Euphydryas phaeton schausi ( Clark, 1927 )

Euphydryas phaeton schausi ( Clark, 1927) View in CoL

In 1927, Austin Clark described new subspecies E. phaëton schausi . He compared nominotypical specimens of what he referred to as the “southern form” from Maryland and Virginia against specimens of what he referred to as the “northern form” from New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Clark makes comparisons between specimens from Cabin John, MD and Alexandria, VA ( schausi ) against samples from: Stoneham, Lincoln, Weston, and Newtonville, MA; Kendall, NY; and New Jersey (no locality). He states: “We find no difficulty in distinguishing specimens from New Jersey and northward from those from the vicinity of Washington. Typical examples of each are very distinct…” Clark’s original description follows:

“ Characters. - Closely resembling E. phaëton phaëton (pl. 1, figs. 1-4) from eastern Massachusetts, but with the ground color of the upper surface of the wings deep velvety black, usually, but not always, duller and more grayish in the females, instead of blackish brown, and the light markings white instead of light straw yellow; on the fore wings the orange spots in the middle and at the tip of the cell are usually much reduced and commonly (occasionally in the northern form) entirely absent; the eight orange spots along the margin of the wing are smaller, due to the broadening of the band of black scales along the veins between them and a rounding off of their outer angles by an invasion of black scales; they are frequently very much reduced in size, especially in the females, and may be almost wholly obliterated by black scales; in the northern form the three apical spots are usually noticeably larger than the others, extending inward between the veins for a greater distance, but in the southern form these spots may be all of the same size, as is usual in the females, or they may decrease regularly from the apex posteriorly, as is usual in the males; on the hind wings there is very seldom any trace of orange except for the submarginal row of spots, which are restricted by a broadening of the narrow black border of the wings and a heavier development of black scales along the veins, especially in the females; beneath, the marginal band of orange spots is narrower than in the northern form with a more deeply crenate inner margin, and the orange markings in the basal half of the hind wings are more or less reduced by a greater development of black along the veins and an invasion of black on all sides; the light markings on the under side are also purer white than in the northern form.”

Maximum wing expanse measurements (wingtip-to-wingtip of mounted specimens) of schausi indicated males (n=99) ranged between 45.0 to 64.0 mm, averaging 52.5 mm; females (n=61) ranged between 50.4 to 67.8 mm, averaging 60.3 mm. By comparison, males from New Jersey to Massachusetts (n=17) ranged between 49.4 to 60.0 mm, averaging 54.5 mm; females (n=8) ranged between 54.0 to 69.8 mm, averaging 59.5 mm).

The variety “ magnifica ” ( Clark, 1927) was described from a specimen taken at the schausi TL in

Maryland, thus remaining under the synonymy of E. p. schausi .

Literature Treatment 1929-1940

Clark (1929, 1932) oddly listed Washington D.C. area phaeton as subspecies phaeton only one year, then again four years, after he described subspecies schausi . It is unclear what course of events led to this taxonomic change of heart by the author of schausi himself. One possibility is hinted at, in the Nomenclature section of each paper. Clark indicates in each of the 1929 and 1932 papers that nomenclature is based on Barnes & Benjamin (1926), which was published prior to the description of schausi . It might be conjectured that Clark felt obliged to adhere to the most recent major synonymic checklist, or this adherence was insisted upon by peer reviewers William T. M. Forbes of Cornell University and William J. Holland of the Carnegie Museum. In a curious comment, Clark (1932) states: “But whatever the status of the more or less unfamiliar names may be the fact remains that radical innovations in nomenclature, whether justified or not, are wholly out of place in a local list. The object of a local list is to make clear the relation of the local fauna to the fauna of the larger area…This can be done only if in the local list a system of nomenclature is used which is in general agreement with the nomenclature employed in similar lists…” This change, initiated by Clark himself, is likely the reason why schausi remained the “forgotten” subspecies and ignored by subsequent authors.

Field (1938) discussed E. phaeton in Kansas and Missouri and noted a phenotypic difference from northeastern nom. phaeton .

McDunnough (1938) lists E. phaeton and treats schausi as a junior synonym.

The following authors treated phaeton at species level only, for various states and regions: The

Natural History Society of Maryland (1936); Saunders (1932); Wild (1939).