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
M. Printed in Spain The text of this book is printed on 115gsm environmentally-friendly paper. Cuttelod. ii . and the presentation of the material.eu). and Wynhof. R. 2010 ISBN 978-92-79-14151-5 doi:10. do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN. Citation: Cover design: Layout by: Printed by: Picture credits on cover page: Van Swaay. Maes. Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.. Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. or of its authorities. 2010 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder.. Verovnik. M.. C. I.europa. Verstrael. Butterﬂy Conservation or European Union.. Mijas (Malaga) Nickerl’s Fritillary Melitaea aurelia. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission from the copyright holder. The designation of geographical entities in this book. T.Published by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and Butterﬂy Conservation Europe in collaboration with the European Union.. territory. European Red List of Butterﬁes Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union. Freephone number (*): More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa. D. Available from: Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union. Wiemers. De Vlinderstichting/Dutch Butterfy Conservation All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details).org/publications A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.. Warren.. López Munguira. S. or area. Settele. Collins. http://bookshop.. M.. Alastair Davies at Handshake Productions COMSENSE LLC. A. Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union. www. provided that the source is fully acknowledged.2779/83897 © European Union. J. 2010.iucn. Šašić. SOLPRINT. a meadow species classiﬁed as Near Threatened owing to serious decline in many countries. Butterﬂy Conservation or the European Union concerning the legal status of any country. 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. or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M.eu IUCN Publications Services. © Chris van Swaay.. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reﬂect those of IUCN.
Germany IUCN Species Programme IUCN Regional Oﬃce for Europe iii . The Netherlands Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Spain Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspﬂege . Germany Society for the Conservation and Study of Lepidoptera in Slovenia Dutch Butterﬂy Conservation. Wageningen. The Netherlands Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Belgium Croatian Natural History Museum. The Netherlands Partner organisations Butterﬂy Conservation Europe Butterﬂy Conservation.INBO. Cambridge Butterﬂy Conservation Europe. Croatia De Vlinderstichting / Dutch Butterﬂy Conservation. UK Croatian Natural History Museum.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. Spain Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). The Netherlands IUCN Species programme. Germany Research Institute for Nature and Forest . Wageningen. Wageningen. Austria Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Croatia Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. UK University of Vienna. Red List Unit.ANL. The Netherlands Butterﬂy Conservation. Austria Dutch Butterﬂy Conservation. Belgium Society for the Conservation and Study of Lepidoptera in Slovenia University of Vienna.
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. 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 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 . Department for Biology. 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. Slovak Academy of Sciences Institute of Landscape Ecology.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.
........................21 4......3.................... .................................................................................................2 Threatened species richness ....................................3 Taxonomic scope........................................ ......................................................2 Status by taxonomic group ........6 2.................................3 Conservation management of butterﬂies in the EU ........................... Results ......................................................................................................................................................................18 4............................................................. Conservation measures ............................. .............7 2...............3 1..............3 Endemic species richness................42 v ....................................................................................................................................................................................4 Assessment methodology................15 3................. vi Acknowledgements ..........................................................................5 Red List versus priority for conservation action...... ....................4 Preliminary assessments............................................ .........Table of contents Foreword ....................................................................3........................ ..................24 5..................................................................................................................................................................................... viii 1..........................2 European butterﬂies: diversity and endemism............................................................................19 4...9 3............................................................................................ Example species summary and distribution map ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3............................................................................................ Methodology for spatial analyses...............................................13 3.........1 Threatened status of butterﬂies in Europe..21 4.........................................................................................3 Spatial distribution of species..23 5.......9 3............................................................25 Appendix 1........................................................3 Future work...................27 Appendix 2..4 Extinction risk versus conservation status...................................................4 Major threats to butterﬂies in Europe.........................................................................................................19 4..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Threatened status of species .......................................6 2........6 2.......................2 Geographic scope ..............41 Appendix 4...................................................13 3...................................................................................... 2....................................... ...................................5 Demographic trends........................................................................................................22 5.......................................................1 The European context......... Conclusion and recommendations..............................8 3..................16 3..1 1................15 3..........................2 Application of project outputs ........................................................................... ...........................23 5....................................................................1 1..... Background........................................................................1 1............................................................................................................................................................................... Red List status of European butterﬂies .....................................................................1 Protection of habitats and species in Europe ......... ......................... ..........................................................................................1 Overview and recommendations for conservation measures ............................................................................................................................................4 Objectives of the assessment ..................13 3..............................................................................................................................................19 4.................................................................................................................................................................................2 Protection of habitats and species in the EU27......................................................5 Review workshop and evaluation of the assessments .......................................................................24 References...............7 2.1 Species richness ....................................................................... Form ﬁlled by Butterﬂy Conservation Europe national focal points ............30 Appendix 3..........................................1 Global and regional assessments................ vii Executive summary ............
despite some progress made. 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. In 2001. They usefully complement the reporting under the Habitats Directive as they address all species in a speciﬁc taxonomic group. which is the most common methodology used throughout the world. taking species needs into account in the timing of actions) and foster traditional patterns of agriculture. Red Lists are another important tool to scientiﬁcally assess and communicate the status of species. Despite this limitation. adopted in 2006. The Mid Term Review of the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan published by the Commission in December 2008 demonstrates that. the results show that almost a third (31%) of the butterﬂies have signiﬁcantly declining populations.Foreword Europe is a continent rich in natural and cultural heritage. this modiﬁcation has obviously also placed great pressures on our wildlife and natural areas. The EU Biodiversity Action Plan. we need to fully implement the existing European legislation. The loss and decline of their habitat poses the main threat. especially eastern European countries which account for a large part of the territory. additional eﬀorts are required to conserve butterﬂies in Europe. with a diverse range of habitat conditions from dry Mediterranean maquis in the south to the Arctic tundra of the far north. such as managing our grasslands in a more sustainable way (e. However. Numerous scientiﬁc studies show that biodiversity in Europe has been declining rapidly for some time during periods of expansion and intensiﬁcation of land use. EU Member States made the commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity within the EU by 2010. either in relation to intensiﬁcation of agriculture or abandonment of land. These ﬁgures represent minimum estimates as trends are poorly known in many countries. This study shows us that nearly 9% of butterﬂies are threatened and a further 10% are Near Threatened. the drivers for these declines are mostly still in place.g. Unfortunately. 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. This comprehensive assessment of all European butterﬂies provides an overview of the conservation status of this important insect group. 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. not just those protected by the EU nature legislation. Although bringing higher diversity. Ladislav Miko Director Directorate B: Nature Directorate General for Environment European Commission vi . The EU Habitats and Birds Directives are the main pieces of legislation ensuring the protection of Europe’s nature. What can we as Europeans do about this? First and foremost. They hence give important complementary information about the situation of biodiversity in Europe. It has followed the Red List methodology developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). it is highly unlikely that the 2010 target will be met. sets out the main targets and activities needed to achieve this commitment. 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.
Chris van Swaay (Butterﬂy Conservation Europe) coordinated the compilation of data and the assessments of European butterﬂies species. Dario Patricelli. Stoyan Beshkov. Marcin Sielezniew. Ádám Kőrösi. They were discussed with the national and species experts during a workshop held in Laufen (Germany). for the logistical arrangements. Alexey Devyatkin. Miguel López Munguira. Patricia Garcia Pereira. Marc Meyer. Irma Wynhoﬀ. Lars Ove Hansen. Dirk Maes. 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. Saﬁan Szabolcs. Erik J. Kelly Papapavlou. 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. Devyatkin. Ana Nieto. in January 2009. Teresa Oliveros Martinez. Nikolaj Savenkov. Ole Karsholt. Enrique García-Barros. Giedrius Svitra. Sergey Popov. Erling Olafsson. Nils Ryrholm. Toomas Tammaru. Simona Bonelli. Christian Steel. Miroslav Kulfan. Butterﬂy taxonomy largely follows the 2010-revision of the Taxonomy Commission of Butterﬂy Conservation Europe. Martin Konvicka. Rudi Verovnik. Josef Settele. Anna Rosenberg and Hugo Ruiz Lozano provided substantial assistance with ﬁnancial management of the project. encouragement. Sue Collins. Helmut Höttinger. this kind of regional overview would not be possible. Christian Stettmer organized the evaluation workshop. or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Pavel Kepka. Ernestino Maravalhas. the Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspﬂege. Susannah Ohanlon. Yeray Monasterio. and good advice throughout the project. vii . Jean-Christophe Vié provided guidance. Gilles Carron =. Evrim Karaçetin. Coordination of the European Red List of Butterﬂies was carried out by Helen Temple and Annabelle Cuttelod (IUCN Species Programme). Rudi Verovnik. Martin Wiemers. Alexey L. Sergiu Mihut. Martin Wiemers. David Nash. with the administrative support of Albert Vliegenthart. Assessments were then made by Chris van Swaay. Dalius Dapkus. Goran Dusej. for their warm hospitality and for ensuring that the workshop ran smoothly. van Nieukerken and Niklas Wahlberg. lead by Rudi Verovnik and Martin Wiemers. and comprised of Emilio Balletto. Jiří Beneš. The European Butterﬂies Assessments and consequently this report were requirements of the framework of a service contract with the European Commission (Service Contract No. Butterﬂy Conservation Europe. Helena Roma. Dirk Maes. John Coutsis. Any opinions. Miguel López Munguira. Louis Cassar. Henrik Kalivoda. 070307/2007/483305/MAR/B2). Theo Verstrael. Michael Kavin. Martin Warren and Josef Settele. Irma Wynhoﬀ. Branko Micevski. Otakar Kudrna. Chris van Swaay and Irma Wynhoﬀ wrote the texts on range and habitat requirements. Anatolij Kulak. ﬁndings. Jordi Dantart. Suvad Lelo. We would like to thank our host organisation. Christian Stettmer. Garry Curtis. Without their enthusiastic commitment to species conservation. Cécile Edelist. Emilio Balletto. Martina Šašić. Martina Šašić. Martin Warren. Violaine Fichefet.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. Additional ﬁnancial support for the workshop was provided by the Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspﬂege. Marta Domènech Ferrés. Predrag Jakšić. Luc Manil. Theo Verstrael. Eddie John. Constantí Stefanescu. and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the European Commission. Chris van Swaay. Jasko Kullberg. Resit Akçakaya provided guidance on how best to take into account data uncertainty. Miguel López Munguira. Vineet Katariya and Jim Ragle provided high-quality support on GIS and database issues.
All assessments followed the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (IUCN 2003). 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. In Europe. 23% of the amphibians. Butterflies in Europe Butterﬂies are beautiful insects and easy to recognise. the current information is too limited to deﬁne their overall population trend. butterﬂies. 13% of the birds and 11% of the saproxylic beetles are threatened at the European level (Temple & Cox 2009. Status assessment The status of all species was assessed using the IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN 2001). Forty-one species occur only marginally on the European continent. freshwater ﬁshes. and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Canary Islands in the south. 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). which are the world’s most widely accepted system for measuring extinction risk. They lay eggs that hatch into caterpillars. Scope All species of butterﬂies native to Europe are included. Cox & Temple. The ﬁgures for butterﬂies represent minimum estimates as trends are poorly known in many countries. Most of the threatened species are conﬁned to parts of southern Europe. except those which are conﬁned to the North Caucasus countries. They have very viii .Executive summary Aim The European Red List is a review of the conservation status of c. the Alps and the mountains of the Balkans. No other groups have yet been comprehensively assessed at the European level.iucnredlist. the study shows that about a third (31%) of the European butterﬂies has declining populations. mammals and selected groups of beetles. and 7% are threatened at the EU27 level. extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east. while one species has been introduced in the 1980s. Temple & Terry 2007. For the remaining 10%. This Red List publication summarises results for European Butterﬂies. 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. and vascular plants) according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. Other important threats are climate change. including some large eastern European countries that comprise large parts of the study region. Assessments are available on the European Red List website and data portal: http://ec. 2010. Despite the lack of good trend data in some countries. The main current threat to European butterﬂies is the loss of their habitat or habitat connectivity due to the changes in agricultural practices. 451 of them being also found in the 27 member states of the EU. BirdLife International 2004a. there are 482 species of butterﬂies. The highest diversity of butterﬂies is found in mountainous areas in southern Europe. Red List assessments were made at two regional levels: for geographical Europe. increased frequency and intensity of ﬁres and tourism development. Nieto & Alexander 2010).org/europe. 15% of the mammals and the dragonﬂies. A further 10% of butterﬂies are considered Near Threatened. reptiles.000 European species (dragonﬂies. and for the 27 current Member States of the European Union. The Caucasus region is not included. 6. either through intensiﬁcation or abandonment. speciﬁc food and habitat requirements that diﬀer in each stage of their life cycle. 2009.europa. The geographical scope is continent-wide. which then turn into chrysalises before becoming adults.eu/environment/nature/conservation/ species/redlist and http://www. while 4% are increasing and more than half of the species are stable. 19% of the reptiles. about 9% of European butterﬂies are threatened in Europe. Kalkman et al. By comparison. where numerous restrictedrange species are encountered. amphibians. Results Overall. molluscs. all of them are considered as Not Applicable in this assessment. mainly in the Pyrenees.
in particular intensiﬁcation of agriculture (especially of grazing) and abandonment of land. In some cases the few remaining populations in these countries are nowadays stable as a result of conservation measures. improving land management policies such as the European Agricultural Policy. others currently receive little or no attention. ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ The main long-term threat identiﬁed is the loss and degradation of suitable habitat in relation to changes in land-use. Photograph © Vladimir Savchuk ix . especially in Western Europe. e. drawing up Species Action Plans for the most threatened species. 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. While some threatened species already receive some protection and conservation actions. establishing monitoring programmes. which means these species do not occur in the list of threatened species. Further conservation actions are therefore needed urgently to improve the status of European butterﬂies.Conclusions ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Butterﬂies are important biodiversity indicators and play an important role in ecosystems. 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. further conservation actions are urgently needed. 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). thanks to the assessment of endemic European butterﬂies.g. 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. This report highlights where the highest diversity. In particular: ensuring the adequate protection and management of key butterﬂy habitats and their surrounding areas. and revising national and European legislation. adding species identiﬁed as threatened where needed. leading to invasion of shrub and trees. Despite a lack of good trend data from many countries. highest level of endemism and highest portion of threatened butterﬂies are found within the European region. through their pollination activities. A species from pristine steppes in Russia and Ukraine. Coenonympha phryne. Such monitoring programmes would also help evaluate the impact of conservation measures on this important indicator group of insects. Critically Endangered in Europe. 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.
This large and impressive butterﬂy is endemic to Corsica and Sardinia. It is not currently thought to be threatened but should be monitored to assess future change.Corsican Swallowtail Papilio hospiton (Least Concern). where it inhabits the rocky slopes of mountains. Photograph © Tom Nygaard Kristensen x .
Europe is a huge. eutrophication and desertiﬁcation.1 The European context Europe is one of the seven traditional continents of the Earth. and to the southeast by the Black Sea and the Caucasus Mountains. 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. infrastructure development. Cuttelod et al.2. and feeds mainly on plant leaves. ﬁbre and timber.org/home. Although considerable eﬀorts have been made to protect and conserve European habitats and species (e. 151 species of reptiles.010. belonging to the order “Lepidoptera”. Europe is the third-largest continent (after Asia and Africa) with a population of some 731 million – about 11% of the world’s population.1. and carbon sequestration) continues to be a major concern in the region. forest. Per-capita GDP in many EU states is among the highest in the world. the most densely populated continent in the world. The butterﬂies are a group of two closely related superfamilies of Lepidoptera which form a small fraction (ca. http://www. which they use to suck ﬂower nectar. pasture.html 1 .3). 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. which have a totally diﬀerent appearance to the adult.g. comprising 27 Member States.2 European butterflies: diversity and endemism Butterﬂies are a large group of insects. Background 1.9 trillion US dollars (Central Intelligence Agency 2009). For centuries most of Europe’s land has been used by humans to produce food.400. and currently in western Europe more than 80% of land is under some form of direct management (European Environment Agency 2007). non-intensive forms of land management. particularly traditional. is Europe’s largest political and economic entity. 1. before going through metamorphosis to form a chrysalis. and absorb waste) by 2. to the west by the Atlantic Ocean. 2004.000 species of invertebrates (Fauna Europaea 2004). diverse region and the relative importance of diﬀerent threats varies widely across its biogeographic regions and countries.000 species of vascular plants1 and well over 100. The EU’s Member States stretch from the Arctic Circle in the north to the Mediterranean in the south. Europe is separated from Asia by the Ural Mountains and the Caspian Sea (see Figure 2 below). although physically and geologically it is the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia.1. 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). and ﬁshing grounds available to produce food. as well as climate change being set to become an increasingly serious threat in the future. Many species are directly aﬀected by overexploitation. 260 species of mammals (Temple & Terry 2007 2009). see Sections 4. 4. It is the world’s largest economy with an estimated GDP in 2008 of 18. 85 species of amphibians. They lay eggs that hatch into larvae (called caterpillars). together with Asia. 4. Europe is bound to the north by the Arctic Ocean. often colorful wings and by their proboscis. with a cylindrical body. which means “scaly wing”. 20-25. The 1 Source: Euro+Med PlantBase. acidiﬁcation. to the south by the Mediterranean Sea. These habitats are under pressure from agricultural intensiﬁcation. The European Union. Mediterranean Europe is particularly rich in plant and animal species and has been recognised as a global “biodiversity hotspot” (Mittermeier et al. 546 species of freshwater ﬁshes (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007). It is the world’s second-smallest continent in terms of area. land abandonment. In the east. Consequently. covering approximately 10. 2008).000 square kilometres (4. They are characterized by their large. Europe is the most urbanised and.emplantbase. crop pollination. Europe has arguably the most highly fragmented landscape of all continents. persecution and impacts of alien invasive species. In terms of human population.000 square miles) or 2% of the Earth’s surface. biodiversity decline and the associated loss of vital ecosystem services (such as water puriﬁcation.6 times (WWF 2007). timber and fuel and provide living space. and only a tiny fraction of its land surface can be considered as wilderness. 5%) of European Lepidoptera. urban sprawl.
Nearly one third (30%) of European butterﬂies are endemic. emperors. Finally. or Swallowtail butterﬂies. are found only in Europe. there is one representative of the Riodinidae family whose members are mainly distributed in the Neotropical region: Hamearis lucina. including the blues. chrysalis and adult of the Orange Tip Anthocharis cardamines (Least Concern). 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. often tailed like the forked tail of some swallows. the Hesperiidae. although this family Riodinidae is closely related to the Lycaenidae. Diversity and endemism in butterﬂy families in Europe*. Kars Veling and Chris van Swaay (De Vlinderstichting). They support a wide range of parasitoids. sometimes with a metallic gloss. with often large and brightly-colored species. Many butterﬂies are valued for their beauty. such as the fritillaries.Caterpillar. 2 . the Papilionidae. also called brush-footed butterﬂies. which are. 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. the coppers and the hairstreaks. Cacyreus marshalli. In Europe. because most of them ﬂy during the night. then the Lycaenidae. remaining species which belong to 29 superfamilies are colloquially referred to as moths. many of which are speciﬁc to their host and worthy of conservation in their own right. and tortoiseshells. there are 482 species of butterﬂies. as their name suggests. i. but are now part of the Nymphalidae. the Duke of Burgundy Butterﬂy which is similar to the Fritillaries. generally small brightly colored butterﬂies. 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 Total 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% * This table includes species that are native or were naturalised before AD 1500. the latter including the large group of the browns. species introduced after this date are not included. Table 1. Photographs © Jaap Bouwman. The family with the highest rate of endemism is the Nymphalidae. the subfamilies Libytheinae and Satyrinae were until recently a separate family. the Pieridae. named skippers due to their quick and darting ﬂight. while the Papilionidae is a mainly tropical family. where the adults are mostly white or yellow with black spots. divided into six families (Table 1): the largest one is the Nymphalidae. Species of marginal occurrence in Europe and/or the EU are included. which explains the lower percentage of European endemics. admirals. but they also have an economic interest and play an important role in ecosystems through pollination and as prey for other species.e. This report only analyzes the conservation status of butterﬂies.
are present. At the global scale. IUCN 2009).1 (IUCN 2001).. it is classed as Least Concern because its overall decline is less than 30% in the last 10 years. and geographic range. population size and structure. There are nine Categories. with the main purpose of cataloguing and highlighting those taxa that are facing a higher risk of extinction. It also provides an important tool in establishing priorities for species conservation. When conducting regional or national assessments. Endangered and Critically Endangered are considered as ‘threatened’. IUCN Red List Categories at regional scale 3 . the best source of information on the conservation status of plants and animals is the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (see www.org. The butterﬂies are often found on meadows with scrub or near woods where their major foodplant. Species classiﬁed as Vulnerable. The IUCN Red List Categories are based on a set of quantitative criteria linked to population trends. two additional categories are used (Regionally Extinct and Not Applicable) for non-native species (IUCN 2003) (Figure 1). Although it is declining in many countries and remains a conservation priority. to the Extinct category. Figure 1. for species that are not threatened. The Red List is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction. for species that have disappeared from the planet. conservation status.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. and distribution information on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3. ranging from Least Concern. It provides taxonomic. Photograph © Martin Wiemers 1.iucnredlist.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). Primulas.
The Lesser Spotted Fritillary Melitaea trivia is one of the most colorful fritillaries in Europe.iucnredlist. ■■ A website and data portal (http://ec. ■■ To identify the major threats and to propose mitigating measures and conservation actions to address them. Although considered Least Concern in Europe.europa. the populations within the EU-27 countries show a marked decline. IUCN will ensure wide dissemination of this data to relevant decision makers. The data presented in this report provides a snapshot based on knowledge available at the time of writing. NGOs and scientists to inform the implementation of conservation actions on the ground.1.eu/ environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 4 .org/europe) showcasing this data in the form of species factsheets for all European butterﬂies. along with background and other interpretative material. ■■ To strengthen the network of experts focused on conservation of butterﬂies in Europe. so that the assessment information can be kept current. ■■ 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. For this reason this butterﬂy is considered Near Threatened in the EU-27. ■■ A freely available database holding the baseline data for monitoring the status and distribution of European butterﬂies. their main threats and recommendations for conservation measures. The assessment provides three main outputs: ■■ This summary report on the status and distribution of European butterﬂies. and expertise can be targeted to address the highest conservation priorities. as well as a poster on their status.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. 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
2. 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. Consistency in the use of IUCN Criteria was checked by IUCN staﬀ from the IUCN Red List Unit. Germany. the data were edited. 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. In August 2009. a meeting was hold in Ankara (Turkey) between Resit Akçakaya.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 this meeting. January 2009. and outstanding questions were resolved through communications with the experts. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 8 . The preliminary assessments were reviewed during the workshop and new information was added to the species summaries and maps. Following the review workshop and the uncertainty discussion. Red List Categories were then deﬁned for each species at the European and EU 27 levels. 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. Expert participants at the Butterﬂy Red List workshop. the butterﬂies assessments were reviewed once again and adjustments were made. Laufen.
Russell. pers. with 0.3. de Sousa. of which 0. It is therefore considered as Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct). For the EU 27 assessment the Not Evaluated species (species which do not occur in the EU) are also excluded. comm.1% Endangered and 4. comm.5% Vulnerable. Species classed as Regionally Extinct and threatened (Critically Endangered. Endangered and Vulnerable) at the European and EU 27 level are listed in Table 4. B. At the European level.). 8.1 Threatened status of butterflies The status of butterﬂies was assessed at two regional levels: geographical Europe and the EU27. 7.1% of the butterﬂies (30 species) are threatened with extinction. pers.2% of species are considered as Near Threatened. Red List status of butterﬂies in the EU27 9 . In addition. 11.5% are Critically Endangered. 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). 2.5% of the species (37 species) are considered as threatened. Within the EU27. Red List status of butterﬂies in Europe Figure 4. Most of these are declining rapidly in parts of their range and are in urgent need of conservation action. 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. Table 3. but still occurs in Ukraine.7% of them being Critically Endangered. Figure 3. The Madeiran Large White (Pieris wollastoni). & P. 2.8% Endangered and 5% Vulnerable (Table 3 and Figure 3 and 4). has not been reported since 1986 despite several visits of lepidopterists to its former habitat (Gardiner 2003. restricted to the island of Madeira (Portugal). endemic species) 1 3 (2) 12 (6) 22 (14) 44 (11) 349 (107) 4 (2) 435 (142) No. species EU 27 (no. A further 10% (44 species) of species are classiﬁed as Near Threatened. species Europe (no. Results and discussion 3. 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.
Regionally Extinct. Species endemic to Europe or to EU 27 are marked with an asterisk (*).Table 4. threatened or Near Threatened butterﬂies species at the European and EU27 level. 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 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 Red List status 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 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 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 10 .
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 .
including several eastern European countries which comprise a large part of the study region. 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. compilers usually reported trends as stable. In comparison to butterﬂies. The Violet Copper Lycaena helle (Endangered) is a rare and threatened butterﬂy in Europe. Cox & Temple 2009. 2010. Another problem is that for many western European countries. Many more species are therefore important conservation priorities as they are still declining.Forty-eight species were considered as Not Applicable. but this probably underestimated the true rate of loss at European scale. a considerably greater proportion of butterﬂies are declining and threatened. but not at a suﬃcient rate to be classiﬁed as threatened. The species classiﬁed both as threatened and Near Threatened (19% of total) are thus all high conservation priorities. 15% dragonﬂies 19% of reptiles and 23% of amphibians are threatened at the European level (Nieto & Alexander 2010. For this reason this species is considered only Least Concern in the EU-27 countries. 14% of mammals. The few remaining populations were more or less stable in the last ten years. It is mostly found on cool and wet meadows. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 12 . No other groups have yet been comprehensively assessed at the European and EU27 level according to IUCN regional Red List guidelines. either due to their marginal occurrence in Europe or because they were introduced after AD 1500. Where no accurate trend data were available. Kalkman et al. 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. 13% of birds. Temple & Cox 2009). 11% of saproxylic beetles. often just below the IUCN thresholds for red listing. Better population trend data are available through butterﬂy monitoring schemes that have been established in 14 countries. Temple & Terry 2007. BirdLife International 2004a. major declines of butterﬂies occurred in the 1950s-70s. In the EU-27 countries most of the decline already happened before 1995. In countries with good trend data. and loss rates have slowed as species have been reduced to very low levels. but funding is not yet available to collate and analyse these at a European level.
often just below the IUCN thresholds for red listing. As a matter of fact. 3. but Least Concern at the EU27 (Lycaena helle. among which considerable diﬀerences exist both in species numbers as well as in threatened status (Table 5).3% 9.2). Greece and Bulgaria (Table 6). Greece and Bulgaria.0% 13. whereas in the eastern Europe. Spain. The top ﬁve EU countries in terms of butterﬂies species richness (in descending order) are: Italy.2 Status by taxonomic groups The European butterﬂies belong to a number of diﬀerent families (see Section 1. highlighting the responsibility that European countries have to protect the entire global populations of these species. 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. France. A high proportion of threatened and Near Threatened butterﬂy species are endemic to either Europe or EU.1 Species richness Figure 5 highlights areas of particular high concentrations of butterﬂy species. 3.5% 0.2% 0.7% 8. This is particularly true for France. 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* 2.5% *Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA).Table 5. Spain. there is currently a steep decline observed for these species. Coenonympha oedippus and Euphydryas maturna).2 and Table 1. Number of butterﬂy species in the 27 current EU Member States (excluding introduced species). Three species are considered threatened at the European level.3 Spatial distribution of species Information on the species richness of butterﬂies within families has already been given in Section 1.3. 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. Italy. The greatest richness clearly coincides 13 .0% 8. Table 6. The geographic distribution of species richness in Europe is presented in Figure 5.
Species richness of European butterﬂies Figure 6. Distribution of threatened butterﬂies in Europe 14 .Figure 5.
3. the Pyrenees. The reasons for this pattern are likely to be complex and to involve a combination of a wide range of factors. C. Distribution of endemic butterﬂy species in Europe 15 . eastern Austria. tullia. Particularly high numbers of endemic species are found in the Alps and the Pyrenees. most threatened species can be found in eastern France. teleius. the Apennines.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. which host numerous species of very restricted range. as well as in the Balkans. Figure 6 shows that the greatest concentrations of threatened butterﬂy species are found in central and eastern Europe. Lycaena helle. Sierra Nevada and Cantabrian Mountains) and in Italy (the Apennines).3 Endemic species richness Figure 7 shows the distribution of endemic butterﬂy species (e. One factor is that these regions hold concentrations of habitats used by threatened species. 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.g.3. Colias myrmidone. those that are unique to Europe and are found nowhere else in the world). Another is that they coincide to some extent with general butterﬂy diversity and regions where eastern and western faunas overlap. In central Europe. Euphydryas maturna. Phengaris arion and P. the Romanian Carpathians and eastern Poland. 3. Some of the threatened species still occur widely in Russia. the Alps. the Dinaric Alps. Other important concentrations of endemics are found in mountainous areas in Spain (e. the Carpathians and the mountains of the Balkans. for example Coenonympha hero. 3. Figure 7.g. Lopinga achine. Southern Russia also seems to host a high number of species. whereas species in eastern Europe appear to be suﬀering from a more recent loss of habitat and hence decline in populations. notably mountain grasslands and wet meadows.with mountainous areas in the south of Europe: the Cantabrian Mountains.
for example through conversion of grasslands to crop ﬁelds. They are therefore particularly sensitive to modiﬁcations of their environment and serve as an excellent indicator of the status of the ecosystems. While agricultural intensiﬁcation tends to take place on more productive land. drainage of wetlands. The major drivers of butterﬂy habitat loss and degradation are related to agricultural intensiﬁcation. therefore it is considered as Vulnerable Photograph © Neil Thompson 3. the improvement of ﬂower-rich grasslands. etc. They are especially sensitive to changes in habitat management such as overgrazing. 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. undergrazing or changes in forestry practice. Butterﬂies have very speciﬁc food and habitat requirements at diﬀerent stages of their life cycle. especially those near the tree-line. More than half of the butterﬂy species inhabit grasslands. Its population has declined by more than 30% in the last 10 years.). woodland and scrub are home to about a quarter of the species. A summary of the relative importance of the diﬀerent threatening processes is shown in Figure 8.The Sudeten Ringlet Erebia sudetica is a European endemic found on alpine and subalpine grasslands. while the rest are found in other types of ecosystems (rocky slopes.4 Major threats to butterflies in Europe The major threats to each species were coded using the IUCN Threats Classiﬁcation Scheme. Major threats to butterﬂies in Europe 16 . and the intensiﬁcation of livestock grazing.
and the introduction of other butterﬂy species might threaten native species. Although it has declined in many countries. as well as in the Mediterranean. where it breeds on docks and sorrels. 1998. leading to reduced habitat suitability. where the Speckled Wood (Pararge aegeria). 2007). fragmentation is a growing threat to European butterﬂies. grass patches or woodland margins and require regular forest management (Van Swaay & Warren 1999). Within woodlands. 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. land-use changes. Invasive species are also a problem to some species. Such small. isolated populations are more prone to extinction from normal population ﬂuctuations and from extreme events such as ﬁre or drought. such as grasslands. Pesticides and herbicides kill both adult butterﬂies and caterpillars. for a number of reasons. aﬀecting species such as Phengaris arion. A major factor in the decline of such species is the widespread changes in woodland management across Europe. it is expanding its range in some central and eastern countries and is classiﬁed as Least Concern. forests. This trend is aﬀecting a wide range of wildlife groups (Poole et al. As habitat loss is still continuing. or other habitats now often occur in small. domestic and agricultural pollution (such as nitrogen deposition) leads to a faster succession of vegetation. The Large Copper Lycaena dispar (Least Concern) occurs in a range of grassland types. This is a serious threat to declining species such as Lopinga achine and Hamearis lucina. The pace of climate change will almost certainly be more rapid than most plants are able to migrate. cities. colonized the island in the 1970s and is now possibly threatening the Madeiran Speckled Wood (Pararge xiphia) (Jones & Lace 2008). For this reason. They act like little islands. 2008) On islands (such as the Canary Islands or Madeira). and other barriers associated with human presence may provide no opportunity for distributional shifts. Climate is a major factor determining the distribution of species (biogeography). However. Lycaena helle and Colias myrmidone. 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. and unfavourable grassland management (wrong timing or intensity) have led to drastic declines (see Konvicka et al. thus reducing the area of suitable habitat and habitat connectivity substantially. as well as the distribution of the vegetation. they have led to some positive results for butterﬂies (e.the Mediterranean). 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. many butterﬂy species rely on open areas. Climate change may simply shift these distributions but. the development of tourism activities and urbanisation destroy important breeding habitat. 2008). plants and animals may not be able to keep track of these changes. 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. Tucker & Health 1994) and is considered to be the second major threat to European butterﬂies. 2008). It is protected under the EU Habitats and Species Directive. isolated patches rather than in large. Furthermore.. Changes in the management of non-agricultural areas. even under EU funded agri-environment schemes. a widespread species in Europe. are also an important threat. Brereton et al. 2008). some of them being targeted as “pest” because their caterpillars feed on farm crops. where agri-environment schemes have been well designed and implemented. such as the laurel forest. the increased frequency and intensity of ﬁres. as is probably the case on Madeira. where only small populations can survive. intact units. clearings. The remaining meadows.g. Photograph © Chris van Swaay 17 . Natural re-colonisation is less likely in such isolated sites and regional extinction more likely (Hanski 1999). but other inoﬀensive species suﬀer the same fate. The presence of roads. In some cases.
acknowledging that the proportion of mammal species with unknown population trend is quite high (33%) (Temple and Terry 2007. By contrast. especially for threatened. A further 10% have unknown population trends. while only 4% are increasing (Figure 9).3. 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). or increasing. As explained above in section 3. For 17 grassland butterﬂy species European trends have been established (Van Swaay and Van Strien. 14% of saproxylic beetles (Nieto and Alexander 2010). Its overall European population declined by almost 30% in the last 10 years. More than half (55%) of them seem to have stable populations. 2010). Figure 9. About a third (31%) of the European butterﬂies are considered to be declining. Near Threatened and Data Deﬁcient species. leading to it being classiﬁed as Near Threatened. For butterﬂies there is also a network of Butterﬂy Monitoring Schemes covering 14 countries at present.5 Demographic trends Documenting population trends is key to assessing species status. its colonies at many lowland sites. Population trends of European butterﬂies The Apollo Parnassius apollo is a striking butterﬂy associated with mountain screes where its caterpillars feed on Sedums. stable. 27% of mammal species. 26% of dragonﬂies (Kalkman et al. 42% of reptile species (Cox and Temple 2009) and 59% of amphibian species (Temple and Cox 2009) have declining populations. 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. A better use of the monitoring data of butterﬂy populations in Europe and an extension to under-recorded areas is urgently needed. Photograph © Bosse van Swaay 18 . many of which are genetically unique. However. these are likely to be considerable underestimates of the number of species declining due to lack of good objective trend data in many countries. 2009). have declined far more severely and it has become extinct in several mountain ranges over the last 100 years. 2008).1. and a special eﬀort was made to determine which species are believed to be signiﬁcantly declining. Just under a quarter (23%) of European birds is decreasing in number.
Annex IV species are subject to a strict protection system.4.2 Protection of habitats and species in the EU27 EU nature conservation policy is based on two main pieces of legislation . combining longterm conservation with economic and social activities as part of a sustainable development strategy. The Habitats Directive. EU nature conservation policy also foresees the integration of its protection requirements into other EU sectoral policies such as agriculture. of which only 12 are legally protected in Europe. (Four species of moths are also included in Annex II and 1 species of moth is included in Annex III) (see Table 7). with a total area of around 850. etc.the cornerstone of EU nature conservation policy. 3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild ﬂora and fauna. It covers all European countries and some African states. 4. Most of the Habitats Directive species listed that are not included in the current Red List are still declining in parts of their range. 19 . the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. 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. provinces. downloaded November 2009. One of the main tools to enhance and maintain this status is the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. 2 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds. 4 Source: http://ec. of which 12 are now classed as threatened in Europe. which aims to protect other wildlife species and habitats.eu/environment/nature/index_en. This means that the majority of the species listed in the Annexes are in need of greater conservation action. make up the Natura 2000 network . These sites. European countries and the EU have made the commitment to reduce (or halt) the loss of biodiversity within Europe by 2010.000 km² – more than 20% of total EU territory4. together with those of the Birds Directive. 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. but population declines should also be reversed.the Birds Directive2 and the Habitats Directive3. and most importantly. However this assessment has also revealed that 39 European butterﬂy species are threatened either at the European or EU27 level. including the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.000 protected areas in all Member States combined. In particular there are 31 butterﬂy species listed on the Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive.europa. 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. applies to both terrestrial and marine regions. The present study has shown that a large number of butterﬂy species show continuing declines and many are under serious threat. The Natura 2000 network has grown over the last 25 years and now includes more than 26.) also aﬀord butterﬂies some form of protective species legislation. Conservation measures 4. Given this result it seems highly unlikely that the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss will be met for this indicator group of insects.htm. regional development and transport. Many European countries and other administrative units (states. and 5 are classed as Near Threatened as a result of this project. This means that not only should extinctions be prevented. The Habitats Directive contains a series of Annexes that mostly identify ‘habitats’ and species of European Community concern. Member States are required to designate Natura 2000 sites for the species listed on Annex II. In particular 22 species listed on Appendix II (strictly protected species) of the Bern Convention are included in this Red List. or have suﬀered historical declines and are still in need of conservation eﬀort.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. Many are also valuable indicators of important habitats and their conservation will bring wide biodiversity beneﬁts. 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.
An asterisk (*) indicates that the species is a priority species for the Habitats Directive. 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. 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 Red List status 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 II/IV II/IV II2 II/IV II/IV II/IV IV 4 II/IV II/IV II/IV IV II/IV5 II/IV II*/IV Bern Convention Annexes II II II II II II 4 II II II II II5 20 .Table 7.
104 projects with a total budget of approximately €2. Table 8 shows the taxonomic breakdown of these projects. Because of this complicated lifecycle the butterﬂy is vulnerable to any changes in the environment that aﬀect either the hostplants or hostants. Examples of actions taken within these projects include habitat restoration. see the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version 3. 46 projects link their actions to butterﬂies conservation and target 13 speciﬁc species.1 http:// www. Projects involve a variety of actions including habitat restoration. habitat conservation and action for sustaining butterﬂies populations. use of pesticides) or abandonment (where its habitat gets invaded by scrubs and later forest). Since 1992. Crucially.2 billion.org/technical-documents/categoriesand-criteria). fertilization. The number of LIFE projects targeted either towards speciﬁc species or habitats for butterﬂies. that its range is stable. The caterpillars also hibernate and pupate in the ants’ nest. This is identiﬁed clearly in Article 1 of the Directive (see Box 1).4 Extinction risk versus conservation status The IUCN Red List Criteria classify species solely on the basis of their relative extinction risk (IUCN 2001).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. Photograph © Chris van Swaay Table 8. protected area infrastructure and conservation planning.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.The Scarce Large Blue Phengaris teleius (Vulnerable) is a typical species of wet meadows with the Great Burnet (Sanguisorba oﬃcinalis). 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. It is diﬃcult to claim that a species experiencing a decline of this magnitude is maintaining its population.europa. Unfavourable Conservation Status according to the EU Habitats Directive has a much broader deﬁnition. projects aimed at restoring natural habitat and targeting other insect species might be beneﬁcial to butterﬂies as well. It is listed on both the Annexes II and IV of the Habitat Directive and in the Annexe II of the Bern Convention. 4. however.iucnredlist. Some projects target more than one species. However. LIFE has co-ﬁnanced over 3. The species of host ant varies in diﬀerent parts of its range. site purchases. Based on a search of the LIFE project database that lists all past and current LIFE projects. There they feed on ant grubs. communication and awareness-raising. acceding and neighbouring countries. this does not mean that the opposite is true: species that 21 . 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. LIFE supports the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. and that it remains a viable component of its habitat.cfm. This review is based on a search for butterﬂy species on the LIFE database http://ec. The small caterpillars only feed on the ﬂowerheads for two or three weeks.g. Most of the 53 projects were focused at the habitat or site level rather than on particular species. In large parts of Europe this species declines because of either intensiﬁcation (e. However. 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. drainage. 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.
as well as other factors. which is little known. economical. 22 . and ■■ There is.are not threatened as deﬁned by IUCN Red List Criteria do not necessarily have a Favourable Conservation Status (BirdLife International 2004a). 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. and probably will continue to be. such as the assignment of IUCN Red List Categories. Assessment of extinction risk. 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”. and thus does not satisfy IUCN Red List Criteria. 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. and ■■ The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the considerable future. availability of funds or personnel. normally includes the assessment of extinction risk. It has a highly fragmented distribution. a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. 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. generally precedes the setting of conservation priorities. For example. In the context of regional risk assessments. Photograph © Albert Vliegenthart Box 1. The Nogel’s Hairstreak Tomares nogelii (Vulnerable) is a habitat specialist that feeds solely on Astragalus ponticus. on the other hand. It has disappeared from the EU-27 countries. a number of additional pieces of information are valuable for setting conservation priorities.4 and 3. Tourist activities and agricultural improvement have diminished many colonies and the remaining populations are mainly threatened by changes in agricultural practices. not faced by any direct extinction risk) does not necessarily mean that it has a favourable conservation status’ (Anon. although many of these species would be categorised as Near Threatened or Least Concern. 2007). cost-eﬀectiveness. phylogenetic.5). historical. Therefore. but also takes into account other factors such as ecological.5 Red List versus priority for conservation action Assessment of extinction risk and setting conservation priorities are two related but diﬀerent processes. The purpose of the Red List categorization is to produce a relative estimate of the likelihood of extinction of a taxon. 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). but can still be found in Ukraine.e. 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. A decision on how these three variables. Many butterﬂy species remain widely distributed in Europe. they could not be regarded as having Favourable Conservation Status. and legal frameworks for conservation of threatened taxa. 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%. 4. as well as the probability of success of conservation actions. Setting conservation priorities. are used for establishing conservation priorities is a matter for the regional authorities to determine. or cultural preferences for some taxa over others.
especially in Western Europe.1 Overview and recommendations for conservation measures ■■ Overall. ■■ Protect and manage the network of Prime Butterﬂy Areas that have been identiﬁed in Europe as a priority (van Swaay & Warren 2003). 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). The Scarce Fritillary Euphydryas maturna occurs in clearings. In the European Union these should be integrated into the Natura 2000 network. In some cases the few remaining populations in these countries are nowadays stable as a result of conservation measures. even though not always at a rate that would meet the IUCN Red List Criteria (i. Thus. Other important threats are climate change. Develop measures to conserve entire landscapes in Europe and reduce impact of habitat fragmentation and isolation. The main current threat to European butterﬂies is the loss of their habitat or habitat connectivity due to the changes in agricultural practices. and 7% are threatened at the EU27 level. About a third (31%) of the European butterﬂies has declining populations. Conclusion and recommendations 1. about 9% of European butterﬂies are threatened in Europe.5. In the rest of Europe it continues to decline rapidly and even large populations are disappearing. increased frequency and intensity of ﬁres and tourism development. ■■ 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. where young ash trees are growing in open. further conservation actions are urgently needed. ■■ 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. mixed woodland. 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). 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. either through intensiﬁcation or abandonment. whereas most of the threatened species are conﬁned to parts of central and eastern Europe. Photograph © Tom Nygaard Kristensen 23 . a population decline of 30% in the last 10 years). not enough to make it a threatened species according to the Red List criteria. especially the Common Agricultural Policy. In the EU-27 it showed a strong decline in the 20th century. 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. Therefore it is considered Vulnerable in Europe as a whole. Improve policy measures to conserve wildlife habitats in Europe. The highest diversity of butterﬂies is found in the mountainous areas of the southern Europe.e. almost one-ﬁfth of butterﬂies in Europe are Threatened or Near Threatened. In particular: ■■ Include European threatened species when revising relevant national and regional legislation. including climate change. which means these species do not occur in the list of threatened species. A further 10% of butterﬂies are considered Near Threatened. In order to improve the conservation status of European butterﬂies and to reverse these negative trends.
policy-makers. These data are freely available on the IUCN Red List website (www. molluscs and plants. habitats. it provides key resources for decision-makers.5. 2004. as species are reassessed according to new information or situations. It has gathered large amounts of data on the population. reptiles. resources managers.europa. especially for threatened. 5. If the butterﬂy assessments are periodically updated. 2006. amphibians. rocky slopes in one valley in Northern Italy alone. 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).b). 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. on the European Commission website (http://ec. By regularly updating the data presented here we will be able to track the changing fate of European butterﬂies to 2010 and beyond. ecology. 2005. There are in particular signiﬁcant geographical and taxonomical biases in the quality and quantity of data available on the distribution and status of species. It also contributes to broaden the coverage of invertebrates on the global IUCN Red List. regional and international levels. Photo © Kars Veling 24 . Near Threatened and Data Deﬁcient species.3 Future work Through the process of gathering and compiling butterﬂy data across Europe. 2007).iucnredlist. threats and recommended conservation measures for each species assessed. several knowledge gaps have been identiﬁed. environmental planners and NGOs. The Piedmont Anomalous Blue (Polyommatus humedasae) occurs only on a few warm. thanks to the assessment of endemic European butterﬂies. The outputs of this project can be applied to inform policy. and selected beetles. It is aimed at stimulating and supporting research. dry. To date. This Red List is a dynamic tool that will evolve with time. monitoring and conservation action at local. It is listed as Endangered both in Europe and in EU-27. to identify priority sites and species to include in research and monitoring programmes and to identify internationally important areas for biodiversity. eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist) and through paper publications (see the list of European Red List published at the end of this report).2 Application of project outputs This Butterﬂy Red List is part of a wider project aimed at comprehensively assessing several taxonomic groups (mammals.org/europe). freshwater ﬁsh. dragonﬂies). In conjunction with the data on European birds published by BirdLife International (BirdLife International 2004a.
The speckled wood butterﬂies Pararge xiphia and P. Journal of Insect Conservation. Akcakaya. Lamoreux.. (eds) 1998.H. L. https://www. J. Wageningen. M.G. Butchart.B. K. CEMEX. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 629-638. Germany. G. S. Dyatlova. Mittermeier. Jović. Central Intelligence Agency.. Switzerland. BirdLife International... 2003.M.M.E.. The Netherlands.E. Mittermeier. Warren.. IUCN.. J.. S.R.. IUCN 2009.A. A.. Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond.cia.. org Gardiner.. Conservation Biology 20: 579–581. L. S. G. 2003. Luxembourg: Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European Communities. 2010. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360: 255–268. Benes. Biol. McCracken. 1898. L.gov/library/publications/theworldfactbook/. García. N..org. Cambridge.. 2009. 2004b. Eitschberger. Luxembourg: Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European Communities. Brédy. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a frst set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe.. Mexico City. Temple. & Lace.. Akcakaya. IUCN. V. Cox.. F.0. D. M.. Switzerland. & Fonseca.. J. Butchart. BirdLife International. agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. T. Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. European Red List of Reptiles. J-P. A. R. Improvements to the Red List Index. Chanson. O. Mountain livestock farming and EU policy development: Proceedings of the Fifth European Forum on Nature Conservation 25 . Poole. .1.. D. 2007. B.J. HiltonTaylor and S. Vié. Shutes. IUCN Red List Categories.1. 2009 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. F.. S. and Freyhof. M. Baillie. Entomologist's Gazette 54:267–268. 2008. Bennun. Fauna Europaea Web Service.H.N. Ferreira. V. & Deﬀeyes. Kennedy.-C. T.A. 2007. et al. Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: strengths of the IUCN Red List Index. N. 2004a. 11/2007. European Environment Agency. J. Stuart (eds).. Konvicka. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2008...R. – Atalanta 21(1/2): 101–108. Abdul Malak. Brooks. S. and Sahlén.. How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves.References BirdLife International.. 2004.. Cizek. A. Pilgrim. A. Hoﬀmann. Conze. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. H. D. C.. H. 2005..A.N. Cornol. 1994. H. Conservation International and Agrupación Sierra Madre. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3. Jones. Kottelat. Robles Gil. L. C. 2009.. Bennun. De Knijf.. Linn. Soc. and Stamer P. Stattersﬁeld. E. C. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red List Indices for birds. IUCN.. K-J. K.M. Collen.A..R. M.A. & Stewart.. Ott.0000140. Cuttelod. J. O. J. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Switzerland.J. Kottelat. 46: 77-89. M. The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat. HiltonTaylor..1371/ journal. Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. aegeria (Satyridae) on Madeira: distribution.1990.. Gland.J. Butchart. S. M.M. Kopecek. pone.. J.faunaeur. PLoS ONE 2(1): e140. Stattersﬁeld. B. 2008. 2004. et al. U.M. Kalkman. Lycaenidae). 2007. and conservation status.. S.. Pienkowski. UK. territorial behaviour and possible competition. 2009. M. & Katariya. J.A. A. Switzerland and Freyhof. In: J. Fauna Europaea version 1. IUCN. European Red List of Dragonﬂies. Cacyreus marshalli Butler.iucnredlist. Nieto. S. Birds in Europe: population estimates. Handbook of European freshwater ﬁshes.N. Stuart. J..J.M. The 2008 Review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. C. et al. 12(5): 519-525. Brereton.I. The possible cause of extinction of Pieris brassicae wollastoni Butler (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). EEA Technical Report No. H. Akcakaya. Gland. trends. BirdLife International. Berlin. and Temple. Boudot.H.H. Roy. doi:10. Bernard.. PLoS Biology 2: e383. The World Factbook.. Baillie. C. B. IUCN Gland. R. Riservato E. G.. A. 2001. www. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3. eine neue Tagfalterart für die europäische Fauna? (Lepidoptera. 2004.M. J. Luxembourg: Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European Communities. and Alexander.. Konvicka. M. Switzerland. Butchart. Petretti. (2008) The changing status of the Chalkhill Blue butterﬂy Polyommatus coridon in the UK: the impacts of conservation policies and environmental factors. P. IUCN. Vitaz. 2006.. IUCN. Gland. H. Available online at http://www. E.
O.... Warren. European Mammals: Status.J.. Valle d'Aosta.A. S. & Heath. 99.. Red Data Book of European butterﬂies (Rhopalocera). Islay. T. Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterﬂies. WWF. Kühn. (2008): Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. 2008.A. & Van Strien. and Terry A. Hanspach. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Prime butterﬂy areas of Europe: Priority sites for conservation. I. C. Schweiger. Report VS2008. Nature Conservation and Fisheries. Verovnik. Klotz. Aosta. Cambridge. National Reference Centre for Agriculture. C. Kudrna.J. O. 1994. trends and conservation priorities.. 1-710. C. Luxembourg: Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European Communities. Birds in Europe: their Conservation Status. Italy. 34723479.J. M.. van Swaay. Van Swaay. J. Europe 2007: Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint. M. N. Vliegenthart.. De Vlinderstichting.K.. Nature and Environment. O. Luxemburg: Oﬃce for Oﬃcial Publications of the European Communities. Settele. I. O.. Harpke.022.: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series no. 26 .A. Ecology 89.G. No.. 2007. and Warren.3).M.. Strasbourg.. I. Kuehn. A.F. Van Swaay.. J.J. Tucker. A.. Council of Europe Publishing. Veling.. Kudrna. Settele. M. M. & Warren.. S. van Halder. Wynhoﬀ. Temple H. European Red List of Amphibians. The status and distribution of European mammals. A. Van Swaay. M. Cogne. J. E. Kuehn. 18-21 September 1996. 2009. Wageningen. Hickler.S. and Cox.M. & EFNCP. 2009. M. U. The Netherlands. K. M. A. I.and Pastoralism.. Temple H. 2007. Wiemers. Biorisk 1. (2008) The European Butterﬂy Indicator for Grassland species 19902007. Temple H. & Schweiger. 1999. C. Folia Zoologica. Regione Autonoma Valle d'Aosta. R. (2003) (Eds). and Terry A.
Form filled by Butterfly Conservation Europe national focal points 27 .Appendix 1.
1839) Carcharodus ﬂocciferus (Zeller. 1897) Pyrgus onopordi (Rambur. 1841) Muschampia proto (Ochsenheimer. 1758) Heteropterus morpheus (Pallas. 1913 Carcharodus stauderi Reverdin. 1839) Pyrgus carthami (Hübner. 1804) Hesperia comma (Linnaeus. Red List status of European butterflies Species are sorted alphabetically by family.Appendix 2. 1803) Pyrgus andromedae (Wallengren. 1833) Carcharodus alceae (Esper. 1928) Spialia orbifer (Hübner. 1910) Pyrgus cacaliae (Rambur. 1845) 30 . 1793) Gegenes pumilio (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1823) Spialia phlomidis (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1771) Carterocephalus silvicolus (Meigen. 1910) Pyrgus bellieri (Oberthür. genus and species. 1925) Carterocephalus palaemon (Pallas. 1839) Pyrgus cinarae (Rambur. 1758) Pyrgus malvoides (Elwes & Edwards. 1853) Pyrgus armoricanus (Oberthür. 1808) Muschampia tessellum (Hübner. 1829) Erynnis marloyi (Boisduval. 1839) Pyrgus serratulae (Rambur. 1780) Carcharodus baeticus (Rambur. 1839) Pyrgus malvae (Linnaeus. 1784) Pyrgus warrenensis (Verity. 1758) Gegenes nostrodamus (Fabricius. 1839) Pyrgus sidae (Esper. 1777) Pelopidas thrax (Hübner. 1913 Carcharodus tripolinus (Verity. 1803) Ochlodes sylvanus (Esper. 1839) Pyrgus carlinae (Rambur. 1839) Pyrgus cirsii (Rambur. 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 A2c A2c B2a A2c 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 A2c B2a A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Taxonomy HESPERIIDAE Borbo borbonica (Boisduval. 1834) Erynnis tages (Linnaeus. 1821) Pyrgus alveus (Hübner. 1783) Carcharodus orientalis Reverdin. 1813) Pyrgus centaureae (Rambur. 1771) Muschampia cribrellum (Eversmann. 1847) Carcharodus lavatherae (Esper.
1775) Cupido osiris (Meigen. 1767) Leptotes pirithous (Linnaeus. 1905 Callophrys rubi (Linnaeus. 1789) Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus. 1775) Thymelicus christi (Rebel. 1828) Glaucopsyche paphos Chapman. 1844) Lycaena dispar (Haworth. 1847) Cupido minimus (Fuessly. 1821) Aricia eumedon (Esper. 1855) Chilades trochylus (Freyer. 1767) Lycaena alciphron (Rottemburg. 1829) Cyaniris semiargus (Rottemburg. 1804) Spialia therapne (Rambur. 1758) Chilades galba (Lederer. 1894) Thymelicus hyrax (Lederer. 1804) Cupido argiades (Pallas. 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 A2b A2c A2c A2c A2c 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 A2b A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 31 . 1881) Celastrina argiolus (Linnaeus. 1847) Aricia montensis Verity. 1775) Cyclyrius webbianus (Brullé. 1898 Callophrys avis Chapman. 1782) Cacyreus marshalli Butler. 1838) Aricia artaxerxes (Fabricius. 1909 Callophrys chalybeitincta Sovinsky. 1758) Glaucopsyche alexis (Poda. 1775) Aricia anteros (Freyer. 1771) Cupido decoloratus (Staudinger. 1808) Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda. 1793) Aricia cramera (Eschscholtz. 1802) Lycaena helle (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1886) Cupido lorquinii (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1830) Azanus ubaldus (Stoll. 1758) Callophrys suaveola (Staudinger. 1775) Lycaena hippothoe (Linnaeus. 1780) Aricia hyacinthus (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1775) Lycaena bleusei Oberthür. 1832) Thymelicus acteon (Rottemburg. 1910 Aricia nicias (Meigen. 1761) Glaucopsyche melanops (Boisduval. 1816) Laeosopis roboris (Esper. 1861) Thymelicus lineola (Ochsenheimer. 1884 Lycaena candens (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1928 Aricia morronensis Ribbe. 1761) LYCAENIDAE Apharitis acamas (Klug. 1834) Aricia agestis (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1839) Favonius quercus (Linnaeus.Taxonomy Spialia sertorius (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1845) Cupido alcetas (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1920 Iolana iolas (Ochsenheimer.
1910) Plebejus dardanus (Freyer. 1781) Plebejus orbitulus (de Prunner.Taxonomy Lycaena ottomana (Lefèbvre. 1927) Plebejus zullichi (Hemming. 1775) Polyommatus damone (Eversmann. 1758) Phengaris nausithous (Bergsträsser. 1933) Polyommatus admetus (Esper. 1832) Plebejus pyrenaicus (Boisduval. 1758) Neolycaena rhymnus (Eversmann. 1976) Polyommatus bellargus (Rottemburg. 1840) Plebejus sephirus (Frivaldzky. 1761) Lycaena thersamon (Esper. 1832) Plebejus argus (Linnaeus. 1851) Polyommatus amandus (Schneider. 1837) Polyommatus damocles (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1851) Plebejus glandon (de Prunner. 1839) Plebejus idas (Linnaeus. 1761) Polyommatus corydonius (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1844) Polyommatus damon (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1779) Phengaris teleius (Bergsträsser. 1845) Plebejus pylaon (Fischer. 1775) Polyommatus dolus (Hübner. 1761) Lycaena virgaureae (Linnaeus. 1783) Polyommatus albicans (Gerhard. 1798) Plebejus hespericus (Rambur. 1784) Lycaena thetis Klug. 1843) Polyommatus coridon (Poda. 1761) Plebejus loewii (Zeller. 1844) Plebejus eurypilus (Freyer. 1798) Plebejus psyloritus (Freyer. 1779) Plebejus bellieri (Oberthür. 1792) Polyommatus aroaniensis (Brown. 1775) Polyommatus caelestissimus Verity. 1758) Plebejus argyrognomon (Bergsträsser. 1830) Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus. ) Polyommatus cyane (Eversmann. 1832) Phengaris alcon (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1847) Plebejus optilete (Knoch. 1835) Plebejus trappi (Verity. 1779) Plebejus aquilo (Boisduval. 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 A2bc A2c A2c B1a A2c B1b(v)+ 2b(v) B1b(iv)c(iv)+ 2b(iv)c(iv) A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC LC NA LC LC NE 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 A2c A2bc A2c A2c B1a B1b(iv)c(iv)+ 2b(iv)c(iv) A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 32 . 1834 Lycaena tityrus (Poda. 1841) Polyommatus daphnis (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1775) Phengaris arion (Linnaeus. 1921 Polyommatus coelestinus (Eversmann.
1779) Satyrium ledereri (Boisduval. 1775) Satyrium w-album (Knoch. 1808) Polyommatus escheri (Hübner. 2005 Polyommatus pljushtchi Lukhtanov & Budashkin. 1993 Polyommatus ripartii (Freyer. 1832) Pseudophilotes panope (Eversmann. 1851) Pseudophilotes panoptes (Hübner. 1851) Polyommatus humedasae Toso & Balletto. 1787) Tomares callimachus (Eversmann. 1851 Polyommatus orphicus Kolev. 1775) Polyommatus iphigenia (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1813) Polyommatus hispanus (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1847) Polyommatus nephohiptamenos (Brown & Coutsis. 1910) Polyommatus fulgens (de Sagarra.. 1851) Tongeia ﬁscheri (Eversmann. 1804) Satyrium ilicis (Esper. 1779) Pseudophilotes bavius (Eversmann. 1782) Scolitantides orion (Pallas. 1787) Satyrium esculi (Hübner. 1979 Polyommatus golgus (Hübner.iv. 1758) Tomares ballus (Fabricius.iv. 1848) Tomares nogelii (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1925) Polyommatus galloi Balletto & Toso. 1976 Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg. 1813) Pseudophilotes vicrama (Moore. 1848) Satyrium pruni (Linnaeus. 1844) Tarucus theophrastus (Fabricius. 1865) Satyrium acaciae (Fabricius.v)+ 2ab(iii. 2005 Polyommatus eros (Ochsenheimer. 1877) Pseudophilotes abencerragus (Pierret.v) B2ab(iii.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1835) Polyommatus violetae (Gomez-Bustillo et al.v) A2c D2 A2c B2ab(iii) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 33 . 1823) Polyommatus fabressei (Oberthür.Taxonomy Polyommatus dorylas (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1793) Thecla betulae (Linnaeus. 1830) Polyommatus thersites (Cantener. 1843) Turanana taygetica (Rebel. 1979) Praephilotes anthracias (Christoph. 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 A2c A2c B2ab(iv)c(iv) D2 B1ab(iii.v) D2 A2c A2c B2ab(iii) 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 LC 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 A2c B2ab(iv)c(iv) D2 B1ab(iii. 1758) Satyrium spini (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1978) Polyommatus nivescens Keferstein. 1771) Tarucus balkanicus (Freyer.v) B2ab(iii. 1775) Polyommatus eleniae Coutsis & De Prins. 1837) Pseudophilotes barbagiae De Prins & van der Poorten. 1982 Pseudophilotes baton (Bergsträsser.
1870) Boloria improba (Butler. 1758) Apatura metis Freyer. 1775) Brintesia circe (Fabricius. 1758) Aglais urticae (Linnaeus. 1844) Boloria pales (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1775) Boloria polaris (Boisduval. 1775) Boloria selenis (Eversmann. 1791) Boloria frigga (Becklin. 1805) Chazara prieuri (Pierret. 1791) Boloria graeca (Staudinger. 1829 Aphantopus hyperantus (Linnaeus. 1870) Boloria aquilonaris (Stichel. 1767) Boloria eunomia (Esper. 1767) Chazara briseis (Linnaeus. 1826) Aglais io (Linnaeus. 1758) Araschnia levana (Linnaeus. 1758) Argynnis elisa Godart. 1793) Boloria tritonia (Böber. 1758) Argynnis pandora (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1780) Brenthis hecate (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1908) Boloria chariclea (Schneider. 1804) Boloria oscarus (Eversmann. 1758) Apatura ilia (Denis & Schifermüller. 1865) Zizeeria knysna (Trimen. 1828) Boloria selene (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1764) Chazara persephone (Hübner. 1775) Argynnis adippe (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1775) Apatura iris (Linnaeus. 1758) Boloria freija (Becklin. 1775) Charaxes jasius (Linnaeus. 1782) 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 LC NA A3c B2c(iv) A4c A2c A2c 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 LC NA IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c A2c A3c B2c(iv) A4c A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes 34 . 1794) Boloria dia (Linnaeus. 1758) Arethusana arethusa (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1771) Argynnis niobe (Linnaeus.Taxonomy Zizeeria karsandra (Moore. 1862) NYMPHALIDAE Aglais ichnusa (Bonelli. 1900) Boloria angarensis (Erschoﬀ. 1758) Boloria alaskensis (Holland. 1775) Argynnis aglaja (Linnaeus. 1823 Argynnis laodice (Pallas. 1837) Boloria thore (Hübner. 1775) Brenthis ino (Rottemburg. 1799) Boloria euphrosyne (Linnaeus. 1803) Boloria titania (Esper. 1837) Coenonympha amaryllis (Stoll. 1877) Boloria napaea (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1775) Argynnis paphia (Linnaeus. 1812) Brenthis daphne (Bergsträsser.
1784) Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius. 1868 Erebia ﬂavofasciata Heyne. 1871 Erebia disa (Thunberg. 1771) Coenonympha rhodopensis Elwes. 1805) Erebia fasciata Butler. 1837) Erebia edda Ménétriés. 1758) Coenonympha phryne (Pallas. 1777) Erebia alberganus (de Prunner. 1796) Erebia meolans (de Prunner. 1789) Erebia cyclopius (Eversmann. 1828) Erebia ligea (Linnaeus. 1890 Erebia claudina (Borkhausen. 1844) Erebia dabanensis Erschoﬀ. 1851 Erebia embla (Thunberg. 1791) Erebia epiphron (Knoch. 1758) Erebia manto (Denis & Schiﬀermüller.v) A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 35 . 1761) Coenonympha corinna (Hübner. 1845) Coenonympha tullia (Müller. 1758) Erebia aethiopella (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1792) Erebia christi Rätzer. 1798) Erebia mnestra (Hübner. 1877 Erebia lefebvrei (Boisduval. 1798) Coenonympha glycerion (Borkhausen. 1788) Coenonympha hero (Linnaeus. 1804) Erebia montana (de Prunner. 1791) Erebia discoidalis (Kirby. 1775) Erebia medusa (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1828) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 LC LC A2c A2c A2c A2c A2c B2ab(iii. 1910 Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus. 1761) Coenonympha leander (Esper. 1764) Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus. 1775) Erebia melas (Herbst.Taxonomy Coenonympha arcania (Linnaeus. 1806) Erebia aethiops (Esper. 1895 Erebia gorge (Hübner. 1758) Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus. 1900 Coenonympha thyrsis (Freyer. 1787) Coenonympha orientalis Rebel. 1953 Erebia cassioides (Reiner & Hohenwarth. 1775) Erebia melampus (Fuessly. 1806) Coenonympha dorus (Esper. 1804) Erebia gorgone Boisduval. 1836) Erebia euryale (Esper. 1819) Erebia eriphyle (Freyer. 1868 Erebia jeniseiensis Trybom. 1782) Coenonympha gardetta (de Prunner. 1798) Erebia neoridas (Boisduval. 1833 Erebia hispania Butler. 1783) Erebia epistygne (Hübner. 1798) Erebia calcaria Lorković.v) A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) 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 LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c A2c B2ab(iii.
1804) Erebia pluto (de Prunner. 1798) Erebia polaris Staudinger. 1861 Erebia triaria (de Prunner. 1859) Euphydryas maturna (Linnaeus. 1923) Hipparchia sbordonii Kudrna. 1875 Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg. 1916) Hipparchia cypriensis Holik. 1764) Hipparchia leighebi Kudrna. 1898) Hipparchia bacchus Higgins. 1781) Erebia zapateri Oberthür. 1984 Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus. 1900 Erebia rondoui Oberthür. 1798) Erebia tyndarus (Esper. 1847 Erebia palarica Chapman. 1967 Hipparchia hermione (Linnaeus. 1921 Hipparchia neomiris (Godart. 1900 Erebia ottomana Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1767) Hipparchia gomera Higgins. 1834) Erebia sudetica Staudinger. 1758) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 NT LC A2c A3c A3c A2c D2 A2c B2a B1a+2a IUCN Red List Category (EU27) 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 NT LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c A3c A3c D2 A2c B2a B1a+2a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 36 . 1775) Euphydryas cynthia (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1871) Hipparchia miguelensis (Le Cerf. 1804) Erebia orientalis Elwes. 1816) Euphydryas intermedia (Ménétriés. 1783) Hipparchia azorina (Strecker. 1871 Erebia pronoe (Esper. 1824) Erebia styx (Freyer. 1788) Erebia pharte (Hübner. 1949 Hipparchia fagi (Scopoli. 1819) Euphydryas iduna (Dalman. 1905 Erebia pandrose (Borkhausen. 1976 Hipparchia maderensis (Bethune-Baker. 1891) Hipparchia mersina (Staudinger. 1763) Hipparchia fatua Freyer. 1826) Hipparchia autonoe (Esper. 1834) Erebia scipio Boisduval. 1850 Erebia stiria (Godart. 1935) Hipparchia neapolitana Stauder. 1822) Hipparchia pellucida (Stauder. 1780) Erebia rhodopensis Nicholl. 1775) Euphydryas desfontainii (Godart. 1967 Hipparchia christenseni Kudrna.Taxonomy Erebia nivalis Lorković & De Lesse. 1954 Erebia oeme (Hübner. 1832 Erebia sthennyo Graslin. 1844 Hipparchia ﬁdia (Linnaeus. 1758) Hipparchia aristaeus (Bonelli. 1977 Hipparchia cretica (Rebel. 1908 Erebia rossii (Curtis.
1901 Lopinga achine (Scopoli. 1758) Kirinia climene (Esper. 1828 Melitaea athalia (Rottemburg. 1783) Melitaea aetherie (Hübner. 1804) Melanargia lachesis (Hübner. 1789) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 LC LC A2c D2 A2c B1a A2c A2c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) 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 LC NT IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c D2 A2c B1a A2c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 37 . 1766) Hipparchia syriaca (Staudinger. 1826) Melitaea arduinna (Esper. 1793) Melanargia pherusa (Boisduval. 1777) Lasiommata maera (Linnaeus. 1758) Lasiommata megera (Linnaeus. 1828) Melanargia occitanica (Esper. 1987 Maniola cypricola (Graves. 1763) Lopinga deidamia (Eversmann. 1851) Maniola chia Thomson. 1836) Hyponephele lycaon (Kühn. 1908) Hipparchia statilinus (Hufnagel. 1847) Melanargia arge (Sulzer. 1775) Melitaea aurelia Nickerl. 1758) Melitaea deione (Geyer. 1783) Melitaea asteria Freyer. 1984) Hipparchia volgensis (Mazochin-Porshnjakov. 1833) Melanargia russiae (Esper.Taxonomy Hipparchia senthes (Fruhstorfer. 1852 Maniola telmessia (Zeller. 1790) Melanargia larissa (Geyer. 1758) Limenitis reducta Staudinger. 1787) Libythea celtis (Laicharting. 1758) Maniola megala (Oberthür. 1767) Lasiommata paramegaera (Hübner. 1832) Melitaea diamina (Lang. 1850 Melitaea britomartis Assmann. 1783) Kirinia roxelana (Cramer. 1758) Melanargia ines (Hoﬀmannsegg. 1776) Melanargia galathea (Linnaeus. 1990 Maniola jurtina (Linnaeus. 1847 Melitaea cinxia (Linnaeus. 1992 Hipparchia tilosi (Manil. 1952) Hipparchia wyssii (Christ. 1889) Hyponephele huebneri Koçak. 1928) Maniola halicarnassus Thomson. 1774) Issoria eugenia (Eversmann. 1824) Lasiommata petropolitana (Fabricius. 1909) Maniola nurag Ghiliani. 1980 Hyponephele lupina (Costa. 1764) Limenitis populi (Linnaeus. 1847) Issoria lathonia (Linnaeus. 1782) Limenitis camilla (Linnaeus. 1871) Hipparchia tamadabae Owen & Smith.
1806) Oeneis magna Graeser. 1851 Melitaea phoebe (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1973) Pseudochazara euxina (Kuznetsov. 1775) Oeneis norna (Thunberg.v)+ 2ab(iii.v) D2 D2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 38 . 1775) Pararge xiphioides Staudinger. 1909) Pseudochazara geyeri (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1783) Oeneis jutta (Hübner. 1771) Pararge aegeria (Linnaeus. 1783) Pseudochazara mniszechii (Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1851 Minois dryas (Scopoli. 1976 Pseudochazara anthelea (Hübner. 1981 Pyronia bathseba (Fabricius. 1767) Satyrus actaea (Esper. 1781) Satyrus ferula (Fabricius. 1778) Melitaea parthenoides Keferstein. 1851) Pseudochazara orestes De Prins & van der Poorten. 1908 Melitaea trivia (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1773) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 LC NA A3c B1ab(iii.Taxonomy Melitaea didyma (Esper. 1824) Pseudochazara cingovskii (Gross. 1787) Pseudochazara amymone Brown. 1846) Pseudochazara graeca (Staudinger. 1758) Nymphalis vaualbum (Denis & Schiﬀermuller 1775) Nymphalis xanthomelas (Esper.v) D2 B1ab(iii. 1775) Oeneis tarpeia (Pallas. 1793) Satyrus virbius Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1792) Oeneis glacialis (Moll. 1844 Vanessa atalanta (Linnaeus. 1758) Nymphalis polychloros (Linnaeus. 1771) Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus. 1793) Pyronia cecilia (Vallantin. 1871 Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus. 1758) Pararge xiphia (Fabricius. 1758) Vanessa virginiensis (Drury. 1758) Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus. 1763) Neptis sappho (Pallas. 1791) Oeneis polixenes (Fabricius. 1758) Polygonia egea (Cramer. 1775) Proterebia afer (Fabricius. 1763) Neptis rivularis (Scopoli. 1775) Melitaea telona Fruhstorfer.v) B1ab(v) D2 IUCN Red List Category (EU27) LC LC LC DD NT LC LC LC LC LC VU LC 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 LC NA IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c A2c A3c B1ab(iii. 1894) Pyronia tithonus (Linnaeus. 1781) Oeneis bore (Schneider. 1775) Melitaea varia Meyer-Dür. 1888 Oeneis melissa (Fabricius. 1870) Pseudochazara hippolyte (Esper.
1758) Parnassius phoebus (Fabricius. 1829) Euchloe tagis (Hübner. 1798) Iphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus. 1836 Anthocharis euphenoides Staudinger. 1758) PIERIDAE Anthocharis cardamines (Linnaeus. 1851 Aporia crataegi (Linnaeus. 1758) Anthocharis damone Boisduval. 1824) Zerynthia cretica (Rebel. 1963 Euchloe grancanariensis Acosta. 1836 Colias hyale (Linnaeus. 1850 Colias caucasica Staudinger. 1905 Colias aurorina Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1864) Zerynthia cerisy (Godart. 1842) Euchloe crameri Butler.v) A2c A2c A2c A2c A2c A3c A2c A2c B2ab(v) IUCN Red List Category (EU27) 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 LC LC IUCN Red Endemic Endemic List Criteria to to (EU27) Europe EU27 A2c A2c A2c A2c A3c A2c A2c B2ab(v) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 39 . 1775) Colias alfacariensis Ribbe. 1758) Colias myrmidone (Esper. 1805) Colias hecla Lefèbvre. 1800 Papilio hospiton Guenée. 1904) Zerynthia polyxena (Denis & Schiﬀermüller. 1832) PAPILIONIDAE Archon apollinus (Herbst. 2008 Euchloe hesperidum Rothschild. 1758) Papilio alexanor Esper. 1793) Zerynthia caucasica (Lederer. 1829) Euchloe ausonia (Hübner. 1871 Colias chrysotheme (Esper. 1761) Colias phicomone (Esper. 1839 Papilio machaon Linnaeus. 1812 Colotis evagore (Klug. 1993) Euchloe belemia (Esper. 1758 Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus. 1758) Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus. 1852) Euchloe simplonia (Freyer. 1869 Anthocharis gruneri Herrich-Schäﬀer. 1869 Euchloe eversi Stamm. 1781) Colias crocea (Geoﬀroy. 1758) Catopsilia ﬂorella (Fabricius. 1861) Euchloe penia (Freyer. 1780) Colias tyche de Böber. 1819) Ypthima asterope (Klug. 1781) Colias palaeno (Linnaeus. 1775) Zerynthia rumina (Linnaeus. 1804) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 LC LC B1b(i. 1800) Euchloe charlonia (Donzel. 1913 Euchloe insularis (Staudinger.Taxonomy Vanessa vulcania (Godart. 1785) Colias erate (Esper. 1804) Euchloe bazae (Fabiano.
1828) Pieris krueperi Staudinger. 1886) Pontia callidice (Hübner. 1758) IUCN IUCN Red Red List List Criteria Category (Europe) (Europe) 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 B1ab(iii. 1825) Gonepteryx cleopatra (Linnaeus. 1968 Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus.iii) A2c B1ab(iii. 1758) Pieris balcana Lorković. 1808) Pieris ergane (Geyer.v) B1ab(v) A3c Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40 . 1758) Pieris rapae (Linnaeus. 1813) Pontia daplidice (Linnaeus. 1860 Pieris mannii (Mayer.iii) A2c B1ab(iii. 1832) RIODINIDAE Hamearis lucina (Linnaeus. 1804) Zegris pyrothoe (Eversmann. 1758) Pieris bryoniae (Hübner. 1805) Pieris cheiranthi (Hübner.Taxonomy Gonepteryx cleobule (Hübner. 1871) Leptidea morsei (Fenton.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1758) Leptidea duponcheli (Staudinger.v) B1ab(i. 1847) Gonepteryx maderensis Felder. 1777) Zegris eupheme (Esper. 1862 Gonepteryx rhamni (Linnaeus. 1767) Gonepteryx farinosa (Zeller.v) B1ab(i.v) B1ab(v) A3c IUCN Red List Category (EU27) 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 B1ab(iii. 1881) Leptidea reali Reissinger.v)+ 2ab(iii. 1989 Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus. 1851) Pieris napi (Linnaeus. 1758) Pieris wollastoni (Butler. 1758) Pontia edusa (Fabricius. 1800) Pontia chloridice (Hübner.
7). EN. This corresponds to a hexagonal grid composed of individual units (cells) that retain their shape and area (~22. VU at the European regional level) in each cell or cell section.300 km2) throughout the globe.Appendix 3. These are more suitable for a range of ecological applications than the most commonly used rectangular grids (S40). Coastal cells were clipped to the coastline. Patterns of species richness (Fig. 5) were mapped by counting the number of species in each cell (or cell section. 41 . for species with a coastal distribution). Methodology for spatial analyses Data were analysed using a geodesic discrete global grid system. deﬁned on an icosahedron and projected to the sphere using the inverse Icosahedral Snyder Equal Area (ISEA) Projection (S39). 6) were mapped by counting the number of threatened species (categories CR. 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. Patterns of threatened species richness (Fig. The range of each species was converted to the hexagonal grid for analysis purposes.
This is a European endemic species.epistygne Common Names: Spring Ringlet (English) Synonyms: Erebia epistgyne (Hübner. In France. Cuenca and Teruel). J.eu/environment/ nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www. (IUCN version 3. The species might be endangered in the long term by climate change. A. M.org/reports/published/427627?empty=false&limited=true Erebia epistygne .europa. Verovnik. T. 1819) ANIMALIA ..500 m elevation. I. M. López Munguira.ARTHROPODA ..INSECTA .LEPIDOPTERA . Wiemers. 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. M.(Hübner. near Guadalajara.. 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.iucnsis. 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. iucnredlist. Evaluator(s): Lewis..500 m. C. Maes. Sasic. 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). 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. D.NYMPHALIDAE . Verstrael.. Biogeographic Realms Biogeographic Realm: Palearctic 42 . Warren.Near Threatened..1) Assessment Information Evaluated? Date of Evaluation: Status: Reasons for Rejection: Improvements Needed: True 2010-01-08 Passed - Assessor(s): van Swaay. M... 1819) . R. in Spain 900-1. & Settele. (Butterfly RLA) & Cuttelod.Appendix 4. it occurs between 450-1.org/europe. including a distribution map. (ii) it is appropriate to take a precautionary approach and (iii) a decline in the population is already observed.Erebia . http://sis. (IUCN Red List Unit) Assessment Rationale The Climatic Risk Atlas (Settele et al. Wynhoff. O..
Gaston.. Bibliography Arcde-Crespo. Threats Abandonment of semi-natural grasslands is a threat to this butterfly.I. S. de. The species should be monitored by Butterfly Monitoring Schemes. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 1824). near Guadalajara.Temperate Suitability Major Importance? Suitable - Rocky areas (eg. O. In France. Schweiger. Declines in distribution or population size of 6-30% have been reported from France (data provided by the national partners of Butterfly Conservation Europe). Habitats: alpine and subalpine grasslands (50%). Halder. Furthermore in the long term climate change might have a large impact on this species. The Spanish populations in the Montes Universales occur in clearings or on level ground in light pinewoods on calcareous soil. (Accessed: 10 March 2010). Climatic risk atlas of European . in Spain 900-1. There is no specific trade information for this species. on short. Settele. M. Wynhoff.. Ampliacion de la distribucion e informacion sobre patrones ecologicos de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. O. grassy vegetation with low shrubs and scattered rocks. rocky clearings in open woodland. The Spring Ringlet has one generation a year. F. 1824) en la Serrania de Cuencia... SHILAP . Cuenca and Teruel). IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme Habitat Grassland -> Grassland . Zapateri: revista aragonesa de entomología 9: 121. M.. Satyrinae).J. Harpke. Wiemers. but other fescues and meadow-grasses (Poa species) have also been named as foodplants. 2006. I..org/reports/published/427627?empty=false&limited=true Population 1 of 2 A local species. Kudrna. T.iucnsis. Verovnik. Espana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). van.. A. V. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae. van. The main foodplant is Sheep's-fescue (Festuca ovina). 2008.Revista de Lepidopterología 34(133): 103-109. Hanspach.500 m. it occurs between 450-1... Redondo. dry calcareous grasslands and steppes (50%). Veling. Actualizacion del area de vuelo de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. Swaay.500 m elevation. A... 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. K.iucnredlist. I.. Warren. This is a European endemic species. 43 Kühn. I.. C.M.1). 2010. Vliegenthart.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. mountain peaks) Suitable Systems System: Terrestrial Use and Trade General Use and Trade Information All butterflies are collected to some extent. J. 07/03/2010 17:20 Habitats and Ecology The Spring Ringlet appears in the early spring in grassy. R. J. IUCN. E. 2010. J. Jimenez-Mendoza.org. Available at: www.. 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. Kühn. inland cliffs. 2001. restricted to (semi-) natural areas. Conservation More research is needed on the distribution and ecology of the species. Hickler.
F. I. 2 of 2 07/03/2010 17:20 44 .org. C.. O. 2006. Pensoft. 1824).1).. Biorisk 1 (Special Issue). Harpke.. I. Ampliacion de la distribucion e informacion sobre patrones ecologicos de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. van. Kühn. SHILAP ..Bibliography Arcde-Crespo. Schweiger.J. M.. Actualizacion del area de vuelo de Erebia epistygne (Hübner. Gaston. 2010. E. de... O. Climatic risk atlas of European butterflies. J. Warren. van. Zapateri: revista aragonesa de entomología 9: 121. (Accessed: 10 March 2010). V. Vliegenthart. IUCN. 1824) en la Serrania de Cuencia. M. Verovnik. Redondo. 2001. Wiemers. Satyrinae).. Espana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae. Halder. Jimenez-Mendoza.iucnredlist. Swaay. Hickler.. J. Kudrna.. I. 2008. R.. A. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. K. Hanspach. A. Wynhoff.I. Settele.. T. J. S.Revista de Lepidopterología 34(133): 103-109. Sofia. 2010. Available at: www.. Veling.M. Kühn.
Alexander. Jürgen Ott. Darwall. Kevin G. Kalkman. Geert De Knijf. 2006 The Status and Distribution of European Mammals. Miloš Jović. Thomas Lowe. Sonia Ferreira. Boudjéma Samraoui and Annabelle Cuttelod. Compiled by Helen J.A. Compiled by Neil Cox and Helen J. Sonia Ferreira. Compiled by Rachel D.T. R. Smith. Compiled by Helen J. Bernard. Temple. Temple and Neil Cox. Darwall. 2009 The Status and Distribution of Mediterranean Mammals. Compiled by Kevin G.2779/83897 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ – Regional Assessments The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Eastern Africa. Elisa Riservato and Göran Sahlén. Vincent J. Janice Chanson and Simon Stuart. Temple and Annabelle Cuttelod. Smith and William R. Miloš Jović. 2009 European Red List of Dragonﬂies. Klaus-Jürgen Conze. Compiled by Elisa Riservato. 2009 European Red List of Reptiles. Kalkman. Jean-Pierre Boudot. 2007 Overview of the Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. Compiled by William R. 2005 The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to the Mediterranean Basin. Compiled by Ana Nieto and Keith N. 2007 The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Southern Africa. Jean-Christophe VieÅL. Wolfgang Schneider.European Commission European Red List of Butterﬂies Luxembourg: Publications Oﬃce of the European Union 2010 – x + 46pp + 4pp cover. Elena Dyatlova. Jean-Pierre Boudot. Cavanagh and Claudine Gibson.T. Darwall.T. Temple and Andrew Terry. Compiled by Helen J. 2009 European Red List of Amphibians. 2006 The Status and Distribution of Reptiles and Amphibians of the Mediterranean Basin. Compiled by Neil Cox. Compiled by Vincent J. Smith. Compiled by William R. Denis Tweddle and Paul Skelton. 2010 European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles. Kevin G. 2009 The Status and Distribution of Dragonﬂies of the Mediterranean Basin. 210 x 297 mm ISBN 978-92-79-14151-5 doi:10. 2010 46 .
The IUCN Red List. Switzerland.org/europe 47 . • Priced subscriptions (Official Journal of the EU.000 experts. www.eu or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. and the Global Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (located in Washington DC. the Regional Oﬃce for Pan-Europe implements the IUCN European Programme. • at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details by linking http://ec. or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758. as well as implementing global species conservation initiatives. USA).europa.iucn. 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. UK). Freshwater Biodiversity Assessment Initiative (all located in Cambridge.Free publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop. 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. Through its Programme Oﬃces in Belgrade and Tbilisi and in cooperation with more than 350 European members and other parts of the IUCN constituency.iucn. The species Programme includes a number of technical units covering Species Trade and Use.europa.eu. The Programme area covers 55 countries and stretches from Greenland in the west to Kamchatka in the east. SSC has signiﬁcant input into the international agreements dealing with biodiversity conservation. Publications for sale: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop. 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. www. www.europa. It is an integral part of the IUCN Secretariat and is managed from IUCN’s international headquarters in Gland.iucn.org/ssc IUCN – Species Programme The IUCN Species Programme supports the activities of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and individual Specialist Groups. You can obtain their contact details by linking http://bookshop.eu).org/species IUCN – Regional Office for Pan-Europe The IUCN Regional Oﬃce for Pan-Europe (ROfE) is based in Brussels. Belgium.europa.eu).
6. molluscs.This publication summarises results for a selection of Europe’s native species of butterflies. and vascular plants) according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www.europa. freshwater fishes. 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. and selected groups of beetles. amphibians. KH-80-09-976-EN-C The European Red List is a review of the conservation status of c. butterflies.org/europe. dragonflies.iucnredlist. 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. It is available online at http://ec.000 European species (mammals. 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.