Subject: (no subject given)

From: Patrick Roper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 21:39:42 +0000

Chris Raper asked about the New Forest Burnet moth, Zygaena viciae.  Two
subspecies have are known from the British Isles, Z. v. ytenensis from the
New Forest, and Z. v. argyllensis from Argyll, Scotland.

Z. v. ytenensis was last recorded definitively in the New Forest in 1927 by
W. Fassnidge at Wood Fidley, though there is an unconfirmed report from
1947.  Z. v. argyllensis occurs in one tiny colony in Scotland.  In The
Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland Vol 2 (1985) edited by
John Heath, it says of this Scottish subspecies that it "is listed as
endangered and it is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981,
which prohibits its collection, consequently the Argyll record is excluded
>from  the distribution map."

A. P. K. Torrey, in a reply to Chris Raper, says sweepingly that cessation
of coppicing in the late 19th C was the single most likely cause of the
subspecies Z. v. ytenensis becoming extinct.  It would be interesting to
know how he has established this.  Certainly the New Forest habitat has been
much altered, but other species of Burnet moth that demand open conditions
continued to be found in the areas where Z. v. ytenensis used to occur long
after it had disappeared.  A photograph of the Wood Fidley location taken in
1966 nearly 40 years after the last record of the moth shows it still to be
an open, flowery area.

In 1899 the great British entomologist J. W. Tutt noted that the species was
collected so systematically by professional dealers and collectors that in
some years it was very rare indeed.  The species was reported as "gradually
going" in 1903.  In 1907 a collector called R.E. James stated that the
species could scarcely hold its own were not its headquarters on private
ground.  Collectors took stragglers outside this area and James mentions one
"professional" (probably a dealer) who lived there for a week and took 600
specimens.

In the early part of this century the known New Forest locations for the
moth were regularly visited by entomologists, none of whom seemed to think
that its decline was due to "cessation of coppicing".  In 1926 T.H.L.
Grosvenor in his address to the South London Entomological and Natural
History Society referred to the precarious state of the species stating that
because it was sluggish and easily seen a single collector intent on taking
large numbers could easily exterminate it.  At the same period A.E. Burras
made a morning visit to one of the moth's locations and found over a dozen
collectors already there.  They had divided the area between them and were
methodically working each plot by walking up and down waiting for the moths
to emerge.  Burras was so disgusted he returned home empty handed.

In 1932 B. H. Cooke searched for the species in what were its known haunts
but found no examples.  He understood it had been practically exterminated
by over-collecting on the part of certain dealers a few years previously,
these dealers having apparently
"... sat around day after day watching for the insects to hatch out and walk
into their nets".

S. G. Castle Russell, writing in 1942 said that there seemed to be little
doubt that the moth had been exterminated by over-collecting in the New
Forest and referred to a dealer who sat on the ground each day during the
emergence and took every specimen that came out.  Russell rejected a theory
that the colony on the railway embankment at Wood Fidley had been
exterminated by smoke from the trains.  Later, in 1951, he wrote that
through its persecution by collectors and dealers for years, it inevitably
became extinct.

R. F. Bretherton, another eminent entomologist commented in 1951 on its
former abundance but noted that from about 1920 it grew scarcer in the face
of forest fires, conifer planting and ruthless over-collecting.  He added
"if it is now completely gone, this seems to be a clear case of the
destruction of an ancient species by the hand of man".  Yet another
internationally eminent entomologist E.B. Ford in his book on moths in the
New Naturalist series said of its disappearance " ... forest fires, the
planting of conifers, and the inexcusable avarice of collectors have done
their work".

I have taken most of the above information from  a paper published in 1966
by W. G Tremewan, one of the world's foremost experts on the Zygaenidae (The
history of _Zygaena viciae anglica_ Reiss (Lep., Zygaenidae) in the New
Forest).  Tremewen says that "it is somewhat surprising that in spite of its
constant persecution, the species survived for just over 55 years after its
discovery".  Tremewan in his 1966 paper believed the species might still
occur in the New Forest, bearing in mind that the Argyll colony occupies
less than one acre.  He concludes by saying "Anyone who has collected in the
New Forest in recent years will no doubt be familiar with the necessary
collecting permit issued by the Forestry Commission.  On the back of this
permit is a list of the species of lepidoptera which may be taken only with
special permit and _viciae_ is included in this list.  Mr. Cadman, the
Deputy Surveyor of the New Forest, has informed me that the species is
included, not because it is known to occur at the present time in the New
Forest, but in the event of its rediscovery there.  A wise precaution - but
I wonder how many would comply?"

Patrick Roper
Butterfly Conservation
--
South View, Churchland Lane, Sedlescombe, East Sussex TN33 0PE, UK
Telephone: +44 (0) 1424 870208; Fax: +44 (0) 1424 870208
Email: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Chris Raper)
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 23:16:47 GMT

>New Forest, and Z. v. argyllensis from Argyll, Scotland.

[snip - to reduce posting size]

Thanks for all your work in posting me the NF Burnet info. It must
have taken ages to collate!

>  Mr. Cadman, the

As for your closing point, I rather think your fears are well founded.
Unfortunately, if a colony is under such stress that it's population
has dropped to a single colony it would be easy for unscrupulous
vandals/criminals to cripple/wipe out that colony.

'Collecting' is attacked as a problem when what we are all worried
about is OVER-collecting or just plain criminal behaviour. I know 99%
of entomologists would condemn such acts. 

It is a shame that there are still people that will put personal
gratification above the survival of a species/colony of butterflies
(or birds).

On the reserve I work on it has been many years since we had to worry
about thieves. The biggest problems we have are with well meaning
photographers who appear demanding to take photographs of the best
plants and trample down the surrounding vegetation with no thought for
what grows there (this includes film crews from some famous wildlife
TV shows!)  :-)

Chris R.

------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Raper at Trio Computing Ltd.
Disclaimer:
All views are my own and not necessarily those of my employer