identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03BA87B5FFB8FF85FE19FB1BFD8DFDFF.text	03BA87B5FFB8FF85FE19FB1BFD8DFDFF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hesperia hegon (Scudder 1863)	<div><p>Hesperia hegon and H. samoset (Scudder, 1863)</p><p>The familiar “Pepper and Salt Skipper” was originally described as Hesperia hegon (Scudder, 1863, sp. #77) (Fig. 1) from a female specimen. Scudder had also described Hesperia samoset in the same paper (sp. #78) (Fig. 2) from a male specimen. The name hegon thus takes precedence over samoset on the basis of line priority. Neither description was accompanied by illustrations. Scudder (1889) first illustrated H. samoset on plate 10, in Vol. 3 of The Butterflies of the Eastern United States and Canada with Special Reference to New England (Figs. 3, 4). In that work, Scudder gave priority of the name samoset over hegon, likely due to samoset being the male specimen (Fig. 3). The female is shown in Fig. 4, below. Scudder appears to have mistakenly reversed the sexes on his plate. Specimen No. 1 of plate 10 (Fig. 4) is indicated as a female, yet has the characteristic wing shape and thin abdomen of the male. Conversely, specimen No. 3 of plate 10 (Fig. 3) is indicated as a male, yet has the characteristic wing shape and thicker abdomen of the female. The hegon holotype is indicated in Fig. 5. A typical male from near the TL is indicated in Fig. 6.</p><p>Interestingly the original descriptions of both hegon and samoset indicate a dorsal and ventral ground color of “dark brown”. The specimen illustrated in Fig. 3 and imaged in Fig. 5, reflect this description. This was confirmed by examining a series of hegon in the topotypical region of northern New England, from specimens in the NMNH collection and specimens in the collections of the present authors. Scudder (1889) gave a more detailed description of the adults, again stating: “Wings above rich dark brown” and “Beneath of the same brown as above”, while not mentioning any greyish or greenish scaling on the ventral hindwings which has been a popular description of hegon ’s ventral appearance. While the other described wing characters (spots, fringes, etc.) can apply to most individuals of all populations comprising the hegon complex, ventral ground color stands as the most definitive character, though there is considerable variation with the grey “peppering”. Genomic analysis of specimens in the topotypical region of northern New Hampshire establishes a baseline against which to compare additional populations from across eastern North America.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFB8FF85FE19FB1BFD8DFDFF	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFBFFF87FDEFFD58FD7FFDC7.text	03BA87B5FFBFFF87FDEFFD58FD7FFDC7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hesperia nemoris (W. H. Edwards 1864)	<div><p>Hesperia nemoris (W. H. Edwards, 1864)</p><p>W. H. Edwards (1864) subsequently described Hesperia nemoris (Fig. 7):</p><p>In his description of nemoris, Edwards indicates a ventral ground color of “greenish grey”. No life history notes were given. An illustration of nemoris was later published in Edwards (1865) (Fig. 8). The difference when compared to the original illustrations of hegon and samoset indicates a more complete ventral postmedian band of light spots in nemoris . However, the primary difference is that nemoris appears to have a denser covering of light scales on the ventral hindwing, giving specimens a grayer appearance (Fig. 9). As in the earlier descriptions of hegon and samoset, the other described wing characters (spots, fringes, etc.) can apply to most individuals of the hegon complex due to considerable variation. By comparison with the original descriptions of hegon and samoset, the ventral ground color of nemoris, as originally described by Edwards, provides a readily observable baseline character. Research with further access to larger series is suggested to better differentiate the two phenotypes.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFBFFF87FDEFFD58FD7FFDC7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFBCFF87FD70FB86FAB7F8CB.text	03BA87B5FFBCFF87FD70FB86FAB7F8CB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pyrgus argina Plotz 1884	<div><p>Pyrgus argina Plötz, 1884</p><p>Plötz (1884) subsequently described Pyrgus Argina (Fig. 10):</p><p>An approximate translation: “Upperside black-brown. Forewings only with the typical [for Pyrgus] white spots: the one in the discal cell is split, the one in Cell 1 is divided and grey, in Cell 5 a horizontal streak. Hindwings with five gray dots in the arc past the middle. Underside grey with brown veins: Forewings with the white spots as above, on the posterior half brown, hindwings with eight white dots in the ¾ circle and one in the middle.” The description is rather general and could apply to any population of the hegon complex. TL is erroneously given as “Brisbane”. Genomic analysis of a specimen collected in 1887, shortly after the description of P. argina and resembling a drawing of P. argina (see p. 21) revealed it to be A. hegon by the Z chromosome.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFBCFF87FD70FB86FAB7F8CB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFBDFF8AFE41FF60FD23F8DC.text	03BA87B5FFBDFF8AFE41FF60FD23F8DC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amblyscirtes hegon (Scudder 1863) IN	<div><p>AMBLYSCIRTES ‘ HEGON ’ IN LITERATURE</p><p>Amblyscirtes hegon has historically been recognized as a single species. The current analysis views previously published life history accounts as broadly applying to a complex of four newly-identified species under the guise of “ hegon ”. The following sampling of literature treatments provides us with a general guide to the life histories of various populations, but cannot be reliably attributed to any of the four species revealed in this study. The butterfly is generally described as uncommon, though occasionally being found in numbers. A review of morphological descriptions, as follows below, focuses on the ventral hindwing ground color, which is the most revealing (though variable) character that we have found, to differentiate the species. All populations of the hegon complex bear similar lightly colored markings set against a dark ground color, especially the highly variable arc of light marks across the ventral hindwing, as well as checkered wing margins. Interestingly, the ventral hindwing is often described as “greenish” or “greenish-gray”, based primarily on the effect of the peppering of pale scales set against the darker ground color. This greenish look is more the result of human perception. The greenish appearance apparently fades in collections (Forbes, 1960), but color analysis reveals a different ventral color relationship, based on collected specimens of varying ages. Interestingly, not one of the published images in the literature, nor in 900 images on inaturalist.org, butterfliesandmoths.org, or butterfliesofamerica.com show the reported “greenish” appearance of the ventral hindwing; just varying degrees of gray peppering on a variable brown background. The reference to “green” in later works might simply be a repeat of earlier works subject to visual misinterpretation (Fernald, 1884; French, 1886; Scudder, 1889). [One of us (Pavulaan) previously worked at a printing company, where a cost-saving “green” print was made by combining yellow with gray. This combination might account for the apparent “green ” look of the underside of the wings, where pale, yellowish scales overlay a grayish ground color.]</p><p>The hegon complex is generally reported to be univoltine throughout its range, flying from March (Gulf Coast region) to July (Canadian Maritimes), but there are curious reports of possible second-generation individuals in August in Connecticut (O’Donnell, et al., 2007), Massachusetts (Stichter, 2015), and North Carolina (Glassberg, 1999; LeGrand &amp; Howard, 2023), and even into September in Missouri (Heitzman &amp; Heitzman, 1987). This requires future investigation and may reveal either an extended univoltine flight of any of the four taxa in the hegon complex into August in some places, or a partial second brood. Essentially, little is known of the hostplant choices of the four species in the hegon complex. Several hosts have been identified for ‘A. hegon’, but most published works simply appear to repeat earlier lists, including some which are certainly in error. More fieldwork is needed here as well. The only images of the larvae we have found are those shown in Allen (1997), Allen, et al. (2005), and Venable (2014).</p><p>William F. Kirby (1871) applied line priority, treating Hesperia hegon as a species over H. samoset . No life history information was given.</p><p>Charles H. Fernald (1884) listed this butterfly as A. samoset . The underside is described as “lighter than above, and heavily overlaid with greenish scales.”</p><p>George H. French (1886) listed this butterfly as A. samoset . The underside is described as “lighter than the upper, overlaid with greenish scales…”</p><p>Samuel H. Scudder (1889), in his discussion of samoset at species rank, gave a rather detailed description of the adults. He describes the ventral color as “uniformly and profusely flecked with very pale greenish yellow scales, giving the wing a greenish gray appearance.” Life history information concerning the broods, immature stages and the host was based on the illustrations of John Abbot: “Nothing is known of the earlier stages but what may be gleaned from Abbot.” However, Calhoun (2019 and pers. corr.) convincingly stated that Abbot’s drawings depicted a well-marked Amblyscirtes alternata, as well as the immature stages and host of alternata: “Scudder…misidentified the butterflies in the DBC and HLHO drawings as the species now recognized as Amblyscirtes hegon .” Calhoun also stated: “While Abbot illustrated A. alternata many times, I found no evidence that he encountered A. hegon . ” Based on this misidentification, Scudder erroneously believed that samoset has two broods in the southern states.</p><p>Scudder identified the host grass in Abbot’s illustration as Sorghastrum avenaceum (Indiangrass), now known as Sorghastrum nutans per the USDA PLANTS Database (https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=SONU2). [ S. nutans should be stricken from the record as a host of A. hegon, since Abbot’s image shows it associated with A. alternata .] Scudder stated: “In the Boisduval MS, it is given as Sorghum secundum .”, now known as Sorghastrum secundum (Lopsided Indiangrass) . However, Abbot’s original drawing of A. alternata depicts this grass accurately, matching the image of Sorghastrum secundum in the USDA PLANTS Database (https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=SOSE5). [Thus, S. secundum should also be stricken from the record as a host of A. hegon .]</p><p>Charles J. Maynard (1891) listed this butterfly as A. samoset . He described the underside as “brown, overwashed with whitish…”</p><p>William J. Holland (1898, 1931 [Revised Edition]) listed this butterfly as A. samoset . He described the underside as “pale gray”.</p><p>William F. Fiske (1901) listed this butterfly as A. samoset .</p><p>Harrison G. Dyar (1902) listed this butterfly as A. samoset, with hegon, nemoris and alternata listed as synonyms.</p><p>John H. Comstock &amp; Anna B. Comstock (1912) listed this butterfly as A. samoset . The ventral surface of the wings is described as “being overlaid with greenish scales.”</p><p>James H. McDunnough (1938) listed this butterfly as A. hegon, with samoset and nemoris listed as synonyms.</p><p>Alexander B. Klots (1951) described the ventral hindwing of A. hegon as “heavily and coarsely dusted with light, greenish gray on a dark background.” He erroneously followed Scudder (1889) in description of the larvae and broods: “One brood in north, supposedly two southward”. The hostplant is given as “grasses”.</p><p>Harrison M. Tietz (1952, 1972) correctly assigned hegon to species rank, and listed samoset and nemoris as synonyms. Sorghum bicolor (as S. vulgare) (Grain Sorghum) is listed under food plants.</p><p>Douglas C. Ferguson (1954) listed hegon as occurring in Nova Scotia, occurring from May 31 to July 2, and being “scarce and local.”</p><p>William H. Evans (1955), citing Scudder (1889) as “first reviser”, treated samoset at species rank, and hegon as a synonym. Line priority of hegon over samoset in the original descriptions (Scudder, 1863) shows this to be an erroneous treatment.</p><p>Bryant Mather &amp; Katherine Mather (1958) list only two records for hegon, both from Tishomingo County in extreme northeast Mississippi. These would most likely actually be nemoris . The specimens of matheri were collected in southwest Mississippi after publication of this work and it’s three supplements.</p><p>William T. M. Forbes (1960) provided a rather enlightening taxonomic account under A. samoset: “The two names [referring to hegon and samoset] were published together, and Scudder later chose samoset, as he then (and now) had a right to do; the use of hegon is based on a blind following of “page priority”. Forbes described the underside: “Below evenly dusted with pale yellow, giving a faint greenish effect when fresh (fading in a collection) …”</p><p>Cyril F. dos Passos (1964) listed samoset at species rank, with hegon, nemoris and argina as synonyms.</p><p>Lucien Harris, Jr. (1972) chose to refer to this as Amblyscirtes samoset . Flight dates in Georgia are April through May, but one July record is listed.</p><p>Roderick R. Irwin &amp; John C. Downey (1973) listed samoset at species rank.</p><p>Auburn E. Brower (1974) correctly assigned hegon to species rank, and listed samoset as synonym.</p><p>Arthur M. Shapiro (1974) describes the flight of hegon as: “One brood, late vi-early vii, northward; partially double-brooded in Finger Lakes, vi.3-vi.20 and vii.22.”</p><p>C. Don MacNeill in William H. Howe (1975) described the ventral hindwing of A. hegon as being “heavily dusted with greenish gray scaling. The listed hostplants Sorghastrum nutans ( = avenaceum) and S. secundum are, no doubt, cited from Scudder and are in error.</p><p>Bryant Mather &amp; Katherine Mather (1976) interestingly changed the Mississippi listing of hegon to samoset . This would most likely actually be nemoris .</p><p>Lee D. Miller &amp; F. Martin Brown (1981) listed hegon at species rank, with samoset, nemoris and argina listed as synonyms.</p><p>Robert M. Pyle (1981) described the ventral side of hegon as “putty gray with understated light spots; greenish cast over HW.”</p><p>Lee D. Miller &amp; F. M. Brown in Ronald W. Hodges (1983) listed hegon at species rank, with samoset, nemoris and argina listed as synonyms.</p><p>Paul A. Opler &amp; George O. Krizek (1984) described the ventral hindwing as: “dusted with light gray-green scales”. The habitat is described as “glades or at the edges of mixed or coniferous forest as well as at the edges of bogs or boggy streams.” The authors correctly state that “ hegon is univoltine throughout its range, but rare, late-emerging adults are occasionally found in late July [northern New York]”. The hostplants are given as Poa pratensis (Kentucky Bluegrass), Sorghastrum nutans and Sorghastrum secundum [both likely in error as host of A. alternata], and Uniola latifolia (Indian Woodoats) [now recognized as Chasmanthium latifolium (Indian Sea Oats)].</p><p>Bryant Mather &amp; Katherine Mather (1985) interestingly changed the Mississippi listing of samoset back to hegon . This would most likely actually be nemoris .</p><p>James A. Scott (1986) described the ventral hindwing as “greenish-gray.” The hostplants are given as Poa pratensis, Sorghastrum nutans and S. secundum [both likely in error as host of A. alternata], and Uniola latifolia [now recognized as Chasmanthium latifolium].</p><p>Ernest M. Shull (1987) described the ventral hindwing of hegon as “heavily dusted with greenish gray…”</p><p>J. Richard Heitzman &amp; Joan E. Heitzman (1987) describe hegon as having “greenish-gray scaling of the wings beneath.” They described the brood sequence in Missouri: “Most specimens have been found in April and May, but there are June, July and September records, indicating at least partial broods during the summer.”</p><p>Paul Klassen, A. Richard Westwood, William B. Preston &amp; W. Brian McKillop (1989) describe the underside of hegon as “dusted with pale gray…The veins on the underside of the hindwings are highlighted with whitish-gray…Most specimens have a greenish-gray hue on the underside of the wings.”</p><p>Paul A. Opler &amp; Vichai Malikul (1992) described the ventral hindwing of hegon as “light gray-green”. The flight period is described as “April-July, rarely early Aug. (1 brood), earliest in the south.”</p><p>Jeffrey Glassberg (1993) described the underside as “yellowish tinged gray-brown ground…”</p><p>Thomas J. Allen (1997) described the underside as “brownish gray”. He describes the habitat preference as: “This skipper prefers wet areas and is found along streams, bogs, low-lying wet meadows, and glades at the edges of mixed or coniferous forests.” He correctly stated that hegon is univoltine throughout its range. The larvae is described as “pale green with 3 dark green dorsal stripes and a pale lateral stripe” and the host is given as Glyceria striata (Fowl Mannagrass) .</p><p>Ross A. Layberry, Peter W. Hall &amp; J. Donald Lafontaine (1998) described A. hegon with the ventral hindwing as “grey, with a slightly greenish tinge that is most noticeable in fresh specimens…”</p><p>Paul A. Opler &amp; Amy B. Wright (1999) described the ventral hindwing of hegon as “light gray-green”.</p><p>Jeffrey Glassberg (1999) described the underside as “olive-tinged gray-brown…” The brood sequence is given as “1 brood + partial second north to Virginia and Missouri-mid April- May, rare partial July-Aug.”</p><p>Mogens C. Nielsen (1999) described the underside of hegon as “grayish green.”</p><p>Jim P. Brock &amp; Kenn Kaufman (2003) describe the ventral hindwing of hegon as “frosted greenish gray”. The brood sequence is described as “late spring (mainly) to summer in south (1-2 broods), early summer in north (1 brood).</p><p>Marc C. Minno, Jerry F. Butler &amp; Donald W. Hall (2005) indicate a single hegon flight in Florida, and suggest the host as “probably” Glyceria striata . The larva is illustrated.</p><p>Jane O’Donnell, Lawrence Gall &amp; David Wagner (2007) describe the underside in Connecticut specimens as “Wings below medium to dark brown with extensive gray frosting and fainter spots.”</p><p>W. Mike Howell &amp; Vitaly Charny (2010) repeat previous host lists, including Poa pratensis and Chasmanthium latifolium . The listed hostplants Sorghastrum nutans ( = avenaceum) and S. secundum originate from Scudder and are certainly in error. The authors indicate a single brood in Alabama, late March to late June.</p><p>John K. Bouseman, James G. Sternburg &amp; James R. Wiker (2010) describe the venter of hegon as “…the anterior half of the forewing is dusted with gray-green scales. Similar scales extend over the entire hindwing.” The authors add Cinna arundinacea (Stout Wood Reed) to the list of hosts.</p><p>Jim Patterson (2011) identified hegon as “A very small dark gray skipper with greenish overtones on the ventral side.”</p><p>Peter W. Hall, Colin D. Jones, Antonia Guidotti &amp; Brad Hubley (2014) described A. hegon with the underside as: “Both wings flecked with greyish-green when fresh, creating the “pepper and salt” effect. With age, the flecking wears away and the wings become more uniform dark brown.”</p><p>Rita Venable (2014) noted, regarding the ventral color of hegon: “…they start out gray and end up dark brown! Their gray scales just wear off with time.” This accurately describes the difficulty observers will have, differentiating the four species described in this work based solely on ventral ground color. The host listed for Tennessee is Chasmanthium latifolium (River Oats, or Indian Woodoats), discussed extensively. Several hosts are repeated from previous authors, one very likely in error: Sorghastrum sp. (Indiangrass), a host of A. alternata . The larva is illustrated. A single brood is noted, flying in April through June.</p><p>Lori Spencer (2014) describes the ventral side of hegon as having “grayish green shading”. Two broods are suggested: April-July.</p><p>Jeffrey Glassberg (2017) described the ventral side as “green-gray, sometimes pink/purple-gray.” Interestingly he notes: “females usually tan [below]”. Here, he describes the broods as “two broods, second is partial, Apr-May, July-Aug.”</p><p>James L. Monroe &amp; David M. Wright (2017) described the ventral side with “extensive gray overscaling…slight greenish sheen when fresh.” The habitat is described as “woodland openings and edges, streamsides” and the host is given as Brachyelytrum erectum (Bearded Shorthusk) .</p><p>Craig Marks (2017) was first to publish a note of two ventral color forms: “I have found two “forms” … of the Pepper and Salt Roadside Skipper in LA.” Marks described the habitat as “heavily wooded loess hills with deep ravines” and also noted “there was a great deal of cane growing, both in the ravines and along the road.” Marks additionally noted: “These skippers were extremely abundant, both on the road basking and taking nectar at wild garlic.” Lastly, it was noted that one out of five seen that day were of the tan variety. The tan variant was illustrated for the first time.</p><p>Craig Marks (2018) further noted the two ventral color forms: “At Sicily Island Hills WMA, I would estimate that one out of five seen were tan colored dorsally [correctly: ventrally] rather than the typical slate gray.” A single brood is reported for Louisiana, in March and April.</p><p>Phillip G. deMaynadier, John Klymko, Ronald G. Butler, W. Herbert Wilson, Jr., and John V. Calhoun (2023) described the ventral side of hegon in Maine and the Canadian Maritime Provinces as: “brown with grayish-green scaling…becoming more dark brown with wear.” They note one annual generation from late-May to mid-July with a flight peak in mid-June, and that the host in that region is unknown.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFBDFF8AFE41FF60FD23F8DC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFA8FF92FD7FFE78FBDBFBC3.text	03BA87B5FFA8FF92FD7FFE78FBDBFBC3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pyrgus argina (Plotz 1884)	<div><p>syn: argina (Plötz, 1884)</p><p>DESCRIPTION AND PHENOTYPIC COMPARISON OF ADULTS</p><p>Color names are given per Color GrabTM and ColblindorTM applications used in the analysis for sake of easy reference. Per Scudder (1863, 1889), this species is recognized primarily by the dark brown color of the ventral hindwings, identified as “Buccaneer” (brown) in the present analysis. The color swatches (Fig. 14) show hegon to have a very slight violet pigment, compared to nemoris, matheri and gelidus . Some individuals vary to gray brown, with a perceived “peppery ” look, making differentiation from nemoris and gelidus problematic. The ventral forewing apex is similarly colored to the hindwing, being slightly darker (“Brown Derby ”). The last area of the forewing that was analyzed was the darkest portion of the base of the forewing (“Bistre” brown). There was no appreciable difference in color here, between the four species.</p><p>The dorsal brown ground color (“Bistre”) differs little from either nemoris ( “Mikado ”) or gelidus (“Very Dark Brown”), but is considerably darker than matheri (“Horses Neck”) (Fig. 14). Scudder (1889) gives detailed description of the dorsal and ventral spot pattern, which are individually variable in extent across all four species in the hegon complex. The colors of the light dorsal spots (“Double Spanish White”) and ventral spots (“Soft Amber”) differ very little from either nemoris, matheri or gelidus (Fig. 14) and are essentially unreliable for differentiating the species. In hegon the ventral hindwing spot pattern tends to be reduced in extent, frequently being absent altogether. Specimens confirmed as hegon from northern New England, the Canadian Maritimes and southern Appalachian Mountains have a high percentage of individuals with unmarked ventral hindwings. Other features in the descriptions of hegon and samoset (Scudder, 1863, 1889) similarly apply to nemoris, matheri and gelidus and pose identification challenges to observers.</p><p>Scudder (1889) provided measurements of the forewings in millimeters. Males (n=3) ranged 11.6–12.2 mm and averaged 12.2 mm. The present analysis of forewing length measured males (n=17) ranging 10.0-13.0 mm, and averaging 11.6 mm. Scudder measured female (n=3) forewings, ranging 11.5-12.5 mm, and averaging 12.1 mm. The present analysis measured females (n=7) ranging 12.0-13.0 mm, and averaging 12.4 mm. All sexes averaged together (Fig. 16) shows hegon adults having forewing length ranging 10-13 mm, and averaging 11.9 mm. Wingspan of males was measured at 20-25 mm (n=17), averaging 22.8 mm, and females (n=7) measured at 24- 26 mm, averaging 24.9 mm. All sexes averaged together (Fig. 16) show hegon adults having a wingspan of 20-26 mm, averaging 23.4 mm; showing hegon to have the largest and smallest individuals of the four species. Specimens from the northeastern portion of the species’ range averaged slightly smaller, whereas specimens from the southern Appalachian Mountains averaged slightly larger. The measurements show that hegon and nemoris have similar forewing length and wingspan, whereas matheri and gelidus were both larger (Fig. 16). A larger sample would be necessary to better define size differences between the two regions.</p><p>Of interest to us was the difference in the angle of the subapical spot row from the leading edge of the forewing (Fig. 16), showing little difference between hegon and nemoris . Both matheri and gelidus showed the alignment of the apical spots to have a sharper average angle. While the measured angle varied greatly, hegon, nemoris and to a lesser degree, gelidus ranged closer to a 90° angle than matheri, which showed the apical spot row to sit at a sharper angle from the leading edge of the forewing.</p><p>Differences in male genitalia between species are slight and difficult to assess due to individual variation. Typically, a combination of two characters would distinguish the species. First is the extent of development of the broad tooth on the inner surface of harpe, best seen in posterior view (Fig. 17, note green arrow on panel b) and dorsal view (Fig. 16b, d, f, h). Second is the shape of valva and harpe in lateral view (Fig. 16). In A. hegon, the tooth is larger and more robust (Fig. 17d), similar to A. nemoris stat. rest., but different from both of the two new species, in which the tooth is shallower and does not protrude much between the valvae. In A. hegon, the valva tends to broaden somewhat from the base to harpe, with its dorsal and ventral margins at an angle (in lateral view). This broadening is not only due to expansion of the ampulla region on costa, but also because harpe ventral margin is more convex near the base and somewhat expanded ventrad (Fig. 16g). This valva shape is quite similar in A. gelidus, from which it can be distinguished by a more robust tooth on the inner surface of valva.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFA8FF92FD7FFE78FBDBFBC3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFADFF98FEA3FF58FC2EFE66.text	03BA87B5FFADFF98FEA3FF58FC2EFE66.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amblyscirtes nemoris (W. H. Edwards 1864)	<div><p>Amblyscirtes nemoris (W. H. Edwards, 1864) - reinstated status</p><p>DESCRIPTION AND PHENOTYPIC COMPARISON OF ADULTS</p><p>Genomic analysis of the holotype of Hesperia nemoris revealed that nemoris, long considered a synonym of hegon, is, in fact, a species distinct from hegon .</p><p>Per W. H. Edwards (1864), this species is characterized by a “greenish gray” venter. Color analysis shows no green background pigment, rather a brown color (“Pine Cone”) that differs only slightly from hegon, but differs appreciably from both the tan-brown venter of matheri and grayish venter of gelidus (Fig. 14). The “greenish” appearance is certainly due to the visual effect of light scales “peppered” over the brown ground color. Though there is considerable character overlap with hegon, making identification to species challenging, nemoris generally has more of the light ventral peppering of light scales (Fig. 9), whereas hegon is primarily brown-ventered with less of the light peppering of nemoris . The ventral forewing apex is similarly colored to the hindwing, being slightly darker (“Metallic Bronze”). The last area of the forewing that was analyzed was the darkest portion of the base of the forewing (“ Morocco Brown”). There was no appreciable difference in color here, between the four species.</p><p>The dorsal brown ground color (“Bistre”) differs little from either hegon (also “Bistre”) or gelidus (“Very Dark Brown”), but is considerably darker than matheri (“Horses Neck”) (Fig. 13). W. H. Edwards (1864) gives a detailed description of the dorsal and ventral spot pattern, which are individually variable in extent across all four species in the hegon complex. The colors of the light dorsal spots (“Tahuna Sands”) and ventral spots (“Soft Amber”) differ very little from either hegon, matheri or gelidus (Fig. 14) and are essentially unreliable for differentiating the species. In nemoris the ventral hindwing spot pattern tends to be well-developed, similar to both matheri and gelidus, but dissimilar to hegon which has a tendency for a reduced or absent spot pattern. Other features in the description of nemoris (W. H. Edwards, 1864) similarly apply to hegon, matheri and gelidus and pose identification challenges to observers.</p><p>The present analysis measured the length of the forewing of the males (n=13), ranging 11.0-13.0 mm, and averaging 11.6 mm. The measurement of females (n=4) was consistently 12.0 mm, averaging 12.0 mm. All sexes averaged together (n=17) show nemoris adults having forewings measuring 11.8 mm and ranging 11-13 mm (Fig. 16). W. H. Edwards (1864) provided a single measurement for the male wingspan, expanding 1” (25.5 cm). In the present study, wingspan of the males was measured at 22-24 mm (n=13), averaging 22.6 mm, with females (n=4) measuring 23-24 mm and averaging 23.5 mm. All sexes averaged together (n=17) show nemoris adults having a wingspan measuring 22.8 mm and ranging 22-24 mm (Fig. 16). The measurements show that nemoris and hegon have similar forewing length and wingspan, whereas matheri and gelidus were both larger (Fig. 16).</p><p>The difference in the angle of the subapical spot row from the leading edge of the forewing (Figs. 15 &amp; 16), shows little difference between nemoris and hegon . Both matheri and gelidus showed the alignment of the apical spots to have a sharper average angle. While the measured angle varied greatly, nemoris, hegon and to a lesser degree gelidus ranged closer to a 90° angle than matheri, which showed the apical spot row to sit at a sharper angle from the leading edge of the forewing.</p><p>In male genitalia of A. nemoris, the tooth on the inner surface of harpe is larger and more robust (Figs. 17c, d, 16d), similar to A. hegon (Figs. 17f, 16h), but different from both of the two new species, in which the tooth is shallower and does not protrude much between the valvae. Amblyscirtes nemoris differs from A. hegon by the valva with more or less parallel dorsal and ventral margins in lateral view and the base of harpe along ventral margin is straighter and less convex (or curved) (Fig. 16g).</p><p>SPECIMENS OF A. NEMORIS EXAMINED IN PRESENT STUDY:</p><p>Neotype: Ohio: Vinton Co., 3 miles east of Zaleski (leg. Harry K. Clench), 10 May 1970 (Fig. 9).</p><p>Arkansas: Faulkner Co., Wooly Hollow State Park (leg. Ricky Patterson), 26 April 2022 (1 ♂ RLP #22100/NVG-21113H02, 3 ♀ RLP #22103/NVG-22054H01, RLP #22105/NVG-22054H03, RLP #22106/NVG-22054H04) , 8 May 2022.</p><p>Louisiana: Catahoula Parish, J. C. ‘ Sonny’ Gilbert WMA (leg. Ricky Patterson), 21 March 2022 (1♀), 25 March 2022 (1 ♂), (leg. Jeff Slotten), 23-Mar-2018 (2 ♀ NVG-19047E12 &amp; 19047F02)</p><p>Mississippi: Tishomingo Co., 5 miles west of Belmont (leg. Ricky Patterson), 16 April 1994 (2 ♀)</p><p>Mississippi: Tishomingo Co., Mt. Woodall (leg. Ricky Patterson) , 4 April 1992 (2 ♂), 18 April 1993 (3 ♂, 1 ♀), 16 April 1994 (1 ♂, 2 ♀), 4 April 2000 (1 ♂, 1 ♀)</p><p>Missouri: St. Francois Co., Bonne Terre (leg. Harry Pavulaan), 24 April 1988</p><p>North Carolina: Clay Co., Buck Creek @ Hwy. 164 (leg. Ricky Patterson), 17 May 2007 (1 Specimen - genetic analysis NVG-21109C09 per tree) .</p><p>North Carolina: Haywood Co., Maggie Valley (leg. Harry Pavulaan), 10 May 2009</p><p>Texas: Smith Co., Tyler State Park (leg. June and Floyd Preston), 15 March 1986 (via Texas A &amp; M collection)</p><p>HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION</p><p>A. nemoris flies in early spring (mid-March through mid-May). Early and late dates are 21 March to 10 May. In Louisiana and Mississippi, it is found in late-March to late-April; in Arkansas it flies from late-April to mid-May based on confirmed specimens.</p><p>The confirmed range of this species is from east Texas to Ohio (the Type Locality), Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi to North Carolina. This species like the others is also found in wooded areas, along gravel roads and small openings in wooded areas (hardwoods primarily), nectaring on blackberry blooms, wild garlic, clover, and various spring flowers. In Louisiana at the J. C. ‘Sonny’ Gilbert WMA this species flies sympatrically with Amblyscirtes matheri, and in Arkansas at Woolly Hollow State Park and in North Carolina at Buck Creek/Hwy 164 in Macon County, Amblyscirtes nemoris flies sympatrically with Amblyscirtes hegon . Amblyscirtes nemoris seems to have a more east central United States distribution, but extremes range from east Texas, thence east through Louisiana and Mississippi, and on to southwest North Carolina. It goes north to Ohio (the Type Locality), the northern most record we have.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFADFF98FEA3FF58FC2EFE66	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFA3FF9DFEE3FD88FEECF8AC.text	03BA87B5FFA3FF9DFEE3FD88FEECF8AC.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amblyscirtes matheri Patterson, Pavulaan and Grishin - 2023	<div><p>Amblyscirtes matheri Patterson, Pavulaan and Grishin - new species</p><p>ZooBank registration: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 7809EA3B-C188-428A-91BE-9778BAE52327</p><p>DESCRIPTION AND PHENOTYPIC COMPARISON OF ADULTS</p><p>New species A. matheri differs from hegon, nemoris and gelidus primarily by the distinct tan-brown (“Sorrell Brown”) ground color of the ventral hindwing surfaces. Wing marks differ little between the four species.</p><p>Size. Adults of A. matheri are generally of similar size to nominotypical hegon and nemoris, though very slightly larger (Fig. 16). The length of the male forewings of the examined matheri (n=28) series ranges 11-14 mm, averaging 12.4 mm. Male wingspan of A. matheri [maximum wing spread] is measured at 22-25 mm, averaging 24 mm. Female A. matheri have more rounded wings than males, with forewing length ranging 12-14 mm (n=31), averaging 12.4 mm. Female A. matheri have a wingspan ranging 23-28 mm, averaging 25.7 mm. All adults analyzed in the study had a forewing length of 11-14 mm, averaging 12.4 mm (n=59) with a wingspan of 22-25 mm, averaging 24 mm.</p><p>Dorsal ground color. The dorsal ground color of A. matheri males and females is a uniform (“Horses Neck”) brown. Applying the Color GrabTM and ColblindorTM applications, males and females of A. matheri averaged a red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 107, 77, 44, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 31, 58, 41 (Fig. 14). The dorsal ground color is a lighter brown than in hegon, nemoris and gelidus .</p><p>Dorsal pattern and color of markings. The dorsal wing marking pattern of A. matheri is similar to hegon, nemoris and gelidus . The markings are a light tan ( “Yuma ”) and do not differ appreciably from hegon, nemoris and gelidus . The three apical spots near the FW apex of matheri are at a sharper angle from the leading edge of the forewing than in hegon, nemoris and gelidus, though there is considerable variation and overlap between the four species in this complex (Fig. 16).</p><p>Ventral ground colors. New species A. matheri differs from A. hegon, nemoris and gelidus primarily by the distinct tan-brown (“Sorrell Brown”) ground color of the ventral hindwing surfaces, as opposed to the ventral brown (“Buccaneer”) of hegon, the dark brown (“Pine Cone”) of nemoris, and the brown/gray (“Schooner”) of gelidus . Color analysis revealed an averaged red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 149, 124, 96, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 31, 35, 58 (Fig. 14). In matheri the “peppering” of light scales on the ventral side of the wings is absent. This peppering is present in nemoris and gelidus, and variably present in hegon, and causes the perception of the “greenish” color of the ventral hindwings.</p><p>The apical area of the ventral forewings of matheri approximated the color of the ventral hindwings closely, averaging red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 144, 116, 86, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 31, 40, 56 (Fig. 14). Additional color measurements were made for the ventral postbasal area of the forewings, primarily within cell CuA 2 which is the darkest portion of the ventral side of the wings. In matheri, this area averaged a red/green/blue RGB color code of 76, 50, 28 and a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 27, 63, 29 (Fig. 14) and did not differ appreciably from hegon, nemoris and gelidus .</p><p>Ventral pattern and color of markings. Ventrally, the spot pattern of matheri is well-developed and is similar to hegon, nemoris and gelidus, though the ventral pattern of hegon is variable and frequently absent altogether. The markings are a light tan ( “Yuma ”) and do not differ appreciably from hegon, nemoris and gelidus (Fig. 14).</p><p>Male genitalia. The tooth on the inner surface of harpe is shallower and does not protrude as strongly between the valvae (Figs. 17a, b, 16b), in contrast to larger and more robust tooth in both A. hegon (Figs. 17f, 16h) and A. nemoris (Figs. 17c, d, 16d). Valva with somewhat expanded ampulla that overlays the harpe, and a result, broadening somewhat from the base to harpe along its costa, but not along the ventral margin (Fig. 16a), where harpe is not more expanded at the base as in A. hegon (Fig. 16g) and A. gelidus (Fig. 16e). Harpe is usually straighter at the distal margin.</p><p>TYPES</p><p>Holotype:</p><p>USA: Mississippi: Warren Co., Vicksburg, (leg. Ricky Patterson), 3 April 1988 (Fig. 19), (♂). Deposited in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.</p><p>Allotype:</p><p>Mississippi: Warren Co., Vicksburg, (leg. Ricky Patterson), 3 April 1988 (♀).</p><p>Paratypes:</p><p>Alabama: Jackson Co., Hollytree (leg. Howard Grisham), 3 May 2014 (1 ♂), 28 April 2020 (1 ♂) .</p><p>Louisiana: Catahoula Parish, J. C. ‘Sonny’ Gilbert WMA (leg. Craig Marks), 10 March 2012</p><p>(3 ♂ - none of these are on genomic analysis chart). 1 ♂ NVG-19047F01 (leg. Jeff Slotten), 3 March 2018</p><p>Louisiana: Catahoula Parish, J. C. ‘Sonny’ Gilbert WMA (leg. Ricky Patterson), 21 March 2022</p><p>(4 ♂, including NVG-21113F02, 1 ♀), 25 March 2022 (5 ♂ 1 ♀), 7 March 2023 (8 ♂ 2 ♀).</p><p>Mississippi: Claiborne Co., Rocky Springs Campground 34 mi. SW of Clinton (leg. Drew Hildebrandt and Maria Plonczynski), 7 April 1991 (1 ♂), 22 April 1989 (1 ♂).</p><p>Mississippi: Grenada Co., T12 N, R3 E, Section 7 SW (leg. Terry Schiefer), 9 April 1987</p><p>(1♂) (via MEM collection)</p><p>Mississippi: Holmes Co., Holmes County State Park (leg. Drew Hildebrandt and Maria</p><p>Plonczynski), 9 April 1988 (3 ♂)</p><p>Mississippi: Leflore Co., CR 518 north of Greenwood (leg. Leroy Koehn), 2-24 April, 1994 (4 ♂</p><p>3 ♀).</p><p>Mississippi: Warren Co., Vicksburg, (leg. Ricky Patterson), 3 April 1988 (7 ♂ 9 ♀), 4 April 1988</p><p>(1 ♂ 1 ♀), 9 April 1988 (1 ♀), 24 March 1992 (6 ♂ 1 ♀), 28 March 1993 (4 ♂ 3 ♀), 18</p><p>April 1993 (1 ♂), 9 May 1993 (1 ♂), 25 March 1994 (1 ♀), 2 April 1995 (1 ♂ 2 ♀), 27</p><p>March 1998 (5 ♂), 27 March 2000 (2 ♂), 17 March 2002 (1♀)</p><p>Mississippi: Warren Co., Vicksburg, (leg. Ricky Patterson), 27 March 1988 (1 ♂), 19/20 April</p><p>1993 (1 ♂ 1 ♀) (via C. H. Grisham collection)</p><p>Mississippi: Winston Co., Tombigbee NF (leg. David Pollock and Terry Schiefer), 22-29 March 1999 (1 ♂) (via MEM collection)</p><p>Mississippi: Yazoo Co., 3 miles E of Satartia (leg. Ricky Patterson), 2 April 2004 (5 ♂ 13 ♀), 9 April 2004 (2 ♂ 5 ♀)</p><p>South Carolina: Fairfield Co., Ridgeway (leg. Harry Pavulaan), 6 May 2007 (1 ♂)</p><p>South Carolina: Laurens Co., Garlington School Road (leg. R. G. Simpson), 20 April 2012 (1 ♂)</p><p>In addition to the known type series, there appear to be recent photographic images of A. matheri (as “ A. hegon ”) on iNaturalist from Catahoula Parish, LA dated March 29, 2020; March 21, 2021; April 3 and 8, 2022.</p><p>Etymology: The species is named in honor of Bryant Mather, lifelong lepidopterist devoted to the study of Mississippi Lepidoptera .</p><p>HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION</p><p>Amblyscirtes matheri flies in early spring (mid-March through mid-April) in Mississippi and Louisiana, early April in NE Alabama, and early April in South Carolina. Early/late dates are:</p><p>3 March (Louisiana) to 9 May (Mississippi).</p><p>The butterfly is found in openings in hardwood forest habitats in hilly areas, particularly in the Loess Bluff Hills that border the Mississippi River alluvial plain. The loess deposits found their origin in the Pleistocene ice age glaciers far to the north in Canada and the northern United States. As the glaciers ground the bedrock into a fine flour-like deposit, the deposit was washed down the Mississippi River and deposited onto the adjacent flood plains. The Loess deposits were then blown by winds onto the bluffs on either side of the river. The loess bluffs trend north-south throughout the state of Mississippi along the Mississippi River delta. This region is dominated by deciduous hardwood and pine forest consisting primarily of various species of Oaks ( Quercus sp.), Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda) and Shortleaf Pine ( Pinus echinada), which comprise approximately two-fifths of the Loess Bluff Hills in Mississippi. The remainder of the area is under cash crops and pasture or hay farms.</p><p>Amblyscirtes matheri seems to be associated with this particular biogeographic region in Mississippi and Louisiana. In northeast Alabama it has been confirmed in wooded, hilly areas that are foothills of the Appalachians, where other more normally mountain species such as Erora laeta have been found. A single South Carolina specimen was collected in the Sandhills region of the eastern part of the state; a habitat in which Loblolly Pines predominate along with an understory of Switch Cane ( Arundinaria tecta). While presently recorded in seven counties in Mississippi, in Louisiana the skipper has only been found in the J. C. “Sonny” Gilbert Wildlife Management Area (formerly the Sicily Island Hills Wildlife Management Area until renamed in 2015), in northeast Catahoula parish, which is in east central Louisiana. The complete range of A. matheri has yet to be determined, but as stated above it is known to range from Louisiana to South Carolina. In Mississippi and Louisiana, only one specimen has been found outside the Loess Bluffs region in Mississippi / Louisiana. Whether this geographical tie to the Loess Bluffs is an artifact of the collected specimens or due to a specialized habitat is not known. The specimens from northeast Alabama are not in Loess Bluff hills, and this terrain is not found in South Carolina either. A review of various collections, websites, and publications have not found any confirmed specimens or photographs of adequate clarity to be determined as A. matheri outside of these four states. The only specimens from the Mississippi River delta flatlands examined were collected just north of Greenwood, very near the Loess Bluff Hills. It remains to be determined whether A. matheri ranges north through the Loess Bluffs region along the Mississippi River alluvial plain, potentially as far as southern Illinois. It would be expected that gaps in distribution between Louisiana and South Carolina will be filled as this species becomes known to collectors and watchers.</p><p>Adults can be found nectaring on flowers, especially white clover, wild garlic (as noted by Craig Marks), fleabane, and occasionally at mud. They are not normally found in the middle of fields or in thickly wooded areas, but along woodland edges and roadsides (especially gravel roads) going through hardwood areas, similar to the habitat of A. hegon and A.nemoris . Craig Marks (2018) describes the hostplants of related ‘ Amblyscirtes hegon ’ (actually nemoris) in Louisiana as: “various types of grasses, including river oats, fowl manna-grass, and Indian grasses.” These grasses should be investigated as potential hosts of A. matheri as well. One author (Patterson) has obtained eggs from a female but was unable to get the emerged larva to feed on any of the grasses offered.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFA3FF9DFEE3FD88FEECF8AC	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
03BA87B5FFA7FFA1FEA7FF4EFE36FCB9.text	03BA87B5FFA7FFA1FEA7FF4EFE36FCB9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Amblyscirtes gelidus Grishin, Patterson, Pavulaan - 2023	<div><p>Amblyscirtes gelidus Grishin, Patterson, Pavulaan - new species</p><p>ZooBank registration: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 24DEA1D8-3831-4D9F-9389-6FE3BAE642AA</p><p>DESCRIPTION AND PHENOTYPIC COMPARISON OF ADULTS</p><p>New species A. gelidus differs from hegon, nemoris and matheri primarily by the distinct brownish-gray (“Schooner”) ventral hindwing. Freshly-emerged individuals display a “frosted” appearance. Wing marks differ little between the four species.</p><p>Size. Adults of A. gelidus are generally of similar size to nominotypical hegon and nemoris, though very slightly larger, and are approximately the same size as matheri (Fig. 16). The length of the adult forewings of the physically examined series (n=6) ranges 11-13 mm, averaging 12.3 mm. Unfortunately, since only a single female specimen was available for examination, measurements are for all adults combined. The wingspan of gelidus is measured at 22-25 mm, averaging 24.1 mm.</p><p>Dorsal ground color. The dorsal ground color of A. gelidus is a uniform (“Very Dark Brown”) with a slight overlay of light scales in many individuals. Applying the Color GrabTM and ColblindorTM applications, males and females of A. gelidus averaged a red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 84, 58, 48, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 16, 42, 32 (Fig. 14). The dorsal ground color is similar to hegon, nemoris and matheri .</p><p>Dorsal pattern and color of markings. The dorsal wing marking pattern of A. gelidus is similar to hegon, nemoris and matheri . The markings are a light tan (“Tahuna Sands”) and do not differ appreciably from hegon and nemoris, but are lighter than matheri . The three apical spots near the FW apex of gelidus are at a slightly sharper angle from the leading edge of the forewing than in hegon and nemoris but greater than matheri, though there is considerable variation and overlap between the four species in this complex (Fig. 16).</p><p>Ventral ground colors. New species A. gelidus differs from A. hegon, nemoris and matheri primarily by the distinct brownish-gray (“Schooner”) ventral hindwing which also displays a peppering of light scales; as opposed to the ventral brown (“Buccaneer”) of hegon, the dark brown (“Pine Cone”) of nemoris, and the tan-brown (“Sorrell Brown”) ground color of matheri . Color analysis revealed an averaged red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 144, 136, 123, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 37, 14, 56 (Fig. 14). A. gelidus has the ventral “peppering” of light scales as seen in nemoris and variably in hegon . This peppering causes the perception of the “greenish” color of the ventral hindwings. Many individuals of this species display a distinct overlay of light wing scales on the inner half of the dorsal forewing surface, and elongated scales on the inner two-thirds of the dorsal hindwing that take on a more distinct appearance of hair.</p><p>The apical area of the ventral forewings of gelidus approximated the brownish-gray color of the ventral hindwings, but is slightly darker, averaging red/green/blue (RGB) color code of 105, 93, 79, with a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 32, 24, 41 (Fig. 14). Additional color measurements were made for the ventral postbasal area of the forewings, primarily within cell CuA 2 which is the darkest portion of the ventral side of the wings. In gelidus, this area averaged a red/green/blue RGB color code of 79, 59, 52 and a hue/saturation/brightness (HSB) color code of 15, 34, 30 (Fig. 14) and did not differ appreciably from hegon, nemoris and matheri .</p><p>Ventral pattern and color of markings. Ventrally, the spot pattern of gelidus is variably developed and is similar to hegon, nemoris and matheri, though the ventral pattern of hegon is variable and frequently absent altogether. The markings are a light tan (“Soft Amber”) and do not differ appreciably from hegon, nemoris and matheri (Fig. 14).</p><p>Male genitalia. The tooth on the inner surface of harpe is shallower and does not protrude as strongly between the valvae (Figs. 17e, 16f), in contrast to larger and more robust tooth in both A. hegon (Figs. 17f, 16h) and A. nemoris (Figs. 17c, d, 16d), but is somewhat more prominent than in A. matheri (Figs. 17a, b, 16b). Valva tends to broaden from the base to harpe, with its dorsal and ventral margins at an angle (in lateral view). This broadening is not only due to expansion of the ampulla region on costa, but also because harpe ventral margin is more convex near the base and somewhat expanded ventrad (Fig. 16e). This valva shape is quite similar in A. hegon, from which it can be distinguished by less robust tooth on the inner surface of valva.</p><p>TYPES</p><p>Holotype:</p><p>USA: Michigan: Van Buren Co., Antwerp Township Section 14, (leg. W. A. Miller), 5 June 1983 (♂). deposited in the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.</p><p>Allotype:</p><p>West Virginia: Pendleton Co., Spruce Knob, Monongahela National Forest (leg. Ricky Patterson), 7 June 2006, (coll. of Ricky Patterson) (♀).</p><p>Paratypes:</p><p>Michigan: Barry Co., Yankee Springs Township, Section 31, (leg. W. A. Miller), 10 June 1983 (1♀) .</p><p>Michigan: Kalamazoo Co., Portage, Gourdneck State Game Area, (leg. W. A. Miller), 17 May 2012 (2♂, 1♀).</p><p>Michigan: Presque Isle Co., Thompson Harbor State Park, (leg. W. A. Miller), 15 June 2014 (1♀).</p><p>Michigan: Van Buren Co., Antwerp Township Section 13, (leg. W. A. Miller), 17 May 1982 (1♂), 5 June 1983 (11♂, 4♀).</p><p>Michigan: Van Buren Co., Antwerp Township Section 14, (leg. W. A. Miller), 5 June 1983 (1♂).</p><p>Michigan: Van Buren Co., Antwerp Township Section 25, (leg. W. A. Miller) , 29 May 1983 (1♂), 13 May 1985 (1♂, 1♀, 1 undet.), 14 May 1985 (5♂, 1♀), 22 May 1985 (1♂, 2♀).</p><p>West Virginia: Pendleton Co., Spruce Knob, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Ricky Patterson), 7 June 2006 (2♂).</p><p>West Virginia: Pocahontas Co., Lake Buffalo Recreation Area, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Susan Olcott), 8 June 2016 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>West Virginia: Pocahontas Co., Little River WMA, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Jane Whitaker), 3 June 2013 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>West Virginia: Pocahontas Co., Little River WMA, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Randall Casto), 19 June 2016 (1♀, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>West Virginia: Pocahontas Co., Thornwood, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Susan Olcott), 4 June 2013 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>West Virginia: Randolph Co., Durbin, Cheat Bridge, (leg. Susan Olcott), 4 June 2013 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>West Virginia: Randolph Co., Spruce Knob Lake, Monongahela National Forest, (leg. Harry Pavulaan), 30 May 2013 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project), 2 June 2017 (1♂, H. Pavulaan collection) .</p><p>West Virginia: Wood Co., Parkersburg, Johnson T. Janes Park (leg. Susan Olcott), 5 June 2014 (1♂, dep. W. V. Butterfly Atlas Project) .</p><p>Etymology: The species name reflects the frosted appearance of freshly emerged individuals.</p><p>HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION</p><p>A. gelidus flies in late spring (mid-May through mid-June in Michigan, early June in West Virginia). Early/late dates of confirmed specimens are: 13 May to 15 June in Michigan and 30 May to 19 June in West Virginia.</p><p>While we have had little experience with this species, it does not seem to be much different in habitat or habits from A. hegon, A. matheri, or A. nemoris, though possibly more adapted to the cold climates of Michigan and highlands of West Virginia. Several West Virginia specimens were captured on and near Spruce Knob, the highest point in West Virginia. They were found on lightly traveled gravel roads in Transition Zone hardwood forested areas. The area is known as the Allegheny Plateau, on which the climate is considerably colder than surrounding lowlands, and likely similar in climate and habitats to Michigan. Nothing is known about the precise habitat of the evaluated Michigan specimens. Nielsen (1999) describes the habitat of A. hegon in Michigan as “small, sunny forest openings, swamp edges and other partially shaded moist areas.” This is similar to the habitat for the other species discussed in this work, and seems reasonable it would apply to this new species.</p><p>The ones from the Spruce Knob area of West Virginia were resting at wet areas on a shaded gravel road, and it can be assumed they nectar at flowers like the other Amblyscirtes discussed in this work.</p><p>The confirmed range of this species consists of Michigan, primarily southwest Michigan, plus one locality in NE Michigan, and in West Virginia, primarily the Spruce Knob area of West Virginia. The photo of A. hegon in ‘ Michigan Butterflies and Skippers’ (Nielsen, 1999) appears to be this new species and states the distribution to be “throughout the Upper Peninsula and scattered counties in the Lower Peninsula.” Since we have not examined any of these specimens that he based these records on, we cannot confirm the distribution of gelidus in Michigan based on Nielsen (1999). We expect that additional states will be added to this disjunct distribution as more specimens are evaluated.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03BA87B5FFA7FFA1FEA7FF4EFE36FCB9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Pavulaan, Harry;Patterson, Ricky;Grishin, Nick V.	Pavulaan, Harry, Patterson, Ricky, Grishin, Nick V. (2023): Reassessment of Amblyscirtes hegon (Hesperiidae) as a complex of four distinct species revealed by genomic analysis. The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 11 (5): 1-39
