P. glaucus maynardi : impressive in size + beauty

I always like to collect the large summer form. I also collected some monsters in Mississppi and coastal North Carolina.

Another bigger than life butterfly in Mississippi, Cercyonis pegala pegala. They were monsters. The north Florida population and those along the South East Coast (NC, SC, & GA) Were monster's as well.

Also, yes indeed your C. pegala drawer which you also showed us once was incredible...

Those were undoubtedly the largest North American Satyrines that I have ever seen !

Those examples were absolutely stunning.

Well, I won't comment about nature reserves in that area as yes one should probably not be seen in the area with net in hand.

However, as far as parks goes or other very "public" places; I would probably scope out the available sites first. Then, if I found a spot (some flowering bushes or flower patch) that was "active" with Marcellus (or what have you); I'd go to the car and grab the net and kill bottles and spend maybe a half hour "nabbing" what I could --- then leave. Re-visit the the same place within the next day or two (only go at a different time) and once again "bag" whatever can be had. Heck, maybe even stay longer !

If somebody says something (officer or otherwise) you just play dum and tell em' you are un-aware of any ordinances as you are an (out of towner) and/or tourist who just happens to like butterflies...

What are they really gonna do ! Arrest you... Take your net away (carry along a cheap one), give an out of town tourist a fine...
Really.......

Nonsense, they will tell you at BEST all about their ordinance (if they even know of it) or they'll tell you to leave....

I doubt very much they would tell you to hand over your already dead butterflies.

Local "law enforcement" types have got far more important people and things to be out "on the look for" than people with butterfly nets or bird watcher types with binoculars.

Ha, live a little... Rules were mean't to be broken !

Just stay away from those nature preserves where "absurdity" runs rampant !

I am reluctant to post photographs of my collection these days. I have been called a braggart and a show off the last several times I posted photographs of my collection. I have been collecting longer than most of you have been alive. And now that I am retired and a Widow, I can go collecting anytime my hearts desires.

I have worked most of the day updating several of my Flat Bottom Bait Traps to Slotted Pan Type Bait Traps. I just want to be ready when those very few warm winter days happen.

Hello Leptraps, my friend had 2 great outings encountering P. marcellus in (2012 + 2015). Pure happenstance... Both times he was in the Kissimmee area of Florida (two different places); he has a "timeshare" there.

In 2012, he hit on them the 3rd wk. of September. In 2015, he hit on them the 4th wk. of September.

He was on a "hatch" both times as virtually every one he collected the (first couple days) were ex-pupa (as you can see).

To this day I am still envious of his good fortune but, he has been very kind in letting me pick out 4 (for myself) and of my choosing...


*On a side note, I did not request you show us your maynardi again, I only asked if you would "measure" a couple of your larger ones
to determine their size in centimeters. My bigger one is 12.3 cm. (wing tip - wing tip) as you see it in the photo.

*Just was wondering if you caught any which were even larger than mine ?

Best Regards...

Eurytides - genus Protographium is not related to the American Leptocircini.

See Jing Zhang, Qian Cong, Jinhui Shen, Paul A. Opler and Nick V. Grishin 2019. Changes to North American butterfly names. The Taxonomic Report, 8(2).
Available here:
lepsurvey.carolinanature.com/ttr/ttr-8-2.pdf

Relevant text:

Family Papilionidae Latreille, [1802]
Mimoides Brown, 1991 is a subgenus of Eurytides Hübner, [1821]
Previously placed in the genus Mimoides Brown, 1991 (type species Papilio ariarathes, Esper, 1788), Papilio phaon Boisduval, 1836 is sister to Eurytides marcellus (Cramer, 1777) among butterflies of Canada and the US, and is phylogenetically close to Eurytides philolaus (Boisduval, 1836), suggesting that it should be placed in the genus Eurytides Hübner, [1821] (type species Eurytides iphitas Hübner, [1821]) (Fig. 1). Additionally taking into account that Mimoides species are close to each other as evidenced by their morphology (Tyler et al. 1994) and COI barcodes (Ratnasingham & Hebert 2007), we propose to treat Mimoides as a subgenus of Eurytides among its other subgenera: Protesilaus Swainson, [1832] (type species Papilio protesilaus Linnaeus, 1758) and Neographium Möhn, 2002 (type species Papilio philolaus Boisduval, 1836). Curiously, Papilio marcellus Cramer, 1777 is in the same clade with Mimoides, but is in a different clade from Neographium, and therefore should be included in the subgenus Mimoides despite the similarity in wing patterns to Eurytides (Neographium) philolaus. Finally, application of the genus Protographium Munroe (1961) (type species Papilio leosthenes E. Doubleday, 1846) to the New World is unwarranted, because genomic data show that the Australian endemic P. leosthenes is sister to another Old World genus Graphium Scopoli, 1777 (type species Papilio sarpedon Linnaeus, 1758) and is in a different clade from Eurytides (including Mimoides and Neographium) (Fig. 1). Eurytides versus Protographium is yet another case of striking wing pattern convergence in butterflies.