Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Ultraviolet Differences between the Sulphur Butterflies, Colias eurytheme and C. philodice, and a Possible Isolating Mechanism

Abstract

Two common North American “sulphur” butterflies, Colias eurytheme and C. philodice, hybridize widely over much of the United States. The planting of dense agricultural stands of larval foodplants, together with habitat destruction starting about 1850, are believed to have affected the species' geographical ranges and abundances, causing extensive sympatry over much of the eastern United States1, setting the stage for introgression. Taxonomists have tried to separate the species on the basis of visible wing coloration, but this varies continuously from orange (pure eurytheme) through yellow–orange (eurytheme and many hybrids) to yellow (philodice and rarely eurytheme). Female polymorphism and numerous described infraspecific taxa compound the taxonomic confusion. Although some of this variation has been attributed to genetic (refs. 2 (and references therein) and 3) and environmental factors4, species determinations are often guesswork. We wish to point out two correlated qualitative characters that can be used to separate these species. One character, ultraviolet reflexion, may be more than a taxonomic tool—it may be the butterflies' own carte de visite.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hovanitz, W., Ecology, 25, 45 (1944).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Remington, C. L., Adv. Genetics, 6, 403 (1954).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hovanitz, W., Genetics, 29, 1 (1944).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ae, S. A., Lepidopterists' News, 11, 207 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eisner, T., Silberglied, R. E., Aneshansley, D., Carrel, J. E., and Howland, H. C., Science, 166, 1172 (1969).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kolyer, J. M., and Reimschuessel, A., J. Res. Lepidoptera, 8, 1 (1969 [1970]).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ghiradella, H., Aneshansley, D., Eisner, T., Silberglied, R. E., and Hinton, H. E., Science (in the press).

  8. Gray, P. H. H., The Entomologist, 92, 125 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gray, P. H. H., J. New York Entomol. Soc., 69, 201 (1961).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A., Zhurnal Obshchei; Biologii, 15, 362 (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A., Biofizika, 2, 358 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A., Insect Vision (Plenum, New York, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nekrutenko, Y. P., J. Res. Lepidoptera, 3, 65 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nekrutenko, Y. P., J. Res. Lepidoptera, 4, 103 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nekrutenko, Y. P., Nature, 205, 417 (1965).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nekrutenko, Y. P., Phylogeny and Geographical Distribution of the Genus Gonepteryx … (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1968, in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hidaka, T., and Okada, M., Zoological Magazine (Dobutsugaku Zasshi), 79, 181 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gerould, J. H., Proc. American Philosoph. Soc., 86, 405 (1943).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Remington, C. L., Lepidopterists' News, 8, 173 (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Taylor, O. R., Evolution (in the press).

  21. Hovanitz, W., Evolution, 3, 170 (1949).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Remington, C. L., in Evolutionary Biology (edit. by Dobzhansky, Th., Hecht, M. K., and Steere, W. C.), 2, 321 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1968).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Taylor, O. R., Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. (in the press).

  24. Crane, J., Zoologica, 39, 85 (1954).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Obara, Y., Z. Vergl. Physiol., 69, 99 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Peterson, B., Törnblom, O., and Bodin, N. O., Behaviour, 4, 67 (1952).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Post, jun., C. T., and Goldsmith, T. H., Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer., 62, 1497 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark, A. H., Entomol. News, 52, 185 (1941).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hovanitz, W., American Museum Novitates, 1240 (1943).

  30. Hovanitz, W., Wasmann J. Biol., 8, 49 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Klots, A. B., A Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America, East of the Great Plains, 183 (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

SILBERGLIED, R., TAYLOR, O. Ultraviolet Differences between the Sulphur Butterflies, Colias eurytheme and C. philodice, and a Possible Isolating Mechanism. Nature 241, 406–408 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1038/241406a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/241406a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing