[BEN-L]BEN # 402
Adolf & Oluna Ceska
aceska at telus.net
Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:17:30 -0800
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=20
BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X
BB B EE NNN N
BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL
BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC
BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS
=20
No. 402 January 26, 2009
=20
aceska@telus.net Victoria, B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2
-----------------------------------------------------------
=20
BOTANY BC 2009 - MUNCHO LAKE PARK/LIARD HOT SPRINGS
BOTANY BC 2009 will take place from the evening of Wednesday July 15th
through Saturday, July 18th, 2009 , based out of Muncho Lake Provincial
Park Campground and Northern Rockies Lodge approximately 200km northwest =
of
Fort Nelson. Transportation from Prince George in vans will be available
(leaving Tuesday July 14th returning Sunday July 19th). Field trips will
visit sites on alluvial flood plains, the alpine, and wetlands. Many =
unique
plants, spectacular scenery and incredible wildlife viewing. =20
BOTANY BC is an annual meeting of botanists and plant enthusiasts of =
British
Columbia and is open to anyone interested in plants regardless. Although
BOTANY BC meetings are focused to British Columbia, we welcome all the =
plant
enthusiasts from the neighbouring provinces/states, and from elsewhere =
in
the world.=20
Botany BC Registration and detailed program are expected to be posted to =
the
Botany BC website by February 28, so please keep checking the website:
http://members.shaw.ca/dmeidinger/botanybc/ =20
If you have not attended a recent Botany BC and wish to receive =
notification
when additional details and registration forms for Botany BC 2009 are
available on the Botany BC website please contact:=20
Elizabeth Easton (250) 953-3488=20
e-mail: Elizabeth.Easton@gov.bc.ca=20
=20
_POLYSTICHUM CALIFORNICUM_ (DRYOPTERIDACEAE) FOUND AGAIN ON TEXADA =
ISLAND,
BRITISH COLUMBIA
From: Adolf Ceska, Oldriska Ceska, John Dove, Terry Ludwar, James Mack, =
&
David H. Wagner c/o [aceska@telus.net]
For the accompanied photos see:
http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf=20
_Polystichum californicum_ (D.C. Eaton) Diels was first collected in =
British
Columbia in August, 1897 on =93Rocks=94 at Texada Island by W.B. =
Anderson (coll.
No. 666). A single, relatively small frond was deposited in the =
herbarium of
the Royal British Columbia Musem (V 178). The specimen was originally
identified as _Polystichum scopulinum_ (D.C. Eaton) Maxon and was =
listed as
such in Taylor (1963, 1970). In 1976, D.H. Wagner identified the W.B.
Anderson=92s specimen as _Polystichum californicum_ with a note: =93This =
is the
only record of this sp. from B.C.=94 This was the only specimen that =
supported
the claim that _Polystichum californicum_ occurred in British Columbia =
and
Canada (Wagner 1979). Whereas Cody & Britton (1989) followed Wagner =
(1979)
and included _P. californicum_ in the flora of Canada, Ceska (1991, =
2000)
treated this species among the species excluded from the flora of =
British
Columbia and Canada.
Texada Island is the largest of the Gulf Islands between Vancouver =
Island
and the British Columbia Mainland. Because of its size and limited
accessibility, Texada Island is still poorly known botanically, although
good collecting efforts have been made lately by John Dove and Terry =
Ludwar.
Harvey and Pamela Janszen with Marie Fontaine and Patrick Williston made
three visits of Texada Island (with Marie Fontaine in June 1997, another =
in
July 1997, and one trip with Patrick Williston in 1999) and collected
several species of _Botrychium_ and found several new locations for
_Ophioglossum pusillum_ Raf. Their effort was aimed at pteridophytes =
and
the highland plateau of Texada Island as the possible habitats of =
moonworts
(Janszen 1999).
On August 26, 2007, Terry Ludwar found a single plant of _Polystichum
californicum_ growing on a vertical rock wall several meters above high
tide. On May 19, 2008, Adolf & Oluna Ceska took advantage of the =
opportunity
presented when BOTANY BC 2008 was based in Powell River, and joined =
Terry
Ludwar, John Dove and James Mack for a field trip to see this single =
plant.
Adolf Ceska broke off three fronds and sent them to David H. Wagner, who
confirmed the identification. The voucher specimens (A&OC # 34986) were
deposited in the UBC (2 fronds) and OSC (1 frond) herbaria. When =
collecting
these specimens, we realized that W.B. Anderson also might have seen =
only a
single plant and therefore collected the minimum amount necessary for
identification.
Collection data:
_Polystichum californicum_ (D.C. Eaton) Diels - Dryopteridaceae
Canada, British Columbia: Texada Island, Van Anda municipality, Maple =
Bay,
N of Favada Point.=20
49=B0 45.595=B4 N. 124=B0 38.049=B4 W. UTM 10U 382265 E 5511367 N =
(NAD 83)
On vertical basaltic rock (Karmutsen Formation), about 2 m above the =
base of
the coastal cliff.
Collection date: May 19, 2008=20
Collectors: Adolf & Oldriska Ceska, Terry Ludwar, John Dove and James =
Mack
Coll. No.: A&OC # 34986 (UBC, OSU)
Identified by David H. Wagner
Note: This is a single plant that was found by Terry Ludwar on August =
27,
2007.=20
_Polystichum californicum_ is an allopolyploid species that originated =
from
hybridization between a species with entire pinnae (_P. imbricans_ [D.C.
Eaton] D.H. Wagner) and a completely bipinnnate species (_P. dudleyi_ =
Maxon)
with consequent doubling of chromosomes. Thus, its pinnae are incised =
but
not fully divided; its pinnules are never distinct and upper pinnae are
nearly entire in small individuals. Two species of similar form (and
parentage) are _P. scopulinum_ and _P. andersonii_ Hopkins. _Polystichum
scopulinum_ has parents with short scales below, which it inherits. _P.
californicum_, however, has slender, hair like infralaminar scales =
[small,
fuzzy scales found on the underside of the pinna] similar to those on =
_P.
dudleyi_. _Polystichum californicum_ is usually bigger =
than
_P. scopulinum_ but the size range of these two overlap. Both of these =
are
mainly chasmophytes, growing in cracks in rocks. _Polystichum =
andersonii_ is
a much bigger fern than _P. californicum_ and is generally a forest =
floor
fern. Like _P. californicum_, it has filiform scales on its =
under-surface;
however, it ALWAYS has a bulbil on the rachis in the upper 1/5 of the =
frond.
Sometimes more than one bulbil is present but at least one is always
present. Neither _P. californicum_ nor _P. scopulinum_ produce bulbils.
Northern _Polystichum setigerum_ is a forest floor species that has all
pinnae incised to the costa. For the key to the North American =
_Polystichum_
species see Wagner (1993):
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1
<http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D126461>
&taxon_id=3D126461 .
Note: We should be aware that the _Polystichum californicum_ =
illustration by
Jeanne Janish in Hitchcock et. al. (1969, p. 88) is actually a drawing =
of a
sterile hybrid between _Polystichum munitum_ and _P. scopulinum_. I =
have
seen the specimen (it is at WS) and also plants in the field from the =
same
(or nearby) locality in Kittitas County. This hybrid looks like _P.
californicum_; the critical features are, again, the filiform =
infralaminar
scales in _P. californicum_ which are lacking in the hybrid and the =
aborted
sporangia on the hybrid. =96 D.H. Wagner
The range of _Polystichum californicum_ in California extends from
California from San Bernardino County north: Outer North Coast Ranges,
Sierra Nevada, Central Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, Outer South Coast
Ranges, San Bernardino Mountains (Smith & Lemieux 1993). In Oregon it
occurs in Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Linn Counties (Oregon Plant =
Atlas
- online). In Washington is rarer and it is known from Thurston & Pierce
Counties (Burke Museum =85 2006, Washington Natural Heritage Program).
There is a striking similarity between the distribution of _Polystichum
californicum_ and the distribution of _Woodwardia fimbriata_, =
especially
in Oregon and Washington. In British Columbia, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ =
is
known only from Lasqueti and Texada Islands and from Saanich Inlet near
Victoria. On Texada Island, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ is unusually =
abundant.
The closest site of _W. fimbriata_ is only about 500 m from the
_Polystichum californicum_ locality. It should be noted that the first
collection of _Woodwardia fimbriata_ in British Columbia was made by =
W.B.
Anderson, probably also close to his _Polystichum californicum_ site. =
W.B.
Anderson=92s collection number for _Woodwardia fimbriata_ was # 668, =
vs. #
666 for _Polystichum californicum_.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank to Ed Alverson, Elizabeth Easton, and Jan Kirkby =
for
their help with this note.
References
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. 2006. _Vascular Plant
Database._
http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/collections/vascular/search=
.ph
p=20
Ceska, A. 1991. Pteridophytes. Pp. 111-137 in Douglas, G.W., G. B. =
Straley
& D. Meidinger [editors]. _The vascular plants of British =
Columbia.
Part 3 =96 Dicotyledons (Primulaceae through =
Zygophyllaceae) and
Pteridophytes._ Special Report Series, no. 3, British Columbia =
Ministry of
Forests, Victoria, BC, Canada. 177 p.
Ceska, A. 2000. Pteridophytes. Pp. 260-343 in Douglas, G.W., D. =
Meidinger &
J. Pojar [editors]. _Illustrated flora of British Columbia. Volume 5
Dicotyledons (Salicaceae through Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks & Ministry =
of
Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 389 p.
Cody, W.J. & D.M. Britton. 1989. _Ferns & fern allies of Canada._
Publication 1829/E, Research Branch, Agriculture =
Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 430 p.
Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, M. Ownbey, & J.W. Thompson. 1969. =
_Vascular
plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1: Vascular cryptogams,
gymnosperms, and monocotyledons._ Univ. of Washington Press, =
Seattle.
Janszen, H. 1999. Rare Fern Research on Texada Island. _The Log_, =
Autumn
1999: 4-5.
http://www.ecoreserves.bc.ca/newsletters/log9912.pdf =20
Oregon Plant Atlas - Version 3.0 Copyright (C) 1999-2007. Oregon Flora
Project.
http://www.oregonflora.org/atlas.php =20
Smith, A.R. & T. Lemieux. 1993a. Blechnaceae Deer Fern family. P. 90 =
in
Hickman, J.C. [ed.] _The Jepson manual: higher plants of
California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los
Angeles, California. 1400 p.
=20
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?11,14,15 =20
Smith, A.R. & T. Lemieux. 1993b. Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern family. Pp. =
91-94
in Hickman, J.C. [ed.] _The Jepson manual: higher plants of
California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los
Angeles, California. 1400 p.
=20
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?19,31,32 =20
Taylor, T. M. C. 1963. _The ferns and fern allies of British Columbia.
British Columbia._ Prov. Mus. Handbook No. 12. Victoria, =
Canada.
172 p.
Taylor, T. M. C. 1970. _Pacific northwest ferns and their allies._ Univ.
Toronto Press. Toronto. 247 p.
Wagner, D. H. 1979. Systematics of _Polystichum_ in western North =
America
north of Mexico. _Pteridologia_ 1: 1-64.=20
Wagner, D.H. 1993. 12, _Polystichum_ Roth =85 Pp. 290-299 in Flora of =
North
America Editorial Committee. _Flora of North America North of =
Mexico,
Volume 2: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms._ Oxford =
University
Press, Oxford & New York. 475 p.
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1
<http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D126461>
&taxon_id=3D126461=20
Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land =
Management.
_Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of
Washington._=20
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm
For the illustration to this article see:
http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf=20
Plate 1. Top: Site of _Polystichum californicum_ on Texada Island. =
Photo:
A. Ceska
Bottom: Single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ known =
on
Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska
Plate 2: Abaxial and adaxial sides of a single frond from the specimen
collected on Texada Island. Photo: David H. Wagner
Plate 3: Top: Detail of a fresh frond from the specimen collected on =
Texada
Island. Photo: A. Ceska
Bottom: W.B. Anderson=92s collection from Texada =
Island,
August 1897. Photo: A. Ceska
=20
WHERE HAVE ALL THE BUTTERFLIES GONE?
An interview of Frederik Velinsky (FV) (Czech Radio =96 Cesky Rozhlas =
Sever)
with Dr. Martin Konvicka (MK) (Entomologist, South Bohemian University,
Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic) for the magazine Planetarium of the =
Czech
Radio =96 Cesky Rozhlas Sever on June 15, 2008. The original program is
available in Czech language at
http://www.rozhlas.cz/planetarium/priroda/_zprava/467853=20
[Translated by Adolf Ceska and edited by James Miskelly]
FV: The decline of the butterflies in the Czech Republic and in Europe =
as a
whole is so obvious that it is conspicuous not only to the specialists, =
but
to the laymen alike. What is the reason for this decline? Entomologists =
have
already collected enough data to allow the decline not only to be =
monitored
and evaluated, but also explained, at least to some degree. Martin =
Konvicka,
of the Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences and the
South-Bohemian University in Ceske Budejovice, is one of those =
specialists
who study the ecology of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera).
FV: How much have butterflies declined in Europe and especially in the =
Czech
Republic?
MK: Butterflies are the most attractive group of insects. From their =
survey,
we can judge the well being not only of this group, but also the =
well-being
of other insects and other animal groups. For almost a half-century,
entomologists have been witnessing a decline, in some cases fast, in =
other
cases slower, of butterflies in central and western Europe. In my =
estimate,
about 20% of the European butterflies are endangered. In the Czech =
Republic,
it is about one third of all the butterfly species. One hundred years =
ago,
about 161 species of butterflies were known in the area of the Czech
Republic. From that number, 18 species have become extirpated. That=92s =
about
11%. Of the rest, about 50% of butterflies are endangered. Even more
important and more obvious is that we are not losing only the rare
butterflies that used to live at a few sites. From year to year, we can =
also
see the rapid decline of other, previously common species, those that we
were able to see in meadows, fields and gardens. Those species are =
rapidly
declining, not only in the Czech Republic, but also in the whole of =
Europe.
FV: When did people start to study this decline more systematically?
MK: Butterflies are a very attractive group, and have caught the =
attention
of artists, naturalists and butterfly collectors, as we can see from the
many parodies that have ridiculed entomologists. Thus, we can rely on =
the
large number of people who have noticed this decline in butterflies. =
More
precise data about the decline of butterflies are available in Europe =
since
about the 1980=92s. In the Czech Republic, zoologists Ivo Novak and =
Karel
Spitzer wrote in the 1980=92s that twenty years before, in the 1960=92s, =
one
could see about 40 species of butterflies on a stroll through meadows =
and
field, whereas in 1980=92s this number dropped down to about 10 or 11 =
species.
This situation has not improved, rather it has gotten worse. =20
FV: You mentioned that 18 species of butterflies have been extirpated =
from
the Czech Republic. What are the most striking examples?
MK: We have good information on many of the butterflies. For instance, =
the
Danube Clouded Yellow, _Colias myrmidone_ (Esper), lived in the warmer =
areas
of the entire Czech Republic, but recently it is seen occasionally only =
in
the White Carpathian Mountains. The Apollo butterfly, _Parnassius =
apollo_
L., that is in the logo of the [Czech] Nature Conservancy, used to live =
at
several tens of localities in the Czech Republic. Today, we know it only
from one site where it has been artificially re-introduced. Another =
example
is the Tree Grayling, _Hipparchia statilinus_ (Hufnagel), a relatively
large butterfly living in sandy habitats along the river Elbe. Today, =
both
the sandy habitats and the butterflies are gone. Those were just a few
examples of the =91day=92 butterflies.
Probably even more significant is the decline of moths that are, with =
about
3,000 species, far more numerous than the butterflies. Unfortunately, we =
do
not know the precise numbers of this group, since the moths are more =
cryptic
than the true butterflies. However, we can name several tens of species,
both large and small, that used to be quite common one hundred years =
ago,
but are almost unknown today.
FV: Is this decline specific for butterflies or does it touch other =
small
animals?
MK: Unfortunately, the situation is bad with all the small animals. The
_Red book of invertebrates of the Czech Republic_ that appeared in 2006
contains all the data, not only for butterflies, but also for beetles, =
bees,
wasps, etc. We have lost about 15% of scarab beetles of the family
Scarabaeidae, 5% of long-horned beetles of the family Cerambycidae, and =
15%
of wasps and bees. If you look at the numbers, you can see that in all =
the
well-known groups about 5 to 10 percent of species have disappeared from =
our
fauna. We have to project those percentages into the absolute numbers. =
If we
have about 30,000 species of insect in the Czech Republic, those 5 to 10
percent represent the loss of 2,000 or 3,000 species that have =
disappeared
from our area. The situation is similar among the smaller vertebrates, =
such
as birds, especially those that feed on insects.
FV: What is the reason for this decline? Is it a broader trend =
concerning
all of Europe or is it a result of small local threats that added =
together
have had this negative impact?
MK: This is a broader problem, but I have to say a few words for
explanation. Many rare species are persisting better than before and =
their
protection has had positive results. This is most obvious in birds, =
mammals
and all the larger vertebrates. The situation is also relatively good =
with
vascular plants. We have a large number of endangered species in these
groups, but we do not see such a rapid decline as we can witness in =
insects
and other invertebrates. Present-day nature conservation, landscape
management and landscape ecology address the protection of plants, =
birds,
and mammals reasonably well, but we fail to protect insects. This is
alarming, since the number of insect species is much larger than that of
birds or other vertebrates. At the same time, insect species are =
involved in
a number of interwoven ecological interactions. We have to realize that
pollination of many economically important plants depends on insects and
that insects play an important role in soil processes, control of =
harmful
insects, etc.=20
Now I am going back to your question that relates to this. What has =
happened
in the last fifty years in central and western Europe? We have =
significantly
changed the structure of natural environments and landscapes.
Intensification of agriculture and forestry resulted in homogenization =
of
the landscape. The former mosaic of small fields, meadows, forest =
margins,
hedges, small quarries, and sand pits has been replaced with large
homogenous areas with sharp boundaries between them. Why is this =
important?
Those 3,000 species of insect, all that huge diversity of organisms, has
lived in our area thanks to the great specialization of the different
species. Many species are narrowly specialised. For instance, the Alcon
Blue, _Maculinea alcon_ (Denis & Schiffermueller), needs a gentian for =
its
caterpillars. The adult butterflies, on the other hand, do not need the
gentian any more, but require nectar of other plants. They also need =
shrubs
for cover from their enemies. Butterflies are not too mobile. We see the
butterfly flying around, but it=92s not so simple as it looks. Most
butterflies do not fly over long distances. In what used to be a mosaic =
of
small areas in the landscape, butterflies used to have all they needed =
close
together, nectar, cover and host plants. That has changed and today we =
have
extensive meadows and extensive fields. Forests are all managed the same =
way
over large areas, planted with the same few tree species and the same
agricultural and sylvicultural techniques are being used. In this way, =
we
have homogenized the landscape and removed a large number of suitable =
sites
for many species that have nowhere to live anymore.=20
FV: Even after all you have said, there is no doubt that there are =
serious
intentions to protect nature both in Europe and in the Czech Republic. =
In
spite of the number of serious projects, some of them are not working =
for
the insects and butterflies as well as we would like them to work. What =
are
we doing wrong?
MK: We can explain it better if we compare insects with birds or plants,
where the conservation measures really work. When we want to protect =
certain
plant species, we protect them in a nature reserve. We call this =93in =
situ=94.
There, we can control the ecological conditions to suit the needs of the
plant. Such a way, we can keep the plant there for a long, if not =
infinite,
time, about the same way as if we kept it in a botanical garden or on =
the
rockery. This is how many reserves work. People do not realize it, but =
the
protection reserves are in fact botanical gardens.
The situation is different in birds. Even though birds are quite =
specialized
and have special requirements, they are mobile, have a longer life span =
and
are, to some degree, intelligent. Such a vertebrate can actively look =
for
suitable habitat for its survival and reproduction. It is likely that, =
with
its longer life span, it will eventually find it. The insect can move =
as
well, we cannot keep it in the garden, but its radius is smaller, in =
average
no more than several hundred hectares. On one hand, this is a larger =
area
than we could artificially adjust for their requirements. On the other =
hand,
insects cannot actively seek suitable habitats over large areas. When we
destroy the natural habitat of a certain locality, we can transplant a
plant, or the birds could seek out another suitable habitat. The insect
species, on the other hand, usually die out when their habitats are
destroyed.
FV: According to Martin Konvicka, butterflies could help to facilitate a
return of the natural mosaic in the landscape. Sometimes one does not =
need
too much. One can leave patches of uncut lawn in a city park or a few =
raw
logs on the ground. Around the supermarkets, one can plant Crataegus, =
wild
roses or spiraea instead of introduced trees. This can be done in =
private
gardens as well. A patch of stinging nettle in a garden corner will =
attract
tortoiseshell or peacock butterflies. With the help of the general =
public,
The Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences is =
collecting
the information about the butterfly distribution. Why?
MK: We, entomologists, need as much information about the butterflies as =
we
can get. We need it from the whole area of the Czech Republic and from
different times of the year. This cannot be achieved by a small number =
of
professional entomologists. This is why we are trying to involve the =
general
public. We are trying to recruit people to send us their observations of
butterflies either via e-mail or by snail mail. One does not have to be =
a
specialist, nor know all of our 143 butterfly species. It is enough if =
the
people interested in this project can recognize a few butterflies,
tortoiseshells, swallowtails, sulphurs. The project has its own web =
page:
www.lepidoptera.cz where one can find all that is needed for this
collaboration. I would like to stress that we appreciate every record =
you
can send us, even if it be the only single observation you made, such as
that you saw a Peacock Butterfly, Inachis io Linn=E9, at your cottage.
Volunteer observers have been sending us tens of thousands observations
every year. We can then analyze those data statistically and we can =
trace
the correlations between the occurrence of the butterflies and weather =
to
see the impact of various land management methods. Or, to be more =
precise,
we hope that we will be able to do such analyses. In order to illustrate
what we are aiming to, I would like to give an example of our colleagues =
in
Great Britain, where a similar project has been running for more than =
twenty
years. The British entomologists are getting almost 250,000 observations
every year. Such a giant data set contains a lot of valuable =
information.
FV: Those who would like to send their observations to the databank
entomologists do not even have to know butterflies. It is enough if =
people
take a photo of a butterfly and note where and when the photo was taken. =
Is
that right?
MK: Digital photography is a great help. One does not have to know
butterflies. It is possible to take a picture of the butterfly, even if =
held
in hand in the case of smaller or more timid species. We will respond to
every record we receive, will identify the butterfly for the sender, and
will put the information into our database.
FV: What should be the result of this project?
MK: A new atlas of butterfly distribution will be one of the results of =
this
project. It is planned to appear in 2012. We published a similar Atlas =
in
2002, but that one was not complete, since it lacked broader public
participation. This time we expect better coverage of the area, a finer
mapping grid, and a host of other information, such as annual =
fluctuation of
butterflies, ten-year trends, etc. We have already been working with =
those
data. Another feature of the butterfly distribution data is that they =
are
available upon request to anyone who asks for them. For instance, if you
want to know which butterflies are known from the Jindrichuv Hradec =
area,
you can contact us on our web pages and we will send you a list. We are
sending this information to the nature conservation organizations,
municipalities, district and regional offices and to anyone who asks for =
it.
For non-commercial purposes, this information is provided =
free-of-charge.
The data are already widely used. When there is some development planned =
for
a certain area, or if there is a new road being built, we are asked if =
this
would result in the destruction of an important butterfly locality. =
Plans
are then adjusted accordingly. The data were also used in the =
designations
of new protected areas within the action _Natura 2000_. My colleague =
Jiri
Benes is in charge of answering those requests and he would be able to =
tell
you about many interesting aspects of his work.
________________________________________________________________
=20
Subscriptions: http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l
Send submissions to aceska@telus.net
BEN is archived at http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/
________________________________________________________________
=20
=20
=20
=20
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-CA link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> BBBBB EEEEEE
NN
N =
ISSN
1188-603X<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> BB B
EE NNN N<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> BBBBB =
EEEEE NN
N =
N =
BOTANICAL<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> BB B
EE NN
NN  =
;
ELECTRONIC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> BBBBB EEEEEE
NN
N =
NEWS<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> No.
402 &nbs=
p;  =
;
January 26, 2009<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> <a =
href=3D"mailto:aceska@telus.net">aceska@telus.net</a> &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp;
Victoria, B.C.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p =
class=3DMsoPlainText> ----------------------------------------------=
-------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, =
B.C. Canada
V8W 3S2<o:p></o:p></p>
<p =
class=3DMsoPlainText> ----------------------------------------------=
-------------<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>BOTANY BC 2009 =
-
MUNCHO LAKE PARK/LIARD HOT SPRINGS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>BOTANY BC =
2009 will
take place from the evening of Wednesday July 15th through Saturday, =
July 18th,
2009 , based out of Muncho Lake Provincial Park Campground and =
Northern
Rockies Lodge approximately 200km northwest of Fort Nelson. =
Transportation from
Prince George in vans will be available (leaving Tuesday July 14th =
returning
Sunday July 19th). Field trips will visit sites on alluvial flood =
plains, the
alpine, and wetlands. Many unique plants, spectacular scenery and =
incredible
wildlife viewing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>BOTANY BC is an annual =
meeting of
botanists and plant enthusiasts of British Columbia and is open to =
anyone
interested in plants regardless. Although BOTANY BC meetings are focused =
to
British Columbia, we welcome all the plant enthusiasts from the =
neighbouring
provinces/states, and from elsewhere in the world. =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Botany BC Registration =
and detailed
program are expected to be posted to the Botany BC website by February =
28, so
please keep checking the website: <a
href=3D"http://members.shaw.ca/dmeidinger/botanybc/">http://members.shaw.=
ca/dmeidinger/botanybc/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>If you have not =
attended a recent
Botany BC and wish to receive notification when additional details and
registration forms for Botany BC 2009 are available on the Botany BC =
website
please contact: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Elizabeth Easton (250) =
953-3488 <br
clear=3Dall>
e-mail: <a =
href=3D"mailto:Elizabeth.Easton@gov.bc.ca">Elizabeth.Easton@gov.bc.ca</a>=
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>_POLYSTICHUM =
CALIFORNICUM_
(DRYOPTERIDACEAE) FOUND AGAIN ON TEXADA ISLAND, BRITISH =
COLUMBIA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>From: Adolf Ceska, =
Oldriska Ceska,
John Dove, Terry Ludwar, James Mack, & David H. Wagner </span><span
style=3D'color:#1F497D'>c</span><span style=3D'color:black'>/o =
[aceska@telus.net]</span><span
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>For the accompanied =
photos see: <a
href=3D"http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf">h=
ttp://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>_Polystichum =
californicum_ (D.C.
Eaton) Diels was first collected in British Columbia in August, 1897 on
“Rocks” at Texada Island by W.B. Anderson (coll. No. 666). A
single, relatively small frond was deposited in the herbarium of the =
Royal
British Columbia Musem (V 178). The specimen was originally identified =
as
_Polystichum scopulinum_ (D.C. Eaton) Maxon and was listed as such =
in
Taylor (1963, 1970). In 1976, D.H. Wagner identified the W.B. =
Anderson’s
specimen as _Polystichum californicum_ with a note: “This is the =
only
record of this sp. from B.C.” This was the only specimen that =
supported
the claim that _Polystichum californicum_ occurred in British Columbia =
and
Canada (Wagner 1979). Whereas Cody & Britton (1989) followed =
Wagner
(1979) and included _P. californicum_ in the flora of =
Canada,
Ceska (1991, 2000) treated this species among the species excluded from =
the
flora of British Columbia and Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Texada Island is the =
largest of
the Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia =
Mainland.
Because of its size and limited accessibility, Texada Island is still =
poorly known
botanically, although good collecting efforts have been made lately by =
John
Dove and Terry Ludwar. Harvey and Pamela Janszen with Marie Fontaine and
Patrick Williston made three visits of Texada Island (with Marie =
Fontaine in
June 1997, another in July 1997, and one trip with Patrick =
Williston in
1999) and collected several species of _Botrychium_ and found several =
new
locations for _Ophioglossum pusillum_ Raf. Their effort was aimed at
pteridophytes and the highland plateau of Texada Island as the =
possible
habitats of moonworts (Janszen 1999).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>On August 26, 2007, =
Terry Ludwar
found a single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ growing on a vertical =
rock
wall several meters above high tide. On May 19, 2008, Adolf & Oluna =
Ceska
took advantage of the opportunity presented when BOTANY BC 2008 was =
based in
Powell River, and joined Terry Ludwar, John Dove and James Mack for a =
field
trip to see this single plant. Adolf Ceska broke off three fronds =
and
sent them to David H. Wagner, who confirmed the identification. The =
voucher
specimens (A&OC # 34986) were deposited in the UBC (2 fronds) and =
OSC (1
frond) herbaria. When collecting these specimens, we realized that W.B.
Anderson also might have seen only a single plant and therefore =
collected the
minimum amount necessary for identification.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Collection =
data:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>_Polystichum =
californicum_
(D.C. Eaton) Diels - Dryopteridaceae<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Canada, British =
Columbia:
Texada Island, Van Anda municipality, Maple Bay, N of Favada Point. <br
clear=3Dall>
49=B0 45.595=B4 N. 124</span><span lang=3DCS =
style=3D'color:black'>=B0
38.049=B4 W. UTM </span><span style=3D'color:black'>10U =
382265 E
5511367 N (NAD 83)<br clear=3Dall>
On vertical basaltic rock (Karmutsen Formation), about 2 m above the =
base of
the coastal cliff.<br clear=3Dall>
Collection date: May 19, 2008 <br clear=3Dall>
Collectors: Adolf & Oldriska Ceska, Terry Ludwar, John Dove =
and James
Mack Coll. No.: A&OC # 34986 (UBC, OSU)<br
clear=3Dall>
Identified by David H. Wagner<br clear=3Dall>
Note: This is a single plant that was found by Terry Ludwar on =
August 27,
2007. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>_Polystichum =
californicum_ is an
allopolyploid species that originated from hybridization between a =
species with
entire pinnae (_P. imbricans_ [D.C. Eaton] D.H. Wagner) and a completely
bipinnnate species (_P. dudleyi_ Maxon) with consequent doubling of
chromosomes. Thus, its pinnae are incised but not fully divided; its =
pinnules
are never distinct and upper pinnae are nearly entire in small =
individuals. Two
species of similar form (and parentage) are _P. scopulinum_ and _P. =
andersonii_
Hopkins. _Polystichum scopulinum_ has parents with short scales below, =
which it
inherits. _P. californicum_, however, has slender, hair like =
infralaminar
scales [</span>small, fuzzy scales found on the underside of the pinna] =
<span
style=3D'color:black'> similar to those on _P. dudleyi_. =
_Polystichum
californicum_ is usually
bigger &=
nbsp;
than _P. scopulinum_ but the size range of these two overlap. Both of =
these are
mainly chasmophytes, growing in cracks in rocks. _Polystichum =
andersonii_ is a
much bigger fern than _P. californicum_ and is generally a forest floor =
fern.
Like _P. californicum_, it has filiform scales on its under-surface; =
however,
it ALWAYS has a bulbil on the rachis in the upper 1/5 of the frond. =
Sometimes
more than one bulbil is present but at least one is always present. =
Neither _P.
californicum_ nor _P. scopulinum_ produce bulbils. Northern =
_Polystichum
setigerum_ is a forest floor species that has all pinnae incised to the =
costa.
For the key to the North American _Polystichum_ species see Wagner
(1993):<br clear=3Dall>
<a =
href=3D"http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D=
126461">http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D=
126461</a>
.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Note: </span>We should =
be aware
that the _Polystichum californicum_ illustration by Jeanne Janish in =
Hitchcock
et. al. (1969, p. 88) is actually a drawing of a sterile hybrid between
_Polystichum munitum_ and _P. scopulinum_. I have seen the =
specimen (it
is at WS) and also plants in the field from the same (or nearby) =
locality in
Kittitas County. This hybrid looks like _P. californicum_; the =
critical
features are, again, the filiform infralaminar scales in _P. =
californicum_
which are lacking in the hybrid and the aborted sporangia on the hybrid.
– D.H. Wagner<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span =
style=3D'color:black'>The
range of _Polystichum californicum_ in California extends from =
California from
San Bernardino County north: Outer North Coast Ranges, Sierra Nevada, =
Central
Coast, San Francisco Bay Area, Outer South Coast Ranges, San Bernardino
Mountains (Smith & Lemieux 1993). In Oregon it occurs in =
Coos,
Curry, Douglas, Lane, and Linn Counties (Oregon Plant Atlas - online). =
In
Washington is rarer and it is known from Thurston & Pierce Counties =
(Burke
Museum … 2006, Washington Natural Heritage =
Program).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>There is a =
striking
similarity between the distribution of _Polystichum
californicum_ and the distribution of =
_Woodwardia
fimbriata_, especially in Oregon and Washington. In British
Columbia, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ is known only from Lasqueti =
and
Texada Islands and from Saanich Inlet near Victoria. On Texada
Island, _Woodwardia fimbriata_ is unusually abundant. The =
closest
site of _W. fimbriata_ is only about 500 m from the =
_Polystichum
californicum_ locality. It should be noted that the first collection of
_Woodwardia fimbriata_ in British Columbia was made by W.B. =
Anderson,
probably also close to his _Polystichum californicum_ site. W.B.
Anderson’s collection number for _Woodwardia fimbriata_ was =
# 668,
vs. # 666 for _Polystichum californicum_.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:black'>Acknowledgements<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>We would like to thank =
to Ed
Alverson, Elizabeth Easton, and Jan Kirkby for their help with =
this note.</span><span
style=3D'color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:black'>References<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Burke Museum of Natural =
History
and Culture. 2006. <i>_</i>Vascular Plant Database._
&=
nbsp;
<a
href=3D"http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/collections/vascula=
r/search.php">http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/collections/v=
ascular/search.php</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Ceska, A. 1991.
Pteridophytes. Pp. 111-137 in Douglas, G.W., G. B. Straley & D. =
Meidinger
[editors]. _The vascular plants of
British Columbia. Part 3 – Dicotyledons (Primulaceae through
&=
nbsp;
Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._ Special Report Series, =
no.
3, British Columbia Ministry of
=
Forests,
Victoria, BC, Canada. 177 p.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Ceska, A. 2000.
Pteridophytes. Pp. 260-343 in Douglas, G.W., D. Meidinger & J. Pojar
[editors]. _Illustrated flora of British Columbia. Volume 5 Dicotyledons
(Salicaceae through Zygophyllaceae) and Pteridophytes._ =
British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks & Ministry =
of
Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 389 =
p.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Cody, W.J. & D.M. =
Britton.
1989. _Ferns & fern allies of Canada._ Publication =
1829/E,
Research Branch,
&=
nbsp;
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 430 =
p.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Hitchcock, C.L., A. =
Cronquist, M.
Ownbey, & J.W. Thompson. 1969. _Vascular plants of the Pacific
Northwest. =
Part 1:
Vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons._ Univ. of =
Washington Press, Seattle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Janszen, H. 1999. =
Rare Fern
Research on Texada Island. _The Log_, Autumn 1999: 4-5.<br clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
<a =
href=3D"http://www.ecoreserves.bc.ca/newsletters/log9912.pdf">http://www.=
ecoreserves.bc.ca/newsletters/log9912.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Oregon Plant Atlas - =
Version 3.0
Copyright (C) 1999-2007. Oregon Flora Project.<br clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
<a =
href=3D"http://www.oregonflora.org/atlas.php">http://www.oregonflora.org/=
atlas.php</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Smith, A.R. & T. =
Lemieux.
1993a. Blechnaceae Deer Fern family. P. 90 in Hickman, J.C. =
[ed.]
_The =
Jepson
manual: higher plants of California._ University of California =
Press,
Berkeley & Los =
Angeles, California. 1400 p.<br clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
<a =
href=3D"http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?11,14,15">=
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?11,14,15</a> =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Smith, A.R. & T. =
Lemieux.
1993b. Dryopteridaceae Wood Fern family. Pp. 91-94 in Hickman, J.C. =
[ed.]
_The Jepson manual: higher plants =
of
California._ University of California Press, Berkeley & Los
Angeles,
California. 1400 p.<br clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
<a =
href=3D"http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?19,31,32">=
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?19,31,32</a> =
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Taylor, T. M. C. 1963. =
_The ferns
and fern allies of British Columbia. British Columbia._ Prov. Mus.
Handbook =
No. 12.
Victoria, Canada. 172 p.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Taylor, T. M. C. 1970. =
_Pacific
northwest ferns and their allies._ Univ. Toronto Press. Toronto. =
247 p.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Wagner, D. H. 1979. =
Systematics of
_Polystichum_ in western North America north of Mexico.
_Pteridologia_ 1: 1-64. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-36.0pt'><span
style=3D'color:black'>Wagner, D.H. 1993. 12, _Polystichum_ Roth … =
Pp.
290-299 in Flora of North America Editorial =
Committee. _Flora of North America North of Mexico, Volume 2: =
Pteridophytes and
&=
nbsp;
Gymnosperms._ Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York. 475 =
p.<br
clear=3Dall>
<a =
href=3D"http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D=
126461">http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=3D1&taxon_id=3D=
126461</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Washington Natural =
Heritage
Program and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.<br clear=3Dall>
<i> &nbs=
p;
_</i>Field Guide to Selected Rare Vascular Plants of Washington._ <br
clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
<a =
href=3D"http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm">http://=
www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/fguide/htm/fgmain.htm</a><o:p></o:p></span></=
p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>For the illustration to =
this
article see: <a
href=3D"http://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf">h=
ttp://bomi.ou.edu/ben/402/polystichum_californicum_photos.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Plate 1. Top: =
Site of
_Polystichum californicum_ on Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska<br =
clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
Bottom: Single plant of _Polystichum californicum_ known on Texada =
Island.
Photo: A. Ceska<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Plate 2: Abaxial and =
adaxial sides
of a single frond from the specimen collected on Texada Island. Photo:
&=
nbsp;
David H. Wagner<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span style=3D'color:black'>Plate 3: Top: Detail of =
a fresh
frond from the specimen collected on Texada Island. Photo: A. Ceska<br
clear=3Dall>
&=
nbsp;
Bottom: W.B. Anderson’s collection from Texada Island, =
August 1897.
Photo: A. Ceska<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span =
style=3D'color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>WHERE HAVE ALL THE BUTTERFLIES GONE?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>An interview of Frederik Velinsky (FV) (Czech Radio =
–
Cesky Rozhlas Sever) with Dr. Martin Konvicka (MK) (Entomologist, South
Bohemian University, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic) for the magazine
Planetarium of the Czech Radio – Cesky Rozhlas Sever on June 15, =
2008.
The original program is available in Czech language at<br clear=3Dall>
<a =
href=3D"http://www.rozhlas.cz/planetarium/priroda/_zprava/467853">http://=
www.rozhlas.cz/planetarium/priroda/_zprava/467853</a>
<br clear=3Dall>
[Translated by Adolf Ceska and edited by James Miskelly]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: The decline of the butterflies in the Czech =
Republic and
in Europe as a whole is so obvious that it is conspicuous not only to =
the
specialists, but to the laymen alike. What is the reason for this =
decline?
Entomologists have already collected enough data to allow the decline =
not only
to be monitored and evaluated, but also explained, at least to some =
degree.
Martin Konvicka, of the Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of
Sciences and the South-Bohemian University in Ceske Budejovice, is one =
of those
specialists who study the ecology of butterflies (Lepidoptera: =
Rhopalocera).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: How much have butterflies declined in Europe =
and
especially in the Czech Republic?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: Butterflies are the most attractive group of =
insects.
>From their survey, we can judge the well being not only of this group, =
but also
the well-being of other insects and other animal groups. For almost a
half-century, entomologists have been witnessing a decline, in some =
cases fast,
in other cases slower, of butterflies in central and western Europe. In =
my
estimate, about 20% of the European butterflies are endangered. In the =
Czech
Republic, it is about one third of all the butterfly species. One =
hundred years
ago, about 161 species of butterflies were known in the area of the =
Czech
Republic. From that number, 18 species have become extirpated. =
That’s
about 11%. Of the rest, about 50% of butterflies are endangered. Even =
more
important and more obvious is that we are not losing only the rare =
butterflies that
used to live at a few sites. From year to year, we can also see the =
rapid
decline of other, previously common species, those that we were able to =
see in
meadows, fields and gardens. Those species are rapidly declining, not =
only in
the Czech Republic, but also in the whole of Europe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: When did people start to study this decline =
more
systematically?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: Butterflies are a very attractive group, and =
have caught
the attention of artists, naturalists and butterfly collectors, as we =
can see
from the many parodies that have ridiculed entomologists. Thus, we can =
rely on
the large number of people who have noticed this decline in butterflies. =
More
precise data about the decline of butterflies are available in Europe =
since
about the 1980’s. In the Czech Republic, zoologists Ivo Novak and =
Karel
Spitzer wrote in the 1980’s that twenty years before, in the
1960’s, one could see about 40 species of butterflies on a stroll =
through
meadows and field, whereas in 1980’s this number dropped down to =
about 10
or 11 species. This situation has not improved, rather it has gotten
worse. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: You mentioned that 18 species of =
butterflies have
been extirpated from the Czech Republic. What are the most striking =
examples?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: We have good information on many of the =
butterflies. For
instance, the Danube Clouded Yellow, <i>_Colias myrmidone</i>_ (Esper), =
lived
in the warmer areas of the entire Czech Republic, but recently it is =
seen
occasionally only in the White Carpathian Mountains. The Apollo
butterfly, <i>_Parnassius apollo_</i> L., that is in the logo of =
the
[Czech] Nature Conservancy, used to live at several tens of localities =
in the
Czech Republic. Today, we know it only from one site where it has been
artificially re-introduced. Another example is the Tree Grayling, =
<i>_Hipparchia
statilinus_ </i> (Hufnagel), a relatively large butterfly living in =
sandy
habitats along the river Elbe. Today, both the sandy habitats and the
butterflies are gone. Those were just a few examples of the =
‘day’
butterflies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Probably even more significant is the decline of =
moths that
are, with about 3,000 species, far more numerous than the butterflies.
Unfortunately, we do not know the precise numbers of this group, since =
the
moths are more cryptic than the true butterflies. However, we can name =
several
tens of species, both large and small, that used to be quite common one =
hundred
years ago, but are almost unknown today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: Is this decline specific for butterflies or =
does it
touch other small animals?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: Unfortunately, the situation is bad with all =
the small
animals. The _Red book of invertebrates of the Czech =
Republic_ that
appeared in 2006 contains all the data, not only for butterflies, but =
also for
beetles, bees, wasps, etc. We have lost about 15% of scarab beetles of =
the
family Scarabaeidae, 5% of long-horned beetles of the family =
Cerambycidae, and
15% of wasps and bees. If you look at the numbers, you can see that in =
all the
well-known groups about 5 to 10 percent of species have disappeared from =
our
fauna. We have to project those percentages into the absolute numbers. =
If we
have about 30,000 species of insect in the Czech Republic, those 5 to 10
percent represent the loss of 2,000 or 3,000 species that have =
disappeared from
our area. The situation is similar among the smaller vertebrates, such =
as
birds, especially those that feed on insects.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: What is the reason for this decline? Is it a =
broader
trend concerning all of Europe or is it a result of small local threats =
that
added together have had this negative impact?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: This is a broader problem, but I have to say a =
few words
for explanation. Many rare species are persisting better than before and =
their
protection has had positive results. This is most obvious in birds, =
mammals and
all the larger vertebrates. The situation is also relatively good with =
vascular
plants. We have a large number of endangered species in these groups, =
but we do
not see such a rapid decline as we can witness in insects and other
invertebrates. Present-day nature conservation, landscape management and
landscape ecology address the protection of plants, birds, and mammals
reasonably well, but we fail to protect insects. This is alarming, since =
the
number of insect species is much larger than that of birds or other
vertebrates. At the same time, insect species are involved in a number =
of interwoven
ecological interactions. We have to realize that pollination of many
economically important plants depends on insects and that insects play =
an
important role in soil processes, control of harmful insects, etc. =
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>Now I am going back to your question that relates =
to this.
What has happened in the last fifty years in central and western Europe? =
We
have significantly changed the structure of natural environments and
landscapes. Intensification of agriculture and forestry resulted in
homogenization of the landscape. The former mosaic of small fields, =
meadows,
forest margins, hedges, small quarries, and sand pits has been replaced =
with
large homogenous areas with sharp boundaries between them. Why is this
important? Those 3,000 species of insect, all that huge diversity of =
organisms,
has lived in our area thanks to the great specialization of the =
different
species. Many species are narrowly specialised. For instance, the Alcon =
Blue, <i> _</i><i><span
lang=3DCS>Maculinea alcon_</span></i><span lang=3DCS> (Denis &
Schiffermueller), </span>needs a gentian for its caterpillars. The adult
butterflies, on the other hand, do not need the gentian any more, but =
require
nectar of other plants. They also need shrubs for cover from their =
enemies.
Butterflies are not too mobile. We see the butterfly flying around, but
it’s not so simple as it looks. Most butterflies do not fly over =
long
distances. In what used to be a mosaic of small areas in the landscape,
butterflies used to have all they needed close together, nectar, cover =
and host
plants. That has changed and today we have extensive meadows and =
extensive
fields. Forests are all managed the same way over large areas, planted =
with the
same few tree species and the same agricultural and sylvicultural =
techniques
are being used. In this way, we have homogenized the landscape and =
removed a
large number of suitable sites for many species that have nowhere to =
live
anymore. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: Even after all you have said, there is no doubt =
that
there are serious intentions to protect nature both in Europe and in the =
Czech
Republic. In spite of the number of serious projects, some of them are =
not
working for the insects and butterflies as well as we would like them to =
work.
What are we doing wrong?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: We can explain it better if we compare insects =
with
birds or plants, where the conservation measures really work. When we =
want to
protect certain plant species, we protect them in a nature reserve. We =
call
this “in situ”. There, we can control the ecological
conditions to suit the needs of the plant. Such a way, we can keep the =
plant there
for a long, if not infinite, time, about the same way as if we kept it =
in a
botanical garden or on the rockery. This is how many reserves work. =
People do
not realize it, but the protection reserves are in fact botanical =
gardens.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>The situation is different in birds. Even though =
birds are
quite specialized and have special requirements, they are mobile, have a =
longer
life span and are, to some degree, intelligent. Such a vertebrate can =
actively
look for suitable habitat for its survival and reproduction. It is =
likely that,
with its longer life span, it will eventually find it. The insect =
can
move as well, we cannot keep it in the garden, but its radius is =
smaller, in
average no more than several hundred hectares. On one hand, this is a =
larger
area than we could artificially adjust for their requirements. On the =
other
hand, insects cannot actively seek suitable habitats over large areas. =
When we
destroy the natural habitat of a certain locality, we can transplant a =
plant,
or the birds could seek out another suitable habitat. The insect =
species, on
the other hand, usually die out when their habitats are =
destroyed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: According to Martin Konvicka, butterflies could =
help to
facilitate a return of the natural mosaic in the landscape. Sometimes =
one does
not need too much. One can leave patches of uncut lawn in a city park or =
a few
raw logs on the ground. Around the supermarkets, one can plant =
Crataegus, wild
roses or spiraea instead of introduced trees. This can be done in =
private
gardens as well. A patch of stinging nettle in a garden corner will =
attract
tortoiseshell or peacock butterflies. With the help of the general =
public, The
Entomological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences is collecting =
the
information about the butterfly distribution. Why?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: We, entomologists, need as much information =
about the
butterflies as we can get. We need it from the whole area of the Czech =
Republic
and from different times of the year. This cannot be achieved by a small =
number
of professional entomologists. This is why we are trying to involve the =
general
public. We are trying to recruit people to send us their observations of
butterflies either via e-mail or by snail mail. One does not have to be =
a
specialist, nor know all of our 143 butterfly species. It is enough if =
the
people interested in this project can recognize a few butterflies,
tortoiseshells, swallowtails, sulphurs. The project has its own web =
page: <a
href=3D"http://www.lepidoptera.cz">www.lepidoptera.cz</a> where one can =
find all
that is needed for this collaboration. I would like to stress that we
appreciate every record you can send us, even if it be the only single
observation you made, such as that you saw a Peacock Butterfly, =
<i>Inachis io</i>
Linn=E9, at your cottage. Volunteer observers have been sending us tens =
of
thousands observations every year. We can then analyze those data =
statistically
and we can trace the correlations between the occurrence of the =
butterflies and
weather to see the impact of various land management methods. Or, to be =
more
precise, we hope that we will be able to do such analyses. In order to
illustrate what we are aiming to, I would like to give an example of our
colleagues in Great Britain, where a similar project has been running =
for more
than twenty years. The British entomologists are getting almost 250,000
observations every year. Such a giant data set contains a lot of =
valuable
information.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: Those who would like to send their observations =
to the
databank entomologists do not even have to know butterflies. It is =
enough if
people take a photo of a butterfly and note where and when the photo was =
taken.
Is that right?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: Digital photography is a great help. One does =
not have
to know butterflies. It is possible to take a picture of the butterfly, =
even if
held in hand in the case of smaller or more timid species. We will =
respond to
every record we receive, will identify the butterfly for the sender, and =
will
put the information into our database.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>FV: What should be the result of this =
project?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal>MK: A new atlas of butterfly distribution will be =
one of the
results of this project. It is planned to appear in 2012. We published a
similar Atlas in 2002, but that one was not complete, since it lacked =
broader
public participation. This time we expect better coverage of the area, a =
finer
mapping grid, and a host of other information, such as annual =
fluctuation of
butterflies, ten-year trends, etc. We have already been working with =
those
data. Another feature of the butterfly distribution data is that they =
are
available upon request to anyone who asks for them. For instance, if you =
want
to know which butterflies are known from the Jindrichuv Hradec area, you =
can
contact us on our web pages and we will send you a list. We are sending =
this
information to the nature conservation organizations, municipalities, =
district
and regional offices and to anyone who asks for it. For non-commercial
purposes, this information is provided free-of-charge. The data are =
already
widely used. When there is some development planned for a certain area, =
or if
there is a new road being built, we are asked if this would result in =
the
destruction of an important butterfly locality. Plans are then adjusted
accordingly. The data were also used in the designations of new =
protected areas
within the action _Natura 2000_. My colleague Jiri Benes is in =
charge of
answering those requests and he would be able to tell you about many
interesting aspects of his work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p =
class=3DMsoPlainText>____________________________________________________=
____________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText>Subscriptions: <a
href=3D"http://victoria.tc.ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l">http://victoria.tc.=
ca/mailman/listinfo/ben-l</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText>Send submissions to <a =
href=3D"mailto:aceska@telus.net">aceska@telus.net</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText>BEN is archived at <a
href=3D"http://www.ou.edu/cas/botany-micro/ben/">http://www.ou.edu/cas/bo=
tany-micro/ben/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p =
class=3DMsoPlainText>____________________________________________________=
____________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C97F96.EBAFF8D0--