"counting" butterflies (was: Tucson sightings)

[Colin Jones]

Ron and others,

I can fully understand and I respect the concern regarding the accuracy of
"counts".  I will, however, attempt to explain and defend "counts" a little
in order to try and show that they may not be as ridiculous as they seem.

Butterfly counts (and bird counts for that matter) are by no means meant to
be a scientific and accurate approach to surveying members of these taxa.  I
think that most "counters" and "count compilers" are fully aware of this.

Counts have a multi-fold purpose and I at least, would argue that the
numbers are the least important of these.  The other purposes are as follows
(not in any particular order):

1) they bring enthusiasts (which can include both professionals and
amateurs) together for a fun day in the field

2) they allow enthusiasts to "blitz" an area.  I coordinate two butterfly
counts in Algonquin Park, Ontario, Canada as well as an Odonata count there
(dragonflies and damselflies).  In the 6 years I have coordinated butterfly
counts and the four I have coordinated the Odonata count, we have always
turned up some interesting records (early/late dates, and even new species
for the Park's checklist!).  The Pelee Island butterfly count this past year
turned up a new species for Canada (Zabulon Skipper - Poanes zabulon).  So,
in this way, a count is very similar to a survey or collecting trip - only
they can often involve a far greater number of participants and therefore a
greater coverage.  There is always the concerns about quality control (i.e.
did people really see what they claimed to), but I think that a count
compiler can eleviate alot of these concerns by providing participants with
a list of expected species.  In Algonquin, I provide such a list with an
asterix beside any species that require proof (i.e. the individual should be
photographed, or brought back to the compilation in a container - it can
then be released or collected as a specimen).  The species requiring proof
are species that are unusual, or which would be early or late dates.

3) counts provide a chance to bring awareness of the taxa to the general
public.  A hoard of "crazy" Naturalists running around swinging butterfly
nets and counting butterflies or dragonflies has a way of getting a spot in
the newspaper, or even on the television news.  I think that this is a great
opportunity to raise awareness of conservation concerns, or even to foster a
greater appreciation for insects (or birds).

I think that the "count" portion (i.e .the numbers) does provide some data
that can be used/analyzed to look at very general trends.  More importantly,
however, the "count" portion of the day provides the incentive to get out
there in the first place.  For many people, a count has a fun aspect to it
since it can be:
a) competitive (either intrisically or between individuals or groups)
b) social - we hold a post-count tally and dinner/BBQ

As a side note, when I am not participating in a count, I record my
observations in a very similar way to what Ron stated in his email:

"In the old days we lepidopterists would relay field information as follows:
Observed 2 X,  4 Y's, several Z's,  G was common, and H, I, B and Q were
abundant."

Anyway, this may or may not change people's thoughts on counts.  I did,
however, want to make the point that the numbers are not the be-all and
end-all of these practices.

All the best and no matter what side of the fence you are on, enjoy those
Leps!

Colin

Colin Jones
Natural Heritage Information Centre
Ministry of Natural Resources
300 Water St., 2nd Floor, North Tower
P.O. Box 7000, Peterborough, ON, K9J 8M5
Tel: (705) 755-2166
Fax: (705) 755-2168
naturalist at algonquinpark.on.ca





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: <bmw60 at aol.com>; "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Tucson sightings


> Editorial
> In the old days, before butterflies became birds, we never thought of
> "counting" specimens. Yes, one might note a single specimen of this and
> that or two or three. Beyond that, counting can become absurdly
inaccurate.
> I have many years of experience in the field in all sorts of habitat with
> all degrees of abundance of specimens. One A. pima, 3 mexicanum, yes I buy
> that. 25 snouts, no way. 24 with one twice, 15 with x twice, xx three
times
> etc. Or, 25 seen with another 25 in the direction one was not looking.
>
> How about 500 Satyrium calanus flying with another 25,000 E. favonius,
> 3,000 A. halesus, 11,000 cecrops, 200 sweadneri, + 200,000 assorted
> skippers of various species and all along the Istachatta RR track in
> Florida - I've been there and defy anyone (other than God) to give a
> "count" of what was flying.
>
> How about getting a number in western North Carolina in the spring when
the
> Erynnis emerge. E. icelus, brizo, zarucco, juvenalis, horatius, martialis,
> and baptisiae are all flying together in swarms. Colias in an Iowa alfafa
> field. Erora laeta at Big Black Mtn Ky or Jones knob SC - 98% of the
> population won't even be seen.
>
> It is a shame that the area surveyed below was completely devoid of
moths -
> as none were "counted" . Hundreds if not thousands of them were roosting
> about. Does a no count mean not present?
>
> Then there is this 4th of July thing. Maybe that works for birds
everywhere
> and butterflies in New York.  I don't even collect here in SC in July
> because about all that is out is junk - carp and sparrows. Spring and fall
> are the time to find stuff - especially for the hairstreaks and skippers.
> June can be good in the mtns. The only things I'd go to the mtns for in
> July would be S. diana and P. faunus smythi. Everything else is pre July.
>
> Bill, this post is not dirrected at you. It is directed at an activity
that
> I consider rediculous - butterfly "individual" counts. (Hate mail
> expected.) In the old days we lepidopterists would relay field information
> as follows: Observed 2 X,  4 Y's, several Z's,  G was common, and H, I, B
> and Q were abundant. We knew what that meant. Further, what we Easterner's
> called abundant was the equivalent of common to western collectors.
> Abundant in western terms was a "population explosion" back east.
>
> Species lists like the one Bill provides below are needed. A count (vs.
> estimate) on the other hand leads to the idea that that is "all"  the
> adults at a particular time and site. This works for birds - but not
> insects.  It is alarming for a birder turned butterfly watcher to hear of
a
> collector having caught 600 Speyeria one day in Utah, or 1,000 favonius at
> one stop in Fla. 600 or 1000 birds is a huge number, but with insects it
is
> often not even a drop in the bucket.  I have been places right here in the
> SE US where the total number of specimens in a few acres (for all species)
> was in the millions.
>
> Which brings me to my last point. Perhaps things have gotten so bad in the
> Northeastern US, in particular, that populations are now so depleted by
> habitat destruction that 35 P. rapae is considered a "big" number. If
> things were like they "used to be" lepsters would not even attempt to
> "count" individuals. In this light, countability is indicative of only one
> thing - an environment in crisis.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BMW60" <bmw60 at aol.com>
> To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:02 PM
> Subject: Tucson sightings
>
>
> > I took a hike yesterday (19 Feb), up Fingerrock Trailhead.  The weather
> was 74
> > degrees, clear as a bell and a trace of a breeze.  Perfect.  What a
> difference
> > a few good days in a row make.  Unlike the hard freeze near Willcox
> Arizona I
> > subjected myself to on my annual Javelina hunt.  (Collared Peccary).
The
> > following is a list of species observed;
> > Sisymbrii White--Pieris sisymbrii---4 Specimens
> > Anthocharis pima--Desert Orange-tip---1
> > Anthocharis sara--Sara Orange-tip---20
> > Colias philodice--Clouded Sulpher---6
> > Colias zerene--Southern Dogface---5
> > Libytheana bachmanii--Snout---25
> > Agraulis vanillae--Gulf Fritillary---1
> > Vanessa atalanta--Red Admiral---1
> > Asterocampa leilia--Empress leilia---10
> > Leptotes marina--Marina Blue---5
> > Eurema mexicanum--Mexican Sulpher---3
> >
> > Systasea pulverulenta--Arizona Powdered Skipper---25
> > Copaeodes minimus--Minimus Skipperling
> > Unidentified Duskywing---3
> >
> > All in all, pretty good.  I did manage to catch one of the Sisymbrii
> Whites in
> > my straw hat.  You do what ya gotta do.  See ya,  Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >    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
>
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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