Large meadow bird

Large meadow bird
	Great meadow bird ( Coenonympha tullia ) near Dyers Bay, Ontario, Canada
Systematics
Class :	Insects (Insecta)
Order :	Butterflies (Lepidoptera)
Family :	Noble butterfly (Nymphalidae)
Subfamily :	Eye butterflies (Satyrinae)
Genre :	Coenonympha
Type :	Large meadow bird
Scientific name
	Coenonympha tullia
	( OV Müller , 1764)

The large meadow bird ( Coenonympha tullia ) is a butterfly ( butterfly ) from the family of noble butterflies (Nymphalidae). It is also known as the great hay butterfly or the bog meadow bird .

description

Top of Coenonympha tullia in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

The moths are very different in size and reach a wingspan of 27 to 40 mm. They have very variable wing tops, from pale yellowish and ocher yellow to brownish. Usually a small, light-edged eye spot is formed on the underside of the forewing near the tip, which often shines through on the upper side. There are sometimes other smaller eye spots towards the front edge. On the darker colored, light, dark brown or gray underside of the hind wings, there are usually several white or light-edged black eye spots with a silver point, which can also be missing. An unmistakable feature of the species is a white, irregular and interrupted band that begins at the front edge of the hind wings.

The egg is large, egg-shaped and very finely latticed. It is initially pale yellow-green and later becomes marbled red-brown.

The hairless caterpillar becomes about 25 millimeters long and has small, yellowish point warts and is tapered towards the rear. In Europe it is light green with a narrow, dark center line and a narrow upper white-yellow and darkly delimited upper line and a lower, broader, light yellow and sharply delimited line. In North America it varies from green to olive green to brown and has alternating light and dark vertical stripes. At the end of the abdomen, they have two small pink tips that mark the caterpillars of the butterfly (Satyrinae). The head is green or tan .

The pupa is green with light longitudinal lines in Europe and North America and green to brown in California.

Subspecies and forms

Coenonympha tullia in Lithuania

Coenonympha tullia california

Some North American subspecies have been and are partially considered species. But it could be shown that it is a single species together with the Eurasian subspecies. The strong variation in wing color and expression of the dark circles from population to population is not necessarily an indication of the formation of subspecies. Populations with similar morphology sometimes differ more in terms of mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) and nuclear DNA than it appears. Simply looking at the morphology does not allow any clear conclusions to be drawn about the formation of subspecies. In North America there are moths with two clades of mDNA. One of these is restricted to northern Alberta , the other occurs throughout North America. The two clades correlate with two strains of Wolbachia bacteria, which apparently lead to a strong selection of the mDNA that is only inherited via the females. In contrast, the moths do not differ in terms of nuclear DNA and morphology.

Depending on the author, the following subspecies or forms are distinguished.

Eurasia
- rothliebii Herrich-Schäffer , 1851, has large eye-spots on the dark underside of the hind wing and occurs in northern England, Belgium and occasionally in Germany.
- typhon Rottemburg , 1775, sometimes also spelled tiphon , which Esper used for red-brown meadow birds ( Coenonympha glycerion ). It has no or only small, indistinct eye spots on the underside of the hind wing and is widespread from France to the Baltic States, in the Ukraine and in the West Siberian lowlands .

North America

inornata W.H. Edwards , 1861, occurs in Canada and the eastern United States south to New England and west to northeast Minnesota and central Manitoba . It varies from light yellow-brown to gray-brown on the upper side of the wing and has no other drawing elements except for a weak ring at the apex. Half of the underside to the base of the fore wings is the same color as the upper side, while for the hind wings it is dark gray. The rest of the underside of the wing is light gray. The subspecies usually flies in two generations in June and August / September. In southern Ontario and Quebec there is only a partial second generation from mid-August to mid-September. Only one generation flies in the rest of Canada.
macisaaci dos Passos , 1935, is a local subspecies from southwestern Newfoundland and sees spp. very similar to inornata . But it has dark, soot-brown wing tops.
ochracea W.H. Edwards , 1861, is ocher in both sexes and has few to many eye spots. It occurs in the mountains from Montana to Colorado .
benjamini McDunnough , 1928, is lighter than spp. ochracea and flies in the lowlands of Montana.
brenda looks like ochracea but has many eye spots on the undersides of the hind wings and lives in Utah , northern New Mexico, and eastern and southern Nevada .
furcae Barnes & Benjamin , 1926, looks like spp. brenda , but is pale ocher and is found in the Grand Canyon , Arizona .
subfusca Barnes & Benjamin , 1926, differs from spp. brenda by narrow yellow circles around the eye-spots on the underside of the hind wings and occurs in the White Mountains of Arizona.
ampelos , WH Edwards , 1871, in contrast to spp. ochracea no eye spots on the light, ocher-colored wings. The subspecies occurs in the eastern California lowlands, northwestern Nevada, Idaho and north to British Columbia . In Nevada it goes into spp. brenda from Elko , Colorado, about.
eunomia Dornfeld , 1967, occurs west of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and, apart from the darker ocher-colored wings, resembles spp. ampelos .
mixturata Alphéraky , 1897, lives in northeast Alaska and the Canadian Northwest Territories and differs from spp. ampelos by darker and greyish wings.
kodiak , WH Edwards , 1869, from western and southern Alaska looks like spp. mixturata , but is very dark.
mackenziei Davenport , 1936, is found in the Great Slave Lake area in the Northwest Territories and is ocher like spp. ochracea , but the edge is whitish as in spp. mixturata .
california , Westwood , [1851], from the Californian lowlands and southwestern Oregon is cream in color. The spring form siskiyouensis is gray on the underside. california is sometimes seen as a separate species, sometimes the name was misspelled, californi c a instead of california.
eryngii H. Edwards , 1877 is also considered a subspecies of California and has a whitish base color.
yontocket , Porter & Mattoon , 1989, occurs very locally on grass and coniferous sand dunes on the Pacific coast near the northern California community of Crescent City in Del Norte County . The population occurs in the range of eryngii , which already flies 10 km east of it. It differs through an ocher basic color instead of a whitish one. It differs from eunomia by the stronger drawing on the underside of the wing and from eunomia and ampelos by basal spots underneath and gray scales along the wing veins and the edges on the upper side. As with the other two subspecies, there are no eye spots. The moths fly in two generations from May to June and September to October and are named after the Yontocket Indian tribe , who had seasonal settlements here.

Similar species

Small meadow bird ( Coenonympha pamphilus ).
Red-brown meadow bird ( Coenonympha glycerion )
Coenonympha nipisiquit

distribution

Distribution of the large meadow bird in Europe

Distribution of the large meadow bird in North America

The distribution of the great meadow bird reaches in Eurasia from Ireland and Great Britain, without the south and southeast, with the Hebrides and Orkney Islands over Central Europe to the east through the temperate zone to East Asia. This extends in the north to polar Fennoscandia and the Baltic States. In the south to the Alps , north of the Rhône valley. There are individual occurrences in the Western Balkans. The western limit of distribution is in the Swiss Jura , in east and north-east France with individual occurrences, and in the Belgian Ardennes .

In North America, the species occurs in the east of New England through Newfoundland to Inukjuak on the shores of Hudson Bay , west over the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains to California in the south and Alaska and the Northwest Territories in the north, where they are almost reached the Arctic Ocean . The species is rare on Prince Edward Island and absent from Nova Scotia . In the east it has spread south in recent years and reached the Atlantic coast in New Brunswick, where it occurs sympatric with Coenonympha nipisiquit .

habitat

In Europe complexes are damp and wet meadows , wet heaths , construction and transition bogs are the habitat of butterflies. The caterpillar habitats include raised bogs and bogs with cotton grasses ( Eriophorum ) as egg-laying and host plants. The moths leave the flowering bogs for a short distance and use neighboring, flowery flat bog areas, wet and wet meadows and roadsides to search for nectar. The species does not occur on basic or fertile soils.

In North America, the species occurs in a wide variety of habitats: in grasslands and also on roadsides, on the prairie , on forest edges and in clearings, in moors and in the arctic and alpine taiga and tundra .

Way of life

The females attach the relatively large eggs to the caterpillar-feeding plants. The caterpillars can be found in Central Europe from late June to early June of the following year. In the third to fourth instar, the caterpillar overwinters in thick grass mats both in Europe and in North America (e.g. spp. Inornata ), but not north of Lake Ontario, where they overwinter in the first or second instar. Pupation takes place in a tumbled pupa between mid-May and mid-July on grasses. In Northern Europe, the development takes two years. In a British population, the moths were found to live only three to four days. In California, the moths over-summer and then live for several weeks. In search of females, the male butterflies patrol their territory in a hopping flight.

The activity of the moths depends strongly on the temperature. Sunbathing can take up a large part of the day, especially at low temperatures. Below 16 ° C, the males spend more than 70% of the day sunbathing and less than 30% flying. In contrast, they fly more than 80% of the time at high temperatures and patrol their territory in a hopping flight in search of females. At low temperatures, they often sit on the ground and sunbathe and wait for females to fly by. Searching for food takes little time.

Flight time

Depending on the region, the moths fly annually in one generation from the beginning of May or mid-June to the beginning or end of August.

In North America a generation flies in the north and in the Rocky Mountains, in New Brunswick from mid-July to mid-August. The furcae subspecies flies from mid-May to late June. Two generations fly north of Lake Ontario from June to late July and from mid-August to mid-September. Several generations fly from May to late September from Oregon, Washington, and southern Idaho to Carson City and the lowlands of Eureka, Colorado and Nevada, but not in the mountains of Elko and Lander Counties , where only one generation flies . Several generations fly in California from March to October.

food

In Europe, the caterpillars are known as white beaked reed ( Rhynchospora alba ), vaginal cottongrass ( Eriophorum vaginatum ), narrow-leaved cottongrass ( Eriophorum angustifolium ) and beaked sedge ( Carex rostrata ). According to Ebert, there is still no definitive certainty about the caterpillar feeding plants in Baden-Württemberg. Due to the typical whereabouts of the moths, it is assumed that they mainly feed on cotton grass ( Eriophorum ). Sour grasses such as Schnabelried ( Rhynchospora ) and sedges ( Carex ) are given as further possible food crops, and sweet grasses (e.g. Poa ) are also used in breeding . The food of the moths is also not yet sufficiently known. Absorbent moths were to Heather , Erica , cranberry , purple loosestrife , Heilziest and trefoil observed. In North America, stipa , meadow bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ) from the field and fescue ( Festuca ) and ostrich grasses ( Agrostis ) are known as food plants in the laboratory .

Synonyms

Papilio tullia Müller , 1764
Papilio tiphon Rottemburg , 1775
Papilio davus Fabricius , 1777
isis Thunberg , 1791

Hazard and protection

Due to the shrinkage of the raised bogs (drainage, peat removal, eutrophication ), the species has been pushed back in Central Europe. The remaining populations in Germany have suffered dramatic populations over the past few decades. In order to preserve the species, it is important, beyond general moor protection and efforts to rewet, renaturate and regenerate, the consistent consideration and establishment of near-natural border areas of the moor from wet and wet meadows.

In Germany the butterfly is considered endangered (hazard category 2). It is specially protected according to the Federal Species Protection Ordinance (BArtSchV).

swell

literature

Josepf Settele, Roland Steiner, Rolf Reinhard & Reinhart Feldmann: Butterflies - Die Tagfalter Deutschlands , Ulmer Verlag Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-8001-4167-1
Günter Ebert & Erwin Rennwald: The butterflies of Baden-Württemberg Volume 2, Tagfalter II. Ulmer Verlag Stuttgart 1993, ISBN 3-8001-3459-4
Tom Tolman, Richard Lewington: Butterflies of Europe and Northwest Africa: All butterflies, over 400 species . 2nd Edition. Franckh-Kosmos Verlag, Stuttgart 2012, ISBN 978-3-440-12868-8 .
Hans-Josef Weidemann: Butterfly: observe, determine , Naturbuch-Verlag Augsburg 1995, ISBN 3-89440-115-X
Scott, James A .: The butterflies of North America . Stanford University Press, Stanford, California 1986, ISBN 0-8047-1205-0 .
Ross A. Layberry, Peter W. Hall, J. Donald Lafontaine: The Butterflies of Canada . University of Toronto Press, 1998, ISBN 978-0-8020-7881-0 .

Individual evidence

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Settele, p. ???

↑ ^a ^b Arnold Spuler: The butterflies of Europe . tape 1 . E. Schweitzerbartsche Verlagbuchhandlung, Stuttgart 1908, p. 49 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t Scott, p. 239f

↑ Domino A. Joyce, Roger LH Dennis, Simon R. Bryant, Tim G. Shreeve, Jonathan S. Ready, Andrew S. Pullin: Do taxonomic divisions reflect genetic differentiation? A comparison of morphological and genetic data in Coenonympha tullia (Müller), Satyrinae . In: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society . tape 97 , no. 2 . Wiley, June 2009, pp. 314-327 , doi : 10.1111 / j.1095-8312.2009.01213.x .

↑ Ullasa Kodandaramaiah, Thomas J. Simonsen, Sean Bromilow, Niklas Wahlberg, Felix Sperling: Deceptive single-locus taxonomy and phylogeography: Wolbachia-associated divergence in mitochondrial DNA is not reflected in morphology and nuclear markers in a butterfly species . In: Ecology and Evolution . tape 3 , no. 16 , 2013, p. 5167-5176 , doi : 10.1002 / ece3.886 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Tolman / Lewington, p. 308

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Satyridae collection of Siberian Zoological Museum (curators - VVDubatolov and Yu.P.Korshunov) szmn.sbras.ru ( Memento of the original from March 28, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2
↑ Lepidoptera Caucasi: Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764) - Сенница туллия
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Markku Savela: Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764). In: Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Retrieved February 24, 2016 .
↑ ^a ^b Layberry, Hall, Lafontaine, S. 216f
↑ ^a ^b Markku Savela: Coenonympha california Westwood, (1851). In: Lepidoptera and some other life forms. Retrieved February 24, 2016 .
^ ^A ^b Adam H. Porter, Sterling O. Mattoon: a new subspecies of Coenonympha Tullia (Müller) (Nymphalidae: Satyrniae) confined to the coastal dunes of northern California . In: Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society . tape 43 , no. 3 , 1989, pp. 229–238 ( PDF [accessed February 24, 2016]).
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Ebert, p. 98f
↑ Bernd Heinrich: Thermoregulation and Flight Activity Satyrine, Coenonympha Inornata (Lepidoptera: Satyridae) . In: Ecological Society of America (Ed.): Ecology . tape 67 , no. 3 , June 1986, pp. 593-597 , doi : 10.2307 / 1937682 .
↑ Weidemann, p. 292
↑ Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Ed.): Red List of Endangered Animals in Germany. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster 1998, ISBN 978-3-89624-110-8