|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 20, 2013 8:55:23 GMT -8
I just checked the current CITES appendices, and Papilio hospiton is now in CITES appendix 2. As well as that, it seems that Papilio aristodemus ponceanus has been totally deleted from CITES. Here is the current list of CITES species at www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.phpAppendix 1: Ornithoptera alexandrae
Papilio chikae
Papilio homerusAppendix 2: Atrophaneura jophon
Atrophaneura pandiyana
Bhutanitis spp.
Ornithoptera spp. (Except the species included in Appendix I) Papilio hospiton
Parnassius apollo
Teinopalpus spp.
Trogonoptera spp.
Troides spp.Appendix 3: Agrias amydon boliviensis (Plurinational State of Bolivia) Morpho godartii lachaumei (Plurinational State of Bolivia) Prepona praeneste buckleyana (Plurinational State of Bolivia) I assume this must be the result of deliberations at the last CITES meeting. Does anyone have any details about the changes? Adam. |
|
|
|
iroki
Full Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by iroki on Aug 20, 2013 9:07:31 GMT -8
Papilio aristodemus ponceanus was removed from CITES list probably because it is extinct ( according to wikipedia )
Good to see that some specimens are now Appendix 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Aug 20, 2013 11:12:25 GMT -8
In reality ponceanus was never really native to Florida, it just hung on there for some years and was naturally reintroduced on a regular basis from the Bahamas. It will probably be naturally reintroduced again sometime in the near future, hang on for a while and die out until it all happens again.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Aug 20, 2013 21:54:05 GMT -8
Thanks Adam. Definitely a welcome change  However I believe that App. 1 should be longer as there are many other "not so pretty" leps that are threatened with extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Aug 21, 2013 0:38:39 GMT -8
Yes, but how many of them are threatened to extinction by collecting and trading ? Probably none, but this is all and everything CITES is about.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Aug 21, 2013 0:50:39 GMT -8
Yes, but how many of them are threatened to extinction by collecting and trading ? Probably none, but this is all and everything CITES is about. Pseudochazara amymone, just to name one. The population density is very low any any collecting would seriously threaten the population. |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by miguel on Aug 22, 2013 2:55:18 GMT -8
Yesterday I saw Papilio chikae offered in one ebay page by a seller,if you buy it,Could you be denunciated?
Miguel
|
|
|
|
Post by wollastoni on Aug 22, 2013 4:09:54 GMT -8
In theory yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by multicaudata on Aug 26, 2013 20:40:35 GMT -8
Wonder how CITES would handle taxonomic changes...
For example, if Parnassius smintheus sternitzkyi was changed to P. apollo sternitzkyi, would it be protected like the other apollos?
Or, if a subspecies was decided to be "invalid", e.g. not different enough to be a subspecies, would the population still be protected?
|
|
|
|
Post by nomihoudai on Aug 27, 2013 1:28:51 GMT -8
multicaudata, this does cause trouble indeed. This is the reason why people like to see Papilio hermeli as separate species, then the protection won't hold anymore. The same thing applies to Maculinea spp. in Europe. They have been attributed to the genus Phengaris recently, but there is a request to the ICZN to keep the old genus name. One argument is that all the official legal texts are attributed to Maculinea. The other way around works too. I don't understand your second sentence. I do understand what you want to say but I don't understand it logically. If a butterfly isn't different enough to have its own species name (let's consider species names for now because pretty much any legal text is on species level and not subspecies level.) then there is another species name that does and will apply. If this other species is protected, then yes, the laws will hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by papiliotheona on Sept 15, 2013 7:13:30 GMT -8
Now only for Thailand, etc. to change their crazy and ridiculous domestic protected lists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 15, 2013 9:42:45 GMT -8
Now only for Thailand, etc. to change their crazy and ridiculous domestic protected lists. Tell me about it  Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by papiliotheona on Sept 15, 2013 16:18:49 GMT -8
If collectors were a serious economic interest, this crap wouldn't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by papilio28570 on Sept 16, 2013 20:33:13 GMT -8
Now only for Thailand, etc. to change their crazy and ridiculous domestic protected lists. Tell me about it Adam. I did not realize Thailand was very restrictive about exporting leps. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 17, 2013 4:07:17 GMT -8
Thailand is not really restrictive about exporting leps, but the list of protected species under Thai law is ridiculous. There aren't very many species on the list in reality, but the reasons for protecting them are completely without scientific foundation. It is illegal to collect, possess, buy, sell etc species on this list in Thailand, including specimens of the same species from other countries.
The person who drew up this list was a rice pest expert in the department of agriculture, and actually knew very little about the rarity of insects other than those species that eat rice. She looked in the department collection, and some Japanese catalogues and decided to choose showy species that were poorly represented in the collection or listed as expensive in the catalogues. Of course the beetles listed are only expensive when considering the extreme size of the specimen offered (as in the case of Cladognathus giraffa, where smaller sized specimens are not expensive).
Many species listed are actually common elsewhere but are at the extreme edge of their ranges in Thailand, eg. Mormolyce phyllodes, Papilio palinurus and Papilio protenor. One, Stichopthalma camadeva, doesn't even occur in Thailand at all, records are based on old misindentifications.
In reality such legal protection is useless to actually protect the species in the wild. Just protect the habitat and the insects will survive very well by themselves.
List of Protected Thai Insects
1. Cheirotonus parryi Gray
2. Prosopocoilus (Cladognathus) giraffa Oliver
3. Mouhotia batesi Lewis
4. Mormolyce phyllodes Hagenbach
5. Teinopalpus imperialis Hope
6. Troides amphrysus Cramer
7. Troides helena Linnaeus
8. Stichophthalma godfreyi Rothschild
9. Stichophthalma cambodia Hewitson
10. Stichophthalma louisa Wood-Mason
11. Stichophthalma camadeva Westwood
12. Bhutanitis lidderdalii Atkinson
13. Papilio protenor Cramer
14. Meandrusa sciron Leech
15. Meandrusa payeni Boisduval
16. Papilio palinurus Fabricius
17. Actias rhodopneuma Rober
18. Actias maenas Doubleday
19. Actias selene Huebner
20. Actias sinensis Mell
|
|
However I believe that App. 1 should be longer as there are many other "not so pretty" leps that are threatened with extinction.
