www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

or should I post it in the links forum?

http://www.bigbutterflycount.org/

I support what they're doing, but quite a lot of the data is worthless as people are making errors in identification and/or making false claims.

For instance, I checked the results for the Isle of Man from last year's count, and there were several 'sightings' of Small Skippers, Hedge Browns and Ringlets over there when these butterflies have never been recorded on the island.

There was an article in the sun about this last week and they had an adonis down as a common blue.

I imagine that this is more of a promotional exercise, all the kids at my daughter's school in the infants were giving recording sheets so I dont expect the info they bring back to be accurate but it would be grand if it sparks an interest in butterfly and/or recording.

David M wrote:I support what they're doing, but quite a lot of the data is worthless as people are making errors in identification and/or making false claims.

For instance, I checked the results for the Isle of Man from last year's count, and there were several 'sightings' of Small Skippers, Hedge Browns and Ringlets over there when these butterflies have never been recorded on the island.

Is it possible, do you think, that a change in views on conservation, especially of scrub heath and meadow, and taking into consideration things like migration, that these butterflies have manage to populate themselves there, especially seeing as how a butterfly population can 'make a comeback' as it were, quite quickly?

vawn wrote:

David M wrote:I support what they're doing, but quite a lot of the data is worthless as people are making errors in identification and/or making false claims.

For instance, I checked the results for the Isle of Man from last year's count, and there were several 'sightings' of Small Skippers, Hedge Browns and Ringlets over there when these butterflies have never been recorded on the island.

Is it possible, do you think, that a change in views on conservation, especially of scrub heath and meadow, and taking into consideration things like migration, that these butterflies have manage to populate themselves there, especially seeing as how a butterfly population can 'make a comeback' as it were, quite quickly?

These butterflies are not present on the Isle of Man and never have been, meaning that 'a comeback' is a misnomer even if they genuinely were present on the island.

Even Large Skippers are absent from the Isle of Man. Granted, Speckled Woods and Commas have colonised this part of the British Isles in the last 10-20 years, but these are comparatively mobile butterflies.

Anything that raises the profile of Butterflies is good, even though the collected data (as folk have said) needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Recolonisation is all about mobility. If isolated populations of non-mobile butterflies completely die out, then how ever much you improve the habitat back to suitability, they will not magically reappear. Weak populations may become stronger and spread a little, but once they are gone, they're gone. Similarly, some of the butterfly species found just across the Channel may never appear naturally in the UK unless they can fly that distance (perhaps with wind-assistance) - irrespective of favourable climate change.

Dave

millerd wrote:Anything that raises the profile of Butterflies is good, even though the collected data (as folk have said) needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Recolonisation is all about mobility. If isolated populations of non-mobile butterflies completely die out, then how ever much you improve the habitat back to suitability, they will not magically reappear. Weak populations may become stronger and spread a little, but once they are gone, they're gone. Similarly, some of the butterfly species found just across the Channel may never appear naturally in the UK unless they can fly that distance (perhaps with wind-assistance) - irrespective of favourable climate change.

Dave

Agreed.

If there was a land bridge between Britain and the France, no matter how small, I'm sure there'd be far, far more than 58 species in this country. That stretch of water called the English Channel though repels all but the most powerful and nomadic butterflies.

Only around 8000-10000 years ago or so there was such a land bridge to much of the near continent, with people living on it! Doggerland it was called if I remember correctly. Trawling fishing boats regularly bring up ancient and extinct animal bones along with evidence of human habitation.

It's strange that there aren't more than 58 species really, given that relatively short evolutionary time frame since we were cut off but I suppose that depends on what was living in northern Europe and the climate at that time.

Mind you, we have a lost a few species along the way haven't we, at least 3 or 4 since modern literature started recording these things.

Cheers

Lee

You are right that 8,000 years is very little in evolutionary time but it is pleny of time for isolated populations to die out! I suspect that lots of former colonists have gone - not to mention wolves, beavers, lynx, etc., etc!!

Mike

MikeOxon wrote:You are right that 8,000 years is very little in evolutionary time but it is plenty of time for isolated populations to die out! I suspect that lots of former colonists have gone - not to mention wolves, beavers, lynx, etc., etc!!

Mike

But the current colonists of this island have introduced beavers and they would love to get away with their plans for re-introducing wolves.

hmmm so i spose it is a good idea to get people interested, some data is better than no data... ?

Beavers, Wolves and Lynx etc were hunted or persecuted to extinction rather than die out naturally weren't they? But I take your point Mike Look at what has happened to ours in the last 20-50 years

Vawn - I think that's right. It may not be the data that supports scientific study of population change but it has some worth and of course, the more people even thinking of butterflies (perhaps when considering decking out their gardens...) is a good thing.

Cheers

Lee

JohnR wrote:

MikeOxon wrote:You are right that 8,000 years is very little in evolutionary time but it is plenty of time for isolated populations to die out! I suspect that lots of former colonists have gone - not to mention wolves, beavers, lynx, etc., etc!!

Mike

But the current colonists of this island have introduced beavers and they would love to get away with their plans for re-introducing wolves.

Haven't wolves already been re-introduced onto a private estate in Sutherland?

David M wrote:Haven't wolves already been re-introduced onto a private estate in Sutherland?

Please don't say that; I have enough trouble shooting wild boar that have escaped or been "released to be free to roam the countryside" without the though of meeting a wolf in the woods. And as for mink ...... they must be one of the nastiest vermin to be inflicted on us.

JohnR wrote:

David M wrote:Haven't wolves already been re-introduced onto a private estate in Sutherland?

Please don't say that; I have enough trouble shooting wild boar that have escaped or been "released to be free to roam the countryside" without the though of meeting a wolf in the woods. And as for mink ...... they must be one of the nastiest vermin to be inflicted on us.

I'm not certain if it's already happened, but I remember reading about plans to do this a couple of years ago.

http://www.wolvesandhumans.org/wolves/w ... otland.htm