This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Compiled by Chris van Swaay, Annabelle Cuttelod, Sue Collins, Dirk Maes, Miguel López Munguira, Martina Šašić, Josef Settele, Rudi Verovnik, Theo Verstrael, Martin Warren, Martin Wiemers and Irma Wynhoff
European Red List of Butterﬂies
Compiled by Chris van Swaay, Annabelle Cuttelod, Sue Collins, Dirk Maes, Miguel López Munguira, Martina Šašić, Josef Settele, Rudi Verovnik, Theo Verstrael, Martin Warren, Martin Wiemers and Irma Wynhoff
Butterfly Conservation Europe IUCN Species Programme IUCN Regional Office for Pan-Europe
The designation of geographical entities in this book.iucn. Cuttelod. Verovnik. Wiemers. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. R. 2010. Available from: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. provided that the source is fully acknowledged. Printed in Spain The text of this book is printed on 115gsm environmentally-friendly paper. I. or of its authorities.. Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. 2010 ISBN 978-92-79-14151-5 doi:10.. Šašić. J. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. http://bookshop... Settele. Citation: Van Swaay.Published by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and Butterfly Conservation Europe in collaboration with the European Union.2779/83897 © European Union.org/publications A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available. S. © Chris van Swaay. territory.eu). D. or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Freephone number (*): More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. Butterfly Conservation or European Union. López Munguira. and the presentation of the material.. SOLPRINT. T.. Alastair Davies at Handshake Productions COMSENSE LLC. M. Collins.. or area.eu IUCN Publications Services... www. M. European Red List of Butterfies Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.europa. Verstrael. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Warren. Maes. C. ii . a meadow species classified as Near Threatened owing to serious decline in many countries. Mijas (Malaga) Nickerl’s Fritillary Melitaea aurelia. and Wynhof. M. do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN. De Vlinderstichting/Dutch Butterfy Conservation Cover design: Layout by: Printed by: Picture credits on cover page: All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details). A. Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. M. Butterfly Conservation or the European Union concerning the legal status of any country. 2010 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder.
The Netherlands Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Germany Research Institute for Nature and Forest . Wageningen. Germany Society for the Conservation and Study of Lepidoptera in Slovenia Dutch Butterfly Conservation. Wageningen. Belgium Croatian Natural History Museum. The Netherlands IUCN Species programme. Austria Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Compilers Chris van Swaay Annabelle Cuttelod Sue Collins Miguel López Munguira Dirk Maes Martina Šašić Josef Settele Rudi Verovnik Theo Verstrael Martin Warren Martin Wiemers Irma Wynhoff Dutch Butterfly Conservation. Wageningen.INBO. Austria Dutch Butterfly Conservation. UK University of Vienna. Croatia De Vlinderstichting / Dutch Butterfly Conservation. Spain Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). Red List Unit.ANL. The Netherlands Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. UK Croatian Natural History Museum. Spain Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege . The Netherlands Partner organisations Butterfly Conservation Europe Butterfly Conservation. Belgium Society for the Conservation and Study of Lepidoptera in Slovenia University of Vienna. Germany IUCN Species Programme IUCN Regional Office for Europe iii . The Netherlands Butterfly Conservation. Cambridge Butterfly Conservation Europe. Croatia Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.
University of Sarajevo National Museum of Natural History. Devyatkin Predrag Jakšić Henrik Kalivoda Miroslav Kulfan Rudi Verovnik Miguel López Munguira Helena Romo Enrique García-Barros Constantí Stefanescu Martin Wiemers Nils Ryrholm Goran Dusej Gilles Carron † Evrim Karaçetin Sergey Popov Martin Warren iv . Slovak Academy of Sciences Institute of Landscape Ecology. Pavel Kepka Michael Kavin Toomas Tammaru Jasko Kullberg Luc Manil Josef Settele Christian Stettmer Kelly Papapavlou Ádám Kőrösi Safian Szabolcs Erling Olafsson David Nash Emilio Balletto Simona Bonelli Dario Patricelli Nikolaj Savenkov Eyjolf Aistleitner Giedrius Svitra Dalius Dapkus Marc Meyer Branko Micevski Louis Cassar Chris van Swaay Christian Steel Marcin Sielezniew Patricia Garcia Pereira Ernestino Maravalhas Sergiu Mihut Alexey L. University of Gävle Swiss Butterfly Conservation Swiss Butterfly Conservation Doga Koruma Merkezi (DKM) Alexanor Butterfly Conservation (UK) Jordi Dantart Helmut Höttinger Anatolij Kulak Dirk Maes Violaine Fichefet Suvad Lelo Stoyan Beshkov Iva Mihoci Eddie John Martin Konvicka Jiří Beneš. Slovak Academy of Sciences Society for the Conservation and Study of Lepidoptera in Slovenia Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Catalonia Butterfly Monitoring Scheme University of Vienna Department of Natural Sciences. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Croatian Natural History Museum Cyprus Butterfly Recording Scheme Biological Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences Biological Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences Biological Centre of the Czech Academy of Sciences Danish Entomological Society Estonian Lepidopterists Society Finnish Lepidopterological Society National Museum of Natural History Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research .Data providers Andorra Austria Belarus Belgium (Flanders) Belgium (Wallonia) Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Germany Greece Hungary Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Italy Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain Spain (+ Andorra) Spain (Canary Islands) Sweden Switzerland Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Austrian Society of Entomofaunistics (ÖGEF) Belarussian Entomological Society Butterfly Working Group of Natuurpunt Wallonie OFFS Faculty of Science. Department for Biology.UFZ Bavarian Academy for Nature and Landscape Conservation (ANL) Hellenic Zoological Society Hungarian Society of Lepidopterology Hungarian Society of Lepidopterology Zoological Museum Dublin Naturalists' Field Club Zoological Union of Italy Zoological Union of Italy Zoological Union of Italy Latvian Museum of Natural History Büro OeGDI Lithuanian Entomological Society Lithuanian Entomological Society Natural History Museum Butterfly Study Group (BSG) University of Malta Dutch Butterfly Conservation Norwegian Biodiversity Network (SABIMA) Association for Butterfly Conservation (TOM) Tagis Tagis Focal Centre for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation Russian Entomological Society Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning Institute of Landscape Ecology.
.........................7 2.......................................................................................................................................................................2 Protection of habitats and species in the EU27 ......18 4.....................................................................3.................................................................................30 Appendix 3.............................................................3 1......................................................4 Preliminary assessments ........................3..............................6 2.................13 3........................................................................1 1............................................... Example species summary and distribution map ............................... Red List status of European butterflies .........................................................................................................19 4..............................................................................................................................23 5.......................................................41 Appendix 4.........................................................................................................................3 Endemic species richness ..............24 5........................................................................................................................................................................................... Methodology for spatial analyses ...............................5 Red List versus priority for conservation action .................................................................................................................................. Conclusion and recommendations ...........................1 1... Form filled by Butterfly Conservation Europe national focal points .......................................................................................................................................4 Extinction risk versus conservation status ......23 5.......................................22 5............................15 3....................................................................21 4................................................................................................................................25 Appendix 1.................Table of contents Foreword .................. Conservation measures ..................................................................................................................................................... Assessment methodology ....................................8 3......42 v .......................................................................3 Threatened status of species .................................................19 4..................................................6 2.........................................................15 3...........................................................9 3.........................................4 Major threats to butterflies in Europe ...........................................................................13 3.............................................................................................................................1 Overview and recommendations for conservation measures .......3 Taxonomic scope .........................7 2................27 Appendix 2.........................................................................................................................16 3.....................1 Threatened status of butterflies in Europe ................................ Background ..............................................................................21 4........................................3 Spatial distribution of species ..................................3 Future work ......6 2...3 Conservation management of butterflies in the EU ............................................................. vii Acknowledgements ...2 Geographic scope .......................................................................................................................................5 Review workshop and evaluation of the assessments ............................................................................................2 Application of project outputs .................................. Results ..................................................... x 1.................9 3................2 Threatened species richness ..............1 The European context .......................13 3....................................................... ........................................................................................1 Species richness ........................................................................................................................1 Protection of habitats and species in Europe ........................................1 Global and regional assessments ..................................................................................................................................................................................3.................................................................2 European butterflies: diversity and endemism ....................19 4.......................................................1 1................................ viii Executive summary ............................24 References ....................................................4 Objectives of the assessment .......................................................5 Demographic trends ..................4 2............................................................................................2 Status by taxonomic group ..................................................................................
Despite this limitation. despite some progress made. either in relation to intensification of agriculture or abandonment of land. These figures represent minimum estimates as trends are poorly known in many countries. However. It has followed the Red List methodology developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). I hope that this European Red List for butterflies will add another piece of evidence for the fact that efforts aimed at halting the loss of biodiversity and the implementation of related European legislation need a major boost in the coming years. What can we as Europeans do about this? First and foremost. such as managing our grasslands in a more sustainable way (e. Numerous scientific studies show that biodiversity in Europe has been declining rapidly for some time during periods of expansion and intensification of land use. Ladislav Miko Director Directorate B: Nature Directorate General for Environment European Commission vi . which is the most common methodology used throughout the world. adopted in 2006. especially eastern European countries which account for a large part of the territory. The loss and decline of their habitat poses the main threat.g. it is highly unlikely that the 2010 target will be met. EU Member States made the commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity within the EU by 2010. with a diverse range of habitat conditions from dry Mediterranean maquis in the south to the Arctic tundra of the far north. This study shows us that nearly 9% of butterflies are threatened and a further 10% are Near Threatened. In 2001. Red Lists are another important tool to scientifically assess and communicate the status of species. this modification has obviously also placed great pressures on our wildlife and natural areas. taking species needs into account in the timing of actions) and foster traditional patterns of agriculture. They hence give important complementary information about the situation of biodiversity in Europe. The Natura 2000 network of protected sites and the efforts to conserve and restore biodiversity in the wider countryside are helping to guarantee its future conservation and sustainable use. The EU Habitats and Birds Directives are the main pieces of legislation ensuring the protection of Europe’s nature. The recent extensive reporting process under Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive underlines this fact as most species and habitats protected under the Habitats Directive are still not under a favourable conservation status. additional efforts are required to conserve butterflies in Europe. The Mid Term Review of the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan published by the Commission in December 2008 demonstrates that. Although bringing higher diversity. Unfortunately. the drivers for these declines are mostly still in place. we need to fully implement the existing European legislation. the results show that almost a third (31%) of the butterflies have significantly declining populations. The EU Biodiversity Action Plan.Foreword Europe is a continent rich in natural and cultural heritage. Possibly more than anywhere else in the world the European landscapes have been changed by human activities so that now the continent is covered with a mosaic of natural and seminatural habitats surrounding urbanized areas. not just those protected by the EU nature legislation. sets out the main targets and activities needed to achieve this commitment. This comprehensive assessment of all European butterflies provides an overview of the conservation status of this important insect group. They usefully complement the reporting under the Habitats Directive as they address all species in a specific taxonomic group.
lead by Rudi Verovnik and Martin Wiemers. Alexey L. 070307/2007/483305/MAR/B2). Branko Micevski. Resit Akçakaya provided guidance on how best to take into account data uncertainty. Emilio Balletto. Violaine Fichefet. Erik J. They were discussed with the national and species experts during a workshop held in Laufen (Germany). Any opinions. Martina Šašić. Toomas Tammaru. Sue Collins. Miguel López Munguira. findings. Christian Stettmer. vii . Ana Nieto. Chris van Swaay (Butterfly Conservation Europe) coordinated the compilation of data and the assessments of European butterflies species. Coordination of the European Red List of Butterflies was carried out by Helen Temple and Annabelle Cuttelod (IUCN Species Programme). Jasko Kullberg. Evrim Karaçetin. Dalius Dapkus. Chris van Swaay. Irma Wynhoff. Martin Wiemers. Sergiu Mihut. Safian Szabolcs. Constantí Stefanescu. Gilles Carron †. John Coutsis. Helena Roma. Susannah Ohanlon. Additional financial support for the workshop was provided by the Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Suvad Lelo. Assessments were then made by Chris van Swaay. Sergey Popov. Butterfly Conservation Europe. Jean-Christophe Vié provided guidance. Jordi Dantart. and good advice throughout the project. van Nieukerken and Niklas Wahlberg. Eddie John. Alexey Devyatkin. Simona Bonelli. Anatolij Kulak. and comprised of Emilio Balletto. The European Butterflies Assessments and consequently this report were requirements of the framework of a service contract with the European Commission (Service Contract No. Without their enthusiastic commitment to species conservation. Patricia Garcia Pereira. Yeray Monasterio. Kelly Papapavlou. Theo Verstrael. Dirk Maes. Marta Domènech Ferrés. Devyatkin. encouragement. Josef Settele. Martin Wiemers. Lars Ove Hansen. Theo Verstrael. Luc Manil. Martin Warren and Josef Settele. Otakar Kudrna. Chris van Swaay and Irma Wynhoff wrote the texts on range and habitat requirements. Miguel López Munguira. Louis Cassar. Martina Šašić. Predrag Jakšić. Dirk Maes. Erling Olafsson. Martin Warren. Data were provided by Butterfly Conservation Europe national partners and we would like to thank in particular the following people for their major contribution to this project: Eyjolf Aistleitner. Ernestino Maravalhas. the Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege.Acknowledgements All of IUCN’s Red Listing processes rely on the willingness of experts to contribute and pool their collective knowledge to make the most reliable estimates of species status. Miroslav Kulfan. We would also specially thank Owen Lewis (IUCN Butterfly Red List Authority) for his support and for his thorough review of the endemic species assessments in the very short deadline given. Christian Stettmer organized the evaluation workshop. Giedrius Svitra. We would like to thank our host organisation. Martin Konvicka. Dario Patricelli. for their warm hospitality and for ensuring that the workshop ran smoothly. Pavel Kepka. Stoyan Beshkov. Garry Curtis. this kind of regional overview would not be possible. Goran Dusej. Enrique García-Barros. Michael Kavin. Cécile Edelist. Marcin Sielezniew. David Nash. Anna Rosenberg and Hugo Ruiz Lozano provided substantial assistance with financial management of the project. Irma Wynhoff. Henrik Kalivoda. and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Ádám Kőrösi. Butterfly taxonomy largely follows the 2010-revision of the Taxonomy Commission of Butterfly Conservation Europe. Rudi Verovnik. or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Teresa Oliveros Martinez. Ole Karsholt. Marc Meyer. Vineet Katariya and Jim Ragle provided high-quality support on GIS and database issues. Nikolaj Savenkov. for the logistical arrangements. Miguel López Munguira. Nils Ryrholm. Rudi Verovnik. Christian Steel. with the administrative support of Albert Vliegenthart. Helmut Höttinger. Jiří Beneš. in January 2009.
all of them are considered as Not Applicable in this assessment. For the remaining 10%. 2009. specific food and habitat requirements that differ in each stage of their life cycle. either through intensification or abandonment. Other important threats are climate change.iucnredlist. and for the 27 current Member States of the European Union. 6. 13% of the birds and 11% of the saproxylic beetles are threatened at the European level (Temple & Cox 2009. Assessments are available on the European Red List website and data portal: http://ec. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: for geographical Europe. there are 482 species of butterflies. which then turn into chrysalises before becoming adults. 23% of the amphibians. 15% of the mammals and the dragonflies. increased frequency and intensity of fires and tourism development. Nieto & Alexander 2010). Butterflies in Europe Butterflies are beautiful insects and easy to recognise. A further 10% of butterflies are considered Near Threatened. These assessments were compiled from information from a network of over 50 compilers from almost every country and reviewed during a workshop held in Laufen (Germany) and through discussions and correspondence with relevant experts. butterflies.europa. The main current threat to European butterflies is the loss of their habitat or habitat connectivity due to the changes in agricultural practices. Status assessment The status of all species was assessed using the IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN 2001). 2010. and 7% are threatened at the EU27 level. where numerous restrictedrange species are encountered. Temple & Terry 2007. Most of the threatened species are confined to parts of southern Europe. the current information is too limited to define their overall population trend. The figures for butterflies represent minimum estimates as trends are poorly known in many countries. which are the world’s most widely accepted system for measuring extinction risk. mainly in the Pyrenees. mammals and selected groups of beetles. reptiles. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the regional level – in order that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. By comparison. The geographical scope is continent-wide. All assessments followed the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (IUCN 2003). 19% of the reptiles. Despite the lack of good trend data in some countries. They have very viii .eu/environment/nature/conservation/ species/redlist and http://www. They lay eggs that hatch into caterpillars.org/europe. Scope All species of butterflies native to Europe are included. No other groups have yet been comprehensively assessed at the European level. including some large eastern European countries that comprise large parts of the study region. In Europe. Cox & Temple. The Caucasus region is not included. and vascular plants) according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. while one species has been introduced in the 1980s. about 9% of European butterflies are threatened in Europe. extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east. Results Overall. amphibians. and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Canary Islands in the south. 451 of them being also found in the 27 member states of the EU.000 European species (dragonflies.Executive summary Aim The European Red List is a review of the conservation status of c. while 4% are increasing and more than half of the species are stable. the study shows that about a third (31%) of the European butterflies has declining populations. Forty-one species occur only marginally on the European continent. Kalkman et al. The highest diversity of butterflies is found in mountainous areas in southern Europe. This Red List publication summarises results for European Butterflies. molluscs. freshwater fishes. BirdLife International 2004a. the Alps and the mountains of the Balkans. except those which are confined to the North Caucasus countries. Almost a third of these species (142 species) are endemic to Europe (which means that they are unique to Europe and are found nowhere else in the world).
Conclusions ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Butterflies are important biodiversity indicators and play an important role in ecosystems. e. in particular intensification of agriculture (especially of grazing) and abandonment of land. Such monitoring programmes would also help evaluate the impact of conservation measures on this important indicator group of insects. and revising national and European legislation. thanks to the assessment of endemic European butterflies. Further conservation actions are therefore needed urgently to improve the status of European butterflies. Climate change is already having an impact on several butterfly species and is likely to have a strong effect on many more in the future. leading to invasion of shrub and trees. Critically Endangered in Europe. especially in Western Europe. In particular: ensuring the adequate protection and management of key butterfly habitats and their surrounding areas. It should be noted that both the distribution and population size of numerous species have declined severely during the 20th century (but not in the time frame of 10 years or three generations taken into consideration by IUCN methodology).g. In some cases the few remaining populations in these countries are nowadays stable as a result of conservation measures. Despite a lack of good trend data from many countries. This report highlights where the highest diversity. drawing up Species Action Plans for the most threatened species. While some threatened species already receive some protection and conservation actions. which means these species do not occur in the list of threatened species. A species from pristine steppes in Russia and Ukraine. others currently receive little or no attention. Photograph © Vladimir Savchuk ix . ■ ■ ■ ■ The main long-term threat identified is the loss and degradation of suitable habitat in relation to changes in land-use. further conservation actions are urgently needed. highest level of endemism and highest portion of threatened butterflies are found within the European region. through their pollination activities. the results show that about a third of European butterflies species experienced a decline in their populations over the last 10 years and 9% are threatened. improving land management policies such as the European Agricultural Policy. adding species identified as threatened where needed. Monitoring programmes exist in only a small number of European countries and need to be established in all countries in order to determine objective population trends and improve the accuracy of red listing in future years. establishing monitoring programmes. This project contributes to improving the coverage of invertebrates on the global IUCN Red List. In order to improve the conservation status of European butterflies and to reverse their decline. Coenonympha phryne.
where it inhabits the rocky slopes of mountains. It is not currently thought to be threatened but should be monitored to assess future change. Photograph © Tom Nygaard Kristensen x . This large and impressive butterfly is endemic to Corsica and Sardinia.Corsican Swallowtail Papilio hospiton (Least Concern).
For centuries most of Europe’s land has been used by humans to produce food.9 trillion US dollars (Central Intelligence Agency 2009). Although considerable efforts have been made to protect and conserve European habitats and species (e. Europe is separated from Asia by the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea (see Figure 2 below). infrastructure development.2. 4.1. fibre and timber. The 1 Source: Euro+Med PlantBase. and only a tiny fraction of its land surface can be considered as wilderness. often colorful wings and by their proboscis. covering approximately 10.html 1 . acidification.000 square miles) or 2% of the Earth’s surface. crop pollination. forest.010. to the south by the Mediterranean Sea. These habitats are under pressure from agricultural intensification. as well as climate change being set to become an increasingly serious threat in the future.2 European butterflies: diversity and endemism Butterflies are a large group of insects. Europe is the most urbanised and. with a cylindrical body. and from the Atlantic coast in the west to the Pannonian steppes in the east – an area containing a great diversity of landscapes and habitats and a wealth of flora and fauna.3). is Europe’s largest political and economic entity. eutrophication and desertification. and currently in western Europe more than 80% of land is under some form of direct management (European Environment Agency 2007). urban sprawl. and feeds mainly on plant leaves. the most densely populated continent in the world. http://www. although physically and geologically it is the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia. 4. Background 1. and rates of resource consumption and waste production are correspondingly high – the EU 27’s “ecological footprint” has been estimated to exceed the region’s biological capacity (the total area of cropland. belonging to the order “Lepidoptera”. The EU’s Member States stretch from the Arctic Circle in the north to the Mediterranean in the south. which they use to suck flower nectar.000 species of invertebrates (Fauna Europaea 2004). 1. comprising 27 Member States.1. timber and fuel and provide living space. together with Asia.400. which have a totally different appearance to the adult. and carbon sequestration) continues to be a major concern in the region.org/home. They lay eggs that hatch into larvae (called caterpillars). Per-capita GDP in many EU states is among the highest in the world. Europe is bound to the north by the Arctic Ocean. 260 species of mammals (Temple & Terry 2007 2009).emplantbase. 5%) of European Lepidoptera. European species are to a large extent dependent upon semi-natural habitats created and maintained by human activity. European biodiversity includes 488 species of birds (IUCN 2009). which means “scaly wing”. and to the southeast by the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains. The butterflies are a group of two closely related superfamilies of Lepidoptera which form a small fraction (ca. biodiversity decline and the associated loss of vital ecosystem services (such as water purification.g. Mediterranean Europe is particularly rich in plant and animal species and has been recognised as a global “biodiversity hotspot” (Mittermeier et al.1 The European context Europe is one of the seven traditional continents of the Earth. In terms of human population. Many species are directly affected by overexploitation. particularly traditional. It is the world’s largest economy with an estimated GDP in 2008 of 18. 2004.000 species of vascular plants1 and well over 100. and fishing grounds available to produce food. Europe has arguably the most highly fragmented landscape of all continents. Europe is a huge. to the west by the Atlantic Ocean. see Sections 4. before going through metamorphosis to form a chrysalis. land abandonment. diverse region and the relative importance of different threats varies widely across its biogeographic regions and countries. Europe is the third-largest continent (after Asia and Africa) with a population of some 731 million – about 11% of the world’s population. pasture. 151 species of reptiles. persecution and impacts of alien invasive species. It is the world’s second-smallest continent in terms of area. In the east. Cuttelod et al. They are characterized by their large. non-intensive forms of land management. Consequently. 85 species of amphibians. 2008). and absorb waste) by 2. 20-25. 546 species of freshwater fishes (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007). The European Union.000 square kilometres (4.6 times (WWF 2007).
The family with the highest rate of endemism is the Nymphalidae. remaining species which belong to 29 superfamilies are colloquially referred to as moths. Table 1. chrysalis and adult of the Orange Tip Anthocharis cardamines (Least Concern). divided into six families (Table 1): the largest one is the Nymphalidae. which explains the lower percentage of European endemics. They support a wide range of parasitoids. the Pieridae. This report only analyzes the conservation status of butterflies. the latter including the large group of the browns. the Hesperiidae. such as the fritillaries. a South African species that was introduced in the Balearic Islands in 1989 (Eitschberger & Stamer 1990) and is rapidly spreading across the Mediterranean and up to the Netherlands is not a native species and therefore not considered in this assessment. Photographs © Jaap Bouwman. the Papilionidae. including the blues. i. emperors. because most of them fly during the night. sometimes with a metallic gloss. with often large and brightly-colored species. as their name suggests. For the EU 27 assessment the Not Evaluated species (species which do not occur in the EU and that represent a total of 27 species) are excluded. Class Order Family Europe EU27 Number Number of % of Number Number of % of of endemic endemic of endemic endemic species species species* species species species* Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Riodinidae Lycaenidae Nymphalidae Papilionidae Pieridae 46 1 129 237 13 56 482 10 0 31 86 2 13 142 22% 0% 25% 36% 15% 23% 30% 44 1 123 219 12 52 451 3 0 24 40 2 9 78 7% 0% 19% 18% 17% 17% 17% Total * This table includes species that are native or were naturalised before AD 1500. 2 . Kars Veling and Chris van Swaay (De Vlinderstichting). often tailed like the forked tail of some swallows. while the Papilionidae is a mainly tropical family. also called brush-footed butterflies. named skippers due to their quick and darting flight. Diversity and endemism in butterfly families in Europe*. admirals. are found only in Europe. Cacyreus marshalli. many of which are specific to their host and worthy of conservation in their own right. or Swallowtail butterflies. Many butterflies are valued for their beauty. the coppers and the hairstreaks. Species of marginal occurrence in Europe and/or the EU are included. In Europe. which are. species introduced after this date are not included.Caterpillar. Finally. there are 482 species of butterflies. and tortoiseshells. but they also have an economic interest and play an important role in ecosystems through pollination and as prey for other species. the subfamilies Libytheinae and Satyrinae were until recently a separate family. the Duke of Burgundy Butterfly which is similar to the Fritillaries.e. generally small brightly colored butterflies. there is one representative of the Riodinidae family whose members are mainly distributed in the Neotropical region: Hamearis lucina. but are now part of the Nymphalidae. then the Lycaenidae. although this family Riodinidae is closely related to the Lycaenidae. Nearly one third (30%) of European butterflies are endemic. where the adults are mostly white or yellow with black spots.
The Red List is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction.. It also provides an important tool in establishing priorities for species conservation. When conducting regional or national assessments. IUCN 2009). Figure 1. Although it is declining in many countries and remains a conservation priority.3 Threatened status of species The conservation status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. population size and structure. ranging from Least Concern. At the global scale.1 (IUCN 2001). for species that have disappeared from the planet. The butterflies are often found on meadows with scrub or near woods where their major foodplant. are present. It provides taxonomic. Endangered and Critically Endangered are considered as ‘threatened’. for species that are not threatened. Photograph © Martin Wiemers 1. and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3. with the main purpose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction. to the Extinct category.org. two additional categories are used (Regionally Extinct and Not Applicable) for non-native species (IUCN 2003) (Figure 1).The Duke of Burgundy Hamearis lucina (Least Concern) is the only member of the family Riodinidae (metalmarks) in Europe which is closely related to the Blues (Lycaenidae). it is classed as Least Concern because its overall decline is less than 30% in the last 10 years.iucnredlist. conservation status. and geographic range. IUCN Red List Categories at regional scale 3 . Primulas. The IUCN Red List Categories are based on a set of quantitative criteria linked to population trends. There are nine Categories. the best source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (see www. Species classified as Vulnerable.
■ To identify those geographic areas and habitats needing to be conserved to prevent extinctions and to ensure that European butterflies reach and maintain a favourable conservation status. IUCN will ensure wide dissemination of this data to relevant decision makers. ■ To strengthen the network of experts focused on conservation of butterflies in Europe. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 4 .iucnredlist. The Lesser Spotted Fritillary Melitaea trivia is one of the most colorful fritillaries in Europe. their main threats and recommendations for conservation measures.1. ■ A freely available database holding the baseline data for monitoring the status and distribution of European butterflies. NGOs and scientists to inform the implementation of conservation actions on the ground. For this reason this butterfly is considered Near Threatened in the EU-27. The data presented in this report provides a snapshot based on knowledge available at the time of writing. Although considered Least Concern in Europe.4 Objectives of the assessment The European regional assessment has four main objectives: ■ To contribute to regional conservation planning through provision of a baseline dataset reporting the status of European butterflies. as well as a poster on their status. the populations within the EU-27 countries show a marked decline.eu/ environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www. and expertise can be targeted to address the highest conservation priorities. so that the assessment information can be kept current. ■ A website and data portal (http://ec. ■ To identify the major threats and to propose mitigating measures and conservation actions to address them.org/europe) showcasing this data in the form of species factsheets for all European butterflies. along with background and other interpretative material.europa. The assessment provides three main outputs: ■ This summary report on the status and distribution of European butterflies. The database will continue to be updated and made freely and widely available.
Figure 2. Regional assessments were made for two areas – geographical Europe and the EU 27
On some locations the males of blues can come together to drink water and minerals, like here in Northern Hungary. Photograph © Chris van Swaay
2. Assessment methodology
2.1 Global versus regional assessment
The extinction risk of a species can be assessed at global, regional or national level. One species can have a different category in the Global Red List and a Regional Red List. For example, a species that is common worldwide and classed as Least Concern (LC) in the Global Red List could face a high level of threat and fit the Endangered category (EN) in a particular region (see Figure 1 for the explanation of the IUCN categories). In order to avoid an over- or underestimation of the regional extinction risk of a species, the Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Level should be applied (IUCN 2003). Logically, an endemic species should have the same category at regional and global level, as it is not present in any other part of the world.
2.2 Geographic scope
The geographical scope is continent-wide, extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east (including European parts of the Russian Federation), and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Mediterranean in the south (see Figure 2). The Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores were also included. In the southeast, where definitions of Europe are most contentious, the Caucasus region was not included. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: 1) for geographical Europe (limits described above); and 2) for the area of the 27 Member States of the European Union.
The Two-tailed Pasha Charaxes jasius is confined to the Mediterranean region where it breeds on Strawberry Trees Arbutus unedo. Although not currently threatened, models predict that it could be very badly affected by climate change. Photograph © Chris van Swaay
Table 2. Butterflies species of marginal occurrence or introduced to Europe after AD 1500. Family HESPERIIDAE HESPERIIDAE HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE Genus Borbo Carcharodus Pelopidas Apharitis Azanus Cacyreus Callophrys Callophrys Chilades Lycaena Plebejus Plebejus Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Praephilotes Pseudophilotes Satyrium Tongeia Zizeeria Zizeeria Boloria Boloria Boloria Boloria Coenonympha Danaus Danaus Erebia Erebia Erebia Erebia Erebia Erebia Hipparchia Hyponephele Issoria Lopinga Maniola Oeneis Oeneis Oeneis Vanessa Ypthima Zerynthia Catopsilia Colotis Zegris Species borbonica stauderi thrax acamas ubaldus marshalli chalybeitincta suaveola galba thetis loewii eurypilus damone cyane iphigenia anthracias panope ledereri fischeri karsandra knysna alaskensis angarensis tritonia oscarus amaryllis plexippus chrysippus cyclopius jeniseiensis dabanensis edda fasciata rossii mersina huebneri eugenia deidamia megala melissa polixenes magna virginiensis asterope caucasica florella evagore pyrothoe
2.3 Taxonomic scope
All butterflies species native to Europe or naturalised before AD 1500 were included in the assessment. Fortyseven species that are of marginal occurrence in Europe were considered in this assessment, but were classed as Not Applicable (Table 2). An additional species has been introduced in Europe in the late 1980s and is also considered as Not Applicable. Butterfly taxonomy largely follows the 2010-revision of the Taxonomy Commission of Butterfly Conservation Europe, lead by Rudi Verovnik and Martin Wiemers and comprised of Emilio Balletto, John Coutsis, Ole Karsholt, Otakar Kudrna, Miguel López Munguira, Erik J. van Nieukerken and Niklas Wahlberg. Distinct subspecies were not individually assessed as part of this project.
2.4 Preliminary assessments
Data were gathered through a questionnaire sent to all national focal points of Butterfly Conservation Europe (see Annex 1), asking these specialists to review the species data for their country. These data were compiled to update the Butterfly Conservation Europe database and preliminary assessments were made for each species through a working group of ten experts (Chris van Swaay, Irma Wynhoff, Rudi Verovnik, Martin Wiemers, Miguel López Munguira, Dirk Maes, Martina Šašić, Theo Verstrael, Martin Warren, Josef Settele). The following data were entered into the database:
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Species’ taxonomic classification Geographic range (including a distribution map) Red List Category and Criteria Population information Habitat preferences Major threats Conservation measures Other general information Key literature references
Red List Categories were then defined for each species at the European and EU 27 levels. Chris van Swaay and several members of Butterfly Conservation Europe in order to discuss how to take into consideration uncertainty in the data analysis and in the resulting Red List categories. the data were edited. a meeting was hold in Ankara (Turkey) between Resit Akçakaya. Laufen.5 Review workshop and evaluation of assessments A workshop with 50 national and species experts was organised on 28-29 January 2009 in Laufen (Germany) to review the preliminary assessments on a biogeographical basis. Following the review workshop and the uncertainty discussion. January 2009. Expert participants at the Butterfly Red List workshop. Consistency in the use of IUCN Criteria was checked by IUCN staff from the IUCN Red List Unit. The resulting finalised IUCN Red List assessments are a product of scientific consensus concerning species status and are backed by relevant literature and data sources. Germany. The preliminary assessments were reviewed during the workshop and new information was added to the species summaries and maps. Following this meeting.2. and outstanding questions were resolved through communications with the experts. the butterflies assessments were reviewed once again and adjustments were made. In August 2009. Photograph © Chris van Swaay. Preliminary species summary reports were distributed to all the participants before the review workshop to allow them to check the data presented and prepare any changes to the data. 8 .
5% of the species (37 species) are considered as threatened.3.8% Endangered and 5% Vulnerable (Table 3 and Figure 3 and 4). 2. de Sousa. 11. Summary of numbers of European butterflies species within each category of threat IUCN Red List categories Regionally Extinct (RE) Critically Endangered (CR) Endangered (EN) Vulnerable (VU) Near Threatened (NT) Least Concern (LC) Data Deficient (DD) Total number of species assessed* * No. 2. In addition. with 0. Russell. species Europe (no. Table 3.7% of them being Critically Endangered.5% are Critically Endangered. species EU 27 (no. The Madeiran Large White (Pieris wollastoni). Species classed as Regionally Extinct and threatened (Critically Endangered. It is therefore considered as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct). B. endemic species) 2 2 (1) 9 (5) 19 (10) 47 (7) 338 (54) 4 (1) 421 (78) Threatened categories This table does not include the Not Applicable species in Europe and/or the EU (species introduced after AD 1500 or species of marginal occurrence). comm. but still occurs in Ukraine.1% of the butterflies (30 species) are threatened with extinction. Most of these are declining rapidly in parts of their range and are in urgent need of conservation action. For the EU 27 assessment the Not Evaluated species (species which do not occur in the EU) are also excluded. Results and discussion 3. & P. endemic species) 1 3 (2) 12 (6) 22 (14) 44 (11) 349 (107) 4 (2) 435 (142) No. A further 10% (44 species) of species are classified as Near Threatened. Figure 3. At the European level. Within the EU27. pers. Endangered and Vulnerable) at the European and EU 27 level are listed in Table 4. 7. has not been reported since 1986 despite several visits of lepidopterists to its former habitat (Gardiner 2003. pers.1% Endangered and 4. 8.). restricted to the island of Madeira (Portugal). Red List status of butterflies in the EU27 9 .2% of species are considered as Near Threatened. comm. One species is Regionally Extinct at the European level (Aricia hyacinthus) and an additional one is Regionally Extinct at the EU27 level: Tomares nogelii disappeared from Romania and Moldova before 1999.5% Vulnerable.1 Threatened status of butterflies The status of butterflies was assessed at two regional levels: geographical Europe and the EU27. Red List status of butterflies in Europe Figure 4. of which 0.
threatened or Near Threatened butterflies species at the European and EU27 level. Species endemic to Europe or to EU 27 are marked with an asterisk (*). Family LYCAENIDAE PIERIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PIERIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE NYMPHALIDAE LYCAENIDAE HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PIERIDAE HESPERIIDAE HESPERIIDAE HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE Genus Aricia Pieris Coenonympha Pseudochazara Colias Lycaena Phengaris Plebejus Polyommatus Turanana Boloria Coenonympha Pararge Gonepteryx Pieris Pseudochazara Tomares Pyrgus Phengaris Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Boloria Coenonympha Erebia Erebia Hipparchia Hipparchia Lopinga Pseudochazara Pseudochazara Colias Euchloe Gonepteryx Coenonympha Euphydryas Coenonympha Leptidea Carcharodus Muschampia Thymelicus Iolana Phengaris Plebejus Polyommatus Species hyacinthus wollastoni phryne cingovskii myrmidone helle arion zullichi humedasae taygetica improba oedippus xiphia maderensis cheiranthi euxina nogelii cirsii teleius galloi golgus orphicus violetae polaris hero christi sudetica bacchus tilosi achine amymone orestes chrysotheme bazae cleobule tullia maturna orientalis morsei lavatherae cribrellum acteon iolas nausithous dardanus damon Common name Red List status Europe EU27 RE CR* NE NE CR LC EN EN* EN* EN EN LC EN* EN* EN* NE RE VU VU VU* VU* VU* VU* VU VU VU VU VU* VU* VU VU* VU* VU VU* VU* NT LC DD EN NT NT NT NT NT NT NT RE CR* CR CR* EN EN EN EN* EN* EN EN EN EN* EN* EN* EN* VU VU* VU VU* VU* VU* VU* VU VU VU* VU* VU* VU* VU VU* VU* VU VU* VU* VU VU VU* NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT Madeiran Large White Macedonian Grayling Danube Clouded Yellow Violet Copper Large Blue Zullich´s Blue Piedmont Anomalous Blue Odd-spot Blue Dusky-winged Fritillary False Ringlet Madeiran Speckled Wood Madeiran Brimstone Canary Islands Large White Nogel’s Hairstreak Cinquefoil Skipper Scarce Large Blue Higgin’s Anomalous Blue Sierra Nevada Blue Andalusian Anomalous Blue Polar Fritillary Scarce Heath Raetzer’s Ringlet Sudeten Ringlet El Hierro Grayling La Palma Grayling Woodland Brown Dils’ Grayling Lesser Clouded Yellow Spanish Greenish Black-tip Canary Brimstone Large Heath Scarce Fritillary Balkan Heath Fenton’s Wood White Marbled Skipper Spinose Skipper Lulworth Skipper Iolas Blue Dusky Large Blue Bosnian Blue Damon Blue 10 . Regionally Extinct.Table 4.
Family LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE PIERIDAE HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PAPILIONIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE NYMPHALIDAE Genus Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Pseudophilotes Pseudophilotes Boloria Chazara Erebia Erebia Erebia Euphydryas Euphydryas Hipparchia Hipparchia Hipparchia Hipparchia Hipparchia Maniola Melitaea Oeneis Parnassius Parnassius Zerynthia Colias Colias Zegris Carcharodus Aricia Cupido Plebejus Boloria Melitaea Archon Parnassius Plebejus Nymphalis Pyrgus Lycaena Lycaena Phengaris Polyommatus Scolitantides Argynnis Argynnis Limenitis Melitaea Melitaea Nymphalis Species dorylas eros nephohiptamenos nivescens panoptes vicrama chariclea briseis claudina epistygne flavofasciata desfontainii iduna fagi hermione leighebi sbordonii statilinus halicarnassus britomartis norna apollo phoebus cerisy hecla phicomone eupheme flocciferus anteros decoloratus trappi titania aurelia apollinus mnemosyne pylaon vaualbum serratulae alciphron hippothoe alcon ripartii orion laodice niobe populi diamina trivia xanthomelas Common name Turquoise Blue Eros Blue Higgins’s Anomalous Blue Mother-of-pearl Blue Panoptes Blue Eastern Baton Blue Arctic Fritillary The Hermit White Speck Ringlet Spring Ringlet Yellow-banded Ringlet Spanish Fritillary Lapland Fritillary Woodland Grayling Rock Grayling Eolian Grayling Ponza Grayling Tree Grayling Thomson’s Meadow Brown Assmann’s Fritillary Norse Grayling Apollo Small Apollo Eastern Festoon Northern Clouded Yellow Mountain Clouded Yellow Sooty Orange-tip Tufted Marbled Skipper Blue Argus Eastern Short-tailed Blue Alpine Zephyr Blue Titania’s Fritillary Nickerl’s Fritillary False Apollo Clouded Apollo Eastern Zephyr Blue False Comma Olive Skipper Purple-shot Copper Purple-edged Copper Alcon Blue Ripart’s Anomalous Blue Chequered Blue Pallas’s Fritillary Niobe Fritillary Poplar Admiral False Heath Fritillary Lesser Spotted Fritillary Yellow-legged Tortoiseshell Red List status Europe NT NT NT* NT* NT* NT NT NT NT* NT* NT* NT NT NT* NT NT* NT* NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT* NT NT NT NT NT* NT NT NT NT NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC EU27 NT NT NT* NT* NT* NT NT NT NT* NT* NT NT NT NT NT NT* NT* NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NE VU NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 11 .
Where no accurate trend data were available. but not at a sufficient rate to be classified as threatened. 11% of saproxylic beetles. Temple & Terry 2007. No other groups have yet been comprehensively assessed at the European and EU27 level according to IUCN regional Red List guidelines. Kalkman et al. major declines of butterflies occurred in the 1950s-70s. compilers usually reported trends as stable. Better population trend data are available through butterfly monitoring schemes that have been established in 14 countries. 13% of birds. but funding is not yet available to collate and analyse these at a European level. 15% dragonflies 19% of reptiles and 23% of amphibians are threatened at the European level (Nieto & Alexander 2010. In comparison to butterflies. It is mostly found on cool and wet meadows. 14% of mammals. Cox & Temple 2009. 2010. either due to their marginal occurrence in Europe or because they were introduced after AD 1500. and loss rates have slowed as species have been reduced to very low levels. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 12 . often just below the IUCN thresholds for red listing. The few remaining populations were more or less stable in the last ten years. Many more species are therefore important conservation priorities as they are still declining. The Violet Copper Lycaena helle (Endangered) is a rare and threatened butterfly in Europe. It is likely that such an analysis would add several more species to the threat list and should be done as a matter of urgency.Forty-eight species were considered as Not Applicable. a considerably greater proportion of butterflies are declining and threatened. including several eastern European countries which comprise a large part of the study region. Another problem is that for many western European countries. Temple & Cox 2009). but this probably underestimated the true rate of loss at European scale. In countries with good trend data. For this reason this species is considered only Least Concern in the EU-27 countries. It should be noted that the figures for butterflies represent minimum estimates as objective data on trends over the last ten year period (as required by the IUCN criteria) are not available in many countries. BirdLife International 2004a. The species classified both as threatened and Near Threatened (19% of total) are thus all high conservation priorities. In the EU-27 countries most of the decline already happened before 1995.
5% 0. 3. Number of butterfly species in the 27 current EU Member States (excluding introduced species).0% 13. Red List status (at the European level) of butterfly by taxonomic family Family HESPERIIDAE LYCAENIDAE NYMPHALIDAE PAPILIONIDAE PIERIDAE RIODINIDAE Total Total* 43 112 214 12 53 1 435 RE 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 CR 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 EN 0 5 4 0 3 0 12 VU 1 6 12 0 3 0 22 NT 4 14 17 5 4 0 44 LC 38 83 178 7 42 1 349 DD 0 3 1 0 0 0 4 % Threatened* 2. often just below the IUCN thresholds for red listing.3% 9. The geographic distribution of species richness in Europe is presented in Figure 5.7% 8.Table 5.5% *Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA). A high proportion of threatened and Near Threatened butterfly species are endemic to either Europe or EU.2 and Table 1. France. but Least Concern at the EU27 (Lycaena helle. Coenonympha tullia and Euphydryas maturna). As a matter of fact. Table 6.3.3 Spatial distribution of species Information on the species richness of butterflies within families has already been given in Section 1. Spain.0% 8. Spain. Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Total number of species 197 88 211 48 140 63 98 110 244 178 230 152 30 264 105 114 78 18 55 147 147 180 164 172 243 108 55 3. Three species are considered threatened at the European level. among which considerable differences exist both in species numbers as well as in threatened status (Table 5). there is currently a steep decline observed for these species. whereas in the eastern Europe. 3. The top five EU countries in terms of butterflies species richness (in descending order) are: Italy. Greece and Bulgaria (Table 6). This is particularly true for France. The greatest richness clearly coincides 13 .2% 0. highlighting the responsibility that European countries have to protect the entire global populations of these species. the decline of their populations in western Europe occurred in the last century and loss rates have slowed as species have been reduced to very low levels.2 Status by taxonomic groups The European butterflies belong to a number of different families (see Section 1. Greece and Bulgaria. Italy.2).1 Species richness Figure 5 highlights areas of particular high concentrations of butterfly species.
Figure 5. Species richness of European butterflies Figure 6. Distribution of threatened butterflies in Europe 14 .
g.3 Endemic species richness Figure 7 shows the distribution of endemic butterfly species (e. notably mountain grasslands and wet meadows. Distribution of endemic butterfly species in Europe 15 .g. Colias myrmidone. the Pyrenees. the Alps. Southern Russia also seems to host a high number of species. Lopinga achine.3. tullia. Figure 6 shows that the greatest concentrations of threatened butterfly species are found in central and eastern Europe. Euphydryas maturna. most threatened species can be found in eastern France. the Dinaric Alps. Sierra Nevada and Cantabrian Mountains) and in Italy (the Apennines). Another is that they coincide to some extent with general butterfly diversity and regions where eastern and western faunas overlap.2 Distribution of threatened species The distribution of threatened butterflies in Europe (Figure 6) shows different patterns from the picture of the overall species diversity. the Romanian Carpathians and eastern Poland. In central Europe. Phengaris arion and P. One factor is that these regions hold concentrations of habitats used by threatened species. whereas species in eastern Europe appear to be suffering from a more recent loss of habitat and hence decline in populations. the Carpathians and the mountains of the Balkans. the Apennines. Some of the threatened species still occur widely in Russia. 3. Lycaena helle. teleius.3. Particularly high numbers of endemic species are found in the Alps and the Pyrenees. Figure 7. 3. which host numerous species of very restricted range.with mountainous areas in the south of Europe: the Cantabrian Mountains. for example Coenonympha hero. Another factor is that species in western Europe that have suffered major historical declines and loss rates have now slowed to just below IUCN thresholds. eastern Austria. as well as in the Balkans. Other important concentrations of endemics are found in mountainous areas in Spain (e. The reasons for this pattern are likely to be complex and to involve a combination of a wide range of factors. those that are unique to Europe and are found nowhere else in the world). C.
The Sudeten Ringlet Erebia sudetica is a European endemic found on alpine and subalpine grasslands. The major drivers of butterfly habitat loss and degradation are related to agricultural intensification. while the rest are found in other types of ecosystems (rocky slopes. the decline of traditional patterns of agriculture on more marginal areas leads to abandonment of land and to the subsequent invasion of shrubs and trees (especially in eastern Europe and in Figure 8. A summary of the relative importance of the different threatening processes is shown in Figure 8. woodland and scrub are home to about a quarter of the species.). drainage of wetlands.4 Major threats to butterflies in Europe The major threats to each species were coded using the IUCN Threats Classification Scheme. etc. the improvement of flower-rich grasslands. Butterflies have very specific food and habitat requirements at different stages of their life cycle. While agricultural intensification tends to take place on more productive land. for example through conversion of grasslands to crop fields. Its population has declined by more than 30% in the last 10 years. They are especially sensitive to changes in habitat management such as overgrazing. especially those near the tree-line. therefore it is considered as Vulnerable Photograph © Neil Thompson 3. and the intensification of livestock grazing. They are therefore particularly sensitive to modifications of their environment and serve as an excellent indicator of the status of the ecosystems. More than half of the butterfly species inhabit grasslands. undergrazing or changes in forestry practice. Major threats to butterflies in Europe 16 .
or other habitats now often occur in small. intact units. Invasive species are also a problem to some species.. Changes in the management of non-agricultural areas. cities. a widespread species in Europe. grass patches or woodland margins and require regular forest management (Van Swaay & Warren 1999). affecting species such as Phengaris arion. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 17 . Furthermore. the development of tourism activities and urbanisation destroy important breeding habitat. clearings. As habitat loss is still continuing. especially on islands: the introduction of alien parasites might be the cause of decline of the Canary Islands Large White (Pieris cheiranthi) (Lozan et al. and the introduction of other butterfly species might threaten native species.the Mediterranean). The pace of climate change will almost certainly be more rapid than most plants are able to migrate. thus reducing the area of suitable habitat and habitat connectivity substantially. and unfavourable grassland management (wrong timing or intensity) have led to drastic declines (see Konvicka et al. Natural re-colonisation is less likely in such isolated sites and regional extinction more likely (Hanski 1999). 1998. For this reason. where it breeds on docks and sorrels. the increased frequency and intensity of fires. and other barriers associated with human presence may provide no opportunity for distributional shifts. where agri-environment schemes have been well designed and implemented. some of them being targeted as “pest” because their caterpillars feed on farm crops. The remaining meadows. plants and animals may not be able to keep track of these changes. Brereton et al. 2008). The Large Copper Lycaena dispar (Least Concern) occurs in a range of grassland types. A serious factor in the decline of many species is the extreme fragmentation of their habitats following decades of habitat loss and/or unsuitable management. 2008). as well as in the Mediterranean. land-use changes. but other inoffensive species suffer the same fate. This trend is affecting a wide range of wildlife groups (Poole et al. domestic and agricultural pollution (such as nitrogen deposition) leads to a faster succession of vegetation. Climate is a major factor determining the distribution of species (biogeography). Tucker & Health 1994) and is considered to be the second major threat to European butterflies. A major factor in the decline of such species is the widespread changes in woodland management across Europe. they have led to some positive results for butterflies (e. such as grasslands. where the Speckled Wood (Pararge aegeria). fragmentation is a growing threat to European butterflies. are also an important threat. as well as the distribution of the vegetation. 2008). 2007). colonized the island in the 1970s and is now possibly threatening the Madeiran Speckled Wood (Pararge xiphia) (Jones & Lace 2008). Lycaena helle and Colias myrmidone. it is expanding its range in some central and eastern countries and is classified as Least Concern. In some cases. They act like little islands. The presence of roads. there is likely to be a serious mismatch between the future climatic zones that are suitable for butterflies and their main foodplants (Schweiger et al. isolated patches rather than in large. for a number of reasons. Such small. Although it has declined in many countries. as is probably the case on Madeira. This is a serious threat to declining species such as Lopinga achine and Hamearis lucina. It is protected under the EU Habitats and Species Directive. even under EU funded agri-environment schemes. where only small populations can survive. isolated populations are more prone to extinction from normal population fluctuations and from extreme events such as fire or drought. However. Within woodlands. many butterfly species rely on open areas. Pesticides and herbicides kill both adult butterflies and caterpillars. Climate change may simply shift these distributions but.g. leading to reduced habitat suitability. forests. such as the laurel forest. Climate change is already impacting some populations (in particular of tundra species like Colias hecla and Euphydryas iduna) and is likely to affect additional species more significantly in the future (Settele et al. 2008) On islands (such as the Canary Islands or Madeira).
A further 10% have unknown population trends. Population trends of European butterflies The Apollo Parnassius apollo is a striking butterfly associated with mountain screes where its caterpillars feed on Sedums. 26% of dragonflies (Kalkman et al. 14% of saproxylic beetles (Nieto and Alexander 2010). 27% of mammal species. Near Threatened and Data Deficient species. and a special effort was made to determine which species are believed to be significantly declining. More than half (55%) of them seem to have stable populations.3. or increasing. Figure 9. acknowledging that the proportion of mammal species with unknown population trend is quite high (33%) (Temple and Terry 2007. By contrast. leading to it being classified as Near Threatened. while only 4% are increasing (Figure 9). 2008). However. There are at least a few dozen other species for which such European trends could be established immediately from the data already gathered. based on population trends between 1990 and 2000 (BirdLife International 2004a). these are likely to be considerable underestimates of the number of species declining due to lack of good objective trend data in many countries. stable. Its overall European population declined by almost 30% in the last 10 years. About a third (31%) of the European butterflies are considered to be declining. A better use of the monitoring data of butterfly populations in Europe and an extension to under-recorded areas is urgently needed. Just under a quarter (23%) of European birds is decreasing in number. BirdLife International’s analysis of population trends in European birds was based on quantitative data from a well established monitoring network covering the majority of species and countries in Europe.1. For 17 grassland butterfly species European trends have been established (Van Swaay and Van Strien. its colonies at many lowland sites. Photograph © Bosse van Swaay 18 . For butterflies there is also a network of Butterfly Monitoring Schemes covering 14 countries at present. 42% of reptile species (Cox and Temple 2009) and 59% of amphibian species (Temple and Cox 2009) have declining populations.5 Demographic trends Documenting population trends is key to assessing species status. many of which are genetically unique. As explained above in section 3. 2009). have declined far more severely and it has become extinct in several mountain ranges over the last 100 years. especially for threatened. 2010).
htm. One of the main tools to enhance and maintain this status is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. with a total area of around 850. including the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Given this result it seems highly unlikely that the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss will be met for this indicator group of insects. Each Member State is required to identify sites of European importance and is encouraged to put in place a special management plan to protect them. but population declines should also be reversed. of which 12 are now classed as threatened in Europe. The main aim of this nature conservation policy is to ensure the favourable conservation status (see Box 1) of the habitats and species found in the EU. 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna. etc. Member States are required to designate Natura 2000 sites for the species listed on Annex II. The Habitats Directive contains a series of Annexes that mostly identify ‘habitats’ and species of European Community concern. Most of the Habitats Directive species listed that are not included in the current Red List are still declining in parts of their range. Conservation measures 4. The Natura 2000 network has grown over the last 25 years and now includes more than 26.000 protected areas in all Member States combined. Annex IV species are subject to a strict protection system. make up the Natura 2000 network . In particular there are 31 butterfly species listed on the Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive. and most importantly. combining longterm conservation with economic and social activities as part of a sustainable development strategy.1 Protection of habitats and species in Europe European countries and EU Member States are signatories to a number of important conventions aimed at conserving biodiversity that are particularly relevant to butterflies. the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. or have suffered historical declines and are still in need of conservation effort. Table 7 shows those species identified as threatened by the assessment and their inclusion in the protected species Annexes of the Habitats Directive and Appendix II and III of the Bern Convention. The Bern Convention is a binding international legal instrument that aims to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats and to promote European cooperation towards that objective. Many European countries and other administrative units (states. provinces. regional development and transport. downloaded November 2009. European countries and the EU have made the commitment to reduce (or halt) the loss of biodiversity within Europe by 2010. 19 . 4. However this assessment has also revealed that 39 European butterfly species are threatened either at the European or EU27 level. 2 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. and 5 are classed as Near Threatened as a result of this project. together with those of the Birds Directive. In particular 22 species listed on Appendix II (strictly protected species) of the Bern Convention are included in this Red List.the cornerstone of EU nature conservation policy. The Habitats Directive.000 km² – more than 20% of total EU territory4. EU nature conservation policy also foresees the integration of its protection requirements into other EU sectoral policies such as agriculture.4. This means that the majority of the species listed in the Annexes are in need of greater conservation action. This means that not only should extinctions be prevented.2 Protection of habitats and species in the EU27 EU nature conservation policy is based on two main pieces of legislation . It covers all European countries and some African states.europa. Many are also valuable indicators of important habitats and their conservation will bring wide biodiversity benefits. These sites. which aims to protect other wildlife species and habitats. of which only 12 are legally protected in Europe.eu/environment/nature/index_en. The present study has shown that a large number of butterfly species show continuing declines and many are under serious threat. 4 Source: http://ec.the Birds Directive2 and the Habitats Directive3. (Four species of moths are also included in Annex II and 1 species of moth is included in Annex III) (see Table 7).) also afford butterflies some form of protective species legislation. applies to both terrestrial and marine regions.
Table 7. The threatened butterfly taxa identified by the assessment and their presence on either Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive or Appendices II or III of the Bern Convention. An asterisk (*) indicates that the species is a priority species for the Habitats Directive. Red List status Genus Aricia Pieris Coenonympha Pseudochazara Colias Phengaris Plebejus Polyommatus Turanana Boloria Pararge Gonepteryx Pieris Lycaena Coenonympha Pseudochazara Tomares Pyrgus Phengaris Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Polyommatus Boloria Coenonympha Erebia Erebia Hipparchia Hipparchia Lopinga Pseudochazara Pseudochazara Colias Euchloe Gonepteryx Coenonympha Euphydryas Coenonympha Leptidea Nymphalis 1 2 3 4 5 as Maculinea arion as Clossiana improba as Maculinea teleius as Plebicula golgus as Hypodryas maturna Species hyacinthus wollastoni phryne cingovskii myrmidone arion1 zullichi humedasae taygetica improba xiphia maderensis cheiranthi helle oedippus euxina nogelii cirsii teleius3 galloi golgus orphicus violetae polaris hero christi sudetica bacchus tilosi achine amymone orestes chrysotheme bazae cleobule tullia maturna orientalis morsei vaualbum Europe RE CR CR CR EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU NT LC EU27 RE CR NE NE CR EN EN EN EN EN EN EN EN LC LC NE RE VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU VU NT LC DD EN VU Habitats Directive Annexes Bern Convention Annexes II/IV II/IV II II II2 II/IV II/IV II II/IV IV 4 II II II 4 II/IV II/IV II/IV II II II IV II II/IV5 II/IV II*/IV II5 20 .
use of pesticides) or abandonment (where its habitat gets invaded by scrubs and later forest). projects aimed at restoring natural habitat and targeting other insect species might be beneficial to butterflies as well.4 Extinction risk versus conservation status The IUCN Red List Criteria classify species solely on the basis of their relative extinction risk (IUCN 2001). LIFE supports the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. Because of this complicated lifecycle the butterfly is vulnerable to any changes in the environment that affect either the hostplants or hostants.3 Conservation management of butterflies in the EU LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU as well as in some candidate.The Scarce Large Blue Phengaris teleius (Vulnerable) is a typical species of wet meadows with the Great Burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis). see the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3. this does not mean that the opposite is true: species that 21 . LIFE has co-financed over 3. drainage. however. This review is based on a search for butterfly species on the LIFE database http://ec. site purchases. habitat conservation and action for sustaining butterflies populations. They then go down to the ground where they wait to be picked up by worker ants of the genus Myrmica and carried off to the ants’ nest.europa.org/technical-documents/categoriesand-criteria). Since 1992. Photograph © Chris van Swaay Table 8.2 billion. communication and awareness-raising. The caterpillars also hibernate and pupate in the ants’ nest.cfm. The number of LIFE projects targeted either towards specific species or habitats for butterflies.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index. It is difficult to claim that a species experiencing a decline of this magnitude is maintaining its population. Projects involve a variety of actions including habitat restoration. However. protected area infrastructure and conservation planning. Table 8 shows the taxonomic breakdown of these projects. Examples of actions taken within these projects include habitat restoration. acceding and neighbouring countries. Genus Coenonympha Colias Erebia Euphydryas Euphydryas Lopinga Lycaena Lycaena Phengaris Phengaris Phengaris Parnassius Zerynthia 1 2 3 4 5 as Erebia medusa polaris as Hypodryas maturna as Maculinea arion as Maculinea nausithous as Maculinea teleius Species oedippus myrmidone polaris1 aurinia maturna2 achine dispar helle arion3 nausithous4 teleius5 mnemosyne polyxena LIFE projects 2 1 2 16 1 2 8 3 1 3 5 1 1 4. To be classified as Vulnerable (the lowest of the three IUCN threatened categories) a species must undergo a reduction in population size of at least 30% over ten years or three generations (or have a very small or small and declining population or geographic range. that its range is stable. Crucially. No species meeting the IUCN Red List Criteria for one of the threatened categories at a regional level can be considered to have a Favourable conservation status in the EU. However. This is identified clearly in Article 1 of the Directive (see Box 1). In large parts of Europe this species declines because of either intensification (e. 4. Most of the 53 projects were focused at the habitat or site level rather than on particular species.1 http:// www. Based on a search of the LIFE project database that lists all past and current LIFE projects.104 projects with a total budget of approximately €2.g. 46 projects link their actions to butterflies conservation and target 13 specific species. Unfavourable Conservation Status according to the EU Habitats Directive has a much broader definition. There they feed on ant grubs.iucnredlist. The small caterpillars only feed on the flowerheads for two or three weeks. It is listed on both the Annexes II and IV of the Habitat Directive and in the Annexe II of the Bern Convention. and that it remains a viable component of its habitat. Some projects target more than one species. The species of host ant varies in different parts of its range. fertilization.
The purpose of the Red List categorization is to produce a relative estimate of the likelihood of extinction of a taxon. as well as other factors. and probably will continue to be. which is little known. 2007). For example. or cultural preferences for some taxa over others. Many butterfly species remain widely distributed in Europe. although many of these species would be categorised as Near Threatened or Least Concern. Tourist activities and agricultural improvement have diminished many colonies and the remaining populations are mainly threatened by changes in agricultural practices. and thus does not satisfy IUCN Red List Criteria.4 and 3. cost-effectiveness. as well as the probability of success of conservation actions. but also takes into account other factors such as ecological. they could not be regarded as having Favourable Conservation Status. availability of funds or personnel.5). on the other hand. 4. In the context of regional risk assessments. Therefore. not faced by any direct extinction risk) does not necessarily mean that it has a favourable conservation status’ (Anon. It states that a species’ conservation status will be taken as Favourable when: ■ Population dynamics data on the species concerned suggests that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats. 22 . such as the assignment of IUCN Red List Categories. phylogenetic. a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. and legal frameworks for conservation of threatened taxa. Photograph © Albert Vliegenthart Box 1. Assessment of extinction risk. and ■ There is. and ■ The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the considerable future. The Nogel’s Hairstreak Tomares nogelii (Vulnerable) is a habitat specialist that feeds solely on Astragalus ponticus. It has a highly fragmented distribution.are not threatened as defined by IUCN Red List Criteria do not necessarily have a Favourable Conservation Status (BirdLife International 2004a). historical. It has disappeared from the EU-27 countries. but can still be found in Ukraine. The European Red List has highlighted the fact that about a third of butterflies have declining populations and 10% have an unknown population trend (see Figure 9). Guidelines issued by the European Commission on the protection of animal species under the Habitats Directive reinforce this message that ‘the fact that a habitat or species is not threatened (i. It should however be noted that both the distribution and population size of numerous species have declined severely during the 20th century (but not in the timeframe of 10 years taken into consideration by IUCN methodology) or at a rate that does not exceed 30%. are used for establishing conservation priorities is a matter for the regional authorities to determine.e. a number of additional pieces of information are valuable for setting conservation priorities. normally includes the assessment of extinction risk.5 Red List versus priority for conservation action Assessment of extinction risk and setting conservation priorities are two related but different processes. generally precedes the setting of conservation priorities. it is important to consider not only conditions within the region but also the status of the taxon from a global perspective and the proportion of the global population that occurs within the region. Setting conservation priorities. economical. A decision on how these three variables. although their populations and ranges have suffered significant long-term decline as a result of habitat loss and degradation in conjunction with other threats (see Sections 3. Selected provisions of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 1(i) defines the conservation status of a species as “the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the longterm distribution and abundance of its populations in the European territory of the Member States”.
Conduct further ecological research on threatened European species and the adequate management of their habitats to underpin conservation programmes. but the few remaining populations showed only a small decline in the last ten years. About a third (31%) of the European butterflies has declining populations. In particular: ■ Include European threatened species when revising relevant national and regional legislation. Photograph © Tom Nygaard Kristensen 23 . A further 10% of butterflies are considered Near Threatened. In the rest of Europe it continues to decline rapidly and even large populations are disappearing. a population decline of 30% in the last 10 years). including climate change. where young ash trees are growing in open. The highest diversity of butterflies is found in the mountainous areas of the southern Europe.5. Therefore it is considered Vulnerable in Europe as a whole. Develop measures to conserve entire landscapes in Europe and reduce impact of habitat fragmentation and isolation. Improve policy measures to conserve wildlife habitats in Europe. Other important threats are climate change. especially the Common Agricultural Policy. In some cases the few remaining populations in these countries are nowadays stable as a result of conservation measures. ■ Ensure that all semi-natural habitats are managed appropriately for threatened butterflies and ensure ■ ■ ■ ■ continuation of traditional management systems on which so many species depend. Establish a co-ordinated system of butterfly recording and monitoring in every European country to improve future priority assessments and assess the impact of conservation measures and future environmental change. even though not always at a rate that would meet the IUCN Red List Criteria (i. ■ Draw up Species Action (Recovery) Plans to cover all threatened European species ■ Improve the protection of butterfly habitats throughout Europe to include key individual sites and whole landscapes. ■ Protect and manage the network of Prime Butterfly Areas that have been identified in Europe as a priority (van Swaay & Warren 2003). either through intensification or abandonment. about 9% of European butterflies are threatened in Europe. not enough to make it a threatened species according to the Red List criteria. The main current threat to European butterflies is the loss of their habitat or habitat connectivity due to the changes in agricultural practices. It should be noted that both the distribution and population size of numerous species have declined severely during the 20th century (but not in the timeframe of 10 years or three generations taken into consideration by IUCN methodology). increased frequency and intensity of fires and tourism development. especially in Western Europe. almost one-fifth of butterflies in Europe are Threatened or Near Threatened.e. mixed woodland. Revise the list of threatened European butterflies regularly and when new data become available (eg from collating data from the butterfly monitoring schemes running in 14 countries). which means these species do not occur in the list of threatened species. In order to improve the conservation status of European butterflies and to reverse these negative trends. In the European Union these should be integrated into the Natura 2000 network. and 7% are threatened at the EU27 level. In the EU-27 it showed a strong decline in the 20th century.1 Overview and recommendations for conservation measures ■ Overall. further conservation actions are urgently needed. Thus. whereas most of the threatened species are confined to parts of central and eastern Europe. Conclusion and recommendations 1. The Scarce Fritillary Euphydryas maturna occurs in clearings.
It also contributes to broaden the coverage of invertebrates on the global IUCN Red List. amphibians.europa. regional and international levels. By regularly updating the data presented here we will be able to track the changing fate of European butterflies to 2010 and beyond. they will enable the changing status of these species to be tracked through time via the production of a Red List Index (Butchart et al. to identify priority sites and species to include in research and monitoring programmes and to identify internationally important areas for biodiversity. The outputs of this project can be applied to inform policy. In conjunction with the data on European birds published by BirdLife International (BirdLife International 2004a. Photo © Kars Veling 24 . 5. There are in particular significant geographical and taxonomical biases in the quality and quantity of data available on the distribution and status of species. especially for threatened. dry. it provides key resources for decision-makers. threats and recommended conservation measures for each species assessed. rocky slopes in one valley in Northern Italy alone. 2007). eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist) and through paper publications (see the list of European Red List published at the end of this report). reptiles. dragonflies). 2006. thanks to the assessment of endemic European butterflies.org/europe). monitoring and conservation action at local. habitats. These data are freely available on the IUCN Red List website (www. To date. The Piedmont Anomalous Blue (Polyommatus humedasae) occurs only on a few warm. If the butterfly assessments are periodically updated. 2005.3 Future work Through the process of gathering and compiling butterfly data across Europe. ecology.b). on the European Commission website (http://ec. environmental planners and NGOs. this indicator has been produced for birds at the European regional level and has been adopted as one of the headline biodiversity indicators to monitor progress towards halting biodiversity loss in Europe by 2010 (European Environment Agency 2007). This Red List is a dynamic tool that will evolve with time. It is listed as Endangered both in Europe and in EU-27. resources managers.5.iucnredlist. freshwater fish. Near Threatened and Data Deficient species. several knowledge gaps have been identified. molluscs and plants. and selected beetles. as species are reassessed according to new information or situations. 2004.2 Application of project outputs This Butterfly Red List is part of a wider project aimed at comprehensively assessing several taxonomic groups (mammals. policy-makers. It has gathered large amounts of data on the population. It is aimed at stimulating and supporting research.
doi:10. IUCN Species Survival Commission. and Freyhof. J.M.R. H. 2003. 2007.A. A. Butchart. trends.J. Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. eine neue Tagfalterart für die europäische Fauna? (Lepidoptera. M. BirdLife International. Improvements to the Red List Index. Conservation Biology 20: 579–581. C. aegeria (Satyridae) on Madeira: distribution. . Switzerland. org Gardiner.. S.. B. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 629-638. 12(5): 519-525.H. E. BirdLife International.-C. Switzerland. European Environment Agency. PLoS Biology 2: e383. Jones. J. E. Conze. L.R.N. P.. Pienkowski. M. Poole. et al. Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. pone. M. 2005.J. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360: 255–268. 1898. J. Soc. The speckled wood butterflies Pararge xiphia and P. 2006. CEMEX. Kottelat.E. Bennun.M.R. 11/2007. & Katariya. IUCN Red List Categories. Switzerland. Brooks. 2004. & Fonseca. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. HiltonTaylor. Roy. Bernard. J.1. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles.J. Kottelat. Fauna Europaea Web Service. Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. 2010.. Pilgrim. Stattersfield. BirdLife International.E.. 2008. & Lace. (eds) 1998.. S.0. Fauna Europaea version 1. M. Dyatlova. S. Gland. Baillie. Benes. The World Factbook. – Atalanta 21(1/2): 101–108..M. IUCN Gland. IUCN.. D. Vitaz. Lamoreux. 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. (2008) The changing status of the Chalkhill Blue butterfly Polyommatus coridon in the UK: the impacts of conservation policies and environmental factors. Petretti.. The possible cause of extinction of Pieris brassicae wollastoni Butler (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). In: J. C. Akcakaya. Birds in Europe: population estimates. 2009. Available online at http://www. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a frst set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. Biol.. Kennedy.. Gland.. M. Central Intelligence Agency. European Red List of Reptiles. A. and Sahlén. S. et al.M.1. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Switzerland and Freyhof. L. O.. Cambridge. The Netherlands. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. H. M.. 2008. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3. V.faunaeur. Collen.. S. Mittermeier...A. & Stewart. Brédy.. Jović.A.. García. H. Riservato E.. Ott. Nieto. IUCN.. T. C.1990.. J.1371/ journal. B. H. Stattersfield. Bennun. J. Conservation International and Agrupación Sierra Madre.. 2004.. Cacyreus marshalli Butler. C. K. S. V. Kopecek.. D. and Alexander. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3. J. Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond.H. L. 2001. IUCN 2009. Journal of Insect Conservation..gov/library/publications/theworldfactbook/.A... IUCN. Butchart. agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. Ferreira. 2009. 2007.. Berlin. Akcakaya. Temple. S. The 2008 Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2004a. Cornol.. A. 2003. Akcakaya. G. N. Butchart. K-J.iucnredlist. Butchart. Switzerland. B. R.. A. IUCN.. Cizek. 2009. M. IUCN. 2004b. UK. T.G. F.M. Cox.J. Stuart. Konvicka. EEA Technical Report No.I. Mexico City. J. PLoS ONE 2(1): e140.H. H. IUCN Species Survival Commission.A...M.. www. and conservation status. Gland.0000140.. K. territorial behaviour and possible competition. N. McCracken. Boudot. Robles Gil.. R.N. J-P.. IUCN.A. 1994. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.. Entomologist's Gazette 54:267–268. Konvicka. Germany. Mountain livestock farming and EU policy development: Proceedings of the Fifth European Forum on Nature Conservation 25 .References BirdLife International.. G. L. J.. Shutes. & Deffeyes. The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat..H. U. 2004. and Stamer P.. Wageningen. https://www. Stuart (eds).. Cuttelod.cia. C. Kalkman. Baillie. J. et al.M. Linn. Vié. A.N. How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves. European Red List of Dragonflies. O. F. Lycaenidae). G. S. Brereton. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2008. Eitschberger.B. D.. HiltonTaylor and S. M. and Temple. Abdul Malak. Warren. Mittermeier. Hoffmann.org. 46: 77-89. A. De Knijf. Chanson.
(2003) (Eds). Council of Europe Publishing. 2007. European Red List of Amphibians. Europe 2007: Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint. O. Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies. A. 2009. WWF.J. 1999. Kudrna. C. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 26 . Veling. Hanspach. Strasbourg.. M.. S. 34723479. 2007. Vliegenthart. Kudrna. J. M.J. Wynhoff.A.G.M. M.. Wiemers. A. & Warren. Ecology 89. 18-21 September 1996... and Terry A. No. C. Red Data Book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera).: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series no. M. Folia Zoologica. van Halder. & Van Strien. K. J. I.S. The status and distribution of European mammals.F. 99..J. O. and Terry A. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.. Birds in Europe: their Conservation Status.K. Schweiger. C. Aosta.M. N. I. Van Swaay. (2008): Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. De Vlinderstichting.. Kuehn. Temple H. Valle d'Aosta. Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta. I. R.A.and Pastoralism.. Settele. Kühn. van Swaay... and Cox. and Warren. (2008) The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species 19902007. trends and conservation priorities.. Italy. 2009.J. Cogne. 2008.. 1994. O. Warren. O. Nature Conservation and Fisheries. Harpke. Settele. A. & Schweiger. National Reference Centre for Agriculture. & EFNCP. U. Temple H. M.. European Mammals: Status... & Heath. Van Swaay. Tucker. Kuehn.022. Hickler. C.. Prime butterfly areas of Europe: Priority sites for conservation.3). Cambridge. S..A. J. M. I. Islay. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Klotz. Nature and Environment. A. Wageningen. The Netherlands. Report VS2008. E. Van Swaay. T. 1-710. Temple H. M. Verovnik. Biorisk 1.
Appendix 1. Form filled by Butterfly Conservation Europe national focal points 27 .
Appendix 2. 1928) Spialia orbifer (Hübner. 1839) Pyrgus carthami (Hübner. 1839) Pyrgus serratulae (Rambur. 1925) Carterocephalus palaemon (Pallas. 1771) Carterocephalus silvicolus (Meigen. 1839) Pyrgus cinarae (Rambur. 1803) Pyrgus andromedae (Wallengren. 1839) Pyrgus cirsii (Rambur. 1829) Erynnis marloyi (Boisduval. 1833) Carcharodus alceae (Esper. 1784) Pyrgus warrenensis (Verity. 1771) Muschampia cribrellum (Eversmann. 1839) Pyrgus sidae (Esper. 1834) Erynnis tages (Linnaeus. 1823) Spialia phlomidis (Herrich-Schäffer. IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) NA LC LC NT NT LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC IUCN Red List Category (EU27) NA LC LC LC NT LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Taxonomy HESPERIIDAE Borbo borbonica (Boisduval. 1777) Pelopidas thrax (Hübner. 1847) Carcharodus lavatherae (Esper. 1758) Pyrgus malvoides (Elwes & Edwards. 1853) Pyrgus armoricanus (Oberthür. 1910) Pyrgus bellieri (Oberthür. genus and species. 1839) Pyrgus carlinae (Rambur. 1841) Muschampia proto (Ochsenheimer. 1783) Carcharodus orientalis Reverdin. 1803) Ochlodes sylvanus (Esper. 1913 Carcharodus tripolinus (Verity. 1758) Gegenes nostrodamus (Fabricius. 1845) Yes A2c A2c A2c B2a B2a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes Yes Yes 30 . 1910) Pyrgus cacaliae (Rambur. 1839) Carcharodus flocciferus (Zeller. 1780) Carcharodus baeticus (Rambur. 1793) Gegenes pumilio (Hoffmannsegg. 1897) Pyrgus onopordi (Rambur. 1808) Muschampia tessellum (Hübner. 1804) Hesperia comma (Linnaeus. 1813) Pyrgus centaureae (Rambur. 1821) Pyrgus alveus (Hübner. Red List status of European butterflies Species are sorted alphabetically by family. 1839) Pyrgus malvae (Linnaeus. 1758) Heteropterus morpheus (Pallas. 1913 Carcharodus stauderi Reverdin.
1898) Callophrys avis (Chapman. 1928) Aricia morronensis (Ribbe. 1910) Aricia nicias (Meigen. 1920 Iolana iolas (Ochsenheimer. 1761) LYCAENIDAE Apharitis acamas (Klug. 1782) Cacyreus marshalli (Butler. 1829) Cyaniris semiargus (Rottemburg. 1894) Thymelicus hyrax (Lederer. 1845) Cupido alcetas (Hoffmannsegg. 1758) Glaucopsyche alexis (Poda. 1761) Glaucopsyche melanops (Boisduval. 1775) Thymelicus christi (Rebel. 1830) Azanus ubaldus (Stoll. 1775) Lycaena hippothoe (Linnaeus. 1861) Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer. 1804) Spialia therapne (Rambur. 1881) Celastrina argiolus (Linnaeus. 1816) Laeosopis roboris (Esper. 1767) Lycaena alciphron (Rottemburg. 1884) Lycaena candens (Herrich-Schäffer. 1789) Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus. 1844) Lycaena dispar (Haworth. 1821) Aricia eumedon (Esper. 1758) Callophrys suaveola (Staudinger. 1775) Lycaena bleusei (Oberthür. 1804) Cupido argiades (Pallas. 1771) Cupido decoloratus (Staudinger. 1758) Chilades galba (Lederer. 1839) Favonius quercus (Linnaeus. 1775) Aricia anteros (Freyer. 1855) Chilades trochylus (Freyer. 1909) Callophrys chalybeitincta (Sovinsky. 1761) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC LC NT LC LC LC LC NA LC NT LC LC LC RE LC LC LC NA NA LC NA LC NA LC NA LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC EN LC IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC NT LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC RE LC LC LC NA NA LC NA LC NA LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC NT IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes A2b Yes Yes Yes A2b A2c Yes A2c Yes Yes Yes A2c Yes Yes A2c Yes Yes A2c 31 . 1802) Lycaena helle (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1828) Glaucopsyche paphos Chapman. 1834) Aricia agestis (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1847) Cupido minimus (Fuessly. 1775) Cupido osiris (Meigen. 1838) Aricia artaxerxes (Fabricius. 1808) Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda. 1780) Aricia hyacinthus (Herrich-Schäffer. 1905) Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus. 1775) Cyclyrius webbianus (Brullé. 1793) Aricia cramera (Eschscholtz. 1847) Aricia montensis (Verity. 1832) Thymelicus acteon (Rottemburg. 1886) Cupido lorquinii (Herrich-Schäffer. 1767) Leptotes pirithous (Linnaeus.Taxonomy Spialia sertorius (Hoffmannsegg.
1839) Plebejus idas (Linnaeus. 1779) Plebejus aquilo (Boisduval. 1758) Phengaris nausithous (Bergsträsser. 1832) Plebejus pyrenaicus (Boisduval. 1851) Polyommatus amandus (Schneider. 1847) Plebejus optilete (Knoch. 1837) Polyommatus damocles (Herrich-Schäffer. 1841) Polyommatus daphnis (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1851) Plebejus glandon (de Prunner. 1779) Phengaris teleius (Bergsträsser. 1798) Plebejus hespericus (Rambur. ) Polyommatus cyane (Eversmann. 1832) Plebejus argus (Linnaeus. 1783) Polyommatus albicans (Gerhard. 1792) Polyommatus aroaniensis (Brown. 1830) Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus. 1761) Polyommatus corydonius (Herrich-Schäffer. 1781) Plebejus orbitulus (de Prunner. 1761) Plebejus loewii (Zeller. 1779) Plebejus bellieri (Oberthür. 1775) Polyommatus caelestisssimus Verity. 1921 Polyommatus coelestinus (Eversmann. 1761) Lycaena thersamon (Esper. 1761) Lycaena virgaureae (Linnaeus. 1845) Plebejus pylaon (Fischer. 1843) Polyommatus coridon (Poda. 1823) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC EN NT VU LC LC LC LC NT NA LC LC LC NA LC LC LC NT LC LC NT EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA DD NT NA LC LC A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC LC NA LC LC LC NT EN NT VU LC LC LC LC NT NA LC LC LC NA LC LC LC NE LC LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NE NA NE NT NA LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2bc A2c A2c A2c A2bc A2c A2c Yes B1a Yes Yes Yes B1a Yes Yes Yes Yes B1b(iv)c(iv)+ 2b(iv)c(iv) Yes Yes Yes A2c B1b(v)+ 2b(v) B1b(iv)c(iv)+ 2b(iv)c(iv) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c Yes Yes 32 . 1844) Polyommatus damon (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1835) Plebejus trappi (Verity. 1910) Plebejus dardanus (Freyer. 1784) Lycaena thetis (Klug. 1832) Phengaris alcon (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1775) Polyommatus damone (Eversmann. 1834) Lycaena tityrus (Poda. 1798) Plebejus psyloritus (Freyer. 1775) Phengaris arion (Linnaeus. 1927) Plebejus zullichi (Hemming.Taxonomy Lycaena ottomana (Lefèbvre. 1933) Polyommatus admetus (Esper. 1758) Plebejus argyrognomon (Bergsträsser. 1976) Polyommatus bellargus (Rottemburg. 1758) Neolycaena rhymnus (Eversmann. 1844) Plebejus eurypilus (Freyer. 1775) Polyommatus dolus (Hübner. 1840) Plebejus sephirus (Frivaldzky.
1779) Pseudophilotes bavius (Eversmann. 1978) Polyommatus nivescens (Keferstein. 1910) Polyommatus fulgens (de Sagarra. 1976) Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg. 1902) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) NT DD NT LC LC LC VU VU LC EN LC NA NT NT VU DD LC LC VU NA LC LC LC LC NA NT NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU NA EN D2 B2ab(iii. 1823) Polyommatus fabressei (Oberthür. 1843) Turanana taygetica (Rebel. 1808) Polyommatus escheri (Hübner. 1793) Thecla betulae (Linnaeus. 1851) Polyommatus humedasae (Toso & Balletto. 1832) Pseudophilotes panope (Eversmann. 1925) Polyommatus galloi (Balletto & Toso. 2005) Polyommatus eros (Ochsenheimer. 1830) Polyommatus thersites (Cantener. 1851) Tongeia fischeri (Eversmann. 1775) Polyommatus iphigenia (Herrich-Schäffer. 1979) Polyommatus golgus (Hübner. 1865) Satyrium acaciae (Fabricius. 1847) Polyommatus nephohiptamenos (Brown & Coutsis. 1775) Polyommatus eleniae (Coutsis & De Prins. 1844) Tarucus theophrastus (Fabricius.v) Yes B2ab(iii. 1804) Satyrium ilicis (Esper. 1758) Satyrium spini (Dennis & Schiffermüller.v) Yes Yes Yes A2c D2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c Yes A2c A2c B2ab(iii) B2ab(iii) 33 . 1982) Pseudophilotes baton (Bergsträsser.iv. 1771) Tarucus balkanicus (Freyer. 1775) Satyrium w-album (Knoch. 1758) Tomares ballus (Fabricius. 1851) Polyommatus orphicus (Kolev. 2005) Polyommatus pljushtchi (Lukhtanov & Budashkin.. 1993) Polyommatus ripartii (Freyer.v) B2ab(iv)c(iv) D2 B1ab(iii. 1851) Pseudophilotes panoptes (Hübner. 1782) Scolitantides orion (Pallas. 1813) Pseudophilotes vicrama (Moore.Taxonomy Polyommatus dorylas (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1787) Satyrium esculi (Hübner. 1835) Polyommatus violetae (Gomez-Bustillo et al.v) A2c A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) NT DD NT LC LC LC VU VU LC EN LC NA NT NT VU DD NT LC VU NA LC LC LC NE NA NT NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC NE RE NA EN IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c Yes A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B2ab(iv)c(iv) D2 B1ab(iii. 1779) Satyrium ledereri (Boisduval. 1877) Pseudophilotes abencerragus (Pierret. 1979) Praephilotes anthracias (Christoph. 1848) Tomares nogelii (Herrich-Schäffer. 1837) Pseudophilotes barbagiae (De Prins & van der Poorten.v)+ 2ab(iii.iv. 1787) Tomares callimachus (Eversmann. 1813) Polyommatus hispanus (Herrich-Schäffer.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1848) Satyrium pruni (Linnaeus.
1829 Aphantopus hyperantus (Linnaeus. 1804) Boloria oscarus (Eversmann. 1837) Boloria thore (Hübner. 1865) Zizeeria knysna (Trimen. 1758) Argynnis elisa (Godart. 1805) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) NA NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA NA LC NT LC LC LC LC LC LC EN LC NA LC VU LC LC LC NT NA LC LC LC LC LC NT LC IUCN Red List Category (EU27) NA NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC LC NA NA LC NT LC LC LC LC LC LC EN LC NA LC VU LC NE LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC NT NE IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes A3c A3c B2c(iv) B2c(iv) A4c A4c A2c A2c A2c 34 . 1780) Brenthis hecate (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1791) Boloria graeca (Staudinger. 1775) Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus. 1870) Boloria aquilonaris (Stichel. 1764) Chazara persephone (Hübner. 1758) Apatura ilia ([Dennis & Schiffermüller]. 1771) Argynnis niobe (Linnaeus. 1775) Argynnis adippe (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1823) Argynnis laodice (Pallas. 1758) Araschnia levana (Linnaeus. 1775) Boloria selenis (Eversmann. 1758) Argynnis pandora (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1826) Aglais io (Linnaeus. 1775) Brenthis ino (Rottemburg. 1908) Boloria chariclea (Schneider. 1862) NYMPHALIDAE Aglais ichnusa (Bonelli. 1803) Boloria titania (Esper. 1758) Aglais urticae (Linnaeus. 1775) Argynnis aglaja (Linnaeus. 1767) Chazara briseis (Linnaeus. 1844) Boloria pales (Dennis & Schiffermüller.Taxonomy Zizeeria karsandra (Moore. 1877) Boloria napaea (Hoffmannsegg. 1900) Boloria angarensis (Erschoff. 1793) Boloria tritonia (Böber. 1758) Boloria alaskensis (Holland. 1812) Brenthis daphne (Bergsträsser. 1775) Charaxes jasius (Linnaeus. 1775) Brintesia circe (Fabricius. 1870) Boloria improba (Butler. 1791) Boloria frigga (Becklin. 1828) Boloria selene (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1799) Boloria euphrosyne (Linnaeus. 1794) Boloria dia (Linnaeus. 1758) Boloria freija (Becklin. 1758) Arethusana arethusa (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1758) Apatura metis Freyer. 1767) Boloria eunomia (Esper. 1775) Boloria polaris (Boisduval. 1775) Apatura iris (Linnaeus.
1877) Erebia lefebvrei (Boisduval. 1900 Coenonympha thyrsis (Freyer. 1788) Coenonympha hero (Linnaeus. 1775) Erebia medusa (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1833) Erebia hispania (Butler. 1787) Coenonympha orientalis (Rebel.v) A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 35 . 1792) Erebia christi (Rätzer. 1806) Coenonympha dorus (Esper. 1804) Erebia gorgone (Boisduval. 1775) Erebia melampus (Fuessly. 1890) Erebia claudina (Borkhausen. 1777) Erebia alberganus (De Prunner. 1758) Erebia manto (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1783) Erebia epistygne (Hübner. 1851) Erebia embla (Thunberg. 1837) Coenonympha amaryllis (Stoll.v) A2c B2ab(iii. 1910) Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus. 1791) Erebia discoidalis (Kirby. 1791) Erebia epiphron (Knoch. 1775) Erebia melas (Herbst. 1837) Erebia edda (Ménétriés. 1784) Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius. 1828) Erebia ligea (Linnaeus. 1798) Erebia mnestra (Hübner. 1868) Erebia flavofasciata (Heyne. 1771) Coenonympha rhodopensis Elwes. 1868) Erebia jeniseiensis (Trybom. 1782) Coenonympha gardetta (De Prunner. 1895) Erebia gorge (Hübner. 1804) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC NA LC LC LC LC LC VU LC EN VU LC CR LC LC VU NA NA LC LC LC LC LC VU NT NA NA LC LC NA LC LC NT LC LC NA NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC NA LC LC LC LC LC VU LC LC DD LC NE LC LC NT NA NA LC LC LC LC LC VU NT NA NA LC NE NA LC LC NT LC LC NA NT LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes Yes A2c Yes A2c A2c A2c A2c Yes Yes Yes A2c Yes A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B2ab(iii. 1836) Erebia euryale (Esper. 1806) Erebia aethiops (Esper. 1758) Erebia aethiopella (Hoffmannsegg. 1845) Coenonympha tullia (Müller. 1844) Erebia dabanensis (Erschoff. 1805) Erebia fasciata (Butler. 1796) Erebia meolans (de Prunner. 1761) Coenonympha leander (Esper. 1798) Erebia calcaria (Lorkovic. 1798) Coenonympha glycerion (Borkhausen. 1789) Erebia cyclopius (Eversmann. 1819) Erebia eriphyle (Freyer. 1758) Coenonympha phryne (Pallas. 1764) Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus. 1761) Coenonympha corinna (Hübner. 1871) Erebia disa (Thunberg. 1782) Coenonympha arcania (Linnaeus. 1953) Erebia cassioides (Reiner & Hochenwarth. 1758) Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus.Taxonomy Chazara prieuri (Pierret.
1834) Erebia scipio (Boisduval. 1900) Erebia ottomana (Herrich-Schäffer. 1775) Euphydryas desfontainii (Godart. 1847) Erebia palarica (Chapman. 1781) Erebia zapateri (Oberthür. 1967) Hipparchia hermione (Linnaeus. 1921) Hipparchia neomiris (Godart. 1977) Hipparchia cretica (Rebel. 1898) Hipparchia bacchus (Higgins. 1859) Euphydryas maturna (Linnaeus. 1826) Hipparchia autonoe (Esper. 1816) Euphydryas intermedia (Ménétriés. 1758) Hipparchia aristaeus (Bonelli. 1905) Erebia pandrose (Borkhausen. 1861) Erebia triaria (de Prunner. 1954) Erebia oeme (Hübner. 1900) Erebia rondoui (Oberthür. 1935) Hipparchia neapolitana (Stauder. 1875) Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg. 1967) Hipparchia christenseni (Kudrna. 1844) Hipparchia fidia (Linnaeus. 1822) Hipparchia pellucida (Stauder. 1780) Erebia rhodopensis (Nicholl. 1908) Erebia rossii (Curtis. 1783) Hipparchia azorina (Strecker. 1834) Erebia sudetica (Staudinger. 1832) Erebia sthennyo (Graslin. 1804) Erebia orientalis (Elwes. 1850) Erebia stiria (Godart. 1788) Erebia pharte (Hübner. 1871) Erebia pronoe (Esper. 1916) Hipparchia cypriensis (Holik. 1798) Erebia neoridas (Boisduval. 1949) Hipparchia fagi (Scopoli. 1767) Hipparchia gomera (Higgins. 1871) Hipparchia miguelensis (Le Cerf.Taxonomy Erebia montana (de Prunner. 1798) Erebia polaris (Staudinger. 1976) Hipparchia maderensis (Bethune-Baker. 1824) Erebia styx (Freyer. 1828) Erebia nivalis (Lorkovic & De Lesse. 1804) Erebia pluto (De Prunner. 1798) Erebia tyndarus (Esper. 1775) Euphydryas cynthia (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1923) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC VU LC LC LC VU LC LC LC NT LC LC LC NT NT LC NA LC LC LC LC A3c A3c A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC LC LC NE LC VU LC LC LC NT LC LC LC NT NT LC NA LC LC LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A3c A3c Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D2 D2 Yes A2c B2a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c B2a 36 . 1764) Hipparchia leighebi (Kudrna. 1891) Hipparchia mersina (Staudinger. 1819) Euphydryas iduna (Dalman. 1763) Hipparchia fatua (Freyer.
1984) Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus. 1767) Lasiommata paramegaera (Hübner. 1847) Melanargia arge (Sulzer. 1824) Lasiommata petropolitana (Fabricius. 1776) Melanargia galathea (Linnaeus. 1984) Hipparchia volgensis (Mazochin-Porshnjakov. 1852) Maniola telmessia (Zeller. 1909) Maniola nurag (Ghiliani. 1804) Melanargia lachesis (Hübner. 1783) Melitaea asteria (Freyer. 1766) Hipparchia syriaca (Staudinger. 1828) Melanargia occitanica (Esper. 1775) Melitaea aurelia (Nickerl. 1758) Maniola megala (Oberthür. 1851) Maniola chia (Thomson. 1777) Lasiommata maera (Linnaeus. 1787) Libythea celtis (Laicharting. 1774) Issoria eugenia (Eversmann. 1836) Hyponephele lycaon (Kühn. 1783) Melitaea aetherie (Hübner. 1783) Kirinia roxelana (Cramer. 1758) Kirinia climene (Esper. 1782) Limenitis camilla (Linnaeus. 1764) Limenitis populi (Linnaeus. 1790) Melanargia larissa (Geyer.Taxonomy Hipparchia sbordonii (Kudrna. 1871) Hipparchia tamadabae (Owen & Smith. 1952) Hipparchia wyssii (Christ. 1990) Maniola jurtina (Linnaeus. 1763) Lopinga deidamia (Eversmann. 1850) Melitaea britomartis (Assmann. 1980) Hyponephele lupina (Costa. 1758) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) NT LC LC NT LC LC VU LC LC NA LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC VU NA LC LC NT LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC B1a+2a IUCN Red List Category (EU27) NT LC LC NT LC LC VU LC LC NA LC LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC VU NA LC LC NT LC NA LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 B1a+2a Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D2 D2 Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes Yes B1a Yes Yes B1a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c A2c 37 . 1987) Maniola cypricola (Graves. 1928) Maniola halicarnassus (Thomson. 1847) Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus. 1758) Lasiommata megera (Linnaeus. 1889) Hyponephele huebneri (Koçak. 1901) Lopinga achine (Scopoli. 1758) Hipparchia senthes (Fruhstorfer. 1828) Melitaea athalia (Rottemburg. 1992) Hipparchia tilosi (Manil. 1793) Melanargia pherusa (Boisduval. 1908) Hipparchia statilinus (Hufnagel. 1758) Melanargia ines (Hoffmannsegg. 1833) Melanargia russiae (Esper. 1847) Issoria lathonia (Linnaeus. 1758) Limenitis reducta (Staudinger. 1826) Melitaea arduinna (Esper.
1888) Oeneis melissa (Fabricius. 1787) Pseudochazara amymone (Brown. 1781) Satyrus ferula (Fabricius. 1771) Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus. 1781) Oeneis bore (Schneider. 1775) Melitaea varia (Meyer-Dür. 1758) Nymphalis xanthomelas (Esper. 1775) Pararge xiphioides (Staudinger. 1793) Pyronia cecilia (Vallantin. ) Vanessa atalanta (Linnaeus. 1763) Neptis sappho (Pallas.v) B1ab(iii. 1806) Oeneis magna (Graeser. 1763) Neptis rivularis (Scopoli. 1909) Pseudochazara geyeri (Herrich-Schäffer. 1775) Melitaea telona (Fruhstorfer. 1981) Pyronia bathseba (Fabricius. 1789) Melitaea didyma (Esper. 1758) Polygonia egea (Cramer. 1767) Satyrus actaea (Esper. 1775) Oeneis tarpeia (Pallas.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1908) Melitaea trivia (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1871) Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus. 1783) Pseudochazara mniszechii (Herrich-Schäffer. 1793) Satyrus virbius (Herrich-Schäffer. 1771) Pararge aegeria (Linnaeus. 1824) Pseudochazara cingovskii (Gross. 1792) Oeneis glacialis (Moll. 1894) Pyronia tithonus (Linnaeus. 1783) Oeneis jutta (Hübner. 1846) Pseudochazara graeca (Staudinger. 1775) Oeneis norna (Thunberg.v) Yes Yes Yes Yes D2 B1ab(iii. 1851) Minois dryas (Scopoli. 1758) Nymphalis vaualbum (Denis & Schiffermuller 1775) Nymphalis polychloros (Linnaeus. 1778) Melitaea parthenoides (Keferstein. 1976) Pseudochazara anthelea (Hübner. 1851) Pseudochazara orestes (De Prins & van der Poorten. 1758) Pararge xiphia (Fabricius. 1851) Melitaea phoebe (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1758) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC LC LC LC LC DD LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA NA NT NA LC LC EN LC LC LC LC VU LC CR EN LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC D2 IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC NT LC LC LC DD NT LC LC LC LC LC LC VU NT LC LC LC NA NA NT NA NE LC EN LC LC LC LC VU LC NE NE LC LC LC LC VU LC LC LC LC LC NE LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes A3c A3c B1ab(iii. 1791) Oeneis polixenes (Fabricius.Taxonomy Melitaea deione (Geyer. 1775) Proterebia afer (Fabricius. 1870) Pseudochazara hippolyte (Esper.v) B1ab(v) D2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D2 Yes Yes Yes Yes 38 . 1973) Pseudochazara euxina (Kuznetsov. 1832) Melitaea diamina (Lang.
1963) Euchloe grancanariensis (Acosta. 1850) Colias caucasica (Staudinger.Taxonomy Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus. 1758) Papilio alexanor (Esper. 1773) Vanessa vulcania (Godart. 1800) Euchloe charlonia (Donzel. 1800) Papilio hospiton (Guenée. 1871) Colias chrysotheme (Esper. 1905) Colias aurorina (Herrich-Schäffer. 1842) Euchloe crameri (Butler. 1836) Anthocharis euphenoides (Staudinger. 1758) PIERIDAE Anthocharis cardamines (Linnaeus. 1793) Zerynthia caucasica (Lederer. 1805) Colias hecla (Lefèbvre. 1781) Colias crocea (Geoffroy. 1836) Colias hyale (Linnaeus. 1758) Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius. 1819) Ypthima asterope (Klug. 1812) Colotis evagore (Klug. 1781) Colias palaeno (Linnaeus. 1758) Catopsilia florella (Fabricius. 1861) Euchloe penia (Freyer. 1993) Euchloe belemia (Esper. 1869) Euchloe eversi (Stamm. 1785) Colias erate (Esper. 1904) Zerynthia polyxena (Dennis & Schiffermüller. 1798) Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus. 2008) Euchloe hesperidum (Rothschild. 1758) Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus. 1775) Colias alfacariensis (Ribbe. 1758) Colias myrmidone (Esper. 1758) Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus. 1864) Zerynthia cerisy (Godart. 1913) Euchloe insularis (Staudinger. 1852) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC NA LC NA NT LC LC LC LC NT NT NT NA NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC VU LC LC NT LC EN LC NT LC NA LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC B1b(i. 1839) Papilio machaon (Linnaeus. 1758) Vanessa virginiensis (Drury.v) IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC NA LC NA LC LC LC LC LC NT LC NT NA NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NA LC LC LC VU LC LC NT LC CR LC NT LC NA LC VU LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes Yes Yes A2c A2c A2c Yes Yes A2c A2c A2c A2c Yes Yes A2c A2c A3c A2c A2c A3c A2c A2c Yes B2ab(v) B2ab(v) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 39 . 1761) Colias phicomone (Esper. 1824) Zerynthia cretica (Rebel. 1832) PAPILIONIDAE Archon apollinus (Herbst. 1780) Colias tyche (de Böber. 1829) Euchloe ausonia (Hübner. 1804) Euchloe bazae (Fabiano. 1869) Anthocharis gruneri (Herrich-Schäffer. 1758) Anthocharis damone (Boisduval. 1775) Zerynthia rumina (Linnaeus. 1851) Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus.
1758) Leptidea duponcheli (Staudinger.v) B1ab(iii.iii) B1ab(i. 1800) Pontia chloridice (Hübner. 1758) Pieris bryoniae (Hübner. 1851) Pieris napi (Linnaeus. 1881) Leptidea reali (Reissinger. 1767) Gonepteryx farinosa (Zeller. 1805) Pieris cheiranthi (Hübner. 1860) Pieris mannii (Mayer. 1758) Pontia edusa (Fabricius.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1968) Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus. 1862) Gonepteryx rhamni (Linnaeus.Taxonomy Euchloe simplonia (Freyer. 1758) Pieris rapae (Linnaeus. 1871) Leptidea morsei (Fenton. 1825) Gonepteryx cleopatra (Linnaeus. 1829) Euchloe tagis (Hübner.v) Yes Yes B1ab(iii. 1886) Pontia callidice (Hübner. 1758) Pieris balcana (Lorkovic. 1832) RIODINIDAE Hamearis lucina (Linnaeus. 1758) Pieris wollastoni (Butler. 1989) Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus. 1758) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) LC LC VU LC LC EN LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC CR LC LC LC LC NT NA LC IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC VU LC LC EN LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC EN LC LC LC LC LC CR LC LC LC LC NT NA LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 Yes B1ab(iii.v) B1ab(i. 1804) Gonepteryx cleobule (Hübner. 1804) Zegris pyrothoe (Eversmann.v)+ 2ab(iii.iii) Yes Yes A2c A2c Yes B1ab(iii. 1808) Pieris ergane (Geyer. 1828) Pieris krueperi (Staudinger.v) Yes Yes B1ab(v) B1ab(v) Yes Yes A3c A3c 40 . 1813) Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus. 1847) Gonepteryx maderensis (Felder. 1777) Zegris eupheme (Esper.
6) were mapped by counting the number of threatened species (categories CR. VU at the European regional level) in each cell or cell section. This corresponds to a hexagonal grid composed of individual units (cells) that retain their shape and area (~22. Patterns of threatened species richness (Fig. Methodology for spatial analyses Data were analysed using a geodesic discrete global grid system. Patterns of species richness (Fig. The range of each species was converted to the hexagonal grid for analysis purposes. for species with a coastal distribution). Patterns of endemic species richness were mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section for coastal species) that were flagged as being endemic to geographic Europe as defined in this project (Fig.300 km2) throughout the globe. 41 . Coastal cells were clipped to the coastline. 5) were mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section. defined on an icosahedron and projected to the sphere using the inverse Icosahedral Snyder Equal Area (ISEA) Projection (S39). 7). These are more suitable for a range of ecological applications than the most commonly used rectangular grids (S40).Appendix 3. EN.
M.1) Assessment Information Evaluated? Date of Evaluation: Status: Reasons for Rejection: Improvements Needed: True 2010-01-08 Passed - Assessor(s): van Swaay.500 m elevation.. This is a European endemic species. it occurs between 450-1. 1819) ANIMALIA . Reasons for Change Nongenuine Change: Criteria Revision Distribution Geographic Range This species occurs in Southeast France (from Languedoc to Provence and the French Alps) and Spain (in the foothills of the eastern Pyrenees and in mountainous areas in the centre.. I. R. M. (IUCN Red List Unit) Assessment Rationale The Climatic Risk Atlas (Settele et al.. J. (Butterfly RLA) & Cuttelod. in Spain 900-1.NYMPHALIDAE . Evaluator(s): Lewis.org/europe. Warren. A. Biogeographic Realms Biogeographic Realm: Palearctic 42 . Taxonomic Note: Red List Assessment Red List Status NT . Example species summary and distribution map The species summary gives all the information collated (for each species) during this assessment.INSECTA . including a distribution map.. Maes. 1819) . http://sis..500 m. You can search for and download all the summaries and distribution maps Erebia epistygne from the European Red List website and data portal available online at http://ec.iucnsis. In France. near Guadalajara. Sasic. Wiemers.ARTHROPODA .eu/environment/ nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www.Erebia . Cuenca and Teruel).LEPIDOPTERA . D. (ii) it is appropriate to take a precautionary approach and (iii) a decline in the population is already observed.. M. This species is classified as Near Threatened because (i) observed rates of CO² emissions and temperature increases already exceed those foreseen in the worst-case scenario models. & Settele. O.Near Threatened. T. Verovnik. (IUCN version 3. C. 2008) calculates a possible decline of more than 98% of the climate envelope between 1980 and 2080 based on the most pessimistic of the three climate change models used (GRAS-scenario).europa. Verstrael. M.org/reports/published/427627?empty=false&limited=true Erebia epistygne . iucnredlist.Appendix 4. López Munguira.epistygne Common Names: Spring Ringlet (English) Synonyms: Erebia epistgyne (Hübner... The species might be endangered in the long term by climate change..(Hübner. Wynhoff.
rocky clearings in open woodland. Gaston. Biogeographic Realms Biogeographic Realm: Palearctic Occurrence Countries of Occurrence Country Presence Origin Formerly Bred Seasonality Erebia epistygne France Spain Extant Extant Native Native - Resident Resident http://sis. J. Furthermore in the long term climate change might have a large impact on this species. 2010. van.. 2001.Revista de Lepidopterología 34(133): 103-109. Verovnik. I. A. J. S. mountain peaks) Suitable Systems System: Terrestrial Use and Trade General Use and Trade Information All butterflies are collected to some extent.. Available at: www.J. 43 Kühn. de. M. Bibliography Arcde-Crespo. 1824).500 m. Declines in distribution or population size of 6-30% have been reported from France (data provided by the national partners of Butterfly Conservation Europe). F. Kudrna.. O. Schweiger. near Guadalajara. Kühn. Warren. K. The main foodplant is Sheep's-fescue (Festuca ovina). Wiemers. I.M.. The Spanish populations in the Montes Universales occur in clearings or on level ground in light pinewoods on calcareous soil. Actualizacion del area de vuelo de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. SHILAP . Habitats: alpine and subalpine grasslands (50%).iucnredlist. Ampliacion de la distribucion e informacion sobre patrones ecologicos de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. grassy vegetation with low shrubs and scattered rocks. it occurs between 450-1. van. in Spain 900-1. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae. on short.500 m elevation.I. 2006.... There is no specific trade information for this species. Harpke. dry calcareous grasslands and steppes (50%). I.1). IUCN. T. restricted to (semi-) natural areas.Geographic Range This species occurs in Southeast France (from Languedoc to Provence and the French Alps) and Spain (in the foothills of the eastern Pyrenees and in mountainous areas in the centre. but other fescues and meadow-grasses (Poa species) have also been named as foodplants. 2008. Redondo. inland cliffs. E. R. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 1824) en la Serrania de Cuencia. 2010. Hickler. Halder. Espana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). In France. Climatic risk atlas of European . Settele. Conservation More research is needed on the distribution and ecology of the species. IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme Habitat Grassland -> Grassland . Threats Abandonment of semi-natural grasslands is a threat to this butterfly. This is a European endemic species. but only for the extremely rare species it can be a problem and the trade in Europe is generally at a low level compared to other continents. The species should be monitored by Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.org/reports/published/427627?empty=false&limited=true Population 1 of 2 A local species.. Veling. V. 07/03/2010 17:20 Habitats and Ecology The Spring Ringlet appears in the early spring in grassy. O.iucnsis. Jimenez-Mendoza. M. Wynhoff. J. C. Cuenca and Teruel)... (Accessed: 10 March 2010)... Satyrinae). Hanspach. Swaay..org. Vliegenthart.Temperate Suitability Major Importance? Suitable - Rocky areas (eg. The Spring Ringlet has one generation a year. Zapateri: revista aragonesa de entomología 9: 121.. A.
Satyrinae). 2010. Available at: www.. Verovnik. Veling. Warren. Sofia. (Accessed: 10 March 2010). Wynhoff. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. Gaston. 2001.. Hanspach. C.I. 1824) en la Serrania de Cuencia. Vliegenthart. 2 of 2 07/03/2010 17:20 44 . Espana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). SHILAP .. V. Settele.. Jimenez-Mendoza.org. van. Harpke.. K. Kühn. I. Ampliacion de la distribucion e informacion sobre patrones ecologicos de Erebia epistygne (Hübner.. M. IUCN.. Climatic risk atlas of European butterflies. de.J. T. Kühn. Wiemers. O.. 2010. Kudrna. van. Schweiger. S.Bibliography Arcde-Crespo.M.iucnredlist.. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae. Swaay. Halder. A. R. J.1). J.. 2006. Biorisk 1 (Special Issue). F. I. Zapateri: revista aragonesa de entomología 9: 121. 2008. Actualizacion del area de vuelo de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. M.Revista de Lepidopterología 34(133): 103-109. I. Redondo.. O.. A.. Pensoft. 1824). Hickler.. J. E.
2006 The Status and Distribution of Reptiles and Amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. Sonia Ferreira. 2006 The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Smith and William R. Klaus-Jürgen Conze. Miloš Jović. Compiled by Neil Cox. Temple and Neil Cox.2779/83897 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ – Regional Assessments The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern Africa. Boudjéma Samraoui and Annabelle Cuttelod. 2009 The Status and Distribution of Mediterranean Mammals. Kalkman. Elisa Riservato and Göran Sahlén. Darwall. 2007 The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Southern Africa. Janice Chanson and Simon Stuart. Kalkman. Denis Tweddle and Paul Skelton. Temple and Annabelle Cuttelod. 2010 European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. 2010 46 . Compiled by Helen J.European Commission European Red List of Butterflies Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010 – xii + 44pp + 4pp cover.T. 210 x 297 mm ISBN 978-92-79-14151-5 doi:10. 2005 The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. Kevin G. Darwall. 2009 The Status and Distribution of Dragonflies of the Mediterranean Basin. Wolfgang Schneider.T.T. Sonia Ferreira. Temple and Andrew Terry. Compiled by William R. Compiled by Neil Cox and Helen J. Vincent J. 2009 European Red List of Amphibians. Compiled by Vincent J. Compiled by Kevin G. Geert De Knijf. Compiled by Helen J. Compiled by Elisa Riservato. Smith.A. Jean-Christophe VieÅL. Compiled by Helen J. Thomas Lowe. Jean-Pierre Boudot. 2009 European Red List of Reptiles. 2007 Overview of the Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. Jürgen Ott. Compiled by Ana Nieto and Keith N. Smith. R. Kevin G. 2009 European Red List of Dragonflies. Darwall. Alexander. Temple. Bernard. Elena Dyatlova. Compiled by William R. Jean-Pierre Boudot. Miloš Jović. Compiled by Rachel D. Cavanagh and Claudine Gibson.
Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.eu). USA). UK).org/species IUCN – Regional Office for Pan-Europe The IUCN Regional Office for Pan-Europe (ROfE) is based in Brussels. as well as implementing global species conservation initiatives.org/europe 47 . • Priced subscriptions (Official Journal of the EU.eu or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. It is an integral part of the IUCN Secretariat and is managed from IUCN’s international headquarters in Gland.iucn.iucn. the Regional Office for Pan-Europe implements the IUCN European Programme. Legal cases of the Court of Justice as well as certain periodicals edited by the European Commission) can be ordered from one of our sales agents. How to obtain EU publications IUCN – The Species Survival Commission The Species Survival Commission (SSC) is the largest of IUCN’s six volunteer commissions with a global membership of 8.europa. www.000 experts.eu. Publications for sale: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop. The Programme area covers 55 countries and stretches from Greenland in the west to Kamchatka in the east. or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. The IUCN Red List. www. You can obtain their contact details by linking http://ec. and the Global Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (located in Washington DC. • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations.iucn.europa.org/ssc IUCN – Species Programme The IUCN Species Programme supports the activities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and individual Specialist Groups.eu).europa. The species Programme includes a number of technical units covering Species Trade and Use. Through its Programme Offices in Belgrade and Tbilisi and in cooperation with more than 350 European members and other parts of the IUCN constituency. Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (all located in Cambridge. SSC has significant input into the international agreements dealing with biodiversity conservation. Switzerland. You can obtain their contact details by linking http://bookshop. www. Belgium. SSC advises IUCN and its members on the wide range of technical and scientific aspects of species conservation and is dedicated to securing a future for biodiversity.europa.
.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www. dragonflies.org/europe. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the regional level – in order that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status.europa.This publication summarises results for a selection of Europe’s native species of butterflies. amphibians. and vascular plants) according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. It is available online at http://ec. molluscs. and selected groups of beetles. About 9% of the species are threatened with extinction at the European level as a result of threats including habitat loss and degradation due to changes in agricultural management. reptiles.iucnredlist. KH-80-09-976-EN-C The European Red List is a review of the conservation status of c. butterflies. freshwater fishes.000 European species (mammals. The European Red List was compiled by IUCN’s Species Programme and Regional Office for PanEurope and is the product of a service contract with the European Commission. 6.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?