Comment on FR Doc # 2012-23747

As I re-read the proposal in more detail, it became apparent to me as an amateur butterfly collector who also does scientific research and publishes scientific papers on regional faunas of butterflies (Lepidoptera of North America 3. Butterflies of Kern and Tulare Counties, California (latest version published April 28, 2008 by Colorado State University, pp. 1-118) and Yosemite Butterflies in the Taxonomic Report by The International Lepidopterist's Survey 15 April 2007 (pp. 1-72) and many other published articles and papers. Many Conservation Organizations and some Districts in our National Forests may not realize the value of collectors who contribute information about butterflies on public lands. Collectors (George T. Austin especially) were the major contributors to our knowledge of the Spring Mts. and most of Nevada and those collections are at the Nevada State Museum now. Collectors, amateur and professional are the source of most scientific information we have and that is published. Museums use the collections of both and collectors may have more specimens than museums in some cases...especially rare or endemic species of limited range. Private collectors provide specimens for DNA study now being done. They are consulted by professional entomologists and their records are listed in scientific papers and books. It appears many Conservationist Organizations and possibly even many governmental scientists may not realize a rare or endemic species is not the same as an endangered species. Rare species are often widely distributed over a large or inaccessible area, the rare butterfly often not seen where human have access. Endemic species in limited areas in specific mountain ranges can be quite common. An endangered or threatened species is not just rare, it is usually in danger of extinction. The case of charlestonensis revolves around its unknown status in areas not yet surveyed by lepidopterists that should be.