Our Liviiii; Resources — Invertebrates 



169 



local inventories of at least macrolepidoptera 

 for 35 or more reserves, counties, or islands in 

 the continental United States. The tendency of 

 lepidopterists to compile state and local lists, 

 which had been expressed primarily by faunal 

 studies of buttertlies (Field et al. 1974). increas- 

 ingly has encompassed moths. Half of the state 

 lists and S.'i'/f of the local inventories have been 

 published since 1964, and there are an even 

 larger number in progress. More of these 

 include microlepidoptera than before probably 

 because of considerable progress in the descrip- 

 tive taxonomy of most families during the past 

 35 years (e.g.. Covell 1984). 



State Lists 



The older and more comprehensive state lists 

 are in the eastern United States (Fig. I). The 

 most complete state lists of Lepidoptera are 

 those for New York (Forbes 1923-60). New 

 Jersey (Smith 1910; Muller 1965-76). and 

 Maine (Brower 1974-86), although these lists 

 have many identification problems. The most 

 active are in Ohio, Kentucky. Mississippi. 

 Florida (Kimball 1965). and Texas. There are 

 lists priinarily or only of macrolepidoptera for 

 some states, including Arizona (Bailowitz et al. 

 1990). Michigan (Moore 1955), Pennsylvania 

 (Tietz 1952), and Maryland (D.C. Ferguson et 

 al.. National Museum of Natural History, 

 unpublished data). Lists of described species for 

 the western states are now being done (Fig. I ). 



Local Inventories 



Thirty-five local inventories have been pub- 

 lished or are in progress (Fig. I). These vary 

 greatly in moth families included, geographic 

 size, and number of years in progress. Several 

 inventories, including those of Martha's 

 Vineyard and Nantucket. Massachusetts (Jones 

 and Kimball 1943); Mount Desert Island. 

 Maine (Proctor 1946); Welder Wildlife Refuge. 

 Texas (Blanchard et al. 1985); Ash Canyon. 

 Arizona (N. McFarland. Sierra Vista. AZ. 

 unpublished data); and three in California 

 (McFarland 1965; Powell, unpublished data) 

 span 10-50 years and are estimated to be 85%- 

 95% complete (Table). 



Unfortunately, no two inventories can be 

 meaningfully compared because they vary in 

 important parameters. Many have recorded only 

 macrolepidoptera, often only one sampling 

 approach was emphasized, inventories are made 

 of sites that vary greatly in size, inventory dura- 

 tion ranges considerably (Table), and the meth- 

 ods of recording data are often inconsistent. 



A Model Inventory 



We have been conducting inventories in 

 California to document species discovery rates 



Inventories of single sites ' 

 ■ Comprehensive lists 



□ Macrolepidoptera lists 



□ Preliminary lists in progress 



and other comparative data. The most compre- 

 hensive inventory is at the University of 

 California Big Creek Reserve in coastal 

 Monterey County, an area of diverse habitats 

 and elevations. The census has been carried out 

 priinarily by specialists" visits. We have sam- 

 pled in all months, on 175 dates, recording 

 every species in each sample; we spent 1 80 per- 

 sonnel-days for diurnal species, recorded more 

 than 260 UV light samples, and processed 1,350 

 larval collections and their rearing. The census 

 (more than 900 species) is believed more than 

 90% complete, with 3% or fewer of the species 

 in each three-date sample new to the list during 

 dates 155-175 (Fig. 2). Buttertlies and diurnal 

 moths make up 16% of the total, and microlepi- 

 doptera recorded only as larvae make up anoth- 

 er 9%. 



The species discovery rate was slow because 

 we could not sample the whole reserve during 

 each visit, and most of the effort followed a 

 consummate fire in the fourth year of our 12- 

 year inventory; many species were first collect- 

 ed in year 9 or 10. Nevertheless, the results pro- 

 vide a realistic idea of the effort required in a 

 complex community to achieve a reliable 

 species accumulation curve (Fig. 2). 



Fig. 1. Distribution of state and 

 local inventories of Lepidoptera in 

 ttie contiguous 48 United States. 

 States having comprehensive lists 

 (all families) published or in 

 progress, those with macrolepi- 

 doptera lists, and those with pre- 

 liminary lists in progress are indi- 

 cated. Dots indicate locations of 

 35 local inventories of single sites, 

 reserves, and islands, either pub- 

 lished or in progress. 



Table. Comparison of size, dura- 

 tion, estimated percentage com- 

 pleted, and numbers of species 

 recorded in local inventories of 

 Lepidoptera, listed by state. 



■ Macro — macrolepidoptera 

 Micro — microlepidoptera 



