It has been a very interesting last two weeks. Whilst out
photographing Butterflies near Swanage with mates, Brian Arnold & Derek
Haynes, we found a Map butterfly on 7 August. The initial feedback was this
wasn't a migratory species & therefore would be a released individual. At
the time, I was more open-minded, given the Swanage area has a track record of
migrant Moths that have established themselves locally, before moving on to
colonise other localities in the UK. The following day, I returned
to site & was about to photograph the Map, only to realise we were dealing
with a second individual: it was a female, whereas the first was a male. Within
about 10 minutes we had doubled the number again to 4 & photographic
comparison of individuals by the end of the day had increased this to 11 individuals (see my Map mugshot post which includes one unpublished individual I missed on that date).
Clearly, something astounding was happening here.
Map: Male Individual A. It was this individual that started everything off (8 Aug)
Map: Male Individual A. Had we not circulated the news of a lone Map that first evening, we would widely have been condemned as suppressors (7 Aug)
Map: Female Individual B. The game changer as this confirmed there was more than one on site (8 Aug)
Map: Male Individual J. The 10th individual (8 Aug)
Map: Male Individual K. Many thanks to Nick Urch for allowing me to publish his image with whom the copyright remains (8 Aug 14)
Map: Male Individual F. (8 Aug 14). The accidental release story was they all hatched within a few hours & the accidental escape happened immediately afterwards. Yet somehow this individual managed to get this tatty within 2 days of escaping. In comparison, all the above upper wing photos were taken on the same day & look in good condition & all the following photos were taken one day later (on the 9 August)
Continental Swallowtail: St Aldhelms (2 July 14). Unlike the release story broke, the most likely opinion was a pregnant female arrived in Autumn 13, about the same time as a Swallowtail reached St Aldhelms
Map: Male Individual M. One of the individuals seen for the first time on the 9 August. This has clearly been in the wars, but checking the wing markings, it does not match to any of the other specimens
Map: Female Individual N. Note, the wide body & hint of a double orange wing bar. Many thanks to Brett Spencer for allowing me to republish his image from the Brett Spencer's twitter feed (copyright for the photo remains with Brett)
This clearly made it a very different scenario from 24 hours
earlier when they news was released of a lucky find of a lone migrant or a
deliberate release. Now there was either a small fledgling colony or a larger deliberate
release. Having released the news the previous evening when it was a lone
individual, it was too late to reel the story in. All that was left was to try
& contain the news to protect the potential fledgling colony. There had also been overnight feedback to support a wild origin, which made it all the more interesting.
We have been criticised on some social media sites for part releasing of the news, then trying to suppress it. However, these critics have failed to appreciate the news was released when only a single individual (of likely suspect origin) was known about. Had we known of the numbers on the first day, then more discussion would have occurred about the pros & cons of a public release of the news. Not releasing the news would have made it easier to protect the Butterflies, whilst discussing with the landowner regarding protection of the site. After all, if this was a small colony of a wild origin, it would be one of the most significant UK Butterfly stories of the last decade or two. I have one question for those social media critics. If you were in the same circumstance with releasing news of a single rare Butterfly, only to find the next day there was a small colony, how do you think you could have handled it better?
We have been criticised on some social media sites for part releasing of the news, then trying to suppress it. However, these critics have failed to appreciate the news was released when only a single individual (of likely suspect origin) was known about. Had we known of the numbers on the first day, then more discussion would have occurred about the pros & cons of a public release of the news. Not releasing the news would have made it easier to protect the Butterflies, whilst discussing with the landowner regarding protection of the site. After all, if this was a small colony of a wild origin, it would be one of the most significant UK Butterfly stories of the last decade or two. I have one question for those social media critics. If you were in the same circumstance with releasing news of a single rare Butterfly, only to find the next day there was a small colony, how do you think you could have handled it better?
A number of local Butterfly fans & transect counters visited
the site on the next day and had the chance to enjoy the Butterflies. It is
true that a small number of local Birders who also watch Butterflies also got
to see them. This is hardly, the whole of the Dorset Birding community that has
been claimed & condemned on one social media site. The reality is that a rarity
that needs to be kept quiet for access problems or a rare breeding species, is
likely to attract a number of trustworthy locals who would be discrete about the
site. It is also likely that if this had happened near to where this
complaining individual lives, then the chances are that he might get a private
invite, whereas I (as a non local) wouldn't. It would then be his decision
whether to maintain the high principals he has used to condemn us or to quietly pop
along for a look. I wonder what he would do under the circumstances.
There have also been some disgraceful & irresponsible comments
on social media trying to tell people the location of the site, after the request
to keep the site quiet for the protection of the Maps. Sad to say this has been
by some well known birdwatchers: do you think it would be right to have made
the same comments, if this was the first UK breeding pair of say Pallid
Harriers? I wonder if these individuals will have the sense not to speculate on
social media about the site of the next sensitive breeding species that is
requested to be kept quiet?
By the end of the third day, the feeling was the Maps were
most likely of a wild origin & had established themselves at the site since
the arrival of a pregnant female the previous Autumn. This led to a request to shutdown all news on the site to
give the Maps the best chance of establishing themselves, whilst discussions
with local landowners started. Informal voluntary wardening on site commenced
to try minimising the impacts to the site & to ensure that the landowner
wouldn't be upset by the impact of the small number of visitors. This wardening
was also to monitor the numbers of Maps involved & to start recording their
behaviour. I will publish some of these observations in a future post in the near future.
Over the previous week the numbers of Maps quickly reduced,
due to dispersal, natural predation & sadly the presence of 3 individuals
on site. In the middle of last week, there was a confirmed commercial collector
identified on site. Additionally, there was a suspected private collector who
was seen furling up a net. I would be surprised if they were not responsible
for the disappearance of some individuals from the site. These were some of the
risks we were seeking to minimise to this potential colony.
If anybody feels that they wish to have complain about the
site not being made public, then feel free to have a go at the next set of adults
you see collecting Butterflies in the future without a good reason: sadly this
still occurs as we experienced on site. I appreciate there might be good reason
why a genuine entomologist might have a net in the field. But these were
unscrupulous individuals who don't seem to care if they wipe out a group of
Butterflies or Moths: as long as they get some nice dead specimens for their
collection or to sell on. By the way, don't bother trying to post comments to
this blog, trying to justify why you believe this is OK: they won't be
published. I've seen enough crap on social media in recent months
trying to justify collecting. I don't have a problem with collecting by a
respectable scientific organisation like the Natural History Museum. But I do
have a problem with irresponsible collecting of species like Butterflies or
Moths for private collections or for sale. Collecting is especially pointless when the species
is readily identifiable in the field or from photos & so use of a net is
not needed to confirm the identification. It is just a selfish collecting
obsession without any care for the species being collected. No different to the
ongoing threat to big game animals being shot in the wild by wealthy hunters
for their obsession & ego.
But over the last week or so, it has definitely been a High
given the general feeling that we were probably dealing with a small fledgling
wild colony. But a Low, that we have been visited by Butterfly collectors,
which was followed by a deeper Low. A trustworthy source in one of the leading wildlife
organisations has recently been contacted by an unnamed individual, who for the
purposes of this blog I will call Fred Bloggs (I don't know & do not want
to know Fred's real identity). The source believes this is genuine. Fred has
admitted to an accidental release of a number of Maps at the site on the 6
August (the day before the first one was found). Frankly, I have heard his
explanation of how this release occurred & believe the story as told is
about as factual as the ridiculous Hollywood film The Great Escape to the real
Great Escape story from the German PoW camp, Stalag Luft 3. But I do believe it
is a cover story, given Fred may well have committed an offense under the
Wildlife & Countryside Act by releasing an illegal alien species into the UK countryside.
I also do not believe we will get the true story from Fred. But personally I
find it hard to use the phrase accidental in the story, as I
do not think it stacks up with the photographic evidence of pristine Maps, 3
days on from the accidental release date. But I will not be commenting further
in public or private on Fred's story.
So now it appears the most likely explanation is the Maps
were released. This came as we were starting to get some interesting
discussions going about how it might be possible to help protect this colony
going forward. Up to that point, the general feeling from visitors in the know,
was these were likely to be a genuine arrival of a pregnant female last Autumn.
Circumstantial evidence to support this included, the movement of continental
Swallowtails at the time (that led to the St Aldhelms & Sussex sightings this year) & Long-tailed
Blues appearing in Kent
& Sussex.
There still seems to be some sympathy for this theory & the presence of the
collectors probably strengthened that feeling. Whilst Maps are apparently not a
migratory species, they are steadily pushing North in the same way that the
Speckled Wood & other species are also extending their range North.
Not knowing Fred, I having to trust this isn't a hoax story
of any kind, given the confirmation of a release has seriously prejudiced any
attempts for protection going forward. I know hoax stories like this occurs
from time to time in the birdwatching world, where one or two well known
extreme individuals have put out stories they have made up, purely to seek
attention for themselves or to try to discredit a major rarity that they have
missed. Invariably the real truth comes out and usually backfiring &
discredits the individual who made up the story. However, I understand that
this would be a less likely event in the Butterfly world.
Map: Male Individual L. Many thanks to Peter Moore for allowing me to republish his image with whom the copyright remains (9 Aug 14). The photo can also be viewed on Peter's blog
I guess Fred should be commended for coming forward &
admitting to having been involved. However, I also think Fred should have
though about the problems he had created by this release. Releases like this
are illegal under the W&C Act. If it had been accidental, then a quick
disclosure should have occurred: which might have resulted in different actions
being considered.
It would also have significantly reduced the amount of time a handful of locals have had spent on site trying to look after them. I spent 65 hrs of voluntary wardening over 10 days and others also spent a fair bit of time on site. Releases like this are also irresponsible as they will also mask & taint any real arrivals in the future. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the locals who have gone out of their way over the last couple of weeks to help keep an eye on these interesting Butterflies.
It would also have significantly reduced the amount of time a handful of locals have had spent on site trying to look after them. I spent 65 hrs of voluntary wardening over 10 days and others also spent a fair bit of time on site. Releases like this are also irresponsible as they will also mask & taint any real arrivals in the future. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the locals who have gone out of their way over the last couple of weeks to help keep an eye on these interesting Butterflies.
Map: Male Individual O. One of the individuals seen for the first time on the 9 August. Note, the unique NU white marking near the trailing edge of the top right forewing & the minor nick on the edge of the left hind wing.This does look in good condition considering it has been flying for 3 days
Interestingly, I have been looking at photos taken on the 9 August. So far photo analysis has indicated that only 2 of the individuals seen on the 8 August were still around on the 9th. But another 5 new individuals were seen in the same area. This either suggests we missed quite a few the previous day or there might be other reasons why we were seeing new individuals. I'm still thinking about the significance of this high percentage of new individuals.
Map: Male Individual P. One of the individuals seen for the first time on the 9 August. Note, the wear on the right fore wingtip
Back to the High of the 10 days or so, until the release
story appeared, I have met a number of incredibly knowledgeable Butterfly guys
on site. I'm not going to name names to avoid any petty finger pointed, of why
were they there etc. But it's been a real privilege to spend time with these
guys & I've learnt a huge amount about Butterfly ecology, habits & conservation
issues from these guys. So however, these Maps arrived at the site, this is undoubtedly
a great High to finish on.
Timing the publication of this news about this release was a
tricky decision. The main reason for going public now is to make it clear, this
was a most likely a release & hopefully any eggs or larva planned to be collected
in the near future will be of no commercial value now.
A final update, the last adult was seen flying on the 17
August, despite being looked for daily since. I have currently identified 16 individuals up to the end of the 9 August & believe that total will rise I have time to look at additional photos.