coesonia NOTES: includes a penciled reference to Plate 22, which was probably copied from this drawing and another from Abbot with duplicate figures and a hostplant. Although the ventral figure is identified on the B&L plate as a male, the corresponding figure in this drawing appears to be a female. 10 Abbot a. Parrhasius m-album (B&L) Dm,Df£,Vm,L,P 27 Dm,Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Thecla Psyche b. Strymon melinus (Hiibner) Dm,Vm,L,P — — — — NOTES: the figures of P. m-album were probably consulted for the original description of T. psyche. Includes a penciled reference to B&L Plate 27 and figure numbers used on the plate. The hostplant “smilax” is written below the figures of S. melinus. Although Oberthiir (1920) believed these figures of S. melinus were copied for B&L plate 28 of T. hyperici, they are not analogous. 11 Abbot a. Callophrys niphon (Hiibner) Df£.VE£,L.P 33 Df£,VF,L,P Abbot Thecla Niphon b. Satyrium titus (Fabricius) Dm,D£,V£,L,P 34 Dm,D£VE£,L,P Abbot Thecla Mopsus c. Callophrys gryneus (Hiibner) Dm,Vf,L,P 33 Dm,Vf,L,P Abbot Thecla Smilacis NOTES: the figures of C. gryneus were probably consulted for the original description of T. smilacis. Adult figures of S. titus from this drawing and the ventral male of Duménil's drawing 13 were used to illustrate the species on B&L Plate 34. Le Conte wrote “Pine” below C. niphon, “Oak, Eupatorium coelestinum” below S. titus, and “Smilax” below C. gryneus. These plants were reported as hosts for these butterflies in B&L. Scudder (1888-1889) copied the pupa of C. niphon (PI. 84, fig. 40), the larva and pupa of S. titus (PI. 75, fig. 35; PI. 84, fig. 37), and the larva and pupa of C. gryneus (PI. 75, fig. 31; Pl. 84, fig. 30). Holland (1898, PI. 5, figs. 30, 37 & 40) and Klots (1951, PI. 5, fig. 14) reproduced some of Scudder's figures. See Fig. 4. 12. Abbot a. Satyrium liparops (Le Conte) Df,V£,L,P 31 Df£,Vf£,L,P Abbot Thecla Liparops b. Callophrys henrici (Grote & Robinson) Dm,Df,Vf,L,P 31 Df,V£,L,P Abbot Thecla Irus NOTES: the figures of S. liparops were used for the original description of Thecla liparops. Le Conte wrote “Oak, Chestnut” below the figures of S. liparops (mentioned by Scudder (1888-1889) and in his notes at Harvard). “Vaccinium” is written below the figures of C. henrici, which corresponds to the mention of “vaccinium” as a hostplant of this species in B&L. C. henrici was not described until 1867 and was often confused with C. irus in earlier literature. Scudder (1888-1889, PI. 75, fig. 28) copied the larva of C. henrici (as “Incisalia irus”). See Figs. 3, 6. 13 Duménil? a. Satyrium titus (Fabricius) Dm,Vm 34 Vm Abbot Thecla Mopsus b. Strymon melinus (Hiibner) Dm,Vm — — — — c. Paectes pygmaea (Hiibner) Dm — — — — NOTES: the ventral male of S. titus from this drawing and the adults of Abbot's drawing 11 were used to illustrate the species on B&L Plate 34. VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 145 TABLE 1. Continued Figures Artist B&L copied credited on No. Artist Species depicted Figures plate for B&L B&L plate B&L name 14 Blanchard a. Calycopis cecrops (Fabricius) Dm,DfVm,VF 35 Dm,Df,Vm,Vf Abbot Thecla Poeas b. Hemiargus ceraunus (Fabricius) Dm,Df£,Vf 35 Dm,Df£,Vf Abbot Argus Pseudoptiletes NOTES: entire drawing was copied for B&L Plate 35 in the same layout. Figures of H. ceraunus accompanied the original description of A. pseudoptiletes and are consistent with the Floridian H. c. antibubastus (Hiibner). 15 Blanchard a. Lycaena hyllus (Cramer) Dm,Df,Vm 38 Dm,Df,Vm Abbot Polyommatus Thoe b. Lycaena epixanthe (B&L) Df,Vm 38 Df£Vm Abbot Polyommatus Epixanthe NOTES: entire drawing was copied for B&L Plate 38 in the same layout. Figures of L. epixanthe accompanied the original description of P. epixanthe. 16 Abbot a. Celastrina ladon (Cramer) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 36 Dm,Df£Vm,L,P Abbot Argus Pseudargiolus b. Cupido comyntas (Godart) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 36 Dm,Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Argus Comyntas NOTES: the figures of C. ladon were consulted for the original description of A. pseudargiolus. Includes Abbot's inscription of "Argiolus." Scudder (1888-1889, Pl. 75, figs. 29, 44; PI. 84, figs. 42, 43) copied all the larvae and pupae that he said were “formerly used in Boisduval and LeConte's iconography.” Holland (1898, PI. 5, figs. 42, 43) and Klots (1951, Pl. 6, fig. 16) reproduced some of Scudder's figures. Rogers- Price (1983) figured the entire drawing. iZ/ Blanchard Calephelis virginiensis (Guérin-Méneville) Dm,Vm 37 Dm,Vm Abbot Nymphidia Pumila NOTES: figures accompanied the original description of N. pumila and were combined with Abbot's figures of Feniseca tarquinius (Fabricius) on B&L Plate 37. 18 Abbot Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus) Dm,Vm,L,P 40 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Danais Archippus NOTES: Rogers-Price (1983) figured the entire drawing. 19 Abbot Danaus gilippus (Cramer) Df,V£,L,P 39 DE£,V£,L.P Abbot Danais Berenice NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription of "Gillippus." 20 Blanchard Heliconius charithonia (Linnaeus) Dm,Vm 4] Dm,Vm Blanchard —_Heliconia Charitonia NOTES: entire drawing was copied for B&L Plate 41 in the same layout. Based in the width of the yellow bands, the figures probably represent the Floridian subspecies H. c. tuckeri W. P. Comstock & F. M. Brown. 21 Abbot Agraulis vanillae (Linnaeus) Dm,Df£,Vf£,L,P 42 DEVEL,P Abbot Agraulis Vanillae NOTES: drawing has penciled reference to B&L Plate 42, as well as figure legends used on the published plate. It has an attribution to Abbot in Boisduval's hand (“abbot Pinxit.”) and includes Abbot's inscription of "Passiflora," probably in reference to the name Papilio passiflorae of Smith & Abbot (1797). This name was crossed out and Le Conte wrote “vanillae” below it. Rogers-Price (1983) figured the entire drawing. 22. Abbot —_ Speyeria idalia (Drury) DEVE 43 DEVE “Leconte” — Argynnis Idalia NOTES: style is consistent with Abbot, but credited to Le Conte on B&L Plate 43. Abbot is known to have illustrated this species at least one other time; a single male that was “Met with by Mr. Elliot [Stephen Elliott] in his journey to the mountains” (drawing and notes in The Natural History Museum, London). Strangely, the text in B&L did not refer to the occurrence of the species in Virginia or Georgia. References to New York and Jamaica were probably derived from Cramer ([1775]). The paper used for this drawing differs slightly from other Abbot drawings in this set, suggesting that it was original rendered for a different set. 23 Blanchard a. Boloria selene (Denis & Schiffermiiller) Df,Vf 45 DEVE Blanchard — Argynnis Myrina b. Speyeria cybele (Fabricius) DEVE 45 DEVE Blanchard — Argynnis Cybele c. Boloria bellona (Fabricius) DEVE 45 DEVE Blanchard — Argynnis Bellona NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing was copied for Plate 45 in the same layout. The figures represent the eastern North American subspecies B. s. myrina (Cramer), S. c. cybele, and B. b. bellona. 24 Abbot a. Chlosyne gorgone (Hiibner) Df,V£,L,P 46 Df£,V£L.P Abbot Melitaea Ismeria b. Euptoieta claudia (Cramer) Df,V£,L,P 44 Df£,VE£,L,P Abbot Argynnis Columbina NOTES: the figures of C. gorgone were used for the original description of M. ismeria (Calhoun 2003) (see text). The larva in this drawing is not accurately referable to any species, but conceptually resembles that of C. gorgone (Calhoun 2003) (also see drawing 35). 25 Blanchard a. Euphydryas phaeton (Drury) Dm,Vm 47 Dm,Vm Blanchard = Melitaea Phaeton b. Phyciodes batesii (Reakirt) Dm 47 Dm Blanchard = Melitaea Tharos c. Phyciodes tharos (Drury) Dm,Vm 47 Dm,Vm Blanchard = Melitaea Tharos NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing was copied for Plate 47 in the same layout. The published plate identified the male P. batesii as a female of P. tharos. The figures are consistent with eastern North American phenotypes. 26 Abbot Polygonia interrogationis (Fabricius) Dm,Vm,L,P 51 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Vanessa C. Aureum NOTES: includes figure numbers to be used for B&L Plate 51, but the arrangement was ultimately changed for the final plate. There is also a penciled symbol on the drawing that was probably used to instruct the engraver to position the dorsal adult figure at an angle on the plate. 146 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY TABLE 1. Continued Figures Artist B&L copied credited on No. Artist Species depicted Figures plate for B&L B&L plate B&L name 27. Abbot — Junonia coenia Hiibner Df£,VE,L,P — — —_ = 28 Abbot — Junonia coenia Hiibner Dm,Vm,L,P 49 DE,VE,L,P Abbot Vanessa Coenia NOTES: Scudder (1888-1889, Pl. 74, fig. 30; Pl. 83, fig. 66) copied the larva and pupa. Holland (1898, Pl. 4, fig. 66) reproduced Scudder's pupa. 29 = Abbot Vanessa virginiensis (Drury) DE£VEL.P 48 DE£,VEL,P Abbot Vanessa Huntera NOTES: drawing has a penciled reference to B&L Plate 48, as well as corresponding figure numbers and legends used on the published plate. Also includes Abbot's inscription, "Huntera." 30 Abbot Vanessa atalanta (L.) Dm,Vf,L,P = = = = NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription of "Atalanta." 31 Abbot Nymphalis antiopa (L.) Dm, Vm = = = = Notes: includes Abbot's inscription of "Antiopa." Kraus ([1964]) figured the entire drawing. 32 Blanchard a. Roddia vaualbum Denis & Schiff. DEVE 50 DEVE Blanchard — Vanessa J. Album b. Polygonia progne (Cramer) Dm,Vm 50 Dm,Vm Blanchard — Vanessa Progne d. Aglais milberti (Godart) Dm,Vm 50 Dm,Vm Blanchard — Vanessa Milberti NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing was copied for B&L Plate 50 in the same layout. The figures of R. vaualbum accompanied the original description of V. j. album. 33. Abbot Limenitis arthemis (Drury) Df,VE£,L,P 53 Df,V£,L,P Abbot Nymphalis Ursula (text), Limenitis Ursula (plate) NOTES: depicts the subspecies L. arthemis astyanax (Fabricius). The text and plate were issued separately in B&L, accounting for the different genera used. 34 Blanchard Limenitis arthemis (Drury) Dm,Vm,Df 54 Dm,Vm,Df Blanchard = Nymphalis Arthemis (text), Limenitis Arthemis (plate) NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Depicts the subspecies L. a. arthemis (Df) and possibly the more western subspecies L. a. rubrofasciata (Barnes & McDunnough) (Dm, Vm). The text and plate were issued separately in B&L, accounting for the different genera used. 35 Abbot Asterocampa clyton (B&L) Dm,Vm,L,P — a — = NOTES: the larva and pupa in this drawing are incorrect for this species. In his notes (Harvard), Scudder wrote, “butterfly clyton, but the larva & chrys. couldn't belong to it.” Although the larva is not an accurate depiction of any species, Scudder (1888-1889) copied and identified it as P. interrogationis (Plate 74, fig. 27). He copied the pupa as that of Polygonia comma (Harris) (Pl. 83, fig. 39). Holland (1898, Pl. 3, fig. 27; Pl. 4, fig. 39) reproduced Scudder's figures and identifications. The same incorrect early stages were used for a drawing of this species in New Zealand (see drawing 24 for a similarly cryptic larva). The original description of Apatura clyton was accompanied by B&L Plate 56, which was copied from an Abbot hostplant drawing with accurate early stages 36 Abbot Asterocampa celtis (B&L) Dm,Df£,Vm,L,P 3 — = = — NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription, "Portlandia," apparently a misidentification of Enodia portlandia (Fabricius). In his notes (Harvard), Scudder also observed that this drawing was “marked portlandia.” The original description of Apatura celtis was accompanied by B&L Plate 57, which was copied from another Abbot drawing. 37 Duménil Historis odius (Fabricius) Dm,Vm 52 Dm,Vm Blanchard — Aganisthos Orion NOTES: includes a penciled reference to B&L Plate 52, as well as figure numbers and legends for the published plate. Although the plate credits Blanchard, a handwritten notation by Boisduval on the drawing attributes it to Duménil (“Dumenil Pinxit.”). It is interesting that Boisduval used the genus Prepona on this drawing and referred to Prepona in livraison 22 of B&L, believed published in 1835. However, Boisduval is credited with authoring this genus in Boisduval (1836) (see Cowan 1969). The figures represent the continental subspecies H. 0. orion (Fabricius), which also occurs in the Lesser Antilles. 38 Abbot Libytheana carinenta (Cramer) Dm,Vm,L,P —— — — —_— NOTES: B&L Plate 64 of Libythea motya was copied from an Abbot hostplant drawing with duplicate early stages, but the adults were evidently derived from a specimen in Boisduval's collection (see text). Scudder (1888-1889, PI. 84, fig. 24) copied the pupa, which was reproduced by Holland (1898, PI. 5, fig. 24). See Figs. 29, 30. 39 Abbot a. Enodia creola (Skinner) Dm — — _ = b. Enodia portlandia (Fabricius) Df,Vf —_ _ — NOTES: Abbot incorrectly associated the male of E. creola with the female of E. portlandia. An Abbot hostplant drawing that eat, associated the male and female of E. portlandia was copied for B&L Plate 58. VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 147 TABLE 1. Continued Figures Artist B&L copied credited on No. Artist Species depicted Figures plate for B&L B&L plate B&L name 40 Blanchard Satyrodes appalachia (R. L. Chermock) Dm,Df,Vm,Vf 60 Df,Vf,Dm,Vm_ Blanchard —Satyrus Canthus NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing was copied for B&L Plate 60 in the same layout. Satyrodes appalachia was not recognized as a separate species from Satyrodes eurydice (Johansson) [=Satyrus canthus (L.)] until 1970. The figures represent the southeastern nominate subspecies. 41 Abbot a. Hermeuptychia sosybius (Fabricius) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 63 Dm,Vm,L,P Blanchard — Satyrus Sosybius b. Neonympha areolatus (J. E. Smith) Df,Vf,L,P 63 Df£,Vf,L,P Blanchard — Satyrus Areolatus NOTES: Scudder (1888-1889, Pl. 83, fig. 11) copied the pupa of N. areolatus, which was reproduced by Holland (1898, PI. 4, fig. 10). 42 Abbot a. Achalarus lyciades (Geyer) Df,Vm,L,P "Al Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Eudamus Lycidas b. Epargyreus clarus (Cramer) Dm,Vm,L,P 72 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Eudamus Tityrus NOTES: includes Abbot's inscriptions, "Lycidas" for A. lyciades and "Tytirus" (a misspelling of the synonym tityrus Fabricius) for E. clarus. 43. Abbot Urbanus proteus (Linnaeus) Dm,Vm,L,P 69 Dm,Vm,L,P Abbot Eudamus Proteus NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription, "Proteus." 44 Le Conte? Megathymus yuccae (B&L) larva only _ — — — NOTES: drawing is likely by J. E. Le Conte (see text). In 1876, entomologist Charles V. Riley published the life history of this species. In Scudder's notes (Harvard) there is a sketch of this figure, which Scudder later sent to Riley and asked, “is this Megathymus yuccae?”, to which Riley replied, “without doubt!” Eudamus yuccae was first "described" (no textual reference) from an Abbot hostplant drawing on B&L Plate 70. : 45 Blanchard a. Calpodes ethlius (Stoll) Dm,Vm Ths Dm,Vm Blanchard = Eudamus? Olynthus b. Polites vibex (Geyer) Df(2), Vf 75 Df(2), Vf Blanchard Hesperia Brettus NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing was copied in the same layout for B&L Plate 75, which included the original "descriptions" (no textual references) of E. olynthus and H. brettus. Boisduval apparently considered the sexes of P. vibex to be analogous, as figures 3 & 4 of dorsal and ventral females were both identified as males on B&L Plate 75. 46 Abbot Problema bulenta (B&L) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 67 Dm,Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Hesperia Bulenta NOTES: figures copied for B&L Plate 67, the original "description" (no textual reference) of H. bulenta. In his notes for another drawing of P. bulenta in New Zealand, Abbot wrote, “Feeds on the Broad grass, Zozani aquatica folding itself up in the leaf changed 25th bred 6th Aug't. Frequents Rice fields, ditches, and the sides of ponds in the lower parts of Georgia is not common.” The species was not rediscovered until 1925. Abbot probably collected his specimens near the mouth of the Savannah River where the species still occurs today. 47 Abbot a. Hylephila phyleus (Drury) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 78 Dm,Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Hesperia Phyleus b. Wallengrenia otho (J. E. Smith) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P 77 Dm,Df,Vm,L,P Abbot Hesperia Otho NOTES: Scudder (1888-1889, Pl. 77, figs. 19, 34; Pl. 85, figs. 39, 42) copied all the larvae and pupae. The pupae were reproduced by Holland (1898, PI. 6, figs. 39, 42). 48 Blanchard a. Wallengrenia egeremet (Scudder) Dm,Df — — —— — b. Wallengrenia otho (J. E. Smith) VE = — — = c. Poanes zabulon (B&L) Df£,Vf = — = = d. Amblyscirtes aesculapias (Fabricius) Dm,Vm = — — — NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Drawing predates the description of W. egeremet, which until recently was generally treated as conspecific with W. otho. A penciled circle around the Wallengrenia figures and the notation "remplacer" [replace] suggests that Boisduval was going to copy them for B&L, but instead used those from Abbot's drawing 47. 49 Blanchard a. Nastra lherminier (Latrielle) Df — — — — b. Polites origenes (Fabricius) Df — — — = c. Polites themistocles (Latrielle) Vf — = a — d. Atalopedes campestris (Boisduval) Dm,Vm — = — = e. Poanes yehl (Skinner) Dm,Vm — = — — NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Females of up to three different species are associated in this drawing (probably Boisduval's misidentification). The second dorsal female may represent P. themistocles, but it cannot be identified with certainty. The figures of A. campestris represent the subspecies A. c. huron (W. H. Edwards). 50 Blanchard a. Anatrytone logan (W. H. Edwards) Dm,Df,Vf = : = - b. Polites peckius (W. Kirby) Dm,Vm 3 = - - NOTES: signed by Blanchard. The figures of A. logan are consistent with the nominate subspecies from eastern North America. 148 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY TABLE 1. Continued Figures Artist B&L copied credited on No. Artist Species depicted Figures plate for BKL B&L plate B&L name 51 Blanchard a. Polites themistocles (Latreille) Dm,Vm 76 Dm,Vm Blanchard — Hesperia Cernes b. Atrytone arogos (B&L) Dm,Df,Vm 76 Dm,Df,Vm Blanchard Hesperia Arogos c. Poanes zabulon (B&L) Dm,Vm 76 Dm,Vm Blanchard — Hesperia Zabulon NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Entire drawing copied for Plate 76 in the same layout and used for the original "descriptions" (no textual references) of H. cernes, H. arogos and H. zabulon. See Fig. 5. The figures of A. arogos represent the nominate subspecies from eastern North America. Dm,Vm — — — — Dm,Vm — — = — NOTES: drawing depicts two West Indian species. The P. baracoa figures may represent the Hispaniolan subspecies P. b. loma Evans. Dm,Df£VE — _— —_ — 52 Blanchard a. Polites baracoa (Lucas) b. Wallengrenia ophites Mabille 53 Blanchard a. Euphyes vestris (Boisduval) b. Lerema accius (J. E. Smith) Dm,Df£,Vf = —_— = = c. Oligoria maculata (W. H. Edwards) Dm,Vm = — — = NOTES: signed by Blanchard. Illegible notations, scrawled in Boisduval's hand, are partially cut off in the right margin. The figures of E. vestris are consistent with the eastem North American subspecies E. v. metacomet (Harris). Dm,Df£,Vm = = = nay Dm,Df,Vm = = = = 54 Blanchard a. Panoquina ocola (W. H. Edwards) d. Pholisora catullus (Fabricius) NOTES: signed by Blanchard. 55 Abbot a. Erynnis brizo (B&L) b. Erynnis juvenalis (Fabricius) Dm,Df,Vm,L,P — — — Dm, Df, Vm 65 Dim, Df, Vm Abbot NOTES: includes Abbot's inscription, "Juvenalis" (for E. juvenalis). The identities of the sexes of the dorsal figures of E. juvenalis were Thanaos Juuvenalis reversed on B&L Plate 65. Thanaos brizo was originally "described" (no textual reference) from B&L Plate 66, which was copied from an Abbot host plant drawing with duplicate figures and a hostplant. A penciled circle drawn around the figures of E. brizo suggests Boisduval was going to copy them for B&L, but instead used the other Abbot drawing. Scudder (1888-1889, PI. 77, fig. 18; Pl. 85, fig. 38) copied the larva and pupa of E. brizo, which were reproduced by Holland (1898, PI. 6, fig. 38). drawings at the University of South Carolina depict butterflies. Forty include figures that were reproduced on 44 of the 78 plates in Boisduval & Le Conte (1829-[1837]), hereafter referred to as B&L. The butterfly determinations and information about the corresponding published plates are presented in Table 1. Nomenclature follows Opler & Warren (2002). The butterfly drawings portray at total of SO species and most include multiple species (Figs. 3-5, 10, 36). The 94 moth drawings in this set are still under review. The drawings at the University of South Carolina were rendered on cream-colored wove paper and measure approximately 27 cm x 16.5 cm. They are mounted on stiff paper backing, matted, and contained in six blue half-morocco portfolio cases with gilt lettering that incorrectly identify them as the original drawings for Smith & Abbot (1797) (Figs. 1, 2). The portfolio cases were created by rare book firm H. P. Kraus of New York, who sold the drawings to the University of South Carolina in 1964 (Calhoun 2003). The drawings by John Abbot were rendered in a horizontal format, with figures of early stages positioned above the adults (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 10, 36). When J. E. Le Conte commissioned Abbot for these drawings in 1813, he requested that hostplants be omitted (Rogers-Price 1983). The drawings by Blanchard and Duménil were mostly rendered in a vertical format, do not include early stages, and depict only one half of dorsal adults. Nearly all of Blanchard’s drawings have a penciled outline around the figures and are signed, “E. Blanchard, pit.” (Figs. 5, 5a). Blanchard’s artistic style was highly refined and true to life. Although Abbot's figures were rearranged for the plates in B&L, virtually all of the published drawings by Blanchard and Duménil were reproduced in their original layouts. One drawing in this set portrays only the mature larva of Megathymus yuccae (Boisduval & Le Conte) with copious annotations in Latin and French by J. E. Le Conte (Table 1). It was drawn on a smaller piece of paper that was pasted onto a larger sheet. The style of this drawing is similar to smaller drawings of moth larvae in this set, most of which were probably rendered by Le Conte (Calhoun 2003). This is supported by the notes of John Abbot, who credited Le Conte (as “Mr. Le Compt”) for discovering the larva of M. yuccae. In Boisduval et al. (1832-1837), Boisduval wrote about caterpillar drawings that he had received from New York and Savannah, obviously referring to Le Conte (from New York) and Abbot (who lived for a time in Savannah, Georgia). Boisduval VOLUME 58, NUMBER 3 149 Fics. 1-2. Portfolio cases of original drawings in the Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Carolina. 1, Five of the six cases. 2, Case 1 opened to show the matted illustrations (Abbot's drawing 2 of E. marcellus is visible). (photos courtesy of Thomas Cooper Library) (1836) also noted that Le Conte had executed as many caterpillar drawings as Abbot. The drawings at the University of South Carolina are numbered in pencil and loosely arranged in taxonomic order. Most have notations that were written by Boisduval and/or Le Conte, including names used in B&L. Although I previously suspected that the majority of the inscriptions on these drawings were by Boisduval (Calhoun 2003), I have since confirmed through additional writing samples that Le Conte was responsible for many names and other notations (Fig. 6). Samuel H. Scudder examined these drawings while they were still in Boisduval’s possession and also observed that, “in some of Abbot's drawings which Dr. Boisduval received from Major LeConte is a memorandum by the latter” (Scudder 1888-1889). “Nobis,” or more often the abbreviation “nob.,” follows many of the species names. This Latin term loosely means “of us” or “of me” and was used to claim authorship of new names. Ten of the drawings possess penciled references to the pe aa B&L plates (“planches” in French) (e.g., “Pl. 1”) (Table 1, Fig. 10). Some individual figures Be numbered (Fig. 6) and three drawings even include the complete figure legends used on the published plates. On several drawings, Abbot inscribed the same Latin names employed in Smith & Abbot (1797). The source of other inscriptions is not readily identifiable. Many of the drawings by Abbot that were copied for published plates show alterations, particularly to the legs and bodies of adults. Referring to this set of drawings, Oberthiir (1920) complained that Abbot's legs and bodies were more fantasy than reality. In the preface to B&L livraison 10, Boisduval addressed criticisms from subscribers about the inaccuracy of various published figures, particularly relating to poorly formed bodies and legs. In a statement under the heading “Avis de Lun des Auteurs” [Opinion of One of the Authors], Boisduval promised to retouch Abbot's drawings and that beginning with livraison 10 the published figures would no longer exhibit these defects (an imprecise translation in Calhoun (2003) suggested the engravings were altered). The retouched drawings in South Carolina were used for plates issued after livraison 10, further supporting this connection. The style of the alterations closely matches that of Blanchard, who was pr obably instructed by Boisduval to improve and standardize the figures for the engravers. When S. H. Souder visited Boisduval, probably in 1871, he sketched at least 23 of Abbot’s larvae and pupae in these drawings. Scudder (1888-1889) published these facsimiles, some of which were later reproduced by Holland (1898) and Klots (1951) (Table 1). The auction catalog of Sotheby & Co. (1963) figured an entire moth drawing from this set (no. 106). Kraus ([1964]) and Rogers-Price (1983) figured five butterfly drawings (nos. 31 and 3, 16, 18, 21, respectively). Missing drawings. Published Plates 4-11, 19, and 20 were copied from missing Abbot drawings that were probably rendered in the same format as those in South Carolina. Oberthiir (1920) also feared that several original drawings from this set were lost. One such drawing, depicting Eurema lisa Boisduval & Le Conte, was used for B&L Plate 19 and apparently also for figures of the early stages of this species in Boisduval (1836, Pl. 2). There are fifteen plates from Abbot in B&L that or