CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
This is a rather obscure paper that I discovered after it was referenced in the AES publication "Breeding the British Butterflies" by PW Cribb. It's available here: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ite ... 8/mode/2up as a scan but I dont believe a transcription is available anywhere (apart from this one I made and the terrible OCR I based it off). The photos are all screenshots from the scan at the link above. I think this paper could be useful in a reintroduction project and I don't believe anyone has attempted to breed this species since.
Clarke, C.A. (1954) Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity 1953–54. Ent. Rec. 66, 209–10.
In 1952-53 an attempt was made to rear the Large Blue (Maculinea arion L.) in a specially prepared 6 ft. X 4 ft. greenhouse, in the hope that the butterfly might be bred on a large scale. This was a failure, as also was the use of various glass observation nests. It was therefore decided in 1953-54 to try to breed a few individual butterflies by the "walnut" method described in detail by Purefoy in 1915 and recorded in Frohawk's Natural History of British Butterflies. This proved successful and the notes which follow indicate the special points of interest which arose during the experiment: —
1. The female arion laid readily on wild thyme and the eggs were placed in 1" diameter tins. Under a hand lens the eggs could be seen to darken after a few days and fresh thyme was then put in. When the larvae hatch they are so small that they are diflicult to find, disappearing into the thyme buds. The simplest plan for breeding, therefore, is to renew the food-plant every few days and never to throw anything away; by this means no caterpillars are lost. Frass in the tins can be detected about ten days after hatching, and when the larvae become salmon pink, after about a fortnight, they are more visible and can be seen in or around the thyme buds. When, after three weeks, the caterpillars leave the thyme, they crawl rapidly round the tin and are then ready to be transferred to the walnuts. Cannibalism is said to occur but we did not see any and on several occasions three or four larvae were found in different flowerlets on the same bud of thyme. 2. The most diflicult period was changing over from the wild thyme to the ants. The caterpillars were introduced into the "walnut" on a paintbrush, but a large number of them then disappeared. Whether they were eaten by the ants or whether they were drowned through entering the water seal is not known, but out of 30 or 40 caterpillars introduced into the nests only 7 successfully established themselves with the ants. Possibly we had too much earth both under and around the walnuts and the caterpillars may have burrowed into this and been lost. Very little earth (about ⅛") seems to be necessary. At no time did we witness the spectacle of "humping", nor did the ants appear to pay any attention to the caterpillars.¹ 3. The "walnuts" (2½" × 1½") were hollowed out of wood and roughened inside. We used Myrmica rubra L. ( = M. ruginodis Nyl.) ants from Cheshire and these proved very satisfactory. Whether this is a new species of ant for arion is doubtful, since recent work suggests that ruginodis and M. laevinodis Nyl. are almost identical.² Nests are found chiefly under stones and the simplest way to remove them is to scoop them up with a spoon and to take the brood off the underside of the stone with a paintbrush. On return home the tin is emptied on to one of the little tables with a walnut and a water seal (see photograph) and the earth well broken up and spread out. The ants then quickly establish themseves under the "walnut". We fed the ants every two or three days with chopped mealworm, and a few drops of water were placed under the shell two or three times a week.
4. When established, the larvae grew quite quickly until hibernation in mid-October, fresh brood from new nests being added as needed. The caterpillars were inspected every day and were kept at room temperature throughout. Even during the winter they exhibited occasional activity but at no time did we see them actually eating. Two died during hibernation. Brood in Nature reappears about April and is then added to the nests. After the winter the remaining larvae grew very slowly and the first chrysalis was obtained on 10th June; before pupation the caterpillars dropped from the roof and lay as if dead for three or four days. The first one to do this was inadvertently destroyed as we thought it was, in fact, dead. Butterflies emerged as follows: 1st July — male; 12th July — female; 17th July — male. The fourth pupa darkened but the insect never emerged. We are very grateful indeed both to Mr. N. D. Riley and to the owner of the land for allowing us to take a few arion females from a protected colony; also to Mr. Wilfred Lee, University of Liverpool, for the photographs which illustrate this paper.
¹Since writing this paper young larvae of Maculinea alcon, a continental Lycaenid, with myrmecophilous habits similar to arion, have been studied. M. rubra ants have been observed to carry the alcon caterpillars on many occasions, particularly when the "walnuts" have been disturbed. The ants appear to deal with the larvae exactly as they do with their own brood, picking either up before escaping from the light.
²Dr. John Carthy (personal communication) states that M. rubra L. (=ruginodis) and M. laevinodis Nyl. can be distinguished biometrically but many individuals are indistinguishable. Rubra is a dimorphic species but it seems as though laevinodis should be absorbed into rubra L. as Linnaeus first said.
REFERENCE.
FROHAWK, F.W., M.B.O.U., F.E.S., etc., Natural History of British Butterflies.
Hutchinson & Co., 1914.
Clarke, C.A. (1954) Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity 1953–54. Ent. Rec. 66, 209–10.
In 1952-53 an attempt was made to rear the Large Blue (Maculinea arion L.) in a specially prepared 6 ft. X 4 ft. greenhouse, in the hope that the butterfly might be bred on a large scale. This was a failure, as also was the use of various glass observation nests. It was therefore decided in 1953-54 to try to breed a few individual butterflies by the "walnut" method described in detail by Purefoy in 1915 and recorded in Frohawk's Natural History of British Butterflies. This proved successful and the notes which follow indicate the special points of interest which arose during the experiment: —
1. The female arion laid readily on wild thyme and the eggs were placed in 1" diameter tins. Under a hand lens the eggs could be seen to darken after a few days and fresh thyme was then put in. When the larvae hatch they are so small that they are diflicult to find, disappearing into the thyme buds. The simplest plan for breeding, therefore, is to renew the food-plant every few days and never to throw anything away; by this means no caterpillars are lost. Frass in the tins can be detected about ten days after hatching, and when the larvae become salmon pink, after about a fortnight, they are more visible and can be seen in or around the thyme buds. When, after three weeks, the caterpillars leave the thyme, they crawl rapidly round the tin and are then ready to be transferred to the walnuts. Cannibalism is said to occur but we did not see any and on several occasions three or four larvae were found in different flowerlets on the same bud of thyme. 2. The most diflicult period was changing over from the wild thyme to the ants. The caterpillars were introduced into the "walnut" on a paintbrush, but a large number of them then disappeared. Whether they were eaten by the ants or whether they were drowned through entering the water seal is not known, but out of 30 or 40 caterpillars introduced into the nests only 7 successfully established themselves with the ants. Possibly we had too much earth both under and around the walnuts and the caterpillars may have burrowed into this and been lost. Very little earth (about ⅛") seems to be necessary. At no time did we witness the spectacle of "humping", nor did the ants appear to pay any attention to the caterpillars.¹ 3. The "walnuts" (2½" × 1½") were hollowed out of wood and roughened inside. We used Myrmica rubra L. ( = M. ruginodis Nyl.) ants from Cheshire and these proved very satisfactory. Whether this is a new species of ant for arion is doubtful, since recent work suggests that ruginodis and M. laevinodis Nyl. are almost identical.² Nests are found chiefly under stones and the simplest way to remove them is to scoop them up with a spoon and to take the brood off the underside of the stone with a paintbrush. On return home the tin is emptied on to one of the little tables with a walnut and a water seal (see photograph) and the earth well broken up and spread out. The ants then quickly establish themseves under the "walnut". We fed the ants every two or three days with chopped mealworm, and a few drops of water were placed under the shell two or three times a week.
4. When established, the larvae grew quite quickly until hibernation in mid-October, fresh brood from new nests being added as needed. The caterpillars were inspected every day and were kept at room temperature throughout. Even during the winter they exhibited occasional activity but at no time did we see them actually eating. Two died during hibernation. Brood in Nature reappears about April and is then added to the nests. After the winter the remaining larvae grew very slowly and the first chrysalis was obtained on 10th June; before pupation the caterpillars dropped from the roof and lay as if dead for three or four days. The first one to do this was inadvertently destroyed as we thought it was, in fact, dead. Butterflies emerged as follows: 1st July — male; 12th July — female; 17th July — male. The fourth pupa darkened but the insect never emerged. We are very grateful indeed both to Mr. N. D. Riley and to the owner of the land for allowing us to take a few arion females from a protected colony; also to Mr. Wilfred Lee, University of Liverpool, for the photographs which illustrate this paper.
¹Since writing this paper young larvae of Maculinea alcon, a continental Lycaenid, with myrmecophilous habits similar to arion, have been studied. M. rubra ants have been observed to carry the alcon caterpillars on many occasions, particularly when the "walnuts" have been disturbed. The ants appear to deal with the larvae exactly as they do with their own brood, picking either up before escaping from the light.
²Dr. John Carthy (personal communication) states that M. rubra L. (=ruginodis) and M. laevinodis Nyl. can be distinguished biometrically but many individuals are indistinguishable. Rubra is a dimorphic species but it seems as though laevinodis should be absorbed into rubra L. as Linnaeus first said.
REFERENCE.
FROHAWK, F.W., M.B.O.U., F.E.S., etc., Natural History of British Butterflies.
Hutchinson & Co., 1914.
- Jake
- Pete Eeles
- Administrator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 6809
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Hi Jake - the history of the Large Blue is absolutely fascinating, and I've spent a lot of time digging into its decline, extinction and reintroduction.
The latter has been extremely successful through the work of many organisations, and especially the insights and project involving Jeremy Thomas, Dave Simcox and Sarah Meredith. So successful, in fact, that the Large Blue reintroduction project is held up a supreme example of conservation in action!
The reintroduction project relies on introducing final instar larvae onto a site, where there is a sufficient density of Myrmica sabuleti ant colonies. And, even before this happens, the habitat is assessed and managed to ensure that this is the case!
And, of course, it is illegal to take any livestock from the wild without a license.
Cheers,
- Pete
The latter has been extremely successful through the work of many organisations, and especially the insights and project involving Jeremy Thomas, Dave Simcox and Sarah Meredith. So successful, in fact, that the Large Blue reintroduction project is held up a supreme example of conservation in action!
The reintroduction project relies on introducing final instar larvae onto a site, where there is a sufficient density of Myrmica sabuleti ant colonies. And, even before this happens, the habitat is assessed and managed to ensure that this is the case!
And, of course, it is illegal to take any livestock from the wild without a license.
Cheers,
- Pete
Life Cycles of British & Irish Butterflies: http://www.butterflylifecycles.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Do modern reintroduction projects involve rearing the larvae then? How do they acquire them in the final instar?
- Jake
- Pete Eeles
- Administrator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 6809
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Yes - eggs are taken into captivity and the larvae reared through to their final instar, when they need to be placed on a site among ant nests.
Cheers,
- Pete
Cheers,
- Pete
Life Cycles of British & Irish Butterflies: http://www.butterflylifecycles.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
British & Irish Butterflies Rarities: http://www.butterflyrarities.com
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:25 pm
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Very interesting article by Sir Cyril Clarke, thank you for posting it. It's one I'm familiar with and am very happy to give you a few observations but, please bear with me for a few days as this is quite a busy time of year!
I never met him but I believe he was a 'Marmite' character, of which, there have been many in the history of the Large blue in the UK.
Thank you Pete for your kind words and please nag me if I haven't posted anything soon.
I am delighted that people are still interested in this iconic species which continues to throw up new and searching questions.
I never met him but I believe he was a 'Marmite' character, of which, there have been many in the history of the Large blue in the UK.
Thank you Pete for your kind words and please nag me if I haven't posted anything soon.
I am delighted that people are still interested in this iconic species which continues to throw up new and searching questions.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:25 pm
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
This is a very interesting paper and was quite revolutionary at the time. Rearing Large blues in captivity is very difficult for many of the reasons that are identified in the paper.
Jeremy Thomas and Judith Wardlaw also reared them in captivity throughout the winter in the 1980s using a refined version of the ‘Walnut method’. They did not use any soil which made cleaning to prevent bacterial and viral infections more effective but it was still a very laborious. It did enable them to observe that a single caterpillar eats approximately 250 ant grubs during the subterranean part of its life.
Rearing butterflies in captivity has often been used for producing large numbers of a species to facilitate re-introduction programmes but is totally unsuitable for Large blues as it would also require keeping large numbers of Myrmica ant colonies alive in the laboratory for at least 11 months!
The method we use for introductions is to collect eggs in the wild and to rear them for 3 to 4 weeks before releasing them onto the new site on the evening each caterpillar reaches its final instar and is ready for adoption. Unlike Clarke, we have always found them to be highly cannibalistic and need to be kept in individual plastic boxes and the foodplant replaced daily making it a labour intensive exercise. By trial and error, we have learnt over time how to improve the survival rate during their period in captivity.
Before any Large blue re-introduction is considered, detailed surveys of the ants are undertaken on the proposed recipient site, sometimes over a period of many years, to establish that there are sufficient densities of Myrmica sabuleti distributed within the foraging range of the caterpillar foodplant. Equally detailed surveys are carried out of the Large blue population on the donor site to ensure that ‘harvesting’ will not negatively impact on an existing population. Of course none of this occurs without having obtained all necessary landowner and statutory permissions and we have been issued with a Schedule 5 licence from Natural England.
Re-introductions take place when there are suitable recipient and donor sites, when funding allows, and at the discretion of the Large Blue Committee formed from a broad partnership of statutory and conservation organisations who are involved in the project.
I hope this explanation helps.
Jeremy Thomas and Judith Wardlaw also reared them in captivity throughout the winter in the 1980s using a refined version of the ‘Walnut method’. They did not use any soil which made cleaning to prevent bacterial and viral infections more effective but it was still a very laborious. It did enable them to observe that a single caterpillar eats approximately 250 ant grubs during the subterranean part of its life.
Rearing butterflies in captivity has often been used for producing large numbers of a species to facilitate re-introduction programmes but is totally unsuitable for Large blues as it would also require keeping large numbers of Myrmica ant colonies alive in the laboratory for at least 11 months!
The method we use for introductions is to collect eggs in the wild and to rear them for 3 to 4 weeks before releasing them onto the new site on the evening each caterpillar reaches its final instar and is ready for adoption. Unlike Clarke, we have always found them to be highly cannibalistic and need to be kept in individual plastic boxes and the foodplant replaced daily making it a labour intensive exercise. By trial and error, we have learnt over time how to improve the survival rate during their period in captivity.
Before any Large blue re-introduction is considered, detailed surveys of the ants are undertaken on the proposed recipient site, sometimes over a period of many years, to establish that there are sufficient densities of Myrmica sabuleti distributed within the foraging range of the caterpillar foodplant. Equally detailed surveys are carried out of the Large blue population on the donor site to ensure that ‘harvesting’ will not negatively impact on an existing population. Of course none of this occurs without having obtained all necessary landowner and statutory permissions and we have been issued with a Schedule 5 licence from Natural England.
Re-introductions take place when there are suitable recipient and donor sites, when funding allows, and at the discretion of the Large Blue Committee formed from a broad partnership of statutory and conservation organisations who are involved in the project.
I hope this explanation helps.
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Fascinating read. I know that it is m Sabuliti that is the host of the LB, but I wonder would the larvae eat 'any' ant grub in captivity? Would other species of ant grub have the requirments that the LB larvae need.... (taking the adults out of the equation)..
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:25 pm
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
This is a very good point. In captivity, Large blue caterpillars will eat the grubs of any Myrmica species. In the wild, any Myrmica species other than sabuleti will recognise the caterpillar as an imposter and kill it very quickly.
Happy to try and answer any questions.
Happy to try and answer any questions.
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
That's interesting.... that is exactly as I has assumed, but its always best to ask..lol... so, basically, a LB larvae could be reared on almost any ant grub...it could be assumed that they could be reared easier then without the addition of an actual ant colony, and simply by providing ant brood to the LB larvae? I suppose this would make captive breeding much, much easier...David Simcox wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:31 pm This is a very good point. In captivity, Large blue caterpillars will eat the grubs of any Myrmica species. In the wild, any Myrmica species other than sabuleti will recognise the caterpillar as an imposter and kill it very quickly.
Happy to try and answer any questions.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:25 pm
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
I can understand that assumption Sij, however, anyone who has tried to rear large numbers of any butterfly species will know how easy it is to get a bacterial or viral infection which can wipe out the whole lot, and they are all herbivores. Imagine the potential for infection when dealing with carnivore frass! Ants constantly clean and disinfect their grubs, together with any Large blue caterpillars, every day over an eleven month period...
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
I never thought of that to be honest. thanks for providing a different perspecitive and increasing my knowledge on this species.David Simcox wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:22 am I can understand that assumption Sij, however, anyone who has tried to rear large numbers of any butterfly species will know how easy it is to get a bacterial or viral infection which can wipe out the whole lot, and they are all herbivores. Imagine the potential for infection when dealing with carnivore frass! Ants constantly clean and disinfect their grubs, together with any Large blue caterpillars, every day over an eleven month period...
Re: CA Clarke, Breeding the Large Blue Butterfly in Captivity
Interestingly I also recently read a paper from the 90s describing how the presence of a queen negatively affects larval survival rates as the ants may recognise the LB larva as one which will grow into a rival queen and so kill it:
Thomas, J.A., Wardlaw, J.C. The effect of queen ants on the survival of Maculinea arion larvae in Myrmica ant nests. Oecologia 85, 87–91 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317347
Thomas, J.A., Wardlaw, J.C. The effect of queen ants on the survival of Maculinea arion larvae in Myrmica ant nests. Oecologia 85, 87–91 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00317347
- Jake