CLOUDCROFT CHECKERSPOT/FRITILLARY

[Chris J. Durden]

At 10:37  6/01/00 GMT, you wrote:
 
>
>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)
>
- - -
  There were very few samples taken of either the passenger pigeon or the
dodo. I do not consider consumed meat-birds to be samples.
  I have seen the remains of the dodo at the museum at Oxford. I am glad we
have what is left of this sample - RATHER THAN NOTHING AT ALL!
  Scientific collectors did not exterminate the dodo - hungry or greedy
sailors did.
  Scientific collectors did not exterminate the passenger pigeon - a
succession of climatically determined poor mast years for oaks, probably
tied to agricultural modification of habitat, combined with "potlatch"
harvesting of the migratory swarms for meat or recreation, did.
- - -
>>   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. 
- - -
  I have recently been told by those who work with it, that useful proteins
can be extracted from dried specimens, especially if they have been dried
quickly and stored in a dry place. I am in the process of labelling our
specimens that I know were pinched and not poisoned in cyanide, as an aid
to future researchers.
- - -
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.
- - -
  Agreed, but a dead specimen is better than NONE AT ALL! Records
unsupported by voucher specimens are historical hearsay and should always
be treated as such. A voucher specimen may always be reevaluated after an
advance in our knowledge has rendered old taxonomic opinions obsolete or
confused. Look at our leopard frog in North America. There is an awful lot
of physiology, behavior, embryology, ecology, biogeography etc. which is of
very limited use because no voucher specimens were saved and we do not know
which of the six or more species of "the leopard frog" the work was done
on. We still do not seem to know how many species of *Papilio* sensu
stricto we have in North America and a number of them are beyond the limits
of easy study because of legal protection of species, rather than habitat
of a population.
- - -
>
>As for a verifiable identification there is no such thing.
- - -
  Verification of an identification is open to reevaluation by a subsequent
expert if a voucher specimen has been saved. An identification can never be
verified if it is all in the mind, the written record, drawing, or a faded
photo, no matter who the identifying authority was.
- - -
 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.
- - -
  Yes you are unlucky enough to only have one species of *Euphydryas
(Eurodryas)* as far as we know. Maybe that is true, and the possibility of
discovering a new species of butterfly in Britain is impossibly slim, but
in most other parts of the world there are still wonderful, though cryptic
species yet to be discovered.
- - -
> 
>I manage the national recording scheme for butterflies in my area and I am
> quite happy to accept visual records for any species. 
- - -
  Yes, that is quite sensible with the present state of the knowledge of
the British fauna. I wonder what kind of acceptance a genuine addition to
the fauna would receive?
- - -
>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.)
- - -
  Yes we all have these problems, but we have to live with them, and
sometimes they fund our research.
- - -
>
>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.
- - -
  Good, it is probably easier in Britain at present, but just wait until
your future federal legal system kicks in, or even farther in the future
when Britain is part of Europe again.
- - -
>
>>   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 am sorry to differ, but here we do have to take specimens - we still
have unknown species to discover in North America and in most other parts
of the world.
- - -
>
>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.
- - -
  Sorry, I am not sure that the current mathematics has the last word on
this.  I would rather study a live individual than a dead one. I would
rather study a freshly dead specimen than a fossil. I would rather study a
fossil than rumors and hearsay. It is all a matter of priorities.
  If all the books have been read and memorized in your library, please do
not try to persuade us not to read the books in our library.
- - -
>
>>   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.
- - -
  You do if the systematics of the species is unknown or poorly known. You
would be astounded at the taxonomic messes we have to work around in our
fauna.
- - -
>
><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 are so cautious that we take no voucher specimens, and the species
goes extinct anyway, we are left with no knowledge of the species other
than the rumor of its existence and perhaps a few faded photos at difficult
angles.
- - -
>> >
>> >If we get this wrong the result is irreversable. This butterfly will
>> >join the Great Auk, the Xerces Blue and Dodo in oblivion. 
- - -
  How about someone compiling a catalog of existing specimens, what is
preserved, where, and what has been published - for all the few
historically extinct species. We would be surprised at what limited
resources we have for future study of these species, jut because we failed
to deposit taken specimens in our museums, and now to even take specimens.
How many great auk eggs are there in British collections without data?
- - -
>> - - -
>>   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.
- - -
  No, here PEOPLE STILL KILL LISTED PROTECTED SPECIES through the normal
side effects of inconsiderate land use, development and expoitation of
resources.
- - -
 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.
- - -
  I think you would find that it would be inhibitory, the way the
endangered species and faunal protection laws are written, interpreted and
selectively enforced at the moment.
..........Chris Durden
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
scientists? - myself - while standing next to a grass of parnassus
(uncollected and unreported for Texas) in Gause Bog. This bog in Milam
County, Texas was subsequently removed legally by the Anderson Peat
Company, mixed with sand, bagged and sold at local convenience stores under
the brand name Vita Hume. The peat from Gause Bog contained so much pyrite
that when spread on lawns (one of the reccomended applications) rainwater
acted on the pyrite to release sulphuric acid - to the detriment of the
lawns."
>
>-- 
>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
>
>