The Butterflies of the Canary Islands Â€“ a Field Guide Plus

International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology ISSN: 2639-216X MEDWIN PUBLISHERS Committed to Create Value for Researchers

The Butterflies of the Canary Islands – A Field Guide Plus

Russell P* Book Review Oakmeadow, Wessex Avenue, East Wittering, UK Volume 4 Issue 3

Received Date: April 17, 2021 *Corresponding author: Peter Russell, Oakmeadow, Wessex Avenue, East Wittering, West Published Date: May 20, 2021 Sussex PO20 8NP, UK, Email: [email protected] DOI: 10.23880/izab-16000303

Abstract

This book is lacking in scientific accuracy, particularly with reference to the use of parentheses for the authorities of specific names which does not follow the international code. With the exception of those of the endemic species the photographs are of mainland European specimens, many repeated from previous publications by this author. The book consists mainly of extracts of the works of previous researchers much of which is irrelevant to the Canary Islands. Many of the quoted research articles role, prospective purchasers beware. and books are absent from the bibliography. This book purports to be a field guide; however, it really does not at all fulfil this

Keywords:

Butterflies; Life Cycle; Morocco; Islands; Canary Book Review After a chapter entitled ‘butterflies and their life cycle’, about which there is very little, merely consisting of the This is the fourth book by this author that, the Reviewer Holt White extract and that from Searle (2000) [4] which has read and reviewed [1,2]. The preface includes the has nothing in it about life cycles, there is a chapter entitled following line – “There has never been a butterfly field ‘An introduction to the Canary Islands’ including some guide like this one for the Canary Islands or, for that matter, photographs, all courtesy of Martin Wiemers, except some anywhere in the world” – how true, since this book bears commentfrom Tenerife on thetaken accompanying by the author. maps Then is follows appropriate information here. no resemblance whatsoever to a ‘field guide’. The very about each species ‘recorded’ from the archipelago; a essence of a field guide is that it should be a short concise by crosshatching the entire island, very misleading. Secondly, description of the species recorded, detailing the specific Firstly, a single report of a species from an island is exemplified stageswing morphological and their host-plants characters together that distinguish with the themhabitat from in closely related species, an indication of the form of early it would have been helpful to indicate on the same scale the presence of the coast of Morocco, since Fuerteventura is which they are likely to be encountered. This lack of detail only marginally further from this coast than it is from Gran may be exemplified as follows: the author has included an Canaria. Also, the author has no idea of when authorities excerpt from Holt White (1894) [3], freely available on the and dates of publication should be in parentheses. For the internet: pages 1-28 of this book are reproduced together placedbenefit in of parentheses readers who when may the not species be aware name of theconcerned correct with plates 1, 2 and 3 (the butterflies – plate 4 is moths) but isprocedure: not currently authorities in the genus and dates in which of publication it was placed should when be guide,the page has (108)been omitted, in which leaving the identifications the reader at ofa loss the to figured know whatbutterflies species were were provided, represented of obvious in the plates. importance in a field Butler described C. marshalli in its present genus Cacyreus, originally described. For example '(Butler 1897)' (sic) [5] ,

The Butterflies of the Canary Islands – A Field Guide Plus Int J Zoo Animal Biol 2 International Journal of Zoology and Animal Biology

'Vanessa vulcania thus no parentheses are required; similarly consists entirely of quotations from the work of others, (Godart, 1896)'Vanessa (sic), braziliensis should be simply ‘Godart, 1896’. The mostly, with the exception of those of Martin Wiemers, author also has a problem with dates: for example the carriedfollowed out by no derogatory research commentswhatsoever, by as theopposed author to who some it authority of is given as '(Moore, 1838)' researchers,appears has including only visited the Tenerife Reviewer, on who a single have occasion spent many and (sic)– correctly in parentheses –V. but braziliensis Frederick was Moore actually was months and visited all the islands in the Archipelago. Once not born until 1830 – either a very precocious child or an incorrect date, in fact the latter. author includes Pieris wollastoni described in 1883. Prpic (sic) (1999) [6], obviously from again most of this section is irrelevant to a field guide. The where the author obtained his information, made the same (Butler, 1886) based on error! (See references) the indication of its presence by Holt White [3] who figured V. a specimen (Figure 1); howeverP. wollastoni it has and been is merely noted already a small vulcaniaJust some examplesColias of croceus. why this book cannot . beV. Russell, TennentPieris & cheiranthi Hall (2003) [8] that this does not have the consideredvulcania as a field guide, the Reviewer has chosen distinguishing characters of Godart and (Geoffroy, 1785) speciesexample areof named and included. In the Euchloeintroduction grancanariensis to the “The is given 19 pagesVanessa (182-200), atalanta in which there is not a Euchloe ‘complex’ in the Canary Islands” (p. 314), the three single mention of how this species can be distinguished from the fairly similar species, (Linnaeus, 1758) Acosta, 2008, for which the authority wasGonepteryx given as cleobule ‘Acosta also found in the Canaries; it simply consists of swathes of Back’; the Reviewer can see no apparent reason for this error. long extracts from other researchers, which have little or Again the 21 pages (328-348) on the “ no relevance in a field guide.V. vulcania It is noted that Marie-Rose complex”, with the authority spelt ‘Huebner’ instead of the suchHaccour a shame (sic) hasthat at the last author been acknowledgedcould not be bothered (p. 5) for even her correct (Hübner [1831])*, consists almost entirely of swathes excellent photographs of and its earlyC. croceus stages; of other researchers work, with the occasional comment Pierisby the cheiranthi author. None of this is relevant to a field guide. The to get her name correct (Rose-Marie Haccour). authorReviewer obviously is at a loss thought to know this why species Chapter to be 12 an is enigma. entitled What ‘The has been accorded 9 pages (288-296), which include some enigma’ but it has occupied 16 pages so the observations worthy of comment. One wonders why the P. wollastoni, cheiranthi author considers that the Canary Island archipelago consists was needed for a and field brassicae guide was simply a comparison, with of of only 7 islands,C. croceus,whereas Euchloe in fact therecharlonia are 9 islands (plus adjacentthe distinguishing photographs. characteristics of andseveral Vanessa rocky cardui islets), Graciosa and Alegranza appear to have (Hübner, 1808) (Linnaeus, 1758) been forgotten. th (Donzel, 1842) (Linnaeus, 1758) were observed by the Reviewer on Graciosa on 15 February 2000 (Gascoigne- Pees et al., 2002) [7]; the lack of any mention of this island is odd since this reference is actually in the author’s list. Extracts from Holt White (1894), South (1906), Henriksen and Kreutzer (1982), Woronik (2017) and Frey and Heyland (2011), the latter four being absent from the references, take up the majority of the text. Again the author has included the statement: “NoColias work, croceus astonishingly wings….”. (well It is none a pity published that the anyway) has been undertaken into the ultraviolet reflectance Revieweror otherwise has of commented previously that there are many author does not read the reviews of his previous C.books, croceus the, references to work on ultraviolet reflections in Colias including Brunton & Majerus (1995). The work of Silberglied & Taylor (1978) (not in the references) on Nearctic species is hardly relevant to a field guide to the butterflies of the Canaries. It is noted that the C. author croceus had the gall to reference himself '(Payne, 2019)' as the person responsible for the work on the ‘yellow form’ of found in the Azores carried out by Russell, Tennent & Hall (2003) [8] over a number of years. Hipparchia Figure 1: Specimen.

The 63 pages (221-283) on the ‘ complex’

cleobule is based the majority have been supplied by Matthew Rowlings and Some comments on the specimen figures: as previously *The date of Hübner’s description of on Wiemers, et al. [9] it contrasts with others such as 1824 oneare mostly suspects of mainlandthat the author European wishes origin. the Itreader is a great to think pity that (Wikipedia, accessed 23.09.2020) and 1830 (Lepidoptera. the origins of the specimens photographedCacyreus are not marshalli shown; eu., accessedReferences 23.09.2020). they are all of Canarian origin. Those of 1. Callophrysfor example, rubi the bottom right hand, which photo presently could have does been not labelled as originating in Gran Canaria. The photographs of Russell PJC (2020a) Book Review: The 71: Ecology, 68-72. (Linnaeus,Lampides 1758)boeticus; Biogeography and Speciation of the Butterflies of Cabo occur on Leptotes the islands, pirithous are all of mainland European the central origin 2. Verde by Mark Payne. Entomologist’s Gazette as are those of (Linnaeus, 1767); of Russell PJC (2020b) Book Review: The Butterflies of the those of (Linnaeus,Polyommatus 1767) celina Madeiran Islands Nowhere to retreat to A Field Guide left is from Fuerteventura. The Reviewer is pleased to do Funchal 70: 21-26. plus by Mark Payne. Boletim Museu de História Natural seesuch that as Thymelicus the photographs christi of Pararge xiphioides (Austaut, 1879) were taken in the Canaries; those of the endemics 3. Rebel, 1894, Holt White AE (1894) The Butterflies and Moths of Staudinger, 1871. (both erroneously placed in parentheses colour plates pp: 108. Teneriffe. L. Reeves & Co. Covent Garden, London, plus 4 Danausby the author),chrysippus and f. alcippu the five Hipparchia species was taken must in of necessity have been of Canarian origin. The photograph of s (Cramer, 1777) 4. Searle S (2000) Tenerife – A collector’s tale. Bulletin of Tenerife and features in the article on Tenerife in the Insect the Amateur Entomological Society 59:111-114. Collectors Forum;Lampides one wonders, boeticus , asD. chrysippus it is not referenced,, D. plexippus, if permission has been, Hypolimnas obtained from misippus the copyright holder. The, 5. Butler AG (1897) On three consignments of Butterflies Vanessaphotographs atalanta of , V. cardui , V. virginiensis, collected in Natal in 1896 and 1897. by Guy AK Marshall, (Linnaeus, 1758), V. vulcania, Catopsilia florella (Linnaeus, 1764) FZS. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London , Colias croceus, Pontia (Linnaeus, daplidice 1758) 6. plus 1 colour plate (unpaginated) 65(4): 835-857. (Drury,and Pieris 1773) brassicae (Fabricius, 1775)previous volumes. The Reviewer thinks that (Linnaeus, it would 1758) have Prpić NM (1999)NachrBl Vanessa bayer braziliensis Ent Moore, 1838: are identical to those from the authors Faunal element of the Canary Islands? (Lepidoptera, 7. Nymphalidae). 48(3/4): 109-111. been more appropriate to have provided photographs of at tailed Blue Leptotes pirithous the archipelagos under consideration. Gascoigne Pees M, Hall D, Russell P (2002) Lang’s Short- least different specimens, if not specimens originating from (L.) (Lep.: Lycaenidae) and Finally, the Reviewer considers that despite the other butterflies on Lanzarote. Entomologist’s Record 8. and Journal of Variation 114: 113-115. the content would probably reduce by a third, this book is in Colias crocea enormous input from Martin Wiemers, without which Russell PJC, Tennent WJ, Hall D (2003) Polymorphism (Geoffroy, 1785) from the Azores, with certainly not a field guide. The quotes from him have also a description of a new form and notes on its frequency, been used extensively in the past much to the annoyance of genetics and distribution. Entomologists’ Gazette 54: givenDr. Wiemers. any control who by despite the author the claims lead directly of the toauthor the breaches did not 9. 143-152. peer review thecf. books. The fact that Dr. Wiemers was not Wiemers M, Balletto E, Dincă V, Fric ZF, Lamas G, et al. relativeof copyright to other similar Russell species [2]. The when contents they are of cohabiting a field guide on (2018) An updated checklist of the European Butterflies should, as a minimum, have descriptions of the species (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) Zookeys 811: 9-45. the islands, this is entirely absent from this book. It is way too heavy and large for a field guide which should fit into one’s pocket. The Reviewer does not recommend this book for the above reasons and also there are too many errors and omissions, particularly of research articles quoted in the text which are not to be found in the ‘Bibliography and Further Reading’. Even the reference to this book is incorrect in both its title (there is no mention of ‘field guide plus’) and number of pages (given as 250, actually 417).