(DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
TAXONOMY
NAME - BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
OTHER COMMON NAMES - BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS; BLUE, LOTIS;BUTTERFLY, BLUE and LOTUS
ELEMENT CODE -
CATEGORY - Terrestrial Insects
PHYLUM AND SUBPHYLUM - ARTHROPODA,
CLASS AND SUBCLASS - INSECTA,
ORDER AND SUBORDER - LEPIDOPTERA,
FAMILY AND SUBFAMILY - LYCAENIDAE,
GENUS AND SUBGENUS - LYCAEIDES,
SPECIES AND SSP - ARGYROGNOMON, LOTIS
SCIENTIFIC NAME - LYCAEIDES ARGYROGNOMON LOTIS
AUTHORITY -
TAXONOMY REFERENCES -
COMMENTS ON TAXONOMY -
Lotis Blue Butterfly
Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Linter, 1879
KINGDOM: Animal GROUP: Insect
PHYLUM: Arthropoda CLASS: Insecta
ORDER: Lepidoptera FAMILY: Lycaenidae
Lycaeides argyrognomon (Bergstrasser) is circumpolar in its
distribution and was described from the old world. Lycaeides
argyrognomon lotis (Lintner) is one of 11 subspecies described in
North America (02,03). The type locality is Mendocino County, CA
(11).
The subspecies is morphologically distinguished from other
subspecies of the widely distributed species Lycaeides argyrognomon,
by its size, wing color and maculation pattern. The lotis blue
butterfly exhibits one of the largest wingspans of any Nearctic race
of L. argyrognomon. The typical wingspan averages slightly less than
2.5 cm, with a range of about 1.5 to 3.2 cm. The upper surface of the
wing is a deep violet-blue in the male with a crenulate black boarder
and fringe of white scales along the outer wing margin. In the
female, the upper wing surface is brown, sometimes bluish-brown, with
Taxonomy - 1 (DRAFT) - Taxonomy
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
a wavy band of orange across the subtermen of the fore and hind wings.
An inconspicuous black crenulate band and fringe of white (frequently
brownish white) scales lie along the termen. Ventral facies in both
sexes are characterized by a grayish ground color with scattered
black maculations in the distal, subterminal and terminal areas.
Light blue-green scales may be present basally. A wavy band of orange
maculations between two rows of sinuous black maculations borders the
terment of the hindwings (01).
The original description of the species was done by Lintner,
1879. Taxonomic problems consist of: The name lotis was applied to
the Southern California population of Lycaeides melissa for many
years, but was correctly reapplied by Nabokov, 1949. A nomenclaturial
reassignment of names for some European species, based on a decision
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, apparently
gives the specific name idas to the species that Nabakov, 1949,
identified with the widespread one in North America. American usage
does not yet fully reflect this change. This species has also been
known by the scientific name Plebejus argynognomon lotis (10).
Another common name for the subspecies is the lotis blue (12), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for this species confuses
the genus of the host plant with the common name of the insect
spelling it lotus blue butterfly.
Illustrations may be found in (04,05,06). Specimens are lodged
in the California Academy of Sciences, UC Berkeley, and the LA County
Museum. More information on this species can be obtained from: Dr.
Richard A. Arnold, Wellman Hall, Entomology Department, University of
California, Berkley.
Taxonomy - 2 (DRAFT) - Status
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
STATUS
Coded Status
E: Federal Endangered
Non-consumptive recreational
COMMENTS ON STATUS -
U.S. STATUSES AND LAWS:
The lotis blue butterfly (Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis) has been
designated an Endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (50 CFR, Sec. 17.11; P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C.
1531-1540), as amended. The subspecies has this status wherever found
including the State of California. Critical Habitat has not been
designated for this subspecies.
This subspecies is protected by the Lacey Act (P.L. 97-79, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) which makes it unlawful to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any wild animal
(alive or dead including parts, products, eggs, or offspring):
(1) in interstate or foreign commerce if taken, possessed,
transported or sold in violation of any State law or
regulation; or
(2) if taken or possessed in violation of any U.S. law,
treaty, or regulation or in violation of Indian tribal law.
It is also unlawful to possess any wild animal (alive or dead
including parts, products, eggs, and offspring) within the U.S.
territorial or special maritime jurisdiction (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 7) that is taken, possessed, transported, or sold in
violation of any State law or regulation, foreign law, or Indian
tribal law.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCIES:
USFWS -Responsible for the management/recovery, listing, and
law enforcement/protection of this species.
All Federal agencies have responsibility to ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by that agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of Critical Habitat (50 CFR 402),
and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of the species.
STATE STATUSES AND LAWS:
STATE: California
DESIGNATED STATUS: None
INTERNATIONAL STATUSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS:
The lotis blue butterfly is listed as Endangered in the 1986 IUCN
Status - 1 (DRAFT) - Status
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
Red List of Threatened Animals.
ECONOMIC STATUSES:
This species has recreational value to naturalists as a rare
species and has value as a component of California's natural heritage
of biotic diversity.
75/03/20:40 FR 12691/ - Notice of review of status
75/10/14:40 FR 48139/48140 - Proposed listing as Endangered
76/06/01:41 FR 22041/22044 - Listing as Endangered
81/02/27:46 FR 14651/14658 - Five year review
87/07/07:52 FR 25523/25528 - Notice of Review
Status - 2 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS
HABITAT - TERRESTRIAL
INLAND AQUATIC
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTRY TYPES
SAF TYPE STAGE CLOSURE
Sitka spruce-western hemlock shrub--seedling
Sitka spruce-western hemlock young tree
Sitka spruce-western hemlock mature tree
Redwood young tree
Redwood mature tree
LAND USE -
Evergreen Forest Land
Forested Wetland
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY CODES
NWI NWICLS NWIMOD NWISPEC
Palustrine SS3
Palustrine ML
COMMENTS ON HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS -
Historically the lotus blue butterfly has been found in
several coastal localities in wet meadows and sphagnum-willow bogs
(05). Today the species is known only from a sphagnum bog in the
Pygmy Forest, Mendocino County, CA. The bog is surrounded by a
closed-cone pine forest, dominated primarily by bishop pine (Pinus
muricata). It is bisected by a Pacific Gas and Electric Company power
line right-of-way. However, the presence and maintenance of utility
poles is incidential to the species occurrence there and the presence
of such in no way is uniquely associated with the lotis blue
butterfly. Other tree species that occur sporadically in the
overstory include pygmy cypress (Cupressus pygmaea) and grand fir
(Abies grandis). Both of these species are dominant members of the
coastal coniferous forests of WA and OR, but reach the southern limits
of their distribution in Mendocino County (07). Two other species
that are major associates in the Pygmy Forest vegetation are beach
pine (Pinus contorta var. bolanderi) and Ft. Bragg manzanita
(Arctostaphylos nummularia) also grow at this site.
A very dense shrub layer is present at the bog habitat site.
Dominant species in the shrub layer include California huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum), western labrador tea (Ledum glandulosum), sala
(Gaultheria shallon), wax myrtle (Myrica californica), California
rose-bay (Rhododendron macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Other species at
the site include sphagnum, sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), deer fern
(Blechnum spicant), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.).
Plants that may occur at the site that are catorgorized by the
California Native Plant Society as Rare or Endangered include Carex
californicais (a sedge), Campanula californica (bellflower) and
Lilium maritimum (coast lilly).
The vegetation of the Pygmy Forest is dominated by pygmy cypress
and beach pine with an ericaceous understory. The growth of these
trees is stunted because the soils have a shallow hardpan. The soils
do not provide good growing conditions because they are shallow, poor
Habitat Associations - 1 in nutrients, waterlogged in the winter, and very dry in the summer
(01).
Habitat requirements of the lotis blue butterfly are poorly
known. Rice's blue butterfly (L. a. ricei Cross) in northern
California and the Anna blue butterfly (L. a. anna Edwards), use other
Lotus species as their larval food plants (08,09). L. a. ricei is
found in boggy meadows similar to L. a. lotis. Thus, while the larval
food plant of L. a. lotis has not been positively identified,
circumstantial evidence suggests that Lotus formosissimus is the prime
candidate (01). Although most adults were observed in the bog, a few
of the 16 adults seen by Arnold since 1977 were found along California
Highway 1 in association with a small patch of coast trefoil less than
5 meters in diameter.
Soils at the site are formed on Pleistocene beach deposits
belonging to the Noyo series, underlain by graywacke sandstone of the
Franciscan Formation at a depth of about 30 meters. The water level
is usually within 1 to 2 meters of the surface. The bog is poorly
drained, acidic, and contains deep deposits of peat. Standing water
is stained brown by leached tannins (01).
Habitat Associations - 2 (DRAFT) - Food Habits
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
FOOD HABITS
TROPHIC LEVEL -
HERBIVORE
LIFESTAGE FOOD FOOD PART
General Forb Flowers/Fruit/Seed
General Forb Leaves/Stems
Food Habits - 1 (DRAFT) - Environment Associations
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G = General A = Adult
LIM = Limiting RA = Resting Adult
J = Juvenile FA = Feeding Adult
RJ = Resting Juvenile BA = Breeding Adult
FJ = Feeding Juvenile P = Pupae
L = Larvae E = Egg
RL = Resting Larvae
FL = Feeding Larvae
LIFESTAGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATIONS
G Inland Wetlands: Bogs
Environment Associations - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
LIFE HISTORY
FOOD HABITS:
Nothing is known for certain about food habits of the lotis blue
butterfly, as the larval host plant is not confirmed (01).
Rice's blue butterfly (L. a. ricei Cross) in northern
California and the Anna blue butterfly (L. a. anna Edwards) use other
Lotus species as their larval food plants (08,09). L. a. ricei is
found in boggy meadows similar to L. a. lotis. Thus, while the larval
food plant of L. a. lotis has not been positively identified,
circumstantial evidence suggests that Lotus formosissimus is the prime
candidate (01).
HOME RANGE/TERRITORY:
The species is non-territorial. Although most adults were
observed in the bog, a few of the 16 adults seen by Arnold since 1977
were found along California Highway 1 in association with a small
patch of coast trefoil less than 5 meters in diameter. Only a few
specimens of the Lotus were found in the bog itself, but about 10
patches of it grow around the border of the bog. These patches vary
in size from less than 1 meter to 5 meters in diameter (01).
PERIODICITY:
Museum records suggest that the butterfly has a protracted single
generation, with adult flight occurring from mid-April to early July
(01). The species is active (flies) during the day.
MIGRATION PATTERNS:
This species is nonmigratory.
COVER/SHELTER REQUIREMENTS:
Historically the lotis blue butterfly has been found in
several coastal localities in wet meadows and sphagnum-willow bogs
(05). Today the species is known only from a sphagnum bog in the
Pygmy Forest, Mendocino County, CA. The bog is surrounded by a
closed-cone pine forest, dominated primarily by bishop pine (Pinus
muricata).
A very dense shrub layer is present at the bog habitat site.
Dominant species in the shrub layer include California huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum), western labrador tea (Ledum glandulosum), sala
(Gaultheria shallon), wax myrtle (Myrica californica), California
rose-bay (Rhododendron macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Other species at
the site include sphagnum, sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), deer fern
(Blechnum spicant), horsetail (Equisetum sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.).
Plants that may occur at the site that are catorgorized by the
California Native Plant Society as Rare or Endangered include Carex
californicais (a sedge), Campanula californica (bellflower) and
Lilium maritimum (coast lilly).
Adult butterflys have been seen in association with coast trefoil
(Lotus formosissimus), their suspected larval food plant. Deerweed
(Lotus scoparius) occurs on drier ground adjacent to the bog, however,
no adult lotis blue butterflys have been found in association with
Life History - 1 (DRAFT) - Life History
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
this species (01).
REPRODUCTIVE SITE REQUIREMENTS:
A female in oviposition behavior was observed on Lotus
formosissimus (01).
REPRODUCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS:
The flight season of the adult is from mid-April to early July.
Most collection records are from mid-May to mid-June (01). The
species appears to be univoltine (01).
PARENTAL CARE:
No parental care takes place.
POPULATION BIOLOGY:
The lotis blue butterfly is an exceedingly rare species. At
this time, nothing is known about the population biology of the
species other than it is seldom collected and, when observed, occurs
in very low numbers (01).
SPECIES INTERRELATIONSHIPS:
It is thought, from circumstantial evidence, that the larval
food plant is Lotus formosissimus. This, however, has not been proven
by studies (01).
OTHER LIFE HISTORY DESCRIPTORS:
None.
Life History - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human disturbance of populations
Beneficial Developing/maintaining/protecting wetlands
Beneficial Controlling water levels
Beneficial Restricting/regulating human use of habitats
Beneficial Land Acquisition
Beneficial Controlling pollution [thermal, chemical, physical]
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Pesticide Use
Beneficial Controlling/Restricting Herbicide Use
Beneficial Reforestation
Beneficial Controlling/Removing Nonnative Vegetation
Beneficial Stocking captive-reared wild-strain animals
Beneficial Transplanting wild animals
Beneficial Transplanting Wild Eggs/Wild Seeds
Beneficial Restricting Poaching
Adverse Collecting
Existing Collecting
Adverse Food Supply Reduction
Existing Food Supply Reduction
Adverse
Existing
Adverse Low Gene Pool
Existing Low Gene Pool
Adverse Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Existing Rural Residential/Industrial Areas
Adverse Highway/Railroads
Existing Highway/Railroads
Adverse Transmission Lines/Towers
Existing Transmission Lines/Towers
Adverse Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Existing Soil compaction by heavy equipment in mine areas
Adverse Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Existing Draining wetlands, marshes, ponds, lakes
Adverse Strip mining
Existing Strip mining
Adverse Water Level Fluctuation
Existing Water Level Fluctuation
Adverse Flooding
Existing Flooding
Adverse Groundwater drawdown
Existing Groundwater drawdown
Adverse Applying herbicides
Existing Applying herbicides
Adverse Applying pesticides
Existing Applying pesticides
Adverse Vegetation Composition Changes
Existing Vegetation Composition Changes
Adverse Suppressing wildfire
Existing Suppressing wildfire
Adverse Forest Alteration
Management Practices - 1 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
RESULT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
Existing Forest Alteration
Adverse Harvesting
Existing Harvesting
COMMENTS ON MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -
The lotis blue butterfly appears to be a naturally rare insect.
The limited number of specimens in museum collections and personal
observations of lepidopterists preclude an accurate assessment of the
abundance of the lotis blue butterfly prior to its Federal listing as
an Endangered species. Based on discussions with several
lepidopterists who collected or observed the lotis blue butterfly
prior to 1975, it is apparent that even then the species occurred at
very low density. Seven specimens are the most any collector took on
a single day, although another 12 to 15 specimens were observed on
that same day (08).
The reasons this butterfly may have declined are largely
speculative or limited to circumstantial evidence. The species may
have declined because of natural biological factors (high larval
mortality, succession of plant community, etc). Also, climatic
factors or a change in land management practices since the arrival of
European man to California may have affected the butterfly. A drought
during 1976-1977 caused the water table to drop as much as 90 meters
below its normal level. The sphagnum bog habitat dried out and no
specimens of the suspected larval foodplant (coast treefoil - Lotus
formosissimus) were noted within the confines of the bog. Lotis blue
butterflies were not observed that year. Presumably the species has
survived earlier droughts.
Suppression of fire and other practices that caused disturbance
of the forest may affect the distribution and abundance of the
species. The only probable foodplant, which grows in limited
abundance, is Lotus formosissimus. This plant is more abundant along
roadcuts and graded areas. Several small, scattered patches of the
plant occur along forest edges, on drier sites adjacent to the bog,
and in forest clearings. Since 1977, the abundance of Lotus at these
localized patches has declined. The Lotus is a perennial that is a
denizen of locally disturbed areas. As succession of the vegetation
proceeds, this plant decreases in abundance.
Logging of the forest may also decrease the abundance of the
foodplant and the butterfly because of changes in water relationships,
the building of roads and subsequent urbanization (including the
filling of wetlands) of logged areas. Foodplant distribution is not
necessarily the key to the abundance of the lotis blue butterfly
because the butterfly is not present at all of the areas that contain
Lotus.
The lotis blue butterfly is extremely vulnerable to further loss
or alteration of its habitat because of its limited distribution and
small population size. Additional or continued threats to the species
and its habitat include logging, powerline corridor maintenance or
replacement, use or drift of herbicides or insecticides, and
impoundment or drainage of water. At present the site is in a
Management Practices - 2 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
near-natural condition, but its small makes it susceptible to
even a very localized disturbance (01). Collection of any of the
stages of this species may also jepardize the subspecies because of
its low population numbers (01).
APPROVED PLAN:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lotus Blue Butterfly Recovery
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 46 pp.
The interim objectives for the Recovery Plan of the Lotis Blue
Butterfly are:
a) To protect all known populations on habitats of at least
two hectares.
b) To establish three viable self-sustaining populations on sites
of at least two hectares.
c) To determine the population numbers and sizes of secure
habitats to allow declassifying and delisting.
In order to accomplish the interim objectives and formulate
primary objectives, the following recovery activities must be
attained:
1) Preserve and protect populations at all known, new, and
reestablished sites. This can be accomplished by investigating
establishment of agreements with the owners of the habitat and
adjacent lands; conducting vegetation studies to determine ecological
factors and vegetational management needs; controlling pesticide
(insecticides, herbicides, etc.) use; minimizing other incompatible
human activities such as overdraft of the aquifer, fire control
activities (brushing, etc.); developing and revising management
strategies; developing monitoring techniques and annually surveying
habitat; and surveying for additional sites or for sites suitable for
reintroduction. It may be necessary to designate habitat as an
"Environmentally Sensitive Habitat" to increase protection.
2) Establish three new, self-sustaining viable populations on
suitable secure habitats of at least two hectares which will
incorporate measures such as securing habitat, removing exotic
vegetation, rehabilitating habitats, reintroducing host plant species
if necessary (transplanting wild seeds if feasible), and reintroducing
butterflys from wild stock or propagated stock (conduct basic research
first as to the feasibility of using surrogate species, transplanting
wild eggs, etc.).
3) Conduct ecological studies to develop management
recommendations, determine larval and adult host plants, physiological
requirements, demographics, and other biological/ecolgical studies,
and to determine criteria for declassifying and delisting.
4) Develop and implement public information and education
programs.
5) Enforce laws and regulations prohibiting illegal take and
enforce land use plans and ordinances. Revisions to existing
regulations may be necessary to increase protection. New legislation
may also be necessary.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for this species
confuses the genus of the host plant with the common name of the
Management Practices - 3 (DRAFT) - Management Practices
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
insect, spelling it lotus blue butterfly.
Management Practices - 4 (DRAFT) - References
Species BUTTERFLY, BLUE, LOTIS
Species Id ESIS501003
Date 13 MAR 96
References
***** REFERENCES FOR ALL NARRATIVES EXCEPT N-OCCURRENCE *****
01 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lotus Blue Butterfly
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
46 pp.
02 dos Passos, C.F. 1964. A synomic list of the Nearctic
Rhopalocera. Lepid. Soc. Memoir No 1. 145 pp.
03 Downey, J.C. 1975. Genus Plebejus Kluk. In: W.H. Howe (ed). The
butterflies of North America. P. 346. Doubleday and Co., Inc.
Garden City, NY.
04 Nabokov, V. 1949. The Nearctic members of the genus Lycaeides,
Hubner (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae). Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard
Univ. 101:479-541.
05 Tilden, T.W. 1965. Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay region.
Univ. of CA Press.
06 Howe, W.H. (ed). 1975. The butterflies of North America.
Doubleday and Co., Inc. Garden City, NY.
07 Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck. 1968. A California flora. Univ. of CA
Press, Berkeley. 1681 pp.
08 Emmel, J. 1984. Pers. comm. Hemet, CA.
09 Kellner, C. 1984. Pers. comm. Department of Zoology, University
of California, Davis, CA.
10 Sacramento Endangered Species Office. Lotis blue butterfly files.
11 Lintner, A. 1876. 30 th Rept. New York State Mus. Nat. Hist.
169 pp.
12 Sutherland, D.W.S. 1978. Common names of insects and related
organisms (1978 revision). Spec. Publ. 78-1. Entom. Soc. of
Am. College Park, MD.
***** REFERENCES FOR N-OCCURRENCE NARRATIVE ONLY *****
01 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Lotus Blue Butterfly
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
46 pp.
02 Tilden, T.W. 1965. Butterflies of the San Francisco Bay region.
Univ. of CA Press.
03 Sacramento Endangered Species Office. Lotis blue butterfly files.
04 Arnold, R.A. 1978. Survey and status of six Endangered
butterflies in California, 1977. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game,
Nongame Wildl. Invest. Rpt. 95 pp.
05 Arnold, R.A. 1980. Ecological studies of 6 Endangered
butterflies: island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the design
of nature preserves. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Calif., Berkley, CA.
365 pp.
References - 1