Butterfly nomenclature and taxonomy in North America has been quite dynamic over the past twenty years and is likely to continue in this vein for some years to come. It is not unusual to see different names used for the same butterfly in different books and periodicals. This is an unavoidable reality as the status of various butterfly species and subspecies is carefully examined and is also due to the reality that there is more than one species concept as well as individual preferences among researchers as to how much weight should be placed on various characteristics used to separate species from subspecies. I have very largely used species names provided in the most recent butterfly works (eg. Bird et al. 1995, Layberry et al. 1998, Opler 1999) and explain my reasons for cases where my preference is otherwise. Use of contemporary species names in this report should not be interpreted as agreement that these are the correct names. They are used solely to facilitate communication and allow readers unfamiliar with the butterflies to locate illustrations. Available books are not totally reliable in terms of the best subspecies names to use for butterflies in the study area and this topic will likely be more fully addressed in the forthcoming book on butterflies of BC (Guppy and Shepard, in prep). In some cases the best subspecies name that seems to fit is provided but in other cases it is not at all clear if existing names adequately comply with the local phenotypes or if some new name is needed. The annotated list provides real names (scientific names) for the butterflies as well as ‘common’ names for those readers who derive comfort from the look of more familiar words.