Calopteryx maculata - (Beauvois, 1805)
Ebony Jewelwing
Other English Common Names: Black-winged Damselfly
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois, 1805) (TSN 102055)
French Common Names: caloptéryx bistré
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.107355
Element Code: IIODO65050
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 maculata
Taxonomic Comments: Subspecies C. m. floridana was described by Huggins (1927) based on Florida specimens. However, Byers (1930) concluded that naming subspecies was not feasible without further study (Westfall and May 2006).
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 15Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 18Aug1988
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: This species occurs from central to eastern United States and into southeastern Canada; and westward to Wisconsin and south to Texas (Abbott, 2007).
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (18Aug1988)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (15Feb2016)

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 (SNR), Arkansas (SNR), Colorado (S1), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (SNR), Georgia (S5), Illinois (S5), Indiana (S5), Iowa (S5), Kansas (SNR), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (SNR), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (SNR), Minnesota (SNR), Mississippi (SNR), Missouri (SNR), Montana (SNR), Nebraska (SNR), New Hampshire (SNR), New Jersey (S5), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (S5), Oklahoma (S4?), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Tennessee (S5), Texas (SNR), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S5), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (S5)
Canada Manitoba (SH), New Brunswick (S4), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S1), Quebec (S5)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: This species occurs from central to eastern United States and into southeastern Canada; and westward to Wisconsin and south to Texas (Abbott, 2007).

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: It is common throughout Massachusetts (Nikula et al., 2003). In Maine it has been found in every county across the state (Brunelle and deMaynadier, 2005). It is found in streams across Minnesota (Haarstad, 1997). In the south-central U.S., it occurs in the Arkansas, Bayou Bartholomew, Brazos, Canadian, Cimarron, Colorado, Mississippi, Neches, Ouachita, Red, Sabine, San Jacinto, St. Francis, Trinity, and White River watersheds (Abbott, 2005). It was recently found in Fort Sill, Lawton, Camanche Co. Oklahoma (Zuellig et al., 2006).

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Many to very many (41 to >125)

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) This species occurs from central to eastern United States and into southeastern Canada; and westward to Wisconsin and south to Texas (Abbott, 2007).

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, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada MB, NB, NS, ON, PE, QC

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

Ecology & Life History
Help
General Description: Male thorax and abdomen are brilliant green (appearing blue when backlit). Wings are black and broader than other jewelwings. The legs are long and black with prominent spines. The female is more bronzy on the body with a thicker abdomen and dark brown wings with conspicuous white stigmas (Nikula et al., 2003).

The head is iridescent blue-green. The thorax is black with strong iridescent blue-green coloration dorsally and on the sides. Males lack a pterostigma. Older, mature males have solid black wings, while wings in teneral individuals are lighter and brown in color. Wings of females are usually paler, becoming progressively darker apically with a conspicuous white pterostigma (enclosing numerous cells ) that is distinctively widened at middle. Length of wings is about three times their greatest width. The abdomen is iridescent blue-green dorsally, black ventrally, except for a white (males ) or brown (females ) area on the posterior of sterna 8 and segments 9 and 10 (Abbott, 2007).

From Westfall and May (2006):
MALE:
Head black, with a suggestion of metallic blue or green. Prothorax black, with dorsum metallic and sides dull. Pterothorax black without pale markings, but with metallic green luster. Mature males with entire wings very black, or no more than a small basal area subhyaline; lighter brown in tenerals. Wings broadly rounded at hind margin,a nd about 1/2 as wide as long at the widest point near mid-length. Abdomen dark metallic green, but with the sterna of segments 9 and 10, as well as the distal part of 8, pale brown to white.
FEMALE:
Similar to male, with wings usually pale brown, and often darker toward tips; white pterostigma conspicuous, 1/2 as broad as long and divided into a number of cells. Abdomen with segments 8-10 light brown laterally as well as ventrally, segments 8-10 often with a dorsal yellow stripe; dorsum of 10 without prominent carina, and spine hardly more than vestigial.

From Abott (2007): "The head is iridescent blue-green. The thorax is black, with strong iridescent blue-green coloration dorsally and on the sides. Males lack a pterostigma. Older, mature males have solid black wings; wings in teneral individuals are lighter and brown in color. Wings of females are usually paler, becomming progressively darker apically, with a conspicuous white pterostigma (enclosing numerous cells) that is distinctively widened at the middle. Wing length is about three times greatest width. The abdomen is iridescent blue-green dorsally, black ventrally, except for a white (males) or brown (females) area on the posterior of sterna 8 (ventral portion of segment) and segment 9 and 10."

Total length: 37-57 mm; abdomen: 30-47 mm; hindwing: 25-37 mm (Abbott, 2007).

LARVAE:
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 (Daigle, 1991). 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).


From Westfall and May (2006):
First segment of antenna no longer than 0.85 times the greatest width of head across eyes; tubercles genind eyes prominent and acute, raised above level of eyes; hind femur of final instar larva 7.5 mm or less. 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.

Diagnostic Characteristics: This is the only odonate in northeastern North America with entirely black wings (Nikula et al., 2003). Smoky rubyspot (Hetaerina titia) is the only other damselfly that may have completely dark wings. It lacks the blue-green iridescence on the body and the wings are only about a fifth as wide as long. In sparkling jewelwing (Calopteryx dimidiata) only the apical fourth of the wings are black (Abbott, 2007). In the south-central U.S., smoky rubyspot, Hetaerina titia, is the only other damselfly that may have completely dark wings. It lacks the blue-green iridescence on the body, and the wings are only about 1/5 as wide as long. In sparkling jewelwing, C. dimidiata, only the apical 1/4 of the wings is black (Abbott, 2005).
Reproduction Comments: Males are territorial and perform fluttering courtship displays for females. Females oviposit in floating, emergent or submergent vegetation, often with the male guarding nearby (Nikula et al., 2003). Males will vigorously compete among themselves for territories with submergent vegetation, the prime egg-laying habitat for females. Males attract females with a "cross display," where the male faces the female with his hindwings deflected downward at right angles to his body, and the forewings and abdomen are raised, revealing the ventral pale area of the abdomen. The major ity of mating and egg laying occurs in the early afternoon and a single male may guard multiple females, resulting in sometimes large congregations. Females will lay their eggs in submergent vegetation for 10 to 120 minutes and usually don't submerge themselves. The displays and behaviors of northern and southern populations may differ (Abbott, 2007). For a summary of these behaviors the reader is directed to Dunkle (1990).
Habitat Type: Freshwater
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, SPRING/SPRING BROOK
Habitat Comments: This species occurs in a variety of streams and small rivers but is most common along shallow forested streams. It tends to be found on smaller, more forested streams than the related river jewelwing, Calopteryx aequabilis (Nikula et al., 2003). Habitat generally consists of small, slow moving, canopy covered streams and occasionally exposed streams and rivulets. Nymphs are local in occurrence and restricted to slow creeks and quiet areas of running streams (Abbott, 2007).
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Phenology Comments: Adults perch on streamside and emergent vegetation with a few feet of the water. They fly low over the water or along forest paths in a bouncy, butterfly-like manner (Nikula et al., 2003).

Flight period in Louisiana is March 1 to October 31 (Abbott, 2005). Westfall and May (2006) documented flight period from February 7 (Florida) to December 3 (Florida). In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, it is June-September (Carpenter, 1991). In Kansas it is May to September (Beckemeyer and Higgins, 1998). In Georgia it is from late March to early November (Beaton, 2007). In Ohio it is from May 5 to September 22 (Glotzhober and McShaffrey, 2002). In the western Great Lakes, it is mid-May to early September (DuBois, 2005). In Massachusetts, it it mid-May to mid-September (Nikula et al., 2003).

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
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 11Feb2009
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.

  • Abbott, J.C. 2007. Last updated 2011. OdonataCentral: An online resource for the distribution and identification of Odonata. Texas Natural Science Center, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Available at: http://www.odonatacentral.org.

  • Adams, J.A. and T.B. Herman. 1991. A comparison of the male genitalia of three Calopteryx species (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Can. J. Zool. 69: 1164-1170.

  • Barber, Robert D. 1994. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cumberland County, New Jersey. 360 Port Elizabeth-Cumberland Road, Millville, NJ 08332. Published by Cape May Bird Observatory. NJAS P.O.Box 3,707 E.Lake Dr., Cape May Point, NJ 08212.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Beckemeyer, R.J. and D.G. Huggins. 1998. Checklist of Kansas damselflies. The Kansas School Naturalist 44(1):3-15.

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

  • Bried, J.T., and G.N. Ervin. 2005. Distribution of adult Odonata among localized wetlands in east-central Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 4(4):731-744.

  • Brunelle, P.-M. and P. deMaynadier. 2005. The Maine Dameslfly and Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report. 2nd edition. Report prepared for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Bangor, Maine. November 1, 2005. 31 pp.

  • Burcher, C.L., and L.A. Smock. 2002. Habitat distribution, dietary composition and life history characteristics of odonate nymphs in a blackwater coastal plain stream. American Midland Naturalist 148(1):75-89.

  • Byers, C.F. 1930. A contribution to the knowledge of Florida Odonata. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 327 pp.

  • Carle, Frank Louis. December 1994. A Survey of the Odonata of the Delaware River and its Tributaries.

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

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

  • Daigle, J.J. 1991. Florida damselflies (Zygoptera): A species key to the aquatic larval stages. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series 11(1):1-12.

  • 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.

  • Dunkle, S. W. 1990. Damselflies of the Florida Penninsula, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers Nature Guide #3. Gainesville, FL. 148 pp.

  • Dunkle, S.W. 1990. Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers: Gainesville, Florida. 150 pp.

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

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

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

  • Haarstad, J. 1997. The dragonflies of selected eastern Minnesota rivers. Unpublished report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Conservation Biology Research Grants Program, St. Paul, Minnesota. Unpaginated.

  • Huggins, J.R. 1927. Variation in size in Calopteryx maculata and a proposed new subspecies (Odonata: Agrionidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 52:355-364.

  • 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.

  • Krotzer, R.S, J.T. Bried, M.J. Krotzer. 2008. The Odonata of Mississippi. Bulletin of American Odonatology 10(4):65-91.

  • Lam, E. 2004. Damselflies of the Northeast. A Guide to the Species of Eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States. Biodiversity Books, Forest Hills, New York. 96 pp.

  • LeGrand, H., Petranka, J., M.A. Shields, and T.E. Howard, Jr. 2017. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of North Carolina, Eighth Approximation, Version 8.1. N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Online. Available: http://dpr.ncparks.gov/odes/PDFs/8th_ver_8.1.pdf

  • LeGrand, H., and T. Howard. 2016. The Dragonflies and Damselflies of North Carolina, Seventh Approximation. N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation. Online. Available: http://dpr.ncparks.gov/odes/PDFs/7th.pdf

  • 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.

  • Misof, Bernhard, Cort L. Anderson and Heike Hardys (2000). A phylogeny of the damselfy genus Calopteryx (Odonata) using mitochondrial 16S rDNA markers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 15(1): 5-14

  • Muise, C., K.R. Langdon, R.P. Shiflett, D. Trently, A. Hoff, P. Super, A. Mayor, and B.J. Nichols. 2007. Checklist of Odonata from Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Southeastern Naturalist, Special Issue 1:207-214.

  • 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.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.

  • Pither, J., and P.D. Taylor. 2000. Directional and fluctuating asymmetry in the black-winged damselfly Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) (Odonata:Calopterygidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1740-1748.

  • Pither, Jason and Philip D. Taylor. (2000). Directional and fluctuationg asymmetry in the black-winged damselfly Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78: 1740-1748

  • 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.

  • Shuey, John and David Banks. 1995. Odonata Species Collected 1995. List. 7 pp.

  • Smith-Patten, B.D, M.A.Patten, M.J. Dreiling, and J. Fisher. 2007. Phenology and new county records of Odonata of northeastern Oklahoma. Publications of the Oklahoma Biological Survey 8:1-13.

  • Soltesz, Ken 1991. A Survey of the Damselflies and Dragonflies of Cape May County, New Jersey. Cape May Bird Observatory. NJAS P.O.Box 3,707 E.Lake Dr., Cape May Point, NJ 08212.

  • 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.

  • Taylor, P.D. and G. Merriam. 1995. Wing morphology of a forest damselfly is related to landscape structure. Oikos, 73: 43-48.

  • Waage, J.K. 1979. Adaptive significance of postcopulatory guarding of mates and nonmates by male Calopteryx maculata (Odonata). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 6: 147-154.

  • Waage, J.K. 1984. Female and male interactions during courtship in a Calopteryx maculata and C. dimidiata (Odonata: Calopterygidae): influence of oviposition behaviour. Anim. Behav. 32: 400-404.

  • 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.

  • Worthen, W.B. 2002. The structure of larval odonate assemblages in the Enoree River Basin of South Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 1(3):205-216.

  • Zuellig, R.E., B.C. Kondratieff, J.P. Schmidt, R.S. Durfee, D.E. Ruiter, and I.E. Prather. 2006a. An annotated list of aquatic insects of Fort Sill, Oklahoma, excluding Diptera with notes on several new state records. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 79(1):34-54.

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 2018.
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 © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, 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. 2018. 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.