MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395235431 · doi:10.15468/5zrw7j

Checklist of the Butterflies (Papilionoidea) of Vermont, USA

2021· dataset· en· W4395235431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kent P. McFarland, Bryan Pfeiffer

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGeographyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1995 checklist of Vermont Lepidoptera listed 89 butterfly species in 48 genera (Grehan et al. 1995), with two new butterfly species recorded for Vermont. The report documented identifications primarily from specimens held at the University of Vermont Entomology Research Laboratory, the Carl T. Parsons Collection, state agencies, and private collections held by the authors. Most of the records were from collections made in northwestern Vermont. Of the 22 collecting localities, only three sites were located in the Northeastern Highlands, one in the southern third of the state, with the remainder in northwestern Vermont. The authors noted that their work should be augmented by searching for Vermont records in regional collections, as well as developing a database to document distribution, seasonality, habitat and food plants in Vermont. This spawned the Vermont Butterfly Survey which was completed from 2002 - 2007 across the entire state (McFarland and Zahendra 2010). As part of this effort, private and institutional collections, as well as published and unpublished literature and field notebooks, were searched for Vermont butterfly records. Label data from 2,377 specimens, 161 literature records and 208 visual sightings from field notebooks representing 94 species of butterflies and five giant silkmoths were found in 16 private and institutional collections, as well as in published literature, unpublished reports and field notebooks. Most records came from the UVM Zadock Thompson Natural History Collection (727), the UVM Entomological Research Laboratory (531) Scott Griggs’ personal collection (398), James Hedbor’s personal collection (263), Peabody Museum of Natural History (149; partially completed) and unpublished reports by Donald Miller (106). Hartland Nature Club, the oldest such club in Vermont, had the oldest specimens, dating back to 1892, which probably survived because of sealed Ricker mounts. After six years of surveys the VBS database contained 36,121 records representing 103 species of butterflies.Five species with known historic occurrences were not documented by VBS. Three of these were of unknown origin or vagrants and were not expected to be recorded. These included (1) a Gulf Fritillary specimen in a collection at St. Michael’s College found road killed in Burlington on 5 May 1995 by J. Leonard; (2) a Long-tailed Skipper found nectaring on scarlet runner bean in a garden in South Hero on 6 September 1994 by James Hedbor (personal collection); and (3) a California Tortoiseshell found in southern Vermont (date unknown) by P. Opler (Scott 1986). Two formerly extant species, Regal Fritillary and Persius Duskywing, are apparently now extirpated in Vermont. The last known Regal Fritillary was a female collected on 17 July 1941 by O.M. Calloway in Pomfret, Vermont (Grehan 1995). We found the specimen in the Peabody Museum of Natural History collection. It was originally housed in the Dartmouth College collections. We also uncovered two males and a female of this species collected on 14 July 1939 in Dorset in the Peabody collection and three specimens from North Hartland (1894 and 1899, exact dates unknown) in the Hartland Nature Club collection. There is only one known Vermont record for Persius Duskywing, from an unknown location in 1983 by P.A. Opler (Grehan et al. 1995). There are no other details available.The Vermont Butterfly Survey added 10 butterfly species to the Vermont checklist. Most of the new records were obtained from the southernmost region of Vermont where little collecting had been done historically. However, both the Hackberry and Tawny emperors were found in the northwestern region of Vermont where most historic collecting occurred. Because they were found only in a few floodplain forests within the Vermont range of Hackberry tree (Celtis occidentalis), the two species may have simply been previously missed rather than recently immigrated into Vermont. Either way, Vermont is on the northern edge of the range of both emperors and their host plant. Six of the new species are now included as Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Vermont, 7 have been assigned a conservation rank of S1 (most imperiled), and 2 are designated conservation status unknown (SU) until further targeted surveys are complete.Since the VBS, observers have annually provided many butterfly records to our project in iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/inaturalist-vermont) and e-Butterfly (https://www.e-butterfly.org). Four additional species have been added to the checklist since VBS. An Eastern Giant Swallowtail was first photographed in a garden in Addison on 30 July 2010 by A. Fisher. Several days later a sighting was reported from a garden just 10 miles north in Charlotte by H. Kaestner. This species is now well established in portions of Vermont. The first US record of Common Blue was reported by David Barrington on 5 Sept 2020 in Alburg, VT with additional records later in the month in nearby Saint Albans, VT. This species presumably arrived here from the well established population in nearby Quebec, Canada. On 15 June 2021 a presumably vagrant Cloudless Sulphur (Phoebis sennae) was photographed by Terri Armata and reported on a checklist to eButterfly.org (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/109860). On 30 June 30 2022 in the far southwest corner of Vermont Terri Armata photographed a Northern Oak Hairstreak (Satyrium favonius ontario) among the Banded Hairstreaks (Satyrium calanus) nectaring at Common Milkweed and shared it with eButterfly.org (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/117328). The Northern Oak Hairstreak lays its eggs predominantly on White Oak (Quercus alba) in the northern edge of its range, which is found in the valleys of Vermont. It likely lives covertly, hidden from the eyes of butterfly watchers, feeding (on galls and Hemiptera honeydew) and breeding high overhead in the leaves and branches of the forest canopy and may be present in more localities. On 5 October 2022 James McNamara photographed a European Peacock Butterfly (Aglais io) in a garden in Calais, Vermont and reported it the Vermont Atlas of Life on iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/137682387) marking the first state record for this species.During the Second Vermont Butterfly Atlas (2023-2027), a population of Bog Elfin (Callophrys lanoraieensis) was discovered in NW Vermont by Bryan Pfeiffer on 19 May 2023 and reported to e-Butterfly.org (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/124294). A vagrant Sachem (Atalopedes huron) found by Terri Armata in July 2024 and reported to e-Butterfly.org (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/138044), soon followed by her report of Zabulon Skipper (Lon zabulon) (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/139682) in August. In August 2025, Kevin Hemeon photographed a Red-banded Hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops) in Bennington, Vermont and reported it to e-Butterfly.org (https://www.e-butterfly.org/ebapp/en/checklists/view/150499).The Vermont Butterfly Checklist is now comprised of 120 species in 5 families (Family:no. species= Hesperiidae 38, Lycaenidae 27, Nymphalidae 40, Papilionidae 7, Pieridae 8) with 106 native species (two extirpated), 10 vagrants species, and 4 introduced species. Nomenclature follows: Pelham, J. (2025). A Catalogue of the Butterflies of the United States and Canada. Revised Oct. 2025.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→