Atrytonopsis hianna - (Scudder, 1868)
Dusted Skipper
Other English Common Names: dusted skipper
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Atrytonopsis hianna (Scudder, 1868) (TSN 706596)
French Common Names: hespérie pointillée
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108091
Element Code: IILEP79010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Atrytonopsis
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B02OPL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Atrytonopsis hianna
Taxonomic Comments: Atrytonopsis loammi is now usually considered a separate species (see Schweitzer, et al., 2011). Many authors recognize subspecies A. h. turneri, which is widespread in the Great Plains.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G4G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 02Aug2011
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1999
Rounded Global Status: G4 - Apparently Secure
Reasons: This is a a widespread, but patchily distributed, skipper that occurs in a variety of mostly dry, often sandy, grasslands and (eastward) on right of ways in sandy wooded or barrens regions. Some large metapopulatons exist in remnant barrens, savannas and prairies. Habitats are threatened in some parts of range, not in others. Heavily dependent on artificial fortuitously managed airports and right of ways eastward and on remnant prairie preserves in parts of the Midwest. Considered secure in several more western states, for example there are some extensive populations of subspecies turneri in Texas and Nebraska and probably elsewhere. There are some some large secure well managed managed populations on several eastern airports and right of ways. Neither subspecies is presently imperiled rangewide but it is unclear if either should be considered demonstrably secure in the long term, but both seem secure for now.
Nation: United States
National Status: N4N5 (01Sep1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N3 (23Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (SU), Arkansas (S2S3), Colorado (S2), Connecticut (S3S4), Delaware (S1), District of Columbia (SH), Georgia (S2S4), Illinois (S3), Indiana (S1S2), Iowa (S3), Kansas (S2S3), Kentucky (S2S3), Louisiana (S3), Maine (SNR), Maryland (S4), Massachusetts (S4), Michigan (S3), Minnesota (S4), Mississippi (S3?), Missouri (S2S4), Montana (SNR), Nebraska (S3), New Hampshire (S3?), New Jersey (S4), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S2S3), North Carolina (S4), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S1), Oklahoma (S4), Pennsylvania (S1S2), Rhode Island (S3), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (S4S5), Texas (SNR), Vermont (S1), Virginia (S4?), West Virginia (S1), Wisconsin (S3), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Manitoba (S3), Ontario (S1), Saskatchewan (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Range is somewhat discontinuous from New Hampshire west across the Great Lakes states to southern Manitoba and the western Dakotas, eastern Wyoming and extreme northeastern Colorado (Brock and Kaufman, 2003). Ranges southward to the Gulf states eastward and northwestTexas westward (Opler and Krizek, 1984; Stanford and Opler, 1993; Opler, 1994, Brock and Kaufman, 2003). This range does not appear to overlap that of any other Atrytonpsis species now, but closely approached the now extirpated A. loammi in the coastal Carolinas.

Area of Occupancy: Unknown 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Area of occupancy is not known. Many colonies occupy only a few hectares. Metapopulations often occur in multiple patches of a few hectares each or less of habitat along a powerline or in a large natural community.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Widespread range, but apparently local, colonial distribution, but there are certainly well over 100, and probably several hundred, occurrences. Colonies are often clustered into metapopulations, for example within the same woodland community or along a pwerline, which would be the actual occurrences.

Population Size: 2500 - 100,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: The Dusted Skipper is almost always found in localized colonies closely assocaited with patches of the foodplant. These may or may not be demes in metapopulations. Even by skipper standards this one is usually scarce and many colonies are probably only a few dozen adults per year. There are no actual population estimates which would require mark-release-recapture.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to very many (13 to >125)
Viability/Integrity Comments: At least few dozen in the Northeast and Great lakes region, unclear elsewhere.

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Threats vary greatly by region and actual habitat. Some rmenant habitats may be threatened in much of range although many larger ones or clusters of populations are probably not. Widespread alteration, fragmentation, and destruction of prairie habitats has effected and isolated populations of prairie dwelling populations, leaving them susceptible to local extinction due to stochastic events or anthropogenic disturbance (Panzer, 1988). But there are still extensive populations in places, e.g. north Texas, Nebraska sandhills, and many small relatively unthreatened ones in parts of New england and the upper Midwest. Some eastern right of way occurrences could be eliminated by increased use of herbicides. Small prairie occurrences may or may not be threatened by excessive prescribed fires. Prairies and Woodlands containing food plants are threatened by weedy invasion in some parts of the range. While no actual population estimates are known (counts are not population estimates), even for a skipper this one tends to be observed at low density which does suggest higher than usual probability of loss of small populations.

Short-term Trend: Decline of <30% to relatively stable
Short-term Trend Comments: Fairly stable eastward where it is already largely limited to airports and right of ways, especially where these are close to pine barren or savanna remnants. Less clear westward. Not disappearing rapidly, but probably gradually declining due to habitat loss and failure to persist in small or poorly managed (e.g. excessively burned) prairie remnants.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Has lost by far most of its original prairie and savanna habitat west of the Appalachians, but it is less clear how much it has really declined eastward where it now occurs mainly in anthropogenic habitats and originsal habitats are not well known.

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
Environmental Specificity Comments: May not have many special needs beyond abundance of the foodplant. Might require patches of open ground between foodplants. Appears to be somewhat tolerant of some habitat alteration, based on association with old fields, woodland clearings, airports, and powerline swaths. However, fragility may be increased as the skipper is usually found in localized colonies (Opler and Krizek, 1984). In prairies, necters mainly on Penstemon species, more general eastward.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Inventory prairie habitats.

Protection Needs: Protect native prairies and foothill ridges through ownership, easement and cooperative management agreements. Better information is needed regarding effects of prescribed burning.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000 to >2,500,000 square km (about 80,000 to >1,000,000 square miles)) Range is somewhat discontinuous from New Hampshire west across the Great Lakes states to southern Manitoba and the western Dakotas, eastern Wyoming and extreme northeastern Colorado (Brock and Kaufman, 2003). Ranges southward to the Gulf states eastward and northwestTexas westward (Opler and Krizek, 1984; Stanford and Opler, 1993; Opler, 1994, Brock and Kaufman, 2003). This range does not appear to overlap that of any other Atrytonpsis species now, but closely approached the now extirpated A. loammi in the coastal Carolinas.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, CO, CT, DC, DE, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV, WY
Canada MB, ON, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Clark (05019), Faulkner (05045), Hempstead (05057)
CO Boulder (08013), Custer (08027)*, Douglas (08035), El Paso (08041)*, Huerfano (08055)*, Larimer (08069), Pueblo (08101)*, Teller (08119)*
DE Sussex (10005)
IA Allamakee (19005), Dickinson (19059), Fremont (19071), Harrison (19085), Jasper (19099)*, Mills (19129), Monona (19133), Palo Alto (19147), Plymouth (19149), Pottawattamie (19155), Poweshiek (19157)*, Woodbury (19193)
IN Crawford (18025), Jasper (18073), La Porte (18091), Lake (18089), Newton (18111), Perry (18123), Porter (18127), Starke (18149)
LA Bienville (22013)*, Caldwell (22021)*, East Baton Rouge (22033), East Feliciana (22037), Grant (22043)*, Jackson (22049)*, La Salle (22059)*, Natchitoches (22069), St. Helena (22091), Tangipahoa (22105), Vernon (22115), Winn (22127)*
MI Alcona (26001), Cheboygan (26031), Crawford (26039), Grand Traverse (26055), Iosco (26069), Kalkaska (26079), Lake (26085)*, Mason (26105)*, Mecosta (26107)*, Missaukee (26113), Monroe (26115)*, Montmorency (26119), Muskegon (26121), Newaygo (26123), Oceana (26127)*, Oscoda (26135), Otsego (26137)
NE Arthur (31005), Banner (31007), Cedar (31027), Cherry (31031), Dawson (31047), Furnas (31065), Garden (31069), Greeley (31077), Harlan (31083), Knox (31107), McPherson (31117), Sheridan (31161), Sioux (31165), Thomas (31171), Wheeler (31183)
NH Merrimack (33013)
NY Albany (36001), Dutchess (36027), Orange (36071), Saratoga (36091), Suffolk (36103), Westchester (36119)
OK Cherokee (40021), Johnston (40069), Pontotoc (40123)
PA Berks (42011), Chester (42029), Lancaster (42071), Monroe (42089)*, Montgomery (42091)*, Philadelphia (42101)*
RI Bristol (44001), Kent (44003), Providence (44007), Washington (44009)
VT Bennington (50003), Windham (50025)
WI Adams (55001)*, Buffalo (55011), Burnett (55013), Clark (55019), Crawford (55023), Douglas (55031), Eau Claire (55035), Grant (55043), Jackson (55053), Monroe (55081), Pierce (55093), Sauk (55111), Vernon (55123), Wood (55141)*
WV Lewis (54041), Nicholas (54067)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 Merrimack (01070006)+, West (01080107)+, Blackstone (01090003)+, Narragansett (01090004)+, Pawcatuck-Wood (01090005)+, Housatonic (01100005)+, Saugatuck (01100006)+
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, Middle Hudson (02020006)+, Lower Hudson (02030101)+, Hackensack-Passaic (02030103)+, Southern Long Island (02030202)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+*, Lehigh (02040106)+*, Schuylkill (02040203)+, Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+, Lower Susquehanna (02050306)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+
04 Little Calumet-Galien (04040001)+, Lower Grand (04050006)+*, Pere Marquette-White (04060101)+, Muskegon (04060102)+, Manistee (04060103)+, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+, Cheboygan (04070004)+*, Black (04070005)+, Thunder Bay (04070006)+, Au Sable (04070007)+, Au Gres-Rifle (04080101)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+*, Raisin (04100002)+*
05 West Fork (05020002)+, Gauley (05050005)+, Blue-Sinking (05140104)+
07 Upper St. Croix (07030001)+, Lower St. Croix (07030005)+, Rush-Vermillion (07040001)+, Buffalo-Whitewater (07040003)+, La Crosse-Pine (07040006)+, Black (07040007)+, Eau Claire (07050006)+, Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Upper Iowa (07060002)+, Castle Rock (07070003)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Kickapoo (07070006)+, North Skunk (07080106)+*, Middle Iowa (07080208)+*, Lower Iowa (07080209)+*, Upper Des Moines (07100002)+, Kankakee (07120001)+, Chicago (07120003)+
08 Little Missouri (08040103)+, Castor (08040302)+*, Dugdemona (08040303)+*, Little (08040304)+*, Amite (08070202)+, Tickfaw (08070203)+, Tangipahoa (08070205)+, Upper Calcasieu (08080203)+, Whisky Chitto (08080204)+
10 Hat (10120108)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+, Middle North Platte-Scotts Bluff (10180009)+, Pumpkin (10180013)+, Lower North Platte (10180014)+, Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek (10190003)+, St. Vrain (10190005)+, Big Thompson (10190006)+, Cache La Poudre (10190007)+, Middle Platte-Buffalo (10200101)+, Upper Middle Loup (10210001)+, Dismal (10210002)+, Cedar (10210010)+, Blackbird-Soldier (10230001)+, Floyd (10230002)+, Little Sioux (10230003)+, Monona-Harrison Ditch (10230004)+, Big Papillion-Mosquito (10230006)+, Boyer (10230007)+, Keg-Weeping Water (10240001)+, West Nishnabotna (10240002)+, Nishnabotna (10240004)+, Harlan County Reservoir (10250009)+
11 Upper Arkansas (11020002)+*, Fountain (11020003)+*, Huerfano (11020006)+*, Illinois (11110103)+, Lake Conway-Point Remove (11110203)+, Blue (11140102)+, Clear Boggy (11140104)+, Lower Little (11140109)+, Lower Red-Lake Iatt (11140207)+, Saline Bayou (11140208)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: See almost any butterfly book that covers the eastern or central US, but as pointed out by Schweitzer et al.(2011), Glassberg et al. (2000, Plate 37, Fig. 2) illustrate a very dark female Hesperia metea as this species. This is a medium sized, typically 30-35 mm, dark skipper with no orange, red. or yellow. Any spots present are whitish. There is no spot band on the hindwing beneath. The outer portion of the hindwing beneath is heavily frosted with gray. The palps are white and the top portion of the eyes are also ringed with white. These facial markings are well illustrated by Brock and Kaufman (2003).
General Description: This fairly large (male forewing X = 1.7 cm, range 1.5-1.8 cm; female forewing X = 1.7 cm, range 1.6-1.8 cm.) medium brown to gray black skipper has pointed elongate FW (forewing) with three white subapical spots, one each with three white subapical spots, one each postdiscally in spaces M3-Cu1 and Cu1-Cu2, and sometimes a small one in the cell (Opler and Krizek, 1984; Stanford, 1981). The VFW (ventral forewing) apex and much of the VHW (ventral hindwing) are washed with delicate lilac-gray scales, and there is a suggestion of discal and postdiscal dark bands on the VHW. The uncheckered fringes are only slightly lighter than the wings (Stanford, 1981). Ventrally, the wings are dusted outwardly with gray and there is at least a single white spot at the base of the hindwing. There may be a postbasal and postmedian series of white spots on the ventral hindwings. Males have an inconspicuous stigma. The body and wing bases are darker than the remainder of the wings above (Stanford, 1981). The newly laid egg is bright lemon yellow and hemispherical. The mature caterpillar is pale pink-lavender dorsally, with the prothorax and lateral portions of the abdomen pale gray. The anal segment is pale brown and the prothoracic shield is dark brown. The body is also covered with long yellow-white hair. The head is deep red- purple. The pupa is dark brown with the wing cases light brown. The thoracic spiracles are ruby red (Opler and Krizek, 1984).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Adults are rarely seen out of habitat except to visit flowers within a few dozen meters. Presumably there is some local dispersal since the habitat occupancy rate is high in most of the range.
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Habitats vary but are probably always dominated by native grasses, usually little bluestem at least eastward, and include open dry fields, open woodlands, barrens, mid grass and tall grass prairies, foothills, prairie gulches (Scott, 1986; Opler, 1992, 1999), outcrops and glades, often in the context of current or former pine or pine-oak barrens, oak savannas, and on various kinds of rock outcrops. Old fields, airports, woodland clearings, and power-line swaths are commonly utilized especially eastward. The key habitat feature is a dominance of the foodplant grass generally with intermixed patches of bare sand or rock. The species usually does not occur, at least eastward, where there is nearly complete ground by other, often early season, grasses or forbs. In New Jersey adults also occur in small numbers (but usually not as singles) in boggy habitats with Andropogon glomeratus. Most of the more natural habitats are subject to fire, and the immatures (usually larvae) must either survive burning or adults be good colonists (Shapiro, 1965 in Opler and Krizek, 1984; Pyle, 1981). However, now many eastern habitats are mowed right of ways, some others are edaphically maintained openings. Westernmost populations inhabit relatively undisturbed canyons and open pine woods from 5300' to 7200' (1600-2200m). Males perch in flat clearings or gullies, usually on the ground (Stanford, 1981) westward and on bare spots on sand or rock or paths eastward.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Larvae feed on big bluestem (Andropogo gerardii) and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparius) (Opler and Krizek, 1984; Scott, 1986) and probably Andropogon glomeratus. Larvae eat A. gerardii in the Ozark region, but the species seems to be associated with S. scoparius in Colorado (Ferris and Brown, 1981) and with A. gerardii or both in most of the east. Adults take nectar from a wide varierty of flowers, including Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, wild strawberry, vervain, red clover, phlox, and wild hyacinth (Opler and Krizek, 1984; Stanford, 1981) and exotic vetches. Adults nectar mainly on Penstemon species in the western Great Plains and Rocky Mountain foothills (Opler, pers. obs.).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Adults have a short flight from mid May-early June in the Rocky Mountains and much of the Midwest and Northeast, sometimes later into June in New England. They occur in April or April-May southward. Where they fly together, A. hianna appears when Hesperia metea adults are becoming worn. Larva hatch about a week or two later (late May or June most places) and are probably more or less active most of the summer but may aestivate some. Nearly mature larvae overwinter within a tent of several leaves sewn together attached to host plant well off the ground (Stanford, 1981; Opler and Krizek, 1984). Pupation occurs in spring in a sealed case at the base of the grass clump 1-3 inches above ground (Heitzman, 1974, in Opler and Krizek, 1984). All populations are univoltine with adults in spring, including those essentially within the former range of the bivoltine A. loammi.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Hesperiinae

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where the species occurs, or has occurred, where there is potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a suitable habitat with the larval foodplant where at least one adult has been verified by a photograph or preferably a specimen. Photographs must be diagnostic and will probably need to show both wing surfaces, and there will be circumstances where only a specimen will suffice. Specimens are usually much easier to obtain. Sight records are not an acceptable basis for a new occurrence. Note that these Specs should not be applied to temporary seasonal colonies of common migratory species.
Mapping Guidance: Note the suitable habitat distance will not apply often since most habitats today are no more than a few hundred hectares. However, many were once major landscape features. Suitable habitat distances may be used for barrens, savanna, and prairie species across degraded portions of these habitats that still contain some of the foodplant grasses or nectar flowers. Usually habitat boundaries are fairly obvious based on vegetation (e.g. suitable grassland). With metapopulations map the main breeding sites separately within the overall occurrence. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences for individual species. Note many, if not most, habitat specialists feed one more than one grass genus at many or all occurrences. Note some species readily and some almost never entere wooded areas, so check habitat fields for the species before mapping.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 4 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: When multiple occupied habitats occur within a large community complex or remnants of one such as patchily within a barren, savanna, or prairie remnant use the suitable habitat distance. When occurrences in a region are all small (under 10 hectares) and are widely scattered and there is some actual evidence of persistent patch vacancy, a separation distance of one kilometer may be used instead of two.
Separation Justification: These are mostly potentially strong fliers and the weaker ones like least skipper are often still very good colonizers probably because they fly persistently. Few species fly slower than 20 km per hour but they do not often seem to sustain flight for very long. A few are migratory and move hundreds of kilometers. Even some of the rarest taxa such as ATRYTONE AROGOS AROGOS and HESPERIA ATTALUS SLOSSONAE (both of which have individual Specs) are documented as moving several kilometers and implied to move much farther. HESPERIA LEONARDUS still shows up as singles in gardens and on roadsides ten kilometers or more from at least one of its three remaining large occurrences in New Jersey. Skippers do find and occupy small habitat patches up to a few kilometers from major ones, but are very often absent from small or recently created habitats five kilometers or more from good habitats or even over shorter distances separated by highly unsuitable habitats. Schweitzer notes adults of several species readily fly over forests which obviously would allow them to move between habitats. Most of them will move at least a few hundred meters to find nectar. While exceptions do occur, in general hesperiine skipper colonies occupy nearly all or none of a given suitable habitat or habitat complex. However very often mere presence of the larval foodplant does not mean suitable habitat.


Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: In most cases the inferred extent is simply all contiguous or nearly contiguous habitat and usually this will be a few to a few hundred hectares which for almost all species is likely to be fully occupied even if at uneven densities. Use this distance only where the habitat is that extensive, but generally if the taxon is present any habitat patches within a kilometer will be occupied unless the species is excluded for example by extremely high fire frequencies or complete burns or lack of nectar. This figure is based in part on observations for ATRYTONE AROGOS AROGOS in New Jersey where it occurs in clusters of patches up to about a kilometer apart with within cluster patch occupancy nearly 100%, except approaching zero where fire intervals are about two years or less. This is one of the most imperiled skippers in North America and it is highly likely most other taxa are at least as effective colonizers. Another consideration in inferring any extent is that often the exact habitat is not clear and since it cannot be defined on the basis of any particular grass species there may be some doubt. One should not infer across any large distance based on one observation but if the habitat extends that far, a kilometer seems safe and most species can cover that distance in a few tens of seconds.
Date: 14Sep2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Notes: Thes Specs are applied with reservation to AMBLYSCIRTES species.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 06Sep2011
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D. F., P.A. Opler, Simonson, S.E.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 02Aug2011
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Schweitzer, D.F., SIMONSON CNHP, OPLER

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, T.J. 1997. The butterflies of West Virginia and their caterpillars. Pittsburgh, PA. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Allen, T.J., J.P. Brock, and J. Glassberg. 2005. Caterpillars in the field and garden. Oxford University Press, New York. 232 pp.

  • Allen, Thomas, 1998. Butterflies of West Virginia and Their Caterpillars. University of Pittsburgh Press.

  • Belth, Jeffrey E. 2013. Butterflies of Indiana A Field Guide. Indiana University Press.Bloomington, IN.

  • Bess, James. 2005. A Report on the Remnant-Dependent Insects of the Coastal Zone Natural Area Remnants in Northwest Indiana. 23 pp..

  • Brock, J. P., and K. Kaufman. 2003. Butterflies of North America. Kaufman Focus Field Guides, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY 284 pp.

  • Brown, F. M. 1957. Colorado Butterflies. Proceedings; Numbers Three through Seven. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO.

  • COVELL, C.V., JR. 1999. THE BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA) OF KENTUCKY: AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST. KENTUCKY STATE NATURE PRESERVES COMMISSION SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERIES 6:1-220.

  • Ferris, Clifford and F. M. Brown. 1981. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 442 pp.

  • General Status 2015, Environment Canada. 2015. Manitoba butterfly species list and subnational ranks proposed by Environment Canada contractor.

  • Glassberg, J. 1993. Butterflies through binoculars: A field guide to butterflies in the Boston-New York-Washington region. Oxford University Press: New York. 160 pp.

  • Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 400 pp.

  • Gochfeld, M. and J. Burger. 1997. Butterflies of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press: Rutgers, New Jersey. 327 pp.

  • Heitzman, J. Richard and Joan E. Heitzman, 1987. Butterflies and Moths of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 385pp.

  • Holmes, A.M., Q.F. Hess, R.R. Tasker and A.J. Hanks. 1991. The Ontario Butterfly Atlas. Toronto Entomologists' Association, Toronto, Ontario. viii + 167 pp.

  • Huber, R. L. 1981. An updated checklist of Minnesota butterflies. Minnesota Entomological Association Newsletter 14(3):15-25.

  • Iftner, D. C., J. A. Shuey, and J. V. Calhoun. 1992. Butterflies and Skippers of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin. New Series, Vol. 9, no. 1, xii + 212 pp., 40 color plates.

  • Klassen,P.,Westwood, A.R., Preston. W.B. and W.B. McKillop. 1989. The butterflies of Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Winnipeg. 290 pp.

  • Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall, and J.D. LaFontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, Canada. 280 pp. + color plates.

  • Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall, and J.D. Lafontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario. 280 pp.

  • Miller, L. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981. A Catalogue/Checklist of the Butterflies of America North of Mexico. The Lepidopterists' Society Memoir No. 2, Sarasota, Florida. 280 pp.

  • Natural Resources Commission. 2014. Roster of Indiana Animals, Insects, and Plants That Are Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Rare. Information Bulletin #2 (Sixth Amendment. 20pp.

  • O'Donnell, J.E., L.F. Gall., and D.L. Wagner, eds. 2007. The Connecticut Butterfly Atlas. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford. 376 pp.

  • Opler, P. A. 1994. County Atlas for Eastern United States Butterflies. National Biological Service. Fort Collins, CO.

  • Opler, P. A. and G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains.

  • Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.

  • Opler, P.A. (chair), J.M. Burns, J.D. LaFontaine, R.K. Robbins, and F. Sperling. 1998. Scientific names of North American butterflies. Fort Collins, CO. Unpublished review draft.

  • Opler, P.A. and G.O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains, an illustrated natural history. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. 294pp.

  • Panzer, R. 1988. Managing prairie remnants for insect conservation. Natural Areas Journal 8(2):83-90.

  • Pelham, J. P. 2008. A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada with a complete bibliography of the descriptive and systematic literature. The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera. Volume 40. 658 pp. Revised 14 February, 2012.

  • Pohl, G.R., J. Landry, B. C. Schmidt, J.D. Lafontaine, J.T. Troubridge, A.D. Macaulay, E.J. Van Neiukerken, J.R. DeWaard, J.J. Dombroskie, J. Klymko, V. Nazari, and K. Stead. 2018. Annotated Checklist of the Moth and Butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Canada and Alaska. Pensoft Publishers. Bulgaria. 580 pp.

  • Pohl, G.R.  J-F. Landry, B.C. Schmidt, J.D. Lafontaine, J.T. Troubridge, A.D. Macaulay, E.van Nieukerken, J.R. deWaard, J.J. Dombroskie, J. Klymko, V. Nazari and K. Stead. 2018. Annotated checklist of the moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Canada and Alaska. Pensoft Publishers. 580 pp.

  • Pyle, R. M. 1981. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Butterflies. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. 916 pp. + color plates.

  • Pyle, Robert Michael. 1981. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Butterflies. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 915 pp.

  • Riotte, J.C.E. 1992. Annotated List of Ontario Lepidoptera. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 208 pp.

  • SCHWEITZER, DALE. 1993. MEMORANDUM RE: REGIONAL BUTTERFLY BOOK BY JEFFREY GLASSBERG AND RELATED COMMENTS ON BUTTERFLY STATE RANKS.

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA. 583 pp.

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The Butterflies of North America: A Natural History and Field Guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

  • Scott, J. A. 1986. The butterflies of North America: a natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 583 pp.

  • Selby, G., and D. C. Glenn-Lewin. 1989. A systematic inventory, population monitoring program, and ecological study of rare Lepidoptera at the Prairie Coteau Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), Pipestone County, Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 48 pp.

  • Selby, G., and D. C. Glenn-Lewin. 1990. An ecological study of the plant/butterfly associations and their response to management at the Prairie Coteau Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), Pipestone County, Minnesota. Final report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 30 pp.

  • Selby, Gerald and David C. Glenn-Lewin. 1988-1989. An Ecological Study of the Plant/Butterfly Associations and their Response to Management, at the Praire Coteau Scientific and Natural Area (SNA), Pipestone County, Minnesota. Funded by the MN DNR, Section of Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program and The Nature Conservancy. Results in unpublished report.

  • Shapiro, A.M. 1974. Butterflies and Skippers of New York State. Search 4:1-60.

  • Shapiro, Arthur M. 1966. Butterflies of the Delaware Valley. The American Entomological Society. Special Publication. 79pp.

  • Shuey, John. 1995. Indiana S-Ranks for Butterflies. Memorandum to Cloyce Hedge. 10 pp.

  • Shull, Ernest M. 1987. The Butterflies of Indiana. Publ. by Indiana Acad. Science, distributed by Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis, 262 pp.

  • Stanford, R. E. 1981. Hesperiodea. In: Ferris, C. D. and F. M. Brown. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. pp. 67-140.

  • Stanford, R. E. 1981. Hesperiodea. In: Ferris, C. D. and F. M. Brown. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. pp. 67-140.

  • Stanford, Ray E. and Paul A. Opler. 1993. Atlas of Western USA Butterflies. Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado. 275 pp.

  • Stanford, Ray E. and Paul A. Opler. 1993. Atlas of western U.S.A. butterflies, including adjacent parts of Canada and Mexico. Self-published, Denver, CO. 265 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.