Walking in England’s New Forest in 1892, butterfly collector S. G. Castle Russell encountered such numbers of the insects that they “were so thick that I could hardly see ahead”. On another occasion, he “captured a hundred purple hairstreaks” with two sweeps of his net. Patrick Barkham, who recounts these riots of nature in his 2010 book on […]

Walking in England’s New Forest in 1892, butterfly collector S. G. Castle Russell encountered such numbers of the insects that they “were so thick that I could hardly see ahead”. On another occasion, he “captured a hundred purple hairstreaks” with two sweeps of his net.

Patrick Barkham, who recounts these riots of nature in his 2010 book on butterflies, laments never seeing such a sight. However, new research suggests Barkham is a rarity, because a lot of people are forgetting, or just don’t appreciate, how much wildlife there was.

To gauge this effect, Lizzie Jones at Royal Holloway, University of London, compared population records dating back to 1966 of 10 UK bird species against public perceptions of those birds. More than 900 people told her how abundant they thought the species – including declining ones such as house sparrows – were today and when they were aged 18.

  • @[email protected]English
    4•2 months ago

    I can live with them. Flies on the other hand… even if their removal means a major disruption in the food chain, I’d be on the fence.

    • @GraphyEnglish
      7•2 months ago

      Ticks are what I’d be willing to monkey’s paw wish away. My wife’s a park ranger and a few times a week we’re doing full body tick checks.

        • @GraphyEnglish
          2•2 months ago

          Hah I’m ashamed to admit that “I’ll check you for ticks” has been jokingly used as a come-on more than once. Although when you do actually find ticks it kills the mood.