Is "Smith's Blue" Still Protected?

[John Lane]

    Recent postings in reference to "Luedhorfia longicaudata" by Doug Yanega and
Pierre Zagatti bring to mind a situation in California (USA) which perhaps some
federal or state "officials" might wish to address concerning Smith's Blue
Butterfly (Lycaenidae: Euphilotes enoptes smithi).

    Smith's Blue is one of the U.S.'s Federally-listed "Endangered Species".  Its
range is limited to coastal central California (cognoscenti relax!; this is for a
worldwide audience).  It is one of the "Eriogonum blues", forever closely
associated with their Polygonaceous hosts. Its type locality is on the famed "Big
Sur" coastline south of Monterey on steep chaparral slopes facing the ocean;
these slopes are largely unbuildable and under no threat.  At the time of its
"listing", Smith's Blue populations were also noted just north of Monterery, on
coastal sand dunes; these areas are under enormous pressure for commercial
development, and most reasonable people would admit that the listing was intended
as much to save the sand dunes as the butterfly.

    Recent published work has restricted Smith's Blue to the chaparral-slope
populations and named the sand dune populations as a different subspecies:
Euphilotes enoptes arenacola [name meaning "sand dweller"] with a type locality
at Marina (sand dunes) 5 miles north of Monterey on the Monterey Bay.  Reference:
Chapter 16 in Thomas Emmel (Ed.) Systematics of Western North American
Butterflies, 1998: Revision of Euphilotes enoptes and E. battoides complexes
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) by Gordon F. Pratt and John F. Emmel, see page 210.

    My question is this:  What protection does the butterfly formerly known as
Smith's Blue flying on the Monterey Bay sand dunes now have considering a
competent published review has determined this butterffly is not Smith's Blue?
Does the legal letter of the law allow for this taxonomic transfer and continue
to protect the sand dune butterfly, or not? Is there a need for a revision of the
law regarding the name of the butterfly?


Pierre Zagatti wrote:

> Doug Yanega wrote:
>
> > Anyone here familiar with the publication of this new species, or is this
> > just a money-making/law-avoidance scam? (i.e. "There is no record of this
> > species in any CITES lists, therefore it is totally unprotected")
>
> I don't know the Order (longicaudata may be a Papilionid, a Saturnid, an
> Ichneumonid,
> a sawfly, a cricket, a locust or maybe only a mark on the
> wings/elytrae/cephalothorax :-).
>
> Concerning the CITES lists, be aware that many species in many countries are
> really
> rare and threatened although they never appear on any list (I'm talking about
> large
> and colorful species, just as they appear on trader's catalogues).
> For example, France did not suscribe to the Bern Convention until recently
> (I don't really know why) so we did not participate to the discussion about
> lists.
> Now all Bern and Washington species are protected by law in France, but the
> most
> endangered species are not protected and even unknown at the International
> level.
> Examples (check these names if you hear about trades):
> -Eupotosia mirifica balcanica - this large and wonderful cetonid is known from
> a small
> wood (200 hectares) in South France, 3000 km from its normal range in Eastern
> Europe
> and Asia. It may be TOTALLY eradicated by overtrapping with wine traps.
> -Brachyta borni - this Cerambycidae is known only in the world from a single
> mountain pass in
> French Alps.
>
> --
> Pierre ZAGATTI
> INRA Unite de Phytopharmacie et Mediateurs Chimiques
> 78026 Versailles Cedex
> FRANCE
> Tel: (33) 1 30 83 31 18
> e-mail zagatti at versailles.inra.fr
> http://www.jouy.inra.fr/papillon/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/19990607/549c8b3d/attachment.html