No subject

Dr. James Adams JADAMS at carpet.dalton.peachnet.edu
Tue Sep 23 15:49:09 EDT 1997


Dear listers,

    Although this reply is to Pierre, it has a lot to do with the 
economic gist or permitting and endangered species that John Shuey and 
Mark Walker have been talking about.

> >I have discovered that self appointed "saviors" of some of their favorites
> >love to make claims, even in writing, which are false.  In many parts of
> >the country, the luna moth is the most common of the Saturnids.  It goes
> >through high and low population cycles like any other arthropod.
> >
> >Here in the woods in the north east, in late May/early June, I, like
> >many others, have my porch covered 10 to over 50 of them in the morning
> >when I leave the light on.

(I've seen 200 lunas at lights in one night here in NW Georgia.)
 
> I disgree with your assessment of the the usage of the term
> "endangered".  Perhaps the term is not used in the same context, but
> their are many species that are indeed endangered by the use of Bt and
> the like.  This does not mean they need to be *listed* as such on a State
> or Federal list, but perhaps we should nevertheless think twice about
> what we are doing to our environment with the pesticides we use, be they
> *labelled* as "environmentally safe" or not.

Endangered, rare, threatened -- these are all truly loaded words, and 
may often have nothing to do with the organisms they are applied to.  
I've always been amused by the use of the word "rare" for an insect 
that occurs over a wide area but in apparently very low numbers.  I 
doubt very seriously that these insects are truly rare -- I prefer 
the term(s) "infrequently encountered."  There are plenty of cases 
where species just are not common in collections, and it could very 
easily be because humans have not discovered an appropriate way of 
increasing the encounter rate.  I am in no way saying that there are 
not endangered/rare/threatened insects, but I am saying that they 
would be so because they are restricted to very narrow ranges, or 
very "rare" (how do you like that!?!) foodplants.  In most cases, 
being "rare" has nothing to do with collecting but with, as so many 
people have already mentioned, development.  It is only when an 
insect reaches such critically low population levels that collectors 
are likely to have an impact.

    On the economic side, the endangered species lists include such 
things as all birdwings, the Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo), 
and several others, which, if you talk to people native to areas 
where they occur, will tell you that these species are not at all 
endangered, and perhaps even thriving.  What appears to have landed 
species like the Apollo on the list is the *popularity* of the 
species with collectors, and the same can probably be said for some 
of the birdwings.  I know of many species of moths that are in much 
worse shape in terms of population levels that have never even been 
considered for protection.  It seems pretty clear to me that little 
brown moths are less valuable because they are aesthetically 
displeasing.  How hypocritical!  And don't get me started on Harry 
Pavulaan comments about the superiority of humans over other 
organisms.  If I were going to give stewardship of a planet full of 
organisms with equal *biological* rights, I'm not sure humans are the 
species I'd choose!!  It's the overdevelopment/overexploitation of 
the planet that has put us in the position where collecting is so 
frowned upon, even though it has such a small effect in most cases.

    I've been following with interest the commentary on collecting, 
and would have been contributing more, but I just got back from a 
trip and have been trying to excavate myself out from under Leps-L 
and Entomo-L messages!!  More later.

    James Adams 


More information about the Leps-l mailing list