CLOUDCROFT CHECKERSPOT/FRITILLARY

[Neil Jones]

In article <3.0.5.32.20000107002920.00829cc0 at mail.utexas.edu>
           drdn at mail.utexas.edu "Chris J. Durden" writes:

> At 10:26  5/01/00 GMT, you wrote:
> >In article <3.0.5.32.20000103091412.007e1a60 at mail.utexas.edu>
> >           drdn at mail.utexas.edu "Chris J. Durden" writes:
> >
> >>   Regarding this population of *Euphydryas (Occidryas)* whether it is
> >> endemic subspecies or species, its range elswhere in these mountains should
> >> be assayed before restrictions on sampling are imposed.
> >
> >What do you mean by "sampling" ? Perhaps you could clarify this?
> >In biological terms I believe it is equivalent to predation.
> >
> - - -
>   By sampling I mean that samples should be taken serendipetously (when
> they are available), with precise data recorded and that they should be
> invested in our museums so they are available in future to provide
> information that will help answer questions we have not even thought of yet.

Well this is a matter of priority. It would no doubt be interesting to know
from the samples taken how releated the Passenger Pigeon and Dodo are but
since so many "samples" have been taken (and there are precious few remaining
in the case of the Dodo) we will never know however key things about their
behaviour. (They were both kinds of pigeon by the way)

>   A sight record produces no verifiable identification, no chemistry or DNA
> residue. 

Well the chemistry will degrade very quickly in a dead specimen and I understand
having spoken a few years ago to people who do it that it is difficult to
take DNA samples from old specimens, although granted the technology is 
improving. Here again if we look at one of the most remarkable pieces
of work on extracting DNA from Homo neanderthalensis. The DNA will tell us
little about their social life or how they used language. There is no
substitute for a living specimen to study.

As for a verifiable identification there is no such thing. Everything depends
on the honesty of the recorder. I work with a checkerspot species here in the
UK. It is on the protected list. I have discovered new sites without the
need to take specimens.
 
I manage the national recording scheme for butterflies in my area and I am
 quite happy to accept visual records for any species. 
I have only two people who I am unhappy in receiving records from and
frankly a specimen wouldn't help either as it could have been caught anywhere.
(One is as mad as a hatter and the other an arrogant fantasist and they 
have both sent in ridiculous records.)

Were I to require a permit to take samples of our protected checkerspot
for a bona fide research reason I could easily get a permit. I have been 
granted one for work on another protected butterfly where it is necessary to 
catch them to be sure of identification.

>   Listing a species would preclude the identification of new colonies by
> sampling because we cannot predict when they will have populations abundant
> enough to be noticed. Because of this there is no lead time to obtain
> permits for sampling. This is the serendipetous factor.
>   Listing a location for a species, if this were possible, would provide
> primary protection for the species while leaving open the opportunity for
> chance discovery of new locations for the species by the exploration of
> casual collectors.

Well here in the UK butterfly watchers vastly outnumber the collectors.
I am basing this on the membership of the Amateur Entomologists' Society
whose members TEND to be collectors and the membership of Butterfly 
Conservation whose members TEND to be watchers. (I am active in both
at a national level.) I also believe that with the growth of NABA versus the
Lepidopterists Society where the same membership factors TEND to apply makes
the same thing true in the US. It is unnecessary to have a dead specimen
in order to survey.

I do not want to see collecting banned. However I do believe that some
things are so rare that the available population dynamic data and the
mathematics that derive from it show that we should not place a desire
for a specimen for what ever reason over the needs of the species long
term survival.

>   I think the benefit of discovery of new sites that can then be protected,
> far outweighs the effects of take by responsible casual collectors. 

You do not need to be a collector or collect to record.

<snip of my original post>
> >The last thing that should be done if this creature is to be conserved
> >is to allow the destruction of key important parts of its population
> >before their value is even known. The exact parameters which are required
> >to know this are difficult to obtain. Do we know, for example, which if
> >any specialist parasitoids attack this animal? ( The indications are 
> >that there should be only one, probably a Cotesia species.)
> > What are the population dynamics of its host plant? The only safe solution
> >is to be cautious.
> >
> >If we get this wrong the result is irreversable. This butterfly will
> >join the Great Auk, the Xerces Blue and Dodo in oblivion. 
> - - -
>   I understand all this. I agree with it. You are however applying theory
> to a known metapopulation of one site (from the data we have been given).
> Surely the emphasis should be to encourage the discovery of additional
> sites and to map the extent of the metapopulation. The last thing we should
> do is legally lock up the subspecies/species so that additional work on it
> is inhibited.

Putting something on the protected list does not make it invisible.
It just stops people killing it. The legislation here does not inhibit
my work and from my knowledge of your legistlation it would not inhibit
me if I lived in your country.

-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve