Extinction of Mitchell's Satyr by collectors

[Robert Kriegel]

John,

Thank you for that excellent summary of the situation with N. mitchellii.
I had previously heard parts of the story, but never all the details.  I
see that it is certainly possible that the species was eliminated from the
New Jersey site(s) by collectors.  I also see that this is a question that
will be almost impossible to resolve definitively.  

As John indicated the two well known sites for this butterfly in Michigan
have a long, well documented history.  Michigan Lepdioptera Survey data
indicate that the Wakelee fen site was most heavily collected in the 1930s
and again in the 1970s.  The first records from the Liberty fen site date
from 1974.  Substantial collecting did occur at Liberty fen during the late
1970s and early 1980s.  Our records for this species at these sites
essentially ends with its state and federal listing a decade ago.  Since
that time we have a single voucher photograph from 1998.  

Two or three years ago Michigan Natural Features Inventory conducted a
substantial survey for this species in Michigan and reportedly discovered
several new populations.  Unfortunately, most of the field work for their
survey was conducted by non-lepidopterists (and non-entomologists) and not
a single voucher photograph was taken.  When the time came to include their
data in our database we were unable to accept it because their
identifications could not be verified by an independent expert.  I am not
advocating that they should have taken specimens.  My point is that if the
work is important enough to do, do it right.  If it is not appropriate to
take specimen vouchers, take the time to get voucher photographs.  

I have serious concerns about visual observations [without supporting
photographs] ending up in print and being treated as vouchers.  My favorite
example comes from a butterfly watcher's account in a regional birding
magazine.  The observation was for an elfin (Incisalia henrici) that would
have been a Michigan county record.  The observer saw the butterfly for a
very short period of time at a distance through binoculars and stated that
'it was of typical elfin size and typical elfin shape'; therefore, it must
be Henry's elfin.  They were disappointed when we would not accept the
record.  This account could very well (and probably will) be included in
another dataset that does not require vouchers and find its way into a
larger project that where this record will be taken as fact and interpreted
as a range extension.  This is not a fabricated example.  I expect to see
it both in print and on the web within a few months.

Bob Kriegel