Lindrick Common near Worksop

[Jack Harrison]

Yorkshire Branch BC mentions Scotch Argus as well as some other surprising species at Lindrick Common – Silver Studded Blue, Marbled White, Dark Green Fritillary.

Scotch Argus must be an introduction but not sure about the others. I am very familiar with Scotch Argus having lived in Scotland; it behaves and more or less replaces Ringlet there (although both do occur in some places). But it would be nice to see Scotch Argus again without the need for a huge journey, even though it might be to an introduced colony.

So how’s it doing at Lindrick? Paul (Kipling)?

Jack

[Denise]

I might well give this site a look in season, as I have relatives living in Worksop.
Thanks Jack, for bringing it to my attention.

Denise

[Piers]

Both the Silver Studded Blue, Scotch Argus, and Marbled White are known (but 'unofficial') introductions; apparently doing well...

Felix.

[Jack Harrison]

I am quite laid back about introductions.

I had thought Marbled White might have got there naturally. I am surprised that Scotch Argus can succeed but good luck. Incidentally, I came across the wonderful misnomer today on a Braemar website: “Scotch Angus”. I think that’s rather better than Argus.

Silver Studded Blue is interesting. I have to wonder where the donor site was. Prees Heath or North Wales? Southern races would I feel be less acceptable. But as I indicate, I don’t get too uptight about introductions. Humans have over the centuries messed up the environment so if we have the ability to put things right later, so what?

Jack

[Matsukaze]

I've occasionally wondered if Scotch Argus might be able to make a go of it in eastern England. Its European distribution suggests to me that winter temperatures might be the limiting factor in its distribution, and winter temperatures in England tend to be colder in the east than the west.

[Gruditch]

But as I indicate, I don’t get too uptight about introductions. Humans have over the centuries messed up the environment so if we have the ability to put things right later, so what?

Below a piece from Pete's interview with Martin Warren


Pete:

I asked the UK Butterflies visitors for their questions. The first is to know if Butterfly Conservation has a policy on reintroductions.

Martin:

We do have a published policy on reintroductions which we keep under review. The policy basically says that, as long as the reintroduction is part of an overall strategy for the species then that’s good. What we don’t really want is people releasing butterflies all over the place because it potentially disrupts conservation efforts. Let me give you some examples.


“What we don’t really want is people releasing butterflies all over the place because it potentially disrupts conservation efforts”


For example, the Large Blue project is a planned reintroduction of a globally-threatened species, and we now have now got one of the largest populations in Europe. It’s a fantastic success story. There are other species like the Heath Fritillary, where we’re involved in 2 or 3 planned reintroductions – another rare species. We’ve got a reintroduction originally on our own reserve in Lydford in Devon, which has been very successful for a small population. That colony has been used for a restoration project in Cornwall where, ironically, it died out a few years ago and was the original source of the population in Devon! In general, we have a flexible attitude to reintroduction, so that if a particular species is in particular peril such as the Heath Fritillary, then we have to use every means possible to ensure its survival.

I think the subject of reintroduction is trickier if you have a species such as the Chalkhill Blue that is still fairly widespread. Someone might have a small patch of Horseshoe Vetch and think that it would be a good idea to introduce the species. Of course, the site may not be big enough; the species might survive for a few years but then peter out. Does that really add to conservation? That’s where we’d ideally like to plan the reintroduction so that we make those judgments before the release; is the site big enough? Will it make a lasting difference? Will it cause problems if we do it?

On the other hand, we also believe that there are a lot of unauthorised releases going on. For example, with the Purple Emperor. This is seriously confusing the natural situation. We know that people are rearing and releasing them in their hundreds. These individuals are then recorded as genuine sightings! The point is that we think that the Purple Emperor is actually spreading naturally, but because of the releases we can’t tell for sure. Other than if they turn up way outside their range – which they have done – and we then know it’s a release. But such unplanned releases are confusing the natural spread.

There is a real downside to this. There was a wood where Purple Emperor had been recorded, and the wood was under threat. The planning department concerned found out that people were releasing Purple Emperor and immediately dismissed any Purple Emperor records as releases. So, suddenly, Purple Emperor became an unimportant species on that site. It’s now very difficult to defend that site. So that’s where releases can be very damaging to site protection.

I don’t think any releases are done maliciously – people just like to see the species, and so do I! But there are sometimes unexpected consequences. So we would rather things were done in a more planned way and all the various players informed.

Regards Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

I can readily understand the arguments. However, I open the debate – and it will be contentious - over the use of the word “natural”.

Homo sapiens is a naturally occurring species on this planet. We have brains that are more sophisticated than those of any other species (questionable with some specimens!) so why not use those brains? I put forward the argument that ANYTHING we humans do is natural. If a beaver modifies its environment by building a dam, we have no quibbles with the concept of that being natural. So when humans modify, why is the word artificial always used? If a farmer destroys a meadow because he want to make a living for himself and his family by growing cereals, then that is just as natural as the beaver making his dam. Naturally I have sufficient brain power (?) to be prepared to challenge the farmer’s attitude as being mindlessly selfish. However, to carry that “natural” argument to a logical conclusion, if a lepidopterist wants to be able to enjoy Heath Fritillaries on his doorstep rather than drive to the other end of the country, who is to say that is unnatural? He would be saving time and resources that, in theory, could be diverted to improving living conditions for himself and his family.

Don’t forget that many of our finest habitats, eg New Forest, old railway cuttings, are man-made. I often have trouble reconciling the concept that while it is perfectly acceptable for man to create or modify habitats to make them suitable for butterflies, releasing livestock in the newly created habitats is usually frowned upon; we have to wait for them to colonize “naturally”. I would argue that it might be better to use Homo sapiens, to speed the colonization - perfectly naturally.

Over to you.

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

I think your mixing 2 contexts - 1. Natural for a human being and 2. Natural for the butterfly.

When people talk of natural introductions, they're referring to #2.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

I am not confused at all. I am using the term "natural" for all living creatures on this planet. I give no special status to any particular species.

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

"I put forward the argument that ANYTHING we humans do is natural".

In that case, the words "natural" and "unnatural" are meaningless. And yet we have two words, not one

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

You are obviously right, Jack, that using the word 'natural' as though it had moral or prescriptive force is highly questionable. Rape, pillage and murder, jealousy, incest and cannibalism are all demonstrably 'natural' behaviours for man but few would see this as justification for them! I would agree with you that all events in the universe are by definition 'natural' except those expressly assigned supernatural or divine causes (and many people today dismiss the possibility of such events).

It has to be said, though, that man, acting entirely naturally of course, does have a tendency to balls things up, especially when it comes to incredibly sensitive things like ecosystems. Messing around by unqualified people isn't unnatural and it doesn't have unnatural results but it may nevertheless have negative results, for us and for the living creatures messed around with. Given the precarious state of so many environments and ecosystems, my vote is firmly for leaving introductions and reintroductions to specialists who really understand what they are doing (and who log their actions carefully so data isn't contaminated by releases).

If all the necessary preliminaries were undertaken, and the project were thought viable and beneficial, I for one would have no objections to Scotch arguses being introduced to eastern England, providing it didn't detract from the conservation of the wonderful species already present, and often threatened, in the area.

Guy

I wasn't fast enough and the debate has already continued!! But I won't change what I've written just yet!!

[Padfield]

Doubtless I'll be too slow again, but a comment on the couple of posts before my last post.

The word 'natural' is equivocal. Normally, the meaning is evident from the context, but in my opinion - and I suspect in Jack's opinion too - some meanings should have been rendered obsolete in the light of Darwin, yet they continue to be used. The division of the cosmos into 'nature' and 'man' is clearly false, and yet it persists in the folk consciousness. It annoys me as much as expressions like 'humans and animals' (instead of the correct, 'humans and other animals').

Jack is right (I'm not used to saying that ) that many modern, ecologically valued habitats are human artefacts and not the climax communities that would still be established were it not for man. The sandling heaths of East Anglia are a good example.

But it is useful in practice to distinguish between organic, long-term, evolutionary processes (natural?) and short-term changes brought about by humans. The former are tested and checked and refined over long periods of time, producing delicately balanced and exquisitely beautiful results. The latter are not infrequently a total disaster. Both entirely natural - but 'natural' doesn't necessarily mean 'good'.

Guy

[Gruditch]

My personal opinion, too many people on the planet, the sooner we go extinct, the better off the planet will be.

Unauthorised releases are done by selfish people, who contribute nothing to butterfly conservation.

But to be honest I don't think Jack believe what he saying, I think the bad weather has him stuck in doors, and his comment that I jumped on, was intended to start a debate, Naughty Jack, interesting though.

Regards Gruditch

[Paul]

Only just found this thread.... glad I didn't jump in from the start
My position is somewhere in the middle.... it seems many species are now in isolated pockets within our glorious monoculture and tarmac deserts. As such, it would be a matter of gradual "snuffing out" of most natural un-managed colonies, and we are already approaching a living museum countryside, at which point surely "natural" becomes inherently "un-natural".
Therefore, in terms of pure colonization, I wholeheartedly approve of the work being done to join populations together by providing strategic new "suitable" bits of land as stepping stones. Joining up and increasing metapopulation size can only help secure & expand species' natural foothold.
This falls apart where species have been lost and are now hundreds of miles away...
I sense a softening of the "sharp intake of breath through gritted teeth" when re-introduction is discussed... perhaps we really all want to, but want to avoid PC issues... I don't know which subspecies of SSB wre introduced at Lindrick, but it would be a shame if it were one which had never naturally occured in Yorkshire, only a shame, not a disaster. Scotch Argus there.. only can be a "zoo" exhibit in my book. I have never been to see.
Nice to see maybe but ingenuine.. To me it would seem better to bring back for example Small Blue and Mazarine Blue to Yorkshire ( though maybe zoo again) to areas which might be deemed as suitable, and may once geographically have held colonies.
The PE issue mentioned above is really scary and the most convincing arguement I've heard against introductions.

[BOO]

I'm in the middle too. Personally i think any introductions that are in an isolated area with no chance of nearby colonisation and not in the area they were previously found should not be taking place. However, Lindrick Common, which is part of Lindrick golf course and the area around like Lindrick Dale, Anston Stones are superb areas of limestone rich grassland, woods, crags and quarries. In the past these areas once held populations of many Fritillaries, Marbled Whites, Duke of Burgundy and many other species. To bring back some of these species to the area and to have high numbers of each species flying i think is great news. With good management of Lindrick Common we have high numbers of DGF, 80+, MW 100+, SSBlue 100+ at the end of June 09. Anston Stones has a great number of Marbled Whites plus a new colony of DGF colonised from Lindrick. This year i walked all around the golf course [on the pathways of course] and Lindrick Dale and spotted many DGF and MW singles. I agree the Scotch Argus is a 'zoo' specimen and should'nt be there but it is nice to see. It's certainly a great place to visit and hopefully butterfly numbers will be high there for years to come and for many to see. Boo

[Jack Harrison]

I was quite careful in my earlier posting merely putting forward the argument that human activity is natural. Guy took up the point and added that such things as rape, murder, etc, are all natural behaviours by man. Of course, just because it’s natural, it doesn’t make everything that we might do automatically acceptable. We are capable of using our natural intellect to decide what is best for our species and all the other species that inhabit our planet. So although it might well be perfectly natural to want to see Heath Fritillaries on our doorstep, our intellect suggests: “Hold on a minute. We need the experts to help make the best decision.”

I did of course anticipate that the discussion would inevitably focus on the whys and wherefores of human introduction of butterflies to new localities rather than concentrate on a philosophical discussion about what is natural. So to introductions.

Consider the case of a species formerly occurred in a particular place but then as the result of the (natural) activities of man that place became unsuitable. Later, man restores that locality to something like its former state. I don’t think too many people would quibble with the idea of re-introducing the butterfly species that we had earlier (albeit, indirectly) wiped out.

Now to the specific case of Lindrick Common. There seems to be historic records that Marbled Whites, DG Fritillaries and SS Blue used to occur there. So re-introduction of those species need not be too contentious. Scotch Argus is a different case – or is it? It most certainly occurred in Grass Wood (near Grassington) in the Yorkshire Dales until the 1950s. Emmett & Heath (The Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland) quote Blackie 1948 as saying that it “has also be recorded in the past in others sites in Yorkshire” but gives no details. Who knows, perhaps one of those sites was Lindrick? So maybe Scotch Argus need not be considered merely as a zoo specimen.

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

According to Roger Dennis (author of "British Butterflies: Their Origin and Establishment"), if you go back far enough (to the recession of the last ice age) then species such as Mountain Ringlet and Scotch Argus would have been some of the first to recolonise from the continent (given their tolerance for lower temperatures, for example) and would have been found in what we might consider very strange locations for these species these days.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Gruditch]

Consider the case of a species formerly occurred in a particular place but then as the result of the (natural) activities of man that place became unsuitable. Later, man restores that locality to something like its former state. I don’t think too many people would quibble with the idea of re-introducing the butterfly species that we had earlier (albeit, indirectly) wiped out.

I agree, as long as its not an unauthorised reintroduction.

Every bit of land belongs to someone, at the very least, a reintroduction should be carried out with the land owners knowledge and approval. Of course where the reintroduction stock comes from could also be an issue. You can't just walk on to a nature reserve and start removing what you like. So maybe you breed your own stock for release, but of course they could originate from anywhere. All good reasons for leaving to the experts.

When you actively get involved in conservation work, you soon find out that there are loads of conservation body's, and its real hard trying to coordinate with all the relevant organisations to get something meaningful done. I can't see how it can help, having every Tom, Dick, and Harry, doing unauthorised releases because they think a said site looks suitable.

Regards Gruditch

[Jack Harrison]

Pete:

...species such as Mountain Ringlet and Scotch Argus would have been some of the first to recolonise from the continent (given their tolerance for lower temperatures, for example) and would have been found in what we might consider very strange locations for these species these days...

It would be difficult to prove that a species had never occurred in a particular locality. So taking my argument to its logical conclusion, ANY introduction would in fact be a re-introduction and thus acceptable. That is not quite what I meant. I had only meant to imply re-introduction into a locality where the habitat closely resembled that when the species last occurred there. So yes, just after the ice age Mountain Ringlet could well have occurred on this 142 metres asl “mountain” on which I currently live. But it would be impossible, due to the changed climate since then, to re-create the conditions during which Mountain Ringlet might once have thrived here.

PS. I could swear that I just saw one fly over the snow in the garden where the habitat currently looks highly suitable.

Jack

[Padfield]

Often, the reason human intervention is necessary for reintroductions is because the countryside has been reduced to geographically isolated areas of habitat with agricultural and urban deserts in between. Local populations become extinct for some temporary reason, like a string of arid summers or wet winters, or disturbance, and nothing can reach the habitat to repopulate it. In the long term, I would consider managing the countryside so there are protected access corridors of varied habitats a more worthwhile project than continually injecting species into hermetically sealed 'glass jar' nature reserves. Much harm has been done to the British countryside over the last century but I see no reason to regard this as inevitably permanent.

Guy