Over the course of two separate conservation initiatives targeting the recovery of Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri from February 2003 to December 2010 and from November 2016 to the present, this protocol was used to successfully produce an excess of 51,052 viable organisms. Based on the one-year summary snapshot of overall captive population productivity from June 2018 to June 2019, a total of 10,166 viable organisms were produced, representing 782.00 ± 118.93 organisms per month over 13 generations. Similarly, mean total egg production per female under laboratory conditions was 114.00 ± 26.12 (n = 12)31. The resulting substantial organism productivity ranks this program among the largest such ex situ efforts in the U.S., along with those of Euphydryas editha taylori, Speyeria zerene hippolyta, and Lycaeides melissa samuelis24. Part of this productivity can be attributed to the fact that the butterfly is continuously brooded, producing one generation approximately every 4-6 weeks in captivity. The majority of other conservation breeding programs involve taxa that are univoltine or bivoltine. Nonetheless, even for programs involving extremely fecund taxa such as Speyeria spp., the total number of viable organisms produced for conservation translocation on an annual basis seldom exceeds a few thousand32. Accordingly, our captive population has enabled directed research and extensive data collection on numerous key data gaps important to improve best laboratory breeding and husbandry practices (Figure 1) as well as help inform recovery and management decisions.
Mean total development time from neonate larva to adult was 28.63 days (Table 1). The majority of larvae had four molts (Figure 2, Figure 3), though two had five molts, and one had six molts. The overall mean length of all larval instars was 5.97 mm, and larvae were largest at the fourth and prepupal life stages (Table 1). When only including variables with more than 30 observations, the shortest time was spent in the first instar and prepupal stages, and the longest was spent as pupae (Table 1, Figure 2). Females typically developed quicker in all immature stages compared to males, although this was not a significant effect (p = 0.625). Statistical analyses were conducted using RStudio Version 1.1.463 (R Core Team 2016)33. The mean adult wing chord length was 12.64 mm (Table 2), and there was a significant difference between the sexes (p = 0.047). The two-sided t-test was run to evaluate the wing chord difference between sexes. Linear regression model and stepwise regression for average length of each life stage showed that pupal length was the best predictor for adult wing chord length (Table 3, Table 4). Regression models for development time showed that the number of days spent in the second and fourth instars and the total number of days were the best predictors for adult wing chord length, but only the number of days in fourth instar was significant (Table 5, Table 6). Because variables were continuous, two linear regression models were run for the development time of each life stage, as well as the length of each life stage, with adult wing chord length as the dependent variable. Stepwise regressions were run on both regression models to determine the best predictors of adult wing chord length.

Supplementary Figure 1: Pinned specimens of adult Cyclargus thomasi bethunebackeri. (A) Adult male, dorsal (left), ventral (right). (B) Adult female, dorsal (left), ventral (right). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 2: Screened flight cage housed in temperature-controlled greenhouse. (A) Interior shows potted adult nectar plants and a single potted larval host plant. (B) Metal shelving helps to elevate potted nectar plants so that there is no more than 30 cm of space from the interior top of the cage to the highest blooming flowers. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 3: Procedure for collecting adult pairs in copula. (A) Mating pair of adult Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri inside the screened flight cage (female, right and male, left). (B) Mating pairs collected from the flight cage in snap cap vials and brought into the laboratory. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 4: Procedure for assembling oviposition chamber. (A) Two cup system with terminal host material and cotton swabs. (B) A 1 ml sub-Q syringe (0.45 mm x 16 mm) with flavored sports drink saturating cotton swabs in the paper cup. (C) Cups housing gravid females secured with black tulle. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 5: Laboratory setup for maximizing egg production. (A) Oviposition chambers placed on a laboratory bench under a clamp light with a 40 W incandescent bulb. (B) A traceable memory monitoring thermometer is placed adjacent to the lights with the temperature sensor resting on top of an oviposition chamber located directly under a clamp light. (C) A 1 ml sub-Q syringe and small beaker holding flavored sports drink placed adjacent to the oviposition chambers to facilitate refreshing the cotton swabs regularly throughout the day. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 6: Laboratory setup for larval care and maintenance. (A) Two cup system with each containing fresh terminal host material and larvae. (B) Temperature in the cups is maintained between 25 °C-28 °C for optimal larval activity and development by overhead clamp lights with 40 W incandescent bulbs. (C) A traceable memory monitoring thermometer with the temperature sensor placed directly in a cup is used to monitor temperature. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 7: Prepared pupation chambers. (A) Individual plastic portion cups housed on the clear plastic cup trays. (B) A corrugated paper square is placed in each plastic portion cup. (C) A single mature larva will be placed in each prepared plastic portion cup to pupate. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 8: Preparing larvae for pupation and pupal maintenance. (A) Mature larva ready to pupate on corrugated paper. It is a uniform dull greenish-brown and has lost any chevrons. (B) Pupation chambers ready to receive mature larvae adjacent to cups with feeding larvae. All pupation chambers with lids house larvae that are preparing to pupate. (C) Pupation chambers with pupae. (D) Banks of pupation chambers with pupae organized by date and maintained under laboratory conditions. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 9: Laboratory emergence cage. (A) A collapsible mesh pop-up rearing cage housing the occupied pupation chambers. (B) The lids of all the pupation chambers are removed to facilitate successful adult eclosion. (C) All resulting viable adult butterflies will be released into the screened flight cage to secure successful copulation. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 10: Adult male butterfly successfully eclosing from pupa on a corrugated paper square. (A) Adult eclosing from pupa. (B) Adult fully removed from the pupal casing. (C) Adult positioned to expand its wings. (D) Adult expanding its wings. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 11: Fifth instar larva marked with nontoxic luminous paint. (A) A small drop of contrasting red, nontoxic luminous paint is placed on the dorsum using a paintbrush to successfully mark the larva. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Supplementary Figure 12: Rearing set-up for life history study. (A) Uniquely labelled 2 ounce clear plastic portion cups. (B) A single larva is sequestered in each cup. (C) All larvae are individually tracked through all developmental stages from neonate to adult butterfly. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 1: Number of recorded pairs in copula based on temperature (°C) within a walk-in, screened flight cage housed in a temperature-controlled greenhouse. The temperature was recorded within the first 2 min of a successful pairing event (n = 411). The resulting data were used to help refine the controlled environmental conditions in order to maximize mating success and ultimately overall captive propagation productivity. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Mean development time (number of days) of each immature life stage. (A) Bars show the mean of each group, and error bars represent the upper and lower standard deviation values for each group. (B) Dark blue bars represent females, and light blue represent males. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Head capsules collected from individual #25 using life history protocol. Head capsules were photographed by Johnathan Bremer using an automontage system. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Life stage | Mean body length (mm) | Std. Error (length) | Mean development time (num. days) | Std. Error (dev. time) |
| Instar I | 1.69478261 (n=23) | 0.02152643 | 2.90625 (n=32) | 0.08229783 |
| Instar II | 2.77248958 (n=32) | 0.04302826 | 3.375 (n=32) | 0.16649857 |
| Instar III | 5.45751042 (n=32) | 0.12120829 | 3.5 (n=32) | 0.20080483 |
| Instar IV | 10.2369688 (n=32) | 0.23653991 | 3.875 (n=32) | 0.18917265 |
| Instar V | 8.7625 (n=2) | 2.6125 | 1.5 (n=2) | 0.5 |
| Instar VI | 10.2666667 (n=1) | NA | 3 (n=1) | NA |
| Pre-pupa | 11.0858333 (n=24) | 0.23948251 | 2.9375 (n=32) | 0.21504641 |
| Pupa | 9.0316129 (n=31) | 0.12106792 | 11.6578947 (n=38) | 0.3272288 |
Table 1: Mean length and development time of each life stage. Standard error included for each variable, and sample size in parentheses.
| Life stage | Mean wing chord length (mm) | Std. Error |
| Adult | 12.63895 (n=38) | 0.1365516 |
| Female | 12.960 (n=13) | 0.1465588 |
| Male | 12.472 (n=25) | 0.1863205 |
Table 2: Mean forewing wing chord length for adult butterflies. Includes means for females, males, and all adults (both sexes combined).
| LM Model 1 | Std. Error of estimate | t value | p-value |
| Intercept | 1.9179 | 3.128 | 0.0046 ** |
| Avg. length second instar | 0.6822 | -1.11 | 0.278 |
| Avg. length third instar | 0.2928 | 0.476 | 0.6381 |
| Avg. length fourth instar | 0.1373 | -0.57 | 0.5739 |
| Avg. length pupae | 0.246 | 3.957 | 0.0005 *** |
| *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. | | |
Table 3: Coefficients table for linear regression model (LM Model 1) to evaluate relationship between average length of each life stage (n > 30 included in analysis) and adult wing chord length. Dependent variable: adult wing chord length (mm).
| Coefficients | Std. Error of estimate | t value | Pr (>|t|) |
| Intercept | 1.7091 | 3.031 | 0.0053 ** |
| Avg. length pupae | 0.1878 | 4.414 | 0.0002 *** |
Table 4: Stepwise regression (Stepwise 1). Dependent variable: adult wing chord length (mm).
| LM Model 2 | Std. Error of estimate | t value | p-value |
| Intercept | 1.1888 | 12.643 | 4.21e-12 *** |
| Num. days first instar | 0.3486 | 0.937 | 0.3583 |
| Num. days second instar | 0.2603 | -0.686 | 0.4993 |
| Num. days third instar | 0.2281 | 1.028 | 0.3141 |
| Num. days fourth instar | 0.2048 | 2.378 | 0.0257 * |
| Num. days pre-pupae | 0.222 | 1.133 | 0.2686 |
| Num. days pupae | 0.2495 | 0.616 | 0.5435 |
| Total num. days | 0.1913 | -1.454 | 0.1589 |
| *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. | | |
Table 5: Coefficients table for linear regression model (LM Model 2) to evaluate relationship between development time and adult wing chord length. Dependent variable: adult wing chord length (mm).
| Coefficients | Std. Error of estimate | t value | p-value |
| Intercept | 0.89304 | 16.314 | 7.86e-16 *** |
| Num. days second instar | 0.17974 | -1.809 | 0.0811 • |
| Num. days fourth instar | 0.16917 | 2.075 | 0.0473 * |
| Total num. days | 0.04184 | -1.787 | 0.0848 • |
| *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; • p < 0.1 | |
Table 6: Stepwise regression (Stepwise 2) for development time. Dependent variable: adult wing chord length (mm).