The Butterfly House Industry - India Environment Portal | News

Transcription

[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Monday, October 01, 2012, IP: 122.160.208.114] || Click here to download free Android applicatio
this journal
Conservation and Society 10(3): 285-303, 2012
Essay
The Butterfly House Industry:
Conservation Risks and Education Opportunities
Michael Boppréa,# and R.I. Vane-Wrightb
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Forstzoologisches Institut, Freiburg, Germany
a
b
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, UK
and
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
#
Abstract
This paper addresses the mass supply and use of butterflies for live exhibits, discusses the risks to biodiversity
which this creates, and the educational opportunities it presents. Over the past 30 years a new type of insect zoo
has become popular worldwide: the butterfly house. This has given rise to the global Butterfly House Industry
(BHI) based on the mass production of butterfly pupae as a cash crop. Production is largely carried out by privatelyowned butterfly farms in tropical countries, notably Central America and Southeast Asia. Most pupae are exported
to North America and Europe, although the number of butterfly houses in tropical countries is growing. The BHI
is described with respect to its stakeholders, their diverse interests, and its extent. It is estimated that the global
turnover of the BHI is in the order of USD 100 million. From a conservation perspective, there is a tension between
risks and benefits. The risks to biodiversity are primarily unsustainable production, potential bastardisation of local
faunas and floras, and genetic mixing within and even between butterfly species. This paper discusses general
ways of managing these risks. Ethical concerns range from fair trade issues to animal husbandry and the use of
wildlife for entertainment. For the risks to biodiversity and unresolved ethical issues to be tolerable, the BHI
needs to make a significant contribution to conservation, primarily through effective education about butterfly
biology as a means to raise public awareness of basic ecological processes, and conservation and environmental
issues. It should also engage with local conservation initiatives. Currently the BHI’s great potential for public
good in these respects is rarely realised. The paper concludes by looking at the special nature of the BHI, and
its need for effective self-regulation if it is to continue to escape from public scrutiny and the introduction of
restrictive regulations. The BHI needs to engage in active cooperation between its various stakeholders regarding
a raft of critical issues if it is to survive and fulfil a beneficial role in society. The BHI also needs to forge active
partnerships with conservation NGOs, educationalists, and scientists—communities that also need to recognise
their own responsibilities towards the industry. We also discuss the need for an effective umbrella organisation
for the BHI, as well as a “Code for trading and exhibiting live butterflies”.
Keywords: insect trading, edutainment, ecoliteracy, ethical standards, insect conservation, environmental risks,
alien species, genetic mixing
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.conservationandsociety.org
DOI:
10.4103/0972-4923.101831
WHAT IS THE BUTTERFLY HOUSE INDUSTRY?
The emergence over the past three decades of live butterfly
exhibits as fashionable leisure attractions has created a new
global phenomenon: the Butterfly House Industry (BHI). The
key innovation was the “butterfly house”: a walk-through
Copyright: © Boppré and Vane-Wright 2012. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited.
this journal
286 / Boppré and Vane-Wright
vivarium in which curious people and beautiful insects share
the same space. Its success has been made possible by means
of electronic communication, rapid transportation, and mass
production of butterfly livestock.
Unlike traditional invertebrate terrariums included by
some zoos, with ants, grasshoppers, spiders, and scorpions in
glass-fronted cases and occasional hands-on demonstrations
of stick-insects and cockroaches, the butterfly house visitor is
free to roam the whole space, typically planted and landscaped
like a tropical garden, and interact with all the creatures on
display. For a child to have a spectacular butterfly flutter just
in front of her, or land spontaneously on his head, can be a
highly affective experience (Figure 1). Butterflies are very
popular—for many the only ‘good’ insects—but, until the
advent of the butterfly house, there was little opportunity to
see them up close and on demand.
The BHI was established during a period of changing
attitudes to conservation in general, and insects in particular
(Morris 1987; Morris et al. 1991). In addressing both the
environmental risks and conservation opportunities created
by the BHI, we seek answers to three fundamental questions:
To what extent is the industry a threat to biodiversity? To
what extent is it a benefit to conservation and environmental
education? And, how can it be managed and regulated to
minimise the former and maximise the latter?
There are some difficulties in producing an overview of the
current situation, mainly due to the lack of robust data, but also
the different interests and attitudes of the various stakeholders,
their varied and often limited biological knowledge, and the
inconsistent regulatory and recording procedures that affect all
aspects of this global industry. Despite this, we believe that
the major issues are clear and need to be addressed now to
ensure the BHI is ‘fit for the future’. In particular, we discuss
the complexity of factors, both positive and negative, affecting
the environmental risks and ethical issues involved, as well as
the unfulfilled educational opportunities the BHI has created.
To address these issues, various actions need to be taken, not
Reproduced with permission from the artist © Erica Sturla
Figure 1
Expressions of joy experienced in a butterfly house as seen by
artist Erica Sturla (www.ericasturla.com). Polymer clay and acrylic.
only by the industry itself, but also by the NGO and science
communities.
Due to a lack of systematic studies on the many aspects of
the BHI, and their complex interrelationships, we have largely
had to rely on soft ‘data’ derived from visits, talks, websites,
leaflets, and newsletters, for most of which we cannot give
citations. We are therefore unable to provide robust references
for various important statements. However, this neither
invalidates the problems we highlight, nor eliminates the
need for new empirical data on the BHI. At the same time, we
largely refrain from naming individuals or specific enterprises.
Because a complete overview is not available, in this paper
we do not wish to accuse or praise individuals or enterprises,
or advertise particular activities of any kind.
INSECT TRADING: PAST AND PRESENT
Insect trading has a long and complex history. Trade in
butterflies goes back to post-Renaissance, Enlightenment
Europe, when “cabinets of curiosity” became fashionable
among the rich. Four historical innovations underpin the BHI:
development in late nineteenth century Europe of commercial
butterfly ‘farming’ to produce livestock of native and exotic
species (largely for amateur entomologists); development in
mid-twentieth century of the concept of butterfly gardening
to encourage native species for pleasure and conservation;
foundation of the Insect Farming and Trading Agency (IFTA)
in Papua New Guinea in 1978, with the express mission to
ranch exceptionally desirable and supposedly endangered
butterflies for collectors (e.g., birdwings, Ornithoptera) to
promote species and habitat conservation in a sustainable
manner through local economic benefit (Hutton 1985; Parsons
1992; Orsak 1993; New 1994; Black et al. 2001); and the
emergence from about 1980 of the live butterfly house as a
public entertainment, notably Clive Farrell’s London Butterfly
House (LBH).
Farrell wanted to share his passion for butterflies with
the public at large, especially children—to create not only
enthusiasm for butterflies and other invertebrates, but also
contribute to education. The main innovation, first introduced
by David Lowe in Guernsey in 1976, was presentation of exotic
butterflies within a simulated tropical environment, in the form
of a plant-filled, hot and humid ‘walk through’ greenhouse in
which young and old were free to explore. Farrell’s successful
LBH enterprise also stimulated the next key step: establishment
of commercial butterfly farms in the tropics needed to stock
the exhibits, such as the large scale facilities created in Costa
Rica in 1983 and Malaysia in 1986 (Goh 2007).
The LBH became a prototype for the modern temperateregion live tropical butterfly exhibition—a particular type of
insect zoo (Saul-Gershenz 2009) often termed a butterfly zoo,
butterfly garden, butterfly centre, or butterfly park. However,
for consistency we use butterfly house throughout to refer to the
LBH type of exhibition, restricting butterfly garden to open-air
developments where only native butterflies are encouraged to
visit and, if possible, breed naturally. Butterfly gardens have a
this journal
The butterfly house industry / 287
different history that can be traced back, at least, to the Drum
Manor Butterfly Garden, opened in 1970 with the objectives of
serving the needs of butterfly conservation, providing a visitor
attraction, and educating the public about conservation “in a
familiar context, that of gardening” (Heal 1973). Only native
species were to be included—mostly those already present
or thought likely to establish ‘naturally’ at its location near
Cookstown, Northern Ireland (Heal 1973).
NEW DIMENSIONS:
INTERNET COMMUNICATION
AND COURIER SHIPPING
Suppliers
Suppliers are also diverse, from local businesses handling
hundreds of pupae per week to those operating internationally
and dealing with thousands. Some suppliers also produce
pupae, while others never do so (Figure 2). An important
distinction exists between single-country-based suppliers
(sending pupae from one country to many others) and global
suppliers (who obtain pupae from many countries and supply
many countries). Again, we have little idea of numbers, but
many people are involved.1
Rapid communication (internet, cell phones) and fast, smallvolume courier services made ordering and shipping pupae and
the display of live butterflies much easier and, together with the
pioneer initiatives of the late 1970s, led to the establishment of
a booming industry involving several groups of stakeholders
(Figure 2): breeders and farmers (producers), suppliers
(dealers), and exhibitors along with visitors (the ‘consumers’ in
this economic system), all with different interests, knowledge,
responsibilities, and needs. The basis of the industry is that
live butterfly pupae (chrysalids) are mass-produced for the
regular re-stocking required due to the relatively short adult
lifespan of butterflies.
CURRENT EXTENT AND PHILOSOPHY
OF THE BUTTERFLY HOUSE INDUSTRY
As already indicated, there are no comprehensive statistics
on the magnitude of the BHI—in part due to the enormous
variation in size, scope, management, and impact of individual
enterprises, at every level (Figure 2), but also the widespread
lack of regulations and of a co-ordinating organisation. Despite
this, it is possible to give some idea of the current levels of
activity.
Breeders
Breeders (often called farmers) can be single people or families
operating a ‘cottage industry’ to produce pupae. Small breeders
are sometimes organised in cooperatives. At the other extreme,
large butterfly farms can have many employees. We cannot
assess the number of breeders, but many hundreds are involved,
notably in tropical countries (including Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Suriname,
Philippines, Tanzania, and Thailand). Dickinson (2004)
reported that 250 farmers were contributing to the Amani
Butterfly Project (Morgan-Brown 2007). Being engaged in
such a process can have social, economic, and environmental
benefits: “Butterfly farming allows the local community to
diversify their income generating activities and to work at
home around childcare and domestic duties. It also raises
awareness among residents and decision makers of the benefits
of conservation.” (Zanzibar Butterfly Centre 2011; see also
Morgan-Brown 2007).
Figure 2
Sketch of the complex network of stakeholders of the Butterfly
House Industry and principal / major trade lines of pupae. I. Pupae
are produced either by “individual breeders” (individuals / families
producing more or less many pupae), “breeding cooperatives”
(associations of individual breeders sharing facilities) and “butterfly
farms” (privately owned with employed staff for breeding), some having
their own exhibit. II. “Single-country-based suppliers” collect pupae
for export to international suppliers and/or to live exhibits usually from
a mix of sources in their vicinity/country, and often have their own
farm and/or exhibit. “Global suppliers” trade with pupae from different
countries and provide exhibits with a wide range of species, again often
acting as exhibitors, too. III. Butterfly houses vary greatly in size, and
they often purchase pupae from international suppliers, supported by
material from national suppliers, rarely directly from breeders. Some
exhibits or chains of exhibits have their own breeding facilities abroad or
have exclusive bilateral contracts with farms, and are thus not involved in
the main network. IV. The butterfly “art and souvenir” and V the butterfly
“release” industries operate largely independently of the BHI, although
there are some or sporadic connections.
* = potential environmental risks occur at a number of points
within the network.
this journal
Exhibits
Great diversity is characteristic of butterfly houses too,
ranging from family enterprises added to garden centres
attracting a few hundred visitors per year, to major, highprofile institutional butterfly houses attracting hundreds
of thousands. Butterfly houses operate in large cities, in
tourist areas and theme parks, attached to zoos, botanical
gardens, museums, shopping malls, garden centres, stately
homes, airports, hotels, resorts, and butterfly farms, and as
temporary attractions at fairs and festivals. Some houses
operate seasonally while others are open year-round; some
offer educational information but others don’t; some have
guided tours, and some have butterfly gardens too. Almost
all have shops and cafés, and many exhibit other insects and/
or other animals as well.
By searching internet sites, it is demonstrable that butterfly
houses and gardens have been established in more than 50
countries worldwide, not only in developed but also developing
nations—unfortunately, in many cases, not for the benefit of
local people, but foreign tourists only. The total number runs to
several hundred.2 Just as there is great variation in the exhibits,
the same applies to regulations affecting how and by whom
such exhibitions are presented and managed.
Table 1
Top 25 tropical Lepidoptera imported into the USA for use in live exhibits over three years (2008–2010), listed by the 2010 ranking
Family
Region of origin
Species20
2008
2009
2010
Am
Af
6
1
1
Ny
●
Morpho peleides
5
4
2
Ny
Cethosia cyane
1
2
3
Ny
Idea leuconoe
14
6
4
Ny
●
Parthenos sylvia
17
14
5
Ny
●
Heliconius melpomene
11
7
6
Pa
Papilio polytes
7
3
7
Ny
Hypolimnas bolina
21
12
8
Ny
●
Heliconius doris
3
5
9
Pa
●
Papilio dardanus
–
–
10
Ny
●
Heliconius hecale
–
–
11
Ny
●
Heliconius sara
18
13
12
Ny
●
Caligo eurilochus
15
20
13
Ny
●
Caligo memnon
–
–
14
Ny
●
Siproeta stelenes
–
–
15
Ny
●
Catonephele numilia
9
10
16
Pa
●
Papilio nireus
2
11
17
Pa
Papilio lowi
–
–
18
Ny
●
Dryas iulia
–
–
19
Ny
●
Greta oto
–
–
20
Ny
●
Myscelia cyaniris
–
–
21
Ny
●
Heliconius erato
25
23
22
Pa
Chilasa clytia
–
–
23
Ny
●
Heliconius cydno
–
–
24
Ny
Neptis hylas
–
–
25
Pi
Catopsilia scylla
16
8
–
Pa
●
Papilio demodocus
4
9
–
Pa
Papilio rumanzovia
12
15
–
Pa
Papilio xuthus
19
16
–
Pi
Hebomoia glaucippe
10
17
–
Pa
Papilio palinurus
8
18
–
Pa
Papilio memnon
–
19
–
Pa
Papilio helenus
–
21
–
Ny
Athymus perius
–
22
–
Ny
Euploea core
–
24
–
Ny
●
Danaus chrysippus
13
25
–
Pa
Graphium agamemnon
20
–
–
Sa
Attacus atlas
23
–
–
Ny
●
Siproeta epaphus
24
–
–
Pa
●
Papilio anchisiades
As
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
– indicates species that did not make the top 25 for the year specified. Families (Pa = Papilionidae, Ny = Nymphalidae, Pi = Pieridae, Sa = Saturniidae) and regions
of origin (Am = Central and South America, Af = Africa, As = Asia) are also indicated. Data courtesy: Wayne Wehling, United States Department of Agriculture.
this journal
Species involved
Lists produced by major suppliers show that pupae of about
300 species have been offered to butterfly houses over the last
decade, maintaining a number already established by the mid1980s (Collins 1987; Morris et al. 1991). For many, availability
is seasonal or only occasional. The trade is sustained by less
than 50 common species mostly belonging to the Nymphalidae
(notably Danaus, Idea, Morpho, Caligo, Cethosia, Heliconius,
Hypolimnas, Parthenos), Papilionidae (Papilio), with a
smaller number of Pieridae (e.g., Hebomoia) (cf. Table 1)—
representing between them 0.25 per cent of global butterfly
species diversity. There is practically no live trade in the other
four families of butterflies, which together include more than
half the ca. 20,000 known species. This reflects an emphasis
on colourful and fairly large species that can be mass reared,
shipped, and reliably ‘flown’ in house conditions, rather than
the specialised and supposedly endangered taxa that accounted
for IFTA’s early success with collectors (Hutton 1985). Indeed,
some of the most popular species, such as the swallowtail
Papilio demoleus and the owl butterfly Caligo eurilochus, have
pest populations in their countries of origin (e.g., Malo and
Willis 1961). Curiously, even to science, many morphological
and life history details of several of these butterflies remain
undocumented—including the courtship of Morpho species.
Numbers of pupae involved
About 2 million pupae per year are imported into the
European Union (Calvert pers. comm. 2010). Since 2000, the
average value of pupae exported from Costa Rica exceeded
USD 700,000 per year (Rios 2002; Montero 2007). This
equates to about 350,000 pupae per year from Costa Rica
alone (price per pupa from CR averages about USD 2).3
However, prices charged vary at least five-fold, from about
USD 0.7 to USD 4.
Worldwide, the number runs to several million per annum,
with a dollar value to suppliers approximately twice that
number. Speculating on a total sale of 5–10 million pupae
per annum worldwide, this would represent an annual market
value of livestock in the range USD 10–20 million. The value
of deadstock for collectors and production of butterfly artefacts
and decorative objects is likely to be of the same order (Morris
et al. 1991).
The number of pupae that an exhibit uses per unit display
area depends not only on how extensively an exhibition is
stocked but also on butterfly welfare (see below and Figure 3);
there are enormous differences in butterfly life spans in
different exhibits due to conditions. A medium-sized exhibit
may use about 30,000 pupae per year.
Visitors
How many people visit butterfly houses? Collins (1987)
reported annual numbers in excess of 4 million in the UK.
Currently, several exhibits in Europe attract over one million
per year. A temporary UK exhibit recently attracted on average
more than 20,000 visitors per month for three consecutive
summer seasons. At the opposite end of the scale, some live
exhibits attached to tropical breeding facilities may only attract
a few hundred people per year. Globally, we conservatively
estimate 40 million people visit butterfly houses and butterfly
gardens per year (26 million in USA alone: Rios 2002).
Philosophy
Diversity within the BHI does not just rest in numbers of
species, visitors, exhibition sizes, etc. There is also much
variation in the underlying motivations and goals pursued
in creating and running an exhibit. A personal quest to share
a wonder in butterflies and educate people about them is
one, others engage in edutainment, and yet others focus on
entertainment or are ‘decorations’ in a shopping mall or hotel.
As already noted, there is great diversity in the ‘offer’ in terms
of facilities and information. Exhibitions have to cater for a
wide range of customers, diverse with respect to culture, age,
income, interests, and background knowledge.
Organisation
There is no single governing body or any formal requirement
to belong to an association, and many entrepreneurs within
the BHI operate largely or even entirely independently
of each other. The International Association of Butterfly
Exhibitors and Suppliers (IABES) currently represents
some 80 BHI stakeholders only, and has a limited Mission
Statement: “Advancing the international butterfly exhibition
industry through representation, communication, education,
and marketing” (IABES 2011a). They have a newsletter
[“International Flutterings” (IABES 2002–2011)], and a
Figure 3
Fruit-eating butterflies like and need really rotten fruit—but this
supposedly upsets the aesthetic sense of visitors to live butterfly exhibits.
Thus, ‘fresh’ fruit is often offered instead of rotten, while visitors could
easily be enlightened with respect to the real needs of the butterflies.
Spraying artificial flowers with sugar water is another example of poor
husbandry—due to evaporation the concentration increases rapidly, and
the solution becomes too viscous to imbibe.
this journal
document proposing Ethical Guidelines (IABES 2011b), which
offers a useful start but is incomplete and hardly implemented
or implementable.
The Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute (SASI) presented
a series of conferences on Invertebrates in captivity and is
now running Invertebrates in education and conservation.
SASI (2011; see also Prchal 1991) offers a useful forum for
exchange among BHI stakeholders and others concerned with
captive invertebrates in relation to conservation and education.
SASI’s activities are, however, far from comprehensive, and
this USA-based group has limited global outreach.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUTTERFLY HOUSE
INDUSTRY: A NEW ERA OF BUTTERFLY ‘USES’
AND CONSERVATION RISKS
Risks are apparent at four levels and involve breeders through
suppliers to exhibitors: unsustainable production; potential
introduction of aliens through translocation; inter- and intraspecific genetic mixing; and trafficking of diseases.
Risks due to changes in breeding methods
The IFTA ranching model, based on a conservation ethic,
although still pursued and even encouraged for deadstock
(UNEP-WCMC 2007), is not suited to the current needs of the
BHI. Large-scale commercial breeding of tropical butterflies
has shifted from ‘small volume with high unit value’ to ‘large
volume with small unit value’. However, although the prime
IFTA conservation philosophy has largely been dropped, the
idea of producing a cash crop beneficial to local people has
survived (see below).
Butterfly farming: breeding, ranching or rearing?4
Mass production can only be achieved reliably by breeding.
Starting with a small number of founder individuals from the
wild, butterflies can be bred, generation after generation, in
confinement. This requires facilities that provide adequate
food, good physical conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity),
and protection from antagonists (predators, parasitoids,
pathogens), to ensure high survival rates for cropping healthy
pupae. Good conditions for mating and egg laying are also
needed. The main practical problems involve build up of
antagonists, which can destroy an entire culture (Rivers 1991).
Assuming the ideal that founder butterflies are obtained
locally, to act sustainably, a significant number of adults from
each cohort should be released to bolster the source population
in a semi-natural way. This should be done regularly because,
after several generations of inbreeding, there is risk of genetic
deterioration (e.g., Lewis and Thomas 2001; Woodworth et al.
2002; Joron and Brakefield 2003). Simultaneously, to avoid
inbreeding depression, fresh local individuals should be added
regularly. We consider this a reasonable model for butterfly
breeding systems that can be cropped heavily yet remain
sustainable without harming local populations.
Ranching, introduced by IFTA, refers to an open system,
where hostplants are increased by horticultural methods within
a more or less wild area, egg laying is by wild females, and
protection is provided by “sleeving”. However, although
such a system is well suited to production of small volumes
of high value adult deadstock, it cannot continuously deliver
predictable numbers of live pupae necessary for the BHI.
Rearing describes any situation where each and every
generation is founded by a wild-caught female and all her
progeny are cropped at the pupal stage (without captive
multiplication), or the collecting of larvae and pupae in the
field. Although this is the simplest way for local people to
contribute to the industry, such uncontrolled extractive use of
natural resources is unsustainable and must be discouraged.
Risks of mass production: the breeding imperative
Using non-timber forest products (which BHI pupae are)
requires sustainable means of production and should not be
extractive. To be both sustainable and continuously available,
mass production needs to be achieved by breeding, not
through ranching or rearing. Small individual breeders, either
as members of cooperatives or working alone, are likely
to operate less sustainably than major farms (Figure 2: I)
because they have less opportunity for continuous culture due
to lack of facilities (e.g., large flight areas for mating). Some
breeding projects may be socio-economically beneficial but
not necessarily ecologically sustainable.5
Risks of livestock translocation: alien species
The release of translocated livestock, accidentally or
intentionally, is a major threat to biodiversity (e.g., Lovei
1997; Wilson 2003; Kenis et al. 2009), risking bastardisation
of faunas and floras (also called “biopollution”).
The dynamics of most ecosystems can be disturbed by
introduced species, generally in unpredictable ways. Butterflies
are often perceived as benign—but this is by no means always
so. In accordance with the precautionary principle, care and
vigilance should be given to avoid release of any exotic
butterfly and its associated organisms, including hostplants,
where they have any chance of establishment. It should also be
appreciated that translocated species typically first establish at
low, seemingly insignificant levels but can undergo explosive
increase many years later (e.g., Boggs et al. 2006).
The biological basis of the threat is due to the fact that all
butterflies, like the vast majority of organisms, have more or
less restricted natural ranges caused by the interaction of history
(phylogenesis) and ecology. If released from their historically
limited ranges by translocation, they can find suitable climatic
conditions and hostplants to become established. For example,
97 per cent of the 4,000 species of butterflies now known from
the Afrotropics do not occur naturally elsewhere (Ackery
et al. 1995). However, the South African geranium bronze
(Cacyreus marshalli) has become established in southern
Europe as a result of horticultural trade and is now a potential
this journal
threat to native Geraniaceae-feeding Lycaenidae (Quacchia et
al. 2008). None of the approximately 400 species of butterflies
native to western Europe occurs among the 6,000 species of
butterflies native to the Andes, but European whites (Pieris
spp.) are now established on most continents including South
America, with economic impacts; moreover, at least one study
has demonstrated an indirect ecological impact on a native
Pieris species through parasitoids (Tanaka et al. 2007). Due
to the geological history of North America and Eurasia, many
North American and European butterflies are closely related
and have similar ecological needs—but few belong to the
same species. These sorts of differences apply everywhere, at
all scales, from global to local.
The activities of the BHI result in translocation of butterflies
between countries and continents, including those with
similar environmental conditions and habitats.6 However,
this only becomes a potential or real problem if the butterflies
are not contained en route and at final destinations. The
occasional escape of tropical butterflies in northern Europe
is not expected to cause problems (although this is not so
with their parasitoids—see below). In southern Europe and
southern USA, however, the climatic conditions, coupled with
widespread introduction of exotic plants for horticulture, can
provide suitable conditions for subtropical species, such as
certain Danaus butterflies (e.g., Haeger et al. 2011).
Introduction of banana-feeding Caligo, native to South
America, into butterfly exhibitions in tropical Africa or Asia is
fraught with likely economic and ecological danger. Were they
to escape, Caligo might easily become a pan-tropical pest of
cultivated banana. In some areas, similar considerations apply
to Papilio demoleus, frequently used in butterfly houses but
a significant citrus pest in its native Southeast Asia, and now
established in the Gulf region of North America (Smith and
Vane-Wright 2008: 194; Garraway et al. 2009).
The recent establishment of the American heliconian Dryas
iulia in Thailand, now spread south to Malaysia (Küppers 2007;
Khew 2009), is almost certainly the result of translocation
to, and escape from, a butterfly house. The consequences
for native heliconiines that are likewise specialist feeders
on Passifloraceae are unknown. Plausibly this common
butterfly, especially if released from its natural control agents,
could extirpate populations of native species by competitive
displacement (Reitz and Trumble 2002), especially in the
increasingly anthropogenic landscapes of Southeast Asia.
The list of potential risks includes even the most popular and
charismatic Morpho peleides, which has a wide hostplant range
within the Fabaceae family and can easily be reared even in
Europe (in summer only); if it were released in Kenya or the
Malay Archipelago, what might be the result? Translocation
risks also affect other steps in the supply chain (Figure 2).
Spreading of parasitoids and pathogens
Translocation also brings the risk of spreading species of
parasitoid flies and wasps as well as diseases associated with
butterflies [entomopathogens, including viruses, bacteria,
protozoans, fungi, and microsporidians (Altizer and de Roode
2010)].
Every butterfly species supports its own guild of parasitoids,
not all of which will be specific (but see findings of, e.g.,
Smith et al. 2007). The presence of parasitoids within a
butterfly house is not in itself a problem, but their local escape
is a serious conservation risk—in extreme cases possibly
comparable to the impact of certain generalist parasitoids
released as biocontrol agents [e.g., the tachinid fly Compsilura
concinnata in North America (Elkinton and Boettner 2004)].
In the US, parasitisation rates of imported pupae fluctuate
greatly but can be as high as 5 per cent (Wehling pers. comm.
2011).7 Due to lack of knowledge about the very large number
of insect parasitoids that exist [many of which have not even
been named: e.g., Smith et al. (2008)], and the great practical
difficulties of sampling and identifying such small and highly
unapparent insects, introductions of many parasitoids could
easily go undetected, with unknown consequences for local
faunas.
Concern has been raised about possible risks associated with
wedding releases of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus;
see below) potentially carrying the neogregarine parasite
Ophryocystis elektroscirrha. Although low levels of this
parasite have been reported to have relatively minor effects
(e.g., Altizer and Oberhauser 1999), more recent work has
shown impacts on flight speed and endurance (Bradley and
Altizer 2005) and reduced body size and life span (e.g., de
Roode et al. 2008a, b). We have little idea how this organism
affects healthy butterflies in natural populations. The impact
of many pathogens is more acute for insects bred or flown in
crowded conditions, or otherwise under stress (Rivers 1991).
With respect to butterfly pathogens and diseases in general, our
knowledge remains rudimentary.8 We lack reliable knowledge
of the natural ranges of even those butterfly pathogens that
have been identified, and we have no idea of their possible
phylogeographic differentiation. Emergence of the BHI makes
the study of butterfly diseases an applied science. Davis and
Lawrence (2006) have taken a first step, providing information
about prevention and management of diseases affecting
laboratory- and greenhouse-reared insects.
Genetic mixing
In addition to worries about bastardisation of faunas by spread
of butterfly species and their antagonists, mixing genes within
and between species is another key issue. Aardema et al. (2011)
discuss local adaptations of butterflies as a conservation issue.
Almost all Lepidoptera investigated exhibit high levels
of genetic diversity, revealed by intraspecific variations
in chromosome number, electrophoretic studies of protein
polymorphisms, and molecular sequencing (e.g., Descimon
and Mallet 2009 and references therein). In almost all cases,
this genetic diversity has a strong geographical component9,
traditionally and indirectly recognised by division into
subspecies; in some of these so-called polytypic species (e.g.,
Figure 4) literally dozens have been named. Although certain
this journal
subspecies are clearly diagnosable by discrete differences
in pattern and colour, many are not, being accepted more as
a matter of subjective opinion (Kitching and Cadiou 2000).
Almost all named subspecies of butterflies are based on
differences in colouration and, although in most cases this
will prove to have some genetic basis, these conventional
subspecies may or may not correspond to ecologically relevant
differences between the populations so defined.
Where geographical intraspecific genetic differences
have been demonstrated, either as discontinuous or clinal
patterns of variation, these are not always accompanied or
marked by changes in visible characters, such as colouration.
Such invisible genetic differences can, however, relate to
ecologically significant shifts, including hostplant preferences
(e.g., Singer and Thomas 1996; Janz 2003; Mercader and
Scriber 2007) and other phenotypically plastic traits. While
there is every reason to believe that such hidden differences are
almost universal, their scientific documentation is rare because
of intrinsic difficulties in this type of research.10
In general, molecular studies reveal that traditional taxonomic
divisions frequently underestimate local differentiation (e.g.,
Kozak et al. 2006). The challenge now is to recognise
and address “evolutionary significant units” (ESUs) for
conservation (Crandall et al. 2000; Fraser and Bernatchez
2001), rather than just ‘species’ as conventionally labelled
by Linnaean binomina. In most cases, we lack information
regarding the degree and significance of genetic differentiation
between the hundreds of potential source populations being
used by the BHI. All we can be reasonably sure of is that,
in almost all cases, there will be some degree of genetic
difference. Of the 50 most common BHI species, all but
Vanessa cardui and Hypolimnas bolina are divided into two or
more named subspecies. For example, Papilio dardanus from
Africa has over 10, the South American Heliconius melpomene
more than 12, and Parthenos sylvia as well as Idea leuconoe
(Figure 4) from Southeast Asia over 20. There is an urgent need
to study the species used by the BHI in the context of ESUs.
The term genetic mixing (sometimes referred to as “genetic
pollution”) can be used to describe the situation where
genetically (geographically) differentiated populations of
a species are brought into contact and hybridise. In crosses
between different subspecies, this can be referred to as intraspecific hybridisation, but genetic mixing is more general
and, applying the precautionary principle, reminds us of the
Source: Reproduced with permission from Morishita (1985)
Figure 4
Distribution map of the natural range of the butterfly Idea leuconoe in SE Asia (pecked line), showing its division into numerous named subspecies. This
spectacular butterfly, the paper kite, or large tree nymph, is flown in many butterfly houses but is sourced from several different islands, bringing with
it the risk of genetic mixing if livestock is exchanged between breeders or traded within the butterfly’s distributional range. If it is bred in captivity in
Southeast Asia outside its natural range, then there is also the risk of bastardisation of the local fauna.
this journal
possibility of undesirable consequences from bringing together
any geographically differentiated stocks, even when there are
no visible markers to alert us. Concern about genetic mixing
is not generally expressed because many breeders, suppliers,
and even exhibitors seem largely unaware of different concepts
of species and populations and risks revealed by population
genetics. In our experience, butterflies given the same species
name tend to be treated as undifferentiated entities in which all
individuals are essentially equivalent. In reality, this is rarely
if ever the case.
Concern over genetic mixing is not confined to hybridisation
at the level of subspecies or ESUs. Descimon and Mallet (2009)
have documented that ca. 16 per cent out of a total of 440
European butterfly species hybridise in the wild, and that about
half of these hybrids are fertile, with evidence of backcrossing.
From this we see that a further risk of genetic mixing can arise
in continuous culture facilities from hybridisation between
species that normally never encounter each other. If such
individuals escape or are released and then mate with members
of their parental species in the wild, the consequences are
unpredictable. With respect to hybridisation, rearing closely
related butterflies in an artificial, closed environment represents
an uncontrolled experiment.
There are specific examples where the BHI may be causing
genetic mixing. Papilio machaon occurs widely across the
north temperate, from North America to eastern Asia and
western Europe, and is polytypic (Eller 1936). Sperling
and Harrison (1994) carried out molecular analyses using
mtDNA from P. machaon representing several, but by no
means all, of its many subspecies. While their findings did
not in all cases reveal differences between races with respect
to the mitochondrial genes investigated, they confirmed that
P. machaon does exhibit extensive geographical genetic
differentiation. Release of a subspecies of Papilio machaon
endemic to China, pupae of which have been marketed
in Europe for years, from a butterfly house in France or
Germany, could thus have a significant impact on one of the
most spectacular butterflies found in Europe, P. machaon
machaon.11
There is considerable risk of genetic mixing among those
butterflies bred for ceremonial releases (see below), of which
the monarch butterfly is a prime example. Monarchs are also
used frequently in butterfly houses. It is not widely appreciated
that this species is divisible into several subspecies (Brower
et al. 2007). Most houses use stock of the North American
migratory monarch, which forms a major subpopulation of
the nominate subspecies, Danaus plexippus plexippus. South
of Mexico, monarch populations are not known to exhibit
long-distance migratory behaviour, and most are considered
to belong to various distinct subspecies. Accidental release,
for example, of Costa Rican monarchs supplied to a butterfly
house in eastern Canada could have unknown consequences
were they to hybridise with the local migratory population.
Recent research has demonstrated that the migratory ability
of this butterfly is fine-tuned by a system under direct genetic
control (Reppert et al. 2010).
In Costa Rica, the Pacific and Atlantic coast populations of
several Morpho species will almost certainly become mixed,
due to butterfly farmers who mass-rear M. peleides at a rate
of many hundreds per week. The threat this represents is
unknown, but it seems likely that mixing has already occurred
through exchange of breeding stock.12
In Asia, butterflies from a breeder’s stock of Papilio memnon
produced by intraspecific hybridisation (genetic mixing) of two
Malaysian subspecies of this highly polytypic butterfly recently
escaped in Ambon, Indonesia. This apparently invasive
hybrid is now spreading through the Moluccas (Peggie et al.
2005), and could have a negative impact on specialised native
swallowtails that are increasingly dependent on cultivated
citrus. It is potentially an acute threat to any of the poorlyknown native races of P. memnon that occur in this region,
which could be lost through overwhelming hybridisation even
before they have been properly documented.
Heliconius are widely used by the BHI. Laboratory
hybrids between Heliconius species are routinely created by
researchers investigating evolution and development (e.g.,
Gilbert 2003), and spontaneous species hybrids of Heliconius
are known to occur widely in butterfly farms and houses
(Mallet 2005). Were such hybrids to escape almost anywhere
in Latin America and interbreed with wild populations, a huge
investment of scientific research into the evolution of these
butterflies (Beltrán et al. 2011 and references therein) would
appear to be at risk. There is growing evidence that a number
have already escaped (Mallet pers. comm. 2011).
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSERVATION
OPPORTUNITIES OF THE
BUTTERFLY HOUSE INDUSTRY
Around 40 million visitors per year, worldwide and ever
increasing, attending entertainment venues devoted to
insects represents a huge opportunity for creating ecological,
environmental, and conservation awareness. Live butterfly
exhibits stimulate strong and positive responses among people
of all cultures and age groups. Butterflies are flagships for all
the small organisms essential to any functional ecosystem. The
special ‘hook’ is thus the emotional appeal of butterflies as
ambassadors for the invertebrate world. Even though butterfly
houses can contribute little to conservation directly (but see
below), because of the possibility that they will improve public
understanding, from autecology to earth system science, the
charisma of butterflies offers a starting point for increasing
conservation awareness.
Biological knowledge and conservation awareness
Any biological principle can be taught with butterflies;
they offer ideal subjects to introduce sexual reproduction
and life-cycles (with the added ‘spice’ of their remarkable
metamorphosis), dependence on critical resources (e.g.,
specific hostplants), existence of specific antagonists (e.g.,
parasitoids) as well as general predators (and thus food
this journal
webs), and the need of different food for energy and growth.
To understand many conservation issues, it is necessary to
appreciate that the vast majority of organisms only occur
naturally in particular parts of the world, and require specific
habitats. Butterflies are ideal subjects for creating such
awareness. Given accurate information about the species on
display, where they occur, their life cycles and basic habitat
requirements, the ground is prepared for the next step in
conservation awareness.
The need for habitat conservation can be directly connected
to butterfly exhibits by awareness that the butterflies on display
only occur naturally in particular geographical areas where
they are dependent on specific resources, and that many of
these places are threatened by human activity. But there is also
opportunity to highlight conservation needs in areas local to the
butterfly house, or where the majority of visitors come from. An
exhibit can link to local as well as global conservation concerns
and initiatives, in part focused on butterflies and plants, but
also addressing the need to promote ecosystem conservation.
Ecological and environmental literacy
Combining basic biological knowledge with the need
for conservation provides an opportunity to introduce an
understanding about ecosystems and how they work: energy
flows, nutrient cycles, food webs, nested systems, feedback
loops, self-organisation, and so on. These ideas underpin the
need for sustainability, including food security (Stone and
Barlow 2005). Butterfly houses have two special opportunities to
get this message across: they can demonstrate how the butterflies
on display have been bred in a sustainable way, and the butterfly
house itself can provide an example of a sustainable enterprise
by practising, for example, efficient energy use by employing
only renewable or durable materials, offering organic food, and
adopting and promoting fair trade principles.
Live butterfly exhibits thus have an enormous potential to
educate visitors about nature, ecology, ecosystems, conservation,
the environment, and even social responsibility—a far greater
educational potential than anticipated when the industry began.
They can take advantage of the emotional response to butterflies
to get visitors’ attention, and then convey not only facts about
butterflies, but also a more rational understanding of insects and
their ecological roles, including many benefits to humans. There
must be explicit attention to the goals of a better understanding
of nature, increased engagement with invertebrates, and
with ecological, conservation and environmental issues, and
appreciation of the need for environmental policies and actions.
We do not suggest that these educational opportunities outweigh
the environmental risks. Instead, we propose cooperation
between stakeholders (see below) to minimise the risks while
maximising the education.
SOME NOVEL SOCIAL AND ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the ethical issue of risks to biodiversity, the
industry also gives rise to novel ethical concerns about human
socio-economics, and of animal care.
The BHI has suddenly propelled butterfly pupae into the
global economy, as a cash crop. The need for continuous
supplies from tropical and subtropical countries provides an
opportunity for a steady income to breeders and farm workers.
As users of potentially sustainable non-timber forest products,
the BHI can directly contribute to economic welfare of people
in developing countries, at the same time indirectly fostering
habitat conservation. However, for this to be sustainable, not
only with respect to the butterflies and their habitats but also
the producers, it is economically as well as ethically essential
that fair trade principles are rigorously applied. Any desire
of suppliers and end-users (exhibitors and visitors) to drive
down prices for pupae through market practices needs to be
moderated in light of this; price competition with respect to
the primary product on which the whole industry depends
is potentially destructive. Healthy competition within the
industry needs to focus on quality of value-added components
delivered at the point of use (e.g., butterfly houses renowned
for their good presentation, educational offer, and restaurant
facilities).
The availability of spectacular live butterflies has also
created demand for their use where fun or momentary
amusement is the only rationale. Release of butterflies during
a private party, or as part of a nightclub event (Anonymous
2011), is unacceptable. That this happens in countries where
mistreating a dog or cat can be a punishable offence is partly a
measure of our collective distaste for insects in general (Morris
1987). It also reflects the distance to go in extending ethical
concern, first to all humans and then, slowly, to a wider and
wider circle of sentient creatures (Singer 1981). Respect for
the lives of insects has yet to be widely accepted, but it is an
ethical issue nonetheless. Closely linked is the problem of
seeing wildlife, including butterflies, as only material objects
that can be used without regard to their intrinsic value, as mere
commodities. This is not the place to enter the huge debate that
surrounds this issue, but the existence of the BHI requires that,
ultimately, it is addressed: in what circumstances is it ethically
acceptable to confine butterflies within an artificial space for
our entertainment? Similar issues affect some public opinions
regarding commercial aquaria. The existence of souvenir and
decorative industries based on butterfly deadstock raises further
issues in relation to the BHI (cf. Morris et al. 1991: 335).
ACTIONS NEEDED TO REDUCE RISKS
AND INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES
Managing the conservation risks
Three key requirements are identified to combat the major
conservation risks: sustainable breeding as the sole means
of mass production for livestock; preventing introduction
(accidental or intentional) of alien species of butterflies, their
hostplants, parasitoids, and pathogens; and avoiding genetic
mixing, both at breeding facilities or through short- or long-
[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org on Monday, October 01, 2012, IP: 122.160.208.114] || Click here to download free Android application
this journal
range translocations. These can be translated into a fourth,
overarching action: educating all industry stakeholders to
understand why it is important to avoid these risks—and
why they should voluntarily engage in reciprocal monitoring
and control to ensure a high degree of compliance. Only by
managing the risks and ensuring that staff are aware can the
BHI demonstrate environmental and ethical responsibility.
Sustainable breeding
The need to adopt sustainable breeding throughout, rather
than employ rearing, is fundamental. However, this is not a
simple issue and it has consequences. A key implication is
that farmers should invest in breeding only a small range of
industry-suitable, common species native to their own area of
operation, with appropriate technical expertise. They should
resist the temptation (normally satisfied, we believe, by rearing)
to make other, typically rarer species available to the supply
chain on an opportunistic basis. Rare species are not necessary
for education, and they are rarely if ever more valued than
common butterflies by the vast majority of visitors.
In our view, the industry should not continue to extend its
species range by including rarer butterflies as ‘specials’—on
the contrary, less common species already on the market
should be omitted. Common species that can be supplied with
low risk to agreed countries worldwide (see below) provide
sufficient diversity to satisfy all the needs of butterfly houses
and their public.13
Discouraged translocations
Not only is it undesirable to trade species from one region
to another where they could establish (tropical to tropical
location, or temperate to temperate region, north to south,
or vice versa), but it is also quite unnecessary, as all regions
offer a wide range of suitable local species for display, or are
‘safe’ recipients of numerous exotics very unlikely to become
established were they to escape. Sensible self-regulation of
these matters by house-managers could be turned to advantage
with respect to local conservation and sustainability issues.14
A general rule should be that exhibits in the tropics only use
local species.15
Parasitoids and diseases
With respect to parasitoids and diseases, it is in the
breeders’ own economic interests to have healthy livestock.
Consequently, one might expect that the export of infected
pupae would be rare. However, if breeders and suppliers
depend on or include pupae accumulated from opportunistic
rearers, then infestation is likely to be higher. In addition,
although breeders will be well aware of egg and larval
parasitoids, they are likely far less aware of parasitoids that
only emerge from pupae (so-called larval-pupal parasitoids),
as by that stage most of their stock has normally been sold.
Good communication between exhibitors and producers is
necessary to alert breeders that they are sending out unhealthy
stock. The presence of such parasitoids within a butterfly
house is rarely a problem for exhibitors, since they are not
rearing all life stages—but it can be for the environment if
they escape! Containment of small flies and wasps is far more
difficult than butterflies and there is little direct reward for
preventing their release.
In general, the precautionary principle suggests that
breeders and suppliers need to be more aware of the risks,
undertake better management of diseases in their breeding
facilities, and take as many precautions as practical to avoid
passing on parasitised or ‘sick’ pupae. This is no more than
good animal husbandry, of the sort now widely practised by
modern zoos. To achieve this, however, there is a need for
new research, and this could only be undertaken by willing
cooperation between BHI stakeholders and the scientific
community.
Even without further research, thorough education and
effective monitoring of breeders should be taken seriously. In
general, larger, well-organised and well-equipped breeding
facilities seem preferable to small or individual production
enterprises. The development of well-managed cooperatives
might overcome this potentially unfortunate socio-economic
limitation.
Genetic mixing
It is unwise and unnecessary to use alien stock of any species
that occurs locally or even regionally in the area where a
butterfly house is located. The same principle applies to
breeding—farmers should not mix stock, nor should they
source stock from elsewhere of species that occur naturally
in their area of operation. If hybrids become established in
a breeding facility, they should be terminated immediately.
These problems can largely be avoided if breeders resist
the temptation to exchange livestock, even within the same
country. Dependence on nearby source populations will
also encourage breeders to be more forthright about local
conservation issues.
Responsibility for combating these risks lies at all stages
in the supply chain. This includes the need to develop
effective livestock screening procedures (for short-lived
creatures quarantine procedures are not practical). Further,
it is not only a matter of individual butterflies accidentally
escaping or hitchhiking on visitors—members of the public
quite often steal live butterflies, for fun, as a joke, or in some
misplaced ‘act of mercy’ to give the insects their freedom.
Without inadvertently encouraging the idea, exhibitors need
to make their public aware that such actions carry a real risk
of ecological damage and that, moreover, it is rarely ‘merciful’
for the butterflies to be released into what is, for them, an alien
environment.
Conservation opportunities
Although some believe the industry can make a direct input to
conservation (e.g., Hughes and Bennett 1991; van der Heyden
1992; Gordon and Ayiemba 2003; Goh 2007; Saul-Gershenz
2009; Sambhu and van der Heyden 2010), unlike modern zoo
programmes for threatened vertebrates, butterfly houses should
this journal
not endeavour to breed and display endangered butterflies. The
survival of myriad endangered invertebrates is almost entirely
dependent on habitat conservation, coupled with mitigation of
impacts such as pollution and climate change.
The industry can make a direct contribution to conservation
when and if the economic return from breeding facilities is
sufficient to persuade people to protect specific natural or
semi-natural habitats for biodiversity. Examples include the
Kenyan Kipepeo Project, intended to conserve the ArabukoSokoke Forest (Gordon and Ayiemba 2003; Saul-Gershenz
2009), and similar projects in Tanzania (Morgan-Brown
2007), Malaysia (Goh 2007), Peru (Canseco 2007), Guyana
(Sambhu and van der Heyden 2010) and elsewhere. Some
farms are using their profit to buy land for biodiversity
conservation (EBN 2011). The International Tropical
Conservation Foundation, in part funded by a Swiss butterfly
house, owns and manages Shipstern Nature Reserve in Belize
(Bijleveld and McField 2006).
Where appropriate and economically feasible, butterfly
houses can also help raise awareness and promote habitat
conservation projects for particular endangered taxa. 16
Such initiatives should never disguise lack of attention to
basic biological education and local conservation. House
managers should ensure that sustainable practices and
habitat conservation are promoted by all their breeders, and a
demonstration of this should always be part of the exhibition.
Wherever possible, a butterfly garden should be added as an
outdoor attraction to encourage native species, offer additional
opportunities for education about butterfly ecology and the
natural environment in general (Mathew and Anto 2007), and
feature the work of and cooperate with local conservation
projects—which need not and indeed should not only relate
to butterflies. More generally, butterfly houses serving local
people need to be encouraged in developing countries.
The educational imperative
For butterfly houses to justify the environmental risks they
present, we believe they must engage in effective environmental
education (including use of edutainment methods wherever
helpful). “Zoos must recognize that our greatest contributions
to conservation will not be by the breeding of animals and their
ultimate re-introduction to the wild, it is through the proper
education of our millions of visitors that we can have the
greatest impact in protecting species and their habitats” (Toone
1990: 65). Or, as succinctly formulated by Robinson (1991:
3): “We cannot afford to simply fascinate; we must educate.”
The BHI has created a potent opportunity to reach millions
of people about environmental issues. The chance to educate
children about natural systems is particularly important.
Exhibitors should provide educational material and, wherever
possible, other opportunities (e.g., films, guided tours, talks,
demonstrations, bookshops, further reading suggestions, web
sites, etc.) for visitors to learn about the biology of butterflies
and their place in nature. This must include information about
the natural systems in which they occur, and transmit the idea
that habitat conservation is essential for long-term survival.
This understanding should, if possible, reach the level of basic
systems thinking, to appreciate the other organisms that are
part of the living communities on which butterflies depend, and
of which they are a part. Ideally, this would demonstrate the
principles of ecological literacy [‘ecoliteracy’ (Stone and Barlow
2005; see also Center for Ecoliteracy 2011)] within a general
environmental literacy framework (Orr 2004; Reynolds et al.
2010). Wherever possible, this information should be linked
to school initiatives based on such principles (e.g., Stone and
Center for Ecoliteracy 2009)—or, failing this, to international
NGO programmes accessible via the internet (e.g., FEE 2010).
Although there are rare examples of good educational
practice, the educational offers presented by most butterfly
houses are insufficient, misleading, incorrect, or even lacking
altogether, particularly in private for-profit exhibits. At present,
most visitors seem happy just to experience (and photograph)
free-flying butterflies, and make little demand for educational
information—other than to inquire about the names of
butterflies on display. But people cannot demand what they
do not know about, and there is thus little or no pressure on
exhibitors to provide a good educational experience as well as
a ‘butterfly experience’. Such investments need to be made.
However, because exhibitors sense little demand and start-up
costs are likely to be considerable, few butterfly houses seem
willing to sustain suitable educational programmes.
We suggest that another reason for lack of appropriate and
accurate biological and conservation messages is a lack of
profound knowledge about butterflies and natural systems on
the part of the three groups of primary stakeholders. These
stakeholders also need to recognise that they will do better in
all respects if they cooperate rather than compete. Cooperation
will be essential for successful self-regulation if they are to
avoid increasing legal restriction.
Many people engaged in the BHI are involved because they
have a love of nature. We suggest that, in addition to what E.O.
Wilson termed biophilia (Kellert and Wilson 1993; Kellert
1997, 2009), many have ‘butterfly-philia’, and by adding a
more rational understanding of butterflies and their ecological
requirements to this emotional enthusiasm will allow them to
run a knowledge-based operation. In a similar way, the majority
of butterfly house visitors have an emotional affection for
butterflies. While nurturing and encouraging this, they must
also be helped to understand the place of butterflies in the
natural world, and get a better idea of how our world works.
Only in this way can visitors add rational understanding to
emotion to get full value from their butterfly house experience.
This will only be possible if those running the industry have
that knowledge themselves, and thereby become confident,
able, and keen to communicate it.
Although the needs and opportunities for effective education
at different venues are very varied, even the best-run houses
have considerable room for improvement, at least with
respect to the wider issues of environmental awareness and
sustainability. For most exhibitors the immediate challenge
must be to increase their educational offer considerably.
this journal
Given the generally low standard, rapid improvement to
some minimum level should be a realistic target, assuming
the industry can get assistance from competent educators and
scientists to help prepare suitable pedagogical material.
The ethical imperative
Managing the conservation risks and ensuring staff are aware
of the issues involved are ethical responsibilities of the BHI.
Public education and good animal husbandry are equally
important ethical imperatives if the industry is to survive
increased scrutiny and future regulation.
With respect to good husbandry, it is essential that suitable
temperature, light, and humidity conditions are maintained
within exhibitions, and that particular attention is paid to
access to water and suitable food (Figure 3). The sight of a
dehydrated zoo animal without access to water is likely to
invoke public outrage. How long before the public become
aware that dehydrated butterflies are equally unacceptable
(and unnecessary), or that morpho and owl butterflies denied
access to suitable fruit are also being badly treated?
Good husbandry has practical benefits for the exhibitor:
healthy butterflies provided with appropriate resources
will behave in more interesting ways. This also raises an
apparent conflict of interest between stakeholders, breeders
and suppliers on one side, and exhibitors on the other. Good
husbandry by exhibitors is likely to reduce their need for
pupae, as the butterflies will live longer. Short term, this will
be an economic advantage to exhibitors, at least offsetting the
increased costs of good husbandry, but an economic loss to
the breeders and suppliers. However, we believe this apparent
conflict is illusory: the normal dynamics of supply and demand
will rapidly come into play. Moreover, security of the entire
supply chain is predicated on the success of the exhibitors and,
crucially, their public patronage. Just as modern zoos can no
longer afford to display emaciated and disturbed animals in
tiny cages, an increasingly sophisticated public will begin to
demand that butterflies in a butterfly house are demonstrably
well cared for. With respect to buyers who purchase pupae
simply as material for fun events with no educational potential,
such indoor releases are ethically unacceptable, send a poor
message, and have the potential to bring the entire BHI into
disrepute—suppliers should restrict their sales to serious
exhibitors.
SOME OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION AND RAPID COURIER
SERVICES FOR TRADE IN BUTTERFLIES
The principal risks exemplified for the BHI also apply to
national and international exchange of insect livestock by
‘amateur’ entomologists, hobbyists, and insect lovers, and
the new fashion for outdoor ceremonial butterfly releases. As
these uses for live butterflies offer no opportunities for public
education about environmental and conservation issues, we
mention them only briefly here.
Livestock ‘trading’ for and by amateurs
In the past, amateur exchanges of livestock and commercial
insect trading were rather small scale activities, largely
carried out by relatively well-informed enthusiasts and a few,
mostly well-known traders. Even so, Morris et al. (1991: 332)
considered that global turnover of deadstock “certainly runs
into tens of millions of dollars.” Nowadays, traditional print
media offering livestock are substituted by internet-based
interactive platforms (e.g., Actias 2011; ELG 2011). The
World Wide Web and courier services now make shipping of
livestock an activity in which anyone can join and which in
effect has no limits. Many different kinds of live insects (not
just butterflies) are sold and exchanged worldwide within
days or even hours. What recipients do with their livestock
is uncontrolled. As with the BHI, legislation is missing—but
even if it existed, it is very doubtful it could be implemented.
Thus, only good environmental education can address these
risks. Most amateurs are even more biophilic than stakeholders
in the BHI and, even if they have limited general biological
understanding, many are real specialists and often extremely
knowledgeable about the particular species in which they are
interested. However, there are potentially high translocation
and genetic risks attached to amateur livestock trading and
exchange, and this remains largely unrecognised; Buschinger
(2004) seems to be an exception.
Ceremonial butterfly releases
The spiritual issues associated with butterflies (e.g., ManosJones 2000) makes one wonder why they have been so little
used in ceremonial activities until recently. Modern means of
communication and transport in combination with the new
ability to mass-produce butterflies has now given rise to the
phenomenon of ‘ceremonial releases’, typically involving
flights of monarchs and several other species released at
weddings, funerals, birthdays, and comparable occasions. Pyle
et al. (2010) report 11 million individual butterflies released per
year in North America alone. In contrast to live exhibits, such
acts rarely have education value but raise similar conservation
issues as the BHI. The release industry is largely served by
a different set of entrepreneurs well organised through the
International Butterfly Breeders Association (IBBA), currently
with 150 members—many more than IABES. Notably, they
are breeders and suppliers at the same time. A considerable
controversy concerning the conservation risks and ethical
issues has developed, to which the interested reader is referred
[for overview see Federman 2008; IBBA 2011; see also, e.g.,
Brower et al. 1995, 1996; Keiper 1996; Glassberg et al. 1998
(see also reply by Moreau 1999); New 2008; Pyle 2010; Pyle
et al. 2010; Wagner et al. 2011].
School kits
Another development has seen major growth in the supply
of school “butterfly kits”, with larvae or fertilised eggs and
this journal
artificial diet to feed the caterpillars. Once children have
witnessed the fascination of metamorphosis, the temptation
to give the lovely butterflies their freedom is often irresistible.
While this schoolroom use of live butterflies undeniably has
educational potential (Wagner et al. 2011), it is beyond the
scope of this paper. However, a treatment of butterfly kits
similar to this discussion on the BHI is certainly warranted.
THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE BUTTERFLY
HOUSE INDUSTRY REQUIRES SPECIAL
ATTITUDES—AND ASSISTANCE
Within the BHI, which has ‘exploded’ opportunistically,
most stakeholders apparently act independently. To meet the
many issues discussed above, networking will be essential.
Legislation might also appear important, but can only be
effective locally because the general factors involved are
too complex, with worldwide dimensions and dynamics,
and cannot be policed. Instead, intensive networking and
self-regulation will be required. The industry needs to be
convinced that it should act neither on the basis of ‘what is
not illegal is OK’ nor ‘what generates money must be done’. If
the BHI does not do everything possible to work sustainably,
deliver good education, and adopt ethical principles with
respect to both people and insects, then it is as much at risk
from negative public opinion as it is from local legislation.
To be responsible, the BHI has to be mindful of an exceptional
number of ethical, environmental, and social requirements:
all exhibition material should be sourced from sustainably
managed cultures; only suitable, relatively common species
should be bred; breeders must be vigilant to avoid genetic
mixing, either within their cultures, or on release back into the
wild; pupae should not be shipped to locations where escape
would carry any risk of bastardisation of local fauna, including
genetic mixing; suppliers need to give accurate proper names
to the species as well as declare their origin; and breeders and
suppliers should sell only to exhibitors who use butterflies
for educational purposes, and should refuse any temptation to
provide pupae or butterflies for ceremonial releases or other
momentary amusements.
Attempts to maximise income without regard to ethical
issues may lead to a loss of respect by breeders, suppliers,
and exhibitors for the living organisms on which they
depend, reducing the living animals to mere commodities.
Driving down the cost of pupae specifically runs the risk of
undermining the economic benefits to the primary producers;
if producers are not fairly rewarded, they will likely adopt
poor or unsustainable practices. In general, temptations to
‘cut corners’ to maximise profits add to the problems caused
by widespread unfamiliarity of many of those engaged in the
industry regarding the biological needs of butterflies.
As Orr (2004: 205) commented, “there is a growing
potential for disaster caused by someone who is merely
incompetent rather than malign.”17 Given the special nature
and responsibility of the BHI, to become fully competent it
needs to formulate a meaningful common mission statement
and create a co-ordinating and self-regulatory umbrella
organisation. A meaningful mission statement for a butterfly
house, or the BHI as a whole, would need to include the
following elements:
To promote the worldwide conservation of living organisms
and their habitats exemplified by butterflies and their
ecological requirements and roles, to be achieved by fair
trade with farmers who practice sustainable production
of suitable butterfly pupae. Aware of the overarching
environmental, social, and ethical issues, every effort
must be made to: avoid the risk of faunal bastardisation
and genetic mixing; establish and sustain high quality
educational programmes concerning ecology and
environmental issues in general; operate all facilities
in as sustainable a manner as possible; co-operate with
local organisations to help and promote conservation; and
practice good husbandry and encourage respect for living
organisms throughout the industry.
To achieve these goals, close cooperative (not competitive)
networking will be necessary between all stakeholders, and
open communication with the scientific and pedagogical
communities essential and of mutual benefit. Within the
industry, training seminars and materials should disseminate
‘best practices’ for stock maintenance and rearing, and trading
practices that take into account impacts of the industry on
ecological and economic sustainability in the butterfly source
areas, and ecological sustainability where they are displayed.
For visitor services, model educational programmes, curricula,
and materials addressing visitors of different age groups are
needed, as is information for breeders.18
Eventually, the umbrella organisation should introduce
certification for sustainable production and operation,
responsible sales, fair trade, good husbandry, and educational
quality. A star rating reflecting success in achieving high
standards could be introduced.
Possibly, it will be too difficult to found a new umbrella
organisation or to extend the membership, goals, and activities
of the International Association of Butterfly Exhibitors
and Suppliers (IABES 2011a). To meet the requirements,
establishing a Code of Trading and Exhibiting Live Butterflies
might be an alternative which could also offer certification.
The Code of Insect Collecting and the Code of Insect Reintroductions by Invertebrate Link (JCCBI 2011) could offer
useful models. The North American Pollinator Protection
Campaign (NAPPC 2011) might also be an appropriate guide
for the necessary organisation.
The role of science
To achieve all that is required, it is clear that the scientific
community has a responsibility to support the BHI, in particular
by doing research on, for example, sustainability of harvesting
wild butterflies, on pathogens and parasitoids, and ESUs.
The species used by the BHI need to be studied in detail19,
this journal
so they can be used authoritatively to illustrate specific and
general principles in educational material. Scientists should
also cooperate in preparing exhibits and programmes about
local butterflies, assist in education, and help develop optimal
husbandry.20
Some breeders and exhibitors carry out their own research
on butterflies. There is, in fact, a considerable amount of
knowledge available from the experiences of breeders
and exhibition guides—but, unfortunately, this is rarely or
ineffectively communicated within the industry, or to the
scientific community.
The role of funding agencies
Funding agencies supporting butterfly farming projects should
not just provide money but also insist on contextual education
and training. Economic benefits that come without increasing
environmental awareness will undermine efforts to make the
BHI sustainable. There is an imperative to educate all those
involved in such initiatives, and funding agencies should
ensure that programmes and training costs are included.
The management of butterfly houses
Although butterfly houses have similarities to zoos, there
are fundamental differences in their needs for successful
management and the effective roles they can play in society,
including conservation. The direct conservation role of modern
zoos cannot be matched by the BHI (cf. Crone et al. 2007), and
regular stocking with new individual butterflies will always
be necessary. However, with respect to organisation and
cooperation there is much to be learnt from the recent changes
in zoo philosophy—notably the establishment of effective
self-regulating mechanisms through excellent international
organisation [e.g., World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
(WAZA 2011) and their member institutions], regular sharing
of information, improving husbandry, etc. It is notable that zoos
have had to change in many ways to be tolerated by modern
society, a major aim now being education (e.g., Robinson
1991; Andersen 2007).
In some countries, no permits are necessary to run a butterfly
exhibit. Often, no standards are imposed or even expected.
Even if exhibitors do not think only of generating income,
they often make insufficient educational efforts, and sometimes
reveal poor husbandry. But if a mission related to ecology and
education is omitted, and there is no conservation benefit, is
there any ethical justification for displaying live organisms
at all?
PERSPECTIVES
We anticipate that the intentional translocation of insects for
the purposes of entertainment will continue to increase, a
scenario in which the BHI will play a leading role. Moreover,
this activity will become ever more global, with insects being
moved not only from the tropics to temperate regions, but
also from country to country within the tropics. The issues
discussed in this paper will thus become ever more relevant
and even more pressing than now.
We have referred to the bastardisation (some call it
“MacDonaldisation”) of fauna and flora with the more or less
tacit assumption that this is a bad thing. There are biological
reasons to expect that increasing homogenisation will lead
to numerous extinctions. In reality, however, with respect to
plants at least, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
Ever since humans adopted agriculture and ceased to be
hunter-gatherers, intentional hybridisation, genetic mixing
(now including GMOs), and translocation of plants have
followed at an ever accelerating rate. Not only plants for food,
but also those we grow in our back yards simply for pleasure,
come from all over the world and are thrown together with
little reason or thought. Although plant translocation creates
numerous environmental problems (e.g., Brasier 2008), little
is done to stop it.
If so, what does it matter if a few of the world’s most
beautiful butterflies become feral on other continents, or have
their genomes muddled up?—after all, they evolved in natural
systems that almost everywhere are now more or less disrupted
by human activity, including the presence of numerous nonindigenous plants. In the great scheme of things, do butterflies
matter? Why should we worry about them? All we can say
in response is that, in agreement with Wilson (2003) and
numerous other commentators, we believe that all species and
natural ecosystems are valuable, and we should do all that we
reasonably can to protect them. Moreover, we do not intend to
‘defend’ this belief by resorting to economic or other utilitarian
arguments—not least because it will always be possible to
make a case that more money, or some other supposed good,
can be realised by transforming any given component of the
natural system without regard for its relationship to the whole.
The BHI presents a wonderful opportunity for spreading
environmental awareness. However, the extent to which
this promise can be made real will depend very much on
the industry rising to the challenge to engage effectively in
education, research, and conservation, and self-regulate to
minimise the environmental risks involved.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to acknowledge Mark Collins’ seminal paper on
butterfly houses in Britain (Collins 1987). Although we have
not cited his work widely, Mark anticipated a number of the
arguments and recommendations presented here, and it is
regrettable that his excellent report is so difficult to access.
If his early recommendations had been adopted at the outset,
several problems still perceived might have been avoided or
solved already.
We are very grateful to Lincoln Brower, Clive Farrell, Ottmar
Fischer, Neil Gale, Nathan Morehouse, Michael Morris, Karen
Oberhauser, Werner Schröder, Mark Scriber, Felix Sperling,
Wayne Wehling, and Klaus Wenzel for reading an initial
draft of this paper, and suggesting numerous improvements.
this journal
Dr Oberhauser, in particular, went ‘beyond the call of duty’
in not only highlighting several important problems, but also
proposing numerous editorial improvements; Dr Wehling
most kindly provided us with unpublished statistical data
from United States Department of Agriculture; and Dr Morris
suggested the creation of a Code. However, while we have
gratefully adopted several of our colleagues’ suggestions, the
views expressed here remain entirely the responsibility of the
authors. We are also indebted to four anonymous reviewers
for their constructive criticisms.
Notes
1.
It appears as though some form of centralisation of global suppliers
has now occurred, with the implication that small new enterprises may
find it difficult to join the world market without co-operation with one
or more global suppliers.
2.
In the USA alone there are 79 exhibits with tropical Lepidoptera, 44
of which run all year, and 200 butterfly gardens (Wehling pers. comm.
2011).
3.
In 2010, Costa Rica exported 350,000 pupae to the USA alone (Wehling
pers. comm. 2011), thus the real number of pupae exported from this
county must be much higher.
4.
In the context of endangered species, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) uses the terms farming and
ranching in a slightly different way (cf. Black et al. 2001).
5.
There is a suspicion that small, individual farmers extractively gather
gravid females opportunistically from the wild, rear the progeny
to the pupal stage, and then pass the pupae directly to the supplier.
Suppliers often advertise small numbers of pupae of certain species on
an occasional basis (or include them in ‘species mixes’), suggestive of
such practice.
to demonstrate that the barcode region does behave as claimed, even
when tested across as many as 1,300 species sampled from an entire
continent. Their study says nothing about variability in the nuclear genes
that exhibit polymorphism and geographical variation in most sexually
reproducing organisms.
10. Molecular studies readily reveal intraspecific differences—but these
are not necessarily ecologically significant or interpretable (Forister
et al. 2008). Although a recent molecular investigation into the longtailed blue (Lampides boeticus; one of the few widespread butterflies
not divided into subspecies) demonstrated relatively low divergence
in mitochondrial sequence data across much of its range, haplotype
variation revealed a complex history of colonisation events in
Australia (Lohman et al. 2008). Australian L. boeticus are, however,
phenotypically indistinguishable from other long-tailed blues, and the
ecological relevance of these findings is as yet unknown.
11. A similar and possibly more acute risk occurs in the UK, where the
narrowly distributed subspecies P. machaon britannicus, despite being
almost indistinguishable by colour pattern from P. machaon machaon, is
a clear example of an ESU—in this case involving changes in behaviour
and hostplant preference (Dempster et al. 1976).
12. Singapore has a rare native subspecies of Idea, I. leuconoe chersonesia,
but at the local zoo, they breed and exhibit I. leuconoe clara from
Taiwan (Khew 2009). How long before ‘escapees’ mix with the native
population, and what are the trade-routes for the many locally occurring
subspecies of I. leuconoe (cf. Figure 4)?
13. None of these species should be listed under CITES regulations or appear
on any Red List—although in Australia, a butterfly house exhibits the
CITES-listed Cairns birdwing, Ornithoptera euphorion—but it is locally
bred, used in the exhibit, and not traded.
14. The possibility of increased breeding in developing countries faces
the problem that the main international markets (e.g., USA, Europe)
are already saturated. However, breeding for local butterfly houses for
education of local people and tourists offers potential.
15. A butterfly house in Mexico is happy to state on posters that they obtain
their pupae from ‘sustainable’ farms in Costa Rica. Given the broad
overlap of the Mexican and Costa Rican neotropical faunas, but their
almost certain geographical differentiation, the risks of genetic mixing
are obvious to us, but seem totally unappreciated by those responsible—
and the valuable educational message about the differentiation of
populations is also lost.
6.
Official statistics state that during 2000–2005, Costa Rica exported
large numbers of pupae to the former Netherlands Antilles, Argentina,
Mexico, and Nicaragua, and even Philippines, South Africa, and
Singapore (Montero 2007). Tropical destinations of pupae originating
from Southeast Asia are unavailable to us.
7.
The recent establishment of the first sturmiine tachinid fly in Great
Britain might be accidental, due to climate change, or a result of BHI
activity bringing Sturmia bella-infected pupae into the country. The
Sturmiini are a tribe of mainly tropical and subtropical flies, many of
which specialise on butterflies belonging to the Nymphalidae; Sturmia
bella is known from continental Europe, Israel, and Japan and its
establishment in the UK, by whatever means, may at least be partially
responsible for the current decline of the formerly common nymphalid
Aglais urticae in southern England (Allen 2005). However, flies
currently identified as S. bella may represent more than one species.
16. “Save Homerus”, an initiative to save Papilio homerus, the largest
New World swallowtail butterfly from extinction, involves a number
of butterfly exhibitors (IABES 2011c).
Ophryocystis elektroscirrha was discovered in the monarch, a
particularly common and well-studied butterfly, only 45 years ago
(McLaughlin and Myers 1970). It is highly probable that in addition
to the few known nuclear polyhedrosis viruses, bacteria, and
microsporidian species, many more as yet totally unknown butterfly
pathogens exist.
18. Unfortunately, manuals for breeders (see for e.g., Canseco 2007;
Montero 2007) rarely address potential risks, and do not mention the
need to act sustainably and avoid risky translocations.
8.
9.
Hebert et al. (2010) reported very low levels of genetic variation in
the DNA ‘barcode’ sequence of 1,300 species of North American
Lepidoptera, with minor geographical variation in samples collected
as much as 2,800 km apart. At first sight, this appears to contradict
the assertions that high levels of genetic variability exist within most
Lepidoptera, and in most species this variation exhibits a strong
geographical component. However, the ‘barcode’ comes from CO1,
a fragment of cytochrome c oxidase 1 gene of the mitochondria, a
particular region chosen explicitly for its property of showing great
variation between species but little within, so that it can be used as a
marker for species identification. The point of Hebert et al. (2010) is
17. The authors are aware of a real case that involves breeding for the BHI
a butterfly endemic to a particular tropical island on an island nearby
where the genus, let alone the species, does not naturally occur. There
is mounting evidence that, due to inadequate containment, the butterfly
is now established and spreading. No harm was intended—but that
does not make it better. Ignorance and incompetence are parents of
many a disaster.
19. Brewster and Otis (2009) quantified differences in suitability, in terms of
behavioural traits and longevity, of a number of different butterfly species
used within the BHI. From their data, together with a knowledge of the
prices charged per species, they derived a cost-effectiveness index, or
“relative suitability score”. This index varied over 200-fold across the
species studied. The authors noted that “exhibitors can maximize adult
butterfly life span by ensuring that diet requirements are met” (Brewster
and Otis 2009: 113). Despite this, no attempt appears to have been made
to control for these or other animal husbandry variables (light levels,
humidity, temperature, etc.) affecting the particular butterflies and
butterfly house on which their observations were based. Even so, this
work offers a step towards a more quantitative approach to assessing the
suitability of different species. Additional research is needed to establish
the environmental optima of a wide range of those species regularly
this journal
used by the industry, which will not only offer a basis for improving
animal husbandry, but also provide a more rigorous basis on which to
make performance comparisons.
20. A concrete issue, at first sight minor but now emerging as an acute
problem, is the often provisional and seemingly endless change of
scientific names applied to species. Even the flagship of the BHI, the
Morpho species widely known as M. peleides, has recently suffered
a name change in some scientific literature (notably, Lamas 2004), a
change which is now causing confusion not only for import and export
regulations, but also the preparation of educational materials, dealers
lists, and access to information in books. As science progresses, revision
of particular names from time to time becomes essential, but the present
free-for-all of the distributed taxonomic system (Vane-Wright 2003)
is increasingly irresponsible in our ‘information age’ (Scoble 2004).
Self-regulating groups are beginning to emerge willing to challenge
this problem in a constructive way. For example, the names committee
system developed by NABA for North American butterflies (Cassie et
al. 2001.) could act as a model—and this would necessarily involve
cooperation with butterfly taxonomists and other scientists. Similarly,
a group is required to establish protocols for ‘safe’ trading destinations
for reciprocal use by suppliers and exhibitors.
REFERENCES
Aardema, M.L., J.M. Scriber and J.J. Hellman. 2011. Considering local
adaptation in issues of lepidopteran conservation—a review and
recommendations. American Midland Naturalist 165: 294–303.
Ackery, P.R., C.R. Smith and R.I. Vane-Wright (eds.). 1995. Carcasson’s
African butterflies: An annotated catalogue of the Papilionoidea and
Hesperioidea of the Afrotropical region. East Melbourne: CSIRO.
Actias. Forum und Internetbörse für Insekten und Spinnen. 2011. http://www.
actias.de. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Allen, A.A. 2005. The recent occurrence of Sturmia bella (Meigen) (Diptera:
Tachinidae) in south-west England, including rearings from two host
species of Nymphalidae. British Journal of Entomology and Natural
History 18: 269–270.
Altizer, S.M. and K.S. Oberhauser. 1999. Effects of the protozoan parasite
Ophryocystis elektroscirrha on the fitness of monarch butterflies
(Danaus plexippus). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 74: 76–88.
Altizer, S. and J. de Roode. 2010. When butterflies get bugs: the ABCs of
lepidopteran disease. American Butterflies (Summer): 16–26.
Andersen, L.L. 2007. Zoo education: from formal school programmes to
exhibit design and interpretation. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 78–81.
Anonymous. 2011. http://www.butterflies.lv. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Beltrán, M., A.V.Z. Brower and C. Jiggins. 2011. Heliconius.
Longwings or passion-flower butterflies. http://tolweb.org/
Heliconius/72231/2010.07.21. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Bijleveld, C. and M. McField. 2006. Report on 10 years activities in Belize
(Central America). Belize City: International Tropical Conservation
Foundation and Shipstern Nature Reserve. http://www.shipstern.org/
CMS/default.asp?ID=139. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Black, S.H., M. Shepard and M.M. Allen. 2001. Endangered invertebrates:
the case for greater attention to invertebrate conservation. Endangered
Species Update 18: 42–50.
Boggs, C.L., C.E. Holdren, I.G. Kulahci, T.C. Bonebrake, B.D. Inouye, J.P.
Fay, J.P. McMillan, et al. 2006. Delayed population explosion of an
introduced butterfly. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 466–475.
Bradley, C.A. and S. Altizer. 2005. Parasites hinder monarch butterfly flight:
implications for disease spread in migratory hosts. Ecology Letters 8:
290–300.
Entomology 102: 105–114.
Brower, L.P., L.S. Fink, A.V.Z. Brower, K. Leong, K. Oberhauser, S. Altizer,
O. Taylor, et al. 1995. On the dangers of interpopulational transfers of
monarch butterflies. BioScience 45: 540–544.
Brower, L.P., L.S. Fink, A.V.Z. Brower, K. Leong, K. Oberhauser, S. Altizer,
O. Taylor, et al. 1996. Reply to Keiper. BioScience 46: 563–564.
Brower, L.P., K.S. Oberhauser, M. Boppré, A.V.Z. Brower and R.I. VaneWright. 2007. Monarch sex: ancient rites, or recent wrongs? Antenna
31: 12–18.
Buschinger, A. 2004. International pet ant trade: increasing risk and danger
in Europe (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Aliens Newsletter 19/20: 24–26.
Canseco, A.J.M.D. 2007. Mariposas. Guía Para el Manejo Sustentable
de las Mariposas del Perú. http://www.iiap.org.pe/Publicaciones/
PublicacionesMostrar.aspx?PublicacionesId=329&TabId=5. Accessed
on April 3, 2011.
Cassie, B., J. Glassberg, A. Swengel and G. Tudor. 2001. North American
Butterfly Association (NABA). Checklist and English names of North
American butterflies. 2nd edition. Morristown, NJ: North American
Butterfly Association.
Center for Ecoliteracy. 2011. www.ecoliteracy.org. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Collins, N.M. 1987. Butterfly houses in Britain: the conservation implications.
Report to the Nature Conservancy Council, Department of the
Environment and World Wildlife Fund (UK). Cambridge: IUCN.
Crandall, K.A., O.R.P. Bininda-Emonds, G.M. Mace and R.K. Wayne. 2000.
Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 15: 290–295.
Crone, E.E., D. Pickering and C.B. Schultz. 2007. Can captive rearing
promote recovery of endangered butterflies? An assessment in the face
of uncertainty. Biological Conservation 139: 103–112.
Davis, F.M. and A. Lawrence. 2006. Prevention and management of microbial
diseases of insects being reared under laboratory environments.
http:// butterflybreeders.com/public/health/disease_prevention_and_
management.html. Accessed April 3, 2011.
Dempster, J.P., M.L. King and K.H. Lakhani.1976. The status of the
swallowtail butterfly in Britain. Ecological Entomology 1: 71–84.
de Roode, J.C., A.B. Pedersen, M.D. Hunter and S. Altizer. 2008a. Host plant
species affects virulence in monarch butterfly parasites. Journal of
Animal Ecology 77: 120–126.
de Roode, J.C., A.J. Yates and S. Altizer. 2008b. Virulence-transmission tradeoffs and population divergence in virulence in a naturally occurring
butterfly parasite. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105: 7489–7494.
Descimon, H. and J. Mallet. 2009. Bad species. In: Ecology of butterflies in
Europe (eds. Settele J., T. Shreeve, M. Konvika and H. Van Dyck). Pp.
219–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, D. 2004. Butterfly farming proves worth a flutter. BBC News: http://
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3569164.stm. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
EBN (El Bosque Nuevo) 2011. Welcome to El Bosque Nuevo – Butterfly
pupae from Costa Rica. http://www.elbosquenuevo.org/. Accessed on
April 3, 2011.
Elkinton, J.S. and G.H. Boettner. 2004. The effects of Compsilura concinnata,
an introduced generalist tachinid, on non-target species in North America:
a cautionary tale. In: Assessing host ranges for parasitoids and predators
used for classical biological control: A guide to best practice (eds. Van
Driesche, R.G., T. Murray and R. Reardon). Pp. 4–14. Morgantown,
WV: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Health Technology
Enterprise Team. FHTET-2004-03. http:// www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/
technology/pub_titles.shtml. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Brasier, C.M. 2008. The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment
from international trade in plants. Plant Pathology 57: 792–808.
Eller, K. 1936. Die Rassen von Papilio machaon L. Abhandlungen
der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Abteilung. Neue Folge 36: 96 pp., 16 pls.
Brewster, A.L.E. and G.W. Otis. 2009. A protocol for evaluating costeffectiveness of butterflies in live exhibits. Journal of Economic
ELG (Entomological Livestock Group). 2011. http://www.pwbelg.clara.net.
Accessed on April 3, 2011.
this journal
Federman, A. 2008. All aflutter. The flap over the mail order butterfly industry.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/all_aflutter/.
Forister, M.L., C.C. Nice, J.A. Fordyce, Z. Gompert and A.M. Shapiro. 2008.
Considering evolutionary processes in the use of single-locus genetic
data for conservation, with examples from the Lepidoptera. Journal of
Insect Conservation 12: 37–51.
FEE (Foundation for Environmental Education). 2010. http://www.feeinternational.org/en. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Fraser, D.J. and L. Bernatchez. 2001. Adaptive evolutionary conservation:
towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Molecular
Ecology 10: 2741–2752.
Garraway, E., C.P. Murphy and G.A. Allen. 2009. Papilio demoleus (the lime
swallowtail) in Jamaica, a potential pest of citrus, expanding its range
in the Caribbean. Tropical Lepidoptera 19: 58–59.
Gilbert, L. 2003. Adaptive novelty through introgression in Heliconius wing
patterns: evidence for a shared genetic “toolbox” from synthetic hybrid
zones and a theory of diversification. In: Butterflies: Ecology and
evolution taking flight (eds. Boggs, C.L., W.B. Watt and P.R. Ehrlich).
Pp. 281–318, 6 pls. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Glassberg, J., P. Opler, R.M. Pyle, R. Robbins and J. Tuttle. 1998. There’s no
need to release butterflies – they’re already free. http://www.naba.org/
weddings.html. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Goh, D. 2007. Roles of butterfly farms and breeding for conservation of
Lepidoptera. In: Proceedings of the First South East Asian Lepidoptera
Conservation Symposium, Hong Kong 2006 (ed. Kendrick, R.C.).
Pp. 101–107. Hong Kong: Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden. http://
hkmoths.webs.com/SEALCS_2006_proceedings.pdf. Accessed on
April 3, 2011.
Gordon, I. and W. Ayiemba. 2003. Harnessing butterfly biodiversity for
improving livelihoods and forest conservation: the Kipepeo Project.
Journal of Environment and Development 12: 82–98.
Haeger, J.F., D. Jordano and M.L. Meléndez. 2011. Status and conservation
of Asclepiadaceae and Danaus in southern Spain. Journal of Insect
Conservation 15: 361–365.
Heal, H.G. 1973. An experiment in conservation education: the Drum Manor
butterfly garden. International Journal of Environmental Studies 4:
223–229.
development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S. 2009. A biocultural basis for an environmental ethic. In: The coming
transformation. Values to sustain human and natural communities (eds.
Kellert, S.R. and J.G. Speth). Pp. 21–38. New Haven, CT: Yale School
of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Kellert, S. and E.O. Wilson. 1993. The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Kenis, M., M.A. Auger-Rozenberg, A. Roques, L. Timms, C. Péré, M.J.W.
Cock, J. Settele, et al. 2009. Ecological effects of invasive alien insects.
Biological Invasions 11: 21–45.
Khew, S.K. 2009. New taxon for Malaysia. Discovery of a new butterfly
species on Pulau Langkawi – Dryas iulia. Butterflies of Singapore.
http://butterflycircle.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-taxon-for-malaysia.
html. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Kitching, I.J. and J.M. Cadiou. 2000. Hawkmoths of the world. An annotated
and illustrated revisionary checklist (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kozak, K.H., A.B. Russell and A. Larson. 2006. Gene lineages and eastern
North American paleodrainage basins: phylogeography and speciation
in salamanders of the Eurycea bislineata species complex. Molecular
Ecology 15: 191–207.
Küppers, P.V. 2007. Ist Dryas iulia (Fabricius, 1775) mittlerweile ein fester
Bestandteil der thailändischen Lepidopterenfauna? (Lepidoptera,
Nymphalidae). Atalanta 38: 325–328.
Lamas, G. 2004. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera: Checklist 4a: Hesperoidea–
Papilionoidea. Gainesville, CA: Scientific Publishers.
Lewis, O.T. and C.D. Thomas. 2001. Adaptations to captivity in the butterfly
Pieris brassicae (L.) and the implications for ex situ conservation.
Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 55–63.
Lohman, D.J., D. Peggie, N.E. Pierce and R. Meier. 2008. Phylogeography
and genetic diversity of a widespread Old World butterfly, Lampides
boeticus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 301.
Lovei, G.L. 1997. Global change through invasion. Nature 388: 627–628.
Mallet, J. 2005. Artificially produced hybrids between species and races of
Heliconius butterflies. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/hyb/artif/artifhyb.
Hebert, P.D.N., J.R. deWaard and J.F. Landry. 2010. DNA barcodes for 1/1000
of the animal kingdom. Biology Letters 6: 359–362.
Malo, F. and E.R. Willis. 1961. Life history and biological control of Caligo
eurilochus, a pest of banana. Journal of Economic Entomology 54:
530–536.
Hughes, D.G. and P.M. Bennett. 1991. Captive breeding and the conservation
of invertebrates. International Zoo Yearbook 30: 45–51.
Manos-Jones, M. 2000. The spirit of butterflies. Myth, magic, and art. New
York, NY: Abrams.
Hutton, A.F. 1985. Butterfly farming in Papua New Guinea. Oryx 19: 158–162.
Mathew G. and M. Anto. 2007. In situ conservation of butterflies through
establishment of butterfly gardens: a case study at Peechi, Kerala, India.
Current Science 93: 337–347.
IABES (International Association of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers).
2002–2011. IABES Newsletter International Flutterings. http://iabes.
org/newsletters.htm. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
2011a. http://www.iabes.org. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
2011b. http://www.iabes.org/bylaws.htm. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
IABES (International Association of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers). 2011c.
http://iabes.org/IABES-conservation.htm. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
IBBA (International Butterfly Breeders Association). 2011. http://
butterflybreeders.org. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Janz, N. 2003. Sex-linkage of host plant use in butterflies. In: Butterflies:
Ecology and evolution taking flight (eds. Boggs, C.L., P.R. Ehrlich and
W.B. Watt). Pp. 229–239. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
JCCBI (Invertebrate Link). 2011. http:/www.royensoc.co.uk/InvLink/Index.
Joron, M. and P.M. Brakefield. 2003. Captivity masks inbreeding effects on
male mating success in butterflies. Nature 424: 191–194.
Keiper, J.B. 1996. Monarch transfer: a real concern? BioScience 46: 562.
Kellert, S. 1997. Kinship to mastery. Biophilia in human evolution and
McLaughlin, R.E. and J. Myers. 1970. Ophryocystis elektroscirrha sp. n., a
neogregarine pathogen of the Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus (L.)
and the Florida Queen butterfly D. gilippus berenice Cramer. Journal
of Protozoology 17: 300–305.
Mercader, R.J. and J.M. Scriber. 2007. Diversification of host use in two
polyphagous butterflies: differences in oviposition specificity or host
rank hierarchy? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 125: 89–101.
Montero, J.R. 2007. Manual Para el Manejo de Mariposarios. Santo Domingo
de Heredia, Costa Rica: Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio).
Moreau, S. 1999. Butterfly releases unjustly maligned. http://butterflywebsite.
com/farming/smrebuttal.htm. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Morgan-Brown, T. 2007. Butterfly farming and conservation behavior in the
East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. M.Sc. thesis. University of
Florida, Gainesville, USA. http://www.equatorinitiative.org/images/
stories/2006winner/Amani_Butterfly/butterfly_farming_amani.pdf.
Morishita, K. 1985. Part II: Danaidae. In: Butterflies of the South-East Asian
islands (ed. Tsukada, E.). Volume II. Pp. 439–598, pls 85–162. Tokyo:
Plapac.
this journal
Morris, M.G. 1987. Changing attitudes to nature conservation: the
entomological perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
32: 213–223.
Morris, M.G., N.M. Collins, R.I. Vane-Wright and J. Waage. 1991. The
utilization and value of non-domesticated insects. In: The conservation
of insects and their habitats (eds. Collins, M.R. and J.A. Thomas). Pp.
319–347. London: Academic Press.
New, T.R. 1994. Butterfly ranching: sustainable use of insects and sustainable
benefit to habitats. Oryx 28: 169–172.
New, T.R. 2008. Are butterfly releases at weddings a conservation concern or
opportunity? Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 93–95.
NAPPC (North American Pollinator Protection Campaign). 2011. http://www.
pollinator.org. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Orr, D.W. 2004. Earth in mind. On education, environment, and the human
prospect. 10th anniversary edition. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Orsak, L. 1993. Killing butterflies to save butterflies: a tool for tropical forest
conservation in Papua New Guinea. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society
3/1993: 71–80.
Parsons, M. 1992. Butterfly farming and conservation in the Indo-Australian
region. Tropical Lepidoptera 3(Suppl. 1): 1–31.
Saul-Gershenz, L. 2009. Insect zoos. In: Encyclopedia of insects (eds. Resh,
W. and R. Cardé). Pp. 516–523. Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Scoble, M.J. 2004. Unitary or unified taxonomy? Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society London B 359: 699–710.
Singer, P. 1981. The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. New York,
NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Singer, M.C. and C.D. Thomas. 1996. Evolutionary responses of a butterfly
metapopulation to human and climate-caused environmental variation.
American Naturalist 148: S9–S39.
Smith, M.A., J.J. Rodriguez, J.B. Whitfield, A.R. Deans, D.H. Janzen, W.
Hallwachs and P.D.N. Hebert. 2008. Extreme diversity of tropical
parasitoid wasps exposed by interative integration of natural history,
DNA barcoding, morphology, and collections. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 105: 12359–12364.
Smith, C.R. and R.I. Vane-Wright. 2008. Classification, nomenclature and
identification of lime swallowtail butterflies: a post-cladistic analysis
(Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Systematics and Biodiversity 6: 175–203.
Smith, M.A., D.M. Wood, D.H. Janzen, W. Hallwachs and P.D.N. Hebert. 2007.
DNA barcodes affirm that 16 species of apparently generalist tropical
parasitoid flies (Diptera, Tachinidae) are not all generalists. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 4967–4972.
Peggie, D., A. Rawlins and R.I. Vane-Wright. 2005. An illustrated checklist
of the papilionid butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae) of northern and
central Maluku, Indonesia. Nachrichten des entomologischen Vereins
Apollo, N.F. 26(1/2): 41–60.
Sperling, F.A.H. and R.G. Harrison. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA variation
within and between species of the Papilio machaon group of swallowtail
butterflies. Evolution 48: 408–422.
Prchal, S.J. 1991. Sonoran Arthropod Studies, Inc: a new concept in
environmental education. International Zoo Yearbook 30: 40–45.
Stone, M.K. and Z. Barlow (eds.). 2005. Ecological literacy. Educating our
children for a sustainable world. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Pyle, M. 2010. Under their own steam: the biogeographic case against butterfly
releases. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society 52: 54–57.
Stone, M.K. and Center for Ecoliteracy. 2009. Smart by nature. Schooling for
sustainability. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media.
Pyle, M., S.J. Jepsen, S.H. Black and M. Monroe. 2010. Xerces Society policy
on butterfly releases. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/
xerces-butterfly-release-policy.pdf. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
Tanaka, S., T. Nishida and N. Ohsaki. 2007. Sequential rapid adaptation of
indigenous parasitoid wasps to the invasive butterfly Pieris brassicae.
Evolution 61: 1791–1802.
Quacchia, A., C. Ferracini, S. Bonelli, E. Balletto and A. Alma. 2008. Can
the geranium bronze, Cycyreus marshalli, become a threat for European
biodiversity? Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 1429–1437.
Toone, W.D. 1990. Butterfly exhibitry. International Zoo Yearbook 29: 61–65.
Reitz, S.R. and J.T. Trumble. 2002. Competitive displacement among insects
and arachnids. Annual Review of Entomology 47: 435–465.
Reppert, S.M., R.J. Gegear and C. Merlin. 2010. Navigational mechanisms
of migrating monarch butterflies. Trends in Neuroscience 33: 399–406.
Reynolds, H.L., E.S. Brondizio and J.M. Robinson. 2010. Teaching
environmental literacy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Rios, A.A. 2002. Flying North: potential roles of North American butterfly
houses in promoting sustainable economic activities and conservation.
M.Sc. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
Rivers, C.F. 1991. The control of diseases in insect cultures. International
Zoo Yearbook 30: 131–137.
Robinson, M.H. 1991. Invertebrates: exhibiting the silent majority.
International Zoo Yearbook 30: 1–7.
UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme - World
Conservation Monitoring Centre). 2007. Review of trade in ranched
birdwing butterflies. http://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/
review_butterflies.pdf. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
van der Heyden, T. 1992. “Butterfly houses” – a chance for the conservation
of European butterflies, education and research. In: Future of butterflies
in Europe: Strategies for survival (eds. Pavlicek-van Beek, T., A.H.
Ovaa and J.G. van der Made). Pp. 315–318. Wageningen: Department
of Nature Conservation, Agricultural University.
Vane-Wright, R.I. 2003. Indifferent philosophy versus almighty authority:
on consistency, consensus and unitary taxonomy. Systematics and
Biodiversity 1: 3–11.
Wagner, D., F. Sperling and B. Walsh. 2011. More on butterfly releases. News
of the Lepidopterists’ Society 52: 87–88.
Wilson, E.O. 2003. The future of life. New York, NY: Random House.
Sambhu, H. and T. van der Heyden. 2010. Sustainable butterfly farming in
tropical developing countries as an opportunity for man and nature-the
“Kawê Amazonica Butterfly Farm” project in Guyana as an example
(Insecta: Lepidoptera). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología 38:
451–456.
Woodworth, L.M., M.E. Montgomery, D.A. Briscoe and R. Frankham.
2002. Rapid genetic deterioration in captive populations: causes and
conservation implications. Conservation Genetics 3: 277–288.
SASI (Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute). 2011. http:www.sasionline.org.
Zanzibar Butterfly Centre. 2011. http://www.zanzibarbutterflies.com/
zanzibarbutterfa.html. Accessed on April 3, 2011.
WAZA (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums). 2011. http://www.waza.
com. Accessed on April 3, 2011.

The Butterfly House Industry - India Environment Portal | News

Transcription

Similar documents

LITTLE WONDERS LEARNING CENTER

NOMOLOGY NOTES

painted lady butterfly

Three Butterflies brochure

IBBA 2008 - The Butterfly Boutique

Antenna 35 (2) - Neotropical Butterfly Park

Philippines Butterfliesof the

Butterfly and Moth Life Cycles

Laudato Si workbook for KIDS

Understanding the Lifecycle of a Butterfly