How many butterflies is there in the world?

[Chris Grinter]

I read that comment as only 1500-2000 have a stamp-like appeal to them. The others are just animals and science.

[dynastes]

According to current estimates has more than 157,000 species. As of December 2011, there were 157,424 described species, which are part of the 126 families and 46 superfamilies. And every year since the discovery of new species this number is increasing. It is assumed that at least 100,000 species of butterflies are still not known to the world of science. Thus, the likely total number of species of Lepidoptera are assessed in the 200,000 - 225,000 species (about 22% of all known species of insects).

The true estimate of the total number of species will never be known because many species have become extinct before they are discovered. Systematics of butterflies presented in various publications reflect the different views of their authors, and is, no doubt, controversial. And there will be disputes, dedicated to the systematic position or the need to maintain the status of some subspecies or species. DNA studies indicate that some of the currently known species to be separated. A well-known example is the case where at first look identical Colias alfacariensis and Colias hyale, formerly considered one species were divided into two, after Berger found significant differences in their caterpillars and pupae. Due to all the above, the true estimate of the number of species is very difficult.

[jonathan]

Apr 17, 2013 23:37:44 GMT -8 nomihoudai said:

Today at 10:43am, lordpandarus wrote:

What a strange comment! I only collect 2 or 3 genera but I would never say that every other butterfly, or indeed insect, isn't equally worth collecting. In fact a lot more useful work can be done with less popular groups like Lycaenidae or Satyrinae, purely because fewer people collect them so less is known about them.

Bob

I agree Bob.

Also nowadays a lot of subspecies are being upgraded to species level. Would those be considered as new species?

[nomihoudai]

Due to all the above, the true estimate of the number of species is very difficult.

Typical biologist argument, "it is difficult therefore we don't do it".

I find the notion that you can narrow down the number of species to +- a few thousand interesting in itself and how someday the estimates will converge to some number. The paper gave a few numbers like 7700 which had been very early estimates and they have already been disproved in some sense.

[bobw]

The whole concept of a species is man-made, therfore anyone can have pretty much any view they like. As Jonathan said, a lot of subspecies are being upgraded to species level, and incidentally a lot are also moving the other way. This just reflects our changing views on the matter; you'll find as many different definitions of what represents a species as there are taxonomists. It's also interesting to note that botanists tend to have a very different view of what represents a species from zoologists. Any inferior level such as subspecies is even more difficult to define.

It therefore becomes a fairly meaningless statistic to consider how many species there are. The bugs themselves don't seem to have a problem with it; thay usually manage to sort themselves out!

Bob

[nomihoudai]

The bugs themselves don't seem to have a problem with it; they usually manage to sort themselves out!

Bob, I am most certainly not in the position of educating you, I just wanted to ask you how you can assign in the beginning of your post subjectivity to the species concept and then, paradoxically, end the post by stating that the bugs sort themselves out?

There is something very objective in the core concept of a species as there is on the one hand the populations that only interbreed one with another and the thing that birds for example protect their beat against some individuals and not against others. There is also interesting studies where indigenous people of islands got asked how many different birds they know and the number matched pretty well to the one of Linnean taxonomy.

Yes sometimes the boundaries may appear blurry, but I do not see a reason to assign subjectivity to the whole concept.

Just to sprinkle some pepper on it, genera ARE definition dependant. They have no objective core.

[Deleted]

I personally find all species of lepidoptera interesting. Most of the specimens that I collect locally would not raise that much exitement amongst those that only find the rare and the beautiful interesting but to me they are just as fascinating as the more showy exotic stuff. The estimate at around 18,000 butterflies seems about right as we have been playing with this figure for a while now without that much change.

[jshuey]

Apr 17, 2013 11:10:02 GMT -8 lordpandarus said:

I doubt some 3 inch wingspan spectacular butterfly hasn't been discovered yet

If there's anything left it's probably small lycaenids and riodinidae

Maybe 20000, but there's about only 1500-2000 worth collecting IMO

Read more: insectnet.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=leps&action=post&thread=4396"e=30918&page=1#ixzz2QokGRWo4

When I was in Curitiba a couple of years ago, Dr Mielke showed me a long series of a new morpho from the cerrado of Brasil - there are big ones that are still out there. I've seen a couple Adelpha that are obviously new as well.

Bob Robbins estimates that 25% of the hairstreak species in the Andes are undescribed. Between this, Riodinidae and Hesperiidae - there are a few thousand new bugs out there in the western hemisphere. I'm sitting on a handful in my private collection. If you collect in interesting habitats, new species are not that hard to come by.

I just love the last line... I think that this is code for "there are only about 1500-2000 big and pretty species that you can buy off ebay...." no?

Shuey

[bobw]

Claude

It's clear that there are a whole bunch of organisms out there that are fundamentally different. In general they don't interbreed otherwise we'd just have one big mixed-up species; this is why I said they manage to sort it out themselves.

The species concept is something dreamed up by us because we like to put labels on things; we have a limited understanding of what the "species" themselves know instinctively. OK, we probably get it right most of the time but the very fact that we keep changing our minds about whether a taxon is a species or a subspecies shows that our views of what represents a species keeps changing, therefore it is subjective.

The fact of any type animal being of a different kind to another is clearly an objective thing; it's our interpretation of it and the assigment of the word "species" to it that's subjective.

Yes, genera are another man-made concept, brought about by our desire to group things together. There is some objectivity to it as we do tend to group together species that have some common characteristics based on things like venation, genitalia etc.

Bob

[wollastoni]

Bob, it's not because scientists make some errors trying to understand which specimens belong to the same species that the concept of "species" is subjective.

If scientist had all information they need (larval and pupae stage, foodplants, DNA, genitalia...) each time they describe a species they would make far less errors.
It's only because our knowledge is increasing that we change our minds and try to improve current classification.

[nomihoudai]

Thanks for elaborating. I think I got you now.

Genera and the other higher classification can be made by trying to get monophyletic clades, but recently they became more of an annoyance than benefit due to different numbers of nodes in individual branches of species groups.

Rgds Claude

[bobw]

Olivier

Yes, obviously the more information we have the fewer errors we will make. Unfortunately there are still far too many people around who just want to get their name in print or think they can make money by describing new taxa. These are the sort of people who describe new taxa from a single (potentially aberrant) specimen or do so without adhering to The Code.

Bob

[saturniidave]

Or they take several dozen specimens and sell most as 'Paratypes' to get more money.

[Deleted]

does anyone know the number of species of butterfly that are counted as European?

[nomad]

In the 1980s the great Lionel Higgins had 393 butterfly species for Europe. Today there are 440 recognized European species!

See the Matt Rowlings website at www.eurobutterflies.com

Peter.