■){3

l

BANISTERIA

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA

Number 4

ISSN 1066-0712

1994

B ANISTERI A

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 $15.00 (per calendar year); library subscriptions to Banisteria are
$30.00. 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 inquiries should
be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer; correspondence regarding Banisteria to one of the co-editors. Banisteria is a peer-
reviewed journal.

Editorial staff: Banisteria

Co'editors

Joseph C. Mitchell, Department of Biology,

University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia 23173

Richard L. Hoffman, Virginia Museum of Natural History,

Martinsville, Virginia 24112

Associate Editors
Botany

Thomas F. Wieboldt, Department of Biology,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,

Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

Parasitology

Ralph P. Eckerlin, Natural Sciences Division,

Northern Virginia Community College,

Annandale, Virginia 22003

Paleontology

Robert E. Weems, U.S. Geological Survey,

Mail Stop 928, Reston, Virginia 22092

Production Consultant

Rick Boland, Virginia Museum of Natural History,

Martinsville, Virginia 24112

Banisteria No. 3 was published on 26 April 1994.

Cover: Magnolia virginiana Linnaeus. Original drawing by John Banister, sent to Bishop D. H. Compton in 1689;
figure 90 in folio in Sir Hans Sloane’s MS 4002 in the British Museum. This and other Banister drawings were
provided by Joseph and Nesta Ewan.

B ANISTERI A

A JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE NATURAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA

Number 4, 1994

Table of Contents

A Preliminary Checklist of the Damselflies of Virginia, with Notes on Distribution
and Seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera)

Steven M. Roble . 3

Phenological, Behavioral, and Biological Observations on a Giant Scale, Neosteingelia texana Morrison,
in Blacksburg, Virginia (Homoptera: Coccinea: Margarodidae)

Michael Kosztarab and Elizabeth Watson . 24

An Experimental Investigation of Azalea Host Choice by the Leaf Beetle Pyrrhalta rufosanguinea
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Bruce L. King . 26

Diabrotica cristata, a Seldom-Collected Leaf Beetle, Found on Buffalo Mountain, Floyd County, Virginia
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

A. G. Wheeler, Jr . 28

Eastern Tiger Salamander (A mby stoma tigrinum tigrinum) Rediscovered in York County, Virginia

Joseph C. Mitchell . 30

An Unusually Colored Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) from Giles County, Virginia

Joseph C. Mitchell . 32

Miscellanea

Book Reviews . 34

Obituary . 36

Reports . 38

Announcements . 42

VNHS Officers

President: Michael Kosztarab, VMNH Branch Museum,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060

Vice-president: C. Barry Knisley, Department of Biology,
Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, Virginia 23005

Secretary -Treasurer: Anne C. Lund, Department of Biology,
Hampden-Sydney College, Hampden-Sydney, Virginia 23943

Councilor: Richard J. Neves, Department of Fisheries & Wildlife,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute &. State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0321

Councilor: Thomas J. Rawinski, Division of Natural Heritage,
1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312, Richmond, Virginia 23219

Councilor: Carolyn Wells, Department of Natural Sciences,
Longwood College, Farmville, Virginia 23909

Banisteria, Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

A Preliminary Checklist of the Damselflies of Virginia,
with Notes on Distribution and Seasonality (Odonata: Zygoptera)

Steven M. Roble
Division of Natural Heritage
V irginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
1500 E. Main Street, Suite 312
Richmond, VA 23219

Virginia has a diverse fauna of aquatic insects,
although much additional inventory is needed to fully
catalog this diversity. Species new to science continue to
be discovered in the state (e.g., Kondratieff &. Kirchner,
1994). The aquatic groups treated in the "Insects of
Virginia" series to date are limited to the true bugs and
several families of beetles and flies (Bobb, 1974; Gladney
St Turner, 1969; Matta, 1974, 1976; Michael St Matta,
1977; Pechuman, 1973). Species checklists have been
compiled for the stoneflies (Kondratieff St Voshell, 1979;
Kondratieff St Kirchner, 1987), mayflies (Kondratieff St
Voshell, 1983), caddisflies (Parker St Voshell, 1981), and
dragonflies (Carle, 1978, 1979, 1982) of the state. The
present contribution is the first attempt to publish a
comprehensive list of the damselfly species known from
Virginia. Carle (1988) compiled a checklist of 51 species
which was not published.

Compared to dragonflies, the damselfly fauna of
Virginia has received little attention in the past. Litera¬
ture pertaining in whole or part to the Zygoptera of the
state is very limited. 1 have been unable to find as many
as ten references which discuss this element of the state's
fauna to any degree. Most of the references that I found
are listed in Table 1. The only other paper of note is that
by Kennedy (1977). I did not have an opportunity to
consult the unpublished thesis of Davis (1938) while
preparing this manuscript. However, I reviewed the
catalogs of Calvert (1893), Hagen (1861, 1875), and
Muttkowski (1910), as well as books by Dunkle (1990),
Needham & Heywood (1929), and Walker (1953) for any
mention of Virginia damselfly records. It is important to
note that the "Berkeley Springs, Virginia" locality which
Hagen (1861) listed for seven species (it is the type
locality for several of them) is now part of Morgan
County, West Virginia. Although this change in Vir¬

ginia's boundaries occurred in 1862 (R. L. Hoffman, pers.
comm.), subsequent authors (e.g., Muttkowski, 1910;
Needham & Heywood, 1929) failed to account for it in
their range descriptions for several species. Valid Virginia
records have since been published for all but one ( Isch -
nura prognata ) of these species.

The following annotated checklist of the state's
damselfly fauna should be considered as preliminary. I
have not conducted an exhaustive search of available
collections in preparing this list. In addition to published
records, my sources are primarily limited to the collection
of the United States National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C. (abbreviated as USNM
hereafter) and specimens collected statewide from 1988-
1994 by the zoological staff of the Division of Natural
Heritage (DNH). Only adult damselflies in these two
collections were examined by me. Most USNM speci¬
mens were collected by the sister and brother team of
Bertha P. Currie and Rolla P. Currie during the early part
of this century. The majority of their collections were
made at Great Falls in Fairfax County. Many of these
records were included in Donnelly (1961). At various
times during the past quarter century, Oliver S. Flint, Jr.,
current curator of neuropteroid insects at the USNM, has
collected Odonata in Virginia, making several significant
discoveries in the process. Recent Malaise trap collections
from Clarke and Essex counties were obtained by David
R. Smith during trapping for sawflies.

The DNH reference collection has grown consider¬
ably during the past three years, particularly through my
own efforts, and more recently, those of Christopher S.
Hobson. Rather surprisingly, it contains a greater number
of species from Virginia than does the USNM collection
(Table 1). Surveys by DNH staff have generally empha¬
sized natural ponds and boggy habitats, with less effort

4

BANISTERIA

NO. 4. 1994

directed towards lotic environments and swamps. Man¬
made lakes and ponds, as well as eutrophic natural
habitats, have received little of our attention. Specimens
obtained by DNH staff have been identified using the
following references: Carpenter (1991), Dunkle (1990),
Garman (1927), Johnson & Westfall (1970), Needham &
Heywood (1929), and Walker (1953). I have reconfirmed
all of these determinations during the process of preparing
this paper. Additional sources used in compiling the
present list were a small number of specimens collected
(1948-present) by Richard L. Hoffman, and selected
records of uncommon or rare species provided to DNH by
Frank L. Carle. Table 1 summarizes the records obtained
from most of these sources.

The checklist is arranged alphabetically by species
within each family. Scientific names follow Garrison
(1991), except for the spelling of the specific epithet of
Enallagma daeckii. I retain the original spelling of Calvert
(1903), while acknowledging that the species was named
for a Mr. V. A. E. Daecke, collector of the holotype. 1
also diverge from Garrison (1991) in recognizing Hagen
rather than Selys as the author of Chromagrion condition
(originally described as Erythromma ccmditum), because this
agrees with all other references except Soltesz (1991) that
I have consulted.

I have not attempted to provide a comprehensive
listing of localities for each species nor attempted to
analyze their geographic distribution patterns within the
state. The reader is referred to Hoffman (1969) and
Woodward & Hoffman (1991) for discussions of the
state's physiographic provinces. Seasonality data should
be treated as the minimum duration of the flight period
in Virginia because of the limited number of specimen
records that I have examined. Species indicated by a " + "
apparently have not been previously reported from
Virginia, although they were presumed to occur in the
state on the basis of the range descriptions provided by
Dunkle (1990), Needham & Heywood (1929), and
Walker (1953), or the continental range maps contained
in A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty (1971). Other species
which 1 believe are being reported from Virginia for the
first time are indicated by an

CALOPTERYGIDAE

This family is represented in Virginia by two genera
and seven species. All of these species are associated with
flowing water. Available records indicate that only two of
them are common in the state.

*Calopteryx aequabilis Say 1839

This northern species was not reported from Virginia in
Johnson's (1974) review of the geographic distribution
patterns of the members of this genus. The nearest
localities plotted on his range map are in central Pennsyl¬
vania. Shiffer (1985a) also did not include Virginia
within the known range of C. aequabilis. Howe (1921)
mentioned that an old record from Virginia had been
expunged. Presumably this refers to Hagen's (1875)
discussion of a female specimen of Calopteryx virginica
Drury, which he determined was a synonym of C. macu'
lata (Beauvois) rather than C. aequabilis Say. Carle (1988)
listed five records for this species in Virginia, but I have
not seen these specimens and do not know the counties
in which they were collected. The sites are in the north¬
western part of the state (F. L. Carle, pers. comm.). Both
the DNH and USNM collections lack Virginia records of
this species. The flight period of C. aequabilis is early to
mid-summer (Montgomery, 1947), but no dates are
available to me for Virginia. The preferred habitat is
rocky, spring-fed streams and small rivers (Shiffer, 1985a).

Calopteryx amata Hagen 1889

This northern species was not reported from Virginia by
Johnson (1974), although the USNM has specimens
collected prior to that date. The only published records
for this species in Virginia are two sites included in
Carle's (1989) range map. One of these sites appears to be
in Alleghany or Bath County, the other in Highland
County. 1 have no information on the former site, but am
aware of the following records from Highland County:
Laurel Fork at Route 642, 3 July 1971, O. S. Flint, Jr., 3
males (USNM); Jackson River, 1.6 km N of Mustoe, 23
June 1978, F. L. Carle, 2 males, 1 female (Carle collec¬
tion). The single record listed in Carle (1988) refers to the
latter site. Additional surveys in western Virginia should
yield more locations for this species, because it occurs at
several sites in the mountains of western North Carolina
and eastern West Virginia (Johnson, 1974). The preferred
habitat is cold, shallow, rocky rivers. The species typically
flies during early summer. Virginia flight dates extend at
least from 23 June to 3 July. Beatty & Beatty (1970)
reported possible communal oviposition in C. amata.

* Calopteryx angustipennis (Selys, 1853)

This Appalachian species was not reported from Virginia

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

5

by Johnson (1974) or Tennessen (1979), although Rich¬
ard Hoffman first collected it in Alleghany County in
1951 (material in INHS). Subsequent records indicate
that C. angustipennis is widespread but local in the
western mountains of the state. The records known to me
are from Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Culpeper, Rock¬
bridge, and Russell counties. Capture dates of Virginia
specimens range from 25 May to 10 July. This species
inhabits riffle areas of rocky rivers where sand and gravel
predominate (Tennessen, 1984). It is the only species of
Calopteryx which lacks any trace of brown or black
markings on its wings.

Calopteryx dimidiata Burmeister 1839

Johnson (1973b, 1974) listed Virginia records only from
Fairfax and Powhatan counties. This species is broadly
distributed in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physio¬
graphic regions of North Carolina (Johnson, 1974). More
recent records from Appomattox, Bedford, Brunswick,
Caroline, Culpeper, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Henrico,
and Patrick counties reveal that C. dimidiata has a similar
range in Virginia. The preferred habitat is sandy streams
and small rivers. The flight period in Virginia extends
from at least 18 May to 9 August. In North Carolina, it
continues until early October (Paulson & Jenner, 1971).

Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois, 1805)

This very common species, which is easily recognized by
its completely black wings (females have white stigmas),
has been known from Virginia for more than a century
(Hagen, 1875). Although subsequently recorded from
only four counties by Johnson (1974), it probably occurs
in every county of the state because it is found from very
small streams (preferred habitat) to medium-sized rivers. I
am aware of at least 20 additional counties in Virginia
where C. maculata has been documented, including
Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula. Carle
(1988) tallied more than 100 sites in the state for this
species. It has the longest flight period of the genus
(Montgomery, 1947), extending from at least 21 May
through 6 October in Virginia. The breeding behavior of
the species has been studied more extensively than that
of any other North American damselfly (Alcock, 1983;
Forsyth & Montgomerie, 1987; Waage, 1979, 1984; and
numerous references in Bick & Bick, 1980).

Hetaerina americana (Fabricius, 1798)

The ruby-spot has been known from V irginia for nearly a
century (Williamson, 1903), and is much more common
here than the following species. Johnson (1973a) reported
H. americana from twelve counties, all but one (Prince
George) being in the northern or western parts of the
state. Matta (1978) did not include it in his list for
southeastern Virginia, but DNH staff have recently found
it along the Nottoway River on the Greensville-Sussex
County line. Additional new county records (Albemarle,
Augusta, Botetourt, Carroll, Grayson, Page, Rockbridge,
and Rockingham) confirm that it is widespread in the
northern and western regions of the state. This species
has an extended flight period (Montgomery, 1947). In
Virginia, it ranges from at least 31 May to 4 November.
This attractive species is typically found along large
streams and rivers with moderate to fast current. Males
are easily recognized by the presence of a ruby spot near
the base of their clear wings. The head and thorax are
metallic red and the abdomen is metallic green.

Hetaerina titia (Drury, 1773)

This is a southern species which is uncommon in Vir¬
ginia. It has been known from the state for nearly a
century on the basis of specimens collected along the
Clinch River in Tazewell County (Williamson, 1903).
Gloyd (1951) later captured it in Henrico County.
Johnson (1973a) reported only these two Virginia locali¬
ties in his geographic distribution study of this species.
The USNM has more recent specimens from the New
River in Carroll and Grayson counties in southwestern
V irginia. Chris Hobson and I have collected H. titia along
the Nottoway River straddling the Brunswick-Dinwiddie
County line in the southeastern part of the state. Frank
Carle (pers. comm.) has also found this species along the
Nottoway River. Both species of Hetaerina can be found
along the Clinch, New, and Nottoway rivers in Virginia.
The flight period of H. titia in the northern part of its
range is considerably shorter than that of H. americana
(Montgomery, 1947), being restricted to the fall months.
Virginia collection dates known to me range from 18
August to 23 September.

LESTIDAE

This family is represented in Virginia by two genera
and ten species. All of the Lestes species are typically

6

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

associated with standing water, particularly ponds.
A rchilestes also prefers still or slow-moving water, espe¬
cially willow or alder-lined sections of small streams
(Usinger, 1956). The members of this family are com¬
monly referred to as spreadwings, owing to the fact that
their wings are partially spread when at rest, which is
atypical of most damselflies. Only two species appear to
be common in Virginia.

A rchilestes grandis (Rambur, 1842)

Kennedy (1977) published the first Virginia records for
this large species, which has spread eastward across the
continent in the past half century. The first Virginia
specimen was collected in Charlottesville in October,
1947 by Richard Hoffman (Kennedy, 1977; R. L. Hoff¬
man, pers. comm.). The only additional Virginia records
listed by Kennedy were from Fairfax and Montgomery
counties. Carle (1988) listed three sites for the state,
presumably referring to these same records. Chris Hobson
and I recently discovered a population of A. grandis in
Scott County. This species has a fall flight period, the
range of dates of Virginia specimens being 20 August to
14 October (Kennedy, 1977).

+ L estes congener Hagen 1861

This is a small boreal species which approaches the
southern limits of its range in Virginia. The continental
range map prepared by A. F. Beatty and G. H. Beatty
(1971) seems to indicate that L. congener is widespread in
the state, but the scale of their map makes this difficult to
ascertain. With the exception of this map, I am not aware
of any previously published records for this species from
Virginia. Carle (1988) was not aware of any Virginia
records, although Richard Hoffman first collected it in
the state (Alleghany County) in 1952 (material in INHS).
The USNM and DNH collections reveal that it has since
been recorded (all USNM specimens are post-1971) from
the following counties: Augusta, Bath, Caroline, Clarke,
Highland, and Scott. Tarter (1976) listed only two county
records (Preston and Raleigh) for West Virginia. Ten-
nessen (1979) mentioned the capture of a single male in
Alabama, but it has not been reported from the Carolinas
(Huggins & Brigham, 1982). The flight period of this
species is primarily during the fall months (Montgomery,
1948). The collection dates of mature specimens taken in
V irginia range from 1 1 September to 23 October. This
species was common at the Augusta County site on 21

October, suggesting that some individuals may survive
into November. This appears to be the latest emerging
damselfly in Virginia. However, the USNM has a teneral
male from Clarke County that was collected in a Malaise
trap during the period of 15-24 June, indicating that some
individuals emerge in mid-summer. The preferred habitats
of L. congener are small ponds and vernal pools.

Lestes disjunctus Selys 1862

Both of the recognized subspecies inhabit Virginia. The
nominate form has a northern distribution which barely
extends into the state. It is known from Bath, Giles,
Highland, and Prince William counties. I observed this
subspecies in abundance on 6-7 September in the Locust
Springs area of northwestern Highland County. Its flight
period extends from mid-summer into the fall. Virginia
specimens seen by me were collected between 3 July and
12 September. Lestes disjunctus australis Walker 1952 has
a more southern distribution and is widespread in Vir¬
ginia. I collected one male in the Locust Springs area on
19 June, suggesting that the two subspecies may be
syntopic at this site, with the nominate form predominat¬
ing. The flight period of L. d. australis in V irginia is much
longer than that of L. d. disjunctus, extending from early
April (4-15 April Malaise-trapped specimens in USNM)
through at least 5 October. The preferred habitat of both
subspecies is vegetated ponds.

* Lestes dryas Kirby 1890

This metallic green species has a northern distribution,
occurring in Asia and Europe as well as North America
(Walker, 1953). Its range barely extends into Virginia.
Carle (1988) listed one record for the state, but I am not
aware of the county or date of this collection. The nearest
published records are from Bell County, Kentucky
(Resener, 1970); Baltimore, Maryland (Fisher, 1940); and
Mineral and Ritchie counties, West Virginia (Tarter,
1976). The Kentucky county borders Lee County,
Virginia, in the extreme southwestern corner of the state.
L. dryas also occurs in Tennessee (Walker, 1953). The
flight period typically spans the summer months (Don¬
nelly, 1992; Walker, 1953). The preferred habitats are
bogs and small ponds (Donnelly, 1992).

Lestes eurinus Say 1839

This is a large northern species which is near the south-

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

7

ern limit of its range in Virginia. The species was first
reported from the state by Dunkle (1983), although it had
been collected as early as 1974 by Frank Carle. It seems
to prefer mountain ponds in Virginia, including some
that are man-made in origin. The North Carolina popula¬
tion studied by Lutz (1968) inhabited a small impound¬
ment. I am aware of records from the following counties
in Virginia: Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Giles, High¬
land, Prince William, Rockingham, and Scott. L. eurinus
has a relatively short flight period in early summer
(Montgomery, 1948). Virginia collection dates range from
25 May to 2 August, although the majority of the speci¬
mens have been taken in July. This species is easily
distinguished from its congeners in Virginia by its large
size and amber-yellow wings.

Lestes forcipatus Rambur 1842

This species was originally reported from the state more
than a century ago (Calvert, 1890). However, because it
is easily confused with both subspecies of L. disjunctus,
particularly L d. australis, it is possible that these speci¬
mens were misidentified. Walker (1952, 1953) provided
several characters for separating these three taxa. L.
forcipatus seems to be somewhat local in occurrence in
Virginia. Carle (1988) knew of nine sites in the state. The
only USNM records are recent collections from Clarke
County. DNH records are limited to several sites in the
Shenandoah Valley region of Augusta County. This
species flies during the summer and fall months (Mont¬
gomery, 1948). The few Virginia records available to me
range from 25 May to 21 October. 1 found only one
female on the latter date at a site where this species was
abundant on 26 September.

Lestes inaequalis Walsh 1862

This species also seems to be uncommon in Virginia.
Carle (1988) listed only three records for the state. All
USNM specimens were collected in 1914 in Arlington
and Fairfax counties. Donnelly (1961) indicated that he
did not find L. inaequalis in this area during his surveys. I
have found it at several ponds and swamp edges in
Accomack, Caroline, Prince George, and Surry counties.
Other DNH records are from Fairfax and Isle of Wight
counties. All of the above counties are in the Coastal
Plain or extreme eastern edge of the Piedmont, although
the range map prepared by A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty
(1971) indicates a statewide distribution for this species.

The flight period in Virginia extends from at least 2 June
to 25 August. Males are easily identified by the fact that
their inferior appendages are conspicuously longer than
the superior ones.

Lestes rectangularis Say 1839

This species is widespread in Virginia, probably occurring
in every county of the state. It has an exceptionally long
abdomen. The flight period is relatively long, spanning
the summer and fall months (Montgomery, 1948). In
Virginia, it extends from at least 25 May to 30 Septem¬
ber.

*L estes vidua Hagen 1861

This southern species reaches its northern range limit in
Virginia, where it is apparently very rare. The USNM
collection contains a female specimen obtained by
Donald R. Davis, current curator of microlepidoptera, at
an unspecified location in Virginia Beach on 21 Septem¬
ber 1974. The capture site was probably in either Fort
Story or Seashore State Park (D. R. Davis, pers. comm.).
This is the only Virginia record of this species known to
me. Matta (1978) did not find L. vidua in the southeast¬
ern corner of the state. This species is very similar to L.
disjunctus australis (Dunkle, 1990). The eyes and face
(labrum) are purple in L. vidua males but blue in those of
L. d. australis. The preferred habitat is grassy ponds
(including temporary ones), where these two species often
occur syntopically in Florida (Dunkle, 1990).

Lestes vigilax Hagen in Selys 1862

This species seems to be somewhat uncommon in Vir¬
ginia. The USNM contains only older specimens from
the City of Suffolk that were reported by Gloyd (1951),
and very recent material from Prince William County.
Matta (1978) recorded L. vigilax from Sussex County.
Carle (1988) listed only five sites for the state, but DNH
staff have recently found it in abundance at about two
dozen acidic beaver ponds in Caroline County. I have
also encountered this species at ponds and small lakes in
Augusta, Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Giles, Highland, and
Sussex counties, as well as in a swamp that straddles the
Greensville-Sussex county line. The flight period in
Virginia ranges from at least 25 May to 21 October.
Dunkle (1990) indicated that this species prefers acidic
environments.

8

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

COENAGRIONIDAE

This family is represented in Virginia by six genera
and 36 species. The various species utilize a wide variety
of aquatic habitats. Members of the genus Enallagma are
commonly known as bluets, although several of the
species found in Virginia possess little or no blue color¬
ation. This genus accounts for one-third of the total
number of species known from the state.

A mphiagrion saucium (Burmeister, 1839)

This dainty reddish species is rather local in occurrence,
typically being associated with boggy seepage habitats.
Adults fly close to the ground, usually remaining in or
near the shelter of grasses and sedges. Published records
for Virginia are in Gloyd (1951), Donnelly (1961), and
Matta (1978). Carle (1988) tallied 12 Virginia sites.
Richard Hoffman has collected the species in Albemarle,
Alleghany, Bedford, and Dickenson counties. I have
taken it in Grayson, Highland, and Montgomery coun¬
ties. The USNM has specimens from Arlington, Fairfax,
and Highland counties. These records indicate that A.
saucium is widespread (but local) in the state. I have
found it in two seepage headwater streams (both at 4800
feet, or 1463 m) near the base of Mount Rogers, the
state's highest peak (5729 feet or 1746 m). This species
has a relatively long flight period in Virginia, as indicated
by my personal collection dates, which range from 10
May to 1 September. The latter is apparently among the
latest capture dates for A. saucium, as it exceeds published
dates in Carpenter (1991), Donnelly (1961, 1992), Fisher
(1940), Garman (1927), Kormondy (1958), Montgomery
(1944), Paulson & Jenner (1971), Walker (1953), White
& Morse (1973), and White et al. (1983). The only
reference that I have found which reports a later record
is Beatty et al. (1969). Their flight period graph does not
show any September records, but indicates that one to
several individuals of this species have been found in
early October in Pennsylvania.

A rgia apicalis (Say, 1839)

This is a common stream, river and pond-dwelling species
of widespread occurrence in Virginia. It has been known
from the state for more than a century (Calvert, 1893)
and probably occurs in a majority of its counties. The
flight period spans the summer and early fall months
(Montgomery, 1944). In Virginia, it extends from at least

30 May to 23 September. Females exhibit several color
morphs (Dunkie, 1990).

Argia bipunctulata (Hagen, 1861)

This species is very local in occurrence, preferring open
(sunny), boggy seepage habitats (Dunkie, 1990). Its small
size and color pattern are much more similar to several
species of Enallagma than they are to its congeners in the
state. Adults fly close to the ground. Published records for
A. bipunctulata in Virginia apparently are limited to those
of Shiffer (1985b) and Roble & Stevenson (1994),
although the only USNM specimens were collected in
Essex County nearly a century ago (1899). Carle (1988)
was aware of six Virginia sites. Chris Hobson and I have
collected this species at eight sites in Accomack, Caro¬
line, and Scott counties, indicating that it is apparently
widespread (but very local) in Virginia. The elevations of
these sites range from sea level to 2900 feet (884 m).
Several of the populations that we discovered appear to
be quite small, possibly containing fewer than 50 adults.
My personal collection dates range from 8 July to 4
October. The latter date is apparently rather late for this
species because it exceeds published dates in Donnelly
(1961), Dunkie (1990), Paulson & Jenner (1971), Shiffer
(1985b), Soltesz (1991), and White et al. (1983). The
nearest published dates known to me for A. bipunctulata
are in Williamson (1934). He collected this species on 28-
29 September and 3 October in Georgia. The latest
record in the USNM is for a male collected on 29
September in Hyattsville, Maryland.

Argia fumipennis violacea (Hagen, 1861)

This common species is typically associated with flowing
water of some sort, including streams, small rivers, and
pond or lake outlets (e.g., beaver dams). It is widely
distributed in Virginia, ranging from Accomack County
on the Eastern Shore to Lee County in the extreme
southwestern comer, and probably occurs in every county
of the state. It has been known from Virginia for more
than a century (Calvert, 1893). The flight period of this
species spans the summer and early fall months (Mont¬
gomery, 1944). In Virginia, it extends from at least 14
May to 4 October.

Argia moesta (Hagen, 1861)

This common species prefers swift-flowing streams and

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

9

rivers. Adult males typically perch on rocks in mid¬
stream. It has been known from the state for nearly a
century (Williamson, 1903, reported as Argza putrida ) and
is widely distributed. Carle (1988) listed 28 sites. The
flight period spans the summer and early fall months
(Montgomery, 1944). In Virginia, it extends from at least
14 May to 24 September. Females exhibit two color
morphs (brown and blue).

Argza sedula (Hagen, 1861)

This species is typically associated with small to medium-
sized rivers. It has been known from the state for nearly
a century (Williamson, 1903) and is relatively common.
Carle (1988) was aware of 13 sites. Its flight period in
Virginia extends from mid-June to mid-October (Don¬
nelly, 1961).

A rgia tibialis (Rambur, 1842)

This rather common species is typically associated with
small to medium-sized rivers. I have also collected it at a
beaver pond, as well as Lake Drummond in the Dismal
Swamp (also USNM records). Carle (1988) reported 13
sites for this species in Virginia. The flight period spans
the summer and early fall months (Montgomery, 1944).
In Virginia, it extends from at least 30 May into Septem¬
ber (Donnelly, 1961). Females exhibit two color morphs
(brown and blue).

Argia translate Hagen in Selys 1865

This species inhabits ponds, lakes, and slow streams with
shady borders (Walker, 1953). I have also found it along
small to medium-sized rivers, particularly those with
gravelly substrates. Argia translate has been known from
Virginia for nearly a century (Williamson, 1903). It ranges
south into South America (A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty,
1971). This is a common, late-season species in the
vicinity of Washington, D.C. (Donnelly, 1961). Carle
(1988) knew of 15 Virginia sites, but USNM records are
limited to Bath and Fairfax counties. I have collected A.
translate in Augusta, Bath, Page, Rockbridge, and Smyth
counties. It appears to be restricted to the northern and
western counties of Virginia. Matta (1978) did not report
this species from the southeastern portion of the state.
The flight period in Virginia extends from at least 8 July
to 15 September. I found A. translate on 29 July along the
South Fork of the Shenandoah River in Page County in

association with Argia apicalis, A. moesta, A. sedula,
Enallagma exsulans, and Hetaerina americana.

Chromagrion conditum (Hagen, 1876)

This species is widespread but rather local in occurrence,
preferring spring-fed or boggy ponds and streams. Howe
(1921) and Donnelly (1961) reported this species from
Great Falls. Matta (1978) found C. conditum in Sussex
County, and Richard Hoffman has collected it in Alle¬
ghany County. Carle (1988) listed 12 sites for the state.
USNM records are from Clarke, Dickenson, Fairfax,
Floyd, Highland, and Washington counties. DNH records
are from Augusta, Caroline, Lee, and Scott counties. The
blue and black males are easily recognized by the presence
of a bright yellow spot on the side of the thorax. Females
have a similar but paler mark. The flight period of this
species is quite early, extending from at least 25 April to
1 July in Virginia.

Enallagma aspersum (Hagen, 1861)

This species is widespread and relatively common in
V irginia. It has been known from the state for more than
a century (Calvert, 1890). Tim Vogt (pers. comm.)
discovered an enormous population (approximately 3000
adults estimated) on 25 May 1991 at a sinkhole pond in
Augusta County. The flight period in Virginia extends
from late April or early May (29 April-9 May, Malaise-
trapped specimen in USNM) until at least 26 September.
The preferred habitat is ponds.

Enallagma basidens Calvert 1902

This is a Midwestern species which has spread eastward
during the past half century (Cannings, 1989; Dunkle,
1990; Huggins, 1978b). It was first reported from Virginia
by Donnelly (1961) and is now apparently fairly well
established in the state. Carle (1988) listed 12 sites.
Voshell & Simmons (1978) recorded E. basidens at the
Lake Anna reservoir within a year of its creation. USNM
records are limited to recent collections in Shenandoah
County. I have collected this species in Augusta, Gray¬
son, and Prince William counties. The flight period
extends from late spring to early fall (Montgomery, 1942).
Capture dates in Virginia range from at least 5 June to 21
October. Dunkle (1990) stated that females exhibit three
color morphs.

10

BANISTERIA

NO. 4. 1994

Enallagma civile (Hagen, 1861)

This species is widespread and abundant in Virginia,
probably occurring in every county. It has been known
from the state for more than a century (Calvert, 1893). E.
civile has a very extensive range, stretching from southern
Canada to northern South America (Dunkle, 1990). It
inhabits a wide variety of ponds. Daigle (1991) reported
that its presence can be indicative of very low oxygen
levels and possible organic pollution. It has a prolonged
flight period (Montgomery, 1942). Flight dates in Virginia
range from at least 8 May to 2 1 October.

* Enallagma cyathigerum (Charpentier, 1840)

This is a northern circumpolar species which inhabits
North America, Europe, and Asia (Donnelly, 1989;
Montgomery, 1942). It has the widest distribution of any
New World Enallagma (Needham & Heywood, 1929) and
is the type species of the genus. The nominate subspecies
is found in Canada and the northern United States,
barely extending into Virginia. The subspecies E. c.
vemale Gloyd 1943 (synonymized by Donnelly (1989) but
still considered a full species by many odonatologists) may
eventually be found in the state. The flight season of E.
c. cyathigerum is limited to a brief period in early to mid¬
summer (Montgomery, 1942). All Virginia records known
to me are from extreme northwestern Highland County:
George Washington National Forest, Locust Spring
Picnic Area beaver ponds, 3-4 July 1971, O. S. Flint, Jr.,
1 male (USNM); 1 July 1972, C. M. and O. S. Flint, Jr.,
1 male (USNM); 19 June 1992, S. M. Roble, 3 males, 1
female (DNH). Frank Carle (pers. comm.), has also
collected it at this site. The preferred habitat is marshy
ponds.

+ Enallagma daeckii (Calvert 1903)

This elongate southern Coastal Plain species appears to
be uncommon in Virginia. Carle (1988) listed only three
sites for the state and the USNM lacks Virginia speci¬
mens. I have collected it at nine sites in Accomack,
Caroline (mostly), and Prince George counties between
31 May and 12 August. I observed nearly 300 adults at
one site on 8 July. Dunkle (1990) stated that the preferred
habitats in Florida are swamps, shady ponds, and vege¬
tated stream backwaters. Most of my sites are acidic
beaver ponds with limited canopy cover. The nymph was
described fairly recently (Huggins, 1984), but the breeding

behavior remains unknown (Dunkle, 1990). I found
mating pairs of E. daeckii during the late morning and
early afternoon hours on 2, 8, and 28 July, but did not
observe oviposition. The pairs were resting on emergent
or shoreline vegetation, including various grasses, bur-
reed ( Sparganium sp.), and lizard's tail ( Saururus cernuus).

Enallagma divagans Selys 1 87 6

This species is widespread and fairly common in Virginia.
Published records include Donnelly (1961) and Matta
(1978). Carle (1988) was aware of 22 sites, but USNM
records are limited to Great Falls (Fairfax County) and
Lake Drummond in the Dismal Swamp (City of Suffolk).
The only DNH collections (both obtained by Chris
Hobson) are from Caroline and Lee counties. The flight
period is apparently limited to a brief span in early
summer (Montgomery, 1942). Virginia records range from
14 May to 24 June.

Enallagma doubleday i (Selys, 1850)

This species ranges in the coastal states from Massachu¬
setts to Florida and west to Louisiana (Carpenter, 1991;
Dunkle, 1990). It has also been reported from Kentucky
and Ohio (Montgomery, 1967; Resener, 1970). Although
Needham & Heywood (1929) state that this is one of the
most common damselflies in the southern United States,
it appears to have a spotty distribution in Virginia. Carle
(1988) listed 11 sites, but the USNM lacks specimen
records. Matta (1978) failed to find E. doubledayi in the
southeastern portion of the state. The only published
record for Virginia is in Gloyd (1951). She reported that
a male was collected on 15 April in Blacksburg, Mont¬
gomery County. The only DNH specimen is a male that
1 obtained on 9 August in Augusta County. The color
pattern of adult males is very similar to that of E. civile,
but the postocular spots and anal appendages are diagnos¬
tic.

Enallagma dubium Root 1924

This is a southern Coastal Plain species which appears to
be uncommon in Virginia. It ranges from Delaware to
Florida and west to Texas and Oklahoma (Dunkle, 1990).
The burgundy color of the adults is quite unusual for the
genus. The species is somewhat difficult to detect in the
field owing to its phantom-like appearance in flight. E.
dubium was first reported from Virginia by Gloyd (1951),

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFL1ES

11

who found it on 14 September 1934 near the Dismal
Swamp in Nansemond County (now City of Suffolk).
Matta (1978) failed to find this species in southeastern
Virginia. Carle (1988) listed five sites and indicated that
the preferred habitat is cypress swamps. The USNM lacks
Virginia specimens. Chris Hobson and I have recorded E.
dubium at five sites in Caroline County, all of which are
acidic beaver ponds. Our collection dates range from 24
June to 27 September. Dunkle (1990) reported that adults
generally retreat from the water by late afternoon.

Enallagma durum (Hagen, 1861)

This species is a coastal inhabitant, where it can often be
found in abundance in brackish ponds and marshes. It
has been known from Virginia for more than a century
(Calvert, 1893). I am aware of records from Fairfax,
Mathews, and Westmoreland counties, as well as the
cities of Norfolk (Chesapeake), Suffolk, and Virginia
Beach. E. durum is occasionally taken at inland freshwa¬
ter ponds, as evidenced by recent specimens obtained by
Nancy E. Adams of the USNM from Prince William
Forest Park in Prince William County. The flight period
in Virginia extends from at least 17 April to 19 October.

*Enallagma ebrium (Hagen, 1861)

This is a northern species which barely reaches Virginia.
Carle (1988) listed two sites for the state. It has been
collected in Highland County (F. L. Carle, pers. comm.).
I am not aware of any additional records from Virginia.
The nearest published records are from Hickman County,
Kentucky, and Baltimore County, Maryland (Fisher,
1940; Resener, 1970). The species was not listed for West
Virginia by Tarter (1976). The flight period is early to
mid-summer (Montgomery, 1942). I lack specific dates for
Virginia specimens.

Enallagma exsulans (Hagen, 1861)

This species is typically found along rivers, although it
occasionally inhabits shores of lakes and large ponds. It is
widespread in Virginia, where it has been known for
nearly a century (Williamson, 1903). Carle (1988) listed
more than 50 sites. Its flight period extends from late
spring to early fall (Montgomery, 1942). Virginia records
known to me range from 14 May to 23 September.

Enallagma geminatum Kellicott 1895

This species is widespread but somewhat local in occur¬
rence. It typically flies just above the water surface of
ponds, particularly those with abundant stands of water
lily. At a distance, males closely resemble those of
Ischnura kellicotti in size and color. Both species often rest
on water lily leaves. Its flight period extends from spring
to fall (Montgomery, 1942). Capture dates in Virginia
range from 30 April to 19 September.

Enallagma hageni (Walsh, 1863)

This is a northern species of very limited distribution in
the mountains of western Virginia. It was first reported
from the state by Dunkle (1983), although it had been
collected as early as 1951 by Richard Hoffman. Virginia
records are limited to Alleghany, Giles, Highland, and
Washington counties. The flight period in the state
extends from at least 12 June to 12 September. Males are
nearly identical in color pattern to those of E. ebrium and
very similar to those of E. cyathigerum (Walker, 1953).
The anal appendages are diagnostic and can be used to
distinguish all three species. Needham & Heywood
(1929) stated that this is one of the most abundant
damselflies in the northeastern United States and Can¬
ada.

+ Enallagma pallidum Root 1923

This is a southern species that was originally discovered
in Maryland (Root, 1923). It ranges north to Delaware,
south to Florida, and west to Mississippi (Dunkle, 1990),
but has not been previously reported from Virginia. The
typical habitat is swampy lake shores (Dunkle, 1990).
This species most closely resembles E. daeckii. It appears
to be very rare in Virginia. 1 am aware of only one record
for E. pallidum in the state: City of Suffolk, Feeder Ditch
near Lake Drummond, Dismal Swamp, 26 May 1938, M.
Davis-Ries, 4 males, 4 females (all teneral). This record
may be listed in Davis (1938), and is the basis of Carle's
(1988) lone site. The specimens are in the entomological
collection of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (F. L. Carle, pers. comm.). This is the only
species included in the present checklist which has not,
to my knowledge, been collected in the state during the
past quarter century.

12

BAN1STERIA

NO. 4, 1994

Enallagma signatum (Hagen, 1861)

This species is widespread and common in Virginia,
inhabiting a variety of lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and slow-
moving portions of rivers. It is semicrepuscular in its
activity pattern. Males exhibit an orange and black color
pattern. Dunkle (1990) reported that mature females in
Florida are of three color 'rarieties (blue, green, and
orange). Teneral adults of both sexes are blue. Most of the
females that I have noted in the field in Virginia were
pale yellow. This agrees with the descriptions of females
from Canada and Massachusetts (Carpenter, 1991;
Walker, 1953). The flight period of E. signatum in
Virginia ranges from at least 15 May to 27 September.

Enallagma traviatum Selys 1876

This species appears to be somewhat uncommon in
Virginia. Although the published range map in Donnelly
(1973) lacks Virginia records, it suggests that both of the
currently recognized subspecies may occur in the state.
The nominate subspecies occurs east of the Appalachians
and E. t. westfalli Donnelly 1964 is found to the west
(Donnelly, 1973). The Virginia records of Donnelly
(1961) and Matta (1978), as well as my collections from
Caroline and Prince Edward counties, undoubtedly refer
to the nominate form. USNM specimens from Breaks
Interstate Park in Dickenson County along the Kentucky
border were recently determined as belonging to this
subspecies also (R. C. Glotzhober, pers. comm.). Carle
(1988) listed 12 sites under the name E. t. westfalli, but I
do not know any of these locations nor have I had an
opportunity to evaluate the subspecific status of these
specimens.

The distribution of E. traviatum in southwestern
Virginia is worthy of further study because this may be a
zone of contact between the two subspecies. The flight
period is early to mid-summer (Montgomery, 1942).
Virginia collection dates range from 26 May to 9 July.

+ Enallagma vesperum Calvert 1919

This species is undoubtedly more common in Virginia
than the relatively few available records suggest. Its
crepuscular habits reduce the likelihood of its collection
at an occupied site. Carle (1988) was aware of 11 sites
from the state. The only USNM records are of old
specimens from Great Falls. I have found E. vesperum in

Caroline County in the company of E. geminatum and
Ischnura kellicotti at several beaver ponds with abundant
water lilies. The flight period spans the summer and early
fall months (Montgomery, 1942). Virginia collection
dates range from 14 May to 12 August.

+ Enallagma weewa Byers 1927

This is a southern Coastal Plain species which ranges
north to New Jersey, but appears to be rare in Virginia.
Carle (1988) listed only one record for the state, but 1 do
not know the county (presumably in southeastern Vir¬
ginia) or date of this collection. I am not aware of any
additional records from Virginia. This species prefers
slow, shady streams and rivers, where it typically hides in
shaded vegetation beyond the banks (Dunkle, 1990).
Reported flight dates in other states are 25 February to 7
November in Florida (Dunkle, 1990), 21 April to 5
October in South Carolina (White et al., 1983), and 8
May to 4 October in North Carolina (Paulson & Jenner,
1971). Soltesz (1991) found it between 19 June and 27
August in Cape May County, New Jersey.

Ischnura hastata (Say, 1839)

This delicate little damselfly has been known from
Virginia for more than a century (Calvert, 1890). It is
locally common and widespread, probably occurring in
every county of the state. However, its small size (this is
the smallest species in the state), slow flight, and ten¬
dency to fly low to the ground render it somewhat
inconspicuous in the field. I have found it in a wide
variety of habitats, ranging from oligotrophic seepage
wetlands to eutrophic brackish marshes. Daigle (1991)
reported that its presence can be indicative of very low
oxygen levels and possible organic pollution. 1. hastata has
one of the longest flight periods of any damselfly in the
state, extending from at least 5 April to 30 October. It
has been recorded between late March and mid-Decem¬
ber in North Carolina (Paulson & Jenner, 1971). I.
hastata ranges south into northern South America
(Dunkle, 1990). Females change color as they mature,
from predominately orange as juveniles to bluish black as
adults. Until recently, this species was placed in its own
genus ( Anomalagrion ) because males are unique among
Zygoptera in that their forewing stigma does not touch
the leading edge of the wing. Most odonatologists now
regard this as a subgeneric character.

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

13

+ Ischnura kellicotti Williamson 1898

This southern species appears to be uncommon and local
in Virginia. Carle (1988) knew of only one locality for the
state, and the USNM lacks Virginia specimens. I have
recorded it at six sites in Accomack, Caroline, and
Dinwiddie counties. It is typically associated with ponds
containing abundant populations of water lilies. Adults
fly low over the water and perch on the lily pads. Success¬
ful capture usually requires wading or canoeing into a
pond until you are in a stand of water lilies and then
submerging your net while attempting to collect the
adults (Calvert, 1898). The larvae reportedly live on the
stems and undersides of water lily leaves (Huggins &
Brigham, 1982). As noted previously, males are easily
confused with those of Enallagma geminatum at a distance
because of their similar size, coloration, and behavior.
Females exhibit two color forms (orange and blue). 1 have
observed I. kellicotti in Virginia between 31 May and 8
September.

Ischnura posita (Hagen, 1861)

The nominate subspecies is probably the most abundant
and widely distributed damselfly in Virginia, undoubtedly
occurring in every county of the state. It inhabits a wide
variety of aquatic habitats, ranging from oligotrophic to
eutrophic. Daigle (1991) reported that its presence can be
indicative of very low oxygen levels and possible organic
pollution. Males and juvenile females are easily recog¬
nized by the presence of an exclamation mark-like pattern
on the thorax. Mature females become bluish gray and
mostly lose this pattern. I. posita has a prolonged flight
period (Montgomery, 1944). In Virginia, it extends from
late March or early April to October. The USNM
collection contains a male specimen that was collected in
a Malaise trap between 26 March and 8 April. I have
observed this species as late as 4 October, but suspect that
it flies for at least several additional weeks.

Ischnura prognata (Hagen, 1861)

This is the largest and rarest species of Ischnura in Vir¬
ginia. Juvenile females are predominately orange and
black, becoming brown as they mature. However, the
sides of the thorax are green in adult females. I. prognata
is widespread but very local throughout its range in the
eastern United States (Dunkle, 1990; Johnson & West-
fall, 1970; White et al., 1983). The limited number of

records from Virginia suggest that it is rare in the state.
The preferred habitats are shaded seepage areas and
swamp edges (Dunkle, 1990). The species is difficult to
detect in these habitats because of the poor light condi¬
tions and its phantom-like flight behavior (Dunkle,
1990). Hagen (1861) originally described I. prognata on
the basis of a male from Berkeley Springs, Virginia, a
locality which became part of Morgan County, West
Virginia, upon secession of that state in 1861. Therefore,
the inclusion of Virginia in range statements by Mutt-
kowski (1910) and Needham & Heywood (1929) was in
error. Tarter (1976) listed I. prognata only from Morgan
County in his summary table for West Virginia. The
current disposition of the holotype is unknown to me. It
is not among the type material or many other Hagen
specimens housed in the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard University (P. D. Perkins, pers.
comm.).

I am aware of only two subsequent records for I.
prognata from within the current political boundaries of
Virginia, neither of which have been published previ¬
ously. A male specimen captured by Mary Davis-Ries on
25 May 1938 in Williamsburg is in the entomological
collection of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (F. L. Carle, pers. comm.). This record may be
listed in Davis (1938), and is the basis of Carle's (1988)
lone site. The most recent record dates from 12 July
1 994 when I captured an adult female in a nearly dry bald
cypress-tupelo swamp near Dendron in Surry County.
Regrettably, the specimen escaped the following day as I
was preparing to preserve it and was irretrievably lost.
Despite two subsequent visits to this site during the
following week, and five hours of intense searching, I was
unable to secure a second specimen.

Ischnura ramburii (Selys, 1850)

This species is common in the coastal regions of the state
where it is typically found in brackish marshes. I have
collected or examined specimens from the coastal coun¬
ties of Accomack, Lancaster, Mathews, Northampton,
Northumberland, Westmoreland, and York, as well as the
cities of Hampton and Virginia Beach. Chris Hobson and
I have also collected it at several beaver ponds in Caro¬
line and Fairfax counties. Carle (1988) tallied 17 sites for
this species in the state and Matta (1978) reported it from
Isle of Wight County and the City of Norfolk (Chesa¬
peake). I. ramburii is very widespread in tropical America,
ranging south to Chile (Donnelly, 1992; Dunkle, 1990).

14

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

Daigle (1991) reported that its presence can be indicative
of very low oxygen levels and possible organic pollution.
Females exhibit three color forms (Dunkle, 1990). The
flight period in Virginia extends from at least 25 April to
14 October.

Ischnura verticalis (Say, 1839)

This species is very common and widely distributed in the
northern and western counties of Virginia. It is appar¬
ently absent from the southeastern portion of the state, as
there are no records in Matta (1978) or the DNH and
USNM collections. 1. verticalis inhabits a wide variety of
freshwater habitats. It has a very long flight period
(Montgomery, 1944), extending in Virginia from at least
6 April to 29 September.

+ Nehalennia gracilis Morse 1895

All three species of Nehalennia which inhabit Virginia are
small and delicate, with metallic greenish bodies. They fly
low to the ground and are easily overlooked. All three are
very local in occurrence, typically preferring boggy ponds.
This species, which ranges from southern Canada to
Florida, also inhabits grassy ponds (Dunkle, 1990). Carle
(1988) listed only five sites for Virginia. The USNM lacks
specimens from the state. The only DNH specimens were
obtained by Chris Hobson on 16 June in Fairfax County.
The unidentified Nehalennia reported from the North
Anna River by Voshell & Simmons (1978) probably
refers to N. gracilis. The USNM has a large series (> 100
specimens) collected in Hyattsville, Maryland, during
1915-17, with capture dates ranging from 18 May to 10
September.

Nehalennia integricollis Calvert 1913

The only published record from Virginia for this southern
Coastal Plain species is that of Gloyd (1951). She col¬
lected a single male near the Dismal Swamp (City of
Suffolk) on 14 September 1934 (reported as 17 September
in Matta, 1978). Carle's (1988) lone site for the state is
based on this same record. The USNM lacks Virginia
specimens. Chris Hobson and I have collected N. integri -
collis at five sites in Caroline County, the range of dates
being 1 June to 17 August. We observed only a handful
of individuals at four of these sites; I found several
hundred adults on 8 July at the fifth site. 1 have also
discovered a small population of this species at one site in

the Shenandoah Valley region of Augusta County which
harbors several Coastal Plain disjuncts among its flora and
fauna. The reproductive behavior of N. integricollis
remains unknown (Dunkle, 1990). I noted mated pairs
during the late morning hours on 8 and 28 July at the site
of the largest known Virginia population. They were
hidden among grasses and sedges at the edge of this boggy
pond. However, I did not have an opportunity to observe
them at length and was unable to document oviposition.

+ Nehalennia irene (Hagen, 1861)

This is a northern species which ranges south to the
Carolinas (Brimley, 1938; Huggins &. Brigham, 1982;
White et al., 1983). Carle (1988) listed two sites for
Virginia. The USNM has records from Highland (197 1-
72) and Prince William (1993) counties. My only encoun¬
ter with N. irene in the state was on 19 June in the Locust
Springs area of extreme northwestern Highland County,
where it has also been collected by both O. S. Flint, Jr.,
and F. L. Carle. Flight dates in Virginia extend from at
least 19 June to 16 July.

DISCUSSION

The diversity of Virginia's damselfly fauna is compa¬
rable to or greater than that reported for most other
eastern states and provinces (Table 2). Furthermore, it
equals the number of species known from Texas (John¬
son, 1972) and exceeds by three the number reported
from all of Canada and Alaska (Walker, 1953). Overall,
slightly less than half of the North American damselfly
fauna (listed at 119 species by Bick & Bick, 1980) is
present in Virginia. Carle's (1991) figure of 61 species for
the state apparently is erroneous, because it presumably
includes numerous species of hypothetical status (listed in
Carle, 1988). Each of the latter, plus one additional
species, is discussed below. Two other species (Lestes
congener and L. vidua) that were listed as hypothetical by
Carle (1988) have been confirmed for the state and were
discussed in the accounts above.

Enallagma antennatum (Say, 1839) is a Midwestern
species which has been recorded as far east as Massachu¬
setts (USNM specimen), New York (Donnelly, 1992), and
Pennsylvania (A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty, 1971). The
USNM has a small series collected by B. Elwood Mont¬
gomery in June 1970 at the Frostburg Reservoir in Garrett
County, Maryland. The species has also been reported
from three counties in West Virginia (Tarter, 1976), with

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

15

Preston County being the nearest to the V irginia border.
Roback & Westfall (1967) dubiously reported nymphs
from two stations along the North Anna River in Louisa
and Spotsylvania counties in Virginia. Until additional
material from these or other sites in Virginia can be
positively identified, I do not regard E. antennatum as a
confirmed element of the state's fauna. In Canada, this
species inhabits quiet streams and springy margins of
small lakes (Walker, 1953). In New York, it prefers
relatively open habitats, including some disturbed sites as
well as large rivers (Donnelly, 1992, 1993).

Enallagma boreale Selys 1875 is a very wide-ranging
northern species (see map in A. F. Beatty & G. H.
Beatty, 1971) which has been reported from Tucker
County in northeastern West Virginia (Tarter, 1976). It
inhabits ponds and boggy or marshy lakes, and is very
similar in size and color pattern to E. cyathigerum (Walker,
1953). This species should be sought in the mountains of
western Virginia.

Enallagma carunculatum Morse 1895 is a northern
transcontinental species (A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty,
1971) which was collected once (1914) in Hyattsville,
Prince Georges County, Maryland (Donnelly, 1961). It
has also been reported from three counties in central
Kentucky, but is unknown in West Virginia (Resener,
1970; Tarter, 1976). E. carunculatum prefers lakes and
rivers, although it occasionally inhabits ponds (Walker,
1953). It may eventually be found in the northern or
western counties of Virginia.

Enallagma concisum Williamson 1922 and Enallagma
davisi Westfall 1943 are southern Coastal Plain species
which have been found as far north as North Carolina
(Dunkle, 1990). The preferred habitat of both species is
sand-bottomed lakes, where adults of E. davisi may be
found only during early spring (Dunkle, 1990). Paulson &
Jenner (1971) reported that E. davisi is the first Enallagma
to emerge in North Carolina and has the shortest flight
period of any damselfly in that state. In contrast, the
flight period of E. concisum is prolonged (Dunkle, 1990).
Matta (1978) did not find either of these species in
southeastern Virginia. Of the hypothetical species
discussed in this section, I believe that these two are the
least likely to occur in Virginia.

Enallagma minusculum Morse 1895 is a Coastal Plain
species which ranges from Nova Scotia and New Bruns¬
wick south to Long Island, New York (historic), with
disjunct populations in southeastern North Carolina
(Carpenter, 1991; Cuyler, 1968; Donnelly, 1992; Ten-
nessen & Knopf, 1975). Cuyler (1968) reported that it

was abundant at the North Carolina sites. Matta (1978)
remarked that suitable habitat (sandy ponds or lakes) for
E. minusculum exists in southeastern Virginia, but to my
knowledge it remains undiscovered in the state.

Enallagma sulcatum Williamson 1922 is a southern
Coastal Plain species which ranges from Maryland to
Alabama (Dunkle, 1990). However, it was not included
in Carle's (1988) hypothetical list. The preferred habitat
is grassy, sandy lakes (Dunkle, 1990). This species may
occur in southeastern Virginia, but it was not found by
Matta (1978) and I have no knowledge of any recent
records.

Lestes unguiculatus Hagen 1861 is a wide-ranging
species (A. F. Beatty & G. H. Beatty, 1971) which was
collected once each in Prince Georges County, Maryland,
and the District of Columbia 80 and 95 years ago,
respectively (Donnelly, 1961). It has also been reported
from Hardy County, West Virginia, and seven counties
in central and western Kentucky, as well as from Tennes¬
see (Resener, 1970; Tarter, 1976; Williamson, 1903). The
West Virginia county borders both Rockingham and
Shenandoah counties in Virginia. The flight period of L.
unguiculatus spans the summer and early fall months
(Montgomery, 1948; Resener, 1970). The preferred
habitats are temporary or semi-permanent ponds in open
environments (Walker, 1953). It seems likely that this
species will eventually be found in northern or western
Virginia.

Bick & Bick (1980) indicated that there was no
published information on the reproductive behavior of
twelve of the damselfly species confirmed from Virginia.
Waage (1984, 1988) subsequently documented this in
considerable detail for Calopteryx dimidiata, and Dunkle
(1990) provided brief descriptions of reproductive behav¬
ior for six more of these species. The remaining five
species for which published information is apparently still
lacking are Amphiagrion saucium, Argia bipunctulata,
Enallagma daeckii, E. tr avia turn, and Nehalennia integricollis.

The immature stages of all 53 damselfly species
recorded from Virginia are now known, although several
of them have not been formally described. Data in
Walker (1953) and Johnson & Westfall (1970) indicate
that the larvae of 39 of these species were known as of
the latter date. Subsequent descriptions have appeared for
five additional species (Huggins, 1978a, 1984; Tennessen,
1984; Westfall & Tennessen 1973). Paulson & Jenner
(1971) collected hundreds of Enallagma aspersum larvae,
but they did not describe them. However, this species, as
well as Argia bipunctulata, Enallagma iveeiva, and Ischnura

16

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

prognata, was included in the illustrated larval keys of
Huggins & Brigham (1982). Daigle (1991) provided
illustrations of the gills, and a brief mention of key
characters, for four additional species (Enallagma dubium,
Ischnura kellicotti, Nehalennia integricollis, and Lestes vidua).
Detailed larval descriptions apparently are still lacking for
all eight of these species. The immature stage of the single
remaining species ( Lestes forcipatus) is also known, but it
has not been illustrated or described to my knowledge.
Westfall & May (in prep.) will contain illustrated keys to
the known North American damselfly larvae, including
all of the Virginia species (M. L. May, pers. comm.).

SUMMARY

Fifty-three species of damselflies in three families and
ten genera are confirmed from V irginia. Fourteen of these
are reported here as apparent additions to the state's
fauna. The first records of Ischnura prognata from within
the current political boundaries of Virginia are also
presented, while the original record for the state is shown
to be in West Virginia. Eight hypothetical species are also
discussed. Considerable opportunities exist for both
professional biologists and amateur naturalists to add to
our knowledge of the damselfly fauna of Virginia. In
addition to seeking to document the hypothetical species,
more effort is needed to identify new populations of
uncommon or rare species that are already known from
the state. Also, the reproductive behavior of several
species remains unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the assistance and many
courtesies extended to me by Dr. Oliver S. Flint, Jr., and
Ms. Nancy E. Adams of the National Museum of Natural
History. Dr. Flint generously granted access to the library
and collection of his section and permitted me to publish
the museum's records. Ms. Adams cheerfully answered
numerous questions and provided computer printouts and
bibliographic assistance, as well as personal transportation
to the section's pinned collection of Odonata. 1 would
like to especially thank her for promptly responding to
several urgent literature requests during the final stages of
manuscript preparation. I thank Dr. Richard L. Hoffman
for making the collection and library of the Virginia
Museum of Natural History available to me. He also
informed me of the location of Berkeley Springs and
provided lists of specimens that he donated many years

ago to the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). I also
wish to thank Dr. Frank L. Carle for valuable discussions,
permission to publish selected records from his extensive
collection of Virginia Zygoptera, and for allowing me to
cite his unpublished checklist, the existence of which
greatly facilitated the preparation of the present list. Dr.
Philip D. Perkins promptly responded to my request to
check the Museum of Comparative Zoology's collection
for the holotype of Ischnura prognata. I thank Clark N.
Shiffer for several stimulating discussions and for critically
reviewing the manuscript. Virginia A. Carpenter also
provided helpful comments on the manuscript. I would
be remiss if I did not acknowledge the efforts of the
following past and present zoologists of the Division of
Natural Heritage for contributing to the damselfly
reference collection: Kurt A. Buhlmann, Christopher A.
Pague, Dirk J. Stevenson, Philip H. Stevenson, Tim E.
Vogt (short-term contract zoologist), and especially
Christopher S. Hobson. Finally, I must thank my wife Pat
for tolerating the many late nights and weekends that I
spent preparing and identifying specimens and compiling
this manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Alcock, J. 1983. Mate guarding and the acquisition of
new mates in Calopteryx maculata (P. De Beauvois)
(Zygoptera: Calopterygidae). Odonatologica 12: 153-159.

Beatty, A. F., & G. H. Beatty. 1970. Gregarious (?)
oviposition of Calopteryx amata Hagen (Odonata). Pro¬
ceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 44:
156-158.

Beatty, A. F., & G. H. Beatty. 1971. The distribution of
Pennsylvania Odonata. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania
Academy of Science 45: 147-167.

Beatty, A. F., G. H. Beatty, & H. B. White III. 1969.
Seasonal distribution of Pennsylvania Odonata. Proceed¬
ings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 43: 119-
126.

Beatty, G. H., & A. F. Beatty. 1971. The Odonata of
Pennsylvania: List and cross-references to literature
containing data on occurrence in the state. Proceedings
of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 45: 1 1 1-120.

Bick, G. H., &. J. C. Bick. 1980. A bibliography of

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

17

reproductive behavior of Zygoptera of Canada and
conterminous United States. Odonatologica 9: 5-18.

Bobb, M. L. 1974. The Insects of Virginia: No. 7. The
aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera of Virginia. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research
Division Bulletin 87: 1-195.

Brimley, C. S. 1938. The Insects of North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Division of
Entomology, Raleigh. 560 pp.

Byers, C. F. 1951. Some notes on the Odonata fauna of
Mountain Lake, Virginia. Entomological News 62: 164-
167.

Calvert, P. P. 1890. Notes on a few Virginian dragonflies.
Entomological News 1: 22-23.

Calvert, P. P. 1893. Catalogue of the Odonata of the
vicinity of Philadelphia with an introduction to the study
of this group of insects. Transactions of the American
Entomological Society 20: 152-272.

Calvert, P. P. 1898. Further notes on the new dragonfly
Ischnura kellicotti. (Odonata). Entomological News 9: 211-
213.

Calvert, P. P. 1903. Additions to the Odonata of New
Jersey, with descriptions of two new species. Entomologi¬
cal News 14: 33-41.

Cannings, R. A. 1989. Enallagma basidens Calvert, a
dragonfly new to Canada, with notes on the expansion of
its range in North America (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae).
Notulae Odonatologica 3: 53-55.

Carle, F. L. 1978. Preliminary species list of Virginia
Anisoptera. Selysia 8: 7-8.

Carle, F. L. 1979. Environmental monitoring potential of
the Odonata, with a list of rare and endangered Ani¬
soptera of Virginia, United States. Odonatologica 8: 319-
323.

Carle, F. L. 1982. A contribution to the knowledge of
the Odonata. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia. 1095 pp.

Carle, F. L. 1988. State and global rankings for Virginia
Zygoptera including number of known localities, popula¬
tion estimates, distribution types, and preferred habitat
types. Unpublished report to Division of Natural Heri¬
tage, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recre¬
ation, Richmond, Virginia. 2 pp.

Carle, F. L. 1989. The endangered dragonfly fauna of
New Jersey. Pp. 119-148, 239 In E. F. Karlin (ed.), New
Jersey's Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals.
Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College of
New Jersey, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Carle, F. L. 1991. Dragonflies. Pp. 197-214 In K. Ter-
williger (coordinator), Virginia's Endangered Species.
McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacks¬
burg, Virginia.

Carpenter, V. 1991. Dragonflies and Damselflies of Cape
Cod. Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, Natural
History Series No. 4. 79 pp.

Cashatt, E. D., T. E. Vogt, H. D. Bohlen, & W. J. Webb.
1987. New state records, range extensions, and confirmed
records of Odonata from Illinois, United States. Notulae
Odonatologica 2: 152-153.

Cruden, R. W. 1962. A preliminary survey of West
Virginia dragonflies (Odonata). Entomological News 73:
156-160.

Cuyler, R. D. 1968. Range extensions of Odonata in
southeastern states. Entomological News 79: 29-34.

Daigle, J. J. 1991. Florida damselflies (Zygoptera): a
species key to the aquatic larval stages. Florida Depart¬
ment of Environmental Regulation, Technical Series
11(1): 1-12.

Davis, M. E. 1938. A preliminary list of the Odonata
fauna of the Virginia Peninsula. Unpublished M.S. thesis,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Donnelly, T. W. 1961. The Odonata of Washington,
D.C., and vicinity. Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Washington 63: 1-13.

Donnelly, T. W. 1973. The status of Enallagma traviatum
and westfalli (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Proceedings of

18

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

the Entomological Society of Washington 75: 297-302.

Donnelly, T. W. 1989. The status of Enallagma cyathb
gerum (Charp.) and E. vemale Gloyd in south-central New
York (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 18:
373-378.

Donnelly, T. W. 1992. The Odonata of New York.
Bulletin of American Odonatology 1(1): 1-27.

Donnelly, T. W. 1993. Additional New York records of
interest. Argia 5(2): 8.

Dunkle, S. W. 1983. New records of North American
Odonata. Entomological News 94: 136-138.

Dunkle, S. W. 1990. Damselflies of Florida, Bermuda and
the Bahamas. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida.

148 pp.

Fisher, E. G. 1940. A list of Maryland Odonata. Entomo¬
logical News 51: 37-42, 67-72.

Forsyth, A., &. R. D. Montgomerie. 1987. Alternative
reproductive tactics in the territorial damselfly Calopteryx
maculate: sneaking by older males. Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology 21: 73-81.

Garman, P. 1917. The Zygoptera, or damsel-flies, of
Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois State Laboratory of
Natural History 12: 411-587.

Garman, P. 1927. Guide to the Insects of Connecticut,
Part V. The Odonata or Dragonflies of Connecticut.
Connecticut Geological and Natural History Survey
Bulletin 39: 1-331.

Garrison, R. W. 1991. A synonymic list of the New
World Odonata. Argia 3(2): 1-30.

Gladney, W. J., & E. C. Turner, Jr. 1969. The Insects of
Virginia: No. 2. The mosquitoes of Virginia (Diptera:
Culicidae). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Research Division Bulletin 49: 1-24.

Glotzhober, R. C. 1994 (revised edition). Ohio Odonata
Survey-Dragonfly Collector's Handbook. Mimeographed
publication. 23 pp.

Gloyd, L. K. 1951. Records of some Virginia Odonata.
Entomological News 62: 109-114.

Hagen, H. A. 1861. Synopsis of the Neuroptera of North
America, with a list of the South American Species.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 4. 347 pp.

Hagen, H. A. 1875. Synopsis of the Odonata of America.
Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 18:
20-96.

Hellebuyck, V. 1993. Confirmation of Enallagma civile
(Hagen)(Odonata; Zygoptera) in southern Quebec. Argia
5(3): 9-10.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. [1981]. Aquatic insects of Wisconsin.
Publication of the Natural History Council, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 2: 1-60.

Hoffman, R. L. 1969. The biotic regions of Virginia. Pp.
23-62 In The Insects of Virginia: No. 1. Virginia Poly¬
technic Institute and State University, Research Division
Bulletin 48.

Howe, R. H., Jr. 1921. The distribution of New England
Odonata. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural
History 36: 105-133.

Huggins, D. G. 1978a. Description of the nymph of
Enallagma divagans Selys (Odonata: Coenagrionidae).
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 51: 140-143.

Huggins, D. G. 1978b. Redescription of the nymph of
Enallagma basidens Calvert (Odonata: Coenagrionidae).
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 51: 222-227.

Huggins, D. G. 1984. Description of the nymph of
Enallagma daecki (Calvert)(Odonata: Coenagrionidae).
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 57: 190-196.

Huggins, D. G., <St W. U. Brigham. 1982. Odonata. Pp.
4.1-4.100 In A. R. Brigham, W. U. Brigham, & A.
Gnilka (eds.). Aquatic Insects and Oligochaetes of North
and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises,
Mahomet, Illinois.

Johnson, C. 1972. The damselflies (Zygoptera) of Texas.
Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Series
16: 55-128.

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

19

Johnson, C. 1973a. Distributional patterns and their
interpretation in Hetaerina (Odonata: Calopterygidae).
The Florida Entomologist 56: 24-42.

Johnson, C. 1973b. Variability, distribution and taxon¬
omy of Calopteryx dimidiata (Zygoptera, Calopterygidae).
The Florida Entomologist 56: 207-222.

Johnson, C. 1974. Taxonomic keys and distributional
patterns for Nearctic species of Calopteryx damselflies.
The Florida Entomologist 57: 231-248.

Johnson, C., & M. J. Westfall, Jr. 1970. Diagnostic keys
and notes on the damselflies (Zygoptera) of Florida.
Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Series
15: 45-89.

Kennedy, J. H. 1977. The occurrence of Archilestes grandis
Rambur (Zygoptera: Lestidae) in Virginia. Entomological
News 88: 215-216.

Kondratieff, B. C., & R. F. Kirchner. 1987. Additions,
taxonomic corrections, and faunal affinities of the
stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia, USA. Proceedings of
the Entomological Society of Washington 89: 24-30.

Kondratieff, B. C., & R. F. Kirchner. 1994. A new
species of Acroneuria from Virginia (Plecoptera: Perlidae).
Journal of the New York Entomological Society 101: 550-

554.

Kondratieff, B. C., & J. R. Voshell, Jr. 1979. A checklist
of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Virginia. Entomological
News 90: 241-246.

Kondratieff, B. C., & J. R. Voshell, Jr. 1983. A checklist
of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Virginia, with a review
of pertinent taxonomic literature. Journal of the Georgia
Entomological Society 18: 273-279.

Kormondy, E. J. 1958. Catalogue of the Odonata of
Michigan. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan 104: 1-43.

Leahy, C. W. 1976. An introduction to the Odonata of
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln,
Massachusetts. 9 pp.

Lutz, P. E. 1968. Life-history studies of Lestes eurinus Say
(Odonata). Ecology 49: 576-579.

Matta, J. F. 1974. The Insects of Virginia: No. 8. The
aquatic Hydrophilidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Poly-
phaga). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer¬
sity, Research Division Bulletin 94: 1-44.

Matta, J. F. 1976. The Insects of Virginia: No. 10. The
Haliplidae of Virginia (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research
Division Bulletin 109: 1-26.

Matta, J. F. 1978. An annotated list of the Odonata of
southeastern Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science 29:
180-182.

Michael, A. G., &. J. F. Matta. 1977. The Insects of
Virginia: No. 12. The Dytiscidae of Virginia (Coleoptera:
Adephaga)(Subfamilies: Laccophilinae, Colymbetinae,
Dytiscinae, Hydaticinae and Cybistrinae). Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Research
Division Bulletin 124: 1-53.

Montgomery, B. E. 1942. The distribution and relative
seasonal abundance of the Indiana species of Enallagma
(Odonata: Agrionidae). Proceedings of the Indiana
Academy of Science 51: 273-278.

Montgomery, B. E. 1944. The distribution and relative
seasonal abundance of the Indiana species of Agrionidae
(Odonata: Zygoptera). Proceedings of the Indiana Acad¬
emy of Science 53: 179-185.

Montgomery, B. E. 1947. The distribution and relative
seasonal abundance of Indiana species of five families of
dragonflies (Odonata, Calopterygidae, Petaluridae,
Cordulegastridae, Gomphidae and Aeshnidae). Proceed¬
ings of the Indiana Academy of Science 56: 163-169.

Montgomery, B. E. 1948. The distribution and relative
seasonal abundance of the Indiana species of Lestidae
(Odonata: Zygoptera). Proceedings of the Indiana Acad¬
emy of Science 57: 113-115.

Montgomery, B. E. 1967. Geographical distribution of
the Odonata of the North Central states. Proceedings of

20

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

the North Central Branch of the Entomological Society
of America 22: 121-129.

Muttkowski, R. A. 1910. Catalogue of the Odonata of
North America. Bulletin of the Public Museum, City of
Milwaukee 1: 1-207.

Needham, J. G., &. H. B. He/wood. 1929. A Handbook
of the E>ragonflies of North America. Charles C. Thomas,
Springfield, Illinois and Baltimore, Maryland. 378 pp.

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.

Paulson, D. R., & C. E. Jenner. 1971. Population
structure in overwintering larval Odonata in North
Carolina in relation to adult flight season. Ecology 52:
96-107.

Pechuman, L. L. 1973. The Insects of Virginia: No. 6.
Horse flies and deer flies of Virginia (Diptera: Tabanidae).
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Research Division Bulletin 81: 1-92.

Resener, P. L. 1970. An annotated checklist of the
dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of Kentucky.
Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 31:
32-44.

Roback, S. S., &. M. J. Westfall, Jr. 1967. New records of
Odonata nymphs from the United States and Canada
with water quality data. Transactions of the American
Entomological Society 93: 101-124.

Roble, S. M., & P. H. Stevenson. 1994. Rediscovery of
the dragonfly Nannothemis bella Uhler in Virginia (Odo-
nata: Libellulidae). Banisteria 3: 27-28.

Root, F. M. 1923. Notes on Zygoptera (Odonata) from
Maryland, with a description of Enallagma pallidum, n. sp.
Entomological News 34: 200-204.

Shiffer, C. 1985a. Black-banded Bandwing Calopteryx
aequabilis (Say). Pp. 115-117 In H. H. Genoways & F. J.
Brenner (eds.), Species of Special Concern in Pennsylva¬
nia. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publica¬
tion 11. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Shiffer, C. 1985b. Two-spotted Dancer A rgia bipunctulata
(Hagen). Pp. 148-149 In H. H. Genoways &. F. J. Brenner
(eds.), Species of Special Concern in Pennsylvania.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication
11. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Soltesz, K. 1991. A survey of the damselflies and dragon¬
flies of Cape May County, New Jersey. Cape May Bird
Observatory, New Jersey Audubon Society, Cape May
Point, New Jersey. 54 pp.

Tarter, D. C. 1976. Limnology in West Virginia: A
Lecture and Laboratory Manual. Marshall University,
Huntington, West Virginia.

Tennessen, K. J. 1979. New records of Odonata for
Alabama and Tennessee, with significant range exten¬
sions for several species. Entomological News 90: 118-
120.

Tennessen, K. J. 1984. The nymphs of Calopteryx amata
and C. angustipennis (Odonata: Calopterygidae). Proceed¬
ings of the Entomological Society of Washington 86:

602-607.

Tennessen, K. J., & K. W. Knopf. 1975. Description of
the nymph of Enallagma minusculum (Odonata: Coen-
agrionidae). The Florida Entomologist 58: 199-201.

Usinger, R. L. (ed.). 1956. Aquatic Insects of California.
University of California Press, Berkeley. 508 pp.

Vogt, T. E., & J. E. McPherson. 1985. State records and
confirmations of Odonata from Illinois and Missouri. The
Great Lakes Entomologist 18: 7-13.

Voshell, J. R., & G. M. Simmons. 1978. The Odonata of
a new reservoir in the southeastern United States.
Odonatologica 7: 67-76.

Waage, J. K. 1979. Adaptive significance of post-
copulatory guarding of mates and nonmates by male
Calopteryx maculata (Odonata). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 6: 147-154.

Waage, J. K. 1984. Female and male interactions during
courtship in Calopteryx maculata and C. dimidiata (Odom
ata: Calopterygidae): influence of oviposition behaviour.
Animal Behaviour 32: 400-404.

ROBLE: VIRGINIA DAMSELFLIES

21

Waage, J. K. 1988. Reproductive behavior of the damsel-
fly Calopteryx dimidiata Burmeister (Zygoptera: Calop-
terygidae). Odonatologica 17: 365-378.

Walker, E. M. 1934. A preliminary list of the insects of
the Province of Quebec. Part IV, Odonata. Quebec
Society for the Protection of Plants, 26th Report (Supple¬
ment): 1-12.

Walker, E. M. 1941. List of the Odonata of Ontario, with
distributional and seasonal data. Transactions of the
Royal Canadian Institute 23: 201-265.

Walker, E. M. 1952. The Lestes disjunctus and forcipatus
complex (Odonata: Lestidae). Transactions of the Ameri¬
can Entomological Society 78: 59-74.

Walker, E. M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and
Alaska. Volume One. University of Toronto Press,
Toronto. 292 pp.

Westfall, M. J., Jr. 1942. A list of the dragonflies (Odo¬
nata) taken near Brevard, North Carolina. Entomological
News 53: 94-100, 127-132.

Westfall, M. J., Jr., & M. L. May (in prep.). Manual of
the Damselflies (Zygoptera) of North America.

Westfall, M. J., Jr., & K. J. Tennessen. 1973. Description
of the nymph of Lestes inaequalis (Odonata: Lestidae). The

Florida Entomologist 56: 291-293.

White, H. B., Ill, & W. J. Morse. 1973. Odonata (Drag¬
onflies) of New Hampshire: An annotated list. New
Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Research
Report 30: 1-46.

White, T. R., K. J. Tennessen, R. C. Fox, &. P. H.
Carlson. 1983. The aquatic insects of South Carolina.
Part II: Zygoptera (Odonata). South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 648: 1-72.

Williamson, E. B. 1903. The dragonflies (Odonata) of
Tennessee, with a few records for Virginia and Alabama.
Entomological News 14: 221-229.

Williamson, E. B. 1917. An annotated list of the Odo¬
nata of Indiana. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan 2: 1-13.

Williamson, E. B. 1934. Dragonflies collected in Ken¬
tucky, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, and
Georgia in 1931. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan 288: 1-20.

Woodward, S. L., & R. L. Hoffman. 1991. The nature of
Virginia. Pp. 23-48 In K. Terwilliger (coord.), Virginia's
Endangered Species. McDonald & Woodward Publishing
Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Table 1. Summary of primary collection and literature records reviewed in preparing this checklist. The sources
are identified on the following page.

CALOPTERYGIDAE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Calopteryx aequabilis Say

-

-

Calopteryx arrnta Hagen

-

X

-

'

-

'

'

'

-

-

Calopteryx angustipennis (Selys)

X

X

X

'

'

'

'

'

'

-

-

Calopteryx dimidiata Burmeister

X

X

X

'

'

-

X

-

-

'

-

Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

Hetaerina americana (Fabricius)

X

X

X

-

-

'

X

-

-

X

-

Hetaerina titia (Drury)

X

X

-

'

'

'

+

X

-

X

-

LESTIDAE

Archilestes grandis (Rambur)

X

X

X

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

Lestes congener Hagen

X

X

X

'

-

'

+

-

-

Lestes disjunctus australis Walker

X

X

X

X

-

+

X

-

-

Lestes disjunctus disjunctus Selys

X

X

'

'

-

-

'

-

-

-

-

Lestes dryas Kirby

'

-

'

-

-

'

'

-

-

-

Lestes eurinus Say

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lestes forcipatus Rambur

X

X

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

X

Lestes inaequalis Walsh

X

X

-

-

'

-

X

-

-

-

-

Lestes rectangularis Say

X

X

X

X

'

X

-

-

-

Lestes vidua Hagen

-

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lestes vigilax Hagen

X

X

'

'

X

'

+

X

'

'

'

COENAGRIONIDAE

Amphbgrion saucium (Burmeister)

X

X

X

-

X

-

X

X

-

-

-

Argia apicalis (Say)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

X

X

-

Argia bipunctulata (Hagen)

X

X

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

Argia fumipennis violacea (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

X

X

X

X

-

Argia moesta (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

-

X

X

X

X

X

-

Argia sedula (Hagen)

X

X

-

-

X

X

-

X

X

-

Argia tibialis (Rambur)

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

Argia translata Hagen

X

X

-

X

-

X

X

-

Chromagrion condition (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

X

-

X

-

-

-

Enallagma aspersum (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

X

-

+

-

-

-

X

Enallagma basidens Calvert

X

X

-

X

-

-

X

-

-

Enallagma civile (Hagen)

X

X

-

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

Enallagma cyathigerum (Charpentier)

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enallagma daeckii (Calvert)

X

-

-

+

*

-

*

Enallagma divagans Selys

X

X

X

-

X

-

-

Enallagma doubledayi (Selys)

X

-

-

-

-

+

X

-

Enallagma dubium Root

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

-

,

Enallagma durum (Hagen)

X

X

-

-

X

-

+

-

Enallagma ebrium (Hagen)

-

-

-

-

-

*

-

-

-

Enalbgma exsulans (Hagen)

X

X

-

-

X

X

X

X

-

Enallagma geminatum Kellicott

X

X

-

-

X

-

X

X

Enallagma hageni (Walsh)

X

X

X

-

-

Enallagma pallidum Root

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Enalbgma signatum (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

X

-

+

X

-

-

Enalbgma traviatum Selys

X

X

-

-

X

-

X

-

Enalbgma vesperum Calvert

X

X

-

-

-

-

,

Enalbgma weewa Byers

-

-

-

-

Ischnura hastata (Say)

X

X

X

-

X

+

X

X

Ischnura kellicotti Williamson

X

-

Ischnura posita (Hagen)

X

X

X

-

X

X

X

Ischnura prognata (Hagen)

X

-

-

-

-

Ischnura ramburii (Selys)

X

X

X

X

+

Ischnura verticalis (Say)

X

X

X

,

..

X

X

X

Nehalennb gracilis Morse

X

-

+

.

Nehalennia integricollis Calvert

X

-

-

,

+

X

,

Nehabnnb irene (Hagen)

X

X

-

-

-

-

+

'

-

-

Total number of taxa (54)

47

42

21

4

18

8

21

16

8

9

3

Table 2. Number of damselfly species recorded from Virginia and various other states or provinces in
eastern North America.

State/province

No. of species

Source(s)

Carol inas

54*

Huggins &. Brigham (1982)

Connecticut

38

Garman (1927)

Florida

44

Dunkle (1990)

Illinois

40

Cashatt et al. (1987), Garman (1917), Montgomery (1967),
Needham &t Heywood (1929), Vogt McPherson (1985)

Indiana

46

Montgomery (1942-48, 1967), Williamson (1917)

Kentucky

40

Montgomery (1967), Resener (1970)

Maryland

48

Donnelly (1961), Dunkle (1990), Fisher (1940),

Johnson (1974)

Massachusetts

48

Carpenter (1991), Leahy (1976)

Michigan

42

Kormondy (1958), Montgomery (1967)

New Hampshire

35

White &. Morse (1973)

New Jersey

47b

Calvert (1903), Carle (1989), Soltesz (1991)

New York

55

Donnelly (1992, 1993)

North Carolina

51

Brimley (1938), Cuyler (1968), Paulson & Jenner (1971),
Westfall (1942)

Ohio

48

Glotzhober (1994), Montgomery (1967)

Ontario

41

Walker (1941, 1953), Montgomery (1967)

Pennsylvania

53

G. H. Beatty &. A. F. Beatty (1971)

Quebec

36

Hellebuyck (1993), Walker (1934, 1953)

South Carolina

44

White et al. (1983)

Virginia

53

This study

West Virginia

40

Cruden (1962), Tarter (1976)

Wisconsin

36

Montgomery (1967), Hilsenhoff (1981)

‘'Combined total for North and South Carolina
bPartial total

Table 1 Sources:

1 = Division of Natural Heritage records

2 = National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.

3 = Richard L. Hoffman collections (most

specimens are deposited in the
Illinois Natural History Survey or
Virginia Museum of Natural History)

4 = Voshell & Simmons (1978); records of

unidentified Ischnura and Nehalenrtia
species are not included in the table.

5 = Matta (1978)

6 = Roback & Westfall (1967)

7 = Donnelly (1961) + = species recorded from the

District of Columbia and nearby Maryland only

8 = Gloyd (1951)

9 = Byers (1951)

10 = Williamson (1903)

1 1 = Calvert (1890)

24

Banisteria, Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

Phenological, Behavioral, and Biological Observations
on a Giant Scale, N eosteingelia texana Morrison,
in Blacksburg, Virginia
(Homoptera: Coccinea: Margarodidae)

Michael Kosztarab and Elizabeth Watson
Department of Entomology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0319

According to Morrison (1928), nothing was available
on the life history of Neosteingelia texana Morrison at that
time. Because of its secretive life style, little remains
known today; most of its life is spent under bark flakes of
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and pecan (Carya illinoen -
sis). This insect is considered a potential pest of pecan
plantations in the southern United States (Miller, 1985).
In addition, it is occasionally found on hackberry ( Celtis
occidental^), maple (Acer sp.), ash ( Fraxinus sp.), and
sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua) . It is known from
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. In
Virginia, adults come to the surface of the bark for a few
days to mate during late September through early Octo¬
ber. Apparently, weather conditions must be optimal for
the two sexes to emerge at the same time. Other factors
which may initiate the yearly appearance of this insect
may be the release of an aggregate pheromone while
under the bark, or the changing chemistry of the host
plant sap at that time in the fall. Unfortunately, we have
been unable to assess the latter two factors.

Observations were made on the emergence of this
giant scale insect in 1969, 1970, and 1975, and correlated
with local weather conditions. Based on these observa¬
tions and the weather information, we can report that
most of the insects appear on the surface of tree trunks in
southwestern Virginia between 26 September and 6
October, apparently when air pressure is just over 30
millibars, at relative humidities between 55% and 70%,
and at temperatures of 24° to 27° C in the sun (22° to
23° in the shade). Most insects normally emerge after
1000 EDT and remain active from noon through early
afternoon, usually after a night with the minimum
temperature between 10° and 16° C. Most observations

were made on old shagbark hickory trees in the Grove,
across from the University President's House on the
Virginia Tech Campus, where the majority of insects
were found from ground level to about 7 feet (2 meters)
high on the southeastern and southern side of the trunks.

The appearance of both sexes was also observed at
Seashore State Park, Virginia. Here, in a warmer climate,
the insects were active on the trunk of a maple tree (Acer
sp.) on 9 October 1985. Farther south, the insects were
swarming as late as 1 9 October (Georgia) and 3 1 October
(Florida).

After emerging from the crevices of the trunk and
from under peeling bark flakes, the females walk upward
on the tree trunks and raise their abdomens in a semicir¬
cular fashion, probably to release their sex pheromones
into the wind. The agile males mate repeatedly with each
female. After mating, the females return under the loose
bark flakes to lay their reddish-brown eggs inside cottony
wax threads. This species probably needs more than one
year for full development and should be studied further.

As there are no known published complete illustra¬
tions of this species, we include an illustration by the
second author. Slide mounted specimens were 3.5 - 5.5
mm. in length and 1.5 - 2.0 mm. in width.

Literature

Miller, D. R. 1985. Superfamily Coccoidea. Scale Insects.
Pp. 87-123. In A. T. Drooz (ed.), Insects of Eastern
Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous
Publication Number 1426, Washington, D.C.

Morrison, H. 1928. A classification of the higher groups
and genera of the coccid family Margarodidae. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin Number
52, Washington, D.C.

KOSZTARAB & WATSON: NEOSTE1NGEL1A TEXAN A

25

Figure 1. Adult Female Neosteingelia texana Morrison, (a) Dorsal (left) and ventral (right) views
showing distribution of setae and pores, (b) antenna, (c) hairlike setae, (d) multilocular pore,
(e) spiracle, (f) metathoracic leg, (g) abdominal spiracle.

26

Banisteria, Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

An Experimental Investigation of Azalea Host Choice by the Leaf
Beetle Pyrrhalta rufosanguinea (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Bruce L. King
Department of Biology
Randolph-Macon College
Ashland, Virginia 23005

Rhododendron periclymenoides (Michaux) Shinners
(=R. nndiflorum [L.] Torrey) and R. atlanticum (Ashe)
Rehder are native azaleas and belong to the section
Pentanthera. Fourteen of the 15 North American species
of this section have overlapping ranges in the eastern
United States. The species of the section have been
classified into species groups called alliances or complexes
based on systematic assessments of morphological and
cytological characters (Skinner St Camp, 1952; Li, 1957)
or flavonoid chemistry (King, 1980). All of these studies
treated R. periclymenoides, R. roseum (Loisel.) Rehder, and
R. canescens (Michaux) Sweet as an alliance. Rhododendron
atlanticum has been variously placed in other alliances
depending on whether morphological or chemical data
were emphasized, although it has been reported (Galle,
1967) to hybridize with R. periclymenoides wherever their
ranges overlap.

A field survey of R. periclymenoides, and co-occurring
ericaceous shrubs for Pyrrhalta rufosanguinea (Say), sug¬
gested that this leaf beetle is monophagous for R. peric/y-
menoides (King, 1993). Field observations suggested that,
in mixed populations, P. rufosanguinea is restricted to R.
periclymenoides or its introgressants (King, 1993).

The first objective of this experimental study was to
test the hypothesis that, when R. periclymenoides and R.
atlanticum co-occur, the former is the preferred host for P.
rufosanguinea. The second objective was to test the
hypothesis that these leaf beetles will use R. atlanticum as
an alternate host when it is the only Rhododendron species
available.

Materials and Methods

A colony of leaf beetles was maintained on freshly
collected Rhododendron periclymenoides foliage in an
environmental chamber. Plants for the experiments were
sampled from three populations of R. periclymenoides in

Caroline and Hanover counties, VA (King 2220, 2230,
2310) and from one population R. atlanticum in Henrico
County, VA ( King 2240). The locations of sites for beetle
collections and methods for beetle colony maintainence
are found in King (1993).

Leaf samples of each Rhododendron species were
collected for feeding tests in the morning of the day each
test was to begin. Although the leaf arrangement is
alternate, leaves that develop from winter buds form a
compact cluster at the end of a stem. A random foliage
sample was 2-3 branches, each with several leaf clusters.
The samples were sealed in plastic bags as they were
removed from the plant, placed on ice in a cooler, and
taken to the laboratory ( ca 1 h). Only undamaged leaves
from the foliage samples were used in the experiments.
All feeding experiments were conducted in a growth
chamber at 20° C with a 14 h photoperiod (400 foot
candles) and 80-90% relative humidity. The duration of
each feeding test was 24 h. The leaf beetles used in the
feeding tests were taken at random from the laboratory
maintained colony. No attempt was made to sort male
and female beetles. The experimental design was modified
from Villani &. Gould (1985).

A paired choice feeding experiment was done in 10
tests from June 13 through June 22 with two tests each
day. Feeding cages or arenas were one pint translucent
plastic food containers with air holes. Plastic petri dish
bottoms (60 mm diameter) were filled with distilled water,
covered with parafilm, and placed in the bottom of each
arena. Each arena contained two leaves from one plant of
each Rhododendron species. There were five replicates of
each arena. A total of 100 leaves of each species (taken
from five plants of each species) was used in the experi¬
ment. Two beetles were placed in each arena. Prior to
each test, the experimental beetles were fed for 24 h on
leaves from the same R. periclymenoides plant and then
starved for 8 h. This plant was not used in feeding tests.

KING: LEAF BEETLE HOST CHOICE

27

The no choice feeding experiment included two tests
(June 27-28). In this experiment, R. atlanticum was the
experimental treatment and R. periclymenoides was the
control. The feeding arenas were prepared as described for
the paired choice tests except that there were only two
leaves in each arena and both leaves came from the same
plant. Five arenas each contained only leaves from R.
atlanticum or R. periclymenoides.

In both experiments, the leaves were pressed and
dried in a plant dryer at the end of each test. The dried
leaves were taped to a sheet of paper and xerocopied. Leaf
area and leaf area eaten were measured (mm2) from the
zeroxed leaves with a Zidas image analyzer. Each data
point is the mean of two measurements. The results were
expressed as percent leaf area eaten (%LAE) and as the
number of leaves of each plant species sampled by the
beetles. The data from the paired choice experiment were
analyzed statistically by a Mann- Whitney U test and data
from the no choice experiment by a chi-square test with
Yates correction for continuity (Zar, 1984).

Results

In the paired preference test, beetles fed on 81% of
the leaves of R. periclymenoides and 10% of the leaves of
R. atlanticum. Mean %LAE was 3.53 ±4.04 (0.00-30.50)
for R. periclymenoides and 0.05 ±0.18 (0.00-1.05) for R.
atlanticum. The difference in mean %LAE between the
two Rhododendron species is statistically significant (U =
8904.00; P < 0.0001.

In the no choice tests, beetles fed on all of the leaves
of R. periclymenoides and one of the leaves of R. atlanticum
(N = 10 for each species). Because of the small sample
size, the data were analyzed with a chi-square test. The
null hypothesis that the feeding data represented a 1:1
ratio was rejected at P < 0.025 (X2 = 6.400; df = 1). In
arenas in which only leaves of R. periclymenoides were
present, the behavior of the beetles usually alternated
between feeding and roaming freely about the container.
In arenas in which only foliage of R. atlanticum was
present, the beetles typically explored the leaves briefly
and then moved to the top of the container and re¬
mained there for the duration of the experiment.

Discussion

The results of the paired choice experiment support
my hypothesis that, in mixed populations of Rhododendron
periclymenoides and R. atlanticum, Pyrrhalta rufosanguinea

feeds preferentially on leaves of R. periclymenoides. The
extremely low levels of feeding on R. atlanticum leaves in
the no choice tests, as well as in the paired preference
experiment, suggests that it is unlikely P. rufosanguinea
would use this Rhododendron species as a host. In no
choice tests, the difference in behavior of the beetles in
the arenas of the two Rhododendron species, in addition to
low feeding levels, suggests that they are repelled by R.
atlanticum foliage. The chemical and morphological
factors affecting host choice by P. rufosanguinea are under
investigation. In other Rhododendron species, glandular
scales on leaves have been associated with insect resis¬
tance (Doss, 1984). The leaves of R. atlanticum are
glandular while those of R. periclymenoides are not;
however, there are a number of other morphological and
chemical differences between the two species.

Although results of both feeding experiments in
combination with my previous field observations streng¬
then the case for monophagy, the feeding experiments
should be repeated with larger sample sizes, longer
starvation periods prior to each test, longer feeding trials
and additional plant species. Saxena & Schoonhaven
(1982) showed that prior experience can influence
subsequent host choice by some herbivores. In this study,
all beetles were fed on leaves from a single R. pen'cly-
menoides plant prior to feeding tests. In preliminary trials
conducted before the experiments reported here, the
beetles did not feed on R. atlanticum leaves. Therefore, I
made no attempt to maintain them on R. atlanticum
foliage before the feeding tests. Given the morphological
and chemical similarities within Rhododendron alliances
and differences between them, I suggest that P. rufosam
guinea is an alliance-specific rather than a species-specific
herbivore.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Walter Williams
Craigie Teaching Endowment and by the Biology Depart¬
ment of Randolph-Macon College. I thank Barry Knisley
for his constructive criticisms of the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Doss, R. P. 1984. Role of glandular scales of lepidote
Rhododendrons in insect resistance. Journal of Chemical
Ecology 10: 1787-1798.

Galle, F. C. 1967. Native and some introduced azaleas for

28

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

southern gardens. American Horticultural Magazine
46:13-23.

King, B. L. 1980. The systematic implications of fla-
vonoids in Rhododendron subgenus Pentanthera. Pp.
163-185, In J. L. Luteyn and M. E. O'Brien (eds.),
Contributions Torward a Classification of Rhododendron.
The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

King, B. L. 1993. Pyrrhalta rufosanguinea (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae): A monophagous leaf beetle of Rhododen'
dron periclymenoides (Ericaceae)? Banisteria 2:20-22.

Lee, F. P. 1965. The Azalea Book. Van Nostrand,
Princeton, NJ. 300 pp.

Li, H. 1957. Chromosome studies in the azaleas of eastern
North America. American Journal of Botany 44:8-14.

Saxena, K. N. and L. M. Schoonhaven. 1982. Induction
of orientational and feeding preferences in M anduca sexta
larvae for different food sources. Entomologia Experi-
mentalis et Applicata 32:173-180.

Skinner, H. T. and W. H. Camp. 1952. Luteum subse¬
ries. In Azalea Handbook. American Horticultural
Society, pp. 29-36.

Villani, M. and F. Gould. 1985. Butterfly milkweed
extract as a feeding deterrent of the wireworm, M elanotus
communis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
37:95-100.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 718 pp.

Banisteria, Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

Diabrotica cristata, a SeldonvCollected Leaf Beetle,
Found on Buffalo Mountain, Floyd County, Virginia
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

A. G. Wheeler, Jr.

Bureau of Plant Industry
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110

The galerucine chrysomelid Diabrotica cristata (Harris)
belongs to the same group of the genus as the well-known
D. barberi Smith & Lawrence, the northern corn root-
worm, and D. virgifera virgifera LeConte, the western corn
rootworm. Unlike those pest species, however, D. cristata
is seldom encountered by the general collector and poorly
represented in insect collections. This univoltine leaf
beetle is widespread east of the Rocky Mountains,
particularly west of the Mississippi in relict Midwestern
prairies (Wiesenborn & Krysan, 1980; Yaro & Krysan,
1986; Krysan &. Smith, 1987). Its distribution along the
eastern seaboard tends to be highly localized, and little is
known about specific habitat preferences except for its

occurrence in serpentine barrens of Maryland and Penn¬
sylvania. Adults can be collected in serpentine barrens on
inflorescences of grasses and forbs where they apparently
feed on pollen. The larval host in eastern serpentine
barrens was suggested to be little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium (Michx.) Nash) (Wheeler, 1988), but is more
likely to be big bluestem (A ndropogon gerardii Vitman), a
perennial grass that serves as the larval host plant in
Midwestern prairies (Yaro & Krysan, 1986; Krysan &
Smith, 1987).

Herein D. cristata is recorded from Buffalo Mountain
in southern Floyd County, Virginia, southeast of Willis.
This monadnock, maximum elevation 1210 m, rises

WHEELER: D1ABROT1CA CR1STATA

29

abruptly above the Blue Ridge upland (Rawinski & Wie-
boldt, 1993). It is a well-known botanical site, but
entomologists generally have devoted little attention to
the diverse communities of this important natural area. A
significant entomological discovery on Buffalo Mountain
is the recently described mealybug Puto kosztarabi Miller
&. Miller, the only known eastern North American
species of this Holarctic genus (Miller & Miller, 1993).

Adults of D. cristata were observed mainly on
inflorescences of big bluestem on 27 August 1994. On
Buffalo Mountain they were also found on inflorescences
of Liatris graminifolia Willd. and Solidago sp. in the mafic
glade vegetation classified as the A ndropogon gerardii -
Liatris graminifolia - Senecio pauperculus Alliance. This
vegetation type is characterized by magnesium-loving and
tolerant plants. The magnesium-rich glade soils of Buffalo
Mountain are similar in calcium-magnesium ratios to
those of serpentine barrens (Rawinski & Wieboldt, 1993).
Previous Virginia records of D. cristata are Pimmit Run,
Fairfax Co.; Nelson Co.; and Four Mile River and Kearny
Station, counties unknown (Krysan & Smith, 1987).
Additional specimens of this little-known leaf beetle
should be looked for in habitats where big bluestem
occurs. Relict prairie communities characterized by low
calcium-magnesium ratios, such as Bluff Mountain in
western North Carolina, might be expected to support
populations of D. cristata. Diabrotica cristata is similar in
size and habitus to the familiar northern corn rootworm
but can be distinguished from other species of the genus
by its uniformly dark (piceous) elytra. The color morph
occurring in the East has the pronotum yellow, rufous, or
dark (Krysan & Smith, 1987).

Acknowledgments

I thank E. R. Hoebeke (Department of Entomology,
Cornell University) for confirming my identification of D.

cristata and accessioning voucher material, and R. L.
Hoffman (Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martins¬
ville) and S. Roble (Division of Natural Heritage, Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond)
for accompanying me to Buffalo Mountain.

Literature Cited

Krysan, J. L., & R. F. Smith. 1987. Systematics of the
virgifera species group of Diabrotica (Coleoptera: Chry-
somelidae: Galerucinae). Entomography 5:375-484.

Miller, D. R., &. G. L. Miller. 1993. A new species of
Puto and a preliminary analysis of the phylogenetic
position of the Puto group within the Coccoidea (Homop-
tera: Pseudococcidae). Jeffersoniana 4:1-35.

Rawinski, T. J. & T. F. Wieboldt. 1993. Classification
and ecological interpretation of mafic glade vegetation on
Buffalo Mountain, Floyd County, Virginia. Banisteria 2:
3-10.

Wheeler, A. G., Jr. 1988. Diabrotica cristata, a chryso-
melid (Coleoptera) of relict Midwestern prairies discov¬
ered in eastern serpentine barrens. Entomological News
99:134-142.

Wiesenborn, W. D., & J. L. Krysan. 1980. A survey for
Diabrotica cristata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on relict
prairies of eastern South Dakota and southwestern
Minnesota. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of
Science 59:130-137.

Yaro, N., & J. L. Krysan. 1986. Host relationships of
Diabrotica cristata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomo¬
logical News 97:1 1-16.

30

Banisteria, Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

Eastern Tiger Salamander (Amby stoma tigrinum tigrinum)
Rediscovered in York County, Virginia

Joseph C. Mitchell
Department of Biology
University of Richmond
Richmond, Virginia 23173

Prior to the early 1970s, the basis for including the
eastern tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) in
Virginia herpetofaunal checklists (Dunn, 1918, 1936;
Burger, 1958) was a specimen in the National Museum of
Natural History (USNM 9273) collected in September
1874 (no precise date available). Its locality was listed
simply as "Virginia." It was not until 1973, almost a
century later, that the first tiger salamanders with accu¬
rate locality data were discovered in the Commonwealth.

Funderburg et al. (1974) detailed the discovery of two
tiger salamander egg masses in Jones Pond, 16 km west of
Ashland, Hanover County, on 23 March 1973. The eggs
were identified by David S. Lee, a field biologist experi¬
enced with the eggs and larvae of A. tigrinum in Mary¬
land. Funderburg et al. (1974) reported that they been
donated to the Natural History Society of Maryland.
However, none have been found in this collection (R. W.
Miller, pers. comm., 4 September 1994) and are presumed
lost. David S. Lee (pers. comm., 3 October 1994) recalls
identifying the eggs but cannot confirm their deposition
in the Maryland collection. Thus, the occurrence of a
tiger salamander population at Jones Pond in Hanover
County remains unconfirmed.

Tirrell (1974) and Funderburg et al. (1974) each
reported that two tiger salamanders had been found in a
suburban garden under a tomato plant in Tabb, York
County, on 13 October 1973. The larger of the two
escaped, but the remaining individual was taken to the
Peninsula Nature and Science Center (now the Virginia
Living Museum) in Newport News, where it later died. It
was preserved and deposited in the museum's vertebrate
collection. The specimen (No. 73-50) is a young, proba¬
bly immature male, 69 mm snout-vent length and 121
mm total length. Tiger salamanders are known to occur
in only two other counties in the Virginia coastal plain:
Isle of Wight (K.A. Buhlmann, pers. comm.) and
Mathews (Pague & Buhlmann, 1991).

No additional specimens have been discovered in
York County or adjacent counties despite field work
conducted there by K.A. Buhlmann, C.A. Pague, and me
between 1988 and 1994 (Division of Natural Heritage,
1990, 1992). No surveys have been conducted in the
vicinity of Tabb, however. Several subdivisions exist in
this area where there were none twenty years ago. Loss of
wetland habitat has apparently been severe and the
habitat around the original site appears to have been
destroyed by urban developments (Pague & Buhlmann,
1991).

Nearly twenty years later, the Tabb tiger salamander
story is repeated. On 21 May 1993, two A. tigrinum were
discovered by a homeowner in his suburban backyard in
Tabb, York County, only 0.8 km east of the 1973 collec¬
tion site. They had been unearthed, presumably while the
person was working in his garden. One salamander
escaped, but the other, an immature? male (85 mm snout-
vent length, 151 mm total length) which had been
injured by a hoe, was taken to the Virginia Living
Museum. It subsequently died and was given to Dr. Alan
H. Savitzky for preservation. It is now catalogued in the
Virginia Museum of Natural History's herpetological
collection (VMNH 6654).

Amazingly, another specimen turned up at the same
locality on 15 November 1993 (G. Mathews, pers.
comm.). It was given to the Virginia Living Museum
where it subsequently died on 1 February 1994; the
specimen was unfortunately discarded.

Ambystoma tigrinum has been recognized as an
endangered species by the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries since 1987 (Mitchell, 1991; Pague &
Buhlmann, 1991). The recent discovery of three addi¬
tional tiger salamanders, one presumably immature, in an
area considered to have lost appropriate breeding habitat
has conservation implications. Tiger salamanders are not
yet extinct in this area, despite the increased urbanization

MITCHELL: TIGER SALAMANDER

31

and the presumed loss of aquatic breeding sites. The
population apparently continues to breed periodically and
produce offspring, some of which reach metamorphosis.
Thus, at least one local pool of water must remain as a
useful breeding site for this species. The discovery of its
location would be an important addition to our knowl¬
edge of this endangered species on the York-James
Peninsula. The adult population may have declined since
the discovery of this species in the early 1970s due to
habitat loss, but some individuals appear to be surviving.

When should tiger salamanders and other subterra¬
nean vertebrates be considered extinct in a highly
modified site? Ambystoma tigrinum is long-lived, reaching
at least 20.5 years in captivity (Snider & Bowler, 1992).
Adults may be able to withstand several years of poor
breeding opportunities and survive for one to two decades
in modified habitat. The discovery of an apparently
immature individual suggests that the population in York
County has enjoyed some recruitment via reproduction
since the initial discovery in 1973. Thus, the assumptions
(Pague & Buhlmann, 1991) that the site was completely
degraded and the population had become extinct were
not correct. Therefore, future assessments of the popula¬
tion status of Ambystoma tigrinum, as well as other long-
lived, subterranean vertebrates, should be made with
caution. A declaration of the extinction of a population
of such animals in a degraded site should be made only
after exhaustive field investigations have determined that
no potential breeding ponds or other bodies of water
allow successful reproduction. In addition, reasonable
attempts must be made to search for adults over a period
of several years. The rediscovery of A. tigrinum in York
County also suggests that the site in Hanover County
may still support this species.

It is clear that we know too little about the non¬
breeding ecology of this salamander. How far do adults
and metamorphs disperse from the aquatic breeding sites?
What is the average and maximum natural longevity?
Can adults persist in areas for one or two decades without
breeding? Can populations be maintained if reproductive
success occurs only once or twice a decade? If such is the
case, then much additional field work is needed to
ascertain the current population status of the eastern tiger
salamander in Virginia. This is especially true in the
Hanover and York county sites because of the inadequacy
of the available information.

Acknowledgments

I thank the Virginia Living Museum for donating the
specimen to Alan H. Savitzky and to Dr. Savitzky for
giving it to me for deposition in the Virginia Museum of
Natural History. George Mathews, Jr. kindly measured
the specimen in the Virginia Living Museum and pro¬
vided the collection information for the 1993 and 1994
specimens. Robert W. Miller looked for the eggs in the
Natural History Society of Maryland. David S. Lee
searched the Funderburg collection, now in his posses¬
sion, for tiger salamander eggs. Kurt A. Buhlmann,
Richard L. Hoffman, David S. Lee, Robert W. Miller,
and Steven M. Roble commented on the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Burger, W. L. 1958. List of Virginian amphibians and
reptiles. Virginia Herpetologial Society Bulletin, Supple¬
ment to No. 4, 5 pp.

Division of Natural Heritage. 1990. An inventory of the
rare, threatened and endangered species of NSC
Cheatham Annex, York County, VA. Natural Heritage
Technical Report 90-4, VA Department of Conservation
and Recreation, Richmond, VA. 33 pp.

Division of Natural Heritage. 1992. A Natural Heritage
resources inventory of the Naval Weapons Station,
Yorktown, Virginia. Natural Heritage Technical Report
92-18, VA Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Richmond, VA. 36 pp.

Dunn, E. R. 1918. A preliminary list of the reptiles and
amphibians of Virginia. Copeia (53): 16-27.

Dunn, E. R. 1936. List of Virginia amphibians and
reptiles. Unpublished mimeograph, Haverford, PA. 5 pp.

Funderburg, J. B., C. H. Hotchkiss, & P. Hertl. 1974.
First records of the eastern tiger salamander, Ambystoma
tigrinum tigrinum Green, in Virginia. Bulletin of the
Maryland Herpetological Society 10:57-58.

Mitchell, J. C. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 411-
423 In K. Terwilliger (Coordinator), Virginia's Endan-

32

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

gered Species. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Co.,
Blacksburg, VA.

Pague, C. A. & K. A. Buhlmann. 1991. Eastern tiger
salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Green. Pp. 431-
433 In K. Terwilliger (Coordinator), Virginia's Endan¬
gered Species. McDonald & Woodward Publishing Co.,
Blacksburg, VA.

Snider, A. T. & J. K. Bowler. 1992. Longevity of reptiles
and amphibians in North American collections. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological
Circular (21): 1-40.

Tirrell, P. B. 1974. Tiger salamander found in York
County, Virginia. Bulletin of the Virginia Herpetological
Society 74:1.

Banisteria , Number 4, 1994
® 1994 by the Virginia Natural History Society

An Unusually Colored Northern Water Snake
( Nerodia sipedon sipedon) from Giles County, Virginia

Joseph C. Mitchell
Department of Biology
University of Richmond
Richmond, Virginia 23173

Phenotypic variation among snake populations is
widespread, encompassing a wide range of colors and
patterns, from completely albinistic to completely mela-
nistic (Wright & Wright, 1957; Hensley, 1959; Dyrkacz,
1981). Albinism has been found to occur in six species of
snakes in Virginia: Carphophis amoenus from Fairfax
County (Allard, 1945), Elaphe obsolete from Rockbridge
County (Carroll, 1950) and Westmoreland County
(Hensley, 1959), Heterodon platirhinos from Fairfax County
(Anonymous, 1961), Lampropeltis triangulum from Mont¬
gomery County (Hensley, 1959), Nerodia sipedon from
New Kent County (Hensley, 1959), and Thamnophis
sirtalis from Fauquier County (Shively & Mitchell, 1994).
Melanism has been documented in three species. Of the
98 eastern hognose snakes (Heterodon platirhinos) exam¬
ined by Mitchell (1994), 20.4% were melanistic. Bulmer
(1985) briefly reported on a population of melanistic
northern water snakes ( Nerodia s. sipedon ) from the
Virginia side of the Potomac River. Completely melanis¬
tic timber rattlesnakes are occasionally observed in the
mountains of Virginia (Mitchell, 1994; W. H. Martin, III,
pers. comm.).

On 12 June 1988, Richard L. Hoffman found an
unusually colored, young adult male Nerodia sipedon in
Big Walker Creek at White Gate, Giles County, Virginia.

The snake was noticed swimming slowly near the stream
bed, among large stones and submerged stems of Ameri¬
can water-willow (Justicia americana) in swift-moving water
about 0.3 m deep. When picked up, at midbody, it made
no attempt to bite, nor did it manifest typical sipedon
aggressiveness at any time during the several days it was
held captive. The specimen was photographed and
released at the place of capture on 16 June 1988.

The description, based on color photographs, is as
follows: dorsum - black and red pigment completely
lacking; head light brown; upper and lower labials light
tan and outlined in slightly darker brown; background
color of dorsum of body light tan with yellowish tinge;
anterior crossbands slightly darker brown but nearly
indistinct; dorsal and lateral blotches almost indistin¬
guishable from background body color; spaces between
lateral blotches light orange tan; venter - uniform yellow,
without typical half-moon pattern; eye light brown with
dark brown to black pupil.

This pattern differs substantially from the normal
pattern of dark brown to reddish brown dorsal crossbands
and body blotches on a brown background on the
dorsum, and a cream to yellow venter with numerous
reddish-brown half-moon-shaped figures usually arranged
in two rows (Ernst & Barbour, 1989; Mitchell, 1994).

MITCHELL: XANTHIC WATER SNAKE

33

The normal variant is typical of other specimens of this
species known from Giles County. Other variations on
the typical phenotype for populations in Virginia are
described in Mitchell (1994). Wright & Wright (1957)
noted that albinistic, erythristic, and melanistic speci¬
mens of N. sipedon are not uncommon but provided
information only on albinos.

The phenotype described above can be considered
nearly complete xanthism, in reference to the lack of all
integumentary pigments except brown, orange, and
yellow. Dark pigment is present only in the pupils of the
eyes. This is the first report of such a variation in N.
sipedon from Virginia. Partially xanthic phenotypes have
been reported in Thamnophis sirtalis (Groves, 1966) and
Carphophis amoenus (Simmons & Stine, 1961) from
Maryland.

Acknowledgments

I thank R. L. Hoffman for giving me the opportunity
to report on this specimen and Carl H. Ernst and William
H. Martin III for reviewing the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Allard, H. A. 1945. A color variant of the eastern worm
snake. Copeia 1945:42.

Anonymous. 1961. Albinism in southeastern snakes.
Virginia Herpetological Society Bulletin 26:3.

Bulmer, W. 1985. Report on an unbanded population of
Nerodia sipedon from Virginia. Virginia Journal of Science
36:106 (abstract).

Carroll, R. P. 1950. Amphibia and reptiles, pp. 195-211
In James River Project Committee (Compilers), The
James River Basin, Past, Present, and Future. Virginia
Academy of Science, Richmond, VA.

Dyrkacz, A. 1981. Recent instances of albinism in North
American amphibians and reptiles. Society for the Study
of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular
(1 1): 1-3 1.

Ernst, C. H. & R. W. Barbour. 1989. Snakes of Eastern
North America. George Mason University Press, Fairfax,
VA. 282 pp.

Groves, J. D. 1966. Notes on xanthic eastern garter
snake, Thamnophis s. sirtalis. Bulletin of the Maryland
Herpetological Society 2:8.

Hensley, M. 1959. Albinism in North American amphib¬
ians and reptiles. Publications of the Museum of Michi¬
gan State University, Biological Series 1:133-159.

Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The Reptiles of Virginia. Smithso¬
nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 368 pp.

Shively, S. H. & J. C. Mitchell. 1994. Natural history:
Thamnophis sirtalis, Albinism. Herpetological Review 25:
30.

Simmons, R. S. & C.J. Stine. 1961. Ankylosis and
xanthism in the eastern worm snake. Herpetologica
17:206-208.

Wright, A. H. & A. A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of
Snakes of the United States and Canada. 2 Volumes.,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 1105 pp.

34

Miscellanea

Book Reviews

Freshwater Fishes of Virginia, by Robert E. Jenkins and
Noel M. Burkhead. 1994. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD. xxiii + 1079 pages. $85.00. Available
from the Virginia Chapter of the AFS, do VDG1F, P.O.
Box 996, Verona, VA 24482.

Despite its long occupation by people of European
descent, Virginia has lagged substantially behind other
states in having thorough published treatments of her
flora and fauna. This treatise on the state's freshwater
fishes fills a deep void. We now have one of the best and
complete books on the freshwater fishes of any state in
the country.

The book is large, 8.5 x 1 1 inches, and with the
heavy, glossy paper weighs some 1.8 kg (4 pounds). The
first 141 pages are devoted to history, descriptions of
drainages, physiography, and fish habitats, a long discus-
sion of biogeography, endangered fishes, special cases
(fossils, introductions, erroneous species, hybridization),
and how to study fishes. The bulk of the remainder, some
752 pages, are descriptions of each of the 210 freshwater
fish species that occur naturally in the Commonwealth.
Each account contains information on systematics,
description (materials, anatomy, meristics, color in
preservative and life, notes on larval descriptions, and a
black and white photo), biology, habitat, distribution
with detailed spot maps, and remarks. The distribution
maps show all the drainages and many of the tributaries.
There are keys to families, genera, and species, along with
numerous illustrations and descriptions of fish anatomy.
This is without a doubt the best source of fish identifica¬
tion available anywhere. A total of 86 pages contain the
references cited and thus constitutes an important
window into the ichthyological literature. Plates illustrate
each species in color and each is accompanied by collec¬
tion data and brief notes on sex and reproductive condi¬
tion. Other plates illustrate a number of habitats. There
is a glossary and an index to taxonomic names of fishes.
But there is much more to this book than I have just
described, such as discussions of the 1967 Clinch River
fish kill, pollution effects, and photography. I especially
enjoyed the history chapter and descriptions of the
physical aspects of the state and the fish habitats.

The book is heavy on systematics, reflecting the
chosen specialization of the senior author. The contribu¬

tion to the systematics and biology of sculpins is substan¬
tial; indeed, three species described in the book do not
yet have scientific names. Each species account contains
information on prey, reproduction, and behavior but
lacks data on population sizes and other aspects of their
ecology. Much of the biological information is derived
from studies performed outside of Virginia and taken from
the literature. In many cases, I cannot tell whether the
information pertains to Virginia populations or those in
other states; the only way to find out is to look up the
reference. I can't help but think that a great deal of life
history and ecological data are available for Virginia
populations of many species that were not incorporated
into this book.

As a herpetologist, I was interested in which amphib¬
ians and reptiles were eaten by fish and which fish were
prey of these animals. Because the index only listed fish
names, 1 had to search each and every account to find
this information. 1 am left with the impression that this
book was written primarily for ichthyologists and fisheries
biologists, as it is not very user friendly for some of us
non-fish people.

Despite these minor complaints, I highly recommend
this book to anyone who is seriously interested in Vir¬
ginia's fishes. The price is a bit steep for lay persons and
even for some professionals. However, the book should be
in literally every library in the state. Furthermore, the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
should be commended for financially supporting this
book project. The definitive treatise on the fishes of
Virginia has now been published and it will be the
cornerstone for all future research on the fishes in the
Commonwealth.

Joseph C. Mitchell
Department of Biology
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173

The Reptiles of Virginia, by Joseph C. Mitchell, 1994,
Smithsonian Institution Press, xv + 368 pages, 63 color
plates, 62 distribution maps. $40.00 plus $2.25 shipping
and handling. Obtainable from Smithsonian Institution
Press, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0900.

For many decades, the ambition to prepare a treat-

MISCELLANEA

35

ment of the herpetology of Virginia was a kind of reef
upon which many ships of good intention ran aground
and broke up, leaving scarcely a trace. E. R. Dunn
apparently was the first to cherish such a goal, and did
manage to prepare two state lists (1918, 1936) which
reflected the state of knowledge at two points in time,
before succumbing completely to the lure of Neotropical
taxa. In the middle 1940s the present reviewer embarked
on the same course in the optomism of youth, preserving
several thousand specimens and collecting distribution
records from a number of museums before abandoning the
enterprise in favor of arthropod taxonomy. Almost
immediately - around 1951 - the challenge was taken up
by Walter B. Newman, then a graduate student at
VPI&SU, who persisted for several years before personal
problems resulted in his relocation to Florida and un¬
timely demise. In nearly the same time period, substantial
progress toward some kind of comprehensive state
treatment was made by W. Leslie Burger, but this initia¬
tive seems not to have survived his move from William
& Mary to another position in Indiana.

After this near-decade of false starts, a real Renais¬
sance of positive interest in Virginia herpetology was
catalyzed with the formation of the V irginia Herpetologi-
cal Society by Franklin J. Tobey in 1958. One of the
charter members was Costello Craig of Bedford, who
recruited his nephew, an enthusiastic young naturalist
named Joseph C. Mitchell. Thus a fortuituous combina¬
tion of the right time, place, and opportunity set the stage
for the right person to accomplish what others had only
attempted. While his predecessors had the qualities of
knowledge and motivation, the additional, essential
ingredient held by Joe Mitchell was that of perseverence,
the determination to follow a dream to its fulfillment no
matter how long or difficult the course.

And the book that eventually appeared, more than
any accolades by reviewers, stands as its own witness of
how successfully the dream was realized. Amidst a field of
existing state reptile handbooks, each excellent in its own
right, this one stands out as a model for future work of
the genre. That it is authoritative and encyclopaedic goes
without saying. An important innovation is the presenta¬
tion of information relevant to a diverse audience (identi¬
fied on the dust jacket as herpetologists, naturalists,
science teachers, wildlife managers, and environmental
consultants) rather than a narrow one. Most compromises
are failures, pleasing no one, but this one succeeds, a
tribute to the author's wide experience with a spectrum
of naturalists, and insight into so many different levels of

need. As a professional herpetologist, teacher, and
conservationist, he has interfaced with nearly everyone
who wants to know more about reptiles.

The book follows a fairly traditional format: intro¬
ductory chapters treat in considerable detail the history of
herpetology in Virginia, the physical background of the
state and the major natural communities that have
developed (with elegant illustrations in color), techniques
of study, notes about basic systematics and nomenclature,
prevention of snakebite, and the conservational status of
the local fauna. A set of well-illustrated keys (including
one for juvenile snakes!) leads into the species treatments,
in the sequence of turtles, lizards, and snakes. Each of the
orders and families is introduced by a concise summary of
structure, biology, and distribution. Species accounts
follow the headings of Systematics, Description, Scutel-
lation, Coloration & Pattern, Sexual Dimorphism,
Juveniles, Confusing Species, Geographic Variation,
Etymology, Distribution, Biology, Remarks, and finally,
Conservation and Management.

There is an account of 15 species erroneously re¬
corded, introduced, or otherwise alien to the native
fauna; a glossary defining over 100 technical terms; and
a 29-page (!) list of references cited in the text. What
more could anyone want in or expect from a book?

Being interested in geographic distribution, I have
paid special attention to the highly precise spot maps.
There are few better ways to perceive what is and isn't
known about local distribution than from a spot map. I
was amazed how few species have been recorded from
such big counties as Pittsylvania and its neighbor, Hali¬
fax. Is Southside Virginia really collector-unfriendly or
just a bland region to be passed over en route to the
mountains or the coast? A light representation in the
coal-field counties is less surprising. Admittedly the
streams there are badly trashed, but there is still a LOT of
woodland habitat not yet ruined by strip-mining and
clear-cutting. The paucity of records for the painted turtle
in the Clinch, Powell, and Holston systems astonished
me, knowing how much time Dr. Mitchell and his
helpers have devoted to successfully seining and trapping
other turtles in those streams. And the absence of records
for the queen snake, Regina septemvittata, in the central
western highlands is noteworthy, as that region has been
as well collected as most other parts of the state.

Aside from the several poorly-represented areas, the
maps reveal a number of interesting patterns of distribu¬
tion. A substantial number of taxa (see maps 39, 40, 45,
47, 61) are confined to the Coastal Plain (or marginally

36

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

up onto the eastern Piedmont). Others are virtually
excluded from the mountains, except where they have
followed major stream valleys headward (cf. maps 29, 30,
32, 34, 37, 42) particularly when such "eastern" species
show up also on the upper Tennessee headwaters (maps
48, 53, 59) parallelling the occurrence of sweetgum in
Virginia. It is intriguing that so many of such species
extend up to the Blue Ridge front but have not been
taken in the Roanoke valley, topographically only a
western lobe of the Piedmont.

In any event, we now have graphic evidence about
where the holes are: places where even salvageable
roadkills should not be passed over. Presumably the same
lacunae exist for amphibian records, so Virginia natural¬
ists can help to make more complete maps to appear in
the forthcoming amphibian volume.

A reviewer seems expected to find some typos or
some point or other with which he doesn't agree (perhaps
to prove that he really went through the book carefully).
I have found this a difficult course to follow, because of
general satisfaction with both the substance of the
content and the physical layout of the book.

Of course, one can't be faulted for wishing to see
more of a good thing, so here are a few items on my
personal want list, against possible future revisions:

I think it would be neat to have a chart, maybe in a
"box", entitled "Turtles through field glasses" or some¬
thing similar. It is true that the head and neck of most of
our species are illustrated in color photos, but it would
help in sorting out basking specimens (at a distance) to
have a complete set of even diagrammatic sketches all
together, B&W would do fine, of head and neck (and
shell when pertinent) with the diagnostic features pointed
out with an arrow or line (a la Peterson).

Regarding the maps, it would seem useful to repre¬
sent different subspecies by different symbols (e.g., king
snakes, Map 43, and ring-neck snakes, Map 36). The
Virginia distributions of subspecies, and their inter-
gradient areas, are discussed in the text, but one gets a
better perception from different symbols, with intergrades
shown by X symbols and their general area by shading.

And as regards physical composition of the product
itself:

Format of headings and selection of type styles seem
to favor subordinate side headings (in bold face) over
major center heads (species names, &c.) which are set in
a much lighter type face. A quick glance at a page often
fails to pick up where one species account stops and
another starts. The side headings for subspecies trinomials

seem ungenerously small, too (I admit to having a per¬
sonal bias for subspecies, however). On balance the
design and format are excellent: the type face is emi¬
nently readable and the pages have an open, clean
appearance. The book is notably "browseable" and the
fluent writing style invites the casual reader to pause to
enjoy the less technical paragraphs. Typos are remarkably
scarce, reflecting intense proof-reading efforts by author
and the editorial staff. The only one I have found escap¬
ing such scrutiny is the occasional spelling of "Trichop-
tera" without the "h", hardly a matter of any con¬
sequence.

While the book is a long overdue milestone in
Virginia natural history, its financial support during years
of preparation by the "Nongame Program" of the Virginia
Department of Game & Inland Fisheries reflects a
significant change in values during the past several
decades. Not too long ago the investment of donated
public funds (derived largely from voluntary income tax
checkoffs) to finance a book on reptiles would have been
unthinkable. Now, at least a wide spectrum of naturalists
will endorse with appreciation the wisdom of VDGIF's
support and confidence.

A cadre of the authors' friends and colleagues,
including this reviewer, have hovered on the fringes of
the enterprise since its inception with barely contained
impatience, offering whatever encouragement and
material assistance they could. Their long wait has been
more than amply rewarded. Now a second wait begins, as
Joe Mitchell turns to Virginia's amphibians, certainly a
more difficult group to treat. That he will rise to the
occasion no one doubts, but still, The Reptiles of Virginia
will be a hard act to follow.

Richard L. Hoffman

Virginia Museum of Natural History

Martinsville, VA 24112

Obituary

fHorton Holcombe Hobbs, II
(1914-1994)

With the death on March 23rd, in his home at Falls
Church, Virginia, of Horton Hobbs, the scientific
community has lost the acknowledged premiere specialist
on crayfish and related crustaceans, and the world is

MISCELLANEA

37

bereft of a man for whom the phrase "gentleman and
scholar" might well have been devised. Following several
years of slowly declining vigor, Dr. Hobbs died in his
sleep of heart failure after a normal day at home. He
missed his 80th birthday by only three days.

Horton Hobbs entered the University of Florida in
1933 to major in music. When he complained, during his
required course in general biology, of being given a
substandard crayfish to dissect, he was given a dipnet and
told to go out and get a fresh one. The act of catching
one and observing it alive completely metamorphosed his
interests, and a new career was started that day, one
which would take him to the apex of his profession.

Following publication of his doctoral dissertation
("The Crayfishes of Florida") in 1942, Horton was invited
to join the biology faculty of the University of Virginia in
1946, and immediately took up the study of the local
crayfish fauna. In teaching he favored the old-fashioned,
classical, field-oriented study of organisms as total entities,
with emphasis on such basics as taxonomy, evolution,
and structure. In the years that followed, he attracted and
trained a long sequence of students at both master's and
doctoral levels; many of these students in turn became
teachers and produced a second generation of scholars
trained in the Hobbsian mold. Some made major contri¬
butions to the knowledge of Virginia's natural history.

In the 1950s, the University's biology department
followed a national trend and "went molecular". Fortu¬
nately, not long afterwards, the position of Chief Curator
of Zoology became open at the U. S. National Museum,
and Hobbs applied successfully for it, moving in 1961 to
the house on Lake Barcroft where he lived thenceforth.
Unfortunately, after a few years of mostly administrative
work, cardiac problems developed and further exposure to
stress became dangerous. The Smithsonian thereupon
transferred Hobbs to the position of "Senior Scientist"
which required only research duties. Here his productivity
increased even more, and descriptive treatments of
crayfish, shrimp, crabs, and ostracods proceeded at the
rate of 5 to 10 papers annually. During this period he
gradually completed his opus magnus, the spectacular
"Crayfishes of Georgia" (1981, Smithsonian Contribu¬
tions to Zoology 318: 1-549), in which the 66 native
species are treated with astonishing detail and depicted
with beautiful drawings. 43 years of collecting and study
preceded publication of this masterpiece, which will
probably never equalled by a similar faunistic work. I do
not have at hand a complete list of his papers, but know
that they exceed 80 on crayfish (several book length) and

over 30 on other taxa. Many were coauthored, and
reflecting Hobbs' generosity were his minimal require¬
ments for coauthorship: sometimes for no other reason
than to reward the collector of a new species, or in
appreciation of someone doing no more than inking his
pencil drawings.

Among colleagues and even casual acquaintances,
the commonly shared descriptors used to characterize
Horton Hobbs were such terms as scholarly, charming,
generous, considerate, courtly. The expression "quintes¬
sential Southern gentleman" has never been applied more
aptly to any scientist or teacher of my acquaintaince, nor
been more merited. It was a turning point in my own life
to come under Hobbs' influence when still a 3rd year
student at U. Va., when we jointly decided that
Diplopoda would be a good group for me to specialize on.
It was my exceptional good fortune to be in effect his first
student, in the year before bona fide graduate students
began to show up. I became virtually a member of the
family, given a key to the basement lab, treated to
frequent meals, and allowed to look after the two young
children when he and his wife Georgia went out for an
evening. I perceived the Hobbsian life style as idyllic, and
would have lived mine the same way, given the opportu¬
nity. In the years and decades that followed, I never saw
any reason to revise that initial impression.

It would be difficult for me to recount all of his
graduate students and their contributions on the biota of
Virginia. Two of the first cadre were Perry C. Holt, whose
doctoral work was on the branchiobdellid ecto-
commensals of crayfish, and Marvin L. Bobb, whose task
was a survey of the aquatic and semiaquatic bugs of the
state. Holt spent some years at East Tennessee State
University, then moved to VPI&SU where he completed
his academic career and while there directed the graduate
work of James E. Carico (pisaurid spiders), J. E. Lawson
(pseudoscorpions), and Charles R. McGhee (opilionids).
All of these people collected actively in Virginia. By an
interesting twist of fate, I also "Ph.D.'ed" with Professor
Holt (on the taxonomy of branchiobdellids) and thus
became a Hobbsian graduate student once removed.
Marvin Bobb returned to economic entomology, but his
dissertation, updated, was published in 1974 as part 7 of
"The Insects of Virginia" and has been widely cited. Jean
E. Pugh conducted a faunistic-ecological study of the
mayflies of the Piney River in Nelson County, turning up
a new species in the process. Hugo James revised the
Cambarus longulus group which is largely endemic to
Virginia. Hobbs himself named several native species of

38

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

crayfish: Orconectes virginiensis from the Chowan River
system, Cambarus wheeleri from the Powell drainage in
Lee County, and Cambarus angularis from the upper
Tennessee basin but never got around to a state survey.
He once told me he was working northward, and having
covered Florida and Georgia had to write up South and
North Carolina first. But field work! I cannot imagine a
place in Virginia not represented in the USNM collec¬
tion! It used to be a game for me to find an obscure
species in some obscure place, and then check his geo¬
graphic card file for Virginia records. So often he already
had it from that county or even that same place. Some¬
body who aspires to write up a "Crayfishes of Virginia"
will find virtually everything needed on the shelves at
Washington.

Later in life, after retirement from the National
Museum staff, Horton was advised to have a triple-bypass
procedure performed. This was eminently successful, he
described it to me as one of the best things that ever
happened to him. And for another decade or two he
continued, through his sixties and early seventies, to
dipnet and seine stream crayfishes, and dig out the
burrowers, all over southern and eastern United States.
For some years he went in to work every morning (early!)
and was solely in charge of the crayfish collection. Daily
he thus conducted an extensive correspondence, re¬
viewed manuscripts, entertained visitors, and still man¬
aged to push his projects forward. During the past two or
three years, however, health problems became sequential
and his stamina declined. Only one visit per week to the
museum was possible. In 1989 he served the Virginia
Museum of Natural History as one of the charter members
of the Board of Trustees, but was forced to relinquish this
position because the increasing severity of his wife's
health problems made it impossible for him to bring her
to meetings or leave her anywhere, unsupervised.

We had the honor of publishing what I am sure is
the last paper he wrote (there may be others still in press):
the description, coauthored with Raymond Bouchard, of
Cambarus angularis in Jeffersoniana no. 5 earlier this year.
By the end of 1993, his voice and handwriting had
become notably feeble, yet the inked drawings which he
produced were as precise and elegant as those from mid-
career.

Horton Hobbs enjoyed other gifts. He was a natural
musician, and could play on the piano (by ear!) any piece
that he knew or was hummed or whistled for him. For
some years he was the organist for his church in Char¬
lottesville. Taking up oil painting one day, he produced

from the very first quite credible portraits of family
members. From Smithsonian artist Carolyn Gast, he
learned the technique of carbon dust rendition, and
illustrated some of his papers with drawings of near
photographic realism. And an honest capacity for enjoy¬
ing life. During the Smithsonian years the Hobbs family
went several times to Europe, and it is a measure of the
man that he found Parisians (even waiters) to be friendly
and courteous, surely an exceptional testimonial to
someone who judged others by himself.

He is survived by his wife Georgia and two children,
Nina Blount Hobbs Singleton, who is a successful
businesswoman in Ardmore, Pa., and Horton H. Hobbs,
III, professor of biology at Wittenberg University, who
has followed in his father's footsteps by specializing in
crustacean systematics. He is survived in a broader sense
by the multitude of persons whose lives he touched and
made better, as teacher, colleague, friend, or combination
of all three.

Richard L. Hoffman

Virginia Museum of Natural History

Martinsville, VA 24112

Reports

1. Results of the First Annual Meeting of the Virginia
Natural History Society

The first annual meeting of the VNHS was held on
19 May 1994 at James Madison University, Harrisonburg,
VA as a new section of the Virginia Academy of Science
entitled "Natural History and Biodiversity." The follow¬
ing talks were presented:

The public's attitude toward snakes: preliminary survey
results from park-goers. R. A. S. Wright.

Possible biodiversity implications: 1992-1993 Turkey Run
Park herpetological survey. D. A. Lindholm.

Amphibian biodiversity and community structure in five
forested habitats on Shenandoah Mountain, Virginia. J.
C. Mitchell, K. A. Buhlmann, &. C. A. Pague.

Mammal biodiversity and community structure in five
forested habitats on Shenandoah Mountain, Virginia. J.
F. Pagels, S. C. Rinehart, J. C. Mitchell, K. A. Buhl¬
mann, & C. A. Pague.

MISCELLANEA

39

Allozymic variation in mainland and insular populations
of Oryzomys palustris and Peromyscus leucopus. J. L. Lox-
terman, N. D. Moncrief, R. D. Dueser, & J. F. Pagels.

Discovery of a Virginia "serpentine barren". T. J.
Rawinski.

An exemplary fire-maintained ecosystem in the Virginia
Piedmont. G. P. Fleming.

Evaluating effects of prescribed burning on an endangered
plant: Peters Mt. mallow. C. Caljouw, M. Lipscomb, &

S. Adams.

Distribution and ecology of stream-dwelling crayfishes in
the Clinch River drainage, VA. P. S. Lookabaugh, P. L.
Angermeier, &. R. J. Neves.

Use of ponds to protect native freshwater mussels. J. W.
Burress & R.J. Neves.

The sucking lice (Insecta: Anoplura) of Virginia sciurids.
R. P. Eckerlin &. H. F. Painter.

Biological control of purple loosestrife. T. J. McAvoy, L.

T. Kok, & W. T. Mays.

A butterfly survey at the Virginia Tech Horticulture
Gardens. T. J. McAvoy, W. T. Mays, and B. Lyons.

Odonate fauna of Fort A. P. Hill. S. M. Roble and C. S.
Hobson.

An instructional design model for the use of university
research collections in undergraduate education. S. L.
Sharp.

In addition, a well-attended open forum organized by
Nancy Moncrief was held on applications and reporting
procedures for collecting permits (for vertebrates). This
session allowed people to vent their frustrations over the
handling of the VA Dept, of Game & Inland Fisheries
collection permit process.

Overall, the response was such a success that the
VAS has made our section permanent. Its codification
will hopefully send a message to others indicating that
this area of science is as important in the "modern era" as
any other.

Information on future meetings may be obtained

from the Section Secretary (and VNHS Vice-President)
Dr. C. Barry Knisley, Department of Biology, Randolph-
Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005 (804-752-7254).
Information about the 1995 meeting to be held on 23
May at Washington and Lee University may be obtained
from the Virginia Academy of Science, do Science
Museum of Virginia, 2500 West Broad St., Richmond,
VA 23220. Please make plans to attend.

2. Progress Report from the Departing President

Although it is my constitutional duty to give an
annual report to the Executive Committee, I am doing
this with great pleasure now to all members of the
Society. Because my two year term ends this December,
while 1 am saying goodbye to all members, I am also
giving a report on the major accomplishments of the first
two years of the infant life of the Society.

As you may recall from my last year's report (Banis-
teria 2:27), the Article of Incorporation and Bylaws of
the VNHS were adopted on May 20, 1993. The other
good news is that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
approved on August 26, 1994 our exemption from federal
income tax under section 501(a) of Internal Revenue
Code as given in section 501(c)3. This means we are
officially recognized by IRS as a publicly supported non¬
profit scientific organization. The ruling is retroactive
from May 20, 1993, the date our (now called) Constitu¬
tion and Bylaws were adopted. Thus, if any individual or
organization gave a gift sum to the Society after May 20,
1993, this is now considered a tax-deductible item. Even
if we do not have employees, we had to request an
Employee ID number (54 - 1709985). It was also received
this year in case you need it. We can use gifts to the
Society and I am encouraging members and friends of our
society to augment the very low membership fees with
gifts, so that we could expand our programs and set up an
emergency fund for future use. Contributions of up to
$250.00 are not required by the IRS to have a written
substantiation by the Society to the donor.

Only Anne C. Lund, our able Secretary-Treasurer,
Richard L. Hoffman, and I, know how much documenta¬
tion (two applications each with 9 enclosures), and
correspondence it takes to convince the IRS about one
worthy cause with VNHS. The Society received from the
IRS an advance ruling for a period of 5 years, ending
December 31, 1997 when, within 90 days, we have to
prove again our public support requirements to receive
the final ruling. Because the IRS required it, we also had

40

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

to submit to the IRS five amendments to our Constitu¬
tion. These are listed in section 4, p. 41, and need to be
approved by the majority of the responding membership.
Please return the ballot to Anne C. Lund.

All of you who are reading this report are familiar
with the first four issues of Banisteria, which are consid¬
ered important milestones in the scientific knowledge of
the natural history of Virginia. Our two co-editors (Joseph
C. Mitchell and Richard L Hoffman) should be congratu¬
lated for their special efforts as volunteers, to start the
serial and to keep it going already for two years. Similarly,
our thanks are due to the Associate Editors, the many
reviewers of articles, and especially to Rick Boland, our
Production Consultant, for his talents with Banisteria.

Anne Lund, who has served the Society for two years
as our indispensable Secretary-Treasurer and also hosted
our Executive Committee Meetings, deserves thanks. She
kept us out of red ink to date, and hopes to continue so
with your financial and moral support.

We are all indebted to C. Barry Knisley, Vice
President and the Society's next President from January
1, 1995, for his work on the Constitution and Bylaws of
the Society and for organizing and successfully conduct¬
ing our first official Section Meeting "Biodiversity and
Natural History" in conjunction with the Annual Meet¬
ing of the Virginia Academy of Sciences (VAS) in May
this year. Because of the excellent attendance, our
Section became a permanent Section of the VAS for the
future. Please start planning now to attend the meeting
next May and to give a paper.

The routine for the two yearly meetings of the
Society was established: one in fall for the Executive
Committee, and one in the spring for all the membership
during our Section meeting at the Annual Meeting of
VAS. To keep down the cost of mail balloting, we shall
try to elect new officers at the latter general public
meeting.

1 would like to see more regional field trips organized
by the Society, especially to ecologically unique areas and
where the protection of the biota requires our attention.
Also lets make heard our voice on the acute environmen¬
tal issues facing Virginia. In this regard our Society, with
Joseph Mitchell's initiative, sent a statement last August
to the Norfolk District Corps of Engineers Office, asking
suspension of the Department of the Army's National
Permits for excavations and fill activities in the Grafton
Plains area of Virginia. We also expressed favor of the
development of a Special Area Management Plan that
will help to protect the biological diversity of this unique

area.

Although our Society's letterhead was approved last
year, the Society is still without a logo. Would our much
talented members suggest one for consideration? Please
send your sketches (they do not have to be artistically
finalized) to Anne Lund before the end of the year. If
there is no better idea and no true competition, I shall
submit mine, that I designed and finalized with an artist,
depicting the state bird, state insect, state tree, flowers,
and the Virginia white-tailed deer.

As I asked the members of the VNHS leadership
earlier, I am extending the same request to each member
now: please bring in three of your friends, colleagues, or
students as members of the Society. I already did my
share; how about you? The cost of bulk mailing Banis-
teria to members will be drastically reduced if we could
mail at least 200 copies at one time. Would you invite
prospective members to submit an article free for printing
in our refereed journal? We can print more articles in
each issue without substantial increase in cost. We can
use some articles in Geology, Ornithology, Limnology,
and Mycology to enrich our coverage. If you have col¬
leagues writing in these areas, would you please solicit
their contributions? Is your institution's library a sub¬
scriber of Banisteria? If not, please request it. For $30 per
year, it is a bargain for libraries.

Last, but not least! It was a real pleasure for me to
work with a dedicated group of volunteers. Persons who
sacrificed their weekends to meet and work toward the
initiation and establishment of the Virginia Natural
History Society. Colleagues who would not accept

MISCELLANEA

41

compensation for their services provided during the
crucial first two years an excellent start for the Society. I
feel good that I am able to leave in good hands the future
of the Society. I also wish to all members success in
promoting the study of Virginia and in educating the
citizens of the Commonwealth about conserving their
natural heritage.

Michael Kosztarab
Virginia Tech Branch
Virginia Museum of Natural History
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0542

3. Report of the Secretary /Treasurer

The first business meeting of the Virginia Natural
History Society as a section of the VAS was attended by
25 members and potential members of the Society. The
topics of business included the call for papers and short
reports to be published in the society's journal Banisteria.
Ways to increase membership was also discussed. The
group was informed that members of the VNHS did not
have to be members of the VAS to attend the annual
meeting, but such membership is encouraged. Members
attending the section meeting will have to pay the
registration fee, like everyone else. Members presenting
papers in the VAS section known as Natural History and
Biodiversity must also be members of the VAS. The VAS
incurs some costs to set up the section for us and publish
the abstracts in the Virginia Journal of Science. The
VNHS will hold its annual business meeting during the
day on which the section is scheduled.

During the 1994 business meeting, the Secretary/
Treasurer reported that the VNHS had a balance on
hand of $2027.00. Membership dues of $15.00 was
almost completely used to pay for journal costs and
mailing. There is little extra to cover other expenses and
thus additional members and donations are desired.

As of the last week in September 1994, the member¬
ship is 130 strong. This includes several libraries within
the state. $2200.00 is on hand in the Treasury. Over half
of this amount will be expended on the journal and
mailing before the end of the year.

Anne C. Lund
Biology Department
Hampden-Sydney College
Hampden-Sydney, VA 23943

4. Amendments to the Constitution

In compliance with requirements of the IRS to
obtain tax exempt status (see remarks in the President's
statement above), the phraseology in several articles of
the VNHS constitution has been slightly altered. The
new text is given below:

Amendment 1. Change, in the title, the words
"Articles of Incorporation" to "Constitution" and the
same change in the first centered heading.

Amendment 2. Addition to Article V. Finances, of
the Bylaws, Section 1, to begin with the following
sentence: "The Society is organized exclusively for
scientific purposes, including such purposes, the making
of distributions to organizations under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code (or the correspondiong
section of any future Federal tax code.)"

Amendment 3. Article V. Finances, Section 2, the
entire paragraph to be replaced with the following text:
"No part of the net earnings of the Society shall inure to
the benefit of, or be distributable to its members, trustees,
directors, officers, or other private persons, except that
the Society shall be authorized and empowered to pay
reasonable compensation for services rendered and to
make payments and distributions in furtherance of
Section 501(c)(3) purposes. No substantial part of the
activities of the Society shall be the carrying on of
propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legisla¬
tion, and the Society shall not participatre in, or inter¬
vene in (including the publishing or distribution of
statements) any political campaign on behalf of, or in
opposition to, any candidate for public office."

"Notwithstanding any other provision of these
articles, the Society shall not carry on any other activities
not permitted to be carried on (a) by an porganizaytion
exempt from Federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code (or corresponding section
of any future Federal tax code) or (b) by an organization,
contributions to which are deductible under Section
170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (or corresponding
section of any future Federal tax code)."

Amendment 4. Article V. Finances, Section 4. The
text of this paragraph, starting with line six, to be re¬
placed with the following text: "...has established its tax
exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, or to the Federal Government or a state
or local government for a public purpose. The specific
non-profit organization or organizations to receive any
remaining funds may be determined and approved by the

42

BANISTERIA

NO. 4, 1994

Executive Committee."

Amendment 5. Article IX. Amendments. Change
"Articles of Incorporation" to "Constitution and Bylaws"
in the title, in line 1 of section 1, and line 6 of Section 2.

Announcements

1. Kudos to President Kosztarab.

Dr. Michael Kosztarab, professor emeritus of the
Department of Entomology, VPI&SU, and out-going
President of the VNHS recently received the Association
of Systematics Collections (ASC) Annual Award for
Service. It was presented during the ASC Annual
Banquet on 12 May 1994. This award is presented
annually to an individual who has performed exceptional
service to systematics collections and the systematics
community. Dr. Kosztarab received the award for spend¬
ing years working toward the establishment of a national
biological survey in the United States, for organizing a
biological survey effort at VPI&SU, and for starting a
museum of natural history at the university. He was
recognized for maintaining a positive and optimistic
attitude in the face of many setbacks on the way to his
goals. Past recipients of the ASC service award include
Steven J. Gould, Peter Raven, and Edward O. Wilson.
The officers, editors, and members of the VNHS congrat¬
ulate Michael for his accomplishments and this presti¬
gious award.

2. Appalachian Biogeography Symposium.

The first symposium on Appalachian Biogeography
was held in 27-29 June 1968 and resulted in three
volumes covering the flora, invertebrates, and vertebrates
of the region. A second symposium designed to update
this topic is being organized for 25-29 June 1995 by Ralph
P. Eckerlin and others. Papers are being sought on
botany, geology, invertebrate biology, paleobiology,
paleoclimatology, physical geography, and vertebrate
biology.

Those interested in presenting papers or posters
should contact Dr. Eckerlin, Natural Sciences Division,
Northern Virginia Community College, 8333 Little River
Turnpike, Annandale, VA 22003-3796 (703-323-3234,
FAX 703-323-3215) as soon as possible. The proceedings
of the symposium will be published.

3. Forthcoming Meetings

Association of Southeastern Biologists - 19-21 April
1995, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Contact
Beverly Collins, Savannah River Ecology Lab, Aiken, SC
29802.

Virginia Herpetological Society - April 1995, weekend
field trip site not selected. Contact Bob Hogan, P.O. Box
603, Troutville, VA 24175.

Virginia Society of Ornithology - 5-7 May 1995,
Williamsburg, VA; in conjunction with the Wilson
Society. Contact VSO, 520 Rainbow Forest Dr., Lynch¬
burg, VA 24502.

VNHS - 23 May 1995, Washington and Lee University,
Lexington, VA, with the Virginia Academy of Science.

4. New Publications of Interest

New systematics video - Phylogenetics Systematics Video,
Concepts and Application. Copyright 1992 by E. G.
Maurakis and W. S. Woolcott. Concepts and application
of phylogenetic systematics are presented in a two-part
25-minute video. Part I describes the development of a
cladogram. In part II, cladistics is applied to an ethologi-
cal phylogenetic analysis of relationships among cyprinid
minnows that breed over gravel substrates. Much of the
work was done in Virginia. The video is accompanied by
an instructor's manual. U.S standard video format
(NTSC) and PAL/SECAM formats available. Contact
Gene Maurakis, Science Museum of Virginia, 2500 West
Broad St., Richmond, VA 23220 (804-367-6795).

New book: Amphibians and Reptiles of A ssateague and
Chincoteague Islands, by Joseph C. Mitchell and John M.
Anderson, published in December 1994 by the Virginia
Museum of Natural History. This book provides informa¬
tion on some of the islands' most secretive inhabitants,
the amphibians and reptiles. Most of the frogs, salaman¬
ders, turtles, lizards, and snakes have occupied these
islands since they were formed thousands of years ago.
Each of the seven species of amphibians and eighteen
species of reptiles can be readily identified using the keys,
color photographs, and descriptions in this book. Many
interesting aspects of their biology are summarized in

MISCELLANEA

43

highly readable form. 128 pages, softcover, 6x9 inches,
27 color photos, $14.95. Order from Publications Dept.,
Virginia Museum of Natural History, 1001 Douglas Ave.,
Martinsville, VA 24112 (phone 703/666-8631).

5. Banisteria is expanding the range of articles contained
in its pages. The editors are especially seeking manuscripts
on the biographies of people who have contributed to the
natural history of Virginia. These articles could be
exhaustive descriptions of the person's life and accom¬
plishments, his or her contributions to the natural history
of the Commonwealth, or a review of a particular phase
in his or her life. Photographs and lists of publications are
welcomed. There are few places where historical informa¬
tion about our colleagues is published and thus we
envision that Banisteria could fill a long-standing void.

In addition, we are seeking book reviews from
anyone who wishes to describe and critique books related
in some way to the natural history of Virginia. We are
also seeking essays on current issues or subjects pertaining
to natural history. Essays can be of any length. The
editors reserve the right to seek additional essays on the
topic in question so that more than one view can be
published. Letters to the editor are also welcomed.

Biographies, book reviews, essays, and letters to the
editor should be sent to Joseph C. Mitchell, Department
of Biology, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA
23173.

* * *

Information on upcoming meetings, symposia, and
other items of interest to members of the Virginia Natural
History Society should be sent to the editors.

New York Botanical Garden Library

3 5

85

00269 9

-s

Chrysogonum virginianum Linnaeus

Original drawing by John Banister. Figure 83 in folio in Hans Sloane's MS 4002 in the British
Museum. Photocopy courtesy of Joseph and Nesta Ewan.