Subspecies and protection

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Thu Feb 8 21:48:34 EST 2001 

*Euphydryas editha* is definitely not an endangered species! Two or three 
of the peripheral subspecies are endangered through habitat consumption by 
commerce. That is why individual subspecies are listed. If we were to list 
the whole species realists would laff and developers would be heading for 
the nearest heart hospital.
............Chris Durden
At 10:15 PM 2/8/2001 +0000, you wrote:

>I haven't really followed the subspecies topic closely but think I'll jump 
>in here as it brings to mind a question of my own.  Here is California we 
>have two named subspecies, Euphydryas editha quino  and E. e. bayensis, 
>which are federally listed (there are others as well but this is the one I 
>am most familiar with living in San Jose.)  My question is this: What 
>advantage(s) is there to listing subspecies seperately rather than just 
>listing the species as a whole?
>
>Thanks!  Laurel
>
> From 
> <http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/essig/endins/endins.htm>http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/essig/endins/endins.htm
>
>Scientific Name: Euphydryas editha quino
>Date of listing: January, 1997
>Federal Status: Endangered
>State Status: None
>
>The Quino checkerspot is the second subspecies of the widespread butterfly 
>Euphydryas edita to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (The Bay 
>Checkerspot, E. e. bayensis, being the other). This subspecies has 
>undergone a relatively rapid decline. In previous years it has been 
>considered an abundant and fairly widespread subspecies occurring widely 
>in coastal sage scrub habitat in southern California and northern Baja 
>California. However, its range is now limited to a few populations in 
>Riverside and San Diego Counties.
>
>The Quino Checkerspot is a medium sized butterfly with a wingspread of 
>about 3 cm. The wings are a patchwork of brown, red and yellow spots. The 
>Quino checkerspot tends to be darker and redder than other subspecies. Its 
>biology is similar to that of the Bay checkerspot. Adults emerge in the 
>early to mid-spring, mate and lay eggs. The eggs hatch about a week and a 
>half later and the larvae begin feeding. The larvae may use either 
>Plantago erecta or Castilleja exserta, both of which may be common in 
>meadows and upland sage scrub/chapparal habitat. These plants are annuals 
>which die back in the summer and the larvae thus have a period of summer 
>diapause (physiological inactivity) during which they do not feed. In the 
>late winter and early spring as the plants appear again, the larvae 
>commence feeding again and then enter a short pupal (chrysalis) phase.
>
>The main factor responsible for the butterfly's disappearance is clearly 
>development. Much of the historic sage-scrub habitat has been built over. 
>In areas where the habitat persists there are severe threats posed by 
>grazing and the invasion of exotic plants. There are presently 
>approximately 8 populations of the Quino Checkerspot known, at least one 
>of which occurs in Baja California. All but three are extremely small and 
>are thus at risk of extinction due to natural fluctuations. Of these 
>three, two occur in areas already scheduled for housing development. There 
>are presently plans in place for the management of only a single 
>population, in Riverside County, where its distribution overlaps with that 
>of the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat. However, whether one population 
>can ensure the persistence of the Quino checkerspot is highly debatable.
>
>For further reading:
>Mattoni, R., G.F. Pratt, T.R. Longcore, J.F. Emmel, and J.N. George, 1997. 
>The endangered quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino. 
>Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34: 99-118.
>Scientific Name: Euphydryas editha bayensis
>Date of listing: 1987
>Federal Status: Threatened
>State Status: None
>
>It is ironic that the insect on which Paul Ehrlich based his idea of 
>metapopulations, now a paradigm for conservation of endangered species, 
>has since become threatened itself. The Bay Checkerspot Butterfly has 
>experienced serious declines in its populations since the mid-1980s. 
>Because this species has long enjoyed the attention of numerous 
>biologists, its decline was quickly realized prompting its listing as 
>threatened in 1987.
>
>The Bay Checkerspot has an interesting life cycle which may include a few 
>different host plants. Following mating in mid-spring, the female 
>butterflies lay their eggs on a native plantain, Plantago erecta. The eggs 
>hatch and the larvae feed on this host until either they have developed to 
>a point at which they may enter dormancy or the host has begun to dry up 
>from the summer heat. If the plantain is not sufficient for development 
>the larvae may move onto one of two species of owl's clover (Castilleja 
>densiflorus or C. exserta) which remain palatable for a longer period. 
>Generally, one season is not sufficient for completion of development and 
>the larvae must enter dormancy until the following winter when the rains 
>allow plant growth to begin again. The larvae then emerge to feed for a 
>little longer, pupating in late winter. The adults emerge shortly thereafter.
>
>Populations of the Bay Checkerspot historically inhabited numerous areas 
>around the San Francisco Bay including the San Francisco peninsula, the 
>mountains near San Jose, the Oakland hills, and several spots in Alameda 
>County. Most of these have apparently disappeared due to the explosive 
>development of the Bay area in the past century. Populations are now known 
>only from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Changing disturbance regimes 
>(i.e. fire, grazing) as well as introduced grassland plants have caused 
>declines in host plant populations. In Santa Clara County much of the 
>butterfly's habitat is on property owned by a landfill corporation. An 
>agreement worked out among the owner, the city of San Jose, and 
>conservation advocates has resulted in the protection of much of this 
>habitat in exchange for permitted, conscientious development of a small 
>portion of it. In addition, the landowner has provided funding for the 
>establishment of a butterfly preserve and for research towa! rds 
>successful management of the Bay Checkerspot.
>
>
>
>
> >From: Neil Jones
> >Reply-To: neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK
> >To: leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> >Subject: Subspecies and protection
> >Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:43:13 GMT
> >
> >There seems to be some misunderstanding of how the US Endangered
> >Species Act covered subpecies of invertebrates. If the US citizens on
> >the list will pardon my intrusion, my understanding of the legal
> >position on this is as I stated in a posting a while ago.
> >I repeat the relevant part below.
> >
> >Under the US Endangered Species Act, "distinct population segments" of
> >VERTEBRATES may be listed, but NOT populations of invertebrates or
> >plants. Plants and invertebrates must have a scientific name to be
> >protected under the Endangered Species Act.
> >To be listed under the Endangered Species Act, a species (or
> >subspecies) must be "in danger of extinction throughout all or a
> >significant portion of its range."
> >
> >A threatened species is one that is "likely to become an endangered
> >species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
> >portion of its range."
> >
> >When the United States Congress wrote the Endangered Species Act, they
> >specifically stated that ONLY biological and NOT economic data may be
> >used to determine whether or not to list a species.
> >
> >Economic data are taken into consideration for critical habitat.
> >Critical habitat is a legal designation that covers areas that are
> >occupied or unoccupied by the species that are essential for the
> >conservation of the species which may require special management
> >considerations.
> >Critical habitat is a legal designation that applies only to US federal
> >agencies - they can not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com
> >http://www.deja.com/
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
>
>
>----------
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
><http://explorer.msn.com>http://explorer.msn.com
>------------------------------------------------------------ For 
>subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 
>http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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

More information about the Leps-l mailing list