www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

NickB wrote:

Pete Eeles wrote:...2. "The existence of breeders selling specimens allows the poaching of butterflies from reserves". Well - that's just not true, is it?
- Pete

I think the point being made was any legal sale of butterflies may be an encouragement for some to "cross the line".
Making sale of any butterfly, reared or not, illegal, would end that doubt...

Indeed - but that's not what was stated. The focus was on "breeders" which is why I made the comment I did.

I think that we will always have unscrupulous individuals who will "cross the line" for a quick buck, whether they're breeders or not. And I agree that eBay provides a vehicle for them to sell their wares. So unscrupulous, in fact, that foreign specimens are passed off as historic British, the classics being a ssp. batavus Large Copper being sold off as British for over £200 and a "Black" British Swallowtail which was actually an American species being sold for a similar sum. Not only are these individuals, essentially, committing fraud, but they're polluting the collections of those that are genuinely interested in preserving historic specimens. I hope DNA advances will catch up with the lot of them!

Cheers,

- Pete

We could have an off-beat challenge for next season. How many INTRODUCED species we can see?

Collard Hill (and elsewhere) - Large Blue
Sand Point - Glanville Fritillary
Lindrick Common – Scotch Argus, Marbled White, Dark Green Fritillary, Silver Studded Blue
Finemere Wood – Marbled Fritillary
Chambers Farm Wood - Marsh Fritillary, Brown Hairstreak, Black Hairstreak
Monks Wood – Black Hairstreak (apparently re-introduced after it died out)
Cranleigh Surrey (don’t know exactly where, probably disused railway) – Black Hairstreak
(although if the Rothschild theory is correct, ALL Black Hairstreak colonies result from introductions)

Any more suggestions?

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:We could have an off-beat challenge for next season. How many INTRDUCED species we can see?

Collard Hill (and elsewhere) - Large Blue
Sand Point - Glanville Fritillary
Lindrick Common – Scotch Argus, Marbled White, Dark Green Fritillary, Silver Studded Blue
Finemere Wood – Marbled Fritillary
Chambers Farm Wood - Marsh Fritillary, Brown Hairstreak, Black Hairstreak
Monks Wood – Black Hairstreak (apparently re-introduced after it died out)
Cranleigh Surrey (don’t know exactly where, probably disused railway) – Black Hairstreak
(although if the Rothschild theory is correct, ALL Black Hairstreak colonies result from introductions)

Any more suggestions?

Jack

Whoa, Jack, there are black hairstreak in Cranleigh? Can you tell me more please, that's the first I've heard. Can you PM please?

All I know is that apparently there WERE Black Hairstreaks near Cranleigh (introduced by a retired teacher ex-Oundle) that survived for many years but then the woodland habitat was destroyed and it was thought that the butterfly had gone. But I subsequently heard rumours that it might still hang on. I know no more than that so might be entirely wrong. I had the wrong location for the Map butterflies in Oxfordshire (as has been pointed out) so I have minimal confidence in the Cranleigh rumours.

Jack

I've just been looking at my new Thomas & Lewington, another present from Father Christmas. Thomas confirms in remarkable detail the rumour (page 100). So start hunting next year Susie, but don't overlook the fact that they might emerge earlier in Surrey than in the Midlands. They are only on the wing for about two weeks so I would suggest searching from about 7th June.

Jack

You know how to tease a girl, Jack. All day I've been waiting to get back from relatives so I can have a look at page 100 of my book. Looks like I'm on a mission next summer!

We could have an off-beat challenge for next season. How many INTRODUCED species we can see?

I can add to my own suggested list:

Marks Hall, Coggeshall, Essex - Purple Emperor
Rodborough Common, Glos - Adonis Blue suspected by Jeremy Thomas but more likely natural

Jack

The age old argument about the validity / legality of surreptitious releases, interesting as it is, shouldn't be a cause for too much divide among people that claim to love or enthuse over lepidoptera. Neither should it sidetrack us from the real challenge of how to save our threatened lepidoptera. To paraphrase an earlier poster, it's good that people here have been able to argue the point without throwing toys from the pram. Perhaps that's a good point to leave that argument on. There is a spectrum of views. Simple.

In my lowly opinion, what we need to focus on is 'how to save butterflies and moths' and with it, I would suggest, how we inspire younger people to come join the party ( which again picks up a little on a previous post about ages). Surely too, we need to inspire youngsters from all walks of life? How many of us were inspired by Hawk-moth caterpillars, or woolly bears, or tortoiseshells, which we temporarily took into captivity when we were young? Not all of us sure, but some of us yes, and with that came a lifelong passion for not only butterflies, but all things animal. A while back, the mother organisation seemed to frown upon anything that encouraged this sort of 'captivity' behaviour, and certainly at a local branch level one couldn't go about with a net without risking the wrath of one particular committee member, although things are thankfully now changing back to the way they were in the beginning (or so it would seem). So the breadth of the Natural World programme, alien or obscure though some parts of it were to certain individuals, for me was spot on, for the reason that those obscure parts would appeal to a wider audience, and it is to this wider audience that we should now appeal if we are serious about saving butterflies and moths.

Another point which seems to be emerging from the programme and this thread is about 'breeding'. At a recent Autumn event a local branch stall with its display of colourful wall charts and leaflets, was almost devoid of any visitors. On the other hand, the 'hands on' reptile stand with Corn snakes, Chameleons and other lizards was bustling with activity. It was also putting a smile on the visitors', particularly children's faces. I contend that if we had 'hands on' hawkmoth caterpillars, Peacocks on nettles, breeding and rearing cages and equipment, overwintering pupae etc, anything 'hands on' rather than simply the promulgation of literature and dry esoteric information, then we could appeal to more people, especially youngsters. In this way, we might have more people joining in and helping with conservation work, yes, even at a landscape level and ultimately, raising awareness and saving our lepidoptera species.

Julian

Pete Eeles wrote: Some species are returned from whence they came, some go back to the original provider of the livestock (typically as pupae since I'm usually most interested in studying the immature stages - sending adults in the post is a "no no").

I whole heartedly agree that adults should not be sent through the post. There are techniques for carrying adults packed away safely in envelopes so that they cannot be hurt but I would not send them through the post like that. Unfortunately there are people doing this.
There is the reprehensible business of selling butterflies for release at weddings. What I call "The butterflies as baubles business". You can read the obvious horror stories where this has gone wrong here : http://www.naba.org/readwed.html on the website of the American version of BC.It is happening here too. There was a while ago someone selling monarchs for release at weddings in the UK.

Jack Harrison wrote:We could have an off-beat challenge for next season. How many INTRODUCED species we can see?

Collard Hill (and elsewhere) - Large Blue
Sand Point - Glanville Fritillary
Lindrick Common – Scotch Argus, Marbled White, Dark Green Fritillary, Silver Studded Blue
Finemere Wood – Marbled Fritillary
Chambers Farm Wood - Marsh Fritillary, Brown Hairstreak, Black Hairstreak
Monks Wood – Black Hairstreak (apparently re-introduced after it died out)
Cranleigh Surrey (don’t know exactly where, probably disused railway) – Black Hairstreak
(although if the Rothschild theory is correct, ALL Black Hairstreak colonies result from introductions)

The Black Hairstreak colony in Surrey is now gone.
From the BC action plan

There was also a well-known introduction to a Surrey woodland in 1952, near Cranleigh,
outside the historical range of the species. This survived as a small colony before the wood was destroyed in 1960. However, the butterfly must have spread because fifteen years later in 1975 a colony was found in a wood 1½ km away from the original release site and soon spread into adjoining areas to become the largest known colony in the country. A detailed survey then found 5 colonies in the area but these have subsequently died out as the habitats have been lost through afforestation, the clearance of overgrown hedges and agricultural improvement (Thomas & Lewington, 1991; Collins, 1995). Until very recently, a colony survived on a nearby abandoned railway line but the butterfly has not being seen here for the last 2 years (G. Jeffcoate, pers. comm.). Other, unsuccessful introductions outside the east Midlands have been documented at Knebworth, Hertfordshire; Slimbridge, Gloucestershire; and the New Forest, Hampshire (Oates and Warren, 1990).

Matsukaze wrote:

Rogerdodge wrote:I take great pleasure every spring in visiting the Glanvilles at Sand Point. They are a real delight, and it is always a highlight of my year.
Now, they were an introduction many years ago. They disappeared for a few years, and have now reappeared.
This poses so many questions.
Did they really die out after the first introduction or survive in very low numbers?
Was the first introduction really a success, or was it bolstered each year with fresh stock?
Is the present population being bolstered? or is it self sustaining?.
Is it worth anyone studying this population? Because, if it is working it could hold important information. If it is being bolstered, then any study would be worthless.

No-one really knows...perhaps not even those releasing the butterfly, if they were different groups of people at different times.

The odd thing about the Sand Point Glanvilles is they do not behave like the textbooks say they should (or at least Hanski's book on metapopulation dynamics). They do not disperse, go extinct or recolonise, just staying in the same area. Possibly it is because the parasitic wasp that helps drive their behaviour is absent from Sand Point - but if so, why do they not colonise further afield?

Actually they behave exactly as metapopulation dynamics predict . They are a small population that goes extinct. The population is small with a ranged of 3 to 12 webs being recorded there. It disappeared in 2000 and reappeared again. It seems that like many surreptitious introductions there are further releases. I presume they haven't spread because of lack of other habitat nearby.

Neil

I presume they haven't spread because of lack of other habitat nearby.

Although I have not seen it myself, I am assured tht they can now be found on the north side of the point.
This may be a "natural" expansion of range, or another introduction. Sadly, we will probably never know.
I intend to have a hunt for them there next spring.

I can understand the releasee wanting to keep quiet. Imagine coming on this (or any other Lep site) and saying "Hi I am the chap releasing Glanvilles at Sand Point"
The flaming would be intense

If anyone else is planning to visit, Sand Point is not just good for Glanvilles. It is one of the most reliable sites I know for early Wall and Brown Argus.
I seem to recall that we have arranged a sort of "group" meeting there next spring.
Not sure if we have firmed up a date though?

Neil Jones:

The Black Hairstreak colony in Surrey is now gone........Until very recently, a colony survived on a nearby abandoned railway line but the butterfly has not being seen here for the last 2 years (G. Jeffcoate, pers. comm.)

That is a rash conclusion – not seen for two years so no longer there! Black Hairstreak can be a difficult species to see even where it is known to occur. I had regularly seen Black Hairstreaks at Glapthorn, but then on one occasion neither I nor several assembled watchers managed to spot one despite one having apparently been seen earlier that day. We didn't conclude that it was extinct just because we didn't see one -that would have been ridiculous. So I would argue that it is very premature indeed to assume that a butterfly as elusive as Black Hairstreak is extinct in a particular locality just because none are seen for two years after it had been present off-and-on for the previous 50+ years

Mr & Mrs Jeffcoat are well-known lepidopterists and I wouldn’t without good reason want to question their expertise. Any chance Neil of your asking them to post something on this web forum to explain how they came to their conclusions?

Jack

Since there's been quite a lot of excitement regard Martin White's appearance on the programme, I decided to contact him to see what he thought of this thread. We had a very constructive chat. His response to this thread is below:

I’ve followed the debate on the Forum regarding my supposed activities with some alarm. As a professional breeder/researcher I do not give my services/consultation for free. Plumbers, Bankers, Solicitors and many, many more charge for their services. I am no different.

All my first-hand butterfly release data is covered by The Intellectual Copyright Act and is the property of my business, to sell or impart as I think fit. All other release data needs authorisation from secondary (voluntary) research parties before it can be used during consultation. c.80% of my data falls into this second category, where Intellectual Copyright is in joint ownership.

Only an utterly minute percentage of this data, relating solely to Nottinghamshire & Lincolnshire, is in anyway secret, to protect a singular rare habitat from too many enthusiasts.

Martin White, Worksop

Cheers,

- Pete

Interesting. Just to point out one thing. As far as I can find, and it is something that I would expect to know anyway as part of my everyday life, there is no such thing as , "The Intellectual Copyright Act".

Ignore - next post covers rather better. Jack

I say it yet again; I and many others are not necessarily against what Martin White is doing. I can hardly claim disinterest as I have been to enjoy the results of his efforts.

But I am very strongly against secrecy in these matters – it amounts to deception and no-one knows just what is a natural occurrence, and what is the result of human activity.

Tell us exactly what you do Martin and you might be surprised just how much support you get. But sheltering behind mythical Acts of Parliament is not going to help your cause one iota.

Jack

Neil Jones wrote:Interesting. Just to point out one thing. As far as I can find, and it is something that I would expect to know anyway as part of my everyday life, there is no such thing as , "The Intellectual Copyright Act".

Probably meant the Copyright Act, which I believe covers intellectual property.

Cheers

- Pete

Neil Jones wrote: The Black Hairstreak colony in Surrey is now gone.

Next you'll be saying there's no Father Christmas.

The Black Hairstreak colony in Surrey is now gone.

Never mind. Ask Martin White and he'll make you a new one.