View in other NatureServe Network Field Guides
NatureServe
Montana
Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Wisconsin
British Columbia
South Carolina
Yukon
California
New York
Common Wood-Nymph - Cercyonis pegala
Native Species
Global Rank:
G5
State Rank:
S5
Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS:
BLM:
External Links
General Description
[From Ferris and Brown 1981, Shepard 1986, Glassberg 2001, Guppy and Shepard 2001, Pyle 2002] Forewing 2.4-3.5 cm. The largest of the wood nymphs. Two basic color forms, sexes differ somewhat; in our region, upper forewing chocolate brown with two large yellow-rimmed eyespots (smaller and blacker on males), the bottom eyespot as large or larger than the top one for both sexes, forewing postmedian band prominent and extending to top of top eyespot; ventrally, forewing with eyespots as above, but often with blue centers (especially on females), hindwing dark to pale brown with darker striations, the outer half a little lighter or same shade as inner (basal) half, with a submarginal row of 1-6 small eyespots (more on males than females).
Phenology
One flight; mid-May to late September across range, peak in July and August (Scott 1986, Glasberg 2001, Pyle 2002).
Diagnostic Characteristics
Identified by the two prominent forewing eyespots rimmed with yellow, the second larger or at least as large as the eyespot closest to wing tip, the postmedian band of the forewing prominent and extending to the top of the eyespot nearest the wingtip.
Species Range
Montana Range
Range Descriptions
Native
Range Comments
From east-central British Columbia south to central California and east across Canada and the US south of the boreal forest to the Atlantic Coast; absent in the lowland southwest from southern California through the Texas Gulf Coast (Scott 1986, Glassberg 2001). State-wide in Montana (Kohler 1980, Stanford and Opler 1993). Up to 3200 m elevation in Colorado, and to 2130 m in Oregon and Washington, but most abundant at lower elevations (Ferris and Brown 1981, Pyle 2002, James and Nunnallee 2011). Common to abundant (Glassberg 2001).
Observations in Montana Natural Heritage Program Database
Number of Observations: 95
(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version)
Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density
Recency
(Observations spanning multiple months or years are excluded from time charts)
Migration
Non-migratory.
Habitat
Moist grasslands, dry gullies, old fields, irrigated pastures, open woodlands, montane meadows, roadsides, parks and lawns (Ferris and Brown 1981, Scott 1986, Pyle 2002). In Glacier National Park, reported in xeric montane meadows (Debinski 1993).
Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
- Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
How Associations Were Made
We associated the use and habitat quality (common or occasional) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for
vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
- Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2012, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
- Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species' range and habitat requirements;
- Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point observation database associated with each ecological system;
- Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of "observations versus availability of habitat".
Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.
In general, species were listed as associated with an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.
However, species were not listed as associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system,
even if point observations were associated with that system.
Common versus occasional association with an ecological system was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species as represented in scientific literature.
The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignment of common versus occasional association.
If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact the Montana Natural Heritage Program's Senior Zoologist.
Suggested Uses and Limitations
Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.
These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at:
mtnhp.org/requests) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.
Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.
Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.
Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).
Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species' known geographic range.
Literature Cited
- Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 289 p.
- Dobkin, D. S. 1992. Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34. Missoula, MT.
- Foresman, K.R. 2012. Mammals of Montana. Second edition. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 429 pp.
- Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998. Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 1302 p.
- Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young. 1999. Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32. 72 p.
- Maxell, B.A. 2000. Management of Montana's amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1. Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana. 161 p.
- Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.
- Commonly Associated with these Ecological Systems
Forest and Woodland Systems
Grassland Systems
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
- Occasionally Associated with these Ecological Systems
Forest and Woodland Systems
Grassland Systems
Recently Disturbed or Modified
Shrubland, Steppe and Savanna Systems
Wetland and Riparian Systems
Food Habits
Larval food plants include a variety of grasses and sedges, including Andropogon, Avena, Carex, Danthonia, Festuca, Poa, Stipa, and Tridens (Scott 1986, Guppy and Shepard 2001, James and Nunnallee 2011). Adults feed on flower nectar (including Apocynum, Asclepias, Aster, Carduus, Cirsium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Clematis, Dipsacus, Echinacea, Erigeron, Erioganum, Gaillardia, Geranium, Liatris, Lobelia, Medicago, Mentha, Monarda, Nasturtium, Rhus, Rosa, Rudbeckia, Solidago, Symphoricarpos, Tamarix, and Verbena) as well as sap and dung (Scott 1986, 2014).
Reproductive Characteristics
Females lay 200-300 eggs singly and haphazardly on or near grasses, frequently without attachment to anything. Females may aestivate during the hottest months (late July to early August). Depending on temperature, eggs hatch in 9-10 days, unfed L1 larvae diapause, and overwinter at colder temperatures. Larval instars last 9, 9, 5, 9, and 10 days in L1-L5 instars, respectively; no nest is built. Pupation occurs on the host plant, the pupae suspended from a bent stem or blade. Adults emerge from pupae in 12-20 days (Scott 1986, Guppy and Shepard 2001, Pyle 2002, James and Nunnallee 2011). Males patrol throughout the day in grassy areas, often near trees, to seek females (Scott 1975b, 1986); males live for 3-4 weeks, females more than 8 weeks (James and Nunnallee 2011).
Stewardship Responsibility
References
- Literature Cited AboveLegend:
View Online Publication
Debinski, D. 1993. Butterflies of Glacier National Park, Montana. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. No. 159: 1-13.- Ferris, C.D. and F.M. Brown (eds). 1981. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountains. Univ. of Oklahoma Press. Norman. 442 pp.
- Glassberg, J. 2001. Butterflies through Binoculars: A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Western North America. Oxford University Press.
- Guppy, C.S. and J.H. Shepard. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia: including western Alberta, southern Yukon, the Alaska Panhandle, Washington, northern Oregon, northern Idaho, northwestern Montana. UBC Press (Vancouver, BC) and Royal British Columbia Museum (Victoria, BC). 414 pp.
- James, D.G. and D. Nunnallee. 2011. Life histories of Cascadia butterflies. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 447 p.
- Kohler, S. 1980. Checklist of Montana Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 34(1): 1-19.
- Pyle, R.M. 2002. The butterflies of Cascadia: a field guide to all the species of Washington, Oregon, and surrounding territories. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 420 pp.
- Scott, J.A. 1975b. Mate-locating behavior of western North American butterflies. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 14:1-40.
- Scott, J.A. 1986. The butterflies of North America: a natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
- Scott, J.A. 2014. Lepidoptera of North America 13. Flower visitation by Colorado butterflies (40,615 records) with a review of the literature on pollination of Colorado plants and butterfly attraction (Lepidoptera: Hersperioidea and Papilionoidea). Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthopod Diversity. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 190 p.
- Stanford, R.E. and P.A. Opler. 1993. Atlas of western USA butterflies: including adjacent parts of Canada and Mexico. Unpubl. Report. Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado 275 pp.
- Additional ReferencesLegend: View Online Publication
Do you know of a citation we're missing?- Allen, T.J., J.P. Brock, and J. Glassberg. 2005. Caterpillars in the field and garden: a field guide to the butterfly caterpillars of North America. Oxford University Press.
- Brock, J.P. and K. Kaufman. 2003. Kaufman Field Guide to Butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY 284 pp.
- Caruthers, J.C., and D. Debinski. 2006. Montane meadow butterfly species distributions in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report, 2006. Vol. 30, Art. 14. 85-96.
- Forister, M.L., C.A. Halsch, C.C. Nice, J.A. Fordyce, T.E. Dilts, J.C. Oliver, K.L. Prudic, A.M. Shapiro, J.K. Wilson, J. Glassberg. 2021. Fewer butterflies seen by community scientists across the warming and drying landscapes of the American West. Science 371:1042-1045.
- Forister, M.L., E.M. Grames, C.A. Halsch, K.J. Burls, C.F. Carroll, K.L. Bell, J.P. Jahner, et al. 2023. Assessing risk for butterflies in the context of climate change, demographic uncertainty, and heterogeneous data sources. Ecological Monographs 93(3):e1584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1584
- Fultz, J.E. 2005. Effects of shelterwood management on flower-visiting insects and their floral resources. M.Sc. Thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 163 p.
- Layberry, R.A., P.W. Hall, and J.D. LaFontaine. 1998. The Butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press. 280 pp. + color plates.
- Sater, S. 2022. The insects of Sevenmile Creek, a pictorial guide to their diversity and ecology. Undergraduate Thesis. Helena, MT: Carroll College. 242 p.
- Web Search Engines for Articles on "Common Wood-Nymph"
- Additional Sources of Information Related to "Insects"
