Calopteryx aequabilis - Say, 1839
River Jewelwing
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Calopteryx aequabilis Say, 1839 (TSN 102056)
French Common Names: caloptéryx à taches apicales
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120644
Element Code: IIODO65010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Dragonflies and Damselflies
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.
Concept Reference Code: A99PAU01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Calopteryx aequabilis
Taxonomic Comments: Isolated populations in the west may be valid subspecies and merit further study (Westfall and May 2006).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 10May2016
Global Status Last Changed: 05Nov1987
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: It is distributed broadly across northern and central North America from extreme southern British Columbia and north-central Alberta (noticeably absent from the Yukon) east to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New England, south to California, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa and Virginia; and spotty in the west in southern Washington and east of the Cascade Mountains.

Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Nov1987)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (28Jul2017)

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 California (SNR), Colorado (SH), Connecticut (S4), Idaho (SNR), Illinois (S1), Indiana (S1), Iowa (SNR), Maine (S5), Massachusetts (S4S5), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Montana (S4), Nebraska (SNR), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (SNR), New York (S3S4), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (S1), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (S3), Rhode Island (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Utah (S1), Vermont (S5), Virginia (SH), Washington (S4), Wisconsin (S5), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Alberta (S3S4), British Columbia (S3), Manitoba (S4), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S3), Northwest Territories (SU), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S4), Quebec (S5), Saskatchewan (S4)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: It is distributed broadly across northern and central North America from extreme southern British Columbia and north-central Alberta (noticeably absent from the Yukon) east to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New England, south to California, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa and Virginia; and spotty in the west in southern Washington and east of the Cascade Mountains (Cannings, 2003; Nikula et al., 2003; Paulson, 1999; Westfall and May, 1996; Paulson and Dunkle, 2009).

Number of Occurrences: > 300

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) It is distributed broadly across northern and central North America from extreme southern British Columbia and north-central Alberta (noticeably absent from the Yukon) east to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and New England, south to California, Nevada, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, Iowa and Virginia; and spotty in the west in southern Washington and east of the Cascade Mountains (Cannings, 2003; Nikula et al., 2003; Paulson, 1999; Westfall and May, 1996; Paulson and Dunkle, 2009).

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 CA, CO, CT, IA, ID, IL, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SD, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WY
Canada AB, BC, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NJ Morris (34027), Sussex (34037), Warren (34041)
OH Geauga (39055)
PA Bucks (42017)*, Centre (42027)*, Erie (42049), Lackawanna (42069), Luzerne (42079), Lycoming (42081), Mifflin (42087)*, Monroe (42089), Susquehanna (42115), Union (42119)*, Warren (42123), Wayne (42127)
UT Box Elder (49003)*, Juab (49023)*, Utah (49049)*, Weber (49057)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Upper Delaware (02040101)+, Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Middle Delaware-Musconetcong (02040105)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, Schuylkill (02040203)+*, Upper Susquehanna (02050101)+, Upper West Branch Susquehanna (02050201)+*, Lower West Branch Susquehanna (02050206)+, Lower Susquehanna-Penns (02050301)+*
04 Cuyahoga (04110002)+
05 Upper Allegheny (05010001)+, French (05010004)+
16 Lower Weber (16020102)+*, Utah Lake (16020201)+*, Spanish Fork (16020202)+*
17 Raft (17040210)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: The river jewelwing can be easily separated from other members of the genus by the dark bands at the tips of the wings. Both males and females are long and slender and have bright metallic green bodies and colored wings. Males have blue reflections in the metallic green and wings are clear at the base with broad, dark brown, apical bands. Males have clear wings with black tips. Females usually have dark brown wing tips, but the wing bases have yellow-brown shading and anterior wing margins are a contrasting bright white. Female wings are generally paler (Cannings, 2002; Westfall and May, 1996). Nymphs tend to be found on larger, more open streams and rivers than the ebony jewelwing, Calopteryx maculata.

Diagnostic Characteristics: The first antennal segment equal to or longer than succeeding 6 segments together; labium (ligula) with a deep, open, median cleft. Labium cleft only to base of palpal lobes. Gills long and slender with many thin marginal hairs, but no stiff setae along the gill margins; common statewide on shady streams. Median gill without stout spines, only thin, short setae and few long hair-like setae along margins; no stout spines on posterior portion of lateral carinae of sbdominal segments 9 and 10. Very early instars of Calopteryx maculata and the similar Calopteryx aequabilis were distinguishable based on the head width and length of the proximal antennal segment. In C. maculata, the length of antennal segment 1 is approximately 0.85x than the width of the head across eyes; while the tubercles behind the eyes are prominent and acute, raised above the level of eyes; and the hind femur of the final instar larva is 7.5 mm or less. In C. aequabilis, the length of antennal segment 1 is approximately 0.95x or greater than the width of the head across eyes; while the tubercles behind eyes are low and rounded, not raised above level of eyes; and the hind femur of the final instar larva is 8.2 mm or more (Martin, 1939).

Reproduction Comments: The larval life cycle is typically two or three years long (Martin, 1939). Flight period is from mid-June to early September in British Columbia (Cannings, 2002), early June to early September in Washington (Paulson, 1999), mid-May to mid-September in Oregon (Johnson and Valley, 2005), May to August in California (Biggs, 2000), mid-June to early September in Idaho (Logan, 1967), June to September in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin (DuBois, 2005), mid-June to late August in Ohio (Glotzhober and McShaffrey, 2002), mid-May to mid-August in Massachusetts (Nikula et al., 2003), and late May to late August in Nova Scotia (Conrad and Herman, 1990). Males are territorial defending oviposition sites and this is one of the few damselflies that court females. Courtship involves fluttering back and forth in front of a perched female and by males flinging their bodies onto the water's surface in courtship displays. Mating usually occurs on vegetation very close to the water after which the male returns to his territorial perch to guard the egg-laying female. Females lay eggs singly submerged below the water's surface. Either the tip of the abdomen or the entire female may be submerged. Adults are often found perched on streamsides in emergent vegetation often within a few feet of the shoreline. They may also fly low over the water in a bouncy manner (see Cannings, 2003; Conrad and Herman, 1987; DuBois, 2005; Martin, 1939).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, MEDIUM RIVER, Riffle
Habitat Comments: Larvae live in small to medium-sized, warm rivers and streams; especially along swiftly flowing riffle segments. They can typically be found in underwater tree roots and aquatic vegetation. Adults are often perched nearby in a head down position along streams and rivers (Biggs, 2000; Cannings, 2003; Conrad and Herman 1987; Nikula et al., 2003; Westfall and May, 1996).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: River-Breeding Damselfly Odonates

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.Occurrences are based on some evidence of historical or current presence of single or multiple specimens ideally with evidence of on-site breeding (teneral adults, mating pairs, territorial males, ovipositing females, larvae, or exuviae) at a given location with potential breeding habitat. Although oviposition may not necessarily yield progeny that survive to adulthood (Fincke, 1992) and movements resembling oviposition may not necessarily result in egg deposition (Okazawa and Ubukata, 1978; Martens, 1992; 1994), presence of on-site oviposition is here accepted as an indicator of a minimum element occurrence because the time and effort involved in determining success of emergence is beyond the scope of the general survey. As adults of some species might disperse moderate distances (see below), only sites with available larval habitat can be considered appropriate for a minimum occurrence. Single, non-breeding adults captured away from potential suitable breeding habitat should not be treated as element occurrences. Evidence is derived from reliable published observation or collection data; unpublished, though documented (i.e. government or agency reports, web sites, etc.) observation or collection data; or museum specimen information. A photograph may be accepted as documentation of an element occurrence for adults only (nymphs and subimagos are too difficult to identify in this manner) provided that the photograph shows diagnostic features that clearly delineate the species from other species with similar features. Sight records, though valuable, should not be accepted as the basis for new element occurrences. Instead, such records should be utilized to further study an area to verify the element occurrence in that area.
Separation Barriers: Within catchments there are likely no significant barriers to movement of sexually mature adults between microhabitats, with even extensive sections of inappropriate waterway or major obstructions to flow being readily traversed by adults within the flight season. Dams large enough to cause extensive pooling may serve as separation barriers.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: None
Separation Justification: Odonate dispersal capability has been poorly documented with long-range movements inferred from observations in transit and analogy with other insects (Conrad et al., 1999; Corbet, 1999). Adults are known to wander, some over great distances (not so for damselflies). Finer scale movement patterns (i.e. meters to tens of meters) for damselflies were found to be a function of behavioral responses to the probability of crossing a patch boundary (patch scale permeability) and the rate of movement in a given habitat patch (viscosity) (Jonson and Taylor, 2000a; 2000b); wherein transplanted Calopteryx spp. exhibited a greater propensity to move away from streams with some degree of forest cover as opposed to streams with no forest cover. In other words, the likelihood of inter-habitat movement is higher within fragmented landscapes than within continuous forested landscapes (see also Pither and Taylor, 1998; Taylor and Merriam, 1995). Mass migration over great distances is not herein considered when drafting separation distances as such behavior is limited to few species (e.g. Anax junius, Libellula quadrimaculata and other Libellula spp., Sympetrum spp.), occurs unpredictably and infrequently (10 year cycles for L. quadrimaculata), are unidirectional or intergenerational (Freeland et al., 2003), or occurs under unusual circumstances such as irritation by trematode parasites (Dumont and Hinnekint, 1973) or during major weather events (Moskowitz et al., 2001; Russell et al., 1998). Further, long-distance migration is much more frequently observed in dragonflies than in damselflies.

Corbet (1999) estimated the average distance traveled for a commuting flight (between reproductive and roosting or foraging sites) to be less than 200 m but sometimes greater than one km. Distance traveled is generally greatest for river-breeding odonates, but can vary considerably between taxa (Corbet, 1999). Both D. Paulson and S. Valley (personal communication, 1998) suggest a population should be defined by the river drainage in which it is found, but drainages or catchments vary by orders of magnitude in size and isolation so it is not obvious how to effect this recommendation. Heymer (1972) found 54% of displaced Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis returned to their capture site following a 2 km displacement while no individuals returned following a 6 km displacement. Pither and Taylor (1998) found the damselflies, Calopteryx aequabilis and Calopteryx maculata, capable of moving from forest to stream through 700 meters of forest or pasture. Beukema (2002) similarly found immature individuals of Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis in Spain remaining in the area of emergence during their first week then moved up to a few hundred meters during the following week. Movement ceased once males defended a territory. Moore (1983) found Megalagrion heterogamias, Megalagrion nigrohammatum, and Megalagrion orestitrophum in Hawaii may present territorial behavior, remaining close to breeding sites, but evidence was somewhat inconclusive. Evidence for territorial behavior in Megalagrion blackburni was inconclusive.

The combination of breeding dispersal in the range of one to a few km with the potential for periodic long distance dispersal providing landscapes are not fragmented has led to the somewhat arbitrary assignment of separation distances at 5 km (unsuitable and suitable) for riverine damselflies.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The few studies determining area of adult foraging habitat surrounding breeding sites have indicated a range of 30 meters to 300 meters [see Briggs (1993) for Enallagma laterale; Corbet (1999) for Nesciothemis nigeriensis and Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; Beukeman (2002) for Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis; and Samways and Steytler (1996) for Chorolestes tessalatus]. As a result, an element occurrence should include the breeding site and surrounding pond or upland habitat extending 500 m in a radius from the breeding site.
Date: 02Jun2004
Author: Cordeiro, J.
Notes: River breeding damselflies:
ZYGOPTERA:
-Calopterygidae: Calopteryx, Hetaerina; Coenagrionidae: Argia, Chromagrion, Hesperagrion, Megalagrion blackburni, M. caliphya, M. heterogamias, M. oceanicum, Zoniagrion; Lestidae: Archilestes; Megapodagrionidae; Platystictidae: Palaemnema; Protoneuridae: Neoneura, Protoneura capillarius, P. cara, P. dunklei, P. sanguinipes; Synlestida

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: 22Jan2010
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Cordeiro, J. (2010); Capuano, N. (2009)
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 22Jan2010
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Cordeiro, J.

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

References
Help
  • Abbott, J.C. 2005. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Texas and the South-Central United States. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New York. 344 pp.

  • Barlow, A.E., D.M. Golden, and J. Bangma. 2009. Field Guide to Dragonflies and Damselflies of New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife: Flemington, New Jersey. 285 pp.

  • Barlow, Allen E. 1997-03-18. Electronic mail to Rick Dutko of the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program regarding suggestions for State ranks of selected Odonata species.

  • Beaton, G. 2007a. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Georgia and the Southeast. University of Georgia Press: Athens, Georgia. 355 pp. Updates available at: http://www.giffbeaton.com/dragonflies.htm.

  • Blust, M., and B. Pfeiffer. 2015. The Odonata of Vermont. Bulletin of American Odonatology 11(3?4):69-119.

  • Cannings, R. 2002. Rare Dragonflies of British Columbia, B.C. Minist. Sustainable Resour. Manage., and B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot. 6pp.

  • Cannings, R.A. 2002. Introducing the Dragonflies of British Columbia and the Yukon. Unpublished. Royal B.C. Museum, Victoria, British Columbia. 96 pp.

  • Cannings, R.A. 2002b. Introducing the dragonflies of British Columbia and the Yukon. Royal B.C. Mus., Victoria, BC. 96pp.

  • Cannings, R.A., S.G. Cannings, and L. Ramsay. 2000. The Dragonflies of the Columbia Basin, British Columbia. Royal B.C. Mus. 287pp.

  • Cannings, S.G. 2003. Status of River Jewelwing (Calopteryx aequabilis Say) in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Water, Land and Air Prot., Biodiversity Branch, and B.C. Minist. Sustainable Resour. Manage., Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. B-110. 17pp.

  • Cannings, S.G. 2003. Status of river jewelwing (Calopteryx aequabilis Say) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch, and British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin B-110. 10 pp.

  • Carpenter, V. 1991. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cape Cod. The Cape Cod Museum of Natural History: Brewster, Massachusetts. 79 pp.

  • Conrad, K.F. and T.B. Herman. 1990. Seasonal dynamics, movements and the effects of experimentally increased female densities on a population of imaginal Calopteryx aequabilis (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Ecological Entomology 15: 119-129.

  • Conrad, K.F., and T.B. Herman. 1987. Territorial and reproductive behaviour of Calopteryx aequabilis Say (Odonata: Calopterygidae) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Advances in Odonatology 3:41-50.

  • Cruden, R.W., and O.J. Gode, Jr. 2000. The Odonata of Iowa. Bulletin of American Odonatology 6(2):13-48.

  • Donnelly, T. W. 1992. The odonata of New York State. Bulletin of American Odonatology. 1(1):1-27.

  • DuBois, M. 2005. Damselflies of the North Woods. Kollath-Stensaas Publishing: Duluth, Minnesota. 132 pp.

  • Evans, Mary A. 1988. Checklist of the Odonata of Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist. 48(1): 96-101.

  • General Status 2015, Environment Canada. 2015. Manitoba Odonata species list and subnational ranks proposed by an expert.

  • Genoways, H.H. & BRENNER, F.J., EDITORS. 1985. SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN PENNSYLVANIA. CARNEGIE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, PITTSBURGH. SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 11. 430 PP.

  • Glotzhober, R.C. and D. McShaffrey (eds.). 2002. The dragonflies and damselflies of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin, New Series 14(2):1-364.

  • Hughes, M.J. 2003. The dragonflies of Manitoba: an updated species list. Blue Jay 61(3):168-175.

  • Hunt, P.D. 2012. The New Hampshire Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report. Report to the NH Fish and Game Department. Audubon Society of NH, Concord. 54 pp.

  • Johnson, J. and S. Valley. 2005. The Odonata of Oregon. Bulletin of American Odonatology 8(4):100-122.

  • Martin, R.D.C. 1939. Life histories of Agrion aequabile and Agrion maculatum (Agriidae: Odonata). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 32(3):601-615.

  • May, Michael L. 1992-06-05. "New Jersey Specimen Records" for Odonata.

  • May, Michael L. and Frank L. Carle. 1996-10-15. An annotated list of the Odonata of New Jersey. With an appendix on nomenclature in the Genus Gomphus. Bulletin of American Odonatology Vol. 4, No. 1 p. 1-35.

  • Miller, K. B. and D. L. Gustafson. 1996. Distribution of the Odonata of Montana. Bulletin of American Odonatology 3(4):75-88.

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

  • New York Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Database of odonate records by county for northeastern U.S. states. Data contributors available: http://nynhp.org/OdonataNE.

  • Nikula, B., J.L. Loose, and M.R. Burne. 2003. A Field Guide to the Dragonflies and Damselflies of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program: Westborough, Massachusetts. 196 pp.

  • Paulson, D. 1999. Dragonflies of Washington. Seattle Audubon Society: Seattle, Washington. 32 pp.

  • Paulson, D. R., and S. W. Dunkle. 2012. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011 and February 2012. Online. Available: http://odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2012.pdf.

  • Paulson, D.R. and S.W. Dunkle. 1999. A Checklist of North American Odonata. Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound Occasional Paper, 56: 86 pp. Available: http://www.ups.edu/x7015.xml.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2009. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist_2009.pdf.

  • Paulson, D.R., and S.W. Dunkle. 2016. A checklist of North American Odonata including English name, etymology, type locality, and distribution. Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009; updated February 2011, February 2012, and October 2016. Online. Available: http://www.odonatacentral.org/docs/NA_Odonata_Checklist.pdf

  • Prather, B., and I. Prather. 2015. Insects of Western North America 9. The dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of Colorado: an updated annotated checklist. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University. 59 pp.

  • Ramsay, L.R., and R.A. Cannings. 2004. Determining the Status of British Columbia's Dragonflies. In T.D. Hooper, ed. Proc. of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conf. March 2-6, 2004, Victoria, B.C. Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, Victoria, BC. 12pp.

  • Rith, Janet. 1993. Conservation Data Files for Colorado Odonata. Unpublished document.

  • Royal British Columbia Museum. 675 Belleville Street, Victoria, BC. V8V 1X4.

  • Russell, R.W., M.L. May, K.L. Soltesz, and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1998. Massive swarm migrations of dragonflies (Odonata) in eastern North America. American Midland Naturalist 140: 325-342.

  • Soltesz, K. 1996. Identification Keys to Northeastern Anisoptera Larvae. Center for Conservation and Biodiversity, University of Connecticut, 7-8 June 1996. 47 pp.

  • Soltesz, Ken. 1992. Proposed Heritage ranks for New York State odonata. Unpublished report for New York Natural Heritage Program. 37 pp.

  • Swinford, Thomas O. 1997. Checklist of Status of Indiana Odonata. List. 7 pp.

  • Swinford, Thomas O. 2015. Checklist and Status of Indiana Odonata. 8 pp.

  • Swinford, Tom. 1995. Checklist and Status of Indiana Odonata. List. 7 pp.

  • Westfall, M. J., Jr., and M. L. May. 2006. Damselflies of North America, revised edition. Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, Florida. 503 pp.

  • White, E.L., P.D Hunt, M.D. Schlesinger, J.D. Corser, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2015. Prioritizing Odonata for conservation action in the northeastern USA. Freshwater Science 34(3):1079-1093.

  • 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 http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

  • Wilson, H.W., Jr. 2008. The behavior of the seaside dragonlet, Erythrodiplax berenice (Odonata: Libellulidae), in a Maine salt marsh. Northeastern Naturalist 15(2):465-468.

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.