Butterflies (3 spp.) and the F&WS

[Neil Jones]

In article <60F1FEB31CA3D211A1B60008C7A45F430EDAB3F0 at blaze.bcsc.gov.bc.ca>
           Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" writes:

> Thanks for sharing this news. Some observations and a question related to
> the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly. For those who are wondering
> what insect this name refers to; I think this is Euphydryas anicia
> cloudcrofti. Further, the announcement refers to this butterfly as a
> "species". I realize that in the twisted logic of legalese and bureaucratese
> a subspecies is the same as a subspecies. But in the real world this is a
> subspecies and not a species. I seem to recall some previous allegation of
> over-collecting of this subspecies. My question is: can anyone share the
> information from which this allegation was garnered ? I am curious if it has
> any substance or if it is speculation, in whole or in part.

We debated this issue some time ago. As the opportunity presented
itself last year I went to Cloudcroft, New Mexico to check the butterfly
out for myself.

You can see some of the pictures I took of the butterfly at
http://www.wildlifewebsite.com/trip/day2.htm
This was the web diary that I tried to keep on during the trip.
It never was completed as my software developed a fault during the trip.

Checkerspots are my speciality and I was quite surprised to see how small
the colonies of this species are. Certainly the colnies were far smaller
than those of the other endangered sub-species that I have seen.
E.editha quino and E. editha bayensis.

Checkerspots are batch egg layers and this habit of putting all their
eggs in one basket does make them prone to local extinctions.
Their population dynamics tend to follow the metapopulation model
which consists of populations linked by extincions and colonisations.
Such systems are fragile and very suceptible to habitat loss even 
when the loss of habitat involves sites which are not CURRENTLY occupied.

This batch laying process can magnify the effects of predation.
For example our studies of the British E. aurinia seem to 
indicate that a critical factor in the survival of a colony is the
ability of the female to lay second egg batch. Females being predated prior
to the laying of the second batch would be harmful.

I visited what is regarded as the largest of the sites at Cloudcroft and 
although the butterfly was easy to find it was not really numerous.
One study I recall on Mellitea athalia here in the Uk showed that human 
predation could remove 80% of the population in a single day.
This level could have taken the best cloudcrofti population down to single
figures clearly endangering it.
It is therefore reasonably to conclude that the species is under threat from
overcollection.

The second reason why, I believe, the USFWS is worried about overcollection
is THIS LIST.
Over the years there have been people prepared to defend even the worst
and craziest philatelic collectors. Conswequently it is hardly surprising that people
are worried.


> Also I am
> puzzled by the statement that vulnerability to local extinctions from
> extreme weather events or catastrophic wildfire including fire suppression
> activities is due to its limited range.

The problem with fire is it is a natural part of the ecosystem here.
It thunders most afternoons in summer. Fire supression has allowed the
combustible material to accumulate to such an extent that should a fire
now occur it would actually bake the ground so hard that it would change
its properties so that the Larval food plant of the Cloudcrofti would
not grow.


 It is my understanding that
> virtually all organisms, even very widespread organisms, are subject to
> local extinctions through a variety of natural causes and human activity.
> But still, this butterfly does have a very small range and I do hope that
> its habitat will be wisely managed to allow for its continued existence
> until it has run its natural course in the evolutionary calendar. It is only
> unfortunate that it seems necessary to consume so much time and money to
> have a legal designation before some common-sense management practices can
> be put into place.

It is politically difficult.



 I would prefer to see scarce time and money going into
> some practical actions to maintain the butterfly. And before anyone fires up
> their flamethrower I will add that I admire the effort that goes into this
> elaborate legalistic process by various people behind the scenes.  I know
> that such undertakings run a tortuous path and the process is certainly not
> intended to accomodate the impatient among us.  

-- 
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


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl