Euphyes berryi - (Bell, 1941)
Berry's Skipper
Other English Common Names: Berry's skipper
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Euphyes berryi (E. Bell, 1941) (TSN 706607)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.113110
Element Code: IILEP77070
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Euphyes
Genus Size: C - Small genus (6-20 species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Opler, P. A., and A. D. Warren. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific Names List for Butterfly Species of North America, north of Mexico. C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B02OPL01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Euphyes berryi
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G2
Global Status Last Reviewed: 22Oct2015
Global Status Last Changed: 22Oct2015
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by calculator
Rounded Global Status: G2 - Imperiled
Reasons: Minno (in Deyrup and Franz, 1992) shows records for 12 counties in Florida, not necessarily recent. Records for Georgia and South Carolina are from the 1970s or earlier. Although formerly fairly widespread in Florida, the species was reportedly not found in many places in the state by the early 2000s (Glassberg 1999, Glassberg et al., 2003, Cech and Tudor, 2005). Following six years (2007-2013) of surveys for rare Florida butterfly species using state wildlife grant funding, plus subsequent survey efforts through 2015, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) database contains 17 post-2006 element occurrences for this species, from the far western Florida Panhandle to the southernmost Florida counties. Ten of these element occurrences are on large parcels of land managed for conservation purposes, where repeated sightings of this species have occurred since 2007.
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (22Oct2015)

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 Florida (S2), Georgia (SU), North Carolina (S1), South Carolina (SNR)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 1000-20,000 square km (about 400-8000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Found in outer coastal plain from North Carolina (north to Dare County) to southern Florida. "Known from only 12 counties throughout Florida. It is much less abundant outside of Florida..." (Minno, in Deyrup and Franz, 1994), but it does not occur in all of those counties now. Rare and local (Brock and Kaufman, 2003), and perhaps no longer occupying the central portion of the historic range.

Number of Occurrences: 6 - 80
Number of Occurrences Comments: Based on LeGrand and Howard's North Carolina butterflies website as of 2012 and map there are records for five counties in North Carolina, with most records from Dare to Carteret. Colonies are extant in at least two of these and another from much farther south is documented by a 2009 specimen, and two are historic from the 1990s. Minno (in Deyrup and Franz, 1992) shows records for 12 counties in Florida, not necessarily recent. Records for Georgia and South Carolina are from the 1970s or earlier. At least formerly this was fairly widespread in Florida, but apparently is not found in many places there now (Glassberg 1999, Glassberg et al., 2003, Cech and Tudor, 2005). This species has been found in about 20-30 places in about 19 counties in the past 75 years, but it is unclear how many occurrences there actually are now.

Population Size Comments: Sometimes locally common on flowers

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Few (4-12)

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Not really known. Logging might benefit or harm it depending on habitat of host plant, which is unknown. Habitats include relatively pristine savannas and wet prairies where fire is an obvious issue, and a powerline right of way and marshes where fire might not be an issue. Burning of entire habitats would risk eradication of a population.

Short-term Trend: Unknown

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Unknown

Environmental Specificity: Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Inventory more swamps and other wetlands for it. Determine response to logging.

Protection Needs: Several, ideally in same wetland complex or watershed to allow for local extirpation and recolonization.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (1000-20,000 square km (about 400-8000 square miles)) Found in outer coastal plain from North Carolina (north to Dare County) to southern Florida. "Known from only 12 counties throughout Florida. It is much less abundant outside of Florida..." (Minno, in Deyrup and Franz, 1994), but it does not occur in all of those counties now. Rare and local (Brock and Kaufman, 2003), and perhaps no longer occupying the central portion of the historic range.

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: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States FL, GA, NC, SC

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
FL Collier (12021), Escambia (12033), Franklin (12037), Highlands (12055), Lake (12069), Liberty (12077), Miami-Dade (12086), Okeechobee (12093), Orange (12095), Osceola (12097), Polk (12105), Santa Rosa (12113), Seminole (12117), Sumter (12119), Wakulla (12129)
NC Carteret (37031), Columbus (37047), Craven (37049), Dare (37055), Hyde (37095), Washington (37187)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Albemarle (03010205)+, Pamlico (03020104)+, Pamlico Sound (03020105)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, White Oak River (03020301)+, Waccamaw (03040206)+, Upper St. Johns (03080101)+, Lower St. Johns (03080103)+, Kissimmee (03090101)+, Everglades (03090202)+, Big Cypress Swamp (03090204)+, Peace (03100101)+, Withlacoochee (03100208)+, Lower Ochlockonee (03120003)+, Apalachicola (03130011)+, Pensacola Bay (03140105)+, Perdido (03140106)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Butterfly, Hesperiidae.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, HERBACEOUS WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Woodland - Conifer
Habitat Comments: Wet areas near ponds and swamps (Opler, 1992). Wet prairies, marshes, savannas with pitcher plants (Minno in Deyrup and Franz, 1992). The habitat is not really understood and probably won't be until the foodplant is better documented.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults take nectar from flowers such as pickerelweed. Larvae almost certainly feed on sedge, probably one or a few species of CAREX, but there are no precise reports.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: Larvae overwinter in this subfamily. Adults are reported from March to October probably in two annual broods.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: With virtually nothing known about this skipper, there is no basis for any management recommendations other than what is known about related species. Since the foodplant is unknown, so is the actual breeding habitat. Most collections or photographs have been at flowers and quite possibly not near actual breeding habitats. Not mowing flowers visited by adults during their flight season is recommended. None of the wetland grass or sedge skipper have any underground stages. All stages other than adults are probably always on the foodplant and will not survive if the plant actually burns. It has in the past been common practice to burn tidal marshes in the winter. If done frequently on a large scale this would probably preclude the existence of this skipper, and past practices should be evaluated as a possible factor in the very spotty range of this species if the foodplant is eventually learned and is something common like sawgrass or at least widespread in common habitat types such as any of several tidal marsh sedges. Mosquito control adulticiding practices could be a threat, but there are no data for this or very closely related skippers. Most larvacides are very unlikely to be consumed by the caterpillars and Bti would be expected to be minimally toxic at worst. However, it is not certain the breeding habitat actually is expansive tidal marshes, it could be some sort of lightly wooded savanna, which would bring up other management issues. See Schweitzer et al. (2011) regarding management of such species.

Collectors and photographers should be very careful not to damage known nectar flowers if these are scarce. This species should be collected only sparingly, although it would very rarely be possible to do otherwise. A voucher specimen or two would generally be a good idea to verify any newly discovered sites, or even at old sites from which there are no recent records. This can be a difficult species to identify (Cech and Tudor, 2005, LeGrand and Howard (2013), and any manager concerned about this species should first make sure that the record is valid. Occasional individuals, including even fresh ones, of Dion, byssus, and probably other skippers, may lack their normal pattern on the hindwing beneath and thus resemble Berry's Skipper very closely. Males are also very similar to those of Dion Skipper on the upper side. While at least some records from all five counties in North Carolina are apparently adequately specimen of photo-vouchered, LeGrand and Howard (2013) suggest that some records for North Carolina may be Byssus skippers.

Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Euphyes, Poanes and other Wetland Skippers

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 wetland with the larval foodplant where at least one adult has been verified by a photograph or preferably a specimen. Photographs must be diagnostic and will probably need to show both wing surfaces, and there may be circumstances where only a specimen will suffice. Specimens are much easier to obtain.
Mapping Guidance: Habitat patches are usually discrete, small and easily defined by the dominance of the foodplant. Most or all other species use both open and semi-shaded patches but E. DUKESII is a forest or woodland species. Consult the habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences of these species.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Within a wetland complex consider multiple colonies as one metapopulation by using the suitable habitat distance.
Separation Justification: Adults of these species sometimes to often (e.g. E. dion alabamae) stray out of habitat and even the sedentary P. massasoit as well as both subspecies of E. dion will move a kilometer or more for nectar. However, habitats are often small (a few hectares) and populations often appear small (20 or less on a given day) so relatively conservative separation distances seem reasonable. Certainly a distance of a few km will provide a large amount of separation even if not a complete lack of gene flow. However apply the suitable habitat figure when two collection sites are along the same river, same wetland complex or in other circumstances where at least a few patches of foodplant occur in wet spots between them. Justification for this includes observations of not less than three tiny transient colonies of Euphyes dion alabamae in Cumberland County New Jersey in habitat patches of less than 0.1 hectare with no known source habitat within a kilometer. Thus females do find and oviposit in tiny patches and adults from these as well as the dispersing females themselves should connect multiple source colonies. Suitable habitat patches more than a kilometer in any dimension are rare, so generally colonies more than a few kilometers apart are separate occurrences unless obviously connected. However in such rare cases where habitats are really extensive with foodplant throughout or even dominant there is not reason to believe these skippers should not be likewise.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 1 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: The inferred extent is nearly always at least the entire contiguous habitat/foodplant patch since these are usually only a few dozens of hectares at most. Colonies can persist at least decades in under a hectare of really good habitat. If the habitat is really several kilometers in extent it will usually be fully occupied (apparently nearly always so for the better known species) but cap inferred extent at this distance pending further observation.
Date: 14Sep2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
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: 31Jan2013
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F. and D. Jue
Management Information Edition Date: 31Jan2013
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 21Dec2000
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
  • Brock, J. P., and K. Kaufman. 2003. Butterflies of North America. Kaufman Focus Field Guides, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY 284 pp.

  • Cech, R. and G. Tudor. 2005. Butterflies of the east coast: an observer's Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 345 pp.

  • Deyrup, M. and R. Franz. 1994. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida: Gainesville, Florida. 798 pp.

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

  • Glassberg, J., M. Minno, and J. V. Calhoun. 2000. Butterflies Through Binoculars: Florida. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. 242 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 G.O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains, an illustrated natural history. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. 294pp.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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