www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Felix wrote:As a very well respected (and well known) lepidopterist friend of mine put it: The comment I'm most frequently hearing on the new JAT book is that people find something to disagree with strongly on every page (Large Blue apart of course).

Ooh - you can't leave us in suspense like that! What "people" are these? And why would they disagree? What published works would discredit the JAT content? And (on a more positive note) how could JAT's incredible piece of work be improved?

Cheers,

- Pete

I'm tempted to offer some tighter definitions but I have a feeling that sometimes to force fluid reality into the strait jacket of rigidly defined words is to distort the truth !

How about a few metaphors instead? The tide comes in and the tide goes out, leaving little rock pools behind, where life goes on until the next tide. Maybe a few creatures hang around in the same rock pool for a few tides, but basically the rock pools are transient ecosystems with little relevance when the flood tide is covering them.

That's what I think red admirals are like. 'Resident', 'Migrant' and 'Transient resident' all seem rather narrow and inadequate. I'm going to call red admirals 'tidal butterflies' from now on. There is a resident European population which laps on our shores and all the British red admirals are best described as being part of that greater population.

Guy

EDIT - that was a reply to Pete's post a little while back - I can't keep up with you!

Lovely metaphor. Sounds like the same metaphor could potentially be applied to species and subspecies in some cases - although the timeframe is rather different

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete Eeles wrote:Ooh - you can't leave us in suspense like that! What "people" are these? And why would they disagree? What published works would discredit the JAT content? And (on a more positive note) how could JAT's incredible piece of work be improved?

I'm not going to drop names, but it would appear that an increasing number of specialists in particular species are starting to openly question aspects of the text relevant to their particular field.

White Letter Hairstreak being an example of this; the text strongly implying (by omission more than anything) that the species requires flowering Wych Elm for a colony to survive. Anyone familiar with this species knows that this is not the case, and studies as far back as the 1980's have shown that the WLH is capable of surviving in the wild in Britain on non-flowering regrowth of English Elm. This is not a piece of species trivia, this is important information for how conservation groups manage the conservation needs of the species. It is unfortunate therefore that JAT's book perpetuates the flowering Wych Elm myth.

The trouble is, that when compiling a work with as broad a scope as this (especially when delving into the amount of detail that JAT does) you could never hope to be absolutely accurate and up to date with all the research into all the species. Almost as soon as a work such as this is published it is going to be out of date.

Anyway, I am not here to shoot JAT's work down in flames, but it can not be considered to be 'set in stone'. Besides, no one should be afraid to compare the text to their own (no matter how humble) observations and say "now hang on a minute, that's not what I have observed..."

Felix.

Btw: how about we use the broadly accepted definitions for 'resident species', 'transient resident species', 'migrant', 'vagrant', 'addentive' etc. before adopting woolly terms such as 'tidal species', which have no ToR whatsoever. Guy Padfield, you certainly know which buttons to press..!

Felix wrote:Btw: how about we use broadly accepted definitions for 'resident species', 'transient resident species' etc. before adopting woolly terms such as 'tidal species', which have no ToR whatsoever. Guy Padfield, you certainly know which buttons to press..!

I KNEW you were going to say that, Felix! I wish I'd written it down somewhere because I had it almost word perfect - I just didn't know how long it would take you.

Obviously I'm not really proposing anyone really adopt that phrase. I was being gently dismissive of attempts to reduce a complex and relatively well understood situation to words whose only useful purpose is to decide which bit of a book to stick a butterfly in or to say how many 'resident species' fly in Britain. The interesting question is whether there are any resident populations of red admiral in southern England (not whether red admiral is a resident species) and the answer to that is neither 'yes' nor 'no' because of the population dynamics of this butterfly, which mean that each year any resident population gets submerged in a far more numerous immigrant population.

I'm going to set up as Mystic Guy and predict football results next.

Guy

padfield wrote:I'm going to set up as Mystic Guy and predict football results next.

You'll be a worthy replacement for Paul the Octopus (now sadly deceased)..!

Felix.

padfield wrote: I was being gently dismissive of attempts to reduce a complex and relatively well understood situation to words whose only useful purpose is to decide which bit of a book to stick a butterfly in or to say how many 'resident species' fly in Britain.

Just to be clear, that wasn't the reason for my query, I was merely voicing an opinion based on (as Felix puts it), my own humble observations with Red Admirals. I do like your metaphor Guy, that works for me.

padfield wrote: The interesting question is whether there are any resident populations of red admiral in southern England (not whether red admiral is a resident species) and the answer to that is neither 'yes' nor 'no' because of the population dynamics of this butterfly, which mean that each year any resident population gets submerged in a far more numerous immigrant population.

This interesting question was my point and thanks for helping me to understand it a bit more

Pete Eeles wrote:Of course, this all comes down to definitions, many of which have been hinted at in this thread with respect to a SPECIES (and not an individual):

1. "Resident", 2. "Transient resident", 3. "Migrant"

Without a definition, this thread is going nowhere

Pete - how about a glossary section for UKB?

Cheers

Lee

Watch this space...

Lee Hurrell wrote:Pete - how about a glossary section for UKB?

Funny you should say that - something I think we've needed for some time. But I also want it to be "smart" in that any text on the main pages automatically has any glossary term highlighted with a text "popup" that gives the definition. Watch this space.

I expect the first terms to be defined by an esteemed colleague in a matter of hours

Cheers,

- Pete

Felix wrote: The comment I'm most frequently hearing on the new JAT book is that people find something to disagree with strongly on every page (Large Blue apart of course). Felix.

I've only just got the JAT book as a birthday present, and I absolutely love the detail in it, and while most of you are probably in the know about many of the acknowledged but lesser-known-facts, it all opens up a world that I will never have the time to investigate (at least certainly not as far as acknowledged Lepitopterists and specialist authoritative authors). n.b Try saying that last phrase quickly several times over.

If you think resident species in butterflies are a point of contention, you should try delving into the history of the teaching of the mechanics of the golf swing. The teachers and writers in that sphere hardly agree on anything. Or alternatively, when the BSE crisis was going on in the 1990's, I was lucky to be and administrator in one of the Committees advising the Government: each of the Committees had world-renowned (or at least country-renowned) experts and while the bulk of them (say 65%) would reach an agreed conclusion fairly consistently, there was always a 5 or 10% that had a completely radical and different view, and all views were based on experience, statistics and well-researched data. In science and statistics there is often an accepted 'fact' along the way that can turn a whole argument on it's head if questioned.

On a similiar vein, when I was at Whitecross Green Wood trying to track down Hairstreaks this year I met one fellow who made a point that he didn't believe Butterflies fed on aphid-dew at the tops of the Ash trees even though it was accepted fact. He said he'd never observed the act or and that there was no scientific evidence to support this widely-held view. He had also involved several scientists and they had no proof of it either. He seemed quite pleased that I had been 'duped' by the fact too, whereas I just felt he was entilted to hold an opposite view and that he may be right, but I have neither the time nor the interest to research this view. For all I know this fellow may be on here...I know he also had a few negative points about the local branch of 'Butterfly Conservation' work and their strategies...

Just a few observations that even when we have science and facts, they can often lead to different conclusions. This doesn't help the discussion, but I am intrigued by your points

p.s. Guy - I like the term 'tidal butterflies' and I think you should patent it now!

Michael

Michaeljf wrote: On a similiar vein, when I was at Whitecross Green Wood trying to track down Hairstreaks this year I met one fellow who made a point that he didn't believe Butterflies fed on aphid-dew at the tops of the Ash trees even though it was accepted fact. He said he'd never observed the act or and that there was no scientific evidence to support this widely-held view. He had also involved several scientists and they had no proof of it either.

Very interesting. I have no proof hairstreaks feed on honeydew at the top of ash trees because I've never been to the top of an ash tree. But they do sit up there slowly turning around and on occasions when they sit on lower leaves they do frequently lick something off the surface:



I'm at work at the moment, half marking and half watching an exam, but when I get back I'll dig out the original of that photo and see if it's clear what she's licking up.

Guy

Doesn't really help - it was my old 3 megapixel camera:



There's an ash tree in my local woods where the white-letter hairstreaks gather in July - I'll see if I can get any video footage of what they do up there next year... A good place for watching purple hairstreaks in the canopy is the canopy hide at Minsmere, but I can't remember if there is any ash there - it might be oak they sit on (the female above is on an oak near the canopy hide).

Guy

Hi Michael & Guy.

I know for a fact that Hairstreaks will feed on Lucozade on Oak leaves, mainly when I've put it there for them as a treat for being photographed or was it to get them lower down to photograph them.

Another point is that Aphids have been very thin on the ground from what I've seen this year and many more hairstreaks appear to have been nectaring on flowers at low altitude i.e. eye level or lower, such as 100+ White-letter Hairstreaks at Bedford Purlieus. Does this support the theory that they do feed on Honeydew.

As Guy points out unless you're prepared to sit up the top of an Ash or Oak you possibly won't know but the facts seem to suggest that Hairstreaks do feed on Honeydew.

Purple Hairstreaks were feeding on developing Acorns at Bernwood Forest last year and this. Not sure if they extrude sap but butterflies were actually fighting over specific acorns.

Hope this gives you some more to ponder over.

Paul

Oh don't worry, I've seen hairstreaks and I base my belief also on what I've seen (I also know about the lucozade mixture as several people here have used it to help their photography of hairstreaks!) .

Also we know that other Butterfly species that nectar less at flowers like sap from trees etc - another sticky substance. I suppose the point the fellow made was that (a) just because we see the butterflies acting in this way, it is still an assumption what it is they are picking up (b) unless you have a lab experiment we are always going to base what we know on insect / animal activity we see and therefore mentally we join-the-dots. Is Ash a species especially good for aphids and aphid dew? I'm sure in the future a scientific study will only confirm the conclusion that we previously jumped to and was 'common knowledge'. After all, if it's not aphid dew they're hovering up, what is it?

Now that Paul's mentioned the lack of aphids this year, I wonder if I was just lucky to see so many White-Letter Hairstreaks low down at Forest Farm (near Cardiff) in July. Oh dear, I was sort of assuming I'd do as well photographing them next year!!

p.s. The photos of Purple Hairstreaks were also taken at Bernwood Forest, but about 6 years ago (doesn't time fly?)..

I'v seen brown and purple hairstreaks feeding on honeydew.

Has anyone else noted that the brown hairstreaks seem to go off the ash master trees when they are bearing seeds?

Susie wrote:I'v seen brown and purple hairstreaks feeding on honeydew.

Has anyone else noted that the brown hairstreaks seem to go off the ash master trees when they are bearing seeds?

I haven't, and "no". But I think you've epitomised why I really value this forum - original observations such as these are just amazing! I know I'm biased, but what an incredible resource!

Cheers,

- Pete

Well, it is only something I noticed, I don't have anything to back it up, but I will certainly second you in that you and your team have created an invaluable resource in UK Butterflies.

The master tree my local hairstreaks used for the past two years was covered in seeds this summer and mainly shunned by the butterflies for the slightly smaller one next to it which didn't have seeds on it. I mentioned to someone at Steyning that the hairstreaks seemed to be gravitating more towards the ash tree without the seed pods rather than to the taller (and in theory more logical) tree next to it. I wonder if Kipper observed this too? My theory at the time was that the trees which weren't putting their energy into the seeds would have juicier leaves for the aphids and therefore more honeydew but whether this is true or not I don't know, it's just my gut instinct.

Sounds a very reasonable theory to me, Susie! During seed production sugars will be transported away from the leaves to where they are needed - and quite possibly various metabolic waste products will be transported back to the leaves for excretion with the leaf fall.

So much to look out for next year!

Guy

This brings me back to what I said about Jeremy T's book a few posts back: no one should be afraid to compare the text to their own (no matter how humble) observations and say "now hang on a minute, that's not what I have observed..." I know it's easy to knock me for picking holes in an otherwise revered tome, but there is always room for new observations, and the biggest break throughs (with British Butterflies at least) have always been made by amateurs.

Susie has encapsulated this with her report on this thread. No observation, no matter how insignificant it may seem to the observer, should be considered irrelevant. Any keen observer may just stumble upon an essential piece of the jigsaw, until now overlooked, that could really help with the conservation of a species in this country.

Felix.