Erora laeta - (Edwards, 1862)
Early Hairstreak
Other English Common Names: early hairstreak
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Erora laeta (W. H. Edwards, 1862) (TSN 777882)
French Common Names: lutin mystérieux
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.108682
Element Code: IILEPF3010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Erora
Genus Size: B - Very small genus (2-5 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B02OPL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Erora laeta
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: GU
Global Status Last Reviewed: 31Jan2008
Global Status Last Changed: 16May2006
Rounded Global Status: GU - Unrankable
Reasons: While G1 and G5 can certainly be ruled out for now, GU seems to better reflect our understanding of the status, ecology, trends, and especially uncertainty regarding the magnitude of threats, for this species than would G2G4. Notably threats are known to be very serious where beech is the foodplant, which is quite likely almost range-wide. Deer loom as an impending catastrophic threat in the next decade or two in many places where Corylus is the main foodplant. The Early Hairstreak is easily overlooked since adults are apparently mostly in the canopy. However the lack of any records from Maine, a significant portion of the range, in over 50 years does strongly suggest a decline. There are recent records from other New England states. The greatest concern right now is the rapid loss of mature beech trees to a non-native beech canker in the northeastern United States and the Canadian Maritimes. Mortality of mature beech has been severe in parts of Vermont and prospects are bad for the Early Hairstreak in such areas. Since larvae feed on beech nuts, regenerating stands are unsuitable for many years, as are non-reproductive diseased trees. However, some beeches apparently are somewhat resistant, so long-term recovery cannot be ruled out, and it is possible small colonies could be maintained on these trees. The foodplant in some Great Lakes and West Virginia populations is beaked Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) and survival of these these few populations may well depend on deer hunters. For now there are probably at least dozens of populations and the beech canker has not yet reached some portions of the range.
Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4 (28Mar2001)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2N3 (23Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Georgia (S2S3), Kentucky (S1), Maine (S4?), Maryland (S1), Massachusetts (S2), Michigan (SH), New Hampshire (SU), New Jersey (SNR), New York (S4), North Carolina (S2S3), Pennsylvania (S1S2), Tennessee (S2), Vermont (S2S3), Virginia (S2), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S1S3)
Canada New Brunswick (S1), Nova Scotia (S1), Ontario (S2), Prince Edward Island (S1), Quebec (S4)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The Early Hairstreak is found from New Brunswick through the southeastern parts of Quebec and Ontario mostly fairly close to the St. Lawrence River, and in hilly parts of the northeastern US including northeast Ohio, much of New York, Pennsylvania, and northern New England including northwestern Massachusetts. Records are also concentrated in the Appalachians from the Virginias to extreme northern Georgia. More isolated records are for eastern Nova Scotia, extreme northern Michigan and adjacent Wisconsin, central Kentucky, and southern Ohio. Range maps in Glassberg (1999) and Brock and Kaufman (2003) both omit parts of the range in Kentucky and Ohio. There is only one known locality for Nova Scotia (Layberry et al. 1998), and many states have only a few scattered records. Some of this range may no longer be occupied. For example, Maine is a significant potion of the range and none have been found there since 1954 (Webster and deMaynadier, 2005).

Number of Occurrences: 21 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Probably less than 100 occurrences found so far and many are historic, but new ones turn up every few years. A difficult species to find. It is difficult to decide in some cases whether single specimens really represent occurrences in the area, or are just strays, especially those not found in typical habitats.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Seldom found in quantity, but females occasionally are, often on very hot mornings. Obviously an extant species could not be as rare as scarce as observations would suggest this one to be. Most observations southward are 1-5 adults. The main explanation is adults are mostly in the canopy. There is one locality in Kentucky where this butterfly has been found in numbers and it occasionally has at several places in New England where females sip from moist gravel roads on very hot mornings. There is no basis to guess order of magnitude for total population. Local populations could fluctuate a lot depending on beech nut crop.

Overall Threat Impact: Very high - high
Overall Threat Impact Comments: The demise of beeches due to beech canker (Nectria sp.) in northern New England and adjacent areas now seems like a serious threat affecting a substantial part of the range, and possibly almost the entire species if beech nuts prove to be the major foodplant range-wide. A plausible worst case scenario would be extinction of beech feeding populations in the next few decades. Most sites are susceptible to logging and/or silviculture. Depending on timing, gypsy moth spraying could pose a threat, as probably does severe defoliation which could cause trees to abort their nut crop. Where beaked hazelnut is the foodplant, deer loom as a serious threat. Even before over browsing kills these shrubs nut production ceases and Erora laeta would be excluded. Both species of Corylus have declined greatly in northern New Jersey, almost certainly due to deer, and deer are a threat from at least southern New York southward, although perhaps not in some northern areas where persistent deep snow cause high winter mortality to deer. With either foodplant habitat fragmentation is an issue. Populations will be sparse in years following poor nut crops, and large tracts of habitat may be needed for their survival through such years.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-50%
Short-term Trend Comments: This species is obviously loosing habitat now due to beech blight.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 30-70%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Could be very sensitive to failure of beechnut crop for even one year.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Inventory needs especially in and south of Pennsylvania.

Protection Needs: Several, including clusters of 2-3 in close proximity to allow recolonization as needed. Any populations not dependent on beech would be especially worth protecting considering the degree of threat from beech canker.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) The Early Hairstreak is found from New Brunswick through the southeastern parts of Quebec and Ontario mostly fairly close to the St. Lawrence River, and in hilly parts of the northeastern US including northeast Ohio, much of New York, Pennsylvania, and northern New England including northwestern Massachusetts. Records are also concentrated in the Appalachians from the Virginias to extreme northern Georgia. More isolated records are for eastern Nova Scotia, extreme northern Michigan and adjacent Wisconsin, central Kentucky, and southern Ohio. Range maps in Glassberg (1999) and Brock and Kaufman (2003) both omit parts of the range in Kentucky and Ohio. There is only one known locality for Nova Scotia (Layberry et al. 1998), and many states have only a few scattered records. Some of this range may no longer be occupied. For example, Maine is a significant potion of the range and none have been found there since 1954 (Webster and deMaynadier, 2005).

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 GA, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, TN, VA, VT, WI, WV
Canada NB, NS, ON, PE, QC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
KY Barren (21009)*, Green (21087)*, Harlan (21095), Hart (21099)*, Letcher (21133)*, Menifee (21165), Metcalfe (21169)*, Powell (21197), Wolfe (21237)
MA Berkshire (25003), Franklin (25011)*
MD Garrett (24023), Washington (24043)*
MI Alger (26003)*, Emmet (26047)*
NC Ashe (37009), Avery (37011), Buncombe (37021), Burke (37023), Clay (37043), Graham (37075), Haywood (37087), Macon (37113), Madison (37115), Mitchell (37121), Watauga (37189), Wilkes (37193)
VA Bedford (51019), Botetourt (51023), Fauquier (51061), Giles (51071)*, Greene (51079), Madison (51113), Montgomery (51121)*, Page (51139), Rappahannock (51157), Rockbridge (51163), Rockingham (51165), Warren (51187), Wise (51195)
VT Bennington (50003), Chittenden (50007), Rutland (50021), Washington (50023)
WV Boone (54005), Fayette (54019), Kanawha (54039), Monroe (54063), Pendleton (54071), Pocahontas (54075), Raleigh (54081), Randolph (54083)*, Summers (54089)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
01 White (01080105)+, Middle Connecticut (01080201)+*, Deerfield (01080203)+*, Westfield (01080206)+, Housatonic (01100005)+*
02 Hudson-Hoosic (02020003)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+, North Branch Potomac (02070002)+, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+*, South Fork Shenandoah (02070005)+, Shenandoah (02070007)+, Middle Potomac-Catoctin (02070008)+, Rapidan-Upper Rappahannock (02080103)+, Upper James (02080201)+, Maury (02080202)+, Rivanna (02080204)+
03 Upper Roanoke (03010101)+, Upper Yadkin (03040101)+, Upper Catawba (03050101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+
04 Betsy-Chocolay (04020201)+*, Boardman-Charlevoix (04060105)+*, Cheboygan (04070004)+*, Winooski River (04150403)+, Lamoille River (04150405)+, Lake Champlain (04150408)+
05 Cheat (05020004)+*, Youghiogheny (05020006)+, Upper New (05050001)+, Middle New (05050002)+, Greenbrier (05050003)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Coal (05050009)+, North Fork Kentucky (05100201)+*, Upper Kentucky (05100204)+, Upper Green (05110001)+*, Upper Cumberland (05130101)+
06 Watauga (06010103)+, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Pigeon (06010106)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Upper Little Tennessee (06010202)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Powell (06010206)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Butterfly, Lycaenidae.
General Description: Wingspread 3.1-3.5. A small tailess hairstreak with considerable blue above in feemales. Note the red spots beneath. Males are mostly black, but females have a lot of blue above, but they perch with the wings closed. Illustrated in almost any butterfly guide such as Klots (1951), Glassberg (1999), Brock and Kaufmann (2003).Note the red spots. Males are mostly black, but females have a lot of blue above, but they perch with the wings closed. Illustrated in almost any butterfly guide such as Klots (1951), Glassberg (1999), Brock and Kaufmann (2003).
Diagnostic Characteristics: The underside pattern is unmistakeable range-wide. The upperside pattern of the females can be easily identfied from a photo, but several other small butterflies are somewhat similar. See any butterfly guide.

Ecology Comments: It is not known whether beech feeding populations have any adaptations, such as facultative multiple year pupal diapause, for surviving years with minimal beech nut production. However females do not oviposit on beech except nuts and the larvae require them. Presumably if there is a major local nut crop failure, females must disperse, unless there is an alternate foodplant.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed
Habitat Comments: As far as known habitats are always in hardwood forests or hardwood-northern conifer mixed forests, although like most hairstreaks a few adults sometimes turn up on flowers away from the woods--at least southward. Beech-maple forests seem most typical, but more mixed types can also have populations. Most habitats contain a lot of beech, but collections have been reported where beech was not present in the immediate area (Sullivan, 1971, Allen, 1997), often single individuals on flowers. Nearly all records are from hilly or mountainous regions. In North Carolina adults are seen mostly above 4000 feet but sometimes to 3000 feet (LeGrand and Howard, 2007) or as low as 2700 feet at two places (Sullivan, 1971), but the species does not appear to be confined to particularly high elevations in other mountain states. In North Carolina the adults are seen mostly in openings, outcrops, and edges of high northern hardwood forests, including along roads, and are noted as often sitting high, but sometimes on summer flowers in more open places. In Kentucky they seem to be mostly seen on flowers in openings. In New England and Canada they are probably found most often sipping moisture from gravel roads, footpaths or other exposed soil in extensively forest regions where mature beeches are common. The northern Ohio record was from a clearing in a beech forest. It is likely more would be seen if it were possibly to effectively search the canopy, where adults appear to spend most of their lives and where larvae occur.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: In most of the northeastern U.S. and Canada the caterpillars eat the young fruit of American Beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.), a common and widely distributed tree in the Fagaceae. The only other documented foodplant is nuts of Beaked Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta Marsh) which apparently the foodplant in portions of the Great Lakes region where beech in unavailable and it also used in West Virginia (Thomas Allen), as is beech. LeGrand and Howard (2007) consider beech to be the likely foodplant in North Carolina and there is no actual evidence for any foodplants other than American Beech and Beaked Hazelnut anywhere. With both plants larvae feed intitially on the outside of the nut an later bore into it, and are likely to require two or three to mature.

Adults have been observed on a variety of flowers overall but in North Carolina ox-eye daisy and two fleabanes (Erigeron annuus and E. strigosus) appear to be strongly favored and both genera are reported elsewhere. Others from various states include spring beauty (Claytonia), Ceanothus, Asclepias tuberosa. Among the few observations of substantial numbers at flowers was one for ten on Wild Hydrangea in Kentucky. Adults have rarely been found on flowers northward, but apparently most observations from the Virginias southward have been nectaring adults. Summer adults probably do visit flowers more often than spring ones, like other hairstreaks, but spring beauty records obviously refer to the first brood.

Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: There is one primary brood in late May-June northward sometimes with a few in mid summer, and there are apparently two broods in about mid April-May and mostly in July to mid August south of Pennsylvania, a few in late June, and according to Glassberg (1999) into early September in North Carolina. However Legrand and Howard (2007) do not report any that late. Most of the year is spent as pupae, probably in the leaf litter. Some literature (e.g. Bowers, 1978) and Schweitzer (pers. obs.) indicate that adults visit moist soil in very hot (around 33 C) sunny weather. In Schweitzer's observations, also in New Hampshire, they disappeared, probably into the canopy, by around noon. Bowers found them abundantly on all of several different roads she visited that day. Such observations of large numbers sipping moisture are apparently always mostly of females.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: The greatest concern in most of the range is rapid loss of mature beech trees to a non-native bark canker in the northeastern United States and the Canadian Maritimes. Mortality of mature beech has been severe in much of Vermont and parts of Canada. Since larvae feed on beech nuts, regenerating stands are unsuitable for many years, as are older trees in years when they do not produce nuts, for example if weakened by disease. However, some beeches apparently are somewhat resistant. In the Appalachians, Gypsy Moth spraying and outbreaks could be serious concerns. Defoliated trees often abort nuts, and since it is not known what the foodplant is there, the risk of this impact cannot be assessed. Both known (beech and beaked hazel), and all suggested, foodplants are readily eaten by Gypsy Moth caterpillars and could be defoliated during outbreaks. Since populations in that region fly quite early, their larvae could also be at risk from spraying, but at least with BTK the impact should be less than large-scale nut drop. Gypchek would be a safe alternative to BTK. Northern populations fly mostly well after the trees leaf out, so it is not likely larvae would incur high mortality from BTK applications, which would probably be before before most eggs hatch.
Biological Research Needs: Biology and habitat of Appalachian and Great Lakes populations needs to be worked out.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Forest and Woodland Hairstreaks

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where the species occurs, or has occurred, where there is potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally, a suitable habitat (generally woodland or forest) with the larval foodplant where the species as been verified based on specimens or positively identified photographs for most species. For a number of taxa, not all individuals can be positively identifed from photographs. Due to the frequency of misidentifications in the literature and lack of completely reliable wing characters, genitalia examination would generally be the minimum verification for S. CARYAEVORUM. EOs may include nearby nectar sites when these are adjacent to but different than breedin areas.
Mapping Guidance: EO should be mapped to include all contiguous or nearly contiguous habitat subject to IE.
If the species is associated with a discrete natural community occurrence do not create more than one EO within that community unless the foodplant is absent over gaps of at least half the suitable habitat distance and consider whether the community boundaries should also be used for the EO boundaries. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences.

Separation Barriers: None known.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: On islands it may be reasonable to consider all colonies as one metapopulation even if these distances are exceeded somewhat.
Separation Justification: These butterflies are rarelyseen more than at most a few hundred meters out of habitat and generally leave it only in search of nectar. On the other hand habitats are usually large (very often >>1000 hectares) for many of the species and in such cases most species seem to occur widely throughout the habitat. Some species are very dispersive, probably especially the subtropical ones that barely enter the USA. There seems to be little doubt that F. FAVONIUS ONTARIO expanded its range several hundred kilometers to the Northeast in the last half of the 20th century. In general though these butterflies are often localized around their foodplants. While there are no real data it does seem likely that 2 kilometers is more than enough to effectively separate populations. Note however that most of these species feed on a dominant or co-dominant tree or shrub and so large blocks of contiguous habitat are likely to be fully occupied. Occurrences several kilometers in one or more dimension are common for some of these species, and few occurrences (perhaps not really any for most species) for any are much less than 50 hectares. Territorial males may be much more localized than females are. Both sexes may also be highly concentrated at times on scarce nectar flowers. It would probably be quite unusual for two collections less than 5 or even 10 km apart in suitable habitat to prove to be separate occurrences, but note suitable habitat must include the local foodplant.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: This applies only in extensive essentially contiguous habitats such as often in extensive eastern forest areas. If the habitat patch is smaller and there are no others within a kilometer the inferred extent is that patch. Note that many taxa feed on the dominant or co-dominant vegetation of the canopy or shrub layer and larvae and adults occur widely in such habitats. Many occupied habitats are several thousand hectares and 5-10 km or more in at least one dimension. Still since some of the species (e.g. KINGI, LIPAROPS STRGOSUM, probably CARYAEVORUM) appear to be more local than their foodplants these butterflies should not be inferred present over long distances. A circle of radius 1 km defines an area of about 400 hectares which is well within the range of occurrences where the habitats are large.
Date: 23Jul2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Notes: Do not apply these SPECS to S. EDWARDSII or any other species which are obligately dependent on ants to tend their larvae unless the requisite ants are rather ubiquitous species. Such hairstreaks may be extremely localized within large seemingly suitable habitats, being found only near the ant colonies. The Specs for S. EDWARDSII can be consulted for guidance.
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: 13Jul2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 12Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 31Jan2008
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): SCHWEITZER, D.F.

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

References
Help
  • Allen, T. J. 1997. The butterflies of West Virginia and their caterpillars. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 388 pages, color photographs.

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

  • Bowers, M.D. 1978. Observations on Erora laeta in New Hampshire. Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 32 (2): 140-141

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

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

  • Hess, Q.F. 1979. Erora laeta (W.H. Edwards). Toronto Entomologists Association Occasional Publication #10-79. 16-17 pp.

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

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

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

  • 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. and V. Malikul. 1992. Eastern Butterflies (Peterson Field Guide). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 396 pp. + color plates.

  • Peacock, J. W., D. F. Schweitzer, J. L. Carter, and N. R. Dubois. 1998. Laboratory Assessment of the effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on native Lepidoptera. Environmental Entomology 27(2):450-457.

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

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

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

  • Schweitzer, D. F., M. C. Minno, and D. L. Wagner. 2011. Rare, declining, and poorly known butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of forests and woodlands in the eastern United States. USFS Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Technology Transfer Bulletin FHTET-2011-01. 517 pp.

  • Sullivan, J.B.. 1971. Captures of Erora laeta (Lycaenidae) in North Carolina. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 25: 295-296

  • Webster, R. P. and P. G. deMaynadier. 2005. A baseline atlas and conservation assessment of the butterflies of Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. 650 State St., Bangor, Maine. 04401. 127 pp.

  • Wright, D.M., and H. Pavulaan. 1999. Celastrina idella (Lycaenidae, Polyommatinae) a new butterfly species from the Atlantic coastal plain. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 1(9): 11 pp.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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