I have geo-referenced records for 214 T. agrippina, and 179 records for the sister species T. zenobia. Most are from labels for specimens in various museums. Some from personal correspondence. And more recently I have added the dozens of sightings from Inaturalist.
I placed all of these data points onto the google map embedded below. Blue symbols are T. agrippina and black symbols are T. zenobia.
You can expand the map, and click on individual datapoints to ID the collector/observer.
​What does the map tell us? Less than I wish it did. Certainly it puts some bounds on the range, which for agrippina extends from Uruguay to Texas. The zenobia range strays much farther north, and includes the Caribbean. As to the relative abundance of both species, the map is misleading. The many records for Costa Rica are certainly related to the intensity of scientific attention for that country. Conversely, the paucity of records for the heart of the Amazon are certainly related to the remoteness from scientists and tourists.
I placed all of these data points onto the google map embedded below. Blue symbols are T. agrippina and black symbols are T. zenobia.
You can expand the map, and click on individual datapoints to ID the collector/observer.
​What does the map tell us? Less than I wish it did. Certainly it puts some bounds on the range, which for agrippina extends from Uruguay to Texas. The zenobia range strays much farther north, and includes the Caribbean. As to the relative abundance of both species, the map is misleading. The many records for Costa Rica are certainly related to the intensity of scientific attention for that country. Conversely, the paucity of records for the heart of the Amazon are certainly related to the remoteness from scientists and tourists.