I find this thread fascinating. I've read it back a couple of times. As a "natural born listmaker/listkeeper" and one who likes to know that what I'm seeing really
is what I'm seeing, I find the current debate educational and, at times, just a little disheartening.
My own personal view regards British butterflies is that an established species (ie with a self-supporting population doing just fine and dandy, minding its own business and breeding without human interference) that has not been introduced to the UK (ie colonized sometime after the Ice Age) is uniquivocably British and a 'wild' species. This would obviously include the usual annual immigrants. Those same established species which, perhaps through changes in land use or habitat amelioration, now depend upon our actions to safeguard populations against extinctions are just as valid and British as those that do not need our help. This is surely obvious? The only occasion this would alter would be if ALL wild individuals were caught and brought into captivity in order to maintain their existence. Look to the Kakapo as an example.
Then there are ther irregular visitors/vagrants which arrive in Britain unaided by man. Monarchs, American Painted Lady, Queen of Spain Fritilary etc. My own opinion is that species such as these are perfectly acceptable on the British list, but not as residents (except maybe as transitory ones).
Next come the adventives which seem to be a rather motley crew, tarred with the same messy brush. Were they ship-assisted? Did they arrive in exotic plant soil or with timber or even in a bunch of bananas? Can they be classed as 'genuine' British visitors or should they dwell in a murky no-mans-land? Well, that's obviously not for me to say!
But, for me, the crux of this thread relates to those species which have been deliberately introduced (legally and with permission, funding and research) or simply released into the British countryside (illegally and possibly without much thought, but maybe with much consideration for the species and it's exact requirements) and in what category they should be listed. Basically, if you see one, can you count it? Is it genuine? Is it wild? Is it self-sustaining? Will they still be there in ten years time? Do they need to be topped-up each year? Will they be British soon? Which authority decides? Says who?
Native Large Copper and Large Blue are
extinct. Gone for good. Introduction (NOT re-introduction) of Continental stock is, in my opinion, not going to replace what has been lost. No amount of cross-breeding or inter-breeding is ever going to bring back the unique British subspecies. As far as I'm aware the ecosystems that these two subspecies depended upon are not in danger of collapse as a direct consequence of the butterfly's unfortunate demise. Hence the introductions are for purely aesthetic purposes. Large Blues are obviously doing rather well, although considerable effort is required to meet their exacting requirements. I saw my first Large Blues this year. It was a rather odd occasion for me, lacking much emotion other than "tick-and-run" and then off to see a 'proper' species. But that's just my slant on things and I'm obviously a bit mental!
In a previous post I asked who was 'in charge' of things. Who makes the rules? Apparently nobody does! Is the British butterfly scene really this relaxed? Doesn't anybody care? (deliberately flippant, my apologies) But seriously, how many 'exotic' species are out there breeding in our woodlands and meadows? Is anybody keeping tabs? This could be important. Jack stated that recent DNA work on a Marsh Fritillary colony has shown that they are not of British stock. We could be losing unique subspecies through interbreeding without even realising it. I find this point really rather important.
The Marbled Fritillary population mentioned in recent posts - are they breeding? Are they being topped up by persons unknown for reasons unknown? Shouldn't somebody be investigating? Surely it must be relatively simple to at least discover if they are self-supporting at some density?
The internet is, of course, a huge problem. It is easy to mail order exotic species from overseas and breed them at home. It must be almost impossible to police such practices. And why would anybody try to anyway? Unless the species is on a CITES Agenda no laws are being broken. It is down to the individual to determine what to do with surplus stock. A code of ethics should be adhered to. Doubtless BC has just such a Code, yet relatively few people are members, and being a member of such a body will not stop folk illegally liberating/deliberately introducing foreign species/subspecies into the countryside.
I apologise for the length of this post, I blame far too much beer and a strong sense of disatisfaction that not enough is being done to regulate/educate butterfly breeders. And that's (thankfully) the end of my rant.
Gibster (hic, one too many Stella's!)
). UKB uses the list in Emmet and Heath, and Bradley and Fletcher. Neither contain "Marbled Fritillary" (unsurprisingly).
) 
