Phyciodes cocyta - (Cramer, 1777)
Northern Crescent
Other English Common Names: northern crescent
Synonym(s): Phyciodes pascoensis Wright, 1905 ;Phyciodes selenis ;Phyciodes tharos pascoensis
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Phyciodes cocyta (Cramer, 1777) (TSN 778095)
French Common Names: croissant nordique
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.120764
Element Code: IILEPK3100
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Phyciodes
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Scott, J. A. 1994. Biology and systematics of Phyciodes (Phyciodes) [Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae]. Papilio, new series #7: 120. [Essentially privately published by the author. Order from him at 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Co 80226, USA, send 7.00 US]
Concept Reference Code: A94SCO01EHUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Phyciodes cocyta
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly in part (especially westward) considered a subspecies of P. tharos or more often not recognized at all by most eastern workers. Scott (1994) resurrected the long buried name cocyta for this species and Opler and Warren (2002) and Pelham (2008) concur. This species has also recently been called P. selenis, pascoensis, and P. morpheus since about 1980. Porter and Mueller (1998) again question the distinctness of this species so the matter remains somewhat open although nearly all other recent works (except Guppy and Shepard, 2001) do recognize it as a species. Some experts suspect that Porter and Mueller had the two taxa partially mixed, but it may be that interactions differ geographically. Eastward local populations of P. cocyta occur within the range of the ubiquitous P. tharos (e.g. Allen, 1997) and would obviously be swamped by tharos if they interbreed freely in places like Pennsylvania and the Virginias. This species has also been confused with P. batesii and Schweitzer suspects it may be responsible for some old records of batesii in places where that species probably did not occur.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 14Jun2016
Global Status Last Changed: 01Oct1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Widespread and abundant especially in Canada.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (30Sep1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (14Jun2016)

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 Alaska (SNR), Arizona (SNR), Colorado (S5), Idaho (S5), Indiana (SH), Maine (S5), Massachusetts (SU), Michigan (S4), Minnesota (S5), Montana (S5), Nebraska (S1S2), Nevada (SNR), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (SNR), New Mexico (SNR), New York (S5), North Dakota (SNR), Ohio (SH), Oregon (SNR), Pennsylvania (S3?), South Dakota (SNR), Utah (SNR), Vermont (S5), Virginia (S1S3), Washington (S4), West Virginia (S2), Wisconsin (S5?), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada Alberta (S5), British Columbia (S5), Labrador (S3), Manitoba (S5), New Brunswick (S5), Newfoundland Island (S5), Northwest Territories (S4S5), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S5), Prince Edward Island (S5), Quebec (SNR), Saskatchewan (S5), Yukon Territory (S3)

Other Statuses

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Central Canada, south spottily in Western mountains to southern Mexico. Absent from much of California, Nevada, Oregon. Also in northern US and southern Canada, extending south to Michigan, New England; in Appalachians to Virginia.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Central Canada, south spottily in Western mountains to southern Mexico. Absent from much of California, Nevada, Oregon. Also in northern US and southern Canada, extending south to Michigan, New England; in Appalachians to Virginia.

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 AK, AZ, CO, ID, IN, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
Canada AB, BC, LB, MB, NB, NF, NS, NT, ON, PE, QC, SK, YT

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
NE Cherry (31031), Sheridan (31161), Sioux (31165)
NV White Pine (32033)
PA Carbon (42025), Monroe (42089)
VA Augusta (51015), Craig (51045), Frederick (51069)
WA Grant (53025)
WV Boone (54005)*, Kanawha (54039)*, Lincoln (54043)*, McDowell (54047)*, Pendleton (54071)*, Wyoming (54109)*
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead (02040104)+, Lehigh (02040106)+, South Branch Potomac (02070001)+*, Conococheague-Opequon (02070004)+, South Fork Shenandoah (02070005)+, Upper James (02080201)+
05 Lower Kanawha (05050008)+*, Coal (05050009)+*, Upper Guyandotte (05070101)+*, Lower Guyandotte (05070102)+*, Tug (05070201)+*
10 Hat (10120108)+, Upper Niobrara (10150003)+, Middle Niobrara (10150004)+
16 Spring-Steptoe Valleys (16060008)+
17 Lower Crab (17020015)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Butterfly, Nymphalidae.
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, HERBACEOUS WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Bare rock/talus/scree, Grassland/herbaceous, Old field, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: A variety of fields, meadows, glades, openings in woodlands etc.; may become more specialized at periphery of the range. In in fairly lush habitats.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Larvae feed on various ASTER spp. and VERBESINA (Paul Opler).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small or Localized Nymphalids

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where a population occurs, or has occurred, where there is potential for persistence or continued recurrence. Minimally a place where the species has been verified where there is adequate larval foodplant, nectar and overall habitat to sustain a population. Repeated occurrences of adults out of habitat on flowers, e.g. in gardens are not occurrences. Verification standards vary with species. For all a collected specimen is preferable except with taxa for which this would be illegal. Good photographs will always, almost always, or sometimes suffice depending on species and locality. Photographs are much more likely to suffice if both the upper and underside are clearly shown.
Mapping Guidance: In general larval foodplants, but sometimes also nectar plants, are the main basis for EOs. These plus general habitat features can be used as boundaries. With metapopulations the separate demes often should be mapped. Consult habitat and foodplant comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences for individual species.
Separation Barriers: Minimal data and probably vary with species. Usually not relevant.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 2 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: Multiple colonies within an overall community matrix such as openings within pine barrens or savannas, or foodplant patches within a wetland complex, prairie remnant, canyon or along a stream should generally be treated as one metapopulation occurrence by using the suitable habitat distance, especially if the foodplant occurs to some degree between the colonies.
Separation Justification: There are few good data for most species, but some of the California Euphydryas taxa have been intensively studied by Paul Ehrlich and others as have some comparable European species. These data and many casual observations all suggest metapopulation structures are common and that females sometimes leave colonies and disperse for kilometers even into and through urban areas and even rarely between low peaks. An extreme example might be Euphydryas phaeton around New Haven Connecticut at least into the 1980s (before Plantago was adopted as a primary foodplant). Valley marsh Chelone feeding populations would sporadically colonize ridgetops and produce colonies on Aureolaria. These colonies usually did not persist more than a year or two but periodically reappeared. At the same time wetland colonies sometimes were wiped out when population explosions caused larval starvation, but such places got recolonized within a few years (observations of D. Schweitzer and others). Chlossyne harrisii also is subject to frequent extirpation and recolonization at least southward. Gatrelle and others report that even the highly restricted Phyciodes batesii maconensis moves along forest roads. Within most of its range P. tharos will reliably find virtually every patch of suitable asters, even colonizing single large plants left in lawns.
It appears then that populations within a few kilometers will usually be somewhat connected. As with most Lepidoptera, contiguous suitable habitat is rarely only partially occupied. If the species occurs at all, all such habitat should be assumed occupied at least some of the time. However, for practical considerations observations more than 10 kilometers apart should be considered separate pending more information. Both distances are arbitrary but seem consistent with what is known.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: In the overwhelming majority of situations with most taxa likely to be tracked and mapped the inferred extent is simply the entire contiguous or nearly contiguous suitable habitat, which will usually be a few hundred hectares or less or a fairly obvious collection of patches within a well defined community. However in situations with extensive contiguous habitat or closely proximate patches (e.g. along a ridgetop or along a river) it is unreasonable to assume it is consistently unoccupied, but occupancy should not be inferred over more than 2 kilometers without additional data.
Date: 12Sep2001
Author: Schweitzer, Dale F.
Notes: These Specs are not appropriate for migratory species.
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: 06Oct2000
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Opler, P.A.; Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 06Oct2000

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.

  • General Status 2015, Environment Canada. 2015. Manitoba butterfly species list and subnational ranks proposed by Environment Canada contractor.

  • Gobeil, R.E., and R.M.F. Gobeil. 2014. A survey of butterflies found at a reclaimed municipal landfill superfund site in Saco, Maine (York County). News of the Lepidopterists' Society 56(4):160-165.

  • Guppy, C.S. and J.H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia. UBC Press and Royal British Columbia Museum: Victoria, British Columbia. 414 pp.

  • Huber, R. L. 2002. An updated, partially annotated checklist of Minnesota butterflies. Unpublished report.

  • Klassen,P.,Westwood, A.R., Preston. W.B. and W.B. McKillop. 1989. The butterflies of Manitoba. Manitoba Museum of Man and Nature. Winnipeg. 290 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. Landry, B. C. Schmidt, J.D. Lafontaine, J.T. Troubridge, A.D. Macaulay, E.J. Van Neiukerken, J.R. DeWaard, J.J. Dombroskie, J. Klymko, V. Nazari, and K. Stead. 2018. Annotated Checklist of the Moth and Butterflies (Lepidoptera) of Canada and Alaska. Pensoft Publishers. Bulgaria. 580 pp.

  • 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.

  • Porter, A. H, and J. C. Muller. 1998. Partial genetic isolatation between Phyciodes tharos and P. cocyta ( Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 52(2):182-205.

  • Proshek, B. and D.C. Houghton. 2012. Complex mtDNA variation and species delimitations in the Phyciodes tharos species group (Nymphalidae: Melitaeini): a second look in Michigan and Ohio. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 66(1): 41-49.

  • Scott, J. A. 1994. Biology and systematics of Phyciodes (Phyciodes) [Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae]. Papilio, new series #7: 120. [Essentially privately published by the author. Order from him at 60 Estes St., Lakewood, Co 80226, USA, send 7.00 US]

  • Wildlife Management Information System (WMIS). 2006+. Geo-referenced wildlife datasets (1900 to present) from all projects conducted by Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada.  Available at http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/programs/wildlife-research/wildlife-management-information-services

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.