ABOUT BOM SPECIES LIST BUTTERFLY HISTORY PIONEER LEPIDOPTERISTS METHODS
The Butterflies of Massachusetts
40 Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele (Fabricius, 1775)
The fritillaries are among our most beautiful, yet most vulnerable, butterflies. The stunning Great Spangled Fritillary is now our largest, after the extirpation of the Regal Fritillary. The Great Spangled is also our most successful greater fritillary; both the lovely Aphrodite Fritillary and the higher-elevation Atlantis Fritillary appear to be declining today, whereas the Great Spangled is holding its own.
In the 1800s the Great Spangled was not as common in Massachusetts as it is today, while conversely the smaller Aphrodite Fritillary was more common. Why this is so, and whether the Great Spangled somehow displaced the Aphrodite, remains a mystery. Our third greater fritillary, the Atlantis, was present in western Massachusetts but uncommon generally in the state at the turn of the century (Scudder 1899: 576).
Thaddeus W. Harris had no Great Spangled specimen in his 1820-26 Boston area collection, nor does he list the species in his 1841 or 1862 books on Massachusetts butterflies. His collection contained only Aphrodite and Regal among the larger fritillaries. Scudder confirms that Harris’ description does in fact apply to Aphrodite, and that he did not mistake the Great Spangled for Aphrodite (Harris 1862: 285-6, Fig 111; Scudder 1889:563).
Photo: Topsfield Mass., Ipswich River Wildlife Sanctuary, F. Goodwin, 2002
In 1862, in “A List of the Butterflies of New England” in the Proceedings of the Essex Institute, Scudder wrote of Argynnis Cybele “I do not know that this species is found in New England, but I have seen it from the Hudson River, and do not doubt it will be found in Connecticut;” whereas of Argynnis Aphrodite he wrote, “very abundant, about flowers, everywhere except in the most elevated and northern portions” of New England (1862: 165).
Scudder admits that Aphrodite and Great Spangled had been “frequently confounded,” but by 1889 at least he himself was quite clear on the phenotypical differences between the two, providing detailed species descriptions of both, remarking, for example, that “...the width of the submarginal buff belt is very different in the two species, forming indeed the readiest mark of distinction...” (1889: 566-7).
By 1889 in his Butterflies of New England, Scudder had changed his estimate of cybele’s distribution, saying that it was found probably throughout the whole of New England excepting the most northern and elevated parts. By 1872, Scudder had listed it as present in Essex County, and by 1889 he says it is “exceedingly abundant” in southern New England, although he does not provide the usual list of specimen locations, except for some unusually small specimens captured by F. H. Sprague on Mt. Tom in Massachusetts (1889: 559). An ardent collector, F. H. Sprague found cybele on July 1 in Wollaston (now Quincy, in Boston) in 1878, and took 10 specimens in Belchertown and 8 in Leverett in July and August that year, no doubt influencing Scudder’s revised assessment of the species’ abundance. Sprague also found Aphrodites in these same Connecticut River valley locations, but NOT in Wollaston (Sprague 1879; Sprague's 1883 Wollaston and Malden cybele specimens are at Boston University). In 1907, an unusual form of cybele was found flying in good numbers in West Roxbury, Massachusetts; again, no Aphrodite’s were reported from this location close to Boston’s urban core (Reiff 1910).
We may hypothesize that the Great Spangled Fritillary was expanding its range eastward and southward during the mid-19th century. By the mid-twentieth century, D. W. Farquhar (1934) published an updated assessment of New England’s butterflies. He lists new Great Spangled specimens from Boxford, Lawrence, New Lenox, Rehoboth, Marblehead, Stoneham, Essex, and West Roxbury, but only one possibly erroneous specimen of Aphrodite; his list suggests that the Great Spangled had become fairly common in northeastern Massachusetts (Table 2), and that the Aphrodite was not common.
Great Spangled did not, however, reach the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket in the 1940's, or even today to any great extent (see below). F. M. Jones was struck by the fact that the Regal Fritillary was very common on both islands, whereas its congener, the Great Spangled "has been recorded only once from Nantucket, [and] has been seen in small numbers and at rare intervals on Martha's Vineyard, though it is reported to abound on Cape Cod" (Jones and Kimball 1943: 16). This despite an abundance of many species of violets on the islands. He might have added that the Aphrodite Fritillary had also never been recorded for Nantucket, and only once for Martha's Vineyard. These two fritillaries had trouble establishing themselves in the dry, open island habitat, while the Regal Fritillary thrived.
Great Spangled Fritillary has the largest range of any of our eastern greater fritillaries. It extends as far north and west in Canada as the Aphrodite and most other fritillaries (Layberry 1998), but is also found much further southeastward, in the mountains and piedmont areas of Virginia, the Carolinas and north Georgia, and further south in the midwestern states (Opler and Krizek 1984; Cech 2005).
Host Plants and Habitat
All five species of resident fritillaries in New England—the Great Spangled, Aphrodite, Regal, Atlantis, Silver-bordered and Meadow --- undoubtedly benefited from the clearing of land for pastures, haying and timbering in the 17th and 18th centuries (Table 1: 1600-1850). Fields that are mowed or grazed, but not plowed, provide fertile areas for the spread of their larval host plants, violets of many species, and also increase nectar sources for adult butterflies. What has an adverse effect on fritillaries is tillage – the plowing of land in order to grow crops—because most species of violets (other than the Common Blue, which most of our fritillaries do not seem to use), are very slow to re-colonize disturbed areas, perhaps because they depend on ants for seed dispersal.
Viola fimbriatula (= ovata, sagittata) (Arrow-leaf, Northern Downy), lanceolata (Lance-leaved), sororia (=papilionacea, septentrionalis) (Common Blue), cucullata (Blue Marsh), rotundifolia (Round-leaved), blanda (Sweet White), and pedata (Bird’s-Foot) are among our most common native species, and all probably serve as hosts for Great Spangled Fritillaries (McGee and Ahles 1999; Sorrie and Somers 1999; Scott 1986). The larger fritillaries are known to accept several species of violet in lab rearings, but the precise species they use in the wild in our area has surprisingly not been determined. Shapiro (1974) reports a record of V. rotundifolia for New York state. MBC members have observed Great Spangled Fritillary ovipositing near Viola fimbriatula in Essex County. They have also found and raised larvae on the Common Blue Violet found in many yards (e.g. D. Adams, 5/30/2011).
These and other violet species were common in the mid-19th century in Massachusetts; Thoreau’s 1850-60 journals, for example, make many references to violets and it appears they were abundant around Concord at the time. However recent research in Concord, based on Thoreau’s and other data, indicates that violets (Malpighiales) are among those flowering plant species whose flowering time does not respond quickly to climate change, and whose abundance is for that reason declining in Concord (Willis et al. 2008).
As habitat, Great Spangled Fritillary needs both open fields for nectar and partially shaded areas in open woods for larval growth on violets. Moist or dry deciduous woods with violets, as well as nearby meadows with nectar sources such as milkweed and thistle, are required. Great Spangleds will travel at least several kilometers in search of nectar however.
Fritillaries are not among the “Switchers” (Table 3); that is, they are not known to have adopted any new non-native host plants in the wild. Some fritillaries, including the Great Spangled, will oviposit on Viola odorata, which is the naturalized from Europe, under confined laboratory conditions. But the Great Spangled Fritillary does not normally use the often extensive growths of this violet in disturbed yard or suburban situations.
Relative Abundance Today
The 1986-90 Massachusetts Atlas found Great Spangled Fritillary in 110 of 723 atlas blocks, and called it “common” in the state. The Aphrodite was found in only 69 blocks, and the Atlantis in only 20, putting both in the “uncommon” category. By contrast, data from MBC records 2000-2007 rank the Great Spangled as “Uncommon-to-Common.” This species does not rank in the Common category: it is not as often seen as, for example, the Spring Azure, and it certainly is not Abundant (Table 5). In MBC data, the Aphrodite and Atlantis Fritillaries have been seen much less often than the Great Spangled, and both rank as Uncommon in MBC sight reports (Table 5).
Great Spangled Fritillary abundance seems to ebb and flow (Chart 40). Sightings per trip were higher in 2008 and 2009 than in previous years. A phase of increase is seen since 2006, which continued in 2010. Overall, no marked upward or downward trend is evident in the years 1992-2009. This is in sharp contrast to the decline seen in sightings of Aphrodite Fritillary and Atlantis Fritillary per trip.
Chart 40: MBC Sightings per Total Trip Reports, 1992-2009
Statistics published in the Massachusetts Butterflies season summaries also show the pattern of increases in recent years: the average number of Great Spangled Fritillaries seen on a trip was flat in 2007, up 113% in 2008, up 125% in 2009, and up 74% in 2010, compared to the average for preceding years back to 1994 (Nielsen 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). By contrast, sightings of both Aphrodite and Atlantis show a decline in these years.
State Distribution and Locations
The 1986-90 Atlas did not find Great Spangled Fritillary on Cape Ann, Cape Cod or the Islands. However, MBC records now show sightings in all of these areas; notably, there are now many reports from Cape Ann, and a few from Martha's Vineyard.
As Map 40 shows, the Great Spangled is well-distributed across the state, being found in 176 of a possible 315 towns through 2009. But it is much less common on Cape Cod and the Islands.
Map 40: MBC Sightings by Town, 1992-2009
On Martha’s Vineyard, the Great Spangled is a rare visitor today (Pelikan 2002), but it is the only fritillary other than the late-summer immigrant, Variegated Fritillary, to have been recorded on the Vineyard in the last twenty years. There are only three Vineyard sightings in 1992-2010 MBC records: Edgartown 7/29/1999, 1, S. Barry; West Tisbury, 9/17/2000, 1, V. Laux; and Oak Bluffs 7/31/2001, 1, M. Pelikan. The species has not been reported on the Martha’s Vineyard NABA Counts. Historically, this species was also "unaccountably rare" (Jones and Kimball 1943), with only a few reports: for example, at Vineyard Haven in July 1942, and two specimens from 21 and 25 July, 1941, F. M. Jones, in the Yale Peabody Museum.
There are no MBC or Atlas reports from Nantucket. There is one historical occurrence: C. P. Kimball reports one "seen in town but not captured" Sept. 8, 1941 (Jones and Kimball 1943).
Mello and Hanson (2004: 44) call the Great Spangled Fritillary “somewhat rare on the Cape.” This judgment is borne out in MBC 1992-2010 records, which show only two Cape Cod reports: Truro North, 8/7/1997, 1, T. Hansen; and Falmouth 7/11/1999, 2, A. Robb. Four Cape Cod NABA counts are held each year in July, but none since the 1999 Falmouth sightings has reported any Great Spangled Fritillaries. Great Spangleds are, however, quite commonly reported on the Bristol County NABA counts (max 25, 7/21/2002, M. Mello et al.), and are often seen in the Westport/Dartmouth area.
Aside from the large numbers reported on many NABA Counts in July, there are some frequently-visited locations at which Great Spangled Fritillary may be reliably found in good numbers: Charlton max 19 on 7/25/1998 R. Hildreth; Harvard Fruitlands max. 12 on 8/20/2008, M. Champagne; Hubbardston/Rutland Barre Falls Dam SP max. 70 on 7/5/1999 M. Lynch and S. Carroll; Ipswich/Hamilton Appleton Farms TTOR max. 25 on 8/4/2004 S. and J. Stichter; New Salem Prescott Peninsula max 63 on 7/10/1994 D. Small; Newbury Martin Burns WMA max. 45 on 7/6/2008 S. Stichter et al.; Royalston max 53 on 7/15/1999 C. Kamp; Sharon Moose Hill Farm TTOR max 32 on 7/3/2008 M. Champagne and B. Cassie; Sherborn Brook St. power line max 23 on 7/3/2001 R. Hildreth; Sherborn power line max. 13 on 8/22/2001 B. Bowker; Worcester Broad Meadow Brook WS max 40 on 7/22/2000 G. Howe; Williamsburg Graves Farm max 25 on 7/17/2009 B. Benner et al.
Broods and Flight Time
Great Spangled Fritillaries are apparently univoltine in Massachusetts, but they have a comparatively long flight time. Females emerge later than males. According to MBC records, the main flight lasts from about the second week in June through the first week in October (http://www.naba.org/chapters/nabambc/flight-dates-chart.asp). The butterfly is most common during the first three weeks of July.
A century ago Scudder wrote that “the earliest butterflies appear in the latter part of June, sometimes as early as the 16th in the latitude of Boston, usually not much before the 21st, become common by the first of July when the female first emerges, ...and fly until the middle of September and occasionally later” (1889: 561). By comparison, the Great Spangled’s flight time today begins earlier, and lasts longer, an effect which may be due to climate warming.
In the twenty-year period of MBC sightings (1991-2010), there are seven years when the first report of a Great Spangled Fritillary came in the first two weeks of June (6/1-14), rather than later. Six of these have been since 2004; in other works, the earlier sightings have occurred more recently. Scudder’s earliest date for the Boston latitude had been June 16; sightings seem to be occurring earlier now. The three earliest MBC sightings are 6/1/2010 Ware Muddy Brook B. Klassanos; 6/6/1998 Charlemont D. Potter; and 6/7/2009 Grafton Dauphinaise Park D. Price.
In the same twenty-year period of MBC sightings, there are nine years (about half the years) in which the last sighting of a Great Spangled was in October rather than September. Again, these October sightings are mostly in the more recent years. Scudder’s usual late date had been the “middle of September;” there are now many reports later than 9/15 (see flight chart, link above), and all but one of MBC’s last sightings in these twenty years are later than 9/15. The three latest MBC reports are 10/18/2002, Sherborn Brook St. power line, R. Hildreth; 10/11/2009, Ware Muddy Brook, B. Klassanos; and 10/10/2006, Northampton community gardens, B. Spencer.
Outlook
All fritillaries are sensitive species, even though the Great Spangled may be the most successful and adaptable. Fritillaries are vulnerable to climate warming because all have fairly northerly ranges, and because their host plants, violets, do not re-colonize easily after soil disturbance. However, the Great Spangled is not expected to be as adversely affected by climate warming in New England as are the Aphrodite and Atlantis Fritillaries.
Further habitat loss to heavy farming and to suburban development could negatively affect Great Spangled Fritillary in Massachusetts. As NatureServe (2011) points out, the Great Spangled “does not use extensive violet populations in highly disturbed habitats, such as lawns or most city parks.” NatureServe advises that a viable “element occurrence” for any Speyeria fritillary will probably be at least 10 hectares, and that viable populations will need both wooded areas with violets and nearby open areas with adequate nectar sources. While Great Spangled Fritillaries will travel at least several kilometers, even across quite developed areas, to find nectar sources, they are not known as a wide-ranging species, and long flights may diminish reproductive success. So many medium-sized areas, with woods and open fields which are protected both from plow agriculture and from hardscape development, will be necessary to keep our Great Spangled populations flourishing.
© Sharon Stichter 2011
page updated 11-12-2011
ABOUT BOM SPECIES LIST BUTTERFLY HISTORY PIONEER LEPIDOPTERISTS METHODS