26 SEPTEMBER 2014 • VOL 345 ISSUE 6204 1571 SCIENCE
Brazil’s new laws
TROPICAL FORESTS HARBOR diverse and
largely unknown insect communities,
many of which are threatened species
(1). Habitat loss has been shown to be
the primary threat to insect populations,
including all threatened insect species
included in the Brazilian Red List (2, 3).
Most threatened species reside in the
Atlantic Forest, one of the most endan-
gered biomes in Brazil (4). Specimen
collection has never been proved to be a
threat to any insect species in Brazil, and
no example of overhunting affecting an
insect population has been reported (5).
Conservation efforts should concentrate
on habitat conservation and restoration.
However, recent changes in Brazil’s
environmental laws include remission of
penalties against landowners who illegally
remove native vegetation. They also sub-
stantially reduce (by 29 million hectares)
the areas classified as requiring restora-
tion (6). Together, the new laws mean that
insect collectors are charged high fines,
whereas landowners receive no punish-
ment for previous illegal deforestation. In
addition to being ineffective, these actions
lead to a general sense of injustice in the
population; it appears that those respon-
sible for the main environmental impacts
are always forgiven.
Considering the recent debate about the
importance of collecting specimens for sci-
ence (7, 8), Brazilian legislation should focus
on the main threats to biodiversity and not
on amateur or scientific insect collectors.
Danilo Bandini Ribeiro1 and André
Victor Lucci Freitas2
1Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde,
Laboratorio de Ecologia, Universidade Federal
de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, Mato
Grosso do Sul, 79070-900, Brazil. 2Departamento
de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de
Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
1. O. T.Lewis, Y.Basset,in Insect Conservation Biology,A.J.A.
Stewart, T. R. New, O. T. Lewis, Eds, (CABI, Wallingford, UK,
2007), pp. 34–56.
2. B.M.Machado,G.M.Drummond, A.P.Paglia,Livro
Vermelho da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção
(Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte, ed. 1, 2008), vol. 2.
3. K. S. Brown Jr., G. G. Brown, in Tropical Deforestation
and Species Extinction, T. C. Whitmore, J. A. Sayer, Eds.
(Chapman & Hall, London, 1992), pp. 119–142.
4. T. M. Lewinsohn, A. V. L. Freitas, P. I. Prado, Conserv. Biol .
19, 640 (2005).
5. V.L.Freitas, O.J.Marini-Filho,Eds., Plano de Ação Nacional
para Conservação dos Lepidópteros Ameaçados de
Extinção (ICMBio, Brasília, 2011).
6. B. Soares-Filho et al ., Science 344, 363 (2014).
7. L. A. Rocha et al., Science 344, 814 (2014).
8. F. T. Krell, Q. D. Wheeler, Science 344, 815 (2014).
deserves a scolding
IN HIS NEWS STORY “An experiment
in zero parenting” (special section on
Parenting, 15 August, p. 752), E. Marshall
wrote about the Bucharest Early
Intervention Project’s (BEIP’s) conclusions
that foster care is superior to institutional
care for unparented children. He noted
that the BEIP is famously a randomized
design, but did not mention that it did not
achieve the goal of isolation of variables.
BEIP compared children from socially
deprived institutional conditions with
those cared for by foster parents trained,
funded, and supported at levels far beyond
those enjoyed by such caregivers in the
United States or Britain (1). Having shown
that it is better to be rich and healthy
than poor and sick, the BEIP researchers
concluded that institutions were bad for
children (2), an inappropriate conclusion
that conflicts with a recent nonrandom-ized study concluding that there were no
clear differences between large groups
of children from typical institutions and
typical foster care arrangements in five
low-income countries (3).
The Review “The biology of mammalian
parenting and its effect on offspring social
development” in the same special section
(J. K. Rilling and L. J. Young, 15 August,
p. 771) also overlooked key points. Rilling
and Young described “parenting” behaviors
shared by many species, but they omitted
the fact that interspecies differences are so
great that Harlow’s famous monkey study
might well have had different results if he
had used a different type of monkey (4).
They also exaggerated the associations
between childhood and adult attachment
security, and between attachment security
and mental health. The related graphic
used the ill-defined and outmoded term
“parent–child bonding.” The graphic also
used the term “securely attached” rather
than simply “attached,” implying that
secure attachment is an essential goal,
rather than a developmental step whose
outcome is not markedly different from
some other forms of attachment. The
Review also failed to address ongoing
disagreements about whether forms of
attachment should be measured as sepa-
rate categories or as points on one or more
Richard Stockton College, Galloway, NJ 08205, USA.
1. C.H.Zeanah et al., Devel. Psychopathol.15,885(2003).
2. N.A.Fox et al., Zero Three,34,4(2013).
3. K. Whetten et al ., PLOS ONE 9, e104872 (2014).
4. B. Seay, N. W. Gottfried,
J.Gen.Psychol .75, 5 (1975).
5. C. Booth-LaForce, G. I. Roisman, Eds., Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 314
79, 1 (2014).
Parenting: Roots of
the sweet tooth
IN HER NEWS STORY “The taste of things
to come” (special section on Parenting, 15
August, p. 750), E. Underwood discussed
Edited by Jennifer Sills
Brazil’s endangered butterfies are at greater risk from deforestation than from insect collecting.