Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 15–27 | Cite as

REVIEW: The recent distribution of the European Maculinea species

  • Irma Wynhoff
Article

Abstract

The genus Maculinea is confined to the Palaearctic region. Four species occur from Central Europe to China and/or Japan, while M. rebeli is probably restricted to Europe. Although within many Western European countries the distribution of the species is well known, there are still many questions. The exact status of some of the species is still unclear and the amount of decline in this century is unknown. In Asia, especially within the nations of the former USSR, the distributions of species are even less well known and as a basis for good research and effective nature conservation, knowledge on these subjects is needed. © Rapid Science Ltd. 1998

Maculinea distribution decline status. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bálint, Z. (1985) Maculinea alcon limitanea nov. ssp. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from Transsylvania, Rumania. Galathea 1(3), 62–74.Google Scholar
  2. Bálint, Z. (1986) Further studies on Maculinea alcon (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Galathea 2(4), 92–106.Google Scholar
  3. Bálint, Z. (1991a) New data to the Lycaenidae Fauna of Mongolia (Lycaenidae of Mongolia VII). Galathea 7(4), 153–6.Google Scholar
  4. Bálint, Z. (1991b) Conservation of Butterflies in Hungary. Oedippus 3, 5–36.Google Scholar
  5. Bálint, Z. (1993) The threatened lycaenids of the Carpathian basin, east-central Europe. In Conservation Biology of Lycaenidae (Butterflies) (T.R. New, ed.). Report IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 8. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  6. Balletto, E. (1992) Butterflies in Italy: status, problems and prospect. In Future of Butterflies in Europe: strategies for survival (T. Pavlicek-van Beek, A.H. Ovaa and J.G. van der Made, eds) Proceedings of the International Congress 1989. Wageningen: Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  7. Bayerisches Landesamt för Umweltschutz (1995) Artenschutzkartierung Bayern – Maculinea nausithous1Maculinea teleius. Ortsbezogene Nachweise, Stand 18.5.1995.Google Scholar
  8. Blab, J., Nowak, E., Trautmann, W. and Sukopp, H. (1992) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Tieren und Pflanzen in der Bunderrepublik Deutschland. Naturschutz aktuell. Greven: Kilda-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Buszko, J. (1997) Atlas rozmieszczenia motyli dziennych w Polsce. Torún: Turpress.Google Scholar
  10. Dolek, M., Geyer, A. and Bolz, R. (1998) Distribution of Maculinea rebeli and hostplant use on sites along the river Danube. J. Ins. Conserv. 2, 85–93.Google Scholar
  11. Ebert, G. and Rennwald, K. (1991) Die Schmetterlings Baden-Wörttembergs. Band 2: Tagfalter II. Stuttgart: Verlag Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar
  12. Elmes, G.W. and Thomas, J.A. (1992) Complexity of species conservation in managed habitats: interaction between Maculinea butterflies and their host ants. Biodivers. Conserv. 1, 155–69.Google Scholar
  13. Fernández-Rubio, F. (1991) Guía de mariposas diurnas de la Península Ibérica, Baleares, Canarias, Azores y Madeira. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, K. and Kunz, M. (1994) Grönlandleitarten des Westerwaldes – Verbreitung, Lebensraumanspröche, Gefährdung, Schutz. Nassau: Internal Report Landesamt för Umweltschutz und Gewerbeaufsicht Rheinland-Pfalz (unpublished).Google Scholar
  15. Fukuda, H., Hama, E., Kuzuya, T., Takahashi, A., Takahashi, M., Tanaka, B., Tanaka, H., Wakabayashi, M. and Watanabe, Y. (1992) The Life Histories of Butterflies in Japan. Vol. III. Osaka: Hoikusha Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. Ganev, J. (1985) Systematic List of Bulgarien Rhopalocera and Grypocera (Lepidoptera). Phegea 13(4), 115–19.Google Scholar
  17. Gepp, J. (1983) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs. Wien: Bundesministerium för Gesundheit und Umweltschutz.Google Scholar
  18. Goffart, P. (1997) Libellules et papillons en Wallonie. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
  19. Gonseth, Y. (1987) Verbreitungsatlas der Tagfalter der Schweiz (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Documenta Faunistica Helvetiae 6. Basel, Neuchâtel: Schweizerischer Bund för Naturschutz.Google Scholar
  20. Hammarstedt, O. (1992) Conservation of butterflies in the Nordic countries. In Future of Butterflies in Europe: strategies for survival (T. Pavlicek-van Beek, A.H. Ovaa and J.G. van der Made, eds). Proceedings of the International Congress 1989. Wageningen: Agricultural University.Google Scholar
  21. Hesselbarth, G., van Oorschot, H. and Wagener, S. (1995) Die Tagfalter der Törkei. Bocholt: Selbstverlag Dr P.S. Wagener.Google Scholar
  22. Higgins, L.G and Riley, N.D. (1984) A fieldguide to the butter-flies and moths of Britain and Europe. London: Collins.Google Scholar
  23. Hruby, K. (1964) Prodromus Lepidopter Slovenska. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenkej Akaömie Vied.Google Scholar
  24. IUCN (1990) IUCN Red list of threatened animals. Cambridge: IUCN.Google Scholar
  25. Ivinskis, P. (1993) Check-list of Lithuanian Lepidoptera. Vilnius: Ekologijos Institutas.Google Scholar
  26. Jakşiç, P. (1988) Privremene Karte rasprostranjenosti dnevnih Leptira Jugoslavije (Provisional Distribution maps of the butterflies of Yugoslavia) (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Soc. ent. jugosl., editiones separatae 1, 1–216, Zagreb, Croatia.Google Scholar
  27. Kockelke, K., Hermann, G., Kaule, G., Verhaagh, M. and Settele, J. (1994) Zur Autökologie und Verbreitung des Kreuzenzian-Ameisenbläulings, Maculinea rebeli (Hirschke, 1904). Carolinea 52, 93–109.Google Scholar
  28. KopwyHOB, IO26–1 and 26–2op26–3yHOB 26–1IO. (1995) ISBN 5–7525–0480–5. (This book treats the distribution of butterflies in Siberia.)Google Scholar
  29. Kudrna, O. (1994) Kommentierter Verbreitungsatlas der Tagfalter Tschechiens. Oedippus 8, 1–137.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, Seung-Mo (1982) Butterflies of Korea. Seoul: Editorial Commitee of Insecta Koreana, National Science Museum.Google Scholar
  31. Lhonoré, J. (1992) Biogéographie, écologie et gestion d'habitats d'espèces de Lépidoptères Rhopalocères protéges (Lycaenidae, Satyridae). In Goethem, J.L., Grootaert, P. Faunal inventories of sites for cartography and nature conservation, Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium of the European Invertebrate Survey 1991, p. 143–152.Google Scholar
  32. Lukhtanov, V. and Lukhtanov, A. (1994) Die Tagfalter Nordwestasiens. Herbipoliana Buchreihe zur Lepidopterologie, Vol. 3. Marktleuthen, Germany: Dr Ulf Eitschberger Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Maes, D. and van Dyck, H. (1996) Een gedocumenteerde Rode lijst van de dagvlinders van Vlaanderen. Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud Brussel 1996 1, 1–154.Google Scholar
  34. Marttila, O., Haahteela, T., Aarnio, H. and Ojalainen, P. (1992) Päiväperhos-opas. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä.Google Scholar
  35. Maurin, H. and Keith, P. (1994) Inventaire de la faune menacée en France. Paris: Éditions Nathan, Muséum national d'histoire naturelle et WWf-France.Google Scholar
  36. Meyer, C. (1992) Zur Biologie von Ameisen (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) – Lebensraum, Lebenszyklus und Beziehungen zu Ameisen. Unpublished thesis, Zoologisches Institut, Universität Göttingen, 108 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Munguira, M.L. and Martín, J. (1993) The conservation of endangered lycaenid butterflies in Spain. Biol. Conserv. 66, 17–22.Google Scholar
  38. Popescu-Gorj, A. (1987) La liste systématique revisée des espèces de macrolépidoptères mentionnées dans la faune de Roumanie. Mise à jour de leur classification et nomenclature. Trav. Mus. hist. nat. Grigore Antipa 29, 69–123.Google Scholar
  39. Reichl, E.R. (1992) Verbreitungsatlas der Tierwelt Österreichs. Band 1: Lepidoptera – Diurna. Linz: Forschungsinstitut för Umweltinformatik.Google Scholar
  40. Reinhardt, R. and Thust, R. (1993) Zur Entwicklung der Tagfalterfauna 1981–1990 in den ostdeutschen Ländern mit einer Bibliographie der Tagfalterliteratur 1949–1990 (Lepidoptera, Diurna). Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, Beiträge zur Ökologie, Faunistik und Systematik von Lepidopteren, Vol. 30. Marktleuthen: Verlag Eitschberger.Google Scholar
  41. Ruşti, D.M. (1987) La faune de lépidoptères rhopalocères du département de Bistriţa-Našaŭd (Roumanie). Ècologie et zoogéographie. Trav. Mus. hist. nat. Grigore Antipa 29, 139–54.Google Scholar
  42. SBN (1987) Tagfalter und ihre Lebensräume. Basel: Schweizerischer Bund för Naturschutz.Google Scholar
  43. Schaider, P. and Jakşiç, P. (1989) Die Tagfalter von jugoslawisch Mazedonien – Diurna (Rhopalocera und Hesperiidae). Mönchen: Selbstverlag Paul Schaider.Google Scholar
  44. Scheper, M. (1994) De toekomst van het Gentiaanblauwtje in Gelderland en Drenthe. Report Wageningen Agricultural University: Department of Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
  45. Settele, J. (1990) Akute Gefährdung eines Tagfalterlebens-raumes europaweiter Bedeutung im Landkreis Södliche Weinstraße. Landschaft+Stadt 22(1), 22–6.Google Scholar
  46. Settele, J., Henle, K. and Bender, C. (1996) Metapopulation und Biotopverbund: Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Tagfaltern und Reptilien. Zeitschrift för Ökologie und Naturschutz 5, 187–206.Google Scholar
  47. Sibatani, A., Saigusa, T. and Hirowatari, T. (1994) The genus Maculinea van Ecke, 1915 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from the East Palaearctic Region. Tyo to Ga 44, 157–220.Google Scholar
  48. Stoltze, M. (1996) Danske dagsommerfugle. Kopenhagen: Glydendaal.Google Scholar
  49. Tax, M.H. (1989) Atlas van de Nederlandse Dagvlinders. Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting and 's-Graveland: Stichting tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten.Google Scholar
  50. Thomas, J.A. (1991) Rare species conservation: case studies of European butterflies. In The scientific management of temperate communities for conservation (I.F. Spellerberg, F.B. Goldsmith and M.G. Morris, eds). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Thomas, J.A. (1995) The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of large blue butterfly. In Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies (A.S. Pullin, ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, J.A. (1997) Data-sheet Maculinea arion. In Background information on invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part I – Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. (P.J. van Helsdingen, L. Willemse and M.C.D. Speight, eds). Nature and Environment, No 79. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Tolman, T. and Lewington, R. (1997) Butterflies of Britain and Europe. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  54. Van Helsdingen, P.J., Willemse, L. and Speight, M.C.D. (eds)(1997) Background information on invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part I – Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. Nature and Environment, No 79. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Van Swaay, C.A.M., Warren, M.S. and Grill, A. (in prep.) Threatened Butterflies in Europe. Wageningen: Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Report No. VS97.25 and Wareham: British Butterfly Conservation.Google Scholar
  56. Viidalepp, K.J. (1995) Catalogus Macrolepidopterorum Estoniae. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  57. Weidlich, M. and Kretschmer, H. (1995) Die gegenwärtige Verbreitung des Schwarzblauen Ameisenbläulings (Maculinea nausithous [Bergsträsser 1779]) in Brandenburg. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in Brandenburg 4, 36–41.Google Scholar
  58. Wynhoff, I. (1997a) Data sheet Maculinea teleius. In Background information on invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part I – Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. (P.J. Van Helsdingen, L. Willemse and M.C.D. Speight, eds). Nature and Environment, No 79. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Wynhoff, I. (1997b) Data sheet Maculinea nausithous. In Background information on invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part I – Crustacea, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. (P. J. van Helsdingen, L. Willemse and M.C.D. Speight eds). Nature and Environment, No 79. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Wynhoff, I. and van Swaay, C.A.M. (1995) Bedreigde en kwetsbare dagvlinders in Nederland. Basisrapport met voorstel voor de Rode Lijst. (Threatened and vulnerable butterflies in the Netherlands, basic report and proposal for the Red List). Report No. VS95.11. Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting.Google Scholar
  61. Wynhoff, I., Oostermeijer, J.G.B., Scheper, M. and van der Made, J.G. (1996) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the butterfly Maculinea alcon in the Netherlands. In Species Survival in Fragmented Landscapes (J. Settele, C. Margules, P. Poschlod and K. Henle, eds) pp. 15–23. The GeoJournal Library vol. 35. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irma Wynhoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Terrestrial Ecology and Nature ConservationWageningen Agricultural UniversityWageningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations