Some fascinating thoughts/speculation in your recent posts Ben, a lot of which is applicable to other species too.
I am put in mind of an expression that I first heard years ago - 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. This could apply to Purple Emperors turning up again in locations where they have not been seen for years, something which has been happening recently around the midlands, although there is certainly some genuine expansion going on.
Lots to think about for sure.
Cheers,
Neil.
Benjamin
-
Neil Freeman
- Posts: 4443
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: Solihull, West Midlands
Re: Benjamin
Thanks Neil, if you managed to wade through all that then I’m certainly relieved you found something of interest! PE certainly seems to be doing well around the midlands these days, and the evolution of the population in the Heart of England Forest will be fascinating to watch.
Just for the sake of messing with my graph and at the risk labouring the point even more…..
All I’m really suggesting is that variance from one year to the next (red line) caused by all the factors that we speculate about, falls within the observational error range (black lines). So although these factors play some part, their effect is heavily moderated by the carrying capacity of the habitat (discussed below), and the visibility of the butterfly due to flight season weather is more significant in terms of the conclusions we come to.
I suppose I’m motivated to make this case because the way we often talk about the butterfly would be to suggest that variance due to these factors is high and would be better represented by the 2nd graph (obviously these graphs are not supposed to be accurate - just scribbles to help make my simple point!).
For example, we tend to tell ourselves these kind of stories:
“The butterfly had a terrible year; poor conditions at egg lay followed by a mild winter of high predation are to blame”
“The butterfly bounced back strongly after superb sallow condition in August led to a high overwintering population that then benefitted from a wonderfully calm, warm pupal period”
“Much reduced winter predation could lead to a mass emergence, if only we have stable spring conditions and a mercifully short pupal period”
Honestly I’m not trying to ridicule all of this speculation - elements of it are true and it really does add to the fun! In fact it is largely because of all this entertaining noise that I set out with the intention of discovering what these crucial variables were. So far I have failed to find anything, although I have previously suggested that egg lay and winter predation are the two factors that I think are most likely to cause population fluctuations. This may still be true but the variance caused may just be a lot lower than I was, at that time, imagining. I will certainly continue to look…..
Just one final point. In putting all the emphasis on the carrying capacity* of the habitat I’m not saying you could never discover what would appear to be a significant variable from one year to the next, but you would have to be able to follow the numbers right through to the flight period (requiring UV pupae searches) to be sure of its effect. So, for example, an unusually high egg lay across the same habitat as the previous year’s low egg lay, could just even out by spring due to differing levels of predation.
Crucial to this thinking is the notion that carrying capacity exerts a strong moderating effect on some of these variables. So when carrying capacity stays constant, we see a relatively constant population as a result. More eggs in the same space for a particular year, to return to the previous example, just results in higher losses. In the other direction, more predators operating in the same area of habitat are still only able to predate larvae down to a certain level beyond which returns become too slim to justify further searching.
I’m not sure how this situation is best described in ecological language. It appears to me that PE population is not strictly speaking resource limited, as it is being controlled by predation. But if avoiding predation relies upon being thinly scattered throughout the habitat/resource, then increased resource will increase the carrying capacity, so in that sense it must be a type of resource limitation. The sallow is not a limited resource in terms of food of course, but in terms of the potential to remain undiscovered. 50 caterpillars on a single tree will likely all be eaten, but single caterpillars on 50 trees have a much better chance of survival.
* I’m pretty sure I’m not using this term correctly as I’m also including predator/prey relationships. I’m really thinking of the 10 or so butterflies that it seems my site currently produces each year. So I’m saying the habitat available is sufficient to reliably result in 10 individuals making it to adulthood. Carrying capacity = 10. This takes into account all the habitat related factors that bring us to this number, so if we created a lovely new area of sallow regen where dense birch grew previously, we would increase the carrying capacity of the site. I’m not sure what the correct term should be, but at least now it should be clear how I’m using it.
Just for the sake of messing with my graph and at the risk labouring the point even more…..
For example, we tend to tell ourselves these kind of stories:
“The butterfly had a terrible year; poor conditions at egg lay followed by a mild winter of high predation are to blame”
“The butterfly bounced back strongly after superb sallow condition in August led to a high overwintering population that then benefitted from a wonderfully calm, warm pupal period”
“Much reduced winter predation could lead to a mass emergence, if only we have stable spring conditions and a mercifully short pupal period”
Honestly I’m not trying to ridicule all of this speculation - elements of it are true and it really does add to the fun! In fact it is largely because of all this entertaining noise that I set out with the intention of discovering what these crucial variables were. So far I have failed to find anything, although I have previously suggested that egg lay and winter predation are the two factors that I think are most likely to cause population fluctuations. This may still be true but the variance caused may just be a lot lower than I was, at that time, imagining. I will certainly continue to look…..
Just one final point. In putting all the emphasis on the carrying capacity* of the habitat I’m not saying you could never discover what would appear to be a significant variable from one year to the next, but you would have to be able to follow the numbers right through to the flight period (requiring UV pupae searches) to be sure of its effect. So, for example, an unusually high egg lay across the same habitat as the previous year’s low egg lay, could just even out by spring due to differing levels of predation.
Crucial to this thinking is the notion that carrying capacity exerts a strong moderating effect on some of these variables. So when carrying capacity stays constant, we see a relatively constant population as a result. More eggs in the same space for a particular year, to return to the previous example, just results in higher losses. In the other direction, more predators operating in the same area of habitat are still only able to predate larvae down to a certain level beyond which returns become too slim to justify further searching.
I’m not sure how this situation is best described in ecological language. It appears to me that PE population is not strictly speaking resource limited, as it is being controlled by predation. But if avoiding predation relies upon being thinly scattered throughout the habitat/resource, then increased resource will increase the carrying capacity, so in that sense it must be a type of resource limitation. The sallow is not a limited resource in terms of food of course, but in terms of the potential to remain undiscovered. 50 caterpillars on a single tree will likely all be eaten, but single caterpillars on 50 trees have a much better chance of survival.
* I’m pretty sure I’m not using this term correctly as I’m also including predator/prey relationships. I’m really thinking of the 10 or so butterflies that it seems my site currently produces each year. So I’m saying the habitat available is sufficient to reliably result in 10 individuals making it to adulthood. Carrying capacity = 10. This takes into account all the habitat related factors that bring us to this number, so if we created a lovely new area of sallow regen where dense birch grew previously, we would increase the carrying capacity of the site. I’m not sure what the correct term should be, but at least now it should be clear how I’m using it.
Re: Benjamin
Some excellent graphics to illustrate your theories there, Ben. I guess the fact that Purple Emperor is a butterfly that by its very behaviour is less commonly seen by humans makes things all the trickier.
Your images of woodland regrowth may make environmentalists happy, but wherever there are winners there are usually losers too, and in this instance it is plausible to a high level to imagine that the greater the general regrowth of trees in a forest, the less likely it is that PE females will be able to find ideal egg-laying sites.
Bring back the aurochs!
Your images of woodland regrowth may make environmentalists happy, but wherever there are winners there are usually losers too, and in this instance it is plausible to a high level to imagine that the greater the general regrowth of trees in a forest, the less likely it is that PE females will be able to find ideal egg-laying sites.
Bring back the aurochs!
Re: Benjamin
"I should just clarify Wurzel, that in dismissing the statements people make about how certain species are faring, I wasn’t meaning to suggest that I know any better, but just that having made the step to realise just how much I don’t know, I can’t help but view all these statements through the same lens." No worries Ben I took what you were saying as a useful reminder to bemindful that was all. 
Another interesting read, with cracking graphs 
Have a goodun
Wurzel
Another interesting read, with cracking graphs Have a goodun
Wurzel
Re: Benjamin
Many thanks for your comments as always David and Wurzel.
Just a quick update to deal with predation during February:
Losses continued in February, but at the reduced rate that you might expect given that the easy pickings were largely exhausted in the January massacre.
8 losses occurred bringing the surviving total down to 16/44.
The Olympians have been fairly lucky this winter, and with 3 losses in Feb, now make up the majority of the total I have left.
Hopefully losses will continue to slow and the survivors can start to think about bursting buds at some point towards the end of this month.
At this point it looks very likely that once again we are heading towards the magic total of 14 survivors and 70% winter predation at my site.
Just a quick update to deal with predation during February:
Losses continued in February, but at the reduced rate that you might expect given that the easy pickings were largely exhausted in the January massacre.
8 losses occurred bringing the surviving total down to 16/44.
The Olympians have been fairly lucky this winter, and with 3 losses in Feb, now make up the majority of the total I have left.
At this point it looks very likely that once again we are heading towards the magic total of 14 survivors and 70% winter predation at my site.
Re: Benjamin
Nice mosaic, Ben. Let's hope most of them can make it through the month and beyond.
I'm assuming a contributory factor in reduced predation rates is partly due to the increasing amount of alternative prey now that insects are active again (albeit in fairly small numbers)?
I'm assuming a contributory factor in reduced predation rates is partly due to the increasing amount of alternative prey now that insects are active again (albeit in fairly small numbers)?
Re: Benjamin
Overwintering larvae are extremely thinly spread throughout the foliage by this point, and naturally those that have survived must be, for one reason or another, good at evading predators.
And you’re right David, that alternative food sources are beginning to appear, and will shortly explode as overwintering moth eggs begin to hatch in large numbers, and overwintering sawfly pupae begin to hatch and the next generation is produced.
During April/May sawfly and moth larvae become so numerous that it’s hardly surprising that the few remaining iris cats, with their superb camouflage, suffer so few losses.
And you’re right David, that alternative food sources are beginning to appear, and will shortly explode as overwintering moth eggs begin to hatch in large numbers, and overwintering sawfly pupae begin to hatch and the next generation is produced.
During April/May sawfly and moth larvae become so numerous that it’s hardly surprising that the few remaining iris cats, with their superb camouflage, suffer so few losses.
Re: Benjamin
Thanks for the explanation, Ben. I've noticed these last couple of weeks that the birds are no longer a near-permanent feature near my feeders so I supposed they were busy elsewhere mopping up the early insects. I guess that's a welcome thing for those Emperor cats.
Re: Benjamin
Spring
A little diary diversion before I focus back on the remaining purple emperor caterpillars.
Small tortoiseshells have been particularly numerous this year around Sussex, no doubt largely due to excellent summer conditions last year. During the few years that I’ve been down here it has been necessary to travel to ST hotspots in order to guarantee decent spring numbers, but this year it seems any reasonably suitable nettle patch will have a few STs looking to make it their own. A good bank like this at Wild Park, albeit it next to a road and far too close to human habitation not to be covered in litter and junk, can host impressive numbers - I counted around 30 individuals as I walked its length.
The peacocks tended to be vying for position higher up the steep banks of Wild Park, although there were one or two STs up there too. Emperor moths are already on the wing here, and will soon be joined by all the spring downland species you would expect.
A little further afield at Devil’s Dyke I watched more STs, this time a couple of females were busy piling up eggs in the usual spots low to the ground on young shoots at the edge of nettle patches. I’m sure this preference is driven by the need to provide warmth to quickly develop the eggs under variable spring conditions. On the underside of leaves in full sun and next to bare ground the eggs are shielded from direct sun by the leaf above but must enjoy pockets of warmth far in excess of any temperatures occurring within the nettle bed. In good conditions (nettles still vigorously growing) summer brood females are far less fussy and will behave more like peacocks, depositing eggs on good quality nettles growing throughout the nettle bed. It is still usual to find summer ST nests predominantly around the edge of the nettle beds however, but this may be simply because this is where fresh growth of an expanding nettle bed occurs, rather than being a temperature driven choice as in spring.
I waited around with the egg batch for a few hours to see if any egg parasitoids appeared - none did. Last year (I should have written this up by now) I found several summer egg batches and the majority of them attracted egg parasitoids (Telenomus sp.) almost instantly. At certain sites, and late in the year these parasitoids can clearly have a very significant effect on ST numbers, with many nests only containing a fraction of the caterpillars that one would normally expect. This is particularly interesting as apparently we know almost nothing about this relationship.
Last year I collected a batch complete with egg parasitoid and watched closely as she injected every single egg. It was a small batch but she still struggled to squeeze between the eggs to reach the base layer. Watching this I wondered if the behaviour of several females piling eggs on top of each other in huge masses as is often observed could be a defence against such parasitoids. It’s quite appealing but I can’t see how the behaviour would be rewarded - what benefit could you possibly derive from sacrificing your offspring to protect a rivals eggs?!
No, I think that behaviour must be about exploiting the best conditions and perhaps benefitting from safety in numbers in the larval stage. But then why pile them on top at all? Surely better to lay them next to your rival’s egg batch so her eggs remain exposed too? Perhaps this is what they do? Use the wall of the existing egg batch to build against and thus benefit from protection on a side that would otherwise have been exposed? That would make sense as more of the subsequent female’s eggs would be protected than would be the case if she elected to start a new batch from scratch.
Hmmm - I should have thought about this before I started writing the post! It’s coming back to me now - i vaguely remember coming to this conclusion at the time.
Anyway - here’s the egg batch being laid and subsequent parasitoid development….
Some of the resultant adult Telenomus were kept contained until they died and were sent to the NHM for identification and potentially sequencing. Morphological identification was unsuccessful as the specimens were frustratingly all female (although I have now sent some more….), and sequencing is apparently unlikely to help with ID as so few European Telenomus have been sequenced. They now reside in the NHM collection.
Last year my investigation into ST focused largely on parasitism by tachinids, with particular attention paid to Sturmia bella (hopefully I’ll be be able to shed some light on a crucial aspect of S.bella ecology shortly….), but I’m now encouraged to pay more attention to the egg parasitoids and as there are currently no records of ST and Telenomus association apart from the one I just describe (and I know Pete and no doubt others have noticed similar looking wasps around eggs previously) it seems likely that some observations/data would be welcomed.
Away from ST I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods as usual. I’ll update the PE record soon, but for now a few photos of various things…..
And finally as I walk the dog around the local elm-lined streets I imagine the hundreds if not thousands of tiny WLH larvae I must pass under. Most trees are currently at the seed pod stage so I guess the larvae must be L2/3. As soon as the leaves start to appear it’ll be time to dust off the UVBeast. Some of my neighbours have balconies overlooking elms - imagine that! A few drinks in the summer sun looking down on some late afternoon hairstreak activity (all these trees have WLH) - they clearly don’t know how lucky they are as I never see anyone out there!
A little diary diversion before I focus back on the remaining purple emperor caterpillars.
Small tortoiseshells have been particularly numerous this year around Sussex, no doubt largely due to excellent summer conditions last year. During the few years that I’ve been down here it has been necessary to travel to ST hotspots in order to guarantee decent spring numbers, but this year it seems any reasonably suitable nettle patch will have a few STs looking to make it their own. A good bank like this at Wild Park, albeit it next to a road and far too close to human habitation not to be covered in litter and junk, can host impressive numbers - I counted around 30 individuals as I walked its length.
A little further afield at Devil’s Dyke I watched more STs, this time a couple of females were busy piling up eggs in the usual spots low to the ground on young shoots at the edge of nettle patches. I’m sure this preference is driven by the need to provide warmth to quickly develop the eggs under variable spring conditions. On the underside of leaves in full sun and next to bare ground the eggs are shielded from direct sun by the leaf above but must enjoy pockets of warmth far in excess of any temperatures occurring within the nettle bed. In good conditions (nettles still vigorously growing) summer brood females are far less fussy and will behave more like peacocks, depositing eggs on good quality nettles growing throughout the nettle bed. It is still usual to find summer ST nests predominantly around the edge of the nettle beds however, but this may be simply because this is where fresh growth of an expanding nettle bed occurs, rather than being a temperature driven choice as in spring.
I waited around with the egg batch for a few hours to see if any egg parasitoids appeared - none did. Last year (I should have written this up by now) I found several summer egg batches and the majority of them attracted egg parasitoids (Telenomus sp.) almost instantly. At certain sites, and late in the year these parasitoids can clearly have a very significant effect on ST numbers, with many nests only containing a fraction of the caterpillars that one would normally expect. This is particularly interesting as apparently we know almost nothing about this relationship.
Last year I collected a batch complete with egg parasitoid and watched closely as she injected every single egg. It was a small batch but she still struggled to squeeze between the eggs to reach the base layer. Watching this I wondered if the behaviour of several females piling eggs on top of each other in huge masses as is often observed could be a defence against such parasitoids. It’s quite appealing but I can’t see how the behaviour would be rewarded - what benefit could you possibly derive from sacrificing your offspring to protect a rivals eggs?!
No, I think that behaviour must be about exploiting the best conditions and perhaps benefitting from safety in numbers in the larval stage. But then why pile them on top at all? Surely better to lay them next to your rival’s egg batch so her eggs remain exposed too? Perhaps this is what they do? Use the wall of the existing egg batch to build against and thus benefit from protection on a side that would otherwise have been exposed? That would make sense as more of the subsequent female’s eggs would be protected than would be the case if she elected to start a new batch from scratch.
Hmmm - I should have thought about this before I started writing the post! It’s coming back to me now - i vaguely remember coming to this conclusion at the time.
Anyway - here’s the egg batch being laid and subsequent parasitoid development….
Last year my investigation into ST focused largely on parasitism by tachinids, with particular attention paid to Sturmia bella (hopefully I’ll be be able to shed some light on a crucial aspect of S.bella ecology shortly….), but I’m now encouraged to pay more attention to the egg parasitoids and as there are currently no records of ST and Telenomus association apart from the one I just describe (and I know Pete and no doubt others have noticed similar looking wasps around eggs previously) it seems likely that some observations/data would be welcomed.
Away from ST I’ve spent a lot of time in the woods as usual. I’ll update the PE record soon, but for now a few photos of various things…..
- WA waking up and getting on with gymnastic practice
- A few common marbled carpet encountered as I searched for WA
- Alistair
Re: Benjamin
Really interesting report into the parasitoids Ben - looking forward to the possible light shed on S.bella
Have a goodun
Wurzel
Have a goodun
Wurzel
Re: Benjamin
Fascinating commentary on the Small Tortoiseshells, Ben, and I agree with your remarks about the houses with balconies overlooking elm trees. I'd pay a king's ransom to be looking down on a colony of White Letter Hairstreaks from the comfort of my own home!
Re: Benjamin
Thanks both. I do find the parasitoids fascinating, not only because it becomes ever clearer in my mind that I can’t possibly hope to get a grip of small tortoiseshell fortunes without understanding them at least reasonably well, but also because they are so endlessly fascinating and beautiful in their own right.
Thought I’d add a photo of the parasitoid families heavily associated with ST.
I’ve chosen my favourite Sturmia bella to represent the tachinids, although several other species are encountered - most notably Pelatachina tibialis in spring.
Next (in descending size order) we have the ever-present ichneumonid Phobocampe confusa. It’s not actually ever-present in ST but I always expect a few in summer larvae (more so in peacocks actually) and have encountered them ever since I first started collecting vanessid caterpillars as a young boy in the Midlands. Back then they were the most common parasitoid I encountered and I hated them - understandable I suppose, but a bit blinkered!
Coming in next are the braconids. Again a few to choose from but Cotesia vanessae is by far the most frequently encountered (as you might guess). Last year at least numbers were relatively modest in ST, with maybe 5% of a batch hosting them. Of course 60 or so wasps emerge from each host, however, so that’s still a lot of wasps. They occurred in similar numbers in peacock batches despite much of the literature suggesting peacocks are not used.
Last but certainly not least there is the little scelionid (hopefully I’ll have a name for it tomorrow). It’s very satisfying to include it in the series because it does appear (at least in some regions) to be at least as significant as the other big players. An excellent paper has just been released on ST and its parasitoids (in fact there have been a few in the last few years), but unfortunately again the egg parasitoids are omitted. The suggestion is that they are unlikely to be significant as they appear not to have been encountered in any of these studies. I suspect this is more to do with the time consuming nature of locating egg laying females in action rather than any real reflection on the prevalence of these particular parasitoids.
The latest paper particularly agrees with a lot of my own thinking regarding ST and its parasitoids (particularly the tachinids) but the picture is far from complete, and I’m encouraged to continue down a few avenues that might yet justify the effort.
Thought I’d add a photo of the parasitoid families heavily associated with ST.
Next (in descending size order) we have the ever-present ichneumonid Phobocampe confusa. It’s not actually ever-present in ST but I always expect a few in summer larvae (more so in peacocks actually) and have encountered them ever since I first started collecting vanessid caterpillars as a young boy in the Midlands. Back then they were the most common parasitoid I encountered and I hated them - understandable I suppose, but a bit blinkered!
Coming in next are the braconids. Again a few to choose from but Cotesia vanessae is by far the most frequently encountered (as you might guess). Last year at least numbers were relatively modest in ST, with maybe 5% of a batch hosting them. Of course 60 or so wasps emerge from each host, however, so that’s still a lot of wasps. They occurred in similar numbers in peacock batches despite much of the literature suggesting peacocks are not used.
Last but certainly not least there is the little scelionid (hopefully I’ll have a name for it tomorrow). It’s very satisfying to include it in the series because it does appear (at least in some regions) to be at least as significant as the other big players. An excellent paper has just been released on ST and its parasitoids (in fact there have been a few in the last few years), but unfortunately again the egg parasitoids are omitted. The suggestion is that they are unlikely to be significant as they appear not to have been encountered in any of these studies. I suspect this is more to do with the time consuming nature of locating egg laying females in action rather than any real reflection on the prevalence of these particular parasitoids.
The latest paper particularly agrees with a lot of my own thinking regarding ST and its parasitoids (particularly the tachinids) but the picture is far from complete, and I’m encouraged to continue down a few avenues that might yet justify the effort.
-
Pete Eeles
- Administrator & Stock Contributor
- Posts: 6779
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:10 pm
- Location: Thatcham, Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: Benjamin
Excellent work, Ben, as usual!
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
Re: Benjamin
Agreed. This is superb analysis, Ben, and goes some way to demonstrating what butterflies' life cycles have to contend with.
Re: Benjamin
For next year's project I presume you will be looking into the parasitoids of these parasitoids, yes? 
Fascinating stuff though!
Fascinating stuff though!
Some addictions are good for the soul!
Re: Benjamin
Thanks again guys - much appreciated.
April 1st
Some, if not the majority, of the survivors are now taking their first nibbles of food for at least 5 months. I can well imagine that the combination of extreme hunger and the exceptionally high nutritional content of fresh growth when compared with their previous meal of dry old senescent leaf, must make the moment particularly sweet and invigorating.
There are a few on late leafing trees that still have a couple of weeks to wait, but now the majority (I think - will check) are feeding I’ll record winter survival.
5 of the Olympians survived:
Alistair
Daley
Dina
Bradley
Steve
These are joined by 7 survivors from the wider sample. Seb will be one of them (see below) and I’ll name the 6 others after some of my favourite non GB Olympians creating a 6v6 GB vs Rest of the World post hibernation showdown.
So 75% winter losses from the Olympians and 73% (32/44) when looking at the wider sample.
The series now looks like this:
Winter survivors:
2019/20 14/47
2020/21 13/35
2021/22 12/44
The return of Seb Coe
I realised a little while ago that in late autumn Seb Coe had inadvertently been renamed Christine Ohuruogu. Soon after this unlikely and comical transformation (we know his views on such things in athletics), Christine became tit food.
Feeling rather guilty about this unfortunate mix up I’ve decided that Seb should live on as one of the surviving extras. This kind of fortune could only happen to someone like Seb Coe, and I do wonder whether I’ve been played in some way. Whatever the truth Seb has made it through winter, and we’re encouraged not to ask too many questions. Very unfair for Christine, but the caterpillar that was eaten was very much Christine in my mind at the time, so it wouldn’t feel right to give her another life. How I explain my reasoning to BLM though, I’m not so sure. 🫣
April 1st
5 of the Olympians survived:
Alistair
Daley
Dina
Bradley
Steve
So 75% winter losses from the Olympians and 73% (32/44) when looking at the wider sample.
The series now looks like this:
Winter survivors:
2019/20 14/47
2020/21 13/35
2021/22 12/44
The return of Seb Coe
I realised a little while ago that in late autumn Seb Coe had inadvertently been renamed Christine Ohuruogu. Soon after this unlikely and comical transformation (we know his views on such things in athletics), Christine became tit food.
Feeling rather guilty about this unfortunate mix up I’ve decided that Seb should live on as one of the surviving extras. This kind of fortune could only happen to someone like Seb Coe, and I do wonder whether I’ve been played in some way. Whatever the truth Seb has made it through winter, and we’re encouraged not to ask too many questions. Very unfair for Christine, but the caterpillar that was eaten was very much Christine in my mind at the time, so it wouldn’t feel right to give her another life. How I explain my reasoning to BLM though, I’m not so sure. 🫣
Re: Benjamin
Love the update and enjoy the irreverence, Ben. Hopefully 'cancel culture' does not apply to we butterfly enthusiasts (and if it did, do we rightly care?)Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 11:07 am....Feeling rather guilty about this unfortunate mix up I’ve decided that Seb should live on as one of the surviving extras. This kind of fortune could only happen to someone like Seb Coe, and I do wonder whether I’ve been played in some way. Whatever the truth Seb has made it through winter, and we’re encouraged not to ask too many questions. Very unfair for Christine, but the caterpillar that was eaten was very much Christine in my mind at the time, so it wouldn’t feel right to give her another life. How I explain my reasoning to BLM though, I’m not so sure.
Re: Benjamin
Seb certainly is a tenacious survivor - see p.20 "COE DEPENDANTS" in the current (Iss. 1570) Private Eye.
Jon
P.S. Forgot to say - fantastic work! The ST parasitoid stuff is fascinating.
Jon
P.S. Forgot to say - fantastic work! The ST parasitoid stuff is fascinating.
Re: Benjamin
Good morning Ben. I have to confess that yours was one of the few diaries that I dipped into over the winter months and your image of a PE larva covered in frost will stay with me. Some great stuff you are sharing with us - with such interest in the PE I am just surprised no-one has done this before.
Re: Benjamin
Many thanks Jon, David and Pauline. More on the ST parasitoids soon but for now just a quick PE update….
As of today 8 of the 12 survivors are L4.
As mentioned before the 5 surviving GB Olympians have been joined by Seb Coe and a further 6 world Olympians so the spring list now looks like this:
Seb Coe
Alistair Brownlee
Daley Thompson
Dina Asher-Smith
Bradley Wiggins
Steve Ovett
Michael Johnson
Miruts Yifter
Flo-Jo
Carl Lewis
Misty May
Kerri Walsh
No further losses since leafing as the main danger (from my point of view) switches to losing them through relocation. Winter moth, mottled umber and several sawfly species are once again making a mess of the sallows and driving the PE larvae to new areas. I’ll do my best to keep in touch with them, but with UV pupae searches as a back up, tracking is no longer the tense affair that it once was. With the pressure off I can switch focus to other species - I’m very much enjoying white admiral this year.
As of today 8 of the 12 survivors are L4.
- They generally look a bit like this
Seb Coe
Alistair Brownlee
Daley Thompson
Dina Asher-Smith
Bradley Wiggins
Steve Ovett
Michael Johnson
Miruts Yifter
Flo-Jo
Carl Lewis
Misty May
Kerri Walsh