Apodemia mormo - (C. Felder and R. Felder, 1859)
Mormon Metalmark
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Apodemia mormo (C. Felder and R. Felder, 1859) (TSN 201268)
French Common Names: mormon
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110498
Element Code: IILEPH7010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Invertebrates - Insects - Butterflies and Moths - Butterflies and Skippers
 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Mandibulata Insecta Lepidoptera Riodinidae Apodemia
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: Apodemia mormo
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 01Sep1998
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons: Species is quite common. Subspecies LANGEI is listed as Endangered.
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (01Sep1998)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N2 (23Aug2017)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Arizona (SNR), California (SNR), Colorado (S5), Idaho (SNR), Montana (S3S5), Nevada (SNR), New Mexico (SNR), North Dakota (SNR), Oregon (SNR), South Dakota (SNR), Texas (SNR), Utah (SNR), Washington (S4), Wyoming (SNR)
Canada British Columbia (S1), Saskatchewan (S2)

Other Statuses

Implied Status under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (USESA): PS
Comments on USESA: Subspecies langei of California is listed Endangered by the USFWS.
Implied Status under the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC):E,SC
Comments on COSEWIC: The Southern Mountain population is designated Endangered. This species is a very small, disjunct, northern outlier of a species whose main range occurs in the southwestern US. The butterflies are confined to a very small area in a narrow valley in a populated area in southern British Columbia. The valley bottom is also an important transportation and utility corridor. The butterfly is vulnerable to natural stochastic events, and human activity can easily cause the extirpation of colonies.

The Prairie population is designated Threatened. This species is a small, northern outlier of a species whose main range occurs in the southwestern US. Known populations are not currently threatened by human activities and half the known sites are within the boundaries of a National Park. However, the total population is quite small, likely undergoes extreme fluctuations, is a habitat specialist, and occurs in a highly restricted area, making it vulnerable to stochastic events.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: 20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Western half of United States; a few occurrences in Canada and New Mexico. Also occurs in Mexico.

Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Population Size: 10,000 to >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Most subspecies common.

Overall Threat Impact Comments: Most EOs not under threat.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)) Western half of United States; a few occurrences in Canada and New Mexico. Also occurs in Mexico.

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 AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, ND, NM, NV, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY
Canada BC, SK

Range Map
No map available.


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CA Contra Costa (06013)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
18 San Joaquin Delta (18040003)+
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Basic Description: Butterfly, Riodinidae
Habitat Type: Terrestrial
Non-Migrant: N
Locally Migrant: N
Long Distance Migrant: N
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Desert, Grassland/herbaceous, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Habitat Comments: From beach dunes to mountains; typically in dry areas and slopes. Larval host plants are in genus Eriogonum.
Adult Food Habits: Nectarivore
Food Comments: Caterpillar Hosts: Various wild buckwheats (Eriogonum). Adult Food: Nectar from flowers of Eriogonum and other plants, especially yellow-flowered composites such as Senecio and rabbitbrush (Lotts and Naberhaus 2017).
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Riodinidae: North American Species

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 continued recurrence. Minimally a suitable habitat with substantial larval foodplant where the species has been documented by a specimen or for some species a diagnostic photograph verified by an expert can be substituted. In most genera, especially CALEPHELIS, species are very similar to each other. Sight records are therefore strongly discouraged and can be used only when no other congeneric species is even remotely possible--which generally means only east of the Appalachians where the two species are widely allopatric.
Mapping Guidance: In very many cases the boundaries of the habitat or known distribution of the larval foodplant in the area can be used to delineate EO boundaries. Adults of this family seem to need nectar and nectar areas need to be included in the EO. Usually these will be similar to the breeding habitat but they might be separate but contiguous.
Separation Barriers: No good information known.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: These butterflies are usually very local and very seldom seen outside of their normal habitat (except for C. BOREALIS often wandering into adjacent fens). Movement between such patches seems to be rare, but can exceed a kilometer through at least marginal habitat (e.g. D. Norris in Connecticut for C. BOREALIS). Therefore use of the minimum distance seems very reasonable for unsuitable habitat and a few kilometers would be justified in suitable or marginal habitat.

In this context marginal habitats where the foodplant is present are not considered unsuitable. In general it seems that where multiple habitat patches occur in a canyon, along a river corridor, on a ridge, powerline etc. the patches tend to be occupied. While these butterflies are very localized there seems to be no evidence suggesting that a population would not disperse through available contiguous habitat like most other Lepidoptera do. Furthermore individual "colonies" often seem to be tiny, often less than 10 seen in less than .2 hectare for some species such as C. BOREALIS, MUTICUM and VIRGINIENSIS. Such low numbers could not persist long term implying movement and functioning metapopulations. The absence of C. BOREALIS in most habitat patches now in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey also suggests failure to persist after metaopulation disruption. Thus if suitable habitat is contiguous or nearly so for several kilometers it is likely to be occupied and 5 kilometers seems like a reasonable, if arbitrary separation distance. If two collection sites are that close together it is very strongly recommended that intervening suitable habitats be checked which is likely to lead to the conclusion that there is only one occurrence--but probably a high quality one.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Inferred Minimum Extent Justification: Since these butterflies are so localized it seems prudent not to infer presence over large areas without actually checking. However if habitat is contiguous or nearly so it does seem unlikely that most species would fail to occupy it especially in situations like ridges, river or stream corridors, canyon bottoms etc. So .5 kilometer is an arbitrary compromise. Occupancy is not inferred beyond actual potential habitat and if this is smaller than about 200 hectares assume full occupancy. If larger, more observation is needed.
Date: 31Aug2001
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: 16Jun1987
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Opler, P.A.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 17May2001

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

References
Help
  • Arnold, R.A. and J. A. Powell. 1983. Apodemia mormo langei. Ch. 6 In Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Island biogeography, patch dynamics and design of habitat preserves. Univ. Cal. Publ. Entomol. 99: 1 - 161.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment (BCMOE). 2004. Working files in Arcview, based on inventory. Penticton, BC.

  • B.C. Ministry of Environment. Recovery Planning in BC. B.C. Minist. Environ. Victoria, BC.

  • COSEWIC Assessment and status report on the Mormon Metalmark (Apodemia mormo) Southern Mountain population - Prairie Population in Canada.

  • COSEWIC. 2002. Assessment and update status report on the mormon metalmark Apodemia mormo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 22 pp.

  • COSEWIC. 2002c. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the mormon metalmark Apodemia mormo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 22 pp.

  • COSEWIC. 2003. Assessment and status report on the Mormon Metalmark (Apodemia mormo) Southern Mountain population - Prairie Population in Canada.

  • Cannings, S.G., and R. Cannings. 1995. Rare Invertebrates of the South Okanagan. B.C. Minist. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl. Branch. 6pp.

  • Crawford, L.A., S. Desjardins and N. Keyghobadi. 2011. Fine-scale genetic structure of an endangered population of the Mormon metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo)revealed using AFLPs. Conserv Genet. 12:991-1001

  • Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2017p. Recovery Strategy for the Dun Skipper (Euphyes vestris), Western Population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 24 pp. + 36 pp.

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

  • Guppy, C.S., J.H. Shepard, and N.G. Kondla. 1994. Butterflies and skippers of conservation concern in British Columbia. Can. Field-Nat. 108:31-40.

  • Guppy, C.S., J.H. Shepard, and N.G. Kondla. 1994. Butterflies and skippers of conservation concern in British Columbia. Can. Field-Nat. 108:31-40.

  • Guppy, C.S., and J.H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia. UBC Press in collaboration with Royal B.C. Mus. 414pp.

  • Hooper, R.R. 2002. Status Report of Apodemia Mormo (C. R. Felder) in Saskatchewan 2002. Unpublished Report, 8 pp. Box 757, Fort Qu'Appelle, SK, S0G 1S0.

  • Lea, E.C., R.E. Maxwell, and A. Swanson. 1998. Biophysical Habitat Units of the South Okanagan Study Area. Working Report. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria.

  • Lea, T. 2008. Historical (pre-settlement) ecosystems of the Okanagan Valley and Lower Similkameen Valley of British Columbia - pre-European contact to the present. Davidsonia 19(1): 3-36.

  • Lotts, K., and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2017. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Available online: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Version December 2018).

  • NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at .

  • 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., and J. A. Powell. 1961 [1962]. Taxonomic and distributional studies on the western components of the Apodemia mormo Complex (Riodinidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 15(3):145-171.

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

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

  • Proshek, B., L.A. Crawford, C.S. Davis, S. Desjardins, A.E. Henderson and F.A. Sperling. 2013. Apodemia mormo in Canada: population genetic data support prior conservation ranking. Journal of Insect Conservation 17(1): 155-170

  • Southern Interior Invertebrates Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Mormon Metalmark (Apodemia mormo), Southern Mountain Population in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. 14 pp.

  • Wick, A.A., S. Pruss, J. Spence and N. Erbilgin. 2014. Microhabitat use in a northern peripheral population of Apodemia mormo: factors beyond the host plant. Journal of the Lepidopterists? Society 68(1):54-60

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.