Conservation Biology of Lycaenidae (Butterflies) - IUCN

PART 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the biology and conservation of the Lycaenidae
Introduction
T.R. NEW
Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia
The Lycaenidae, the 'blues', 'coppers', 'hairstreaks','metalmarks'
and related butterflies, are the most diverse family of
Papilionoidea and comprise between 30 and 40% of all butterfly
species. They are mostly rather small. The world's smallest
butterfly may be the lycaenid Micropsyche ariana Mattoni
from Afghanistan with a wingspan of only about 7mm (although
some individuals of Brephidium exilis (Boisduval) can have as
small a wingspan as 6mm). A few Lycaenidae are relatively
large: Liphyra brassolis Westwood has a wingspan of 8–9cm,
and is the largest known species. The family occurs in all
major biogeographical regions in temperate and tropical zones.
As with other Lepidoptera, the life cycle comprises egg,
larva (caterpillar) passing through several instars, pupa and
adult, with the cycle occupying several weeks to a year.
Particularly in temperate regions, there may be a well-defined
phenological break during winter which is passed in an inactive
stage. The early stages of many taxa have been described, and
a consideration of lycaenid conservation biology must include
the biology of all of these life forms, from oviposition site
selection by reproductive females to larval life and adult biology.
In general, far more distributional and biological information is
available on adults, which tend to be conspicuous and actively
sought by collectors and photographers, than on the relatively
inconspicuous and cryptic immature stages.
Many species have very precise environmental requirements,
but the family occurs in many major biomes and vegetation
associations from climax forests to scrublands, grasslands,
wetlands and semi-arid desert communities, many of which
could be viewed as early seres in terrestrial successions. Some
lycaenids have considerable potential for use as indicator species
as their incidence and abundance reflects rather small degrees
of habitat change.
The larvae of some taxa feed on flowerbuds, flowers and
fruits (Downey 1962), and thus may exert stronger selective
pressures on their foodplants than many foliage feeders
(Breedlove and Ehrlich 1968). Collectively, a very broad range
of foods are utilised and many lycaenids have departed from the
normal lepidopteran dependence on angiosperm plants to feed
1
on lower plants or animal material. The extent of aphytophagy,
which includes predacious and mutualistic relationships with
ants and various Homoptera, is sometimes both pronounced
and obligatory (Cottrell 1984), so that lycaenids, as a group,
participate in a wider range of ecological interactions than
perhaps any other Lepidoptera.
This ecological breadth has been the basis for designation of
'biological groups' in the family (Hinton 1951; Henning 1983).
Together with the relatively comprehensive knowledge of the
systematics and distribution of many temperate region taxa
through longterm collector accumulation, this ecological breadth
renders the family of very considerable value in conservation
studies. Several species have been the targets of detailed practical
measures related to their conservation in recent years, and many
of these case histories are summarised in the third section of this
volume.
This introductory chapter enlarges on some of the topics
noted above, to provide a general background to the regional
and species accounts which follow.
Taxonomy
In this volume the Lycaenidae is taken to include the Riodininae
(= Nemeobiinae) and the Styginae, both of which have been
given family status by some researchers.
Early classifications grouped the Riodinidae and Lycaenidae
s. rest, as the superfamily Lycaenoidea. Clench (1955) divided
the Lycaenoidea into three families: Lycaenidae s. str., Liptenidae
and Liphyridae, to which Shirozu and Yamamato (1957) added
the Curetidae. In contrast, Ehrlich (1958) considered the
Lycaenoidea to be a single family with the major subfamiliar
groupings of Riodininae, Styginae and Lycaeninae – the latter
including the four families noted in the last sentence.
While the higher classification of the two 'problem' groups
has proved to be controversial, the scheme proposed by Eliot
(1973) (Figure la) has, with some modification, received
strong support. As Eliot (1973) noted, no satisfactory
classification for the whole of the Lycaenidae had been produced
until then, despite notable attempts by Clench (1955) and