The Biology Of Butterflies - Niklas Wahlberg

2y ago
13 Views
2 Downloads
720.21 KB
6 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Mya Leung
Transcription

The Biology of Butterflies:the history and future ofan international symposiumARTICLEOrigins of The Biology ofButterflies symposiaNiklas Wahlberg,Felix SperlingR.I. Vane-WrightNiklas WahlbergLaboratory of Genetics, Department ofBiology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.Niklas Wahlberg is an evolutionary biologistworking on the evolution of Lepidoptera,with a focus on the family Nymphalidae. Hehas been using molecular methods toelucidate the history of diversification of thefamily. He is currently a universityresearcher at the University of Turku,Finland.R.I. Vane-WrightDepartment of Life Sciences, the NaturalHistory Museum, Cromwell Road, LondonSW7 5BD, UK; and Durrell Institute ofConservation and Ecology (DICE), Universityof Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NR, UKDick Vane-Wright was responsible for thetropical butterfly collection of the BritishMuseum (Natural History) from 1967–1984.During this period, in collaboration withPhillip Ackery, he organised the first meetingin the Biology of Butterflies symposium series.Pictured here as a G&T butterfly.Antenna 37 (3)Felix SperlingDepartment of Biological Sciences,University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB,Canada T6G 2E9Felix Sperling is a professor at the Universityof Alberta whose lab encompasses a broadrange of projects on the systematics andpopulation genetics of insects. His personalinterests focus on Lepidoptera, particularlyswallowtail butterflies and speciation.Pictured here with several friends.The origin of the internationalmeetings on butterfly biology can betraced back, informally at least, to aspeculative visit to the Department ofEntomology of the then BritishMuseum (Natural History) by the lateProfessorDietrichSchneider.Schneider, one of the great pioneers ofinsect pheromone biology and codiscoverer of bombykol, was in Londonduring spring 1974 to attend a meetingat the Royal Society, and took theopportunity to visit the ‘NHM’ in thehope of getting a definitiveidentification for an Amauris butterflyfrom Kenya. He had become interestedin the complex pheromone system ofmilkweed butterflies, and what MichaelBoppré was later to term theirpharmacophagous relationship withpyrrolizidine-alkaloid-containingplants. At the museum Schneider metDick Vane-Wright, then a 31-year oldbutterfly curator specialising onSatyrinae, who offered to give him anidentification of his small sample ofDanainae, if he was able to call backlater in the week—time enough tomake dissections.Schneider duly returned two dayslater, to be informed that his samples ofAmauris, which all looked very similar,actually comprised two species. Thisexample of Müllerian mimicry excitedSchneider’s interest, and a longdiscussion ensued about species,mimicry, phylogenetics, signallingsystems, and Lepidoptera biology ingeneral. Eventually Schneider had toleave but, as a parting shot, he invitedDick to visit his laboratory atSeewiesen—the famous Max-Planck129

Institut für Verhaltensphysiologiewhere Konrad Lorenz had studied, andwhere ethologist and mimicry specialistWolfgang Wickler was then in charge ofone of the departments, alongsideSchneider and his team.The lure proved too much to resist,and that summer Dick travelled toBavaria. There he met numerouswonderfulphysiologistsandexperimental biologists, including avery young Michael Boppré. Not onlydid this cement lifelong friendshipswith both Dietrich and Michael, but italso led Dick to abandon his researchon the phylogenetics and biogeographyof Satyrinae in favour of a similarprogramme on the Danainae. In 1975Dick joined forces with colleaguePhillip Ackery to research and write abook-length account of the milkweedbutterflies. Initial progress was slow, asDick was then seconded for two yearsto the Museum’s New ExhibitionScheme, but by 1977 he was back fulltime with Phillip, and they decided topick up the pace.As Dick and Phillip were primarilytaxonomists, in endeavouring not onlyto create a cladistic classification for theknown milkweed butterfly species, butalso to review their very extensivebiology, they realised that they did notknow anywhere near enough about thebiology of butterflies in general. And sothey hit upon the idea of organising andpromotingbutterflybiology“workshops”, to be held at the RoyalEntomological Society’s meeting room(then in nearby Queen’s Gate, almostopposite the museum’s old entomologybuilding), and inviting a mixture ofboth “leading lights” and students totalk about their work. The idea wasborne out of pure laziness—why notjust get others to tell you whatbutterflies get up to rather than try toread a mass of scattered and oftendifficult literature yourself?The first workshop was held at 41Queen’s Gate on 20th April 1977,under the title “Current Research onthe Evolution and Genetics ofButterflies”, and proved to be a greatsuccess (Huxley & Vane-Wright,1977)—so much so that there was aninstant demand for a further meeting,held eight months later in December1977, on “Ecology and Evolution ofButterflies” (Vane-Wright, 1978). BothFollowing early work on Maniola jurtina reported at the 1981 symposium, Paul Brakefield,organiser of the 4th ‘BoB’, established the African mycalesine Bicylus anynana as abutterfly ‘Drosophila’ now used in biology laboratories around the world. Photo YaleUniversity; image created by William Piel and Antónia Monteiro.130meetings were attended by about 80very enthusiastic people, and by theend of the second meeting (organisedby Jeremy Thomas) it was clear thatthere was a demand for further events.By the end of the third meeting, heldin September 1978, the emergentspecial interest group had decided tocall itself the Butterfly ResearchAssociation—and, more significantly,was already “planning an internationalsymposium on the evolution andbiology of butterflies for 1982 [sic]”(Turner, 1979). Two further ‘BRA’meetings were held, in October 1979(Burton, 1980), and in November 1980(Howse, 1981).London, 23–26 September 1981A rather odd series of events then ledto acceleration of the first internationalconference on the biology ofbutterflies, which took place duringSeptember 1981. In 1979 Dick hadformally approached the RoyalEntomological Society to see if theywould sponsor a 4 or 5 day event, totake place in 1982, as part of theSociety’s regular biennial symposiumseries. The proposal was not wellreceived.TheSocietywasunderstandably nervous about the costsof such a large venture. Moreover, theSociety at that time catered largely forprofessional entomologists concernedeither with insects as model organismsfor general disciplinary studies, orgroups that had major impacts onhumanity, such as locusts, aphids andbiting flies.Butterflies, a group of Lepidopterastrongly associated with the interests ofthe amateur fraternity, no longer satwell with this dominant culture. Thiswas so despite the prominence at thetime of great scientists such as MiriamRothschild and Sir Cyril Clarke, whoregularly used butterflies in theirresearch. Disappointed, Dick turned hisattention elsewhere, notably plans tosupport the work of recently arrivedPhD student Ian Kitching. Thisinvolved the need for extensivefieldwork in the Malay Archipelago tobe carried out in August–October1980, following attendance at theInternational Congress of Entomologyin Kyoto, and a visit to China en route.But just a few weeks before leaving forBeijing, in June 1980, Dick wasapproached by the Society—which hadsuddenly found itself without anyproposal for that year’s expectedbiennial symposium.Antenna 37 (3)

Reluctantly the Society had alreadyaccepted that organising a symposiumfor 1980 was by then impossible, butinsisted that if the butterfly event wereto go ahead, it must do so bySeptember 1981 at the latest. Even so,with less than 15 months to arrangesuch a large and novel meeting, andbeing about to leave on a 13-weekoverseas trip, the sensible thing wouldhave been to refuse. But this seemedlike too good an opportunity to miss.And with the Society now keen tosupport any reasonable scheme, someconcessions could be extracted. It wasagreed that the meeting could be up tofour days long, twice the length of theSociety’s normal symposia. However,the key to success lay in the fact thatDick was able to call on Phillip Ackeryto carry almost the entire load of initialorganisation.Followingfrenzieddiscussions in July 1980 about thestructure of the meeting and who toinvite,Phillipundertookthegroundwork with his usual understatedbrilliance. By the time Dick returned atthe end of October, it was clear that theprogramme was viable. In the end, themeeting was a vibrant event, withalmost 150 registrants, and very wellreceived (Anonymous, allyintended for 1982, was long delayed—largely due to waiting, in vain, for oneof the key contributions. The mainspeakers and their topics had beenchosen with the intention of coveringthe field of organismic biology, and togo without any of the plenarypresentationsinvolvedgreatreluctance. As the costs of the meetinghad been greater than the receipts, thedelay in publication and potential lossof sales were of great concern to theSociety. Publication in large format, sodifferent from the Society’s modestsymposium volumes of the past, alsocaused consternation.When it finally appeared (Ackery &Vane-Wright, 1984), even though notimmune from criticism (e.g. Gall,1987), the hardback proved a greatsuccess—in terms of sales, it did betterthan any previous volume in theSymposia of the Royal EntomologicalSociety of London series, and wasreprinted by Academic Press, withminor corrections, in 1985. Moreover,thanks to Phil DeVries, a paperbackedition was later published in the USA(Ackery & Vane-Wright, 1989). Evenso, more than a decade was to passAntenna 37 (3)before the idea of having a secondbiology of butterflies symposium tookwing.Stockholm 10–12 October1994 – a new beginningIn about 1993 Sören Nylin foundhimself talking to Bengt Karlsson abouthow strange it was that there were nomeetings dedicated to basic research onbutterflies. Both were recentlygraduated PhDs at the University ofStockholm, and had heard stories fromtheir supervisor Christer Wiklundabout the 1981 London meeting“where “everyone” was present” (Nylin,2010). But since then little seemed tohave happened, at least with respect tobutterfly meetings in Europe, and thetwo thereupon decided to organise anew event.In Sweden there is a tradition ofyearly gatherings for ecologists, theOikos meetings, and Sören and Bengtthought that the simple way they werethen organized would be a good andmanageable model. They decided on anevent to last three days, with no parallelsessions, and no proceedings to bepublished. Moreover, delegates wereinvited, with a bit of guidance, to findtheir own food and lodgings inStockholm.But would anyone else really beinterested? They sent out their firstcircular, with 10–12 October 1994 asthe suggested date. The response wasvery encouraging, and they becamecommitted. The next step involvedinviting some well-known people, withthe implication that extra fundingwould be needed to keep registrationcosts low.As Sören (Nylin, 2010) recalls “. . .this was the decisive point; this waswhen the Stockholm meeting becameBiology of Butterflies II, even though itwas in fact Butterfly Ecology andEvolution I. After all, the Londonmeeting was a one-off thing, and over adecade had gone by since However,to get financial help from the SwedishResearch Council and the WennerGren Center Foundation, we had topretend to be organizing a meeting thatwas part of a series, so that it wasSweden’s turn to do its duty (this waspart of their funding rules). Not beingsure that actually starting a series wasOK for getting the grants, and notknowing if there would ever be a nextmeeting, we decided that the seriesstarted already in London 1981.”With Carol Boggs, Paul Brakefield,Mamuro Watanabe, Konrad Fiedler,John Thompson and Dick Vane-Wrightalready signed up to give keynote talks,Sören and Bengt asked their seniorcolleagues Christer Wiklund and OlofLeimar to co-sign the applications forfunding. Not only was the moneyobtained sufficient to pay the travelcosts of the invited speakers, enoughwas left over to buy the department afreezer that is still in use today! (Nylin,2010).As the meeting approached, withover 120 delegates expected, furtherdevelopmentsoccurred.Thedepartment had a testimonial grantfund that could be used, and NaomiPierce was invited to give to give aspecial Ester Lager lecture, to takeplace immediately after the mainmeeting ended. In addition, IlkkaHanski organized a satellite meeting on“Butterfly Population Ecology &Dynamics”. This was held before themeeting—remarkably, in part on areturnferryjourneybetweenStockholm, Turku (Finland) and back.The meeting comprised 43 talks,including 8 plenary presentations, and35 posters. The conference dinner tookplace on the first evening, “and featuredsinging at the tables in the traditionalScandinavian way, and a very funnyspontaneous talk by Mike Singer”(Nylin, 2010). Following the last day ofthe main event there was a morningexcursion to Uppsala, and to Linnaeus’shome at Hammarby. Brilliant autumnweather made for a most enjoyable trip.This was followed in the afternoon bythe last act of the whole conference—Naomi Pierce’s special lecture, on“Ants, Plants and Blue Butterflies”.Crested Butte, Colorado,15–19 August 1998During the Stockholm meeting CarolBoggs and Ward Watt had risen to thechallenge of organising anothermeeting in the series. Working incollaboration with Paul Ehrlich, Caroland Ward put together the ThirdInternational Butterfly Ecology andEvolution Symposium, held at CrestedButte, Colorado, 15–19 August 1998.Over 140 researchers attended theevent, from 19 different countriesrepresenting every continent (exceptAntarctica!) (Boggs, 2010).As e-mail was by 1998 already inwide use, an electronic database ofparticipants was constructed to131

Images from the 2007 symposium: theaudience.Organiser-in-ChiefValerioSbordoni is in blue-checked shirt, front row.From: researchers—even now mostly locatedin North America or Europe—unlikelyto have ready funds for intercontinental travel (Boggs, 2010).Leiden, 23–27 March 2002facilitate further communicationamong delegates, and to help any futuremeeting organisers. At Colorado thelate Charles Remington served ashonorary President—paralleling thededication to E.B. Ford made at theLondon symposium. Talks were held inplenarysessionssothatallpresentations, as well as posters, couldbe appreciated by everyone. Topicsranged from ecology through theemerging field of evo-devo to geneticsandconservationbiology. Theconference banquet was held at MtCrested Butte.Talks presented at the meeting, alongwith selected poster presentations,were updated and expanded aschapters in a major book published bythe University of Chicago Press, editedby Carol, Ward and Paul (Boggs, Watt& Ehrlich, 2003). The 26 chapters areorganized in broad disciplinary areas,addressing the use of butterflies in thestudy of behaviour, ecology, genetics,evolution,systematics,andconservation biology. As such, it is so far132only the second proceedings to begenerated by the biology of butterfliesseries. The long ‘gestation’ times ofboth of these volumes indicate thedifficulties faced in gathering togetherand publishing such diverse materials,even though they are nominally all ona single topic.For the Colorado meeting partialfunding for graduate students andresearchers from developing countrieswas obtained from the US NationalScience Foundation. The small butusefulresidualfundingfromregistration went to support needyattendees at later meetings. During thelast plenary at Crested Butte, PaulBrakefield volunteered to organise ameeting in The Netherlands. A viewemerged that these symposia shouldalternate between Europe and NorthAmerica, at a minimum, with foraysinto Latin America, Asia, Australia andAfrica if and when an opportunityarose. The rationale was to allowparticipation on at least an occasionalbasis by the majority of those butterflyThe Fourth International Conferenceon the Biology of Butterflies was heldduring 23–27 March 2002, atLeeuwenhorst, near Leiden (Brakefield,2010). Plenary talks were given byCarol Boggs, Doekele Stavenga, SeanCarroll, Fred Nijhout, Jeremy Thomas,John Thompson, Chris Thomas, JimMallet, Andy Brower and Carla Penz.Major topics included reproductivestrategies, vision, development, geneticsof mimicry, social parasitism, coevolution, climate change, origins ofdiversity, molecular systematics andphylogenetics. Two parallel sessionsaccommodated 55 other talks that,along with many posters, emphasizedthe excitement and sheer diversity ofwork then being pursued on butterflybiology. Bob Pyle gave an extensivelyillustrated evening presentation on theMonarch. The main meeting wasfollowed by a final symposium onMarch 28th of the European NetworkFRAGLAND on metapopulationbiology, co-ordinated by Ilkka Hanski.A total of 184 delegates registered forthis very successful meeting. See alsoLewis & Bryant (2002).Rome, 2–7 July 2007At the Fifth International Conferenceon the Biology of Butterflies, the focuswas again on developments in biologyAntenna 37 (3)

achieved using butterflies as modelorganisms for research—particularly inevolutionary biology. Masterminded byValerio Sbordoni in collaboration withDonatella Cesaroni and RenataLandotti and a local organisingcommittee, the event took place atVilla Mondragone, the beautifulconference venue of Tor VergataUniversity, Rome, during 2–7 July2007. Over 140 participants registeredfor the event (http://biobutterfly2007.uniroma2.it/Lista.html). The 11separate symposia that made up theconference are listed on the strikingconference poster, with details stillavailable on the conference m.htm). One of the symposia, inhonour of Lincoln Brower’s 75thbirthday, was made possible throughgenerous joint sponsorship, includingfunds from the RES (Fink & VaneWright, 2007), in part reflecting theimportance of Lincoln’s majorcontribution to the 1981 meeting.Edmonton,29 June–2 July 2010The Sixth International Conference onthe Biology of Butterflies took place in2010, 29 June–2 July, at Edmonton,Canada. Sponsored by the Departmentof Biological Sciences, University ofAlberta, and chaired and organised byFelix Sperling and Jens Roland togetherwith a six-strong organising committee,the meeting attracted 205 delegatesfromover23countries. Anexceptionally diverse assortment of oraland poster presentations made theconference academically stimulatingand intellectually engaging. The veryextensive programme can still bedownloaded through the conferencewebsite (http://icbb2010. biology.ualberta.ca/index.html). Based on thelong-standing theme of the biology ofbutterflies symposia, focus was again onrecent developments in biology thatrely on butterflies as research models,particularly in ecology and evolutionarybiology. Following the conference, JensRoland led a well-attended tour to theKananaskis region of the Alberta RockyMountains.Turku, Finland, 11–14 August2014 – and the futureThe Seventh International Conferenceon the Biology of Butterflies will behosted by the Department of Biology,University of Turku, Finland, duringAntenna 37 (3)11–14 August 2014, with NiklasWahlberg in collaboration with MarjoSaastamoinen (University of Helsinki)acting as the principal organisers, withChris Wheat (Stockholm University),Patrícia Beldade (Instituto Gulbenkiande Ciência) and André Freitas(Universidade Estadual de Campinas)acting as co-organisers of the scientificcontent. The conference will continueto follow the tradition of presentationsin all fields of biology with butterfliesas the focal study organism. Morningsessions will cover four major topicalissues, and two parallel afternoonsessions will accommodate contributedtalks. A field trip to visit the famousMelitaea cinxia metapopulation in theÅl

The Biology of Butterflies: the history and future of an international symposium Niklas Wahlberg Laboratory of Genetics, Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Niklas Wahlberg is an evolutionary b

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

animation, biology articles, biology ask your doubts, biology at a glance, biology basics, biology books, biology books for pmt, biology botany, biology branches, biology by campbell, biology class 11th, biology coaching, biology coaching in delhi, biology concepts, biology diagrams, biology

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

4 Palash Hindi Pathya Pustak 8 Rohan 5 Amrit Sanchey (H)(Premchand Stories) Saraswati 6 Gulmohar Hindi Vyakaran 8 Full Circle 7 Maths 8 NCERT 8 Maths (RS Aggarwal) 8 Bharti Bhawan 9 Science 8 NCERT 10 Activity Plus In Prac Science 7 Full Marks 11 History 8 NCERT 12 Geography 8 NCERT 13 Civics 8 NCERT 14 Maps (I Pol/10, W Pol/10)(20) 15 Oxford School Atlas (B/F) OUP 16 Cyber Beans 8 Kips 17 .