Euphyes dukesi - (Lindsey, 1923)
Dukes' Skipper
Other English Common Names: Dukes' skipper
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Euphyes dukesi (Lindsey, 1923) (TSN 706611)
French Common Names: hespérie de Dukes
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120478
Element Code: IILEP77050
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 dukesi
Taxonomic Comments: Two subspecies: E.dukesi dukesi occurs from the Lake Erie region south mostly through the Ohio and Mississipppi drainages to Louisiana, and disjunctly on the Atlantic coastal plain from Virginia to Georgia. E. d. calhouni Shuey, 1996 is known only from Florida.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3
Global Status Last Reviewed: 02Aug2016
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Fewer than 100 occurrences known, but more are likely to be found. Some to many may be of D-quality and/or isolated. . Both subspecies are very local and uncommon. The species is rare in the Atlantic coast part of the range. For example there are records from only nine counties in the Carolinas, although it is sometimes seen in large numbers, up to 50 in a day there. On the other hand it is known from 24 counties in northern Ohio, and these Lake Erie lowlands may be a major stronghold. Dukes' skipper seems to currently be stable in some parts of its range such as Ohio and Ontario. All state ranks are in the S1 to S3 range.

Nation: United States
National Status: N3 (01Sep1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (17Aug2017)

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 (S1S3), Arkansas (S1S2), Florida (S3?), Georgia (S1?), Illinois (S1), Indiana (S1S2), Kentucky (S2), Louisiana (S3), Michigan (S2), Mississippi (SU), Missouri (S1), North Carolina (S1S2), Ohio (S3), Oklahoma (S1), South Carolina (S1S3), Texas (SNR), Virginia (S2)
Canada Ontario (S2)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Along the outer coastal plain from southeastern Virginia to north central Florida; along the Louisiana coast extending up the Sabine River to the Ark-La-Tex region and up the Missississippi basin to southern Illinois and Missouri continuing up the Ohio River into Indiana; also the Lake Erie lowlands of southeastern Michigan, northeast Indiana, northwest Ohio, and a tiny piece of Ontario. There is no evidence the species was ever found on much of the Gulf Coast and although the foodplants and habitat are frequent in New Jersey, Dukes' Skipper apparently never reached that state.

Number of Occurrences: 21 to >300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Well under 100 known, but certainly more exist in southern states.

Population Size: 2500 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Probably D. Can be quite common where found.

Overall Threat Impact: High - medium
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Loss of habitat. Specifically wetland draining and logging. Mosquito spraying might be a threat in some places, especially if Dibrome is used. Gypsy moth spraying would be a serious threat but usually is not aimed at this habitat and is not a current issue in most of the range. In some parts of the range, perhaps most, fragmentation and loss of metapopulation function may be a serious issue, that is small colonies of skippers do die out and in some cases recolonization may be impossible.

Short-term Trend: Decline of 10-30%
Short-term Trend Comments: Previously decline was rapid due to habitat destruction. Many sites appear to be unprotected (especially in Michigan) and most populations are isolated (Bess pers. comm., 1994). For some idea of the extent of habitat loss in Ohio see introductory sections of Iftner et al. (1992). Pattern probably similar elsewhere. Almost certainly smaller EOs will continue to die out in some parts of range.

Long-term Trend: Decline of >50%

Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: In good, unsprayed habitat, will probably persist. Fragmented habitats may limit recolonization of locally extirpated EOs. If so species will probably disappear from affected areas. Habitat seems often stable.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Should be inventoried in range and searched for in Gulf coast regions between known parts of range.

Protection Needs: Several large swamps containing several colonies (that is metapopulations) each should be protected in each portion of its range.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Along the outer coastal plain from southeastern Virginia to north central Florida; along the Louisiana coast extending up the Sabine River to the Ark-La-Tex region and up the Missississippi basin to southern Illinois and Missouri continuing up the Ohio River into Indiana; also the Lake Erie lowlands of southeastern Michigan, northeast Indiana, northwest Ohio, and a tiny piece of Ontario. There is no evidence the species was ever found on much of the Gulf Coast and although the foodplants and habitat are frequent in New Jersey, Dukes' Skipper apparently never reached that state.

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, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, NC, OH, OK, SC, TX, VA
Canada ON

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AR Hempstead (05057)
FL Brevard (12009), Dixie (12029), Orange (12095), Seminole (12117), Taylor (12123), Volusia (12127)
IN Gibson (18051), Posey (18129), Steuben (18151), Wabash (18169)*
KY Ballard (21007), Caldwell (21033)*, Crittenden (21055)*, Fulton (21075)*, Henderson (21101)*, Hopkins (21107)*, Marshall (21157), McCracken (21145), McLean (21149)*, Union (21225)*, Webster (21233)*
MI Hillsdale (26059), Jackson (26075), Lenawee (26091), Monroe (26115), Washtenaw (26161), Wayne (26163)
MO Butler (29023), St. Charles (29183), Stoddard (29207)
NC Beaufort (37013), Brunswick (37019), Craven (37049), Currituck (37053), Dare (37055)
OK McCurtain (40089)
VA Chesapeake (City) (51550), Suffolk (City) (51800), Virginia Beach (City) (51810)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Lynnhaven-Poquoson (02080108)+, Hampton Roads (02080208)+
03 Albemarle (03010205)+, Pamlico (03020104)+, Lower Neuse (03020204)+, Lower Cape Fear (03030005)+, Upper St. Johns (03080101)+, Lower St. Johns (03080103)+, Kissimmee (03090101)+, Hillsborough (03100205)+, Tampa Bay (03100206)+*, Crystal-Pithlachascotee (03100207)+, Withlacoochee (03100208)+, Econfina-Steinhatchee (03110102)+
04 St. Joseph (04050001)+, Upper Grand (04050004)+, Clinton (04090003)+*, Detroit (04090004)+, Huron (04090005)+, Ottawa-Stony (04100001)+, Raisin (04100002)+*, Tiffin (04100006)+
05 Lower Green (05110005)+*, Pond (05110006)+*, Eel (05120104)+*, Lower Wabash (05120113)+, Highland-Pigeon (05140202)+*, Tradewater (05140205)+*, Lower Ohio (05140206)+
06 Lower Tennessee (06040006)+
07 Peruque-Piasa (07110009)+
08 Bayou De Chien-Mayfield (08010201)+*, Lower St. Francis (08020203)+
11 Upper Black (11010007)+, Pecan-Waterhole (11140106)+, Lower Little (11140109)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Duke's skipper, Hesperiidae.
General Description: A fairly large dark, swamp skipper, about 37-45 mm wing spread. The species can be identified from almost any butterfly guide. The wings are more rounded than any similar skippers; the upper side is very dark with little or no orange and at most two white spots on the females, none on the males. Underneath, generally paler and more contrasty than the similar Dion Skipper which may occur in the same swamps and except in Florida uses mainly the same sedges. Note the pale ray and no spot band on the hindwing and blackish in the middle part of the forewing which may be visible. Subspecies characters are given by Shuey (1976) but in practice separation is by locality, subspecies calhouni is in Florida and subspecies dukesi elsewhere.

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Undoubtedly moves between habitat patches as does the related E. DION. But not migratory.
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian
Habitat Comments: Adults enter adjacent open wetlands for nectar, but the primary habitat is sedge patches in forested swamps. Swamps may be dominated by red maple, NYSSA, bald cypress or a mixture. Sometimes shaded ditches and woods edges; wooded margins of fens. BOG/FEN checkoff questionably applies.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults take nectar from a variety of flowers. Larvae eat leaves of larger sedges. Foodplant for subspecies DUKESII is CAREX LACUSTRIS, C. striata, or C. HYALINOLEPIS in most cases. Sedges used include Hairy Sedge (Carex lacustris Willdenow) in Michigan, Shoreline Sedge (Carex hyalinolepis Steud.) in the Mississippi River basin, False Hop Sedge (Carex lupuliformis Sartwell ex Dewey), Narrowfruit Horned Beaksedge (Rhynchospora inundata (Oakes) Fernald), and Millet Beaksedge (Rhynchospora miliacea (Lam.) A. Gray) in Florida, and Walter's Sedge (Carex striata Michx., formerly C. walteriana L. H. Bailey) in the southeast.

Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates
Phenology Comments: One brood with adults primarily in July northward (extreme dates 26 June to 10 August in Ohio), but with two broods from western Kentucky and Virginia southward: typically about June and late August-September. There may be more than two broods in Florida where dates for subspecies CALHOUNI are from at least May into November, or there may be two well separated principal broods (presumably with larval aestivation) with a few stragglers at odd times. Larvae hibernate in about the fourth instar and feed again in spring pupating about two weeks before adults appear.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: Protect habitats from drainage, mosquito and especially gypsy moth spraying, and logging. Unlike most skippers this one requires a lot of shade and does not use open sedge meadows. While habitats can be unnatural such as ditches, a shaded aspect seems essential. Gypsy moth is already present in the northern parts of the range and will occupy at least most of the range of subspecies dukesi. It is not known whether or not late instar larvae would be sensitive to BTK applications aimed at gypsy moth suppression but they would be exposed. Known colonies should be excluded from spray blocks, in particular sine most of the habitats have few oaks or other especially vulnerable trees and are not particularly vulnerable to defoliation by gypsy moth larvae.
Biological Research Needs: Range wide habitat use should be documented and compared. Information (from MRR) on dispersal and real population dynamics is needed to more accurately distinguish viable (mainly C, possibly better) metapopulations from groups of remnant D-rank colonies.
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: 30Mar2008
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Management Information Edition Date: 19Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 19Mar2007
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.

  • 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.

  • Campbell, C.A., D.P. Coulson and A.A. Bryant. 1990. Status, Distribution and Life History Characteristics of Some Butterflies at Risk in the Carolinian Forest Zone of Ontario. pp 207-252. In: Allen, M.A., P.F.J. Eagles and S.D. Price (eds.). Conserving Carolinian Canada. University of Waterloo Press..

  • Clark, Austin H. and Clark, Leila F., 1951. The Butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections vol 116, no. 7

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

  • Heitzman, J. Richard and Joan E. Heitzman, 1987. Butterflies and Moths of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 385pp.

  • 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.

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

  • Iftner, D. C., J. A. Shuey, and J. V. Calhoun. 1992. Butterflies and Skippers of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin. New Series, Vol. 9, no. 1, xii + 212 pp., 40 color plates.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.