BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA EMI OJEIFD WIND TIPU] SOYMEIGIOIIOT Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) The earliest illustrations and descriptions of this familiar bird are discussed in the lead article of this issue. Number 24 ISSN 1066-0712 2004 BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA ISSN 1066-0712 Published by the Virginia Natural History Society The Virginia Natural History Society (VNHS) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dissemination of scientific information on all aspects of natural history in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Membership in VNHS includes a subscription to Banisteria. Annual dues are $20.00 (per calendar year); library subscriptions to Banisteria are $40.00. Subscribers/members outside the United States should add $3.00 for additional postage. Checks should be made payable to the Virginia Natural History Society. Membership dues and inquires should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer (address, page 2); correspondence regarding Banisteria to one of the co- editors. Banisteria 1s a peer-reviewed journal. For additional information regarding the VNHS, including other membership categories and instructions for prospective authors of Banisteria papers, consult our website at: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vnhs/ Editorial Staff: Banisteria Co-editors Joseph C. Mitchell, Department of Biology University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173 Steven M. Roble, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage, 217 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Associate Editors Richard L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Alfred G. Wheeler, Jr., Department of Entomology Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634 Thomas F. Wieboldt, Department of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 Production Consultant Patricia A. Roble Richmond, Virginia Banisteria No. 23 was published on 15 September 2004. Cover: Woodcut of a cardinal, from Ulisse Aldrovandi’s Ornithologiae (1599). Inner back cover: Red Salamander (Pseudotriton ruber) from Greene County, Virginia; photographic illustration by Will Brown. BANISTERIA A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA Number 24, 2004 Table of Contents The Earliest Hlustrations and Descriptions of the Cardinal PPC WRITS LON a, Reese chsh gre eed aeaitauuiy eet enna yay ey oan nee owt eee ctee cis 1g Satna nah OMe Ee aca lesa ameeS tel Oe S 3 Road Mortality of Snakes in Central Virginia Jason. “Gibsort atid ‘Denali! As Met le ae soy cecstsact ss neds crnsnantaaaereneniea rns biden, addy stinmadyuauas hoon udbshtsteaeanh7 3a wrebbtes 8 Status of the Appalachian Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot) in Virginia Anne C. Chazal, Steven M. Roble, Christopher S. Hobson, and Katharine L. Derge...........0000000ccc eee 15 An Annotated List of the Caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Virginia: Part I. Introduction and Families of Annulipalpia and Spicipalpia Oliver S. Flint, Jr., Richard L. Hoffman, and Charles R. Parker. o.............o coco ccccccccccceeececeessssseeeeeseeeeeeeesnnneees 23 Shorter Contributions Observation of an Externally Situated Southern Flying Squirrel (G/aucomys volans) Nest Depredated by an Eastern Rat Snake (Elaphe alleganiensis) in Southwestern Virginia James Sparks, Jr, leynne Hassel-anid John Py Pagels 28 osc acccepnnedercnolotvececseslenebbaprebuniteptrnnesereeccecepedebndererpannes 47 An Unusually Colored Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) from Virginia, with Notes on her Offspring Joseph C. Mitchell and Liam McGranaghan.........0000.0...ccccccc cece cc ccccceeseseseceeeseeeesceseueeesesetseeeeseettsseeeeeensnreess 49 A Malformed Fowler’'s Toad (Bufo fowleri) from the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia Josephee uMitchell and Belinea ar wel Dowel oslo ane nterteeecocenanaata cance Abuees apriwetedndaabantened dag be napeleseeanabieats sates 51 New Distribution Records for E/eates depressus (Randall) in the Southeastern United States (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae; Bolitophaginae) and Notes on These Occurrences Petes rey COMMS MMe We aat OR PALL 0 0d Dn RRO Rs APE IRR PEL Mambots cet Alte led Bac Matncer ha dic 18 IRAN UU So ies ea ed 52 Distribution of Ctenotrachelus shermani Barber, an Assassin Bug New to the Fauna of Virginia (Heteroptera: Reduviidae) TEAC AU Fen OIA BNI (G3 HAUT SOM na ceed CRO SON achiile tS Seer ee pee al cody WCE ETE ON vache DSL LeeLee eo et 54 Butterflies and Skippers Crossing the James River in Spring ISETATIS AG Lands sree cette thee meena ics Ae neenehtt eee NS ss tobe her niin neta eet ultis ss ils bbheecah ha heaetaaanuuugs i icbbekbner tS 55 Miscellanea OOKREVICWS: AlCl 4S OME AT yl 0 A crs iamee FE canncete th anadllbee us Flac FE Paneer ets CUM Se me ic EEE bane. lees ER all 57 [SA e10G1 0k WeaMn bp) a 49 head el eae ton eras 8 apt NSAA AAA ak SOME sw a 89 9d SE HTP AS a EL AEEOEET ead 33 ach OER ASA TER EAE Yea vel oa E433 ENR ia ead eel eee 64 Virginia Natural History Society Officers President Barbara J. Abraham Department of Biological Sciences Hampton University Hampton, Virginia 23668 (term expires December, 2004) Vice President Judith E. Winston Virginia Museum of Natural History 1001 Douglas Avenue Martinsville, Virginia 24112 (term expires December, 2004) Secretary-Treasurer Anne C. Lund Department of Biology Hampden-Sydney College Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943 (term expires December, 2004) Councilors Paul Bedell 10120 Silverleaf Terrace Richmond, Virginia 23236 (term expires December, 2005) Michael W. Donahue 147 Southampton Drive Vinton, Virginia 24179 (term expires December, 2006) Thomas J. McAvoy Department of Entomology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (term expires December, 2004) Honorary Councilors Richard L. Hoffman Michael Kosztarab Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society The Earliest Illustrations and Descriptions of the Cardinal David W. Johnston 5219 Concordia Street Fairfax, Virginia 22032 ABSTRACT In the 16" century Northern Cardinals were trapped in Mexico, then sent as caged birds because of their beauty and song to various places in Europe and south Africa. The Italian, Aldrovandi, obtained a caged bird in Italy and with a woodcut, published the first known illustration of a cardinal in 1599. The great English naturalist, Francis Willughby, in conjunction with John Ray, published a painting of a cardinal in 1678, and the eccentric and prolific collector, James Petiver, included an illustrated caged cardinal from south Africa in his monumental Opera (1767). Mark Catesby was the first artist to paint a cardinal (probably in Virginia) with a natural background (c. 1731). Aldrovandi's woodcut and description in 1599 represent the earliest known mention of the Northern Cardinal. Key words: Cardinalis cardinalis, history, illustrations, Northern Cardinal. To an ornithological historian it is exciting and rewarding to be able to trace the earliest report and illustration of any bird. Such has been the case for the bird now called the Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). In the 16™ century the cardinal was a favorite cage bird among Europeans, long before it was reported by English colonists in its North American range. Today, its range extends from southern Canada through the eastern and central United States, southward through parts of Mexico and Belize (AOU, 1998). From the early writings of certain Europeans, it is widely believed that their caged cardinals were probably trapped in Mexico, then shipped to many places abroad (Allen, 1951). Ulisse Aldrovandi Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-ca. 1605), the Professor of Natural History at the University of Bologna, spent summer months studying and collecting living things in nearby woods and fields. Although his main interest was in descriptive zoology, he had a particular affinity for birds. Among his publications was a four-volume work on birds (only three were published before his death), Ornithologiae in 1599, 1600, and 1603. Inthe 1599 work, he included woodcuts of some American birds including a cardinal (Fig. 1). He called the bird “Coccothraustes Indica cum ceraso auium,” meaning “the kernel-shatterer of the Indies with cherry of the birds,” and “The Crested Grosbeak from the Indies.” This woodcut was the first published image of the species (Simpson, 1985). A translation of Aldrovandi’s Latin description reads: “A bird of this sort, pictured in the guise of life, was sent to me several days ago on the command of his serene highness, Ferdinand, Duke of Etruia, by the superintendent of his garden at Pisa, F. Franciscus Malocchius, who in sending it affirmed that in his native land—an island, to be TUMNUMIE OJEIII WIND TIPU] SIYWEMPOSIOT) Fig. 1. Woodcut of a cardinal, from Ulisse Aldrovandi’s Ornithologiae (1599). 4 BANISTERIA sure, which he called Cape Verde-it is commonly named jruson, aname resembling frison, the species described in our next preceding chapter, to which even in beak it is like; a black patch, however, surrounds the beak, and, according to Girolamo Mercuriale, it is the size of a thrush. It has, therefore, seemed good to me to name it Coccothraustes Indica. \t eagerly devours almonds, so Malocchius tells me (and in this respect also it corresponds to the Coccothraustes, which breaks fruit of this sort with its beak and is on that account called ‘the nutcracker’ ), and other seeds, and even small bones. In order to do this equally well, this bird, like ours, is provided with a strong, thick, and sturdy beak. Lusitanis Mercurialis asserts that it is commonly called cardinalitus, perhaps because it is red; it seems to wear a red hood. Concerning its nature and its habits Malocchius told me these things: It imitates the voices of other birds, particularly that of the nightingale; it feeds eagerly, and devours almonds and chickweed (alsinem herbam); seeing its Own image in a mirror, it becomes pitifully agitated, uttering whistles, lowering its crest, raising its tail like a peacock, fluttering its wings, and at length striking the mirror with its beak. Its body temperature is high, as would seem, for it often plunges itself into water. In disposition it is quite tame, and will take food from an extended hand. So much concerning its nature. As to its form — The triangular crest upon its head is crimson, and this color spreads down the neck and glows from breast and belly. The tips of the wings are not so intensely reddened, or perhaps not at all; the tail, which proportionately to the body is rather long, is straight, about one palm in length and of a finger’s breadth, as the picture shows it to be. The tibiae are short and whitish; the claws strong and not at all hooked. The total length of the bird from the head to the tip of the tail is two palms.” (Christy, 1942: 176-177) Girolamo Mercuriale (1530-1606) was an Italian physician, author of De Arte Gymnastica, and contemporary of Aldrovandi. Nothing in his publication is pertinent to the cardinal, but Willughby (1678:245) noted that “Mercurialis affirms, that by the Portugues it is commonly called, The Cardinal bird because it... . seems to wear on its Head a red hat.” Christy (1942:179) explains the early use of the word “cardinal.” The bird, or at least its color, resembled the distinctive crimson color in which the Roman cardinals robed themselves. Furthermore, “It would seem, from the account given by Aldrovandus and quoted above, that the Spanish invaders of Mexico immediately and spontaneously called this abundant and conspicuous bird cardinalitus (=little cardinal), because it seems to wear a red hood.” NO. 24, 2004 Johannes (John) Jonstonus (Johnstone) One of the first books in the 17 century to contain illustrations of birds from many different countries was the compilation by John Johnstone (1603-1675). A Scottish physician who practiced in Leyden, Johnstone first published the compilation in several books in 1650 in Frankfurt, then an English translation in London in 1657 (Allen, 1951). The many bird engravings included one of a cardinal which was almost an exact replication of Aldrovandi’s woodcut. Francis Willughby Francis Willughby (1635-1672) first met John Ray (1627-1705) when they were students at Cambridge University. Ray’s principal interests were plants, but later he also became interested in the study and collection of birds. Together they traveled throughout the English countryside, then made an extensive collecting trip through much of western Europe in 1663-64. Willughby had inherited Middleton Hall, where his notes, manuscripts, illustrations, and collections were stored. It was here that their partnership continued as they worked over the collections. After Willughby died of pleurisy in 1672, Ray resolved to prepare Willughby’s ornithological material for publication. The English version was published in 1678 by the Royal Society (Allen, 1951) and is usually described with Ray (1678) as the author but occasionally with Willughby (1678) as the author. On Tab XLIIII of this Ornithology among several non- American birds is Coccothraustes Indica cristata The Virginian Nightingale (Fig. 2), and the text on page 245 : 4 " C occothrau Stes Indica criflata The Virginian Nig h ton 9 ale. Fig. 2. Illustration of a cardinal by Francis Willughby, apparently adapted from the woodcut shown in Fig. 1. JOHNSTON: EARLIEST CARDINAL ILLUSTRATIONS 5 reads: “It is as big as a Blackbird, or something less. A black border compasses the Eyes and Bill; which is like to that of the common Hawfinch, or a little shorter. The Head is adorned with a towring crest, which it often moves as well toward the Bill, as toward the Tail. The colour of the whole is a lovely Scarlet, in the Head and Tail more dilute. It is brought into England out of Virginia, whence, and from its rare singing, it is called, The Virginian Nightingale.” Apparently this slightly modified illustration, lacking the cherry fruit and facing in the opposite direction, was copied directly from Aldrovandi’s woodcut. James Petiver James (Jacobi) Petiver (ca. 1663-1718) operated an apothecary shop in London and amassed a huge collection of natural history items from many places over the globe (from Virginia and Maryland to the Cape of Good Hope and China) (Stearns, 1952). From 1695 to 1706 he published at least two series of copious catalogues of plants, insects, and other natural history objects (Musei Petiverani Centuria Prima Rariora Naturae Continens, called “Centuries;” Gazophylacii Naturae et Artis: Decades decem, called “Decades”). Many of the ten “Centuries” and the five “Decades” contained engravings of animals, insects, plants, and fossils, often with short descriptions of them. In 1767 Opera, historiam naturalem spectantia was published with Petiver given as the author, but apparently it was printed for a bookseller, John Millen. This two-volume tome contains several hundred figures of plants, insects, birds, etc. from all the “Centuries” and “Decades” and “several curious tracts.” Among the illustrations (Fig. 3) in Opera is a bird with the following description (Petiver 1767:3): “Coccothraustus Capensis ruber, rostro hiante, _ Picturis D. Krieg. The Cape-Cardinal. This in colour and shape resembles the Virginia red-bird or nightingale, in Mr. Ray of birds p. 245. Tab. 44. Fig. 2. But what is peculiar to this is its cleft bill.” This description merits close scrutiny. He called it “Capensis” and “The Cape-Cardinal” because the bird came from the Cape of Good Hope where it was probably a caged bird. Petiver had some collectors at the Cape, e.g., Dr. James Cunningham in 1696. Petiver’s friend, Dr. David Krieg, had translated French, German, and Italian works of his own day, portions of which are scattered throughout Petiver’s copious catalogues of natural history specimens (Stearns, 1952). It is likely that Krieg had seen the illustration of a cardinal in John Ray’s The Ornithology of Francis Willughby (1678), hence “ Picturis D. Krieg.” The other part of Petiver’s scientific name, “rostro hiante” means “gaping bill,” a reference to Fig. 3. Illustration of a cardinal from James Petiver’s Opera (1767), presumably drawn by David Krieg. the illustrated bird’s “cleft bill.” This character was either a figment of the illustrator’s imagination, a deformity, ora bird chewing on a hard seed. The same cardinal illustration appears in his Gazophylacii Naturae & Artis, Decas Prima (1702; see Petiver, 1767), where in the list of figures Petiver adds: “My Kind Freind Mr. Rance Surgeon tells me he hath frequently seen this Bird at the Cape where it’s called the CARDINAL.” Virginia and the Carolinas In the early reports from the Virginia colony, John Smith (1612), Nathaniel Shrigley (1669), and others simply mentioned “red birds,” but the first description of wild birds appeared in John Clayton’s section “Of the Birds:” “Of Virginia Nightingale, or red Bird, there are two sorts, the Cocks of both sorts are of a pure Scarlet, the Hens of a Duskish red; I distinguish them into two sorts, for the one has a tufted Cops on the Head, the other is smooth feather'd: I never saw a tufted Cock with a smooth headed Hen, or on the contrary; they generally resorting a Cock and Hen together, and play in a thicket of Thorns or Bryars in the Winter, nigh to which the Boys set their Traps, and so catch them and sell them to the Merchants for about Six Pence a piece; by whom they are brought for England, they are something less than a Thrush.” (Clayton, 1693: 995) The bird illustrated by Aldrovandi and later copied by Johnstone and Ray-Willughby likely came from some part of Mexico, even though on occasion it was called “The 6 BANISTERIA Virginian Nightingale.” Because of known shipping trade between Virginia and the Cape of Good Hope, Petiver’s reference to “The Cape” suggests that his bird might have originally come from colonial Virginia. In addition to Clayton’s remarks about cardinals being shipped from Virginia to England in the late 17" century, other caged birds were sent abroad in the early years from the Virginia colony (Johnston, 2003). John Lawson, writing about bird life in North Carolina, simply described Red-Birds but provided no natural history material (Lawson, 1709: 148). John Brickell’s Natural History of North-Carolina (1737) contains an engraving of a “Red Bird” which was obviously copied NO. 24, 2004 from the Ornithology of Ray-Willughby (Simpson, 1985). It was the artist-naturalist Mark Catesby who first painted the cardinal in a natural habitat (Fig. 4; a hickory, Carya alba, is in the background), probably in Virginia (Catesby, 1731-43). In his accompanying English text, he continued to call it “the red Bird,” and provides a description and some natural history notes. On the same page a French translation (translator unknown) of the same material is headed “Le Cardinal.” Thus, the common bird that we now identify as Virginia’s State Bird has been through a long period of scanty descriptions and plagiarized illustrations. Fig. 4. Cardinal perched in a hickory branch, painting by Mark Catesby. JOHNSTON: EARLIEST CARDINAL ILLUSTRATIONS az ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Early drafts of the manuscript were read by Leslie Overstreet, Richard C. Banks, and George E. Watson. Their comments and suggestions were useful. Marcus B. Simpson added crucial information and references. LITERATURE CITED Aldrovandi, U. 1599-1603. Ornithologiae, hoc est de avibvs. 3 vols. Bononiae. Allen, E.G. 1951. The history of American ornithology before Audubon. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, new series, 41: 386-591. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7 edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. Brickell, J. 1737. The Natural History of North-Carolina. James Carson, Dublin. Catesby, M. 1731-1743. The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands: containing the figures of birds, beasts, fishes, serpents, insects, and plants: particularly the forest-trees, shrubs, and other plants, not hitherto described, or very incorrectly figured by authors. Together with their descriptions in English and French. To which, are added observations on the air, soil, and waters: with remarks upon agriculture, grain, pulse, roots, &c. To the whole, is prefixed a new and correct map of the countries treated of. 2 vols. London: Printed at the expense of the author. Christy, B. H. 1942. The Cardinal: the bird itself. Cardinal 5: 173-186. Clayton, J. 1693. I. Mr. John Clayton, Rector of Crofton at Wakefield, his Letter to the Royal Society, giving a farther Account of the Soil, and other Observables of Virginia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 17: 978-999. Johnston, D. W. 2003. The History of Ornithology in Virginia. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Jonstonus, J. 1657. Historiae naturalis de avibus libri VI. Amstelodami, Apud Ioannem Iacobi fil. Schipper. Lawson, J. 1709. A new voyage to Carolina, containing the exact description and natural history of that country: together with the present state thereof. And a journal ofa thousand miles, travel’d thro’ several nations of Indians. Giving a particular account of their customs, manners, &c. London. Petiver, J. 1767. Opera, historiam naturalem spectantia: containing several thousand figures of birds, beasts . . . to which is now added seventeen curious tracts . . . the additions corrected by the late Mr. James Empson. Vol. 1. London: printed for John Millen, bookseller, near White- Hall. Ray, J. 1678. The Ornithology of Francis Willughby. Book II. London: Printed by A. C. for John Martyn, printer to the Royal Society, at the Bell in St. Pauls Church- Yard. Shrigley, N. [1669] 1963. A true relation of Virginia and Mary-land; with the commodities therein, which in part the author saw; the rest he had from knowing and credible persons in the moneths of February, March, April, and May. London. In Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin, settlement, and progress of the colonies in North America: from the discovery of the country to the year 1776, Peter Force, collector. Vol. 3(7). Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith. Simpson, M. B., Jr. 1985. Copperplate illustrations in Dr. John Brickell’s Natural History of North-Carolina (1737): Sources for the provincial map, flora, and fauna. The North Carolina Historical Review 62: 131-156. Smith, J. 1612. A Map of Virginia. VVith a description of the Covntrey, the Commodities, People, Government, and Religion. VVritten by Captaine Smith, sometimes Governour of the Countrey. Wherevnto is annexed the proceedings of those Colonies, since their first departure from England, with the discourses, Orations, and relations of the Salvages, and the accidents that befell them in all of their Iournies and discoveries. Oxford. Stearns, R. P. 1952. James Petiver. Promoter of Natural Science, c. 1663-1718. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 62: 243-362. Willughby, F. 1678. The ornithology of Francis Willughby. 3 vols. Translated into English with many additions... by John Ray. London. Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society Road Mortality of Snakes in Central Virginia Jason D. Gibson Galileo Magnet High School Danville, Virginia 24541 Donald A. Merkle Department of Natural Sciences Longwood University Farmville, Virginia 23909 ABSTRACT During the spring, summer, and early fall months, many snakes can be seen dead on roads. Few studies on snake road mortality have been conducted in Virginia. Between 1999 and 2001 we collected 109 DOR (dead on road) snakes representing 14 species in Powhatan County, Virginia. The eastern ratsnake (Elaphe alleganiensis, n = 41) and the rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivus, n = 18) were the most commonly collected snakes. One collected female E. alleganiensis was found to contain eggs (n = 8). No observations of DOR snakes were made between December and March. Two distinct peaks in DOR snake collection were seen in May/June and September/October. June was the month with the highest recorded snake mortality with November being the month with the lowest. Key words: Powhatan County, road mortality, snakes, vehicular traffic, Virginia. INTRODUCTION Each year, snake populations decline as a result of habitat destruction and fragmentation, collection for the pet trade and rattlesnake roundups (Weir, 1992), killing by feral cats (Mitchell & Beck, 1992), and by road mortality (Dodd et al., 1989; Rosen & Lowe, 1994; Ashley & Robinson, 1996). Vehicular traffic has been estimated to kill 10’s to 100’s of millions of snakes each year in the United States (Rosen & Lowe, 1994). Each snake that is killed, whether by accident or deliberately, reduces the genetic diversity, decreases the potential for dispersal into fragmented habitats, diminishes the potential for reproduction, and lowers the overall population size. Road cruising and collecting is a valuable tool used to study snake ecology and conservation. This method has been used to determine species negatively impacted by roads (Ashley & Robinson, 1996), relative abundance (Fitch, 1949; Clifford, 1976; Martin, 1976; Dodd et al., 1989), activity patterns (Price & LaPointe, 1990), physiology and behavior (Sullivan, 1981), population declines (Rosen & Lowe, 1994), and, of local interest, distributional records for Virginia (e.g., Hobson & Stevenson, 1995; Gray & Wright, 1996; Roble & Hobson, 1997; Huber & Donahue, 2001). Few studies have examined road mortality of snakes in Virginia (Clifford, 1976; Martin, 1976). The aim of this study was to document the diversity of species affected by road mortality, the relative abundance of species being affected, and to obtain natural history observations from the animals found killed. METHODS AND MATERIALS This study was conducted in Powhatan County, Virginia. Habitats, natural features, and anthropogenic points of interest in this county have been described by Gibson (2001). The Virginia Department of Transportation maintains 80.5 km (50.0 miles) of primary roads, 354.4 km (220.2 miles) of hard surface secondary roads, and 61.7 km (38.3 miles) of non-hard surface roads (Jeff Caldwell, pers. comm.) in Powhatan County. US Route 60 is a major artery that leads to Chesterfield County and the City of Richmond from the west, and is used by 20,000 cars per day. Local GIBSON & MERKLE: SNAKE ROAD MORTALITY 9 neighborhood roads in this rural county may have as many as 500 vehicle passes each day. Road-killed snakes were collected from April 1999 to June 2001. A total of 391 road cruising days were conducted during this survey (1999 - 152 collecting days, 2000 - 174 collecting days, and 2001 - 65 collecting days). Most snakes were found along a 48 km (30 mile) route from County Route 1037 to 1 km west of the intersection of US Route 60 and US Route 522 between 0630 and 1530 h. The students of Pocahontas Middle School contributed a total of 21 snakes to this study. Dead snakes were identified, measured (nearest mm) for SVL (snout-vent length), TL (total length), and tail length, weighed (if the specimen was intact and freshly killed), and dissected for sexing and identification of prey items. For some specimens, measurements and sexing were not documented due to desiccation or destruction from vehicles. RESULTS A total of 109 DOR (dead on road) snakes was collected during this study (Table 1 and Appendix 1). Table 1. Summary of snake road mortality in Powhatan County, Virginia. cana CONGOTENS —- aba amoenus constrictor alleganiensis platirhinos_ calligaster Lampropeltis getula a te GEsTVUS Steal occipitomaculata Sauritus Thamnophis sirtalis *Percent of total ae Of sixteen species recorded for Powhatan County (Linzey & Clifford, 1981; Tobey, 1985; Mitchell, 1994: Mitchell & Reay, 1999; Gibson, 2001), 14 species were found dead on roads. One species, Thamnophis sauritus sauritus, had not been previously recorded from this county. A voucher slide documenting this new county record has been deposited in the archives of the Virginia Herpetological Society at the Virginia Museum of Natural History. Elaphe alleganiensis and Opheodrys aestivus were the most commonly collected species, comprising over 54% of observed snakes. One female E. alleganiensis collected on 6 July 2000 yielded eight eggs upon dissection. This was the only snake observed to contain eggs. Consumed prey was only found in four snakes, including unidentified shrews (one each) that had been eaten by two E. alleganiensis collected on 8 May 2001, an unidentified juvenile snake consumed by a Lampropeltis calligaster collected on 4 October 2000, and an unidentified adult orthopteran that was preyed upon by an Opheodrys aestivus collected on 16 June 2000. No observations of DOR snakes were made in the months between December and March. June was the month with the highest number of DOR snakes with November being the month with the lowest (Fig. 1). DISCUSSION Despite many hours of road cruising, three species of snakes known for Powhatan County (Cemophora c. copei, Diadophis p. edwardsii, and Virginia valeriae) were not found during this survey. Diadophis p. edwardsii and V. valeriae are small snakes and are often found only underground or beneath cover objects. These species may be less likely to be seen and killed on the road because of their habits and small size. In addition, scavengers probably remove smaller snakes faster than larger snakes. Cemophora c. copei, a third snake documented for Powhatan County but not found in this study appears to be rare (Table 2). Clifford (1976) and Martin (1976) found these three species to be generally lacking in their surveys of AOR (alive on road) and DOR snakes in Amelia County and the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive, respectively. A summary of monthly road mortality data for 1999 and 2000 reveals a bimodal occurrence of observed road-killed snakes (Fig. 1). This is consistent with important activity dates in snake life history. Snakes generally are more active during emergence from hibernation, mating and egg-laying periods, and migration to hibernacula. Observations from this study are similar to results obtained by Clifford (1976) in Amelia County. 10 BANISTERIA @ 25 = & 20 45 1999 ran) 0 2000 ‘> 10 ref 8 Total ® oa 5 E 5 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Month Fig. 1. Monthly summary of DOR snake observations in Powhatan County, Virginia, in 1999 and 2000. (Data was only collected for 65 days in 2001 and therefore is not included for comparison in this figure.) NO. 24, 2004 Table 2. Relative abundance of DOR snakes in studies by Clifford (1976), Martin (1976), and Gibson & Merkle (this study). Species Total Total Total ea eo this study | 243 A _Agkistrodon contortrix | contortrix % Total % Total % Total Clifford Martin this study ar al A a ee Se ee Sore Ce |Cemophoracoccinea | dL | CO A [6 Crotalus horridus ea a ae ae _Diadophispunctams | dL | SB |Elapheguaa | A TAT D8 _Heterodon platirhinos | 24 | ATS 8G _Lampropeltis calligaster_ | 10 | STH OT _Lampropeltis getula | | [Lampropeltis triangulum [| 1 | 31 [| 0 | 04 | 57 [ 0 | Nerodia sipedon a ae > FC iE eS Ee ae eee | Opheodrysaestivus | | | DS -Opheodys vernalis __{ __Q } 4 { _g { _g_| 26 } 0 __ Storeria dekayi Sa SS | SE ee res nee | es Storeriadekayi [Storeria occipitomacuata [| 4 | 0 [| 2 | 14 [| 0 [| 18 | Ti hamnophis sauritus a ee ee a a ee ae 2 _Thamnophis sirtalis | 20 | 385 2B |Virginiavaleriae | 4A TC Fa | Total Data on the relative abundance of a suite of species are important from both ecological and conservation perspectives. Relative abundance data for Virginia’s snakes comes primarily from studies conducted by Clifford (1976) and Martin (1976). Clifford’s four-year study used DOR snakes, snakes brought to him by county residents, and snakes he found in the field. Martin’s three-year study consisted of snakes seen both AOR and DOR. A comparison of the present study with those of Clifford and Martin appears in Table 2 Relative abundance data from Martin’s observations and this study reveal many differences. These dissimilarities may be attributed to the respective study sites being in different physiographic provinces. Clifford’s study occurred in Amelia County, which borders Powhatan County, and therefore has similar habitat, hydrology, and soil compositions. These two studies have very similar results when large diurnal snakes (Coluber constrictor and Elaphe alleganiensis) are compared. One striking difference is seen in the GIBSON & MERKLE: SNAKE ROAD MORTALITY 11 data for Opheodrys aestivus. The cryptic nature of this species may have precluded Clifford from finding many in his field studies, thus accounting for its lower relative abundance in his study. Road mortality may play a significant role in the decline of snake populations. Literature is generally lacking data for the effects that roads have on snake populations in Virginia. Although this study was limited to two years and 65 days, important data on diversity and relative abundance of affected species, as well as their seasonal activity periods, have been collected. More effort needs to be exerted to document the deleterious effects that some human practices are placing on the most diverse group of reptiles in Virginia. This effort and subsequent data will be useful for conservation planning to protect these unique creatures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following students at Pocahontas Middle School provided specimens or locations of road-killed snakes: A. C. Clark, Stephen Dingus, John Dolen, Mackenzie Dowtin, O. Fleming, Clay Gills, Logan Green, Kelly Hresan, Bubba Sing, Baylee Smith, Kira Stoyko, Matt Winfree, and Matt Zimmerman. Mike Clifford and William Martin graciously provided copies of their studies on relative snake abundance. Special thanks go to Dr. Steve Roble for providing copies of numerous articles on snake road mortality. John White, Joe Mitchell, Steve Roble, and an anonymous reviewer provided valuable corrections and comments on an early draft of this manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Ashley, E. P., & J. T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on the Long Point Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field- Naturalist 110: 403-412. Clifford, M. J. 1976. Relative abundance and seasonal activity of snakes in Amelia County, Virginia. Virginia Herpetological Society Bulletin 79: 4-6. Dodd, C. K., Jr., K. M. Enge, & J. N. Stuart. 1989. Reptiles on highways in north-central Alabama. Journal of Herpetology 23: 197-200. Fitch, H. S. 1949. Road counts of snakes in western Louisiana. Herpetologica 5: 87-90. Gibson, J. D. 2001. Amphibians and reptiles of Powhatan County, Virginia. Catesbeiana 21: 3-28. Gray, W. P., & R. A. S. Wright. 1996. Field notes: Heterodon platyrhinos. Catesbeiana 16: 11-12. Hobson, C. S., & D. J. Stevenson. 1995. Field notes: Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis. Catesbeiana 15: 23. Huber, F. C., & M. W. Donahue. 2001. Field notes: Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis. Catesbeiana 21: 32-33. Linzey, D. W., & M. J. Clifford. 1981. Snakes of Virginia. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 159 pp. Martin, W. H., III. 1976. Reptiles observed on the Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway, Va. Virginia Herpetological Society Bulletin 81: 1-3. Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 352 pp. Mitchell, J. C., & R. A. Beck. 1992. Free-ranging domestic cat predation on native vertebrates in rural and urban Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 43: 197- 207. Mitchell, J. C., & K. K. Reay. 1999. Atlas of Amphibians and Reptiles in Virginia. Special Publication Number 1, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA. 122 pp. Price, A., & J. L. LaPointe. 1990. Activity patterns of a Chihuahuan Desert snake community. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 59: 15-23. Roble, S. M., & C. S. Hobson. 1997. Field notes: Regina septemvittata. Catesbeiana 17: 21. Rosen, P. C., & C. H. Lowe. 1994. Highway mortality of snakes in the Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona. Biological Conservation 68: 143-148. Sullivan, B. K. 1981. Observed differences in body temperature and associated behavior of four snake species. Journal of Herpetology 15: 245-246. Tobey, F. J. 1985. Virginia’s Amphibians and Reptiles, A Distributional Survey. Virginia Herpetological Society, Purcellville, VA. 114 pp. Weir, J. 1992. The Sweetwater rattlesnake roundup; a case study in environmental ethics. Conservation Biology 6: 116-127. 12 BANISTERIA NO. 24, 2004 Appendix |. Measurements and observations of DOR snakes in Powhatan County, Virginia, 1999-2001. Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen (Northern copperhead) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Mass (g) P| Juvenile | P| Suvenile | i eee a i a | a a Carphophis amoenus amoenus (Eastern wormsnake) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Mass (g) 22 September 2000 a. a ae ee a eee eee Coluber constrictor constrictor (Northern black racer) Mass (g) a =| ae) | 210 Juvenile Sex =| 251) _— | a a 4a __ iil == 55a =! —_ vee] | ian 32a | —=——) [eee _l = aes Te! a Ly a= GIBSON & MERKLE: SNAKE ROAD MORTALITY 13 Elaphe alleganiensis (continued) [25M G2 000 Ss | Ss | Ss | | Se Se | herMay 20008 RS a eee a a ee eee ae eee ae eee p2Tume 200007 |3June2000 | 5 ||| | iJuly20000 | = sae! | = =| = | |6July2000 | 20 | || Female NA at 2000) sie | Cle | [ee RS |p ee] | 5 October 2000 | 781 | 54 | 035 | Male eOetoher 20008 Sie ese eee NeOciober 2000 = =| Sissies es Ss Se ees] |8May2001 | 99S ||| Male |8May 2001 | SS | |S Female |}13May2001_ | 92 | | | Male | 22May2001_ | 78 | |S | Female |2June2001 | oN || S| |2June2001 | S403 | 8D | 8S | [Tutte 200] rr ra [brig fs [5s Ses Pe ss rel Fe a a ee a ee |}23June2001 | Elaphe guttata (Cornsnake) LS May 1999 5 S| Eos | a Ee SS See | August 1999.99 | gC | ae | cio Se Sea eee a n | es nd (sisMay 200075 Se te Oe 18 May 2000 a | |18July2000 | 3 |S 88Q_ Female | 28 April2001 | 8 | | 98S Female Heterodon platirhinos (Eastern hog-nosed snake) |10Mayi999_— | SSO SS | 705 | Melanistic | - IA May-20005 58 | SS Se ES EE | Sa | | 5 October 2000 | 2 | 8 | Patterned =| | 10May2001 | S48 ||| Meelanistic | Lampropeltis calligaster rhombomaculata (Mole kingsnake) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Dorsal blotches 2 June 1999 i ii a ee ee 13 June 1999 (eS eee ee eee tel 8 August 1999 4 October 2000 4 May 2001 14 BANISTERIA NO. 24, 2004 Lampropeltis getula getula (Common kingsnake) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Mass (g) 4 May 2001 1064 oo] Male = — | = Swe] ah ll | Ceuta a => [ene ake F| Opheodrys aestivus (Rough greensnake) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Mass (g) = fea ae Zi ae Se | oe | (=| LA |. Ber al Sas _— > | _=— FS) is. 242 [ee Le) —=2——| Storeria dekayi dekayi (Northern brownsnake) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) es | eas SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) ae a ee 6 June 2001 Thamnophis sauritus sauritus (Eastern ribbonsnake) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) Mass (g) Sex 13 April 2001 EE nn EE ene ee en nee eee Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis (Eastern gartersnake) Collection Date SVL (mm) Tail Length (mm) TL (mm) 30 September 1999 | 253, | 8 | 8 15 June 2000 Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society Status of the Appalachian Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot) in Virginia Anne C. Chazal, Steven M. Roble, Christopher S. Hobson, and Katharine L. Derge’ Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 ABSTRACT The Appalachian grizzled skipper (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot) was documented historically (primarily from shale barren habitats) in 11 counties in Virginia. Between 1992 and 2002, staff of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, conducted 175 surveys for P. c. wyandot at 75 sites in 12 counties. The species was observed at only six sites during these surveys, representing two new county records. All observations since 1992 combined account for <80 individuals. Due to forest succession and threats from gypsy moth control measures, all recent sites for P. c. wyandot in Virginia may be degrading in overall habitat quality. Key words: Lepidoptera, Pyrgus centaureae wyandot, conservation, shale barrens, Virginia. INTRODUCTION The Appalachian grizzled skipper (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot) has a rather fragmented range, occurring in northern Michigan as well as portions of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia; isolated historical records are known from Kentucky, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia (Opler, 1998; NatureServe, 2003). Populations are very localized within this range (e.g., Shuey et al., 1987). The Appalachian grizzled skipper was formerly listed as a federal candidate (C2) species (as P. wyandot after Schweitzer, 1989) and is now informally regarded as a Species of Concern by the Virginia Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Appalachian grizzled skipper is legally protected in four states within its range. Maryland, New York (no known extant populations; P. Novak, pers. comm.), and Ohio list P. c. wyandot as endangered. In 2004, it became listed as state threatened (as P. 'Present address of KLD: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Division of Environmental Services, 450 Robinson Lane, Bellefonte, PA 16823 wyandot) in Virginia. Parshall (2002) provides a comprehensive review of the nomenclature and taxonomy of P. c. wyandot. Most authors classify this skipper as a subspecies of the Holarctic Pyrgus centaureae (e.g., Opler & Krizek, 1984; Iftner et al., 1992; Shuey, 1994; Allen, 1997; Opler, 1998; Glassberg, 1999; Parshall, 2002), although some lepidopterists treat it as a full species (Shapiro, 1974; Schweitzer, 1989; Gochfeld & Burger, 1997). The Appalachian grizzled skipper is reported from open woodland habitats throughout its range. These habitats include heath-shrub acid barrens, grassy hillsides and open pastures near woods, and scrub oak openings (Opler & Krizek, 1984). Disturbed habitats, such as roadsides and powerline rights-of-way, were observed to support this species in Ohio and Michigan (Shuey, 1994). Adult grizzled skippers are known to nectar around low-growing plants, primarily yellow- flowering species such as Potentilla canadensis (dwarf cinquefoil), which also serves as the larval hostplant (Allen, 1997). In Virginia, the species has been documented from shale barren habitats in the western and northern counties (Schweitzer, 1991). The flight season of P. c. 16 BANISTERIA wyandot is early and relatively short (Allen, 1997; Schweitzer, 1991). Adults have been observed in Virginia between 28 March (Wood & Gottschalk, 1942) and 3 June (Clark & Williams, 1937), although the typical flight period is from mid-April to early May (Schweitzer, 1991). Wood & Gottschalk (1942) reported P. c. wyandot from Montgomery and Roanoke counties. Wagner & Showalter (1976) also recorded it from Montgomery County. Clark & Clark (1951) recorded this species from eight Virginia counties: Augusta, Fairfax, Frederick (see also Clark & Clark, 1939), Giles, Highland, Montgomery, Rappahannock, and Roanoke. Schweitzer (1991) indicated that there were records for Albemarle, Augusta, Bath, Bland, Frederick, Giles, Highland, Montgomery, and Pulaski counties, but did not comment on the omission of Fairfax, Rappahannock, and Roanoke counties from his list. The origin of the Pulaski County record is unknown; we believe it is merely the result of a transposition error (for Roanoke County). In addition, Cech (1995) published his observations of P. c. wyandot from Rockbridge County; however, this population was first documented based on surveys conducted by DCR-DNH. Thus, available published records have documented this species from 12 counties in Virginia (Fig. 1). Finally, Opler et al. (1995) report a confirmed record for Scott County, but the source and validity of this information is not known to us at this time. 200 Kilometers Yi, Counties with observations of Pyrgus centaureae wyandoi since 1992 3 Counties surveyed by DCR-DNH between 1992-2002 (Counties with historical records of Pyrgus centaureae wyandot Fig. 1. Historical and recent county records for Pyrgus centaureae wyandot in Virginia. NO. 24, 2004 Since 1992, zoological staff of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (DCR-DNH), have surveyed extensively for populations of P. c. wyandot in western Virginia. This paper discusses the results of these surveys, and the conservation status of P. c. wyandot. METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY AREA Surveys by DCR-DNH were conducted primarily on shale barren habitats because of the documented association of P. c. wyandot with open, woodland habitats (Opler & Krizek, 1984; Shuey, 1994; Allen, 1997) and the abundance of this habitat in Virginia. The majority of the survey sites were located on the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests (plus several state-owned properties). Additional surveys took place on alternative habitats such as powerline rights-of-way and clearcuts with exposed shale soils. Surveys were also attempted at presumed historical locations (based on literature and museum records) for P. c. wyandot. All surveys were conducted during periods of favorable weather in early spring by walking through appropriate habitats. RESULTS Between 1992 and 2002, DCR-DNH staff have conducted a total of 175 surveys for P. c. wyandot at 75 different sites in 12 counties (Table 1). Four of these counties had documented records for the grizzled skipper prior to 1992, but the species was not found in any of these counties during our surveys. Most historical Virginia localities for P. c. wyandot are too vague in description to accurately relocate them for survey. The few available museum records typically include only town or county (or state only) names. Other historical sites have undergone succession and are now inappropriate habitat for the grizzled skipper (Roble, pers. obs.). The Appalachian grizzled skipper was first discovered by DCR-DNH on 23 April 1993 at the Brattons Run Shale Barren area on the George Washington National Forest (GWNF) in Rockbridge County (this location was later published by Cech, 1995), a new county record for this species. It was also observed here in 1994, 1995, and 1997 by DCR-DNH and other observers, and in 1999 by T. McAvoy and C. Kessler (pers. comm.)(Table 2). No more than one or two individuals were observed during any survey. The species has not been seen there since 1999 despite three recent surveys conducted by DCR-DNH. The Brattons Run Shale Barren area is managed by the United States CHAZAL ET AL.: APPALACHIAN GRIZZLED SKIPPER 17 Table 1. Total number of surveys conducted by DCR-DNH for Pyrgus centaureae wyandot in Virginia between 1992 and 2002. The first number is the total number of surveys conducted at all sites. The number in parentheses indicates the total number of unique sites surveyed. Some sites were visited more than once per year or revisited in multiple years. An asterisk indicates counties with records of P. c. wyandot prior to 1992. County Alleghany 1 (1) Augusta/Highland Bath * Botetourt Craig Highland * Montgomery * Page Pulaski Forest Service (USFS) and is comprised of several habitats that may be suitable for P. c. wyandot, including a small shale barren, a powerline right-of- way, several road cuts, and wildlife openings. The disturbed habitats (roads, powerline, etc.) contain scattered to patchy dwarf cinquefoil, bird’s foot violet (Viola pedata), and phlox (Phlox subulata). The wildlife openings have recently been replanted with buckwheat (Rumex sp.), foxtail millet (Setaria italica), ladino clover (Trifolium repens), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata) (E. Haverlack, pers. comm.). Old road cuts have either become overgrown or been planted with grasses for erosion control. The shale barren itself remains intact, but the amount of dwarf cinquefoil is limited. On 28 April 1994, two P. c. wyandot adults were observed at Potts Creek Nature Preserve (PCNP) in Alleghany County (Table 2). This is the first confirmed record for this county. This species has not been seen at this location during four subsequent surveys by DCR- DNH. In addition to a large, west-facing shale barren at this location, a small powerline right-of-way with patchy dwarf cinquefoil, and an exposed shale cliff (the result of a road cut) with scattered violet and phlox, may provide habitat for the Appalachian grizzled skipper. In recent years, the amount of violet and phlox may have decreased, but this has not been quantified Year | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1997 | 1998 | 2001 2002 Total Total Surveys | Sites 58 21 © [mal 8 (Roble, pers. obs.). Similarly, the powerline right-of- way has undergone some successional changes that do not favor the growth of dwarf cinquefoil (Chazal, pers. obs._). On 2 May 1994, two P. c. wyandot adults were observed at Johnsons Creek Natural Area Preserve (owned by DCR-DNH) in Alleghany County (Table 2). A total of three individuals were seen in 1997, and one in 1998. This species has not been observed during six DCR-DNH surveys since 1998. This site has a shale barren and a road cut through shale soils, where the dwarf cinquefoil, violet, and phlox have grown. In recent years, young pines and accumulating leaf litter along the roadside may be shading out these small plants (Chazal, pers. obs.). Two new populations of P. c. wyandot were discovered by DCR-DNH in 2001, both in Alleghany County. On 24 April 2001, a single adult was observed on a USFS Ruffed Grouse Management Area (RGMA) in GWNF. Weather conditions were not favorable on this day (overcast and temperatures falling into the mid- 60s), and a return visit on the following day did not produce additional sightings. However, on 3 May with warm temperatures and clear skies, nine observations were made (7-9 individuals were estimated) on the same tract. On 8 May, four individuals were observed. At least one of these individuals looked very worn and 18 BANISTERIA Table 2. Locations and dates of observation of Pyrgus centaureae wyandot in Virginia by DCR-DNH between 1992-2002. Some observations from Brattons Run Shale Barren were provided by amateur lepidopterists. (# sightings) Johnsons Alleghany | 4 May 1992 Creek 2 May 1994 Natural 6-7 May 1997 Area 24 April 1998 Preserve 15 May 1998 5 May 2000 23 April 2001 24 April 2001 8 May 2001 9 May 2001 28 April 2002 Alleghany | 3 May 2001 9 May 2001 23 April 2002 Alleghany | 28 April 1994 8 May 1997 23 April 2001 9 May 2001 30 April 2002 24 April 2001 25 April 2001 Grouse 3 May 2001 Management 8 May 2001 Area 18 April 2002 19 April 2002 24 April 2002 28 April 2004 Mead- Westvaco Tract 704 Potts Creek Nature Preserve Y (2) Y (3) Y (14) Y (2) USFS - Ruffed Alleghany Brattons Run Shale Barren Rockbridge | 23 April 1993 24 April 1994 26 April 1994 26 April 1995 2 May 1997 13 April 1998 21 April 1998 29 April 1998 26 May 1999 25 April 2001 10 May 2001 29 April 2002 another looked very fresh. Most of the skippers were observed on dwarf cinquefoil but a few were observed on bird’s foot violet, and one was on a vetch (Vicia sp.), although it was not observed nectaring on this species. This area is one of several forest openings created by USFS for the management of Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus). The trees are cut down but not NO. 24, 2004 cleared, and natural succession is allowed to occur. The cut was approximately 3-5 years old in 2001, but the dry conditions brought on by the shale soils have hindered regrowth and left much of the soil exposed. Towards the bottom of the northwest-facing slope, dwarf cinquefoil covers an area of approximately 0.1 ha. Also, an intermittent stream at the base of the slope held small pools of water. Other available nectar sources included bird’s foot violet, phlox, and blackberry (Rubus sp.). In 2002, more extensive surveys of the RGMA were conducted. A maximum of 14 P. c. wyandot adults were counted in the original 2001 location. Five more observations were documented during surveys of surrounding areas up to 1.5 km from the main site. Three of these sightings were made in clearcut areas and two were made along the road. Though not all of the clearcuts were surveyed in 2002, none was found that match the main area for abundance of Potentilla canadensis or exposed, shale soils. A brief visit to the RGMA on 28 April 2004 (included in Table 2, but not in other tables and figures), yielded observations of two P. c. wyandot adults (including a female ovipositing on Potentilla canadensis) in the main area and a third individual along a forestry road about 0.1 km away. It was noted that young pine trees were beginning to grow in the logging roads, which may cause some decline in the host plant in coming years. Also, in the 0.1 ha area of P. canadensis, sapling trees and some forbs (e.g., Vicia sp.) were shading out the plant and it did not appear to be as abundant as during previous surveys, but we did not quantify this. The second site for P. c. wyandot discovered in 2001 is located on property owned by a private timber company with many holdings in areas and _ habitats appropriate for this species. Two individuals were observed on 3 May 2001 within a 5 year-old clearcut, which had been replanted with pine. Most of the shale soils were exposed except in areas closer to the base of the south-facing slope where dwarf cinquefoil covered approximately 0.1 ha. An intermittent stream at the base of the slope was dry at the time of the survey. Three P. c. wyandot adults were seen in the same area on 8 May 2001 and one individual was seen in a similar cut area about 700 m from the original site. In addition to the abundance of the host plant, dwarf cinquefoil, nectar sources noted included blackberry, bird’s foot violet, and some phlox. In 2002, further surveys of the area were conducted. Fourteen adult P. c. wyandot were observed on 23 April within portions of several 3-5 year-old clearcuts that had been replanted with pine, and along road cuts. In CHAZAL ET AL.: APPALACHIAN GRIZZLED SKIPPER 19 the young pine stands, much of the shale soil remained exposed with sparse ground cover of Rubus sp. and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Dwarf cinquefoil grew in scattered thick patches along road cuts and areas where the soil had been heavily disturbed by the timber harvest. Unlike the RGMA site, most P. c. wyandot observed at this site were seen nectaring on bird’s foot violet. Other potential nectar sources noted included blackberry and some phlox. On 25 April 2002, one P. c. wyandot was observed along Forest Road 345 in Alleghany County. This individual was nectaring on bird’s foot violet amid a pine forest with a blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) understory with little exposed soil. No Potentilla canadensis was found in the immediate vicinity, though it was scattered along the roadside. Likewise, no further appropriate habitat was located in the immediate vicinity of the observation. DISCUSSION The Appalachian grizzled skipper is rare in Virginia. Since 1992, the staff of DCR-DNH has made observations of P. c. wyandot at only six locations out of 75 sites visited (175 total surveys) in 12 counties. Five of these sites are within 14 km of each other. The observation of a single P. c. wyandot on FR 345 is interesting because it was found in seemingly suboptimal habitat. The nearest P. c. wyandot observation was approximately 2 km distant on the timber company property. Both observations were made in 2002. The area between these sites is interspersed with other clearcuts (not yet surveyed by DCR-DNH), a railroad right-of-way, and several old forestry roads, all of which may support dwarf cinquefoil. Schweitzer (1991) suggested that P. c. wyandot is a good colonizer and can move fairly widely through marginal habitats as long as the food plant is at least sparsely present. Thus, we do not consider FR 345 as a site which sustains a population of P. c. wyandot, but rather a localized observation. The PCNP observations are within 3 km of the RGMA. However, because PCNP does have suitable habitat to potentially support a population of P. c. wyandot, and because of the temporal differences in observations (1994 for PCNP vs. 2001 for RGMA), these sites are considered to be separate populations. It remains possible, however, that if Appalachian grizzled skippers do persist on the PCNP, they may interact with those on the RGMA. Further studies are needed to determine the population dynamics of this species at these two sites. Thus, excluding the isolated record from FR 345, only five sites in Virginia have verified P. c. wyandot observations since 1992. The two sites discovered in 2001 (RGMA and timber company property) are in areas clearcut for management purposes and may be the only sites with established populations (1.e., > 1-2 P. c. wyandot observed per survey and with appropriate habitat available). The clearcut/young pine stand habitats allow large areas for dwarf cinquefoil, the host plant of P. c. wyandot, to become established. The exposed shale soil in these managed areas may also mimic shale barren habitat, where the other known recent records of P. c. wyandot occur. In addition to the few sites in Virginia that support this species, there are low numbers of individuals. All observations since 1992 combined account for fewer than 80 individuals. We are not aware of any reports of P. c. wyandot observations during this time period from amateur or professional lepidopterists at any sites in Virginia other than Brattons Run Shale Barren. The highest number of individuals seen at any one site during a given survey was 14 at both the RGMA (14 of 17 observed in this area on 24 April 2002) and the timber company (23 April 2002) sites. While these sites harbor the largest currently known populations of P. c. wyandot in Virginia, these populations are still considered small based on historic information and on other extant populations throughout the species’ range (T. J. Allen, pers. comm.; D. F. Schweitzer, pers. comm. ). Of the five known sites in Virginia, most may be undergoing forest succession. The three _ sites discovered in the early 1990s (BRSB, PCNP, and JCNAP) have all undergone vegetational changes since our initial visits. At BRSB, the USFS has recently made extensive modifications to the numerous small fields in the area by planting for wildlife and old road cuts have either become overgrown or been planted with grasses for erosion control. Although the shale barren is still intact, dwarf cinquefoil is sparse in this habitat. Vegetation in the powerline right-of-way at PCNP has grown up, though there is still an area of exposed shale along the road cut, which is too harsh of an environment for trees to invade. The dwarf cinquefoil at JCNAP was primarily along the road cuts beside the shale barren. In recent years, pine saplings have invaded the road cut and leaf litter has built up along the edges. These have combined to reduce the amount of dwarf cinquefoil along the road. Similarly, during a brief survey in 2004 of the RGMA, it was noted that tree succession may also be starting to affect host plant availability at this site. 20 BANISTERIA The RGMA and timber company sites have suitable habitats that need to be further surveyed or resurveyed to better understand the size and extent of each population. In addition, both of these properties will be undergoing landscape changes in the future. Additional cuts are planned for Ruffed Grouse management purposes on the USFS property (E. Haverlack, pers. comm.), and the timber company tract is an active timber holding. Currently, we lack an adequate understanding of the role that forest succession plays in the population dynamics of P. c. wyandot, and many other questions also remain. For example, does forest succession adversely impact the population? Are populations spatially temporal across the landscape, moving as new Openings are created? Our recent observations on clearcuts suggest that this species does well on recently disturbed areas with shale soils (Shuey, 1994). Would efforts to slow or halt succession help P. c. wyandot populations to persist? Another gap in our understanding of the conservation needs of the Appalachian grizzled skipper is how populations respond to gypsy moth suppression activities. If these activities are indeed largely responsible for the observed decline of P. c. wyandot in other states (Schweitzer, 1991; Allen, 1997; Gochfeld & Burger, 1997), it is likely that spraying in the northern counties of Virginia has already impacted populations of P. c. wyandot prior to the accumulation of baseline abundance data. Most of the Virginia counties with known current or historical occurrences of P. c. wyandot have experienced recent gypsy moth infestations and thus are likely to undertake suppression activities. In particular, Alleghany and Rockbridge counties, where the known extant populations of P. c. wyandot occur, are now within the gypsy moth quarantine zone. Potential populations of P. c. wyandot farther southwest still lie beyond the recent regulated gypsy moth quarantine areas, but could be impacted in the future by the "Slow the Spread" suppression program (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Entomology, 2001). Continued surveys for P. c. wyandot in Virginia are needed to identify extant populations worthy of protection and to obtain data necessary in understanding the impacts of past and future gypsy moth suppression activities. In 1996, gypsy moth populations in Virginia declined precipitously due to a fungus, Entomophaga maimaiga, a natural pathogen to the moth and no detectable defoliation was recorded in the state in 1996, 1997, or 1998 (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Entomology, 2001). In 2000, a resurgence in the gypsy NO. 24, 2004 moth population was detected and continued into 2001. Suppression activities were conducted in 2001 and 2002 (Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread Foundation, 2003). The effects of past suppression activities on historic P. c. wyandot sites in Virginia are unknown. Extreme caution should be used when considering suppression activities close to the current known localities, and monitoring of the P. c. wyandot populations is critical. Due to forest succession and threats from gypsy moth control measures, all five sites in Virginia may be degrading in overall habitat quality. Table 3 shows six habitat characteristics thought to be important for areas supporting P. c. wyandot (Schweitzer, 1989) and how each of the five known sites in Virginia meet these criteria. All five sites are within the gypsy moth quarantine zone, and may be directly affected by gypsy moth control measures. Four of the five sites are thought to be undergoing forest succession which may be detrimental to P. c. wyandot by reducing the amount of Potentilla canadensis and other nectar sources. However, neither the stages of succession nor their effects on the host plant or on the butterfly directly have been quantified. The timber company land has not been resurveyed since 2002, thus succession has not been evaluated even anecdotally. Surveys of additional habitats are warranted to understand the status and conservation needs of P. c. wyandot in Virginia. These additional surveys should not only continue to include appropriate shale barren habitats, but also be expanded to include other semi- open woodlands and clearings, such as power- and gas- line rights-of-way where Potentilla canadensis is found (Allen, 1997). Surveys of known sites should be continued, to monitor P. c. wyandot populations and the effects of succession on these areas. If possible, forest management steps should be taken to set back succession and promote growth of the host plant and nectar. Additionally, surveys should be conducted in the seven Virginia counties with historic records which were not surveyed during the past decade. Any documentation of new P. c. wyandot populations would be a significant step toward ensuring the long-term protection and survival of this localized species. Considering its scarcity with concerted survey effort and based on its declining status rangewide, believed to be due in part to gypsy moth suppression programs (Schweitzer, 1991), P. c. wyandot may be a candidate for future listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. Although the taxonomy of the Appalachian populations of P. c. wyandot remains unclear and must be resolved, it is evident that the Appalachian grizzled skipper warrants immediate conservation attention and monitoring. CHAZAL ET AL.: APPALACHIAN GRIZZLED SKIPPER 21 Table 3. Suggested habitat criteria for Pyrgus centaureae wyandot (Schweitzer, 1989). Potts Creek No recent history of gypsy moth spraying Abundant host plant (Potentilla canadensis), especially in patches on other- wise bare ground Not abundant or in patches, scattered along road cuts and PROW, may be decreasing with succession Yes, may be decreasing with succession Not abundant or in patches, scattered along road cuts and PROW’, may be decreasing with succession Yes, may be decreasing with succession Abundant low- growing nectar flowers (e.g., Viola spp., Phlox subulata, etc.) S or SW-facing eroding shale slope with much bare ground Woods within 30 m on at least two sides Nearby source of moisture, usually damp soil along permanent or temporary streams E to SE-facing shale barren, road cuts vary, PROW mostly N to NE W to SW-facing shale barren and road cut, PROW runs NW to SE Yes Johnsons Creek USFS’s RGMA Timber property In quarantine area’ | In quarantine area | In quarantine area’ | In quarantine area | In quarantine area Ca. 0.1 ha area covered with P. canadensis, also along roads and other openings, may be decreasing with succession Ca. 0.1 ha area covered with P. canadensis, also along roads and other openings Not abundant or in patches, scattered along road cuts, may be decreasing with succession Yes, may be decreasing with succession SW to S-facing shale barren, road cut varies W to NW-facing slopes at ‘main’ area, road cuts and other cuts vary S-facing slope at ‘main’ area, road cuts and other cuts vary Yes Yes Yes Yes-planted pine, some quite young ‘Based on information from Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread Foundation (2003). °PROW = powerline right-of-way ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for most of the surveys was provided by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of the surveys were conducted by Michael Donahue under contract with DCR-DNH. Other surveyors included Amber Foster, Paul Clarke, Mike Leahy, Tom Allen, Tom McAvoy, Clyde Kessler, and members of the New York Lepidopterists’ Club. Ed Haverlack (U.S. Forest Service, James River District) and Buddy Chandler (USFS, Deerfield District) provided assistance with information and access to the Ruffed Grouse management areas. The Mead-Westvaco Corporation provided some funding, access, and maps to their properties. The Nature Conservancy also permitted surveys on their property. LITERATURE CITED Allen, T. J. 1997. The Butterflies of West Virginia and Their Caterpillars. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 388 pp. Cech, R. 1995. Wheeling through West Virginia: definitely not in Brooklyn anymore. American Butterflies 3(2): 12-18. Clark, A. H., & C. M. Williams. 1937. Records of Argynnis diana and of some other butterflies from Virginia. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 27: 209-213. Clark, A. H., & L. F. Clark. 1939. Butterflies from Virginia. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 52: 177-184. 22 BANISTERIA Clark, A. H., & L. F. Clark. 1951. The butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 116: 1-239. Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 242 pp. Gochfeld, M., & J. Burger. 1997. Butterflies of New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. 329 pp. Gypsy Moth Slow the Spread Foundation. 2003. 2002 Accomplishments in Slowing the Spread of the Gypsy Moth. http://www.gmsts.org/Reports/2002_accomp.htm Accessed 21 August 2003. Iftner, D., J. A. Shuey, & J. V. Calhoun. 1992. Butterflies and Skippers of Ohio. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin 8(1). 212 pp. NatureServe. 2003. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Version 1.8. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed 20 August 2003. Opler, P. A. 1998. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 486 pp. Opler, P. A., & G. O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies East of the Great Plains. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 294 pp. Opler, P. A., H. Pavulaan, & R. E. Stanford (coordinators). 1995. Butterflies of North America. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Jamestown, ND. http://www.npwrc. usgs. gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/bflyusa.htm (Version 26JUN2002). Accessed 5 September 2002. Parshall, D. K. 2002. Conservation assessment for the NO. 24, 2004 southern grizzled skipper (Pyrgus centaureae wyandot). Report prepared for United States Department of Agriculture — Forest Service Eastern Region. 23 pp. Schweitzer, D. F. 1989. A review of Category 2 Insecta in USFWS Regions 3, 4, 5. Unpublished report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 143 pp. plus appendices. Schweitzer, D. F. 1991. Appalachian grizzled skipper, Pyrgus wyandot (Edwards). Pp. 240-241 Jn K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Shapiro, A. M. 1974. Butterflies and skippers of New York state. Search 4: 1-60. Shuey, J. A. 1994. Thoughts on the status of Pyrgus centaureae wyandot, emphasizing _ ecological similarities in Ohio and Michigan. Ohio Lepidopterists 16: 17-20. Shuey, J. A., J. V. Calhoun, & D. C. Iftner. 1987. Butterflies that are endangered, threatened and of special concern in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 87: 98-106. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Entomology, 2001. The Gypsy Moth in Virginia: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu. Accessed 21 August 2003. Wagener, W. H., & A. H. Showalter. 1976. Ecological notes on Celastrina ebenina (Lycaenidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 30: 310-312. Wood, C. E., Jr., & C. W. Gottschalk. 1942. The butterflies of Roanoke and Montgomery counties, Virginia (Lepid.: Rhopalocera). [part 3]. Entomological News 53: 191-197. Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society An Annotated List of the Caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Virginia: Part I. Introduction and Families of Annulipalpia and Spicipalpia Oliver S. Flint, Jr. Department of Entomology National Museum of Natural History Washington, D.C. 20560 Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Charles R. Parker U. S. Geological Survey Great Smoky Mountains National Park Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738 ABSTRACT A total of 203 species of caddisflies in the families Dipseudopsidae, Glossosomatidae, Hydropsychidae, Hydroptilidae, Philopotamidae, Psychomyiidae, and Rhyacophilidae are documented for Virginia, 46 of them not previously known for the state. Counties of known occurrence are given for all species; detailed collection data are provided for rare species, those which constitute substantial range extensions, and those new to the state. The distribution of each genus and species is also summarized. An introductory section reviews present and historical work on Virginia caddisflies. Key words: Trichoptera, caddisflies, Virginia, Dipseudopsidae, Glossosomatidae, Hydropsychidae, Hydroptilidae, Philopotamidae, Psychomyiidae, Rhyacophilidae. INTRODUCTION Virtually every freshwater habitat in the world — from lakes and swamps to mountain springs and torrents, even vertical seepage faces — is occupied by a diversity of remarkable insects called caddisflies, species of the order Trichoptera. Despite an obvious kinship with butterflies and moths, these aquatic creatures differ in lacking the long, coiled feeding device common to most Lepidoptera, and in the fact that the immature stages are modified for existence underwater. And it is in the life styles of the caterpillar-like feeding stage that caddisfly diversification is most dramatically expressed. Some larvae are free- ranging predators, others feed upon microscopic organic particles screened from flowing water in fine nets of their own manufacture, still others are detritivores which browse and grind submerged plant materials. Many larvae are case-makers, able to construct tubular homes of amazing complexity from sand grains, plant fragments, small pebbles; others live inside small lengths of empty plant stems. Despite the variability thus expressed, most caddisfly larvae are basically similar in structure and appearance. Along with the immature stages of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisfly larvae frequently occur in populations of astronomical size, the two kinds of organisms thus constituting the dominant primary consumers in aquatic ecosystems, reducing organic 24 BANISTERIA material and serving as food for a wide spectrum of secondary consumers. The importance of both the larvae and adult stages as a food source for trout wins understanding and appreciation from fly fishermen, and it is not surprising that one of the leading specialists on the classification of caddisflies gradually progressed to that status from his original interest in producing “dry flies” modeled after the insects to serve as lures in trout fishing. Compared to other orders of holometabolous insects, the Trichoptera is not a large one, with about 9,000 species so far known world-wide, and over 1,400 in the United States. The first North American species to be described were named mostly by European specialists (among them Francis Walker, Robert MacLachlan, and Herman Hagen), although some of our commoner species were named by the indefatigable Thomas Say. The era of more local interest, however, may be considered as beginning with the work of Nathan Banks, who investigated Trichoptera (and many other kinds of arthropods) from about 1894 to his last publication on the North American fauna in 1951. Banks virtually monopolized the field until the mid-1930s, when the appearance of Bettens’s The Caddis flies or Trichoptera of New York State in 1934 catalyzed new interest in the group by such specialists as D. G. Denning, L. J. Milne, and especially Herbert H. Ross who reigned as facile princeps of American Trichopterology until his death in 1978. Ross named hundreds of new species and applied modern systematic methodology to the study of caddisflies, but his single most influential contribution was The Caddis Flies, or Trichoptera, of Illinois, which appeared in 1944, only ten years after Betten’s work. Achieving a high standard in both taxonomic precision and graphic presentation, Ross’ work transcended the stated limits of its title and implicitly became the “bible” for studies of this group in North America. Following its publication, a new generation of entomologists commenced studies on the order, bringing knowledge of the Nearctic fauna to a reasonably mature level. While localized “new” species continue to be discovered, and precision in the definition of geographic ranges enhanced, it is surely correct to assume that the adult caddisflies of eastern United States are now mostly known. That the young stages of numerous species remain to be identified and described goes, of course, without saying. That political boundaries are highly arbitrary, almost never reflecting natural regions, is generally appreciated. Nonetheless, various pragmatic considerations result in the study of biotas in the contexts of country, state, or province, yielding an eventual, highly incomplete mosaic of regional studies. These are not without scientific merit, however, and provide useful insights into the representation of various taxa in various geographic areas, NO. 24, 2004 to the extent that modern taxonomy underlies the specific identifications. The patterns by which caddisflies are distributed in Alabama, for instance, are often of interest to students of these insects elsewhere in the United States. Published reports about regional faunas frequently evolve through several stages before achieving the comprehensive status of the Illinois manual. A common “alpha stadium” in this progression is often a simple list of the taxa known for the area up to a certain point in time. It provides a baseline of names with no_ further information, in effect, a status report or the staking of a claim. A somewhat more sophisticated level is attained in an annotated checklist by inclusion of facts about geographic and seasonal distribution, and occasionally taxonomic status. Such a compendium may serve as a precursor for the definitive treatment that would include descriptions, keys, illustrations, maps, and biological information. Although knowledge of the Virginia caddisfly fauna has been greatly augmented during the past decade, it is all too obvious that our overall comprehension of the group as it occurs locally is still highly fragmentary, requiring perhaps another equal time span to reach a desired level of adequacy. We venture at this time to summarize current information in the annotated list format, desirably a springboard from which the definitive “Trichoptera of Virginia” may be launched. The large number of species (nearly 400) favors serial publication, and we commence with eight families traditionally referred to the nominal suborders Annulipalpia and Spicipalpia. Taxa of the suborder Integripalpia, discussions, and bibliography will follow in a subsequent part. VIRGINIA COLLECTIONS Although caddisflies have been collected opportunistically in Virginia by a large number of entomologists and aquatic biologists for over a century, the first resident who conducted intensive sampling was Nathan Banks. During the period of his employment (1890 to1916) at the United States National Museum (USNM), Banks lived at Falls Church (then a small rural village) and collected regularly there as well as at other sites mostly in Fairfax County. Some of Banks’ specimens were deposited in the USNM, but most moved with him to the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) at Harvard University. Banks’ 1904 list of “neuropteroid” insects of the District of Columbia incorporated all of his Virginia records, but, unfortunately, did not provide individual collection data for all species. Oliver S. Flint, with an initial interest in immature stages, had collected caddisflies in Virginia as early as FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 25 1955, but his activities in the state intensified upon assuming a curatorial position at the USNM in 1961 anda residency in Alexandria. He conducted a number of investigations in northern Virginia, along the Blue Ridge, and in Bath and Highland counties in the Alleghenies, extending further into southwestern Virginia in more recent years. Following his first encounter with Ross’ Illinois manual, Richard L. Hoffman began collecting caddisflies in May 1950. For the next several years he continued collecting in southwestern Virginia, chiefly at lights, sending his captures to H. H. Ross. In 1989 the previously desultory efforts were greatly intensified following establishment of the Virginia Museum of Natural History (VMNH) and the initiation of statewide surveys of numerous insect groups. Utilizing black light, he extended his activities widely across the southwestern counties and especially the virtually uncollected counties of Southside Virginia. This material, accumulating at VMNH, was almost entirely identified by Charles R. Parker, with whom he coauthored an account of the Trichoptera obtained over several years in Greensville County (Hoffman & Parker, 1997). A major impetus in the study of Virginia Trichoptera occurred in the 1970s when a program of chiefly ecological research on aquatic insects was commenced at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University under the direction of J. R. Voshell. During the period of 1976- 1980, Charles R. Parker conducted studies, leading to his doctoral dissertation, on the faunas of the North and South Anna rivers in Louisa County. During this period he implemented a growing interest in the taxonomy and faunistics of Virginia caddisflies by building up an extensive collection at VPISU, abetted by contributions from many other students and faculty members. Although not enlarged since Parker’s graduation, this collection remains one of the three primary sources of information on the Virginia fauna, and formed the basis of the first checklist of Virginia Trichoptera (Parker & Voshell, 1981). Contemporaneously with the VMNH_ inventory activities, 1989 to 2003, systematic collecting of insects was conducted by staff zoologists (primarily Steven M. Roble, Anne C. Chazal, and Christopher S. Hobson) of the Division of Natural Heritage, an agency within the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. VDNH personnel surveyed numerous sites scattered over the entire state, and accumulated extensive series of caddisflies which have been routinely transmitted to VMNH for preparation and identification. Many new state species records and innumerable localities for recorded species have resulted from this interagency cooperation. Since only about half of the known Virginia caddisflies are listed in the following pages, an analysis of their distributional patterns in the state is deferred pending completion of the second installment. Nonetheless, several preliminary impressions may be stated in advance. The most superficial inspection of the various species accounts will impress the fact that some species are widespread across the state in nearly every aquatic habitat while others appear to be very localized and collected largely by serendipity. That caddisfly dispersal is accomplished largely by the random flight of gravid females may account for “spotty” and disjunct populations, many of which may survive only brief tenure in colonized biotopes. Certainly, not all apparently suitable habitats in any given region will be occupied. It is unknown, for instance, whether the fragmentary range of Hydropsyche franclemonti is the result of incomplete collecting or of a declining status with small relictual populations surviving from a once-continuous distribution. That additional Species continue to turn up at sites considered to be adequately sampled suggests very brief periods of adult activity, mandating more attention to the collection of larvae. Many species which are not as adults attracted to ultra-violet light are under-collected by too much reliance upon blacklighting. In short, adequate knowledge of the current Virginia distribution of many species will not be realized for many years, as especially shown by the ongoing discovery in the state of undescribed species such as Hydropsyche brunneipennis, and populations of others far beyond their previously known range. Hydroptila acadia and Ceraclea ruthae (treated in Part 2 of this list) are remarkable examples of such additions. It is perhaps correct to surmise that almost any caddisfly species known from east of the Mississippi River may be discovered as an inconspicuous and localized resident of the Commonwealth. ORGANIZATION The three primary sources of material reflect the activities of the authors of this list. National Museum of Natural History (USNM: Flint, since 1960); Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPISU: Parker, primarily in 1976-80); Virginia Museum of Natural History (VMNH: Hoffman, since 1989). Other records have been obtained from collections at the University of Tennessee (UT: David A. Etnier); Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH: John E. Rawlins), and Colorado State University (CSU: Boris C. Kondratieff). Some identifications of specimens sent to the Illinois Natural History Survey (NHS) were provided by H. H. Ross (in /itt.). The vast majority of the records are based upon adult specimens. A number of species were originally based on 26 BANISTERIA specimens collected in Virginia. We highlight these with the abbreviation “T.L.”, and citation of the type locality. Many of the species (46) are documented for Virginia for the first time; their names are prefixed with an asterisk (*). For ease in reference, all taxa are listed alphabetically, and - owing to the unsettled state of Trichoptera classification - families are not separated on the basis of subordinal grouping. Species accounts contain a general statement of species’ total and Virginia distributions. Most Virginia records are referenced only by counties and cities but detailed collection data and commentary are provided for rare species, those new to the state, and those which constitute substantial range extensions. The range of months during which adults have been captured is also included. The present list documents 37 genera and 203 species (plus one questionable records based on a female) known to occur in Virginia, approximately half of the anticipated final total. ANNOTATED LIST Family Dipseudopsidae Genus Phylocentropus This genus is limited to eastern Asia and eastern North America, although well represented in Baltic amber. Five Species are known from North America, all from east of the Mississippi River. Phylocentropus auriceps Banks: The species reaches its northernmost distribution in southwestern Virginia from where it 1s found southerly in the mountains to Georgia. The Franklin County locality (Grassy Fork Creek) is noteworthy for being disjunct some 160 km northeast from the others, and at a low elevation (300 m) in the Piedmont instead of above 1000 meters. Franklin, Smyth, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May-June. *Phylocentropus carolinus Carpenter: Although the species is known from southern Canada throughout eastern North America to the Gulf Coast including Louisiana, it had not been taken before in Virginia. The two known sites are widely separated, one on the Coastal Plain, the other in the upper Piedmont. Franklin Co., Grassy Fork Creek, Rt. 619, 3.2 km SE Snow Creek, 14 May 2003 (NMNH). Middlesex Co., Dragon Run Swamp, Rt. 603, 4.8 km W Warner, 21 May 1987 (VMNH); same data, but 20 May 2003 (NMNH). Phylocentropus lucidus (Hagen): The species is widespread from southern Canada to Florida and west to NO. 24, 2004 the Mississippi River. It is generally taken at small spring runs throughout the state, but is rarely taken 1n the Coastal Plain. Brunswick, Dickenson, Dinwiddie, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Halifax, Highland, Louisa, Patrick, Prince William, Rockbridge, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May-September. Phylocentropus placidus (Banks) (P. hansoni Root is a synonym): This species is widespread from southern Canada to the Gulf and west to the 100th meridian. It occurs in Virginia on the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, often near ponds. Brunswick, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Greensville, Henrico, Louisa, Mecklenburg, Middlesex, Prince William, Southampton, Spotsylvania, Stafford and Wise Cos., and City of Chesapeake, May- September. Family Glossosomatidae Genus Agapetus The genus (and/or its subgenera - sensu Ross, 1956) is found throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and into South Africa and Australia, but not in the Neotropical Realm. At least one undescribed species is known from southwestern Virginia. Agapetus hessi Leonard & Leonard: There are scattered records of the species from southern Canada south through the Appalachians to Alabama, and west to Wisconsin. It had been recorded from Virginia (Schmid, 1982), but without locality. The few known Virginia localities are all in the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge physiographic provinces. Bath, Montgomery, and Patrick Cos., and City of Radford, May-July. Agapetus iridis Ross: This species has a distribution much like the preceding, southern Quebec to Alabama, but not west of the Appalachians. Bath Co., Jackson River, Rt. 603, 3.2 km S Rt. 687, 11 September 1979 (NMNH); Hot Springs, Homestead Hotel, stream flowing through grounds, 18 April 1974 (NMNH). Carroll Co., Stewarts Creek State Wildlife Management Area, ca. 2.4 km NW Lambsburg, 9 July 1994 (VMNH). * Agapetus minutus Sibley: The species is known from scattered records from southern Ontario south through the Appalachians to the Great Smoky Mountains. This is the first known record from Virginia. Giles Co., Sinking Creek, Rt. 605, 0.4 km S Rt. 460, 27 March 2002 (UT). * Agapetus pinatus Ross: A species with essentially the same distribution as A. iridis, tt appears not to have been FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA at recorded from Virginia before. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and adjacent mountains. Grayson Co., 6.4 km W Troutdale, 24 July 1970 (NMNH). Rappahannock Co., Hughes River, Rt. 707, 7 July 1979 (VMNH). Agapetus rossi Denning: The species is found throughout the Appalachians from southern Canada to Alabama and west to Minnesota. It is encountered from the upper Piedmont to the western border of Virginia. Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Fairfax, Hanover, Shenandoah, and Tazewell Cos., May-June. *Agapetus tomus Ross: This is another species with scattered records in the Appalachians from Pennsylvania to Alabama with an outlier in Minnesota. It has not been recorded from Virginia before, where it is only known from several sites on the Holston River system. Smyth Co., South Fork Holston River at St. Clair Bottom, 18 May 1990 (UT); South Fork Holston River, 7.8 km E Thomas Bridge Road on South Fork Road, 27 March 2002 (UT); North Fork Holston River, Rt. 620, near Nebo, 17 May 1990 (UT); same data, but 15 May 2004 (NMNH). Genus Culoptila This is a genus primarily of Mexico, Central America, and the southwestern United States, with two species being recorded also from east of the Mississippi River. *Culoptila cantha (Ross): This species has a disjunct continental distribution, being recorded from the Rocky Mountain states and Maine and Maryland in the east. It is known from the Maryland side of the Potomac River opposite Fairfax Co., but not actually recorded from Virginia before. Floyd Co., Greasy Creek at Rt. 622, 18 July 1988 (VMNH). Genus Glossosoma A large, diverse genus of the northern Hemisphere, most of the North American species are limited to the western states and provinces. *Glossosoma intermedium Klapalek: The species is Holarctic in distribution, primarily at higher latitudes. These records from central-western Virginia appear to be at or near its southernmost distribution in the United States. Highland Co., Blue Spring, 1.6 km N Williams- ville on Rt. 678, 3 May 1981 (VPISU); Bullpasture River, Rt. 678, 1.6 km N Williamsville, 3 February 1980 (VPISU). Nelson Co., South Fork Tye River at Crabtree Falls Recreational Area, 12 September 1980 (VPISU). *Glossosoma lividum (Hagen): The species is known from the eastern provinces of Canada and the northeastern United States. There is an unsubstantiated record of the species from the mountains in North-South Carolina in June, otherwise these are the southernmost records for the species: Bath Co., Blowing Springs Campground, Rt. 39, 12.8 km W Warm Springs, 16-17 May 1975 and 10 September 1979 (NMNH); Jackson River at Rt. 603, 3.2 km S Rt. 687, 11 September 1979 (NMNH). Glossosoma nigrior Banks: The species is very common throughout eastern North America as far west as Minnesota. In Virginia, the species is known from the Piedmont to the border with West Virginia. It has not yet been taken in the Appalachian Plateau counties. Amherst, Bath, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Patrick, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Smyth, Shenandoah, Spotsylvania, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., March- September. Genus Matrioptila This is a monotypic genus limited to the eastern United States. Matrioptila jeanae (Ross): The species is found from Pennsylvania south to Alabama. In Virginia it has been taken from the Piedmont to west of the Blue Ridge. Craig, Fairfax, Floyd, Grayson, Hanover, Henry, Montgomery, Patrick, and Smyth Cos., May-June. Genus Protoptila The genus is very large and diverse in the New World, with many hundred species found in the Neotropical Realm, but only a comparatively few east of the Mississipp1 River in North America. Protoptila georgiana Denning: The species is only known from Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia. It has been taken numerous times in the Piedmont and west of the Blue Ridge in Virginia as far north as the Potomac River in Maryland opposite Fairfax Co. Augusta, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Clarke, Culpeper, Fairfax, Floyd, Franklin, Grayson, Hanover, Louisa, Nelson, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Sussex, and Warren Cos., May-October. *Protoptila lega Ross: This species is known from southern Canada south to Alabama and west to the 100th 28 BANISTERIA meridian. The few Virginia records extend from the Coastal Plain to the mountains. Carroll Co., Big Reed Island Creek at US Hwy. 221, 9 September 1989 (VMNH). Grayson Co., New River at Fries, boat landing area, 8 September 1989 (VMNH). Hanover Co., South Anna River, falls at Rt. 657, 12 June 1978 (NMNH). Sussex Co., Chub Sandhill Natural Area Preserve, 10 km SE Sussex, 21 May 1996 (VMNH), Nottoway River at Rt. 651, N of Emporia, 19 May 2004 (CSU). Protoptila maculata (Hagen): This is the most widespread and common species of the genus in eastern North America. It is known from southern Canada south to Alabama and Texas west to the 100th meridian. Virginia records are all from the Blue Ridge and west. Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Carroll, Floyd, Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Smyth, Washington, and Wythe Cos., May-September. Protoptila palina Ross: All records of this species are from east of the Mississippi River, from Maine to Alabama. It is known primarily from the southern half of Virginia from the Piedmont to the far southwestern corner. Bath, Caroline, Carroll, Fairfax, Giles, Greens- ville, Hanover, Henry, Lee, Montgomery, Rockbridge, Russell, Sussex, and Washington Cos., May-September. Family Hydropsychidae Genus Arctopsyche This is a genus of perhaps two dozen species primarily of the high northern latitudes, but extending south in the mountains of Asia and North America. *Arctopsyche irrorata Banks: This species was previously known only from the southern Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. In Virginia it has only been taken at the western base of Mount Rogers at about 1200 m in elevation. Grayson Co., headwater tributary of Lewis Fork, Lewis Fork Trail, Rt. 603, 5 June 1982 (VPISU). Genus Cheumatopsyche A very large genus found in most of the warmer regions of the world except for the Neotropical Realm; it contains at least 50 species in North America. Cheumatopsyche analis (Banks) (= C. pettiti Banks): This is one of the most widespread species in North America, being found all across the United States and southern Canada, including Hawaii, except for the NO. 24, 2004 southwestern states. It is equally widespread in Virginia, from sea level to above 1000 meters, with an extended period of adult activity. Accomack, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Brunswick, Caroline, Charlotte, Chesterfield, Clarke, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Frederick, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Lee, Louisa, Middlesex, Montgomery, Northampton, Pittsylvania, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Shenandoah, Smyth, Sussex, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., March-October. Our preference for use of the name C. analis is explained ina recent discussion by Flint et al. (2003). *Cheumatopsyche burksi Ross: This eastern species has been recorded from Kentucky to Florida and west to Arkansas, but mostly east of the Mississippi River. This first record from Virginia is from the Appalachian region. Montgomery Co., Little River at end of Rt. 691, 5.3 km from intersection with Rts. 672/691, 29 May 1975 (UT). Cheumatopsyche campyla Ross: The species is equally as widespread in North America as C. anaiis, except it does not occur in Hawaii and does inhabit the Southwest. It is not as frequently taken in Virginia as C. analis, and appears to largely avoid the Coastal Plain. Alleghany, Bath, Bedford, Caroline, Clarke, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Franklin, Grayson, Greensville, Hanover, Louisa, Lunenburg, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Prince William, Pulaski, Rockbridge and Rockingham Cos., May-September. Cheumatopsyche ela Denning: This species is widespread in eastern North America from southern Canada to the Gulf, but not west of the Mississippi River. It is primarily a species of the Virginia Piedmont and mountains. Appomattox, Botetourt, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Giles, Grayson, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Henry, Loudoun, Louisa, Montgomery, Page, Rockbridge, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Warren, and Washington Cos., and City of Radford, April-October. Cheumatopsyche enigma Ross, Morse, & Gordon: This species is less widely distributed than C. harwoodi, being recorded only from Virginia to Georgia, with disjunct records from Arkansas and Missouri. In Virginia there are a few records from the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, but most are from the Blue Ridge and west. Bath, Bedford, Fauquier, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, King & Queen/Middlesex, Louisa, Montgomery, Patrick, Smyth, and Tazewell Cos., May-September. * Cheumatopsyche etrona Ross: The species has a very limited distribution in the southern Appalachians from FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 29 Georgia to North Carolina. This, the first Virginia record and northernmost for the species, is from the eastern edge of the Blue Ridge. Patrick Co., Dan River at Kibler Valley, 20 September 2002 (VMNH). Cheumatopsyche geora Denning: This caddisfly is limited to the eastern seaboard from Connecticut south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Virginia records are scattered widely across the state. Arlington, Bedford, Campbell, Caroline, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Halifax, Hanover, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Rappahannock, and Shenandoah Cos., May-September. Cheumatopsyche gracilis (Banks): The species is widely distributed across North America with records scattered all across southern Canada south, but lacking in most of the southern states and the far west. The few Virginia records are in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province. Bath Co., Gilletts Run, 16 km N Warm Springs, 17 July 1971 (NMNH); Big Back Creek, Blowing Springs Campground, 29-30 August 1973 (NMNH); Jackson River below Back Creek (exact date not recorded), 1973 (VPISU). Giles Co., Sinking Creek at Newport Recreation Area, 30 May 1974 (NMNH). Washington Co., South Fork Holston River at Rt. 91, near Damascus, 24 September 1981 (NMNH). Cheumatopsyche gyra Ross: An east coast species known from Maine to Georgia, C. gyra has been taken only a few times in Virginia in the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley provinces. Bath, Nelson, and Rockbridge Cos., May-September. Cheumatopsyche halima Denning: This species is limited to eastern North America from Quebec to South Carolina with an outlying record from Arkansas. The few Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Mount Rogers areas. Botetourt Co., Jefferson National Forest, ca. 8 km E Buchanan, 19-20 June 1961 (NMNH). Nelson Co., Wintergreen Resort, 28 July 1979 (NMNH); same data, but 11-12 July 1981 (NMNH). Rockbridge Co., Guys Run, 6 June 1978 (VPISU); Washington Co., tributary to Straight Branch at Beartree Campground, 26 July 1979 (VPISU). Cheumatopsyche harwoodi Denning: This species is widely distributed over all of North America east of the Mississippi River. In Virginia it is found primarily west of the Blue Ridge, with a few scattered sites in the Piedmont. Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, Caroline, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Greensville, Louisa, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Patrick, Rappahannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Smyth, Washington, and Wise Cos., May- September. Cheumatopsyche minuscula (Banks): The species is widespread over eastern North America as far west as the 100th meridian. It is found in Virginia from the Piedmont to the western edge of the state. Alleghany, Bath, Botetourt, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Nelson, Pulaski, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, and Washington Cos., May-September. Cheumatopsyche oxa Ross: This species is widely distributed in North America: all across the southern provinces in Canada, but missing from the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast states. In Virginia it occurs from the Piedmont to the western border, although there are still no records for the Appalachian Plateau province. Bedford, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Giles, Lee, Montgomery, Nelson, Patrick, Rappahannock, Russell, Shenandoah, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May-September. Cheumatopsyche parentum Gordon: This species has a very restricted distribution in the mid-Atlantic states (Maryland and Virginia only), although the Virginia range implies that it must occur at least into North Carolina, with records across the entire Piedmont: Fall Line in Greensville Co. to the edge of the Blue Ridge in Patrick Co. T.L. - Fairfax Co., Bull Run Park, 20 May 1962 (NMNH). Caroline, Fairfax, Greensville, Hanover, Louisa, Lunenburg, and Patrick Cos., April-September. Cheumatopsyche pasella Ross: This species is widely distributed east of the Mississippi River in the United States and Canada, with extensions westward to Oklahoma and across the northern states to Oregon and Washington. In Virginia it is widespread in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge, and areas immediately to the west. Appomattox, Bedford, Botetourt, Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Fairfax, Floyd, Franklin, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, Montgomery, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Shenandoah, Southampton, and Sussex Cos., and City of Radford, May-September. Cheumatopsyche pinaca Ross: The species is widespread along the eastern seaboard from Maine to Louisiana. It appears to be partial to the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions in Virginia. Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Halifax, Hanover, Henry, Louisa, Pittsylvania, and Westmoreland Cos. and City of Galax, April-July. 30 BANISTERIA Cheumatopsyche sordida (Hagen): The species is widespread in eastern North America as far west as the 100th meridian. All of the Virginia localities are from the mountainous areas in and west of the New River Valley. Grayson, Montgomery, Smyth, and Wythe Co., and City of Radford, May-August. Cheumatopsyche speciosa (Banks): This species is widespread over eastern North America as far west as Alberta, Montana, and Colorado, but absent along the Gulf Coast. In Virginia it has been found only in the northern Piedmont. Arlington Co., Glencarlyn, 2 July (no year on label) (NMNH). Fairfax Co., Falls Church, 6 July 1961, 10 June 1962, and 7 September 1962 (NMNH). Cheumatopsyche virginica Denning: This species is limited to the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in the United States. In Virginia, it is only known from the extreme southeastern corner. T.L. - “Dismal Swamp” without further specification, 13 August 1934 (Univ. Kansas). City of Chesapeake, Feeder Ditch, Dismal Swamp, 16 June 1973 (VPISU). Cheumatopsyche wrighti Ross: This species is known from scattered records from the mountains of eastern Tennessee north to Nova Scotia. In Virginia it has only been recorded from the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley provinces. Bath, Bland, Floyd, Giles, Highland, Nelson, Rockbridge, and Smyth Cos., May-July. Genus Diplectrona This is a large genus of approximately 100 species, widely distributed around the world, and in Asia as far as New Zealand, but absent from Africa and the New World south of Guatemala. It is a rather heterogeneous assemblage of species that is probably polyphyletic. Diplectrona metaqui Ross: A species known from Connecticut to Georgia and west to Missouri, it 1s most readily identified by modifications of the head capsule and mouthparts in the larva. The few scattered Virginia records, all based on larvae, are from the upper Piedmont to west of the Blue Ridge. Bath, Fauquier, Giles, and Wythe Cos., February-December. Diplectrona modesta Banks: This species 1s widely distributed in eastern North America west to the 100th meridian. It is found throughout Virginia from the upper Piedmont west. Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Bland, Botetourt, Craig, Culpeper, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Patrick, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, NO. 24, 2004 Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Stafford, Tazewell, Washington, and Wise Cos., April-September. Genus Homoplectra Homoplectra contains about a dozen species, three limited to the eastern United States, the remainder to the far west. The two local species are only infrequently collected. Homoplectra doringa (Milne): This species occurs from New Hampshire to Alabama and west to Arkansas. We only have two records of the species from the Alleghenian region in the southwestern part of the state. Montgomery Co., tributary of Craig Creek, Rt. 621, 1.3 km E jet. Rt. 460, 31 May 1978 (VPISU). Washington Co., tributary of Spring Creek, Rt. 663, 2.7 km E Rt. 647, 9 April 2003 (UT). Homoplectra monticola (Flint): The species has a very restricted distribution, being known only from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia. In Virginia it has been taken on and west of the Blue Ridge. T.L. - Madison Co., Hogcamp Branch, just below Skyline Drive, Shenandoah National Park, 24 June 1961 (NMNH). Giles, Madison, Tazewell, and Wythe Cos., May-June. Genus Hydropsyche (Ceratopsyche) The systematics of the large and heterogeneous genus Hydropsyche is still controversial. We follow the proposal of Schefter et al. (1986) to consider Ceratopsyche to be only a subgenus of Hydropsyche, pending a thorough analysis of all related groups. This subgenus is distributed across the Holarctic Realm and into southern Asia and Sundaland as far as New Guinea and Guadalcanal. Almost 100 species are known worldwide, of which about 26 are from North America, of these half are found east of the 100th meridian. Hydropsyche (C.) alhedra Ross: This is a wide- ranging species known from Alaska all across Canada and the northern United States to the Atlantic Ocean, with extensions south in the mountains to Colorado and the Great Smoky Mountains. In Virginia it is found in the Blue Ridge and Alleghenies. Bath, Madison, Nelson, and Rockbridge Cos., May-September. Hydropsyche (C.) bronta Ross: The species ranges widely across Canada and the United States as far west as the Rocky Mountain states, but seems to be lacking along the Gulf Coast. It is common in Virginia along the Blue Ridge and folded Appalachians, with scattered sites in the FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 31 northern Piedmont. Bath, Bedford, Carroll, Culpeper, Fauquier, Floyd, Henry, Highland, Nelson, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Cos., May-October. Hydropsyche (C.) cheilonis Ross: This species is more restricted to the east, not being recorded west of the Mississippi River. It is widespread in Virginia, primarily in the Ridge and Valley and Appalachian Plateau provinces. Bath, Bedford, Craig, Dickenson, Lee, Montgomery, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Cos., May-September. *Hydropsyche (C.) etnieri Schuster & Talak: This species had been previously reported only from Tennessee. The single Virginia locality extends the range northward along the Holston River system. Smyth Co., North Fork Holston River, Rt. 620 at jct. Rt. 716, near Nebo, 20 May 1993 (CSU); same data, but 15 May 2004 (NMNH). Hydropsyche (C.) macleodi Flint: A species of the southern Appalachians, recorded from Georgia to West Virginia. In Virginia it is known only from the southern Blue Ridge in the vicinity of Mount Rogers at elevations above 1000 meters. Grayson Co., Fox Creek, 2.7 km W Troutdale, 12 June 1979 (NMNH, VPISU); Lewis Fork of Fox Creek, Rt. 603, 20 June 1981 (NMNH). Smyth Co., Grindstone Recreation Area, 7.3 km W Troutdale, 15 & 20 June 1974 (NMNH); same data, but 24 May 1975 (NMNH, VPISU); Big Laurel Creek, Forest Service Road 828, near Grindstone, 16 May 2004 (NMNH); Hurricane Creek, Hurricane Campground, 15-16 May 2004 (NMNH). Hydropsyche (C.) morosa Hagen: This is a widespread species over North America, being known from British Columbia and Washington to the Maritime Provinces and Georgia, but lacking from the southern and western tier of states. In Virginia it is ubiquitous from the upper Piedmont to the western border. Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, Campbell, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Highland, Louisa, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Pittsylvania, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Cos., April- September. Hydropsyche (C.) slossonae Banks: Although wide- spread across Canada it is mostly found east of the 100th meridian in the United States, except for a southerly extension in the Rockies to Colorado. In Virginia it occurs in the Blue Ridge, the Alleghenies, and the Appalachian Plateau. Alleghany, Bath, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Nelson, Patrick, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Cos., May-September. Hydropsyche (C.) sparna Ross: The species is primarily found east of the Mississippi River in North America, with a report from Kansas. In Virginia it is found everywhere from the Fall Line to the western border. Alleghany, Amherst, Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Halifax, Hanover, Henry, Highland, Lee, Louisa, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Patrick, Prince William, Pittsylvania, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Stafford, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Cos., April-September. Hydropsyche (C.) ventura Ross: This is a species primarily of the northern Appalachians from Ontario to the Smokies, with a western record from Minnesota. Virginia records are scattered across the Blue Ridge and Allegheny mountains. Bath, Craig, Giles, Madison, Rockbridge, and Tazewell Cos., May-September. Hydropsyche (C.) walkeri Betten & Mosely: The species 1s known in Canada from Alberta to Quebec and in the United States from North Dakota to Virginia. In this state it is found through the mountainous western third, with its southernmost known locality in Washington Co. Bath, Dickenson, Giles, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May-September. Genus Hydropsyche (Hydropsyche) As mentioned under the subgenus Ceratopsyche, the composition of this genus/subgenus is still very controversial, especially so when one considers the world fauna. In the broadest sense (including Ceratopsyche, etc), it contains over 350 species found on all continents, except south of Central America in the New World. Almost 50 species occur in North America, four-fifths of them east of the 100th meridian. Hydropsyche (H.) alvata Denning: This is primarily a southern species found up the Mississippi River basin and along the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Virginia is_ the northernmost known point along the Atlantic, with the Species apparently limited to the Piedmont and adjacent Coastal Plain. Brunswick, Caroline, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Franklin, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, and 32 BANISTERIA Pittsylvania Cos., June-August. Hydropsyche (H.) bassi Flint, Voshell & Parker: This is a species of limited distribution, known only from Virginia and Tennessee. In Virginia it has been found only in the southwestern corner. T.L. - Russell Co., Big Cedar Creek at Rt. 19, May 1978 (NMNH). Giles, Lee, Montgomery, Russell, Smyth, and Washington Cos., May- September. Hydropsyche (H.) betteni Ross: This species is found everywhere in North America east of the 100th meridian. In Virginia it is statewide, although only rarely collected in the Coastal Plain. Alleghany, Bath, Bedford, Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Clarke, Culpeper, Dickenson, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Greensville, Halifax, Isle of Wight, King William, Louisa, Lunenburg, Montgomery, Nelson, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Powhatan, Prince Edward, Prince William, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Stafford, Tazewell, Washington, Westmoreland, and Wise Cos., May- September. *Hydropsyche (H.) brunneipennis Flint & Butler: A rare species restricted to the central Appalachians from Pennsylvania to Tennessee. The few known localities are larger rivers in the Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Although these are the first records from Virginia, the types were taken at the Potomac River opposite Fairfax Co. Botetourt Co., Craig Creek, Oriskany, 8 August 1998 (VMNH). Fairfax Co., Turkey Run Park, 5 August 2004 (USNM). Hydropsyche (H.) catawba Ross: The species is found on the Piedmont from Georgia to Virginia, its northernmost distribution, where it has been found at a number of localities. Caroline, Hanover, Louisa, and Pittsylvania Cos., June-September. Hydropsyche (H.) depravata Hagen: Although primarily an Appalachian species, H. depravata ranges up the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys as far as Manitoba and Ohio. In Virginia it has been found only in that part of the state in and west of the New River Valley. Dickenson, Giles, Lee, Montgomery, Russell, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe Cos., April-September. Hydropsyche (H.) dicantha Ross: The species is found only in eastern North America from Minnesota east and south through the mountains to Alabama. The few Virginia records are scattered throughout the Alleghenian region. Buchanan, Dickenson, Nelson, and Shenandoah Cos., May-September. NO. 24, 2004 Hydropsyche (H.) fattigi Ross: This is another southeastern species known from Alabama to Virginia. In this extremity of its range, H. fattigi has been found exclusively throughout the Piedmont almost to the northern border of the state. Appomattox, Bedford, Campbell, Culpeper, Fauquier, Franklin, Hanover, Louisa, Nelson, and Pittsylvania Cos, and City of Galax, May- September. Hydropsyche (H.) franclemonti Flint: This recently described rare species is known from a few scattered localities from northwestern-most South Carolina north through the Blue Ridge into Quebec. In Virginia, it is only known from the holotype taken on the eastern edge of the Blue Ridge and several males from the New River Plateau. T.L. - Culpeper Co., Hazel River, off Rt. 707, 3 July 1981 (NMNH). City of Galax, near jct. Rts. 221 and 89, at motel lights, 17 June 2004 (USNM, VMNH). *Hydropsyche (H.) frisoni Ross: The species is widespread across the northern United States (but not yet in Canada) from Colorado to Connecticut, and south to Alabama. The unique Virginia record is from the Ridge and Valley province. Montgomery Co., Poverty Creek, Poverty Hollow, 16 June 1987 (CSU). Hydropsyche (H.) hageni Banks: The species is recorded from Manitoba to Quebec and south to Alabama, but absent from New England. In Virginia it is found from the upper Piedmont to the western border. Appomattox, Carroll, Clarke, Fairfax, Giles, Montgomery, Page, Roanoke, Rockingham, Scott, Shenandoah, Warren, Washington, and Wythe Cos., and City of Radford, May- September. Hydropsyche (H.) hoffmani Ross: The species has a limited range in the mid-Atlantic from Delaware to West Virginia south to Virginia, where it is widespread from the northern Piedmont west through the Alleghenies as far as the New River. T.L. - Montgomery Co., Radford Arsenal, 4-10 August 1956 (INHS). Arlington, Botetourt, Clarke, Fairfax, Giles, Montgomery, Page, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren Cos., May- September. Hydropsyche (H.) incommoda Hagen: It is difficult to obtain a true view of the range of this species because it has been consistently misidentified in the older literature. Verified records are known from Florida to Virginia, mainly in the Piedmont, to which province it seems largely restricted in Virginia. Campbell, Caroline, Charlotte, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, New Kent, and Pittsylvania Cos., and City of Chesapeake, FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 33 April-October. Hydropsyche (H.) leonardi Ross: This species is endemic to northeastern North America, from Ontario and Wisconsin east to New York and south to Virginia, where it occurs in the Alleghenies and northern Blue Ridge. Bath, Clarke, Fairfax, Page, Roanoke, Shenandoah, and Warren Cos., April-October. Hydropsyche (H.) mississippiensis Flint: This 1s another southeastern species found primarily in the Piedmont from Louisiana to Virginia. It is limited to the Piedmont in Virginia, where a site in Louisa County represents its northernmost locality. Bedford, Halifax, Henry, Louisa, and Pittsylvania Cos., June-September. Hydropsyche (H.) opthalmica Flint: The species has a rather limited range in the mid-Atlantic from Pennsylvania to Virginia. In Virginia it is found from the upper Piedmont to the Alleghenian regions. Augusta, Bath, Campbell, Clarke, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah, and Warren Cos., May-October. Hydropsyche (H.) phalerata Hagen: This is a widespread species in North America, from Quebec south to Florida east of the Mississippi River. In Virginia it is essentially statewide west of the Fall Line although records are missing for the Appalachian Plateau counties. Appomattox, Arlington, Bedford, Campbell, Carroll, Clarke, Fairfax, Floyd, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Pulaski, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Spotsylvania, and Warren Cos., and cities of Galax and Richmond, May-October. Hydropsyche (H.) potomacensis Flint: This species seems to have a restricted distribution limited to the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge provinces of central- and southwestern Virginia. T.L. - Highland Co., bridge on Rt. 220 over East Fork Potomac River, 18-20 May 1963 (NMNH). Craig, Floyd, Giles, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wythe Cos., April-September. Hydropsyche (H.) rossi Flint, Voshell, & Parker. The species has a wide distribution in the southeast from Texas along the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi and Ohio river valleys to Indiana, and along the Atlantic Coast to Virginia, where it is found in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions. Dinwiddie, Greensville, Louisa, Lunenburg, Pittsylvania, Southampton, and Sussex Cos., and cities of Chesapeake and Richmond, May-October. Hydropsyche (H.) rotosa Ross: This species has a restricted range from Alabama to Virginia. Its northernmost known localities are in those counties in and west of the New River Valley. Montgomery, Russell, Smyth, and Wythe Cos., April-July. Hydropsyche (H.) scalaris Hagen: Most of the earliest records of the species, and thus its reported range, are suspect because of widespread misidentification prior to 1944. There do appear to be valid records from Quebec south through the eastern states to Alabama and west to Texas. Like H. phalerata, it is widespread in Virginia west of the Fall Line. Alleghany, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, Caroline, Carroll, Clarke, Craig, Dickenson, Fairfax, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Nelson, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Warren, Washington, and Wythe Cos., and City of Galax, May-October. Hydropsyche (H.) venularis Banks: The species is known from Alabama north to Pennsylvania, with unsubstantiated reports from as far north as Vermont and Wisconsin. In Virginia it is primarily a species of the Piedmont, with some records from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenies. Appomattox, Bedford, Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Henry, Louisa, Lunenburg, Montgomery, Nelson, Pittsylvania, and Pulaski Cos., and cities of Galax and Richmond, March-September. Genus Macrostemum With about 100 species, the genus Macrostemum is widespread through the New World, Africa, and Asia as far south as Indonesia. Only three species are known from North America, all being found in Virginia. Macrostemum carolina (Banks): This is a southeastern species limited to east of the 100th meridian north to Pennsylvania (and possibly New York) and Illinois. In Virginia it 1s an exclusively Coastal Plain and Piedmont species. Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Hanover, Isle of Wight, Louisa, Mecklenburg, Nottoway, and Prince Edward Cos., and cities of Chesapeake and Suffolk, June- September. Macrostemum transversum (Walker): This species has a more restricted range than the former, being reported from Alabama to Maryland and west to Indiana and Mississippi. It is very uncommon in Virginia collections, 34 BANISTERIA known only from one locality in the Piedmont and a second in the northern Shenandoah Valley. Cumberland Co., James River at Rt. 603, 14 July 1970 (NMNH, VPISU). Warren Co., South Fork Shenandoah River, public boat landing, Front Royal, 27 June 1978 (VPISU). Macrostemum zebratum (Hagen): This species is widespread over eastern North America as far west as the 100th meridian (with a dubious record from Utah). In Virginia it is found from the lower Piedmont west throughout the mountains, although records are lacking for the Appalachian Plateau province. Bath, Botetourt, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Chesterfield, Culpeper, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Fauquier, Fairfax, Giles, Goochland, Grayson, Greensville, Hanover, Loudoun, Louisa, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Pittsylvania, Prince William, Pulaski, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Spotsylvania, Sussex ,Warren, and Wythe Cos., and City of Richmond, May-September. Genus Parapsyche The genus is limited to the eastern and western montane regions of North America and eastern Asia. Of the slightly more than two dozen known species, seven are known from North America, five from the western and two from the eastern mountains. Parapsyche apicalis (Banks): This species is known from the Appalachian Mountains of eastern North America from South Carolina to Quebec and west to Wisconsin. In Virginia it is limited to the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley Provinces, but is only infrequently collected. Bath, Giles, Grayson, Greene, Madison, and Tazewell Cos., May-September. * Parapsyche cardis Ross: This species is endemic to the southern Appalachians from northern Georgia to southwestern Virginia. In Virginia it is limited to a few counties around Mount Rogers, the northernmost extreme of its distribution. Grayson Co., Lewis Fork, Rt. 603, 18 May 1990 (CSU). Smyth Co., Grindstone Bridge, Grindstone Campground, 12 June 1979 (NMNH); Hurricane Creek at Hurricane Campground, 36° 43.3' N, 81°29.2' W, 16 May 2004 (NMNH); Nicks Creek, 8 km E Marion, 24 July 1970 (NMNH); Saint Clair Bottom, Rt. 600, 18 May 1990 (CSU). Washington Co., 8 km W Konnarock, 36° 39' N, 81° 43' W, 30 June 1995 (NMNH). Genus Potamyia This is a genus primarily of Asian distribution with all NO. 24, 2004 but one of the nearly 30 species known from that region. Only the following species is known from eastern North America. Potamyia flava (Hagen): This species ranges from Quebec to the Gulf and west to the 100th meridian, but is probably absent from New England. It was taken along the Potomac River in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but not before nor since. Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun Cos., May-August. Family Hydroptilidae Genus Agraylea Agraylea is a genus of Holarctic distribution, divided into two subgenera, only the nominal being found in North America. Of the apparently valid, extant, dozen species, only three are found in North America. Agraylea costello Ross: This is a northeastern species with records from Quebec to Wisconsin, south to Virginia. The one Virginia, and southernmost, record 1s from the central Alleghenies. Giles Co., Big Stony Creek, 13 July 1977 (VPISU, NMNH). Agraylea multipunctata Curtis: This is a Holarctic species widely distributed across northern North America with records as far south as Colorado in the west and Tennessee in the east. The only Virginia records are old ones (pre-1910) from the northern Piedmont. Fairfax Co., Falls Church is the type locality of its synonyms A. fraterna Banks and Allotrichia signata Banks. Genus Dibusa This is a monotypic genus limited to eastern North America. The larvae are dependent on the red alga, Lemanea australis, for food and case, and are thus one of the few, specific, insect-plant relationships known in the caddisflies. Dibusa angata Ross: The species is known from Ontario to Alabama, mostly east of the Mississippi River, but with a westward extension into Oklahoma. In Virginia it has been taken in the Piedmont, with one record in the Alleghenies. Bath, Caroline, Fauquier, Hanover, and Louisa Cos. February-May. Genus Hydroptila This is a large cosmopolitan genus of approximately 200 species found on all continents (except polar). More FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 35 than 125 species are known from North America, of which 29 are here recorded from Virginia. It 1s certain that many more species will be discovered in the state in future collections. *Hydroptila acadia Ross: This appears to be the second record for this species which was previously known only from Nova Scotia. The Virginia record, from the Great Dismal Swamp on the Coastal Plain, possibly represents a relict Pleistocene population. City of Chesapeake, Lake Drummond, 11 km SE Suffolk, 17 July 1964 (NMNH). Hydroptila ajax Ross: A widely distributed species, known from Manitoba through Mexico and the Pacific to the Atlantic, it appears to be lacking in the southeastern United States and from California to New Mexico. It is known from a single collection from the Ridge and Valley Province in Virginia. Washington Co., near Glade Spring, 28 June 1976 (VPISU). Hydroptila amoena Ross: There are scattered records of this species from Quebec to Alabama, mostly east of the Mississippi River, but with an extension west into Oklahoma. In Virginia it has been taken in several counties in the Appalachians, and one disjunct site on the Fall Line. Giles, Hanover, Rockbridge, and Washington Cos., June-September. Hydroptila anisoforficata Parker & Voshell: This Species 1s currently known only from Virginia, where it has been taken several times in the central Alleghenies. T.L. - Giles Co., Stony Creek, between Olean and Interior, 13 July 1977 (NMNH). Bath, Giles, Rockbridge, and Smyth Cos., July-September. Hydroptila armata Ross: This species has been taken quite generally over North America east of the 100th meridian. In Virginia it is known mostly from the Alleghenian region, with a few records from the Piedmont. Bath, Campbell, Clarke, Fairfax, Hanover, Montgomery, Rockbridge, Russell, Shenandoah, and Washington Cos., May-October. *Hydroptila artesia Mathis & Bowles: This species has a disjunct distribution. It was previously known only from the Ozarks in Arkansas and Missouri, but was recently collected in the central Appalachians in western Virginia. The identity of the Virginia material has been checked against the type specimen. Bath Co., spring on Rt. 678, 1.2 km N Fort Lewis, 23 June 2003 (UT). Hydroptila callia Denning: There are scattered records of this species from Quebec to Alabama east of the Mississippi River, with another population in the Rocky Mountain states. In Virginia it appears to be partial to the Piedmont, with one locality in the southern Blue Ridge. Caroline, Fairfax, Floyd, and Hanover Cos., June-August. Hydroptila consimilis Morton: This 1s one of the most widely distributed species of the genus in North America, being reported from northern Canada south to Mexico and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The comparatively few Virginia records are from the Alleghenian region. Dickenson, Page, and Smyth Cos., May-June. * Hydroptila coweetensis Huryn: This species has been reported only from Alabama and North Carolina. The unique Virginia record is from the northern Blue Ridge region, implying occurrence also south and west in that province. Madison Co., Shenandoah National Park, seeps at Big Meadows, 28 May 1984 (NMNH, determination verified by S. C. Harris). Hydroptila delineata Morton: The species is widespread in eastern North America from Quebec to Alabama, mostly east of the Mississippi River, but with a few records from Arkansas. Virginia records are from the Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Fairfax, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Halifax, Hanover, Montgomery, Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Rockbridge, and Washington Cos., May-October. Hydroptila dentata Ross: There are scattered records of this species in the eastern United States from Maine to Virginia. Both Virginia records are from the northwestern quadrant of the state. T.L. - Page Co., Luray, 28 September 1936 (INHS). Rockbridge Co., Goshen Pass, 8 September 1976 (VPISU). Hydroptila eramosa Harper: This uncommon species has only been reported from Ontario and Virginia. The two Virginia records are from sites 1n and west of the New River basin. Montgomery Co., Meadowbrook Road, Tom’s Creek, 9-10 September 1976 (VPISU). Tazewell Co., Burkes Garden, Rt. 666 at second right angle turn, 13 June 1992 (VMNH). Hydroptila fiskei Blickle: There are scattered records of this species from Maine to North Carolina. The Virginia records are, like the preceding species, from the southwestern part of the state. Giles, Grayson, Montgomery, and Wise Cos., May-August. Hydroptila grandiosa Ross: There are records of this species from Manitoba to Texas and Alabama, mostly east 36 BANISTERIA of the 100th meridian. All of the Virginia records are in or west of the New River basin. Lee, Montgomery, Russell, Scott, Smyth, and Washington Cos., June-September. Hydroptila gunda Milne: This species is taken east of the Mississippi River from Quebec to the Gulf Coast states. In Virginia it is common in the Piedmont and mountains, although not recorded from the Appalachian Plateau region. T.L. - Falls Church, 30 July (no year on label) (MCZ). Bedford, Brunswick, Campbell, Fairfax, Fauquier, Franklin, Halifax, Henry, Lee, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Pittsylvania, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, and Washington Cos., April-September. Hydroptila hamata Morton: This is a very widespread species in North America from northeastern Canada, all across the United States south into Mexico. Like most of the Virginia species of the genus, it is known from the Piedmont and far southwestern region, with only a few records for the intervening folded Appalachians. Bath, Caroline, Fairfax, Hanover, Page, Stafford, and Wise Cos., April-September. Hydroptila jackmanni Blickle: This species 1s reported from Manitoba to Quebec and south to Virginia, with an outlying report from Wyoming. The species is known in Virginia from a few sites in the inner Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Bedford, Giles, Roanoke, and Smyth Cos., June. *Hydroptila lennoxi Blickle: This species was previously known only from New Hampshire and Alabama. This enormous lacuna is now partly filled by the unique Virginia record from the central-western Ridge and Valley Province. Bath Co., Blowing Springs Campground, Rt. 39, 13 km W Warm Springs, 16-17 May 1975 (NMNH, identified by S. C. Harris). *Hydroptila lonchera Blickle & Morse: This uncommon species has only been reported from three states: Alabama, New Hampshire, and Ohio. This first record from Virginia is in the Piedmont. Louisa Co., Stony Creek, Rt. 722, 25 August 1977 (VPISU). Hydroptila maculata (Banks): This species is reported from a number of Atlantic coast states from Maine to Florida. The single Virginia record is that of the type specimen from the northern Piedmont. T.L. - Fairfax Co., Falls Church, August-September, year not given (MCZ). Hydroptila metoeca Blickle & Morse: The species has been recorded from Labrador to Virginia and west to Minnesota. The few Virginia records are from the NO. 24, 2004 Piedmont and southwestern mountains. Hanover, Louisa, and Smyth Cos., June-September. *Hydroptila perdita Morton: The species is widespread in eastern North America from Manitoba to the Atlantic and south to Alabama, mostly east of the 100th meridian. The few Virginia localities are scattered the length of the Alleghenian region. Floyd Co., locality and date unspecified (VMNH). Rockingham Co., North River, Rt. 693, east of Mount Crawford, 22 September 1981 (NMNH). Warren Co., South Fork Shenandoah River, 5.6 km S Front Royal, 2 August 2003 (NMNH). Hydroptila quinola Ross: The records of this species are scattered from Minnesota to Quebec and south to Arkansas and Florida. All of the known Virginia localities are in the Piedmont. Caroline, Hanover, and Louisa Cos., May-September. Hydroptila spatulata Morton: The species is widespread in eastern North America from Manitoba south to Arkansas, and east to the Atlantic. It is widespread in Virginia from the Fall Line to the western border. Bath, Campbell, Caroline, Clarke, Fairfax, Grayson, Greensville, Hanover, Lee, Montgomery, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Shenandoah, Warren, and Washington Cos., May-September. Hydroptila spinata Blickle & Morse: The species is reported from a scattering of states along the eastern margin of North America from Quebec to Alabama. The two Virginia localities are in the Alleghenian region. Giles Co., Stony Creek, Rt. 722, 25 August 1977 (VPISU). Grayson Co., Fox Creek, 2.7 km W Troutdale, 12 June 1979 (NMNH). *Hydroptila talladega Harris: This species is known in the eastern United States from Pennsylvania to Alabama. The two Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Ridge and Valley provinces. Bath Co., Blowing Springs Campground, Rt. 39, 16 km W Warm Springs, 17 May 2004 (NMNH). Montgomery Co., Little Laurel Creek at the access road to Bottom Creek Gorge Preserve, 30 July 2000 (VMNH). Hydroptila tortosa Ross: This species is known from Maine to South Carolina along the eastern coast, and inland from Minnesota. The single Virginia record is of the holotype from the northern Shenandoah Valley. T.L. - Page Co., Luray, 28 September 1936 (INHS). * Hydroptila vala Ross: The species 1s reported from Manitoba to Oklahoma and Alabama, mostly in inland FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 37 states. These new Virginia records are from the upper Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Bath Co., Jackson River at Rt. 603, June 1973 (NMNH). Fairfax Co., Bull Run Park, 24 May 1962 (NMNH). *Hydroptila virgata Ross: The species is limited to eastern North America from Manitoba to Quebec and south to Oklahoma and Alabama. It has been taken several times at one locality in the upper Piedmont in northern Virginia. Fairfax Co., Bull Run Park, 20 & 24 May 1962 and 15 May 1968 (NMNH). Hydroptila waubesiana Betten: This species is widespread across North America as far west as Saskatchewan, Montana, and Colorado, and south to the Gulf Coast states. The Virginia records are from the Piedmont west through the Alleghenian province. Louisa, Montgomery, Patrick, and Rockingham Cos., May- September. Genus Ithytrichia A small genus of less than 10 species, it is found over Europe and North America, with one disjunct species on Java. The North American species are found all across the United States and Canada, and south into northeastern Mexico. Ithytrichia clavata Morton: The species has been recorded all across northern North America from British Columbia to Maine and south to Texas and California. However, some of the southwestern records may refer to the closely related /. mexicana. Virginia records are limited to the northern Shenandoah Valley in the Alleghenian Province. Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Cos., May-October. Genus Leucotrichia The genus contains some two dozen described species and is exclusively of New World distribution, found from the northern United States south to northwestern Argentina, and on most of the Antillean islands. Leucotrichia pictipes (Banks): This species is widespread all across the United States from Oregon and California to Massachusetts and Alabama. In Virginia it has been taken from the upper Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Fairfax, Fauquier, Giles, and Highland Cos., May-September. Genus Mayatrichia This is another genus exclusively of New World distribution, found from Canada south to Costa Rica. Of the seven described species, five are known from north of the Mexican border. Mayatrichia ayama Mosely: This is a very widely distributed species from Canada to Costa Rica, and from the Rocky Mountain states east to the Atlantic. The few Virginia records are all in the Alleghenian region. Floyd, Franklin, and Rockbridge Cos., August-September. Genus Neotrichia Another genus of exclusively New World distribution, Neotrichia is known from Canada to Chile and on the Antillean islands. Over 100 species have been described, with many more in collections awaiting description. Sixteen species are known from north of the Mexican border. Neotrichia vibrans Ross: This species is widespread from Manitoba to Maine, south to Alabama and west to the Rocky Mountain states and Mexico. In Virginia it has only been taken at the Fall Line in the lower Piedmont. Hanover Co., South Anna River at Rt. 657, 21 June, 5 July, 31 August, and 13 September 1977 (VPISU, VMNH). Louisa Co., North Anna River at Rt. 601, 20 July 1977 and 31 August 1977 (VPISU, VMNH),; South Anna River at Rt. 522, 19 July 1977 (VMNH). Neotrichia, indeterminate species near riege/i Ross: A single female from Middlesex Co., Dragon Run Swamp at Rt. 603, 4.8 km W Warner, 16 September 2004 (USNM). Collection of males at this site will enable a conclusive identification. Genus Ochrotrichia This is a large genus with over 150 species found all over the New World. North of Mexico, at least 50 species are known. Ochrotrichia arva Ross: There are scattered records of this species in the eastern United States from Alabama to Michigan and east to Virginia. The two Virginia records are from the Alleghenian region. Montgomery Co., Mill Creek at Rt. 785, 5 June 1978 (VPISU); Little River, end of Rt. 691, 5.3 km from intersection with Rts. 672/691, 29 May 1975 (UT). 38 BANISTERIA *Ochrotrichia denningi Blickle & Morse: This species appears to be limited to the northeastern United States, from Maine to Virginia. The single Virginia collection was made on the west side of the Blue Ridge. Botetourt Co., Jefferson National Forest, ca. 9 km E Buchanan on Rt. 43, 19-20 June 1961 (NMNH). Ochrotrichia graysoni Parker & Voshell: This is another species with a limited range in the eastern United States from Alabama to Pennsylvania. The type series was taken in the Alleghenian region. T.L. - Bath Co., Jackson River at Rt. 603, 3.2 km S Rt. 687, 11 September 1979 (NMNH). Bedford Co., Difficult Creek, Rt. 735, ca. 4.8 km W Huddleston, 13 September 2004 (VMNH). Ochrotrichia tarsalis Ross: A widespread species in North America, it is reported from Manitoba to Mexico, mostly east of the 100th meridian. All of the reported Virginia records are in the Piedmont. Caroline, Fairfax, Hanover, and Louisa Cos., June-August. Ochrotrichia wojcickyi Blickle: This is a widespread eastern species, reported from Manitoba to Maine and south to Virginia. The Virginia records are from the Alleghenian region. Bath Co., 13 km N Douthat State Park, 12 May 1979 (VPISU); spring on Rt. 678, 1.2 kmN Fort Lewis, 23 June 2003 (UT). Genus Orthotrichia This is a large genus of over 150 species of world- wide distribution, seemingly most speciose in southeastern Asia and Australia. In the New World, the seven species are found from Canada to the Amazon River, including the Greater Antilles. Orthotrichia aegerfasciella (Chambers): This species is known from Quebec south to South America and the Greater Antilles. In Virginia it is a species primarily of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions, but with some records further west. Fairfax Co., Falls Church is the type locality of its synonym Oxyethira dorsalis Banks. Bedford, Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Fairfax, Halifax, Hanover, Isle of Wight, Middlesex, Pittsylvania, Warren, and Washington Cos., and City of Suffolk, May- September. Orthotrichia cristata Morton: The species is transcontinental in northern North America, but mostly east of the 100th meridian in the United States where it extends south to the Gulf Coast and the Greater Antilles. In Virginia it is known only from sites along the Fall Line. Caroline, Hanover, and Louisa Cos., August-September. NO. 24, 2004 Genus Oxyethira This is another very large genus of at least 200 species, found in all faunal realms. At least 40 species are found north of Mexico and another 75 to the south. Oxyethira coercens Morton: The species is widespread in eastern North America, mostly east of the 100th meridian but with a record from Montana, and from Quebec to Alabama. In Virginia it is reported from the Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Caroline, Hanover, Rockbridge, and Shenandoah Cos., June- September. Oxyethira dualis Morton: The species is found all across the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Canadian to the Mexican borders. It was recorded for Virginia by Ross (1944), but without specific locality. The record is from the northern Blue Ridge: Page Co., Luray, 28 September 1936 (INHS) (C. Favret, pers. comm. ). Oxyethira forcipata Mosely: This is an eastern North America species from Quebec to the Gulf, and west to the 100th meridian. The few Virginia records are from the Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Caroline, Hanover, and Shenandoah Cos., May-August. Oxyethira grisea Betten: This is another eastern species, reported from Quebec to Louisiana, mostly east of the Mississippi River. The Virginia records are scattered from the Coastal Plain to the Alleghenian regions. Bath, Dinwiddie, and Fairfax Cos., and City of Chesapeake, May-July. *Oxyethira janella Denning: This is a_ species primarily of the southeastern United States, the Antilles, and Central America, with Virginia being the northernmost known locale. The two Virginia sites are in the Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Clarke Co., Shenandoah River, 5.6 km N Rt. 50, 2 October 2002 (NMNH). Greensville Co., off Rt. 301 just south of Fountains Creek, 0.5 km S Dahlia, 6 September 2002 (VMNH, NMNH). Oxyethira michiganensis Mosely: This is a species primarily distributed east of the 100th meridian from Quebec to Alabama, with a western record from British Columbia. Virginia records are all from the Alleghenian region. Floyd Co., Buffalo Mountain Natural Area Preserve, Rt. 758, 4 August 2003 (VMNH). Giles Co., Mountain Lake, 18-26 July 1940 (NMNH). Montgomery Co., Pandapas Pond, 3.2 km W Blacksburg, 9 September FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 39 1976 (VPISU). Oxyethira pallida (Banks): This species occurs across North America, from Quebec to California and south to Florida. It is very widespread in Virginia, from the Coastal Plain to the western border. Bath, Brunswick, Campbell, Caroline, Clarke, Fairfax, Hanover, Isle of Wight, Louisa, Montgomery, Pittsylvania, Smyth, Washington, and Wythe Cos., May-October. *Oxyethira pescadori Harris & Keth: This recently described species was known only from Florida and Alabama, where it is fairly common on the Coastal Plain. The present record, the first for Virginia, greatly extends its known range northward along the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Middlesex Co., Dragon Run Swamp at Rt. 603, 4.8km W Warner, 16 September 2004 (NMNH). Oxyethira rivicola Blickle & Morse: This is another species of eastern North America with scattered records from Quebec to Alabama and west to the 1 00th meridian. In Virginia it has only been taken in the Piedmont. Fairfax Co., Bull Run Park, 18 June 1962 (NMNH). Louisa Co., South Anna River at Rt. 522, 21 June 1977 (VPISU). Oxyethira zeronia Ross: The distribution of this species is much like the former, Quebec to Florida and west to the 100th meridian. It seems to be an inhabitant of the Coastal Plain and Piedmont in Virginia. Brunswick, Franklin, Hanover, and Louisa Cos., and City of Virginia Beach, August-September. Genus Palaeagapetus This is a small genus of nine described species, six from eastern Asia and three from North America. Several fossil species have also been described. The larvae of all species with known biology are associated with aquatic/subaquatic liverworts (e.g., Scapanea) growing in springs. Palaeagapetus celsus (Ross): This is a species of the Appalachians from Quebec to the Great Smoky Mountains. In Virginia it is known from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Giles, Grayson, Highland, Shenandoah, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May- October. Genus Stactobiella This is a small genus of 10 or 11 described species with a few representatives in Europe, but primarily of eastern Asia and North America. Five species have been described from North America, three of which occur in Virginia. Stactobiella delira (Ross): This species is widespread across North America from British Columbia to California and east to Maine and Alabama. In Virginia it is known from the Piedmont to the Alleghenian regions. Appomattox, Bath, Caroline, Fauquier, Grayson, Hanover, Pulaski, and Rockbridge Cos., April-June. Stactobiella martynovi Blickle & Denning: The distribution of this species in eastern North America is limited to the Appalachian Mountains from Pennsylvania to Alabama. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Giles Co., Stony Creek, Rt. 635, 28 June 1978 (VPISU). Patrick Co., small tributary to Dan River, ca. 1.6 km N Kibler on Rt. 648, 29 June 2003 (VMNH, NMNH). Stactobiella palmata (Ross): This species has a scattered distribution across North America from Alberta and Oregon to Maine and Alabama. In Virginia it is a Piedmont species. Caroline, Hanover, Henry, and Pittsylvania Cos., May-June. Family Philopotamidae Genus Chimarra This large genus of over 550 species is found in all non-polar regions of the world. Approximately 225 species have been described from the Neotropical Realm, and about another 20 from north of Mexico. Chimarra aterrima Hagen: This species has been recorded from most every state and province east of the 100th meridian in North America. In Virginia, it is known from the Fall Line to the western border. Alleghany, Appomattox, Arlington, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Franklin, Giles, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Highland, Lee, Louisa, Lunenburg, Montgomery, Nottoway, Page, Pittsylvania, Prince William, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe Cos., May-October. Chimarra augusta Morse: This species is rather narrowly limited to the East Coast of the United States from Alabama to Virginia. In this state it occurs in the Piedmont. Caroline, Fauquier, Hanover, and Louisa Cos., May-October. 40 BANISTERIA Chimarra moselyi Denning: This is primarily a southeastern species known from Florida to Louisiana and north to Illinois and Virginia. It is an inhabitant of the Piedmont and upper Coastal Plain regions in Virginia. Caroline, Greensville, Hanover, Louisa, Southampton, and Sussex Cos., May-September. Chimarra obscura (Walker): This is another widespread species in North America, found nearly everywhere east of the 100th meridian. It is found from the upper Coastal Plain region to the western border of Virginia. Appomattox, Bath, Brunswick, Caroline, Cumberland, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Giles, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Henrico, Louisa, Lunenburg, Nelson, Page, Pittsylvania, Prince William, Rockbridge, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, Warren, and Wise Cos., May-October. Chimarra socia Hagen: This is another species which is widespread east of the 100th meridian in North America. Most of the Virginia records are from the Alleghenian region, with a few from the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces. Bath, Botetourt, Carroll, Dinwiddie, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Louisa, Montgomery, Prince Edward, Rockbridge, Scott, Shenandoah, and Smyth Cos., May-September. Genus Dolophilodes The genus was divided by Ross (1956) into a number of subgenera, many of which are now recognized as separate genera by some authors, but there is no general consensus on the subject. In its broadest sense, there are nearly 100 species contained from all regions of the world. Three subgenera, with a total of ten species, are represented in North America. Dolophilodes distinctus (Walker): This species occurs in eastern North America from Quebec to Alabama, mostly east of the Mississippi River, but with an extension west to Minnesota. It is found all across Virginia except for the Coastal Plain. Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Clarke, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Hanover, Henry, Highland, Lee, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Patrick, Prince Edward, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Cos., February-October. Dolophilodes major (Banks): This species is restricted to the Appalachian Mountains from Alabama to Virginia. All of the Virginia localities are in the Blue Ridge Province. Amherst, Greene, Grayson, Madison, Page, NO. 24, 2004 Rappahannock, and Smyth Cos., June-July. *Dolophilodes sisko (Ross): The species has a very strange distribution, being reported from Oregon on the west coast, and the southern Appalachians (North and South Carolina) on the East Coast. There is now a single record of this species from the Blue Ridge province in Virginia: Madison Co., Hogcamp Branch, 690 m (2250 ft), Shenandoah National Park, 8 July 1973 (NMNH). Genus Wormaldia This genus of two subgenera contains about 100 species in the nominate subgenus and another 40 in the subgenus Doloclanes. The species are common across the northern Hemisphere, with a few in southern Africa and Madagascar, and through Central and South America. All of the 14 North American species are in the subgenus Wormaldia, with the exception of W. mohri which is in Doloclanes. Wormaldia moesta (Banks): This species is widespread in North America east of the 100th meridian. In Virginia it is an inhabitant primarily of the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions, but is occasionally taken in the Piedmont (and even more rarely, the Coastal Plain) as well. Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Botetourt, Chesterfield, Clarke, Dickenson, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Greene, Grayson, Hanover, Highland, Lee, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Patrick, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Smyth, Spotsylvania, Rockingham, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, and Wythe Cos., March-December. *Wormaldia mohri (Ross): This species was previously known only from the states surrounding the Great Smoky Mountains. The only Virginia locality is near Mount Rogers in the southern Blue Ridge. Smyth Co., Hurricane Creek, Hurricane Campground, 12 June 2002 (NMNH). Wormaldia shawnee (Ross): There are scattered records of this species from Arkansas to Maine and south to Alabama. The few Virginia records are from the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont regions. Isle of Wight Co., Antioch Pines Natural Area Preserve, 5 km S Zuni, 21 May 1996 (VMNH, NMNH); Blackwater Ecological Preserve, 7 km S Zuni, 21 May 1996 (VMNH). Louisa Co., South Anna River at Rt. 522,21 May 1979 (VPISU). Wormaldia thyria Denning: This species has a restricted range in the Appalachians from South Carolina to Virginia. Our Virginia records are from the upper FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 4] Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions. Fauquier Co., Catharpin Creek, Jackson Hollow, 25 July 1964 (NMNH). Rockbridge Co., Nature Camp, Big Mary’s Creek, Vesuvius, 13 & 15 July 1960 (VPISU). Rockingham Co., Hone Quarry Campground, 17-18 July 1964 (NMNH). Family Polycentropodidae Genus Cernotina This is a genus restricted to the New World and is very diverse in the Neotropical Realm. Over 60 species have been described from the Neotropics, but only seven from north of Mexico. Cernotina pallida (Banks): This species is known from Ontario to Ohio and Maryland. Banks (1907) reported it from Virginia without locality, and the specimen cannot be located. However, the species was described from examples taken nearby along the Potomac River in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Cernotina spicata Ross: The species is widespread in North America east of the 100th meridian from Ontario to Louisiana. In Virginia it has been taken only in the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont regions. Caroline, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, Pittsylvania, and Sussex Cos., and City of Chesapeake, May-September. Cernotina truncona Ross: The species is recorded from Florida to Virginia. All of the Virginia localities are from the Great Dismal Swamp on the Coastal Plain. City of Chesapeake, Lake Drummond, 11 km SE Suffolk, 6-7 July 1962, 31 August 1962, 17 July 1964, 4-9 June 1974, and October 1976 (NMNH). Genus Cyrnellus As with Cernotina, this genus is primarily Neotropical in diversity. Of the dozen species, one 1s also widespread into North America. Cyrnellus fraternus (Banks): This is one of the most wide-ranging species of caddisfly in the New World, being known from Argentina to the northern border of the United States. It is widespread east of the 100th meridian, and in Virginia it is primarily a species of the Piedmont with a few collections from the Ridge and Valley and Coastal Plain provinces. Bedford, Campbell, Caroline, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Louisa, Lunenburg, Mecklenburg, New Kent, Shenandoah, Southampton, and Warren Cos., and City of Chesapeake, June-September. Genus Neureclipsis The genus contains about 10 species, mostly from the Holarctic Realm, but one species is described from Australia. Five species are known from North America. Neureclipsis crepuscularis (Walker): The species ranges from Alberta and Montana to the Atlantic, but in the United States it is found mostly east of the 100th meridian all the way south to the Gulf Coast. The Virginia records are from the Piedmont west through the Alleghenian region. Bath, Caroline, Carroll, Clarke, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Frederick, Giles, Grayson, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Montgomery, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Sussex, Washington, and Wythe Cos., and City of Galax, May-September. Genus Paranyctiophylax As presently composed, this genus 1s known from all of the faunal realms (but not Europe) and contains over 100 species. Some unpublished studies suggest that it is paraphyletic, which would require generic name changes in the future. Four or five species have been described from South America, and about ten others from North America. Paranyctiophylax affinis (Banks): This is widely distributed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in Canada, but mostly east of the 100th meridian in the United States, with western records from Montana and Wyoming. In Virginia the species is known primarily from the Piedmont, with a few records from the Alleghenian region and one from the Coastal Plain. Brunswick, Caroline, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Franklin, Giles, Greensville, Halifax, Hanover, Pittsylvania, Prince William, and Wise Cos., and City of Virginia Beach, June-September. Paranyctiophylax celtus (Denning): The species is widespread east of the 100th meridian in North America from Manitoba to Texas, and Quebec to Florida. In Virginia it is recorded from the Fall Line to the western border of the state. Bath, Botetourt, Clarke, Fauquier, Giles, Greensville, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Warren, and Washington Cos., May-September. *Paranyctiophylax denningi Morse: The range of this species is limited to the southeastern United States from Mississippi northeast to Pennsylvania. The one Virginia record is from the Piedmont. Pittsylvania Co., Whitethorn Creek at Rt. 683, 11 km SE Gretna, 7 September 2001 (VMNH). 42 BANISTERIA Paranyctiophylax moestus (Banks): This species is widely distributed from Alaska to Nova Scotia, and then south through the United States east of the 100th meridian, with two western records from Oregon and Montana. Most Virginia localities are in the Blue Ridge and westward, that for Greensville County on the Fall Line is notably disjunct. Dickenson, Floyd, Greensville, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Smyth, and Wise Cos., April-July. Paranyctiophylax nephophilus (Flint): This is a southeastern species known from Alabama to Pennsylvania. In Virginia it seems to be distributed along the Blue Ridge, and immediately adjacent areas. Bath, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Rockbridge, and Smyth Cos., May-July. *Paranyctiophylax serratus (Lago & Harris): Another southeastern species, it was previously known only from Alabama and Mississippi. The two Virginia sites are widely separated, one in the Blue Ridge, the other on the Coastal Plain, in totally different biotopes. Franklin Co., Pigg River, 0.8 km upstream of Rt. 890 bridge, ca. 4.8 km SW Penhook, 5 September 2002 (VMNH), same data, but 24 June 2003 (NMNH). Middlesex Co., Dragon Run Swamp at Rt. 603, 4.8 km W Warner, 20 May 2003 (NMNH). Genus Polycentropus This very large genus has been variously divided into several genera by workers in other parts of the world. In the broadest sense (as employed here), it would contain several hundred species, and occur all over the world. Around 70 species have been described from the Neotropical Realm, and almost 50 from the Nearctic Realm. Half of the 14 Virginia species are newly recorded from the state. *Polycentropus blicklei Ross & Yamamoto: This species has a spotty distribution east of the Mississippi River in North America from Quebec to Mississippi. The Virginia records are also scattered across the state from near sea level in the Coastal Plain to above 1000 meters in the western mountains. Essex, Frederick, Franklin, Grayson, King & Queen, Lee, Nelson, and Tazewell Cos., May-October. Polycentropus carolinensis Banks: This species is limited to eastern North America from Quebec to North Carolina. Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Floyd, Grayson, Madison, Rockingham, Smyth, and Tazewell Cos., June-August. NO. 24, 2004 *Polycentropus centralis Banks: The species is widespread in North America east of the 100th meridian, but unreported from most of the Atlantic coastal states. The first Virginia collection was labeled as coming from Back Creek in Giles Co., but doubtless through a clerical error since R. Strickler, the collector, worked primarily on Back Creek and the Jackson River in Bath Co., and there is no Back Creek in Giles Co. The recent rediscovery of this species at what is likely the same site as Strickler’s lends credence to this presumption. Labeled Giles Co. [probably Bath Co.], Big Back Creek, campground, 27 June 1973 (or 1974) (NMNH); Bath Co., Back Creek, Blowing Springs Campground, Rt. 39, 16 km W Warm Springs, 17 May 2004 (NMNH). Polycentropus cinereus Hagen: This species is found all over North America except for the far southwestern states. It is possible that some of these records are actually P. harpi Moulton & Stewart, but time has not permitted their verification. It is widespread west of the Fall Line in Virginia, with only one locality (Essex Co.) in the Coastal Plain. Appomattox, Bath, Caroline, Clarke, Dickenson, Essex, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Halifax, Hanover, Highland, Lee, Louisa, Montgomery, Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Pulaski, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Wise, and Wythe Cos., May-October. Polycentropus clinei (Milne): This species has a scattered distribution from Minnesota to Newfoundland and south to Mississippi. The Virginia records are from four counties in the mountains and one highly disjunct site (Great Dismal Swamp) on the Coastal Plain, with no representation in the entire Piedmont region. Bath, Giles, Highland, and Nelson Cos., and City of Chesapeake, July- August. Polycentropus confusus Hagen: This species is common and widespread east of the 100th meridian in North America. In Virginia it is found throughout the Alleghenian region with one locality in the inner Piedmont. Bath, Craig, Fauquier, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Rockingham, Russell, Smyth, and Washington Cos., May- October. *Polycentropus crassicornis Walker: The species is widespread in North America from the Atlantic seaboard west to the 100th meridian and further into Idaho and Saskatchewan. In Virginia it is most frequently encountered on the Coastal Plain and Piedmont, with one report from the northern Alleghenian region. Essex, Fairfax, Greensville, Isle of Wight, Louisa, Shenandoah, FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 43 Southampton, and Sussex Cos., and cities of Chesapeake and Suffolk, April-June. Polycentropus elarus Ross: This species has a scattered distribution in North America east of the Mississippi River from Quebec to Alabama. It is a denizen of the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions in Virginia. Bath, Madison, Rockbridge, Rockingham, and Smyth Cos., May-July. *Polycentropus interruptus (Banks): The species is transcontinental in Canada, but only inhabits the northern states in the United States from North Dakota to Maine and south to Tennessee, with outliers in Colorado and Florida. These first Virginia reports are from the southern Coastal Plain. Isle of Wight Co., Blackwater Ecological Preserve, 7 km S Zuni, 9 May 1995 (VMNH). City of Virginia Beach, Seashore [= First Landing] State Park, 1- 4 June 1975 (NMNH). Polycentropus maculatus Banks: The species is found in eastern North America from Newfoundland to South Carolina along the Appalachian Mountains. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge Province and westward to the state border. Bath, Giles, Grayson, Madison, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Washington, and Wise Cos., June-September. *Polycentropus nascotius Ross: This species has a very spotty distribution from Minnesota to Nova Scotia and south to Oklahoma and Alabama. The one Virginia record is from the northern Alleghenian region. Clarke Co., Blandy Experimental Farm, 3.2 km S Boyce, 25 May-4 June 1993 (NMNH). *Polycentropus pentus Ross: This species 1s found in North America from Manitoba to Nova Scotia and south to Alabama, mainly east of the Mississippi River, with an outlying record from Wyoming. The unique Virginia record is from the central-western Alleghenies. Bath Co., Douthat State Park, 17-18 May 2003 (NMNH). *Polycentropus pixi Ross: This species has a very limited distribution in the eastern United States from New Hampshire to Virginia. The two Virginia records are from the western Alleghenian region. Bath Co., Back Creek, Blowing Springs Campground, Rt. 39, 16 km W Warm Springs, 17 May 2004 (NMNH). Rockingham Co., Hone Quarry Campground, 17-18 July 1964 (NMNH). Polycentropus rickeri Yamamoto: The species has a rather limited distribution along the Appalachian Mountains from Pennsylvania to Alabama. Both Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge. Madison Co., Hogcamp Branch, Shenandoah National Park, 8 July 1961 (NMNH). Rockbridge Co., Nature Camp, Big Mary’s Creek, Vesuvius, 13 July 1960 (VPISU). Family Psychomyiidae Genus Lype The genus is widely distributed across the Northern Hemisphere with species reported from Africa and southern Asia. About 15 species are described, with only one recorded from eastern North America. Lype diversa (Banks): This species is widely distributed in eastern North America as far west as the 100th meridian, with a discontinuous record from Alberta. It is statewide in Virginia although only rarely taken in the Coastal Plain. Albemarle, Bath, Bland, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Hanover, Henry, Highland, James City, King & Queen, Lee, Louisa, Madison, Montgomery, Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Prince William, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe Cos., February-September. Genus Psychomyia Species of this genus are distributed across the Northern Hemisphere and Asia south into Indonesia, but seem to be lacking in Australia, Africa, and the Neotropical Realm. Most of the more than 100 described species are known from southern Asia, with only three found in North America. Psychomyia_ flavida Hagen: The species is transcontinental from British Columbia to California and Nova Scotia to Florida, but seems to be missing in the southwestern states. It is equally widespread in Virginia from the Piedmont to the western border. Amherst, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Campbell, Caroline, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Dickenson, Fauquier, Floyd, Guiles, Grayson, Hanover, Highland, Lee, Louisa, Montgomery, Page, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, Spotsylvania, Tazewell, Warren, Washington, and Wythe Cos., and City of Galax, April-September. Psychomyia nomada (Ross): This species has a rather restricted distribution in eastern North America from Quebec south along the Appalachian Mountains to Alabama, with an incongruous record from Oregon. The 44 BANISTERIA Virginia records are primarily from the Blue Ridge with outliers in the adjacent upper Piedmont and Alleghenian regions. Botetourt, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Patrick, Pittsylvania, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Smyth, and Wythe Cos., May-September. Family Rhyacophilidae Genus Rhyacophila With almost 500 described species, this is one of the largest genera of caddisflies. It is primarily found in the Northern Hemisphere, with extensions in southeastern Asia into Indonesia. It is absent from sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and the Neotropics. In North America over 125 species are known. Eight of the 23 Virginia species are newly recorded from the state. Rhyacophila acutiloba Morse & Ross: This is a species of the Appalachian Mountains from Maine to South Carolina. The few Virginia localities are in the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Montgomery, and Rockbridge Cos., April-June. *Rhyacophila appalachia Morse & Ross: This species is restricted to the central and southern Appalachian Mountains from Kentucky and Virginia to South Carolina. Virginia records are from the southern part of the western Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces. Floyd Co., roadside alder swamp at jct. Rts. 860 & 637, 4.8 km SE Floyd, 28 April 1991 (VMNH). Franklin Co., Grassy Fork Creek at Rt. 619, 3.2 km SE Snow Creek, 36°48.6'N, 79°44.7' W, 14 May 2004 (NMNH). Grayson Co., drift fence site on Whitetop Mountain, also down road at seepage area, 23 June 1994 (VMNH). Patrick Co., small rivulet on Rt. 609, ca. 0.6 km E jet. Rt. 764, 10 June 2000 (VMNH). Smyth Co., Grindstone Bridge, Grindstone Campground, 12 June 1979 (NMNH); Laurel Spring Run, Laurel Spring Road, 1.0 km S I-81 overpass, 27 April 2003 (UT). *Rhyacophila atrata Banks: The species is recorded from the Appalachian Mountains from Nova Scotia to South Carolina with a dubious record from Colorado. The Virginia records are from the vicinity of Mount Rogers and the Alleghenies immediately to the west. Grayson Co., headwaters of Fox Creek, 9.5 km W Troutdale, 11 June 1979 (NMNH); Fox Creek, 2.7 km W Troutdale, 12 June 1979 (NMNH). Russell Co. (detailed collection data not available). Tazewell Co., East Fork Cove Creek, Rt. 662, 12 June 1983 (VPISU). Washington Co., Straight Branch, Beartree Campground, 12 June 1979 (NMNH). NO. 24, 2004 Rhyacophila banksi Ross: A species restricted to northeastern North America, it is recorded from Quebec to Tennessee, with outlying populations in Arkansas and Missouri. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Craig, Giles, Highland, Montgomery, Nelson, Rockbridge, Rockingham, and Washington Cos., May- September. Rhyacophila_ carolina Banks: This species is widespread in eastern North America from Newfoundland and Ontario south to Florida, and west to Missouri. It is widespread in Virginia from the Piedmont to the western border. Albemarle, Amherst, Bath, Botetourt, Carroll, Dickenson, Fairfax, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Halifax, Highland, Lee, Louisa, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Patrick, Rappahannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Scott, Shenandoah, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, and Wythe Cos., April-September. Rhyacophila carpenteri Milne: This is a species of the eastern mountains from Newfoundland and Quebec south to South Carolina and west to Ohio. It is found in the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions in Virginia. Amherst, Bath, Botetourt, Dickenson, Giles, Grayson, Madison, Montgomery, Rappahannock, and Smyth Cos., May-July. *Rhyacophila formosa Banks: The species occurs throughout the Appalachian Mountains from Quebec to Alabama. The three known Virginia records are from the Alleghenian region. Bath Co., Back Creek, upstream of confluence with Jackson River, 1973 (VPISU). Floyd Co., Big Indian Creek at Indian Valley Road, 14 June 2003 (C. R. Parker Collection). Shenandoah Co., Shenandoah River near Woodstock, 20 October 1962 (NMNH). Rhyacophila fuscula (Walker): This species is widely distributed over eastern North America from Newfoundland to Minnesota and south to Alabama, mostly east of the Mississippi River with a doubtful record for Wyoming. In Virginia it is recorded from the upper Piedmont to the western border. Amherst, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Dickenson, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Greene, Grayson, Henry, Highland, Madison, Montgomery, Orange, Page, Patrick, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Shenandoah, Smyth, Washington, and Wythe Cos., April- October. Rhyacophila glaberrima Ulmer: The species is widely distributed over eastern North America from Quebec to Alabama and west to Missouri and Arkansas. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian FLINT ET AL.: CADDISFLIES OF VIRGINIA 45 regions. Amherst, Bath, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Giles, Grayson, Henry, Madison, Montgomery, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Smyth, and Tazewell Cos., July-October. Rhyacophila invaria (Walker): This is another northeastern species known from Newfoundland to Wisconsin and south to North Carolina. In Virginia the few records are from the upper Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions. Augusta Co., Paine Run, Shenandoah National Park, 18 May 1987 (CSU). Fauquier Co., Catharpin Creek, Jackson Hollow, 9 June 1962 (NMNH); Lambdon’s Spring Run, 31 May 1975 (VPISU). Rhyacophila kondratieffi Parker: This species has only been reported from Virginia, where it 1s known from the southern Blue Ridge. David A. Etnier (pers. comm.) has taken the species in Carter Co. in Tennessee, the first known record outside of Virginia. T.L. - Patrick Co., Little Rock Castle Creek, Rt. 605 off Rt. 8, 13 May 1979. Giles, Grayson, Patrick, Smyth, and Wise Cos., May-July. *Rhyacophila ledra Ross: The species occurs east of the Mississippi River from Michigan to Pennsylvania and south to Alabama. In Virginia it has been found primarily on the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions, with a few records westward into the Alleghenian region. Carroll, Clarke, Essex, Fairfax, Hanover, Isle of Wight, Lee, Loudoun, and Louisa Cos., May-July. *Rhyacophila manistee Ross: This species is restricted to northeastern North America from Ontario to Maine and south to Virginia. The few Virginia records are from the Ridge and Valley province. Bath Co., Blowing Springs, Rt. 39, 16 km W Warm Springs, 38°04.2' N, 79°53.3' W, 17 May 2004 (NMNH). Bland Co., North Fork Holston River, Rt. 610, 6.4 km SW Ceres, 27 May 1992 (D. E. Ruiter Collection). Highland Co., E. Fork Potomac River, Rt. 220, 18-20 May 1963 (NMNH). Smyth Co., North Fork Holston River, Rt. 620 at jct. Rt. 716, near Nebo, 17 May 1990 and 16 May 2004 (CSU); North Fork Holston River, Rt. 622, Nebo, 36°56.8' N, 81°26.5' W, 15 May 2004 (NMNH). Rhyacophila minora Banks: This species, closely related to the preceding, has a wider distribution, being reported from Ontario to Newfoundland and south to Alabama, all east of the Mississippi River. In Virginia, all of the counties of record except Franklin are in the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Bath, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Highland, Madison, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Smyth, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May-June. Although some recent authors use the name R. minor for this species, we use R. minora because it 1s the correct original spelling in the meaning of Article 32.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and is to be preserved unaltered. *Rhyacophila mycta Ross: This species had previously been reported only from the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina and Tennessee. The new northernmost records in Virginia are all clustered around Mount Rogers in the southern Blue Ridge, above 1000 meters. Grayson Co., headwater tributaries of Lewis Fork, off Rt. 603, 29 May 1982 and 5 June 1982 (VPISU); Helton Creek, Mount Rogers Trail, 24 July 1982 (VPISU); Whitetop Creek, Forest Service Road 89, 13 August 1979 (VPISU). Smyth Co., Big Branch off Rt. 600, Whitetop Mountain, 28 May 1983 (VPISU); spring seeps near Grindstone Campground, 14 August 1979 and 7 June 1980 (VPISU). Rhyacophila nigrita Banks: The species is widespread and common in the eastern mountains from Newfoundland to Alabama. It is recorded from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions in Virginia. Alleghany, Bath, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Highland, Lee, Montgomery, Patrick, Rockbridge, Smyth, Tazewell, Washington, and Wythe Cos., May-August. *Rhyacophila otica Etnier & Way: This uncommon species has only been recorded from Pennsylvania to Tennessee. The Virginia record, from the Cumberland Plateau region on the Kentucky border, is thus on the eastern edge of this distribution. Dickenson Co., Breaks Interstate Park, 1-14 July 2000 (VMNH). Rhyacophila parantra Ross: This species is recorded from northeastern North America from Quebec to Indiana and south to Tennessee. In Virginia it is known from the central and southwestern Alleghenies. Craig, Dickenson, Pulaski, Russell, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., May- June. Rhyacophila shenandoahensis Flint: The species is apparently endemic to Virginia (excepting a dubious record for Ontario); its small range extends from the northern Blue Ridge south and west to Burkes Garden. Eventual discovery in West Virginia and Kentucky seems possible. T.L. - Madison Co., White Oak Canyon, Shenandoah National Park, 21 June 1955 (NMNH). Albemarle, Madison, Nelson, Page, Rappahannock, and Tazewell Cos., May-July. *Rhyacophila teddyi Ross: This species had been known only in the southern Appalachians from Alabama 46 BANISTERIA to North Carolina. These new Virginia records, both from the Blue Ridge, extend the known range substantially to the north. Albemarle Co., Moormans River, Shenandoah National Park, 21 July 1973 (NMNH). Madison Co., Hogcamp Branch, Shenandoah National Park, 8 July 1973 (NMNH). Rhyacophila torva Hagen: The species is widespread over eastern North America, east of the Mississippi River from Nova Scotia to Wisconsin, south to Alabama, with a questionable record from Wyoming. The Virginia records are from the Blue Ridge and Alleghenian regions. Augusta, Bath, Dickenson, Fairfax, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Madison, Montgomery, Nelson, Page, Patrick, Rappahannock, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Smyth, Tazewell, and Washington Cos., February-September. Rhyacophila tricornuta Sykora & McCabe: This species is only known from a single locality near Mount Rogers. T.L. - Smyth Co., Hurricane Campground next to Hurricane Creek, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, 22 May 1994 (CMNH); same data, but 16 May 2004 (NMNH). Rhyacophila vibox Milne: This species is widely distributed in northeastern North America from Newfoundland to Minnesota south, east of the Mississippi River, to Tennessee. Virginia collections are from a single site in the Alleghenian region. Montgomery Co., headwaters of Craig Creek, Rt. 621, 0.8 km E Rt. 460, 17 May 1980, 22 May 1980, 4 June 1980, and 5 June 1983 (VPISU). LITERATURE CITED Banks, N. 1904. A list of the neuropteroid insects exclusive of the Odonata, from the vicinity of Washington, D.C. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 6: 201-217. NO. 24, 2004 Banks, N. 1907. Catalogue of the Neuropteroid Insects of the United States. American Entomological Society, Philadelphia, PA. 53 pp. Betten, C. 1934. The caddis flies or Trichoptera of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin 292: 1-576. Flint, O. S., Jr., R. A. Englund, & B. Kumashiro. 2003. A reassessment and new state records of Trichoptera occurring in Hawai'i with discussion on origins and potential ecological impacts. Records of the Hawaii Biological Survey for 2001-2002. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 73: 31-40. Hoffman, R. L., & C. R. Parker. 1997. Caddisflies from Greensville County, Virginia (Insecta: Trichoptera). Banisteria 9: 17-32. Parker, C. R., & J. R. Voshell, Jr. 1981. A preliminary checklist of the caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Virginia. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 16: 1-7. Ross, H. H. 1944. The caddis flies, or Trichoptera, of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 23: 1- 326. Ross, H. H. 1956. Evolution and Classification of the Mountain Caddisflies. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 213 pp. Schefter, P. W., G. B. Wiggins, & J. D. Unzicker. 1986. A proposal for assignment of Ceratopsyche as a subgenus of Hydropsyche, with new synonyms and a new species (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 5: 67-84. Schmid, F. 1982. Revision des Trichopteres Canadiens. II. Les Glossosomatidae et Philopotamidae (Annuli- palpia). Mémoires de la Société Entomologique du Canada 122: 1-76. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 47 Shorter Contributions Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society OBSERVATION OF AN EXTERNALLY SITUATED SOUTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL (GLAUCOMYS VOLANS) NEST DEPREDATED BY AN EASTERN RATSNAKE (ELAPHE ALLEGANIENSIS) IN SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA -- Accounts of externally situated southern flying squirrel (G/aucomys volans) nests are rare (Snyder, 1921; Sollberger, 1943). Sollberger (1943) found only three outside nests occupied by G. volans over six years of surveying in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Only one of these external nests was used for rearing young, whereas 35 nursery nests were found in tree cavities (Sollberger, 1943). Pearson (1954) reported second-hand the only other direct observation of southern flying squirrel depredation by a snake. We witnessed an eastern ratsnake (Elaphe alleganiensis) dislodge a southern flying squirrel nest from an eastern hemlock tree (Tsuga canadensis) on 14 August 2003. The event occurred between 1700 and 1800 h in Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, Grayson County, Virginia, along Fox Creek near Fairwood Cemetery, elevation 970 m. The snake, which we later estimated to be 150 cm in total length, was wrapped around the nest and fell to the bare ground of the hemlock grove with an audible thud. It constricted the nest for nearly 15 minutes before it began eating an adult squirrel. We observed the event for 30 min and the snake regurgitated the squirrel and fled when we _ inadvertently disturbed it while attempting to obtain a photograph. Uhler et al. (1939) surveyed the stomach contents of 18 species of snakes in the Virginia Piedmont and found G. volans in E. alleganiensis, the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and the black racer (Coluber constrictor). More recently, Mitchell (1994) also documented G. volans in the diet of E. alleganiensis. The propensity of FE. alleganiensis to climb trees for the purpose of securing prey 1s well documented (Uhler et al. 1939; Neal et al., 1993; Mitchell, 1994; Saenz et al., 1999). The adult squirrel killed by the snake was the mother of three hairless nestlings that we found in the nest. All three young were males; two weighed 7.6 g and the other 8.0 g. All had sealed eyes, and we estimated their age to be less than 10 days based on mass and pelage state (Booth, 1946; Linzey & Linzey, 1979). It is likely that this was the female’s second litter of that year; biannual parturition in the southern flying squirrel has long been recognized (Sollberger, 1943; Dolan & Carter, 1977). The largest neonate survived to adulthood and is currently being used as a live exhibit in a flying squirrel public education program sponsored by Virginia Commonwealth University, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. The flying squirrel’s nest was woven from shredded hemlock bark and appears to have been externally situated, as the surface was free of debris. Although at first irregularly shaped because of the constriction, the nest was easily reshaped to a ball-like form with a slight vase-like neck aperture (Fig. 1). The outer layer of the nest was 18 cm in diameter and approximately 2 cm thick. The outer layer was constructed of coarsely shredded bark in lengths of 30 to 50 cm and was 0.5 to 1.0 cm wide. The interior chamber, comprised of finely shredded bark, formed a cup-shaped depression 7 cm in diameter. The inner layer was also about 2 cm thick. The finely shredded bark was 10 to 15 cm long and 0.05 to 0.2 cm wide; it was situated nearly opposite the opening and concealed the three young squirrels. The bedding was slightly damp and had the odor of urine. The base of the nest, which appears to have been the only contact point with the tree, was flattened and compressed. Snyder (1921) described a similar nest composed of red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) bark that contained a single juvenile G. volans in Ontario, Canada. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This observation was made during a study on the endangered northern flying squirrel (G/aucomys sabrinus) that was supported in part by funds to Pagels from the USDA-USFS, Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Non-Game Program, and a grant from the Small Grant Program of the Virginia Academy of Science to Sparks and Pagels. René Cabaniss raised the squirrel and provided records regarding the initial health of all three neonates. Anne Wright developed the curriculum around Virginia’s flying squirrels that serves as the basis for the public education program. Charles Blem commented on an earlier draft of the manuscript. LITERATURE CITED Booth, E. S. 1946. Notes on the life history of the flying squirrel. Journal of Mammalogy 27: 28-38. 48 BANISTERIA NO. 24, 2004 Fig. 1. A schematized drawing of the reshaped southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans) nest from Grayson County, Virginia; the scale is relative to a single neonate (drawing by Lynne Hassel). Dolan, P. G., & D. C. Carter. 1977. Glaucomys volans. Mammalian Species 78: 1-6. American Society of Mammalogists. Linzey D. W., & A. V. Linzey. 1979. Growth and development of the southern flying squirrel, Glaucomys volans volans. Journal of Mammalogy 60: 615-620. Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 352 pp. Neal, J. C., W. G. Montague, & D. A. James. 1993. Climbing by black rat snakes on cavity trees of red- cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 160-165. Pearson, P. G. 1954. Mammals of Gulf Hammock, Levy County Florida. American Midland Naturalist 51: 468-480. Saenz, D., C. S. Collins, & R. Conner. 1999. A bark shaving technique to deter rat snakes from climbing red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 1069-1073. Snyder, L. L. 1921. An outside nest of a flying squirrel. Journal of Mammalogy 2: 171. Sollberger, D. E. 1943. Notes on the breeding habits of the eastern flying squirrel, Glaucomys volans volans. Journal of Mammalogy 24: 163-173. Uhler, F. M., C. Cottam, & T. E. Clarke. 1939. Food of the snakes of George Washington National Forest, Virginia. Transactions of the 4th North American Wildlife Conference: 605-622. James L. Sparks Jr., Lynne Hassel, and John F. Pagels Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia 23284 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 49 Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society AN UNUSUALLY COLORED EASTERN MILKSNAKE (LAMPROPELTIS TRIANGULUM TRIANGULUM) FROM VIRGINIA, WITH NOTES ON HER OFFSPRING -- Aberrant phenotypes have been reported occasionally for the eastern subspecies of the widespread milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in North America (Williams. 1988; Bechtel, 1995). True albinos from Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have been noted in several publications (Lindahl, 1898; Hoopes, 1943; Hensley, 1959; Dyrkacz, 1981; Blair et al., 1994). One xanthic (lacking all dark pigment) individual from Ohio was listed by Dyrkacz (1981). A leucistic (lacking normal integumentary pigment except eyes) juvenile with faint dorsal markings from Indiana was illustrated in Wagner (1982). Hensley (1959) listed an albino from Montgomery County, Virginia, that was collected near Blacksburg on 30 September 1955 (US National Museum 137315). This snake is a juvenile female (317 mm total length) with normal scutellation for this subspecies in Virginia (Mitchell, 1994). Faint dorsal blotches are evident in preservative, most of which extend to scale row 4; blotches of normally patterned scales extend to scale rows 1-3. This specimen may be more accurately called an albinistic pinto form (leucistic except for scattered areas of normal pigmentation) of the eastern milksnake rather than an albino as listed by Hensley (1959). Descriptions of other aberrant phenotypes of this species from this region are of interest, as are observations on their young. In this note, we describe a second wild-caught adult albinistic pinto eastern milksnake and the phenotypes of her offspring from the central Appalachians of Virginia. A gravid female L. ¢. triangulum (801 mm total length) was found on 24 July 2003 in Highland Wildlife Management Area, 5.8 km SE Monterey, Highland County, Virginia, at an elevation of about 1220 m (38° 21' 25.7" N, 79° 34' 47.1" W) on top of Jack Mountain. She was found crossing a service road at about 1800 h in a sugar maple, hemlock, and grassy field habitat matrix at an air temperature of about 25° C. The female was leucistic with the dorsum of the head exhibiting an irregular, dark brown pattern, irregular brown dorsal body blotches, and several scattered brown and red scales. The outlines of what would have been normal body blotches were light gray. Body pigment, including the otherwise normal blotches, was white. The venter was white except for a very faint black color where the dark portion of the normal checkerboard pattern would be located. Upper and lower labials were outlined in light brown. Eye color was normal, with a blue-black iris and black pupil. This female laid seven eggs in captivity on 27 July 2003 that were incubated at an average temperature of 24° C. Pipping of the first egg occurred on 24 September and the last egg pipped on 28 September. Incubation period was 59-63 days. All of the hatchlings (mean total length = 208.6 + 11.4 mm, 185-220 mm; mean weight = 4.75 + 0.31 g, 4.1-5.1 g) exhibited the normal color and pattern characteristic of the wild phenotype of this subspecies (Mitchell, 1994). Each had the normal dorsal head pattern, 31-40 (mean = 34.4 + 3.2) dorsal blotches, and the checkerboard pattern on the venter. The smallest neonate in this sample is smaller than that reported for a sample of 11 hatchlings (198 mm) in Mitchell (1994), whereas the body weights of all but the smallest one are heavier than he reported for this sample (maximum = 4.3 g). The number of dorsal blotches is within the range Mitchell (1994) reported for L. t. triangulum in Virginia. The fact that the albinistic pinto mother bore all normally patterned offspring suggests that they may have been sired by a typically patterned male. It would be of interest to know if any of the young would produce albinistic hatchlings when mated with normal males, or if a leucistic or albinistic pinto male would produce highly phenotypically-variable offspring, with this female. However, the female and her neonates were released at the site of capture on 7 October 2003. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Anne Hocker for her assistance with the photograph. LITERATURE CITED Bechtel, H. B. 1995. Reptile and Amphibian Variants, Colors, Patterns, and Scales. Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL. 206 pp. Blair, K. B., H. M. Smith, & D. Chiszar. 1994. Albinism and distributional records for Lampropeltis triangulum (Reptilia: Serpentes) in panhandle Texas. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society 30:1-5. Dyrkacz, S, 1981. Recent instances of albinism in North American amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular 11: 1-31. Hensley, M. M. 1959. Albinism in North American amphibians and reptiles. Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University, Biological Series 1: 133- 50 BANISTERIA 159. Hoopes, I. 1943. A semi-albino milk snake in Massachusetts. Copeia 1943: 124-125. Lindahl, J. 1898. A vermillion-albino milk snake. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History 19: 146. Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 352 pp. Wagner, E. 1982. Life history: Lampropeltis triangulum, Coloration. Herpetological Review 32: 18. NO. 24, 2004 Williams, K. L. 1988. Systematics and Natural History of the American Milk Snake, Lampropeltis triangulum. 2nd Revised Edition, Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI. 176 pp. Joseph C. Mitchell Department of Biology University of Richmond Richmond, Virginia 23173 Liam McGranaghan 114 Virginia Avenue. Berryville, Virginia 22611 Fig. 1. Albinistic pinto Lampropeltis triangulum with her eggs from Highland County, Virginia. Photo by Anne Hocker. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 51 Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society A MALFORMED FOWLER’S TOAD (BUFO FOWLERI) FROM THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY OF VIRGINIA -- Deformities and malformations in anurans are manifested in a variety of ways (Meteyer, 2000; Meteyer et al., 2000). Most of those described in the literature are visible externally and _ include ectromelia, brachydactyly, polydactyly, brachygnathia of both sets of limbs and kyphosis of the vertebral column (Ouellet et al., 1997; Ouellet, 2000). The North American Reporting Center for Amphibian Malformations website _—_ (http://frogweb.nbii.gov/) includes several observations of deformities in frogs. The most commonly-reported malformation in Bufo fowleri is an extra forelimb reported from Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Most examples reported in this web site for Virginia are limb malformations in ranids. Only one Virginia example was reported for toads through 2003, an American Toad (Bufo americanus) with multiple limbs and one extra forelimb from Haysi, Dickenson County. This note describes a forelimb malformation in a Fowler's Toad from the Shenandoah Valley. On 14 July 2004, one of us (BB) found a malformed juvenile B. fowleri (32 mm SVL) among hundreds of others that had been observed between 1 and 22 July at a Clarke County, Virginia, residence (4.8 km W Millwood; 39° 03' 76.7" N, 78° 00' 09.9" W). This was the only toad of many that had fallen into the swimming pool or entered the house that had a malformation. The habitat is mostly artificial, with gardens, lawn, swimming pool, and goldfish pond. The residence is surrounded by mostly mature hardwood forest except for a three-acre pasture containing water from a run-off pond. Other anurans in this area include American Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), American Toads, Eastern Gray Treefrogs (Hyla versicolor), Eastern Spadefoots (Scaphiopus holbrookii), Northern Green Frogs (Rana clamitans), Pickerel Frogs (Rana palustris), and Spring Peepers (Pseudacris crucifer). The juvenile toad had a partially-developed left forelimb with a severely malformed hand, in addition to the two normal forelimbs (Fig. 1). The extra limb was shorter than the two normal limbs and _ projected outward anterior to the normal left forelimb and near the margin of the throat. The articulation with the pectoral girdle was not ascertained because the frog was maintained alive. The humerus appeared shortened and underdeveloped, as did the radius and ulna. The hand had only the base, with seven, short undeveloped finger buds attached. Fig. 1. Malformed Fowler’s Toad (Bufo fowleri) from Clarke County, Virginia. The toad did not seem hindered in any way because the extra limb was shorter than the other two and did not touch the ground during locomotion. Feeding behavior was normal. The toad was kept alive for photographs and educational presentations and then released at the point of capture. This is the first description of brachydactyly and polydactyly in Bufo fowleri from Virginia and the second report of an extra forelimb in toads from the state. LITERATURE CITED Meteyer, C. U. 2000. Field guide to malformations of frogs and toads with radiographic interpretations. Biological Science Report, USGS/BRD/BSR-2000- 0005. 18 pp. Meteyer, C. U., I. K. Loeffler, J. F. Fallon, K. S. Converse, E. Green, J. C. Helgen, S. Kersten, R. Levey, L. Eaton-Poole, & J. G. Burkhart. 2000. Hind limb malformations in free-living Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) from Maine, Minnesota, and Vermont suggest multiple etiologies. Tetratology 62: 151-171. Ouellet, M. 2000. Amphibian deformities: current state of knowledge. Pp. 617-661 Jn D. W. Sparling, G. Linder, & C. A. Bishop (eds.). Ecotoxicology of Amphibians and Reptiles. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL. Be BANISTERIA Ouellet, M., J. Bonin, J. Rodrigue, J-L. DesGranges, & S. Lair. 1997. Hindlimb deformities (ectromelia, ectrodactyly) in free-living anurans from agricultural habitats. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 33: 95-104. Joseph C. Mitchell Department of Biology University of Richmond Richmond, Virginia 23173 Belinda Burwell P. O. Box 288 Millwood, Virginia 22646 Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society NEW DISTRIBUTION RECORDS FOR ELEATES DEPRESSUS (RANDALL) IN THE SOUTH- EASTERN UNITED STATES (COLEOPTERA: TENEBRIONIDAE; BOLITOPHAGINAE) AND NOTES ON THESE OCCURRENCES -- Scarcity in collections adds interest to certain small beetle species that are obscure, poorly documented, and for which the biology is unknown. Eleates depressus (Randall) is such an example, with few published records and scant information on its natural history. Since its description (Randall, 1838) from Hallowell, Maine, occurrences of this small bolitophagine (Fig. 1) have been reported in state listings from Michigan (Spilman, 1973), New Jersey (Smith, 1900), New York (Leonard, 1928), southwestern Pennsylvania (Hamilton, 1895), and Wisconsin (Dunford & Young, 2004), and from four provinces in eastern to central Canada (Bousquet & Campbell, 1991). Horn (1870) knew the species from “Middle and Eastern States and Canada” but recent U.S. regional works (Downie & Arnett, 1996; Aalbu et. al., 2002) list only the Maine record. These records, and the lack of any listings in catalogs of the southern states, suggest a boreal distribution. However, recent captures and newly recognized specimens in collections from the southeastern United States, including the Coastal Plain, demonstrate otherwise, as reported here. NEW STATE RECORDS GEORGIA: one specimen labeled: “Ga. Clarke Co., Athens, bl trap, 6-7 July 1973, R. Turnbow” (in R. H. Turnbow collection) and two specimens labeled: “Dunwoody [De Kalb County] Ga., 1955 / Collr. E. F. Mehinick” (in Ohio State University Collection). NO. 24, 2004 4) «A a~ $3 : zs ¢. ren 3 ey : ¢ ‘ 4 3 ; aa a on , @ 4 | > ¥ | \ i ¢ 7 4 Ld vf ay? ¢ Paes ee eee Fig. 1. Eleates depressus, dorsal (left) and dorsolateral (right) views; length of beetle, 3.7 mm. Specimen from Calvert County, Maryland. MARYLAND: one specimen labeled: “MARYLAND: Calvert Co., Flag Ponds area 3 km SE Long Beach, 38° 23' N, 76° 27' W, 16 July 1988, J. M. Hill, collr./ Collected at black light near sand beach” (in U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution). TENNESSEE: five specimens labeled: “TENNESSEE: Great Smoky Mountains National Park / Trail to Ramsey Cascade; 13-V-1986, Paul Skelley” (in Florida State Collection of Arthropods) and two specimens, apparently from the same series, labeled: “Grt. Smokey Mts. Nat. Pk., trail to Ramsey Cascade, Tenn., 13 May 1986, P. Skelley” (in Ohio State University Collection). VIRGINIA: one specimen labeled: “VA: Henrico Co., 4 km upstream Bottoms Bridge, Chickahominy R., Wilson Farm, 3 June 2000, I. T. Wilson” (in Virginia Museum of Natural History). BIOLOGY Other members of the Bolitophaginae are known to feed on and breed in the sporocarps of polypore fungi on dead wood and are restricted to certain species (Leschen, 1990). To date, no host fungus has been associated or identified for E. depressus. | have seen host records on specimens (in UCBC) of the two congeners from the western states: Eleates occidentalis Casey, labeled “ex Fomes” and E. explanatus Casey, labeled “Fomes pinicola” |Fomitopsis pinicola (Swartz: Fries) Karst.] and “Fomes officinalis” |Fomitopsis officinalis” (Villars.: Fr.) Bondartsev & Singer]; a series of the latter species is also labeled “Draperia SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 53 systyla” but this may be in error, since this is a vascular plant in the Hydrophyllaceae. Both species of the above polypore fungi have Holarctic distributions and cause wood rot. Eleates depressus may be using these same fungi, but the rarity of the beetle in collections suggests that its host(s) may be uncommon. A majority of records indicate only that specimens were taken at artificial lights, with no description of surrounding habitat. Literature records give only general habitat information, e.g., “under the bark of prostrate pine logs” (Randall, 1838), “in woody fungus or under bark of dead trees” (Spilman, 1973), “mostly on the mountains in woody fungus” (Hamilton, 1895) and “deciduous and coniferous forests” (Dunford & Young, 2004). The Maryland record is from a site with mature mixed forest behind a beach. The Virginia specimen, probably taken at black light, was near a mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) planting and much older mixed hardwood forest with abundant dead wood (Irvine Wilson, pers. comm.). The Tennessee series was probably taken from logs and fungi, and was in old- growth forest (Paul Skelley, pers. comm.). In spite of the recent efforts to survey and identify all beetles known from the Great Smoky Mountains (Carlton, 2004), E. depressus has not been detected there until now, further indicating the rarity of this beetle. If restricted to mature and old growth forests, this would also explain its scarcity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the following for allowing me to examine collections in their care and/or searching for specimens and forwarding data: Robert H. Turnbow, Jr., Ft. Rucker, AL; Richard L. Hoffman and Arthur V. Evans, Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA; Irvine Wilson, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA; Bob Blinn, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Charles A. Triplehorn, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; James C. Dunford and Paul E. Skelley, Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainesville, FL; Cheryl B. Barr, Essig Museum, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Two anonymous reviewers made improvements to an early draft of the paper. LITERATURE CITED Aalbu, R. L., C. A. Triplehorn, J. M. Campbell, K. W. Brown, R. E. Somerby, & D. B. Thomas. 2002. Tenebrionidae Latreille 1802. Pp. 463-509 Jn R. H. Arnett, M. C. Thomas, P. E. Skelley, & J. H. Frank (eds.). American Beetles. Volume 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Bousquet, Y., & J. M. Campbell. 1991. Family Tenebrionidae. Pp. 253-262 Jn Y. Bousquet (ed.). Checklist of Beetles of Canada and Alaska. Agriculture Canada Publication 1861/E. Carlton, C. 2004. http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/Inst/Research/Departments/ arthropodmuseum/smokieschecklist.htm Downie, N. M., & R. H. Arnett, Jr. 1996. The Beetles of Northeastern North America. Volume I. Sandhill Crane Press, Boca Raton, FL. Pp. 891-1,721. Dunford, J. C., & D. K. Young. 2004. An annotated checklist of Wisconsin darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) with comparisons to the western Great Lakes fauna. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 130: 57-76. Hamilton, J. 1895. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of southwestern Pennsylvania. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 22: 317-381. Horn, G. H. 1870. Revision of the Tenebrionidae of America, north of Mexico. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 14: 64-404. Leonard, M. D. 1928. A list of the insects of New York with a list of the spiders and certain other allied groups. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 101. 1,121 pp. Leschen, R. A. B. 1990. Tenebrionoid-Basidiomycete relationships with comments on feeding ecology and the evolution of fungal monophagy (Coleoptera/ Hymenomycetes). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 54: 165-177. Randall, J. W. 1838. Description of new species of coleopterous insects inhabiting the state of Maine. Boston Journal of Natural History 2: 1-33. Smith, J. B. 1900. Insects of New Jersey. MacCrellish and Quigley, Trenton, NJ. 755 pp. Spilman, T. J. 1973. A list of the Tenebrionidae of Michigan (Coleoptera). The Great Lakes Entomologist 6: 85-91. Warren E. Steiner, Jr. Department of Entomology, NHB-187 Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560 54 BANISTERIA Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society DISTRIBUTION OF CTENOTRACHELUS SHERMANI BARBER, AN ASSASSIN BUG NEW TO THE FAUNA OF VIRGINIA (HETEROPTERA: REDUVIIDAE) -- Judged from its meager representation in the literature, Ctenotrachelus shermani would appear to be one of the rarest reduviid bugs in North America. It was originally recorded from Raleigh, North Carolina (Blatchley, 1926), under the incorrect name Schumannia mexicana Champion. The same name was employed by Brimley (1938), who was unaware that the Raleigh specimen had been restudied by H. G. Barber during his revision of American Stenopodinae (1929-30), found to differ significantly from species of Schumannia, and relocated into Ctenotrachelus as type specimen of a new species, C. shermani. More recent sources (Henry & Froeschner, 1988; Maldonado Capriles, 1990) cite only “N.C.” for the species, although the latter provides an unattributed “TCuba]” as well. During the sorting of extensive material captured during inventory surveys in extreme southeastern Virginia by the Division of Natural Heritage, Department of Conservation and _ Recreation, technicians at the Virginia Museum of Natural History recovered an unusual assassin bug which literature sources suggested to be referable to C. shermani. This possibility was confirmed by comparison of the specimen with the holotype (National Museum of Natural History), and the species thus established as a member of the Virginia fauna, reaching its northernmost known locality at the Chesapeake estuary. Suspecting that additional, unreported material might exist, I inquired of the curators of several insect collections in the southeastern United States. Two such depositories confirmed that specimens were indeed extant, and provided the locality information upon which the map (Fig. 1) was prepared. Moreover, additional specimens have been found in Virginia, and collectively contribute to a modified perception about the species: it is by no means rare. Pin label data suggest that light trapping is a productive technique for obtaining C. shermani, and that its more extensive application is likely to generate many additional locality records. Inasmuch as publication of my treatment of Virginia reduviids may be deferred into an indeterminate future, I think it is justified to publish the documentation accumulated for this species. Collection data for the specimens from Virginia (all VMNH) are cited here in full; localities for states to the south are represented on the map (Fig. 1). NO. 24, 2004 City of Chesapeake: Northwest River Park, ca. 8 km SE Hickory, 5-16 July 2004, Robert Vigneault (1). City of Virginia Beach: First Landing/Seashore State Park, 5-26 July 1989, Kurt A. Buhlmann (1); also 23 June-7 July 2003, Robert Vigneault (3). Greensville County: Fontaine Creek at US Hwy 301, ca. 1.6 km S Dahlia, 6 June 2002, K. L. Derge (1). Ctenotrachelus shermani is easily distinguished from species of other regional genera (Oncocephalus, Narvesus, Pygolampis, Stenopoda) of Stenopodainae by the antennal and femoral characters used in Blatchley’s key, but is further set off by the wide separation of the lst and 2nd pairs of legs and a curious modification of the procoxal acetabulum. The ventral edges of propleura and mesopleura — in the region of their commisure — are flared outward to form a hoodlike covering over the coxal base (Fig. 2, arrow), a presumably synapomorphic feature shared with the Neotropical genus Ocrioessa In addition to C. shermani, Ctenotrachelus 1s represented by one species in Mexico and 13 in South America (Maldonado Capriles, 1990). The absence of other species in the West Indies, and the lack of Florida rr, Fig. 1. Southeastern United States, with known localities for Ctenotrachelus shermani indicated by triangle symbols. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 55 Fig. 2. Ctenotrachelus shermani, showing characteristic placement of forelimbs relative to body axis, small antennae, and modified propleural region (arrow). records south of Gainesville, suggest that the ostensible find in “Cuba” might be based on a mislabeled or adventive specimen. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The late Richard C. Froeschner kindly facilitated my consultation of the National Museum of Natural History reduviid collection. Cecil L. Smith (University of Georgia), Paul Lago (University of Mississippi), John C. Morse (Clemson University) and Frank W. Mead (Florida State Collection of Arthropods) kindly responded to my inquiries about C. shermani and/or granted access to the material. Material from the inventories conducted by the Division of Natural Heritage was transferred to VMNH through the interest of Christopher A. Pague and Steven M. Roble. I am indebted to these helpful colleagues for providing the substance of this report. LITERATURE CITED Barber, H. G. 1929-1930. Essay on the subfamily Stenopodinae of the New World. Entomologica Americana 10: 148-238. Blatchley, W. S. 1926. The Heteroptera or true bugs of eastern North America, with especial reference to the faunas of Indiana and Florida. Nature Publishing Co., Indianapolis, IN. 1,116 pp. Brimley, C. S. 1938. Insects of North Carolina, Being a List of the Insects of North Carolina and Their Near Relatives. Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. 560 PP. Henry, T. J., & R. C. Froeschner (eds.). 1988. Catalog of the Heteroptera, or True Bugs, of Canada and the Continental United States. E. J. Brill, Leiden and New York. 958 pp. Maldonado Capriles, J. 1990. Systematic Catalogue of the Reduviidae of the World (Insecta: Heteroptera). University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. 694 pp. Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Banisteria, Number 24, 2004 © 2004 by the Virginia Natural History Society BUTTERFLIES AND SKIPPERS CROSSING THE JAMES RIVER IN SPRING -- Each spring from 1997- 2004, I have conducted a hawkwatch on the north shore of the James River in James City County, three miles southeast of the City of Williamsburg, where College Creek empties into the river. This study has documented that the site is a water-crossing route for migratory hawks, vultures, and many other bird species (Taber, 1997). It appears to also be a significant route for butterflies and skippers. A northward-pointing finger of land, on the south shore at Hog Island Wildlife Management Area, in Surry County, creates a dominant landmark at a sharp bend in the river. It is a convenient feature, which ushers northbound wildlife across the 2.4 km expanse of water. I conduct the hawkwatch, often with one or two other volunteers, almost daily throughout March, April, and May, generally from mid-morning until early 56 BANISTERIA afternoon, because that is when the hawks are typically migrating past the site. The watch is not conducted during steady rain. Weather conditions are always recorded. I had noticed butterflies and skippers crossing the river at the site for years, but in 2004, I decided to pay more attention to the numbers and species making the water-crossing than I had in the past. As with the hawks, I have not observed butterflies and skippers flying south across the river; rather, there is a steady northbound movement. Many of the butterflies and skippers are quite distant, seen through binoculars and scopes, as we scan for hawks, and are often unidentifiable to species. Some, however, are seen crossing the river and then conveniently land near the hawkwatch, on the sand and on flowers and are identified that way. Throughout April and May 2004, butterflies and skippers were seen crossing the river almost daily, during sunny weather and moderate southerly winds. By far, the most numerous species seen was Eastern Tiger Swallowtail (Papilio glaucus), perhaps due to its large size and easy identification. This phenomenon deserves further study to reveal more about this apparent short-range dispersal strategy of a non- migratory species. The second most numerous species seen was Silver-spotted Skipper (Epargyreus clarus). Other species identified crossing the river included Black Swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes), Cabbage White (Pieris rapae), Sleepy Orange (Eurema _nicippe), Cloudless Sulphur (Phoebis sennae), American Lady/Painted Lady (Vanessa virginiensis/cardut) (these species are difficult to identify on the wing though only American Lady was seen on the shore), Question Mark/Comma (Polygonia interrogationis/comma), Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta), American Snout (Libytheana carinenta), and Monarch (Danaus plexippus). Many unidentified small butterflies and skippers were noted. Near the end of the 2004 study period, in late May, hundreds of dragonflies were also observed crossing the river on some days. Some days of particularly noticeable movement across the James River were documented in 2004 as follows (high temperature and wind in parentheses): 4 March (15 C, light SE): several butterflies, including some American Snouts 25 March (13 C, light SE): several American Snouts and a few unidentified species 26 March (15 C, light SW): dozens of unidentified butterflies 27 March (16 C, light SW): dozens of unidentified NO. 24, 2004 butterflies 19 April (21 C, light SW): dozens of Eastern Tiger Swallowtails and one Sleepy Orange 20 April (16 C, light SW): dozens of Eastern Tiger Swallowtails and dozens of unidentified butterflies 23 April (21 C, moderate SW): several Eastern Tiger Swallowtails and several unidentified butterflies 7 May (21 C, moderate SW): several Silver-spotted Skippers, one Cloudless Sulphur, and _ several unidentified butterflies 13 May (22 C, strong SW): hundreds of Eastern Tiger Swallowtails, several Silver-spotted Skippers, and dozens of unidentified butterflies 17 May (24 C, moderate SW): dozens of Eastern Tiger Swallowtails, several Silver-spotted Skippers, and dozens of unidentified butterflies Butterfly movements, including random dispersal and actual migration, are not well understood, although species regarded as moving north in spring and summer in eastern North America include Monarch, Cloudless Sulphur, Painted Lady, Red Admiral, Sleepy Orange, and Question Mark (Glassberg, 1999). According to Opler (1992), American Snout “sometimes engages in huge migrations” and regarding American Lady, he stated, “whether or not adults can survive cold winters is not clearly documented and it may be necessary for migrants to colonize much of the East each year.” Further study at water-crossing sites, such as College Creek may help to shed some light on patterns of spring movement in butterflies and skippers. LITERATURE CITED Glassberg, J. 1999. Butterflies Through Binoculars: The East. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 246 pp. Opler, P. A. 1992. A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 396 pp. Taber, B. 1997. College Creek Hawkwatch. The Raven 68: 110-112. Brian Taber Coastal Virginia Wildlife Observatory P. O. Box 912 Eastville, Virginia 23347 MISCELLANEA a7 Miscellanea Reviews The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989, by Jeffrey B. Trollinger & Karen K. Reay. 2001. Special Publication Number 3, Wildlife Diversity Division, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA. 229 pp. Produced in association with the Virginia Society of Ornithology and available exclusively from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23230-1104. In August 1989, I arrived in Virginia to begin my professional career in ornithology, brimming with anticipation over the wondrous birds that awaited me in my new home in the Old Dominion. For a kid from the dairy farms of upstate New York, the cypress swamps and stately magnolias I found in the Tidewater could not have seemed more foreign, and I delighted in seeing mockingbirds, cardinals, and Carolina Wrens on a daily basis. In those days before listservs and websites, news traveled more slowly than it does today. Little did I know that during my first few weeks in Virginia, dedicated birders from the Virginia Society of Ornithology (VSO) were still tracking goldfinch nests in their fifth and final season of a statewide breeding bird atlas. Modeled on methods developed in the late 1960s by the British Trust for Ornithology (Sharrock, 1976), a breeding bird atlas is a multi-year, volunteer- driven, geographically-referenced survey for all breeding birds in a defined area. The emphasis is two- pronged: first, to determine the distribution of birds at least attempting to breed in the area, and second, to most accurately characterize the confidence with which we assert that a species is in fact breeding. Specific criteria exist, and must be submitted by the volunteers, to label the breeding behavior of each species identified during the atlas as “confirmed,” “probable,” or “possible.” Species recorded during the field work but for which no evidence of breeding was obtained are labeled merely as “observed.” Naturally, the success of a volunteer project like this lies in the degree to which effort can be standardized across the entire survey area. For North American atlases, field work is assigned to subsets (1/6") of USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps. One of those subsets (the “atlas block”) is designated as the “priority” block, on which some minimum level of field effort must be expended to assess the distribution pattern of any species across the whole area. Breeding bird atlases accomplish several important objectives for conservation. First, they provide baseline information on species distribution patterns. This information is especially useful for status assessments for rare species. Although each atlas represents a “snapshot” of information that compiles data collected over several years, atlases are intended to serve as a long-term monitoring option. Following a twenty-year gap in atlas efforts, the British Trust for Ornithology went back to the field from 1988-1991. Their second- generation atlas (Gibbons et al., 1993) includes color- coded maps of change in population and distribution since their first atlas. To the degree that some atlases have included estimates of abundance, they also provide interesting comparisons to other monitoring efforts, such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Link & Sauer, 1998). Finally, a breeding bird atlas is an excellent way to galvanize amateur birders to work toward a common goal during the summer breeding season when many had traditionally hung up their binoculars to wait impatiently for fall migration. New birders have been recruited by atlas projects, and existing birders have become more competent field biologists thanks to atlasing. Eventually I did learn of the atlas effort in Virginia, and by 1991, my appetite had been whet by my first glimpse at some species distribution maps produced from the atlas field work. I was so enthused that I signed on and wrote three species accounts for the much-anticipated book that would chronicle the project, and provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date treatise on Virginia’s breeding birds. Unfortunately, that book has not yet materialized. Visions of a lavishly illustrated, authoritative, coffee- table tome on Virginia’s birdlife have remained just that: visions. I am not aware of continued progress toward the publication of such a book, nor do I know what specific issues have prevented its completion. I know that my species accounts were received more than 10 years ago, and I have not heard anything since. As we approach 2005, we approach the 20" anniversary of the start of the field data collection for the Commonwealth’s breeding bird atlas. For comparison, Ontario, New York, Maryland/D.C., and Pennsylvania are under way with their second atlas projects (O’Connell et al., 2004), and Massachusetts has already completed its second atlas (Petersen & Meservey, 2004). Perhaps with the realization that “the book” would not be completed by the 20" anniversary of the atlas initiation, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 58 BANISTERIA Fisheries (VDGIF) and VSO jointly issued in 2001 The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989. This book is primarily a collection of the species distribution maps I first witnessed in a three-ring binder back in 1991, and represents the first attempt, to my knowledge, to collate the maps and bind them in a publication intended for the public. At least, after all this time, we can now view the maps, which are the bread and butter of any atlas book no matter how stunning the photography. Because of the history associated with the Virginia breeding bird atlas, it would truly be unfair to compare The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989 to other atlas texts. For example, Oklahoma’s first breeding bird atlas (1997-2001) was recently published as the Oklahoma Breeding Bird Atlas (Reinking, 2004). With more than 200 color photographs and 200 color distribution maps gracing the informative and enlightening species accounts, this text is lovely to behold and an extremely valuable tool for research. In large part, though, the book has been well-received because the data within are still fresh. For that reason alone, it would be disingenuous to compare The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989 to other atlas texts — it contains old data analyzed and produced with 1990s technology. So how does one assess the merits of The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989 ? I submit that it must be judged on the quality of presentation and utility of the data provided; not compared to other fully successful atlas projects. To begin, the text is printed in landscape orientation, presumably to allow the state map for each species to fully occupy a printed 8.5 x 11” page in the book. While I appreciate not having to squint at a smaller map printed as portrait orientation, it is somewhat awkward to read the beginning material in landscape. The text begins with a predictable progression of material on the history of breeding bird atlases and the design for Virginia’s effort. This material 1s standard in atlas texts, but right in the third sentence of the Introduction is an awkward phrase that confirms my suspicions that the text was hastily prepared. The phrase “... 374 different bird species live in Virginia...” bothers me a little. What does “live” mean here? Are there 374 species on the total list of accepted records for the state? We are told in the next paragraph that 215 species were observed during the atlas field work. Does this mean that 374 — 215 = 159 species occur, but do not breed, in Virginia? That the reader is left to try to figure out exactly what these numbers mean leads me to believe that the authors of The Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Project 1985 — 1989 are not seasoned experts on the Commonwealth’s avifauna. With so NO. 24, 2004 many gifted birders and natural historians in Virginia, I am left to wonder exactly who proofread this text. To get to the bottom of that question, I consulted the Table of Contents and was directed to the Acknowledgements on page 7. I eventually located the Acknowledgements on page 9, furthering my suspicions that there was room for greater care to have been exercised in the production of this text. (About half of the entries in the Table of Contents are incorrect.) In the Acknowledgements I learned that four additional employees of the VDGIF “contributed to this publication” and a fifth person produced the maps. Not one of the people listed in the Acknowledgements, nor the two authors, were Regional Coordinators for the atlas, sat on the Atlas Committee, or to my knowledge, have ever held a post on the VSO. This strikes me as odd. Were none of Virginia’s ornithological elite willing to participate in the production of this text? Were none of them asked? Either way it is disturbing. Moving on, I am again disappointed in the writing on page 4. Here, under “Geography of Virginia” (which might have been more accurately termed “Geology of Virginia’), we find this gem: “Each [physiographic] province has a very distinct geologic history that has given rise to some very unique natural features and habitats.” How very interesting. The next several pages (5-9) provide a description of Virginia’s climate and vegetation based on the excellent chapter by Woodward & Hoffman (1991) in Virginia’s Endangered Species. Here, too, the writing 1s uninspired and could have benefited from at least one more critical edit before going to print. On page 10, a “Species Example Map” (why not an “example species map’?) for American Crow is presented as Figure 6 under the heading “Species Maps and Breeding Information.” Here the authors write that, in so many words, taxonomy follows the scientific and common names recognized by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU), but there are two problems. First they credit the venerable AOU as the “American OrnithologICAL Union” (emphasis mine), and second, they neither follow nor credit the most recent nomenclatural changes that would have been available to them in time to include in this publication. For example, the titmice are listed with their generic name Parus even though the AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature published its changes to Poecile (chickadees) and Baeolophus (titmouse) years before this book was published (AOU, 1997). The image in figure 6 displays a map of the Commonwealth’s state and county boundaries overlain with the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle coverage. Within the quadrangles are symbols geo-referenced to the six MISCELLANEA 59 atlas blocks within each quadrangle. Symbols in the priority block appear in black; those in all other blocks are gray. Four symbols (cross, inverted triangle, solid circle, and “bullseye” circle) are used to denote confirmed, probable, and possible breeding, respectively, as well as observed (bullseye). These clearly indicate that the American Crow is widespread and was relatively easy to confirm as a breeder during the atlas. At 1 mm across, however, the symbols are difficult to read; some readers might be unable to decipher the maps at all without magnification. For some of the rarest species in the state, I really have to hunt across the map to find the symbol. Perhaps in this regard a direct comparison is warranted: Symbols for the Kansas Breeding Bird Atlas (Busby & Zimmerman, 2001) are 1.5 mm squares, the Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania (Brauning, 1992) used squares ranging from 1-2 mm, and Andrle & Carroll (1988) used 2 mm squares exclusively in The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Pages 12 to 226 consist entirely of the species distribution maps and a few sentences on general natural history and breeding biology of the species. (Still no sign of my species accounts — nor anyone else’s for that matter.) The accounts are arranged in taxonomic order, and fulfill their basic purpose in showing the reader where species occur in the state and whether or not they were confirmed as breeders. For example, I just learned that, at least during the period 1985-1989, there were Yellow-crowned Night-Herons breeding along the New River in Giles County. I can overlook the occasional creative capitalization in the species distribution maps, but I find quite frustrating those rarities listed with no explanation of the specific circumstances of the observation. There are several of these. For example, Golden Eagle (page 53) is included in the text with a single “observed” record from Washington County. The account indicates that Golden Eagles do not breed in Virginia, and then provides some general information on the species’ biology. I am left to wonder why there is a record in this atlas. Why are there no details of this particular observation? Someone apparently saw a Golden Eagle in June, July, or August. Was this an adult bird? Was it seen repeatedly? I could ask the same questions about Merlin, White-winged Scoter, Green-winged Teal, Wood Stork, Snowy Owl (!), and Gray-cheeked Thrush. Where are the details of these highly unusual records? Other than the aforementioned shortcomings, there is apparently only one serious data error in the text, which 1s an incorrect map for Swainson’s Warbler. The text I reviewed contained an erratum sheet with the correct map for this species. The text concludes with a species index (pp. 227- 229) that is, sadly, in alphabetical, not taxonomic, order. Again, it is details such as this that lead me to believe that the people who conducted this atlas were not involved nearly enough in the production of this book: We birders catalogue species in taxonomic order, as trained by our field guides. Alphabetical order makes no sense to us, especially when we can’t predict if Red- winged Blackbird will appear in the “Rs” or the “Bs”. This book could have benefited greatly from the addition of some ancillary information. I would like to have seen at least a short essay on other efforts to describe the Commonwealth’s avifauna through history. Catesby, Jefferson, Audubon — where is the historical information on a breeding bird list that once included Passenger Pigeon, Carolina Parakeet, and Bachman’s Warbler? Some tables would have helped. For example, how was the coverage in terms of field time distributed across the state? Obviously, there was a greater effort expended in say, Loudoun County than in Lee County. To what extent might such discrepancies color the atlas results? For each species it would have been helpful to include a table of the percentage of priority blocks in which it was recorded, preferably broken out by physiographic province. What historical breeders were not detected during the atlas? What species were detected as breeders for the first time? In sum, my enthusiasm for this book 1s tempered by its many shortcomings. It almost raises as many questions as it answers. I am pleased to finally see the maps published somewhere (although I could find no information on how to obtain a copy on the websites of either the VDGIF or VSO), and I did learn some things about Virginia’s breeding birds during the course of my review. But this book is not up to the standards one would expect from an atlas effort by the first-rate birders of Virginia, nor is it one that does justice to the fascinating mix of northern and southern species that breed in the Old Dominion. Personally, I would like to see the species distribution maps posted on a freely-accessible website with some explanation provided for the rarest species detected. The text of such a site should be devoted to explaining exactly what has happened to the original book production, or at least what the plans are to complete it. The time has also come to begin planning for a second effort in Virginia, and it is my sincere hope that the experience of the first atlas will motivate volunteer birders to ensure its successful completion the next time around, rather than sour them toward the idea of participation. Virginia needs a landmark atlas effort to assist in monitoring species in a state on the front lines of urban sprawl, agricultural conversion, invasive 60 BANISTERIA species proliferation, acid deposition, wetland loss, fire Suppression, and sea level rise. Perhaps just as important, Virginians deserve a publication in which they can proudly celebrate their unique and exciting assemblage of breeding birds. Literature Cited American Ornithologists’ Union. 1997. Forty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk 114: 542-552. Andrle, R. F., & J. R. Carroll (eds.). 1988. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 551 pp. Brauning, D. W. (ed.). 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA. 484 pp. Busby, W. H., & J. L. Zimmerman (eds.). 2001. Kansas Breeding Bird Atlas. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS. 466 pp. Gibbons, D. W., J. B. Reid, & R. A. Chapman. 1993. The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T. and A. D. Poyser, Staffordshire, U.K. 520 pp. Link, W. A, & J. R. Sauer. 1998. Estimating population change from count data: application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Ecological Applications 8: 258-268. O’Connell, T., J. Bishop, R. Mulvihill, M. Lanzone, T. Miller, & R. Brooks. 2004. Sampling design for Pennsylvania’s 2nd Breeding Bird Atlas: 2004-2009. Report No. 2004-02, Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, University Park, PA. 104 pp. Petersen, W. R, & W. R. Meservey. 2004. Massachusetts Breeding Bird Atlas. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 400 pp. Reinking, D. L. (ed.). 2004. Oklahoma Breeding Bird Atlas. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 519 pp. Sharrock, J. T. R. 1976. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Great Britain and Ireland. T. and A. D. Poyser, Staffordshire, U.K. 480 pp. Woodward, S. L., & R. L. Hoffman. 1991. The nature NO. 24, 2004 of Virginia. Pp. 23-48 Jn K. Terwilliger (coord.). Virginia’s Endangered Species. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. Timothy J. O’Connell Department of Zoology Oklahoma State University 430 Life Sciences West Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3052 Water Beetles of South Carolina (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Heteroceridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae, and Chelonariidae) by Janet C. Ciegler. 2003. Biota of South Carolina. Volume 3. Clemson University, Clemson, SC. 210 pp. $40.00; order from http://cufan.clemson.edu/olos/ or call (888) 772-2665. This is the third installment in the new series entitled “Biota of South Carolina.” Both of the previous volumes also concerned beetles and were well received (see Hoffman, 2000; Evans, 2001). Janet Ciegler, author of the inaugural volume on ground and wrinkled bark beetles, has produced another authoritative treatment, this time on the water beetles of South Carolina. This fauna comprises a _ heterogeneous grouping of families placed in two suborders. Ciegler treats 14 families, 96 genera, and 374 species; about 90% of the species are confirmed for that state. Terrestrial representatives of predominantly aquatic families are included, but aquatic and semiaquatic members of families that are primarily terrestrial (e.g., the chrysomelid genus Donacia) are not. By comparison, the three aquatic beetle volumes in “The Insects of Virginia” series (Matta, 1974, 1976; Michael & Matta, 1977; the latter date is incorrectly cited as 1988 by Ciegler) treated 95 confirmed and 25 possible species in three families: Haliplidae - 18 confirmed, 6 possible; Hydrophilidae (aquatic species only) — 37 confirmed, 12 possible; Dytiscidae (in part) — 40 confirmed, 7 possible. At least one other hydrophilid, Hydrobiomorpha casta, has since been reported for Virginia (Steiner, 1996; this paper was overlooked by Ciegler who cites North Carolina as its northern range limit). The remainder of Virginia’s aquatic beetles have not been treated in detail. Water Beetles of South Carolina begins with a brief review of important literature on aquatic beetles, a discussion of the physiography of the state (including maps of physiographic regions and counties), and a MISCELLANEA 61 short section on collecting and preservation methods. Dichotomous keys to all families, genera, and species of beetles (adults only) treated in the text are scattered throughout the volume. These are accompanied by numerous useful illustrations (many were borrowed from other publications). Each family treatment includes a_ brief summary of its distinctive morphological characteristics, species diversity in North America and South Carolina, general life history and habits, collecting hints, important literature, and a well-labeled drawing of the ventral aspect. Brief sections are included for each subfamily and tribe, as appropriate. Generic accounts are also brief, and discuss morphology, diversity, and pertinent literature. Most genera are represented by a black and white photograph (dorsal view) of a whole beetle, although many of these seem to be too dark. A black silhouette indicates the actual size of the beetle. The bottom of every page (6 to 182) in the taxonomic chapters includes a 50 mm scale. I think one scale (e.g., on the inside back cover) would have sufficed. The species accounts are arranged alphabetically within each genus. They include the current name and author, original name (and citation, although not all references containing descriptions are cited in the bibliography), synonyms, body size range (length), description (full paragraph), global (usually North American) range, and South Carolina collection localities and dates (months). Most, but not all, species accounts include a brief statement regarding habitats or habits, and note if the species comes to UV light. I would have liked to have seen more information on the natural history of each species. The author clearly identifies which species are likely or possible, but not yet confirmed for South Carolina. She also includes species that are reported but doubtful for the state due to presumed misidentifications. It 1s not clear if she attempted to locate the original specimens that formed the basis of these apparently erroneous reports. However, many of the dubious records are attributed to (personnel and) a publication of the Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia), an institution that is not included in the list of material examined. No new Species are described in this volume, but several undescribed species are included using placeholder numbers after the genus name (e.g., Hydrochus). The volume concludes with a bibliography of more than 200 references, a gazetteer of South Carolina localities (cross-referenced to county and physiographic province), a list of new state records, an extensive (and useful) glossary, and an index of scientific names (at all taxonomic levels) that appear in the text. Until someone treats the remainder of our own aquatic beetle fauna for “The Insects of Virginia” series, I believe this is now the best available reference. Except for some boreal species (and perhaps local endemics), it should include most of Virginia’s fauna. Direct comparison of Matta’s (1976) fascicle on Virginia species of Haliplidae with those in Water Beetles of South Carolina does not reveal any obvious omissions in the former. A similar comparison for Hydrophilidae (excluding terrestrial forms) suggests that Matta (1974) could have listed about 10 more species as hypothetical for Virginia (including H. casta, as noted above). As someone who often collects water beetles but has not spent a proportionate amount of time attempting to identify them, I welcome this volume and highly recommend it to others, whether novices or experts, who are equally intrigued by these insects. For more technical reviews of Water Beetles of South Carolina, | direct readers to Larson (2004) and Steiner (2004). Before closing, I would like to take this opportunity to review the current state of comprehensive guides to the flora and fauna of Virginia. As announced in Banisteria #19, the Flora of Virginia Project was initiated in 2001 with the goal of producing the first modern guide to the entire vascular flora of the state. Completion of this ambitious effort is likely a decade or more away. Progress on the preparation of definitive treatments to all components of Virginia’s vertebrate fauna 1s more advanced. Within the past decade, detailed treatments have covered the fishes (separate books on the freshwater and Chesapeake Bay faunas), reptiles, and mammals (Jenkins & Burkhead, 1994; Mitchell, 1994; Linzey, 1998; Murdy et al., 1997). Unlike the fish and reptile books, that on mammals is primarily an extensive literature summary rather than the result of intensive, statewide field work by the author and it contains shaded range maps for each species rather than detailed dot maps. The definitive treatments on the amphibians and birds of Virginia are both more than a decade past their originally projected publication dates, with no assurance that either will be completed before the end of the current decade. In the interim, Martof et al. (1980) must suffice for the amphibians despite the lack of Virginia-specific information. The status of identification guides and detailed treatments covering the many components of Virginia’s diverse invertebrate fauna can be categorized as dismal, with no obvious improvements on the horizon. For example, unlike many other eastern states (e.g., WV, KY, NY, OH, GA, WI, IL, AR, MO, MA, etc.), there is no published treatment on the crayfishes (or any other crustacean group for that matter) of Virginia, let alone a recent checklist. Likewise, authoritative books or manuals have been published on the freshwater mussels 62 BANISTERIA of a number of other eastern states (e.g., IL, KY, ME, MO, NC, NY, PA, SC, TN), but not Virginia. A few other states also have guides (albeit old ones in some cases) to their freshwater and/or terrestrial snails (e.g., AL, CT, NY, OH, WI). The only comprehensive guide to the spider fauna of an eastern state was prepared many years ago (1948) for Connecticut, but a few other states (e.g., IL, SC, TX) have more recent guides to some of their common species. Kosztarab (1987) reviewed the status of invertebrate studies in Virginia, but no additional identification manuals (except for insects) are evident in his bibliography. The status of guides on the insect fauna of Virginia is only marginally better. The series entitled “The Insects of Virginia” was initiated 35 years ago by Michael Kosztarab and Richard Hoffman (both are now honorary councilors of the Virginia Natural History Society). It consists of 14 numbers to date, 13 of which were published during the first decade (1969-1979) of the series. Only one additional number has appeared in the past quarter century (Hoffman, 1996) and only one other (also by Hoffman) is in_ preparation. Supplemental information has been published for some groups treated in the series, especially several papers by Hoffman on Heteroptera (true bugs) that have appeared in Banisteria. An updated list (lacks keys) of Virginia’s mosquitoes was also published recently (Harrision et al., 2002). Many of the older numbers in “The Insects of Virginia” series included lists of future installments that were “in preparation” but the vast majority of these were never completed, including those on dragonflies, damselflies, caddisflies, long-horned beetles, and syrphid flies. Complete annotated checklists have since appeared for only one of these groups (Roble, 1994); the current issue of Banisteria includes the first half of an annotated checklist of Virginia’s caddisfly fauna, with the second part planned for 2005. Although not formally part of “The Insects of Virginia” series, the tiger beetles of the state (23 species and one subspecies) were covered in detail by Knisley & Schultz (1997). The last comprehensive treatment of the state’s butterfly and skipper fauna was published more than 50 years ago (Clark & Clark, 1951). Much has changed since then regarding our knowledge of many species, including the documentation of numerous new state and county records, the recognition of several sibling species, and significant changes (both declines and increases) in the population status of others. Regions covered by contemporary series comparable in scope to “The Insects of Virginia”, but more extensive in their coverage to date, include those for Florida (arthropods) and Canada/Alaska (insects and arachnids); older, but now largely senescent series treated the insects of Connecticut, Illinois, and Ohio. As noted above, three NO. 24, 2004 volumes on beetles have been published in the new “Biota of South Carolina” series, and the Nebraska species of two beetle families (scarabs and silphids) have also been covered in considerable detail recently. Virginia ranks among the top five states in the country in terms of species diversity for several aquatic insect orders, including Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), and Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), but no state guides exist for any of these components of our fauna. Such guides (some old and at least partly outdated) exist for a number of other eastern states (e.g., Plecoptera - CT, IL; Trichoptera - IL, NY; Ephemeroptera — FL, IL; Odonata [all published since 1989] - FL, IN, MA, OH, WI). There is still no published checklist (historical or recent) of Virginia’s moth fauna, unlike many other eastern states (e.g., FL, KY, ME, MI, NJ, NY, OH, etc.). Likewise, the Orthoptera (grasshoppers, crickets, and relatives) of the state are poorly documented, whereas detailed books exist for other regions (e.g., AL, FL, Canada/Alaska). We even lack guides to our local species for most of the smaller orders of insects, such as Mecoptera (scorpionflies), Neuroptera (lacewings and relatives), and Megaloptera (dobsonflies and relatives), as well as more familiar groups such as bees, wasps, and ants. I don’t have a crystal ball to know how long the dearth of guides to the invertebrate fauna of Virginia will persist, but given reduced funding for faunal surveys and museum collections, and the presence of ever-fewer experts, it seems likely that any improvements will come in painfully slow and small increments. Selected References Clark, A. H., & L. F. Clark. 1951. The butterflies of Virginia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 116: 1-239. Evans, A. V. 2001. Review of: Scarab Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of South Carolina. Banisteria 18: 48-50. Harrison, B. A., P. B. Whitt, S. E. Cope, G.R. Payne, S. E. Rankin, L. J. Bohn, F. M. Stell, & C. J. Neely. 2002. Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) collected near the Great Dismal Swamp: New state records, notes on certain species, and a revised checklist for Virginia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 104: 655-662. Hoffman, R. L. 1996. Seed bugs of Virginia (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). The Insects of Virginia, MISCELLANEA 63 Number 14. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville. 111 pp. Hoffman, R. L. 2000. Review of: Ground Beetles and Wrinkled Bark Beetles of South Carolina. Banisteria 16: 55-58. Jenkins, R. E., & N. M. Burkhead. 1994. The Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 1,080 pp. Knisley, C. B., & T. D. Schultz. 1997. The Biology of Tiger Beetles and a Guide to the Species of the South Atlantic States. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publication Number 5, Martinsville, VA. 210 pp. Kosztarab, M. 1987. Status and needs of invertebrate studies in Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 38: 266- 280. Larson, D. J. 2004. Review of: Water Beetles of South Carolina. Florida Entomologist 87: 250-251. Linzey, D. L. 1998. The Mammals of Virginia. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 459 pp. Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, & J. R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264 pp. Matta, J. F. 1974. The aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Polyphaga). The Insects of Virginia, Number 8. Research Division Bulletin 94, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 44 pp. Matta, J. F. 1976. The Haliplidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga). The Insects of Virginia, Number 10. Research Division Bulletin 109, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 44 pp. Michael, A. G., & J. F. Matta. 1977. The Dytiscidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga) (Subfamilies: Laccophilinae, Colymbetinae, Dytiscinae, Hydaticinae and Cybistrinae). The Insects of Virginia, Number 10. Research Division Bulletin 109, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 44 pp. Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 352 pp. Murdy, E. O., R. S. Birdsong, & J. A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 324 pp. Roble, S. M. 1994. A preliminary checklist of the damselflies of Virginia, with notes on distribution and seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera). Banisteria 4: 3-23. Steiner, W E, Jr. 1996. Hydrobiomorpha casta (Say) in Virginia (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Banisteria 7: 53- 52), Steiner, W E, Jr. 2004. Review of: Water Beetles of South Carolina. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 106: 493-494. Steven M. Roble Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Damselflies of the Northeast by Ed Lam. 2004. Biodiversity Books, Forest Hills, NY. 96 pp. Price $20 plus $2 shipping and handling; order form available at www.northeastdamselflies.com . This recently published field guide to the damselflies of the region that extends from Maine to the Virginias is surely destined to be a classic. It is clearly the best resource available to beginners for the identification of this group of insects, and is also of considerable value to more experienced students. Prior to the appearance of the ground-breaking field guides by Dunkle (1990) and Carpenter (1991), technical works were the only sources of identification for our local damselfly fauna. However, neither of these guides fully covered the species found in Virginia. Damselflies of the Northeast treats all 65 species (and four subspecies) found in the Northeast, accounting for more than half of the North American fauna. Of the 54 species that inhabit Virginia (Roble, 1994; Roble & Stevenson, 1996), all but the southern Lestes vidua are included. This species, known only from one old record in Virginia Beach, is treated by Dunkle (1990). Brief introductory sections discuss damselfly life cycles, anatomy, identification, and collection; these sections also include some excellent line drawings and several photographs. A full page is devoted to each species. These pages feature the extraordinary color paintings of the author, unsurpassed to date. A minimum of 3 (but often 4, rarely 5-6) paintings are 64 BANISTERIA presented for each species, including a dorsal view of the male (with spread wings) and life-like lateral views of both sexes. Additional paintings are included to show multiple color morphs, age differences, or color variation. Details of head patterns, abdominal markings, and terminal appendages are provided, as appropriate. A dorsal silhouette is included for scale. Family and genus accounts precede the species accounts. The latter contain minimal text and are primarily intended to discuss field marks and similar species. They also mention body size, habitat, and flight season, and include a county range map (data from the North American Odonata dot map project). These maps reveal that Virginia, especially the Piedmont region, 1s poorly collected relative to many other states, even for common species. The confusing Lestes disjunctus- forcipatus complex is treated in considerable detail, and the mesostigmal plates of 27 species (and one subspecies) of Enallagma are illustrated. A brief bibliography and index (with both scientific and standardized common names) are included. The author traveled extensively for several field seasons prior to and during the preparation of this book to observe every species firsthand. His travels included several trips to Virginia where he sought six southern species (e.g., Enallagma dubium, E. pallidum, Ischnura prognata, Telebasis byersi), partly with my assistance. Based on this experience, and his objective of making the world of damselflies available to a wider audience (especially birders and butterfly watchers), the author categorized the ease with which each sex of every species can be identified based on the following three criteria: 1) identifiable in the field with binoculars; 2) hand lens required for positive identification; and 3) microscope required for positive identification. A symbol at the top of each page shows the “identification level” for each sex, with the following results: males — criterion 1(80% of species), 2(20%); females — 1(68%), 2(12%), 3(20%). Based on my own experience, I probably would have used lower percentages for the binoculars category and higher ones for the hand lens. In summary, this is an excellent field guide that will make damselfly identification much easier for naturalists of all skill levels. I highly recommend it. Literature Cited Carpenter, V. 1991. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cape Cod. Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, Natural History Series No. 4. 79 pp. Dunkle, S. W. 1990. Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. 148 pp. NO. 24, 2004 Roble, S. M. 1994. A preliminary checklist of the damselflies of Virginia, with notes on distribution and seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera). Banisteria 4: 3-23. Roble, S. M., & D. J. Stevenson. 1996. First records of Telebasis byersi from Virginia, including a new northern range limit. Argia 8(1): 13-14. Steven M. Roble Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 217 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Reports 1. President’s Report It is a new year, and I am now officially Past President. I want everybody to know how much I enjoyed working with the officers and other members of the Society, participating in Bioblitz, and being chided by Steve and Joe to write these reports for Banisteria. | wish our new President well and am sure that under her leadership the Society will have a fruitful New Year. Respectfully submitted, Barbara J. Abraham, President 2. Secretary/Treasurer’s Report We have 161 members, 20 of which are institutions or libraries. These are both new and _ renewed memberships for 2004. Our treasury presently holds $5,375.08 (as of December 31, 2004). As always, we encourage our active members to recruit members for the Society. A membership form is included with this mailing. Pass it on to a friend or colleague interested in the natural history of our state. In a separate mailing you will receive a renewal notice for 2005 and a ballot for election of several officers of the Society. We continue to be grateful to Hampden-Sydney College for support with the paperwork concerning our treasury and membership records. The secretary of Gilmer Hall, Hampden-Sydney College, Beckie Smith, has done a great job of keeping our records of membership, and she has prepared the address labels for all mailings. We thank her for her dedication to these tasks, and we thank the College for supplying this support to the Society. MISCELLANEA 65 Please submit all enquiries about membership in the Society or about past issues of Banisteria to: Dr. Anne Lund, Virginia Natural History Society, Box 62, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943, or email, alund@hsc.edu . Respectfully submitted, Anne Lund, Secretary/Treasurer 3. Editors’ Report The current issue of Banisteria (#24) contains a mixture of articles that illustrate the diversity of topics characteristic of this journal. The lead article by David Johnston illustrates the kind of history of the state’s natural history for which Banisteria was designed. We appreciate his tenacity for digging into this sometimes complex literature. We have a number of papers in review or revision for Banisteria #25; thus. we are again in the rare position of having relatively little concern for production of the next issue. That does not mean, however, that we are not seeking full-length papers or shorter contributions. We especially seek more papers on plants and birds. Please think about Banisteria for those unpublished theses and reports that include valuable natural history information. Contribute to the permanent natural history record for Virginia. The society’s website currently contains the titles of all papers that have been published in Banisteria. With the able assistance of John White, VNHS webmaster, we are planning to add abstracts for all full-length manuscripts published in 2004 and later, as well as downloadable pdf files of selected papers from earlier issues. We will also post color versions of photographs that were printed in Banisteria in black and white due to cost restrictions. Instructions to Authors for Banisteria manuscripts can be viewed on the VNHS _ website (http://fwie. fw. vt.edu/vnhs/). Respectfully submitted, Joe Mitchell and Steve Roble, Co-editors 4. Peer Reviewers We are grateful to the following colleagues for reviewing one or more manuscripts for Banisteria during the past three years. Inclusion of the co-editors indicates that they reviewed manuscripts for other staff editors. We apologize to anyone that we may have inadvertently left off this List. Barb Abraham, John Alderman, Paul Bedell, Scott Bellows, Charles Blem, Art Bogan, Ted Bradley, Alvin Braswell, Kurt Buhlmann, George Byers, Anne Chazal, Fred Coyle, Chris Dietrich, Mike Donahue, Bill Dunson, Carl Ernst, David Etnier, Art Evans, Ollie Flint, Bill Grogan, Carola Haas, Richard Hoffman, Jan Humphreys, John Jensen, Dave Johnston, Clyde Kessler, Barry Knisley, Michael Kosztarab, Harold Marshall, Mike Mengak, Joe Mitchell, Liz Moore, Dick Neves, Stan Nicolay, Jane O’Donnell, John Pagels, David Parshall, Tom Pauley, Harry Pavulaan, Tom Rawinski, Steve Roble, Guenter Schuster, Dale Schweitzer, Jonathan Shaw, Bill Shear, Rowland Shelley, Stanwyn Shetler, Richard Smith, Warren Steiner, Mike Stinson, John Townsend, Deborah Waller, Bryan Watts, Al Wheeler, Tom Wieboldt, Bill Williams, and Chen Young. 5. Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Virginia Natural History Society The following papers were presented at the 11" Annual Joint Meeting of the Virginia Natural History Society and the Natural History & Biodiversity section of the Virginia Academy of Science held on 28 May 2004 at Virginia Commonwealth University. Systematics and life history of pulmonate gastropods in the Virginia Piedmont area (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Pulmonata). C. A. Scott and D. C. Gonsalves-Jackson. Comparison of populations of Leuciscus cephalus in Greece. C. Harview and E.G. Maurakis. Current research on the endangered northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) of Virginia. J. L. Sparks, Jr., C. Thomas, J. F. Pagels, and B. L. Brown. Phylogenetic relationships and biogeography of Cobitis (Biscanestrinia) species in the southern Balkan peninsula. J. B. Haubenstock and E. G. Maurakis. Cephalic skin morphology of tuberculate male Semotilus atromaculatus. W. R. McGuire and E. G. Maurakis. Characterization of freshwater mussel microhabitat in the upper Clinch River, Virginia. B. J. K. Ostby and R. J. Neves. Finding burrows and killing larvae, behaviors of the passalid beetle Odontonainius disjunctis. A. K. King and N. J. Fashing. 66 BANISTERIA Morphological adaptations for precopulatory mate guarding in astigmatic mites. N. J. Fashing. Chemical and physical characteristics of soils occupied by the fungus-growing ant, Trachymyrmex septentrionalis in southeastern Virginia. J. P. Howell and D.A. Waller. The collection and occurrence of Psorophora horrida (Dyar and Knob) in southeastern Virginia. N. A. Grefe and D. A. Waller. Response of the symbiotic gut protozoans of termites to essential oils. D. A. Waller. Biochemical composition of four species of freshwater mussels held at a state hatchery. A. Liberty and R. J. Neves. A status survey of freshwater mussel populations in the upper north fork of the Holston River, Virginia. J. W. Jones and R. J. Neves. Announcements 1. Election Ballot and Dues Renewal Under separate cover, members will receive a ballot for the election of the following officers: Vice-President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Councilor (one position). The dues renewal notice for 2005 will be included in the same mailing. 2. Virginia Natural History Society - Annual Meeting The 12" Annual Joint Meeting of the Virginia Natural History Society and the Natural History & Biodiversity section of the Virginia Academy of Science will be held on 19 May 2005 at James Madison University in Harrisonburg. Potential speakers should consult the VAS web site at http://www.vacadsc1org/ for more information. You must be a member of the Virginia Academy of Science to be eligible to make a presentation. 3. Second Back Bay Symposium The Back Bay Restoration Foundation (www.bbrf.org) is sponsoring a second Back Bay Symposium on 16-17 March 2005. Anyone interested in presenting a paper on a related topic, study, NO. 24, 2004 management of, or other areas of interest, that directly relate to Back Bay Watershed issues, is encouraged to contact Mindy Hauptman at bbrf@infionline.net. The first Symposium was held in November 1990 and resulted in a large proceedings volume. 4. Virginia Society of Ornithology — Annual Meeting The Virginia Society of Ornithology will hold its annual meeting on 6-8 May 2005 in conjunction with the Birds and Blossoms Festival sponsored by the Norfolk Botanical Gardens. Field trips will include local birding hotspots such as the Great Dismal Swamp, Back Bay, and Fisherman’s Island National Wildlife Refuges, and The Nature Conservancy’s Piney Grove Preserve. Saturday afternoon will feature a scientific and general interest paper session. The banquet speaker is Robert Ridgely of the American Bird Conservancy. He is the author of several major books and field guides on Latin American birds. Consult the VSO website for more information (http://www. virginiabirds.net/). 5. Virginia Herpetological Society — Spring Meeting The Virginia Herpetological Society will hold its spring meeting and field survey on 3-5 June 2005 at the Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge. The Heritage Resort Park near Warsaw will serve as the headquarters site for the meeting. Consult the VHS website for more information (http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/vhs/). 6. Virginia BioBlitz - Status of Past and Future Events The results of the first three Virginia BioBlitz events (2002-2004) will be published in a future issue of Banisteria and/or posted on the VNHS website during 2005. As of press time, there are no plans for a BioBlitz event in 2005 due to the lack of a volunteer coordinator/steering committee, funds, and a selected survey site. Consult the VNHS website periodically for possible changes to this status. A BioBlitz event is tentatively scheduled for 23-25 June 2006 along the Potomac River, with field work targeting national park service lands in Virginia and Maryland. The surveys will focus on invertebrates and non-vascular plants. The 2006 BioBlitz coordinators are Stephanie Flack, Potomac Gorge Project Director for The Nature Conservancy of Maryland/D.C. (sflack@tnc.org; 301- 897-8570) and Art Evans (arthurevans@earthlink.net; 804-264-0488). Dr. Evans initiated and coordinated the first two Virginia BioBlitz events. Hp. : G DS, seudd vitor ruber 6 G Cy veene C nly, ( ) UVGlIMA