Callophrys augustinus - (Westwood, 1852)
Brown Elfin
Other English Common Names: brown elfin
Synonym(s): Callophrys (Incisalia) augustinus (Kirby, 1837) ;Callophrys augustus (Kirby, 1937) ;Deciduphagus augustinus (Westwood, 1852) ;Incisalia augustinus (Westwood, 1852) ;Incisalia augustus (Kirby, 1837)
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Callophrys augustinus (Westwood, 1852) (TSN 188501)
French Common Names: lutin brun
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.111900
Element Code: IILEPE2180
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Callophrys
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
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: Callophrys augustinus
Taxonomic Comments: Previously placed by many authors in genus Incisalia. Referred to by some authors as I. augustinus, by others as I. augusta. By some interpretations the name augusta is preoccupied.
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 14Jun2016
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Wide-ranging abundant species.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (01Sep1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (14Jun2016)

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), Alaska (SNR), Arizona (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Connecticut (S3), Delaware (SU), District of Columbia (SH), Florida (S1), Georgia (S2S4), Idaho (S5), Illinois (SNR), Kentucky (S3), Maine (S5), Maryland (S4), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (S4), Mississippi (S1?), Montana (S5), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (S4), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Carolina (S4), Ohio (S1?), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (S3S4), Rhode Island (S4), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (S4), Utah (SNR), Vermont (S3), Virginia (S4), Washington (S5), West Virginia (S3S4), Wisconsin (S4S5), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S4), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S3), Northwest Territories (S4S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S4), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S3S5)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Newfoundland north and west to Alaska; thence south to Cali- fornia, New Mexico, Michigan, and Georgia.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Newfoundland north and west to Alaska; thence south to Cali- fornia, New Mexico, Michigan, and Georgia.

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 AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
No map available.

U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
DE New Castle (10003)*, Sussex (10005)*
FL Calhoun (12013), Gadsden (12039), Liberty (12077), Okaloosa (12091), Santa Rosa (12113)
PA Bedford (42009)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Brandywine-Christina (02040205)+*, Cacapon-Town (02070003)+, Western Lower Delmarva (02080109)+*
03 Apalachicola (03130011)+, Chipola (03130012)+, Blackwater (03140104)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Basic Description: Butterfly, Lycaenidae.
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Habitat varies regionally, in part in response to differences in foodplant. In the Rockies and eastward generally acid woodland, acid brushy places, acid barrens, or bogs with abundant low heaths or in some places with mountain laurel. When in dry true forest, as sometimes in southern New Jersey, generally becomes mostly confined to edges, openings and paths once the canopy starts to close in.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Food Comments: Caterpillar Hosts: In the East, members of the heath family (Ericaceae), including sugar huckleberry (Vaccinium vacillans) and Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum). In the west, many other plants including madrone (Arbutus) and dodder (Cuscuta). Adult Food: Nectar from flowers including blueberry, footsteps-of-spring, spicebush, willow, winter cress, and wild plum (Lotts and Naberhaus 2017).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Callophrys in part (Green Hairstreaks, Elfins, etc.)

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where the species occurs, or has occurred with potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally suitable habitat with foodplants where presence is verified by a specimen or photograph. High quality EOs may be metapopulations.
Mapping Guidance: For some species such as C. MOSSI each patch of the foodplant may need to be mapped. For many plant community boundaries can be useful in defining EOs. For all of them the EO is no larger than the community supporting the foodplant patches. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences.
If habitats occur within an discrete community matrix such as within chaparral or pine barrens communities, all occurrences within the community should be regarded as one metapopulation EO. In many cases the plant community boundaries can be used for mapping it. Likewise in many cases all colonies in a given canyon or on a ridgeline would be one EO.
Note that for open habitat species forested patches are not habitat even if the foodplant occurs, while a few such as most redbud, holly, and RHAMNUS feeding populations of C. HENRICI do not make much use of open areas.

Separation Barriers: For most species urbanized or very open environments with no trees, shrubs, or foodplants are probably barriers. For most of the open habitat species forests may be barriers although it is not known if the adults simply fly over them. Brushy habitats and small expanses of shaded residential area do not normally constitute barriers to forest or woodland species.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Separation Justification: Good data are few and habitat patch size varies enormously for the various species and with geography. Arnold (1983) working with remnant colonies of the Endangered C. MOSSI BAYENSIS documented maximum movements of only about 250 meters and says that colonies of the species occupy only up to 25 hectares. However this is an endangered taxon and this relictual colony may well have lost any dispersal tendencies. On the other hand D. Schweitzer has found single colonies of C. HENRICI in New Jersey often occupy 50-500 hectares and some of those would be best treated as merely demes in larger metapopulations. Some populations of C. AUGUSTINUS in that state appear to occupy more than 5000 hectares and certainly some populations of C. NIPHON occupy far larger areas than that. In general adults, at least females, probably move freely throughout habitat patches whatever their size but seldom leave them. An exception seems to be C. NIPHON at least in southern New Jersey where Schweitzer has collected larvae at three sites where he has never seen adults and that do not appear to be suitable adult habitat, one of them a single isolated roadside pine. Also in New Jersey has collected a female C. POLIOS more than 10 km from any known foodplant and isolated hollies sometimes have a few C. henrici larvae. Females of these species must disperse rather widely. Males of all species occupy definite perching areas (sometimes loosely called lekking areas), and for some species (HENRICI, IRUS) these may be much more restricted than where females lay eggs and thus adults eclose. Thus by casual observation the occurrence can appear far more localized than it really is. In New Jersey C. HENRICI seems much more localized at peak season than it does later when females wander widely through the forests. C. NIPHON is a notoriously good colonizer of planted pines. Despite all of this, observations of individuals even 100 meters out of at least marginal habitat are rare and so short separation distances seem warranted across unsuitable habitats, even though these should not preclude some gene flow. Species such as C. NIPHON, HENRICI, POLIOS, and AUGUSTINUS do seem to routinely occupy all suitable habitat even where it is extensive. In fact in some areas where pines are the dominant trees for many kilometers, occurrences of C. NIPHON are virtually indefinable. Thus it is reasonable to assume that observations 10 kilometers apart separated by largely suitable habitat do represent one occurrence for at least most species.
Since at least most species do colonize small scraps of habitat within a few kilometers of established colonies, C. IRUS most consistently so (Schweitzer), the ten kilometer distance should be used when major occurrences are separated by an intervening landscapes containing many patches of foodplant in at least marginal habitat with no gaps of more than two kilometers. Adults probably also recognize gross vegetation features such as forest, grassland or brushland and obviously inappropriate situations (e.g. open fields for C. HENRICI, dense swamps for most or all others) should be treated as unsuitable.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: This applies only in suitable habitats. The figure is arbitrary. In practice few habitats are that large, and in such cases inferred extent is the entire habitat At least species such as NIPHON, AUGUSTINUS, POLIOS and HENRICI which often occupy large habitats usually occupy all available habitat where they occur. For these species occurrences in this range (ca. 1000 hectares) are not unusual, although all of them also have occurrences of only a few hectares. C. IRUS and probably C. MOSSI occur in smaller patches but these are usually clustered and typically nearly all occupied and some metapopulations of the former occupy more than 1000 hectares (at least in New Jersey and New York). Still there are sufficient unknowns that occurrence over a large area should not be assumed on the basis of one observation,
Date: 19Jul2001
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 30Jun1987
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Opler, P.A.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 14May2001

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

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


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

  • Hodges, R.W. et al., eds. 1983. Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Limited and The Wedge Entomological Research Foundation, London. 284 pp.

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

  • Johnson, K. 1992. The Palaearctic "elfin" butterflies (Lycaenidae, Theclinae). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten 29(1):1-141.

  • 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.

  • Lotts, K., and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2017. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Available online: (Version December 2018).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Pelham, J.P. 2008. Catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. Journal of research on the Lepidoptera 40. 672 pages.

  • 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.

  • Poole, R. W., and P. Gentili (eds.). 1996. Nomina Insecta Nearctica: a checklist of the insects of North America. Volume 3 (Diptera, Lepidoptera, Siphonaptera). Entomological Information Services, Rockville, MD.

  • Sikes, D.S. 2017. DNA barcoding Alask butterflies. AKES Newsletter 10(1):9-16. Online. Available:

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at

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 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 (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:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

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.