Speyeria diana - (Cramer, 1777)
Diana Fritillary
Other English Common Names: Diana fritillary
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Speyeria diana (Cramer, 1777) (TSN 777990)
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.112513
Element Code: IILEPJ6010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Speyeria
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: Speyeria diana
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G3G4
Global Status Last Reviewed: 30Mar2008
Global Status Last Changed: 30Nov2002
Rounded Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable
Reasons: Considering past range reduction and known current threats to its habitat and from gypsy moth spraying, there is doubt whether this species is secure or not though it does have more than 100 bone fide persistent occurrences and certainly is not now imperiled in the core of its range. Actually occurrences are difficult to define and the number of occurrences is very difficult to evaluate since adults live a long time and apparently are sometimes dispersive. They may be considerably more widespread in good years than in unfavorable years and it is the minimum range in a an area that determines status. It appears there are presently dozens or perhaps hundreds of occurrences centered in eastern Kentucky, western North Carolina, Tennessee and north Georgia with fewer in the Virginias and some substantial populations in the Ozarks and Ouachitas. Potential gypsy moth spraying will be a major concern in the future in the Ozarks and Ouachitas. This species is not imminently imperiled in the southern Appalachians or in Missouri-Arkansas, but considering its past decline and extirpation from several states, and threats in some areas, it is difficult to say whether this species should be called secure over-all. This species was originally substantially more widespread than it is now, for example in coastal Virginia and the Ohio Valley, but it may at one time have been more reduced than it is today since it has recolonized many Appalachian areas that were clearcut in the 1800s or early 1900s.


Nation: United States
National Status: N3N4 (30Nov2002)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
United States Alabama (S2), Arkansas (S2S3), Georgia (S2?), Indiana (S1), Kentucky (S2), North Carolina (S3S4), Ohio (SX), Oklahoma (S2), South Carolina (S3?), Tennessee (S3), Virginia (S3), West Virginia (S2S3)

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: As of about year 2003, this species had essentially a two part range in the Appalachians from the Virginias and eastern Kentucky into north Georgia and probably Alabama and separately in the Ozarks and Quachitas of Missouri and Arkansas. Within Arkansas and adjacent regions and its main Appalachian range it is fairly widespread (perhaps less so in West Virginia) and occurrences may be very hard to define. It is now very rare and sporadic or absent elsewhere.

Originally possibly as far north as western Pennsylvania, and certainly west through the Ohio Valley to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana, although somewhat spotty. Former disjunct coastal plain-eastern piedmont populations of Virginia and North Carolina populations seem to be eradicated. Probably no longer resident in Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. Not now found in Pennsylvania or Maryland but there is no real evidence it was ever established in these states.

Area of Occupancy: 126 to >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments: Exceptionally difficult to define. Adult summer habitat may be quite different from breeding habitat and physically separated. for example this forest and woodland breeder is typically seen in prairie patches in Arkansas. Both adult and breeding habitats are potentially limiting and crucial for this genus.

Number of Occurrences: 21 - 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: Very difficult to define and therefore to evaluate occurrences. In good years adults, which move around substantially looking for nectar and live one to possibly four months, are widespread over large tracts of southern Appalachian forest and in limited parts of Arkansas. In poor years they are more localized and occurrence estimates should be based on the latter situation, since these are essentially core areas of unstable metapopulations. It is virtually certain there are many more than 20 substantial metapopulation occurrences by any reasonable definition, and probably over 100, from Virginia to Georgia. The number of occurrences in the Ozarks region and elsewhere is less clear, but at least several.

Population Size: Unknown
Population Size Comments: Records overestimate abundance due to occasional population build-ups and dispersal and probable occurrence of a lot of DRANK sites at least in good years. There are no useful estimates of numbers but in typical years probably would be C or D.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Some to many (13-125)

Overall Threat Impact: High
Overall Threat Impact Comments: Strip mining and timbering are significant threats at many sites, and deforestation coincided with the substantial reduction in range of this species. However it does recolonize cut over areas when forests grow back. Overall gypsy moth spraying and residential development are probably the biggest current threats at least in the Appalachians. Third instar larvae showed extreme sensitivity to Btk (Peacock et al., 1998). Dimilin would pose an equal or, more likely, even greater threat. Possibly could be impacted locally by defoliation if this resulted in tree mortality, but at least in Appalachia, most good breeding sites are not oak dominated and are unlikely to have high tree mortality caused by by gypsy moth. Even when many trees are left intact, development is likely to obliterate and convert to lawn much of the understory where larvae occur. On the other hand gardens do provide nectar which is possibly sometimes limiting. Invasive exotic weeds like garlic mustard and out of control deer (especially in National Parks) could become serious threats if they reduce foodplant violets or adult nectar plants. Both need to be monitored.

Also lack of available information concerning precisely where major occurrences are located hampers any manager trying to protect them, for example in evaluating Btk spray proposals. Photographers, collectors and reliable watchers should be encouraged to report such areas, especially places where females are regularly found late in the season when they are laying eggs. At least in Appalachia this species has been collected for for six decades or longer at some places without any apparent impact. Normal collecting practices are not a significant threat in the core of the range, and mostly males are taken. Females should be collected with restraint especially before September when they probably have not oviposited yet. In areas where the species is genuinely scarce vouchering of new occurrences should be by male specimen or photographs.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Apparently underwent a major rangewide decline resulting in loss of substantial portion of historic range. However, some workers believe it is again increasing in some areas where second growth forests are becoming mature and where gypsy moth spraying is not presently widespread. It may be less rare now than it was several decades ago in the Ozarks and Quchitas, e.g. compare Heitzman and Heitzman (1987) account with current information and confer the map and discussion in Moran and Baldridge (2002). Obviously loosing habitat every year to summer home and residential development in its core Appalachian range. Apparently not increasing or decreasing more than 10% overall.

Long-term Trend: Decline of 50-90%
Long-term Trend Comments: Greatly reduced by land clearing and plowing in the 19th and 20th centuries resulting in a moderate overall reduction of range and much greater reduction in numbers. Numbers have clearly recovered some since then but the range was reduced by perhaps 50%. For example the species was virtually eradicated from the Ohio Valley before 1900 and perhaps 50 year later from eastern Virginia and eastern North Carolina, and it does not now occur in those regions. The last known Indiana specimens or observations were before 1891 (Shull, 1987) and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland records, credible or otherwise, were mostly or all before 1900. Today the two remaining parts of the range are completely isolated by hundreds of kilometers but originally the distribution was probably rather continuous. It is less clear how much this species was reduced in numbers or area of occupancy, although probably more than it was in extent of range.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable
Intrinsic Vulnerability Comments: Populations require substantial adult and larval habitats which may be quite separate. Adults must be able to move between and locate both. Thus this species probably requires much larger and more diverse overall habitats than almost all other butterflies in its range.

Environmental Specificity: Moderate. Generalist or community with some key requirements scarce.
Environmental Specificity Comments: While acceptable violets occur in many habitats, this species breeds only in forested areas. Adults also need access to flowers which are often in different habitats and especially eastward could be limiting.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Inventory Needs: Locate important population centers before gypsy moth invasion reaches areas.

Protection Needs: Protection of long term population centers is strongly recommended, especially any extant outside of Appalachians. Delete breeding areas from spray blocks or spray with Gypcheck or apply Entomophaga maimaiga. Monitor invasive weeds. Deer management may become critical.

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) As of about year 2003, this species had essentially a two part range in the Appalachians from the Virginias and eastern Kentucky into north Georgia and probably Alabama and separately in the Ozarks and Quachitas of Missouri and Arkansas. Within Arkansas and adjacent regions and its main Appalachian range it is fairly widespread (perhaps less so in West Virginia) and occurrences may be very hard to define. It is now very rare and sporadic or absent elsewhere.

Originally possibly as far north as western Pennsylvania, and certainly west through the Ohio Valley to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana, although somewhat spotty. Former disjunct coastal plain-eastern piedmont populations of Virginia and North Carolina populations seem to be eradicated. Probably no longer resident in Ohio, Indiana or Illinois. Not now found in Pennsylvania or Maryland but there is no real evidence it was ever established in these states.

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: endemic to a single nation

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, GA, IN, KY, NC, OHextirpated, OK, SC, TN, VA, WV

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
AL Calhoun (01015)*, Clay (01027), Etowah (01055)
AR Clark (05019), Conway (05029), Faulkner (05045), Hempstead (05057), Howard (05061), Jefferson (05069), Johnson (05071), Logan (05083), Newton (05101), Pope (05115), Pulaski (05119), Saline (05125), Scott (05127), Yell (05149)
GA Lumpkin (13187), Rabun (13241), Towns (13281), Union (13291), White (13311)*
OK Cherokee (40021)
SC Oconee (45073)
TN Carter (47019), Cocke (47029), Greene (47059), Johnson (47091), Monroe (47123), Polk (47139), Sullivan (47163), Unicoi (47171), Van Buren (47175), Washington (47179)
WV Boone (54005), Fayette (54019), Greenbrier (54025), Kanawha (54039), Lewis (54041), Lincoln (54043), Logan (54045), McDowell (54047), Mercer (54055), Monroe (54063), Nicholas (54067), Pocahontas (54075), Raleigh (54081), Randolph (54083), Upshur (54097), Webster (54101), Wyoming (54109)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
02 Upper James (02080201)+
03 Seneca (03060101)+, Tugaloo (03060102)+, Upper Chattahoochee (03130001)+, Middle Coosa (03150106)+, Lower Coosa (03150107)+
05 Tygart Valley (05020001)+, Little Kanawha (05030203)+, Middle New (05050002)+, Greenbrier (05050003)+, Lower New (05050004)+, Gauley (05050005)+, Upper Kanawha (05050006)+, Elk (05050007)+, Coal (05050009)+, Upper Guyandotte (05070101)+, Lower Guyandotte (05070102)+, Tug (05070201)+, Caney (05130108)+
06 South Fork Holston (06010102)+, Watauga (06010103)+, Upper French Broad (06010105)+, Nolichucky (06010108)+, Lower Little Tennessee (06010204)+, Hiwassee (06020002)+, Ocoee (06020003)+
08 Bayou Meto (08020402)+, Little Missouri (08040103)+, Upper Saline (08040203)+, Bayou Bartholomew (08040205)+
11 Illinois (11110103)+, Dardanelle Reservoir (11110202)+, Lake Conway-Point Remove (11110203)+, Petit Jean (11110204)+, Fourche La Fave (11110206)+, Lower Arkansas-Maumelle (11110207)+, Lower Little (11140109)+, Mckinney-Posten Bayous (11140201)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Diana Fritillary, a nymphalid butterfly
General Description: Unique. A large fritillary without silver spots and a mimetic balck female.
Diagnostic Characteristics: If seen well both sexes are unmistakable, but inexperienced persons sometimes mistake large southern females of S. cybele for male S. diana when seen flying. For the male the plain two-tone brownish underside hindwing with some silver at the margins but no silver spots, and solidly dark basal portion and almost unmarked orange outer third of both wings above are diagnostic. For the female a lack of tails and lack of any orange spots on the hindwing beneath or elsewhere and extensive blue on the hindwing above combined with three rows of white or bluish white (but not yellowish) spots on the forewing above are diagnostic. While a forest understory setting for a larva would suggest this species, for now identifications should not be based on immatures since S. cybele caterpillar is similar (see illustration in Allen, 1997).

Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Palustrine Habitat(s): FORESTED WETLAND, Riparian, SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: Breeding habitat is deciduous or mixed forest with a lot of violetds in the understory in most of the range. In Arkansas oak woodland or savanna, with a lot of violets in the understory are also breeding habitats. While violets do occur in open areas, there is no evidence females oviposit there. James Bess (pers. comm. to Schweitzer, February, 2005) verifies that breeding habitats in Arkansas are wooded, but not as heavily as eastward. In most of the range habitats are generally mesic, such as cove forests, but sometimes bottomlands are also used. Adults also use adjacent fields, pastures, shrublands and grassland for nectar and such places are part of the habitat. In Arkansas, and more widely, breeding habitats and nectaring habitats may be quite different (Moran and Baldridge, 2002) and bothare checked off here. Flower preferences may vary regionally. For example milkweeds are often used farther east and are not noted in this Arkansas study (Table 1).

Adult Food Habits: Coprophagous, Nectarivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Adults visit flowers of many species and also scat and moist soil. Larvae of this entire genus feed on foliage of genus VIOLA, probably any species available in the breeding habitats.
Adult Phenology: Diurnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: There is one brood in all species of this genus. Adult males begin to emerge in most areas in June and females follow in a couple of weeks. Females persist through most of September at least southward. Oivposition is apparently in late August and September. Larvae hatch in the fall and hibernate without feeding, resuming activity in March or April.
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary
Help
Stewardship Overview: In many cases no management will be needed. TThis species was a former USFWS C2 species primarily due to concerns about Gypsy Moth spraying, particularly considering the extensive BTK and Dimilin spraying in the central Appalachians in the late1980s and early 1990s. While this threat has not disappeared, current more targeted applications would not be nearly as likely to eradicate Diana populations as those of earlier decades. Larvae of this species are extremely sensitive to BTK (Peacock et al., 1998). It is unlikely Compsilura is a threat since this impacts primarily large summer caterpillars feeding in trees, and Diana larvae feed mostly in spring near the ground. Gypsy Moth larvae do not eat violets but canopy defoliation itself would probably have a one year positive impact on violets and nectar flowers.

As with virtually all butterflies, no stage is protected from fires and prescribed burning in breeding areas should be avoided if practical. Numerous studies and observations document the negative impacts of fire on other fritillary larvae. If some Arkansas habitats really need fires to persist, unburned refugia are essential and several years may be needed for recovery after fires. Prescribed burning in prairie areas where adults nectar could cause significant mortality only if conducted in summer and can substantially improve nectar supply (Rudolph et al, 2006). Generally eastern habitats are not thought of as fire prone, although wild fires could occur. However, given the findings of Rudolph et al., the adequacy of nectar resources in heavily forested eastern habitats should be re-evaluated and might be more limiting than is generally supposed. In some places prescribed burning might be useful for maintaining openings with nectar flowers.

Much of its range now is on US Forest Service and National Park Service lands. The management goal with this species should be primarily maintaining healthy populations in the core of both parts of the range thus preventing another large-scale decline. This does not mean management of large tracts in the Appalachians as Diana Fritillary preserves, but mostly avoiding disturbances from which populations cannot recover and certain practices like herbiciding that destroy understory. Some proactive management might be warranted in areas where this species is rare or probably still recovering from past deforestation events. In general maintaining this species should be compatible with most normal forest management practices other than clearcutting, but there could be conflicts with gyspy moth control. Gypchek would be a safe alternative.

The extent to which selective logging impacts this species (positively or negatively) seems to be poorly understood. Clear cutting eliminates populations although they would liklely reappear in a few decades if the area were to regenerate to native forest with intact understory. While one might assume that all logging is detrimental, it seems plausible that thinning could increase violets, which in turn might increase Diana populations if the habitat remained forested enough for ovipositing females to use. Any silvicultural practices such as herbiciding that would kill violets or nectar plants would be potential serious threats. Excessive deer browsing and roadside mowing could eliminate nectar plants, forcing adults to leave an area. It is not clear whether deer would seriously impact violets. Non-native weeds such as stilt grass, kudzu, mile-a-minute, or garlic mustard that could impact forest violets might be the most serious long-term threat, but more information is needed.

Collecting bans are not warranted in the Appalachian portion of the range at least, and there is no information suggesting actual impacts to populations this species, some of which have been collected for a century now. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that fresh female Speyeria in July and August have not reproduced and blatant over collecting apparently eradicated a Regal Fritillary colony in Maryland. Collectors should use common sense and collect females sparingly. Both collectors and photographers need to be careful not to damage nectar plants. We suggest those who want a series of fresh specimens consider rearing them or obtaining them from somebody who does, or collecting small numbers in different places or years.

This species was a former USFWS C2 species primarily due to concerns about Gypsy Moth spraying, particularly considering the extensive BTK and Dimilin spraying in the central Appalachians in the late1980s and early 1990s. While this threat has not disappeared, current more targeted applications would not be nearly as likely to eradicate Diana populations as those of earlier decades. Larvae of this species are extremely sensitive to BTK (Peacock et al., 1998). It is unlikely Compsilura is a threat since this impacts primarily large summer caterpillars feeding in trees, and Diana larvae feed mostly in spring near the ground. Gypsy Moth larvae do not eat violets but canopy defoliation itself would probably have a one year positive impact on violets and nectar flowers.

As with virtually all butterflies, no stage is protected from fires and prescribed burning in breeding areas should be avoided if practical. Numerous studies and observations document the negative impacts of fire on other fritillary larvae. If some Arkansas habitats really need fires to persist, unburned refugia are essential and several years may be needed for recovery after fires. Prescribed burning in prairie areas where adults nectar could cause significant mortality only if conducted in summer and can substantially improve nectar supply (Rudolph et al, 2006). Generally eastern habitats are not thought of as fire prone, although wild fires could occur. However, given the findings of Rudolph et al., the adequacy of nectar resources in heavily forested eastern habitats should be re-evaluated and might be more limiting than is generally supposed. In some places prescribed burning might be useful for maintaining openings with nectar flowers.

Much of its range now is on US Forest Service and National Park Service lands. The management goal with this species should be primarily maintaining healthy populations in the core of both parts of the range thus preventing another large-scale decline. This does not mean management of large tracts in the Appalachians as Diana Fritillary preserves, but mostly avoiding disturbances from which populations cannot recover and certain practices like herbiciding that destroy understory. Some proactive management might be warranted in areas where this species is rare or probably still recovering from past deforestation events. In general maintaining this species should be compatible with most normal forest management practices other than clearcutting, but there could be conflicts with gyspy moth control. Gypchek would be a safe alternative.

The extent to which selective logging impacts this species (positively or negatively) seems to be poorly understood. Clear cutting eliminates populations although they would liklely reappear in a few decades if the area were to regenerate to native forest with intact understory. While one might assume that all logging is detrimental, it seems plausible that thinning could increase violets, which in turn might increase Diana populations if the habitat remained forested enough for ovipositing females to use. Any silvicultural practices such as herbiciding that would kill violets or nectar plants would be potential serious threats. Excessive deer browsing and roadside mowing could eliminate nectar plants, forcing adults to leave an area. It is not clear whether deer would seriously impact violets. Non-native weeds such as stilt grass, kudzu, mile-a-minute, or garlic mustard that could impact forest violets might be the most serious long-term threat, but more information is needed.

Collecting bans are not warranted in the Appalachian portion of the range at least, and there is no information suggesting actual impacts to populations this species, some of which have been collected for a century now. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that fresh female Speyeria in July and August have not reproduced and blatant over collecting apparently eradicated a Regal Fritillary colony in Maryland. Collectors should use common sense and collect females sparingly. Both collectors and photographers need to be careful not to damage nectar plants. We suggest those who want a series of fresh specimens consider rearing them or obtaining them from somebody who does, or collecting small numbers in different places or years.


Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Speyeria Butterflies, Generic

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: A location where the species occurs or has occurred with potential for persistence or regular recurrence. Minimally a location with violets (larval foodplant), nectar flowers and suitable overall habitat for the particular species where presence has been verified by specimen (strongly preferred westward) or expertly identified photograph. For some species in eastern North America sight records from experienced observers are acceptable. Most viable EOs will be at least 10 hectares and some taxa such as S. IDALIA require much more space (as is also suggested by Layberry et al., 1998 for S. EDWARDSII).
Mapping Guidance: Use the unsuitable habitat distance only if there is really no suitable breeding habitat between sites and adults do not regularly visit the intervening area for nectar. For example for a prairie or woodland taxon the suitable habitat distance should be applied between high quality habitat patches separated by a landscape containing marginal or degraded habitat patches or abundant flowers such as thistles.If the habitat is a feature clearly contained within an overall natural community matrix, such as openings in chaparral or woodland, then all such patches within that community occurrence should generally be considered a single metapopulation EO and the suitable habitat distance used The EO boundaries can be based largely on the community boundaries but might include additional nectaring areas if these are a locally limiting resource and not abundant in the primary habitat. Consult habitat and food comments fields for species-specific information on what constitutes suitable habitat when mapping occurrences for individual species. Presence of genus VIOLA is a critical habitat feature, but as far as known the exact species of violet is not important.
Separation Barriers: This definitely varies by species and cannot usually be known. Some open country species (such as S. IDALIA) will not enter wooded areas, but might fly over or around them. Developed areas, including lightly urbanized ones, cannot be assumed to be barriers as wandering adults will enter them to visit flower gardens. Due to high temperatures and lack of flowers lowland deserts probably can be considered significant barriers to most species.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 4 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 10 km
Alternate Separation Procedure: In arid regions consider whether hot arid terrain might actually be a thermal barrier and not merely unsuitable. If this appears to be the case a separation distance as small as 2 km might be appropriate.
Separation Justification: See separate documentation for S. IDALIA. Individuals of that species have been documented several times as moving a few kilometers in one day either one way or round trip during marking studies by Barb Barton in Pennsylvania and by Dale Schweitzer in New England. Documentation is less for other species but individuals several kilometers out of habitat are frequently seen for some of the species such as S. CYBELE eastward. At least the females are long lived and apparently move about during their late summer oviposition season. On the other hand adults are not commonly season more than a kilometer or so out of habitat if the intervening terrain is obviously different. Undoubtedly movement potential does vary among species and cold climate species probably are less able to travel due to temperature and generally shorter flight season. The more extreme habitat specialists and relictual populations are probably sedentary. A further serious complication is that habitat that is completely unsuitable for breeding (e.g. lacks violets) may contain a lot of nectar and thus should probably be considered suitable habitat in the context of separation distance. Adults of species such as S. DIANA, IDALIA, CYBELE, ATLANTIS frequently visit such places. The figures are educated guesses based on general experience.
The rather low figure of two kilometers takes into account the rather discrete habitat preferences of most of the species. Speyeria are not likely to utilize any patch of foodplants in inappropriate habitat context. Even S. CYBELE, probably the least specialized species, does not use extensive violet populations in highly disturbed habitats such as lawns or most city parks, even when these are mostly not subject to mowing or other regular disturbance.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): 2 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Use with caution and some knowledge of the adult and breeding habitat. For a flying animal easily capable of covering 1-6 kilometers in a day that lives around one-two months and with occurrences being populations of generally hundreds of adults, it would be unreasonable to assume truly suitable habitat without large gaps would remain regularly unoccupied even if parts of it were vacant in a given year (such as in some cases after fall or spring fires). Apply the 2 km radius only for extensive suitable habitat. If the habitat does not extend that far do not infer presence. For habitats less than 400 hectares assume full occupancy. If the nature or extent of the local habitat is unclear, select a smaller inferred extent. Persistent greater fritillary occurrences usually occupy more than 50 hectares and often several hundred.
Date: 19Jul2001
Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Notes: These Specs are meant to cover most of the G4 and G5, and some G3, species within this large genus. The rarer species usually have their own Specs and are often better studied. There is substantial species or subspecies specific literature on this genus, dealing mostly with the rarities. If better taxon-specific local information is available, use it rather than these Specs.
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: 31May2007
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: D.F. Schweitzer, Opler, P.A.
Management Information Edition Date: 12Mar2007
Management Information Edition Author: Schweitzer, D.F.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 16Feb2005
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.

  • Covell, C. V., Jr. 1999. The butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of Kentucky: An annotated checklist. Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series Number 6, Frankfort, Kentucky. 220 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.

  • Moran, Matthew D. and Charles D. Baldridge. 1002. Distribution of the Diana Fritillary, Speyeria diana, (Nymphalidae) in Arkansas, with notes on nectar plant and habitat preference. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 56(3) 162-165.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Perkins, P. D. 1983. North American insect status review. Contract 14-16-0009-79-052. Final report to Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 354 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.

  • Schweitzer, Dale F. 2004. Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar): impacts and options for biodiversity-oriented land managers. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. NatureServe Explorer. Online. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

  • Shull, Ernest M. 1987. The Butterflies of Indiana. Publ. by Indiana Acad. Science, distributed by Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis, 262 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 November 2016.
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 © 2017 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. 2017. 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.