December 2002 ISSN 0952-7583 Vol. 15, Parts 3/4 BRITISH JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY BRITISH JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY Published by the British Entomological and Natural History Society and incorporating its Proceedings and Transactions Editor: J. S. Badmin, Ecology Group, Canterbury Christ Church College, The Mount, Stodmarsh Road, Canterbury, Kent CT3 4AQ (Tel/Fax: 01227 479628) email: jsb5(@cant.ac.uk Associate Editor: M. Wilson, Ph.D., F.R.E.S., F.L.S. Department of Biodiversity & Systematic Biology, National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Cardiff CF10 3NP. (Tel: 02920 573263) email: Mike. Wilson@nmegw.ac.uk Editorial Committee: D. J. L. Agassiz, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.E.S. T. G. Howarth, B.E.M., F.R.ES. R. D. G. Barrington, B.Sc. IE FeG.-Mckean; Ph.D., F:R.ES Pp JChandler, B.Sc: RES. M. J. Simmons, M.Sc. B. Goater, B.Sc., M.I.Biol. P. A. Sokoloff, M.Sc., C.Biol., M.I.Biol., F.R.E.S. A. J. Halstead, M.Sc., F.R.E.S. T. RE, Southwood, K.B., Sc. E.R.E:S: R. D. Hawkins, M.A. R. W. J. Uften, M.Sc., FR.E-S. P. J. Hodge B. K. West, B.Ed. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History is published by the British Entomological and Natural History Society, Dinton Pastures Country Park, Davis Street, Hurst, Reading, Berkshire RG1O0 OTH, UK. Tel: 01189-321402. The Journal is distributed free to BENHS members. © 2002 British Entomological and Natural History Society. Typeset by Dobbie Typesetting Limited, Tavistock, Devon. Printed in England by Henry Ling Ltd, Dorchester, Dorset. BRITISH ENTOMOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY Registered charity number: 213149 Meetings of the Society are held regularly in London, at the rooms of the Royal Entomological Society, 41 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 and the well-known ANNUAL EXHIBITION takes place in November at Imperial College, London SW7. Frequent Field Meetings are held at weekends in the summer. Visitors are welcome at all meetings. The current Programme Card can be had on application to the Secretary, J. Muggleton, at the address given below. The Society maintains a library and invertebrate collections at its headquarters in Dinton Pastures, which are open to members on various advertised days each month, telephone 01189-321402 for the latest meeting news. The Society’s web site 1s: http://www.BENHS.org.uk Applications for membership to the Membership Secretary: A. Godfrey, 90 Bence Lane, Darton, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S75 SDA. Subscriptions and changes of address to the Membership Secretary: R. D. Hawkins, 30d Meadowcroft Close, Horley, Surrey RH6 9EL. Non-arrival of the Journal, faulty copies or other problems arising from distribution of the Journal or notices to the Distribution Secretary: D. Young, 22 Wordsworth Close, Saxmundham, Suffolk IP17 !WF. Tel: 01728 603568. Orders for books and back numbers of the Journal and Proceedings to the Sales Secretary: G. Boyd, 91 Fullingdale Road, Northampton NN3 2PZ. Tel: 01604 410056. General Enquiries to the Secretary: J. Muggleton, 30 Penton Road, Staines, Middlesex TW18 2LD. Tel: 01784-464537. email: jmuggleton(@compuserve.com Society Website: www.benhs.org.uk for recent information on the Society’s meetings programme and general society details. Cover photograph: Oedemera nobilis (Coleoptera: Oedemeridae), photographed in London’s Battersea Park, one of its most central London localities. Photo: Richard A. Jones. NOTE: The Editor invites submission of photographs for black and white reproduction on the front covers of the journal. The subject matter is open, with an emphasis on aesthetic value rather than scientific novelty. Submissions can be in the form of colour or black and white prints or colour transparencies. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 129 EDITORIAL PUBLICISING NEW SPECIES TO BRITAIN M.R. WILSON Department of Biodiversity and Systematic Biology, National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Cardiff CF1 3NP. Introduction Many entomologists eventually find species that turn out to be new additions to the British list. Obviously some species will have been overlooked in the British fauna and come to light through taxonomic revision. Some will be found in old existing collections. Others will be found from new fieldwork and may have been overlooked (i.e. always been here) or have recently arrived. The following is not about describing species new to science, for which the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be followed. I believe it is important to publish new additions as soon as possible after they are first found, especially if they are the result of recent fieldwork. How else can we track the possible establishment and subsequent distribution? Remember that there is a legal obligation to report to the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (a division of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) any species that might be injurious to plant health (see paper by Cannon et al., British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 14: 90-91). In turn PHSI should assist entomologists and themselves by publishing details quickly of any species that they have found in the UK. It should also be remembered that the publication of a new species to Britain is not only of interest in Britain. Entomologists outside the UK will subsequently become aware of the new record and be able to use the information themselves. Is it new to Britain? The decision that a species is new to the British list may have followed a long trail of detective work: checking a variety of reference works from different parts of continental Europe (and beyond), consulting colleagues, and comparing specimens. Then what? At best a paper would be published summarising all the work done to date and presenting it for others to use. It may be announced at a meeting, perhaps presented at a BENHS evening meeting or the Annual Exhibition, and written up briefly but not in detail. Worse, nothing happens or the follow-up publication never happens. Checklist of requirements for publication Sometimes the collector may be unsure of how to present the detail of the capture. The following is a brief checklist of what I believe ought to be published about each species that is added to the British checklist. Context How well is the British fauna known in the group to which the new species 1s being added? Are there any recent checklists or keys? Is this a species likely to have recently arrived and become established or one that is likely to have been overlooked in the British fauna? Is it a casual importation that is unlikely to survive here? 130 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 Where was the species found? The locality, habitat type and the date and circumstances of the discovery should be given. Are there similar British species and how do they differ? A key should be given if appropriate. How does the species differ from others in the same genus (if there are some)? If a new genus and species how do the genera differ? Basically the question to be answered is “How can I identify the species again without the use of other literature?” Yes, of course keen amateurs will likely have accumulated or have access to key literature published outside the UK but a description of a new British species should ideally be as complete as possible without the need to refer directly to other sources. Give drawings of the species to illustrate the differences Some say that they cannot draw or do not have the facilities. I do not see any special problem in adapting some existing drawings (with reference and acknow- ledgement to the source). Permission to use existing copyrighted illustrations can be asked of journal publishers. It is unlikely that fees would be charged for scientific use. Distribution of the species elsewhere, biology and known host plants It is helpful to know where the species is found in its distribution elsewhere (whether or not it is likely to have arrived recently or been overlooked). Any biological information should be reviewed. Deposition of the specimens There is no obligation to deposit voucher specimens of new British species in National Museums (unlike type specimens of species new to science). However, I strongly believe that such significant specimens should not reside in personal collections and should be lodged in Museums and publicly accessible collections. The paper should indicate where specimens have been lodged. My thanks to Alan Stewart (University of Sussex), Peter Barnard (BMNH) and Andrew Halstead (Royal Horticultural Society, Wisley) for helpful comments. Editor’s Note The draft article on publicising species new to Britain by Mike Wilson was circulated to several entomologists and they in turn have expressed their views. The points made by Dr Chris Malumphy were more substantial and so have been pub- lished in the form of a reply. If others wish to submit their comments to the journal then the Editor will be pleased to publish them. As one who believes in the advice that ‘‘a picture paints a thousand words”, the inclusion of an illustration seems obvious. One only has to try imagining how to juggle with the mental images of text, say, describing two similar Carpet moths, when one illustration or photograph does the trick. Our eyes can often pick out critical secondary features that add to “the jizz of an insect”, that are not mentioned, or at least, highlighted in species’ descriptions. JOHN BADMIN BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 131 REPLY TO THE EDITORIAL C. MALUMPHY Central Science Laboratory, Sand Hutton, c.malumphy @csl.gov.uk ‘< 16 In reply to the recent Editorial written by Mike Wilson, regarttrrs new species to Britain, I would like to highlight the. following five ‘points: The importance of clarifying the status of “new species” in Britain. The repercussions of calling an insect “British”. The constraints within which the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) operates. Information on outbreaks and interceptions of alien species recorded by the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI) in England and Wales is available on the Internet. 5. Finally, how CSL and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) can improve co-operation and share intelligence more effectively with other entomologists. RYN As already mentioned in the Editorial, it is absolutely vital that the status of the organism in the UK is made clear in any publication (including checklists). For example, whether the “new species” record is simply based on a detection (e.g. interception on imported produce, a vagrant or migrant caught in a light trap) or on a naturalised population (e.g. a breeding population likely to persist for the foreseeable future). Making the status clear is important as records of new plant pest species can have legal and financial implications. British checklists of insects contain numerous species, including many economically important plant pests, which are not currently established anywhere in the UK. These are often based on old records, single interceptions on imported plant material or brief transient populations. This information is easily and frequently misinterpreted by overseas phytosanitary services and can have a direct impact on the UK agricultural and horticultural industries, by the imposition of prohibitions or additional measures/costs for our exports. One example is the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). This is a major fruit and vegetable pest and is listed in the phytosanitary legislation of many countries. It is not currently known to occur anywhere in the UK although the PHSI have detected it on imported plant material in England and Wales on many occasions. Unfortunately for potential UK exporters, Massee (1940) reported an apple tree being attacked by C. capitata in Middlesex in 1939. Smith et al. (1997) suggest that the UK may have records of short-lived adventive populations as well as interception records and it is listed as an “imported species” in the Royal Entomological Society Checklist (Chandler, 1998). Such listings have resulted in Japan, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China prohibiting the import of an extensive list of fruit and vegetables (hosts of C. capitata) from the UK, on the grounds that they may harbour the pest. The wording used in the fourth paragraph ‘In turn PHSI should assist... publishing... any species that they have found in the UK” is contentious and implies that all interceptions should be published as “‘new British Records”. The majority of the species intercepted by the PHSI are transient finds, vagrants, or short-lived populations, which are incapable of surviving outdoors in the UK and will probably die after a short period. The Checklists of Insects of the British Isles contain 132 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 numerous examples of non-indigenous insects following publication of a single incidental finding. For example, 45 of the 57 Diaspididae listed by Boratynski & Williams (1964) are non-indigenous and most do not currently occur in the UK. Accepting something as “British” should imply something about its biology, for example, that it 1s capable of surviving and breeding under British climatic conditions (with allowances for repeated seasonal migrants, etc.). This in turn allows biological predictions and risk assessments to be made. Many interceptions are made on plants that are not true hosts or on plant material whose country of origin differs from the insect, for example, thrips can easily move between plants at flower auctions and wholesalers. Some workers question the value of publishing interceptions on imported plant material as “British” records. The CSL also encounters other difficulties and delays regarding publishing records, unlikely to be met by the wider entomological community. An appropriate policy (e.g. containment, eradication, monitoring), based on a survey and risk management, has to be decided for each new pest encountered and this can take time. Policy implications have to be considered. In addition, the majority of samples collected by the PHSI are from commercial premises and we cannot publish precise locality details due to customer confidentiality. There are also restrictions due to limited resources and lack of interest shown in publishing such lists by most journals. The Invertebrate Identification Team of CSL provides the PHSI with up to five thousand identifications each year, consisting of approximately 500 invertebrate taxa. Checking and publishing these data takes up a large amount of time, but efforts are being made to put data on the Internet. Some information on the detection of alien species in England and Wales by the PHSI is already available on the Internet, although this is aimed at the plant industry and phytosanitary services. Significant finds, incursions and outbreaks of new plant pests in Britain are reported on the DEFRA Plant Health Service website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/what.htm). The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) publish monthly reports of interceptions of regulated alien pests notified to the European Commission (EC) (http://www.eppo.org/PUBLICATIONS/EPPO_RS/reporting_service.html), and highlight new plant pest introductions in the EPPO region (http:// www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/alert_list.html). The CSL is currently considering publishing a more comprehensive summary of interceptions on the Internet. We fully appreciate that amateur and other professional entomologists are exceptionally important to the work of CSL and PHSI, and we must do all that we can to encourage, stimulate and work with them to ensure that we know as soon as possible when potential alien pests are found. We trust that other entomologists appreciate the importance of informing the PHSI as soon as possible, if they find a non-indigenous plant pest or potential plant pest. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Journal, on behalf of DEFRA Plant Health Service, for permitting us to provide a timely and reasoned response to the Editorial. It has raised a series of important issues and further dialogue would be welcomed, either personally or via the Journal. Alternatively, it might be useful to convene a one-day seminar with interested parties to discuss in an open way ideas of disseminating new records, and to decide on how best to accommodate our mutual interests. Any feedback from you would be welcome. Finally, I would like to end on a positive note with an example of how things work well. An Asian psyllid, Cacopsylla fulguralis (Kuwayana), was first identified in Britain by the CSL and the Natural History Museum in April this year. Within a BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 133 month the EC was notified and interviews given on radio and TV. In June a Plant Pest Notice (Malumphy et al., 2002) was issued, a scientific note submitted for publication in July (Malumphy & Halstead, 2002) and a popular magazine article published in August (Gianfrancesco, 2002). REFERENCES Boratynski, K.L. & Williams, D.J. 1964. Coccoidea. In A Checklist of British Insects, by Kloet, G.S. & Hinks, W.D. 2nd edn. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, 11: 87-94. Chandler, P. (ed) 1998. Checklists of Insects of the British Isles (New Series) Part 1. Diptera. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, 12, 234pp. Royal Entomological Society. Gianfrancesco, R. 2002. Foreign Foes. Gardening Which August 2002, 354-357. Malumphy, C. & Halstead, A.J. 2002. Cacopsylla fulguralis (Kuwayama), an Asian jumping plant louse (Hemiptera: Psylloidea), causing damage to Elaeagnus in Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History (in press). Malumphy, C., MacLeod, A. & Matthews, L. 2002. Plant Pest Notice no. 32, CSL, UK, 3 pp. Massee, A.M. 1940. Ceratitis capitata Wied. (Dipt. Trypetidae) in Middlesex. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 76: 112. Smith, I.M., McNamara, D.G., Scott, P.R. & Holderness, M. (eds) 1997. Quarantine Pests for Europe. Second Edition. 1425 pp. EPPO, CAB International. BOOK REVIEW Dragonflies of Kent. J. & G. Brook, 2001. Transactions of the Kent Field Club Volume 16. 114 pp. 16 colour plates, 51 line drawings. £7.00. ISBN 0-950-1696-9-2. In recent years the Kent Field Club, the Natural History Society of Kent has published books on the butterflies, amphibians and reptiles of Kent. The latest in the series, “Dragonflies of Kent” is a millennial publication. The decade-long survey confirmed that eleven damselfly and 21 dragonfly species occur in Kent. Amazingly, a new migrant dragonfly species, the Small Red-eyed Damselfly Erythromma viridulum (Charpentier), was recorded shortly after the book went to press and has since been found breeding in the county in the landscaped lakes at Bluewater Shopping Centre. The earliest dragonfly record for the county dates from the Cretaceous Period, a mere 135 million years ago! Each species of damselfly and dragonfly is illustrated with a line drawing of the species in situ, painstakingly drawn by Gill Brook. For each species there 1s a map of its present distribution in Kent and an account of its life history. Symbols on the maps differentiate between confirmed breeding, when exuviae of the last instar nymphs were found, probable breeding when mating and egg-laying were observed, and sightings of adults only. There are 16 colour plates of the more dramatic species and a gazetteer giving details of the best places in Kent to watch dragonflies. The book is an easily readable summary of the status and distribution of Odonata in Kent. Sales have exceeded expectations and a reprinting 1s under consideration. JOHN BADMIN 134 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 A SPRUCE WEB-SPINNING SAWFLY, CEPHALCIA ARVENSIS (HYMENOPTERA: PAMPHILITDAE) FROM BRITAIN AKIHIKO SHINOHARA Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-0073 Japan (e-mail: shinohar(@kahaku.go.jp ) Some specimens of sawflies identified with Pamphilius vafer (L.) and P. pallipes (Zetterstedt) were recently sent to me for study from the Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford. In this series I found a female of Cephalcia arvensis Panzer, 1805, a notorious pest of spruce (Pschorn-Walcher, 1982). It is widely distributed in Europe, from Siberia to northern China (Xiao eft al., 1992), but has not been recorded from Britain (Quinlan & Gauld, 1981). The specimen is an old printed one labelled “Lichfield, L. A. Carr” and with an accession label “Coll. L. A. Carr. Bght. 1929” [printed Bght or bought] and it represents the first collection record from Britain. It is not perfectly clear, however, if this sawfly actually occurs in Britain, because no other British specimens are known. The female may have been brought into Britain by accident or the specimen may bear wrong labels, though the L. A. Carr collection is regarded as all British (D. J. Mann, personal communication) and there is no positive reason to suspect mislabelling. Further collecting in spruce forest is necessary to ascertain occurrence of this species in Britain. The female is very light-coloured (“‘irrorata”’ type) and resembles C. fulva Battisti & Zanocco, known to occur in Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, and northeastern China (Kraus, 1998). Battisti & Zanocco (1994) mentioned that “‘the females of C. fulva can be distinguished from arvensis and irrorata (the latter now recognized as a colour form of C. arvensis) by having a bigger head, not constricted behind the eyes, and a rich orange-yellow colour pattern, extended also to metanotum (in arvensis and irrorata always black)”. The British specimen has the metanotum half pale brown and half black, but in other characters (particularly the shape and colour of the head) it agrees with C. arvensis. In Britain, another species of the genus, Cephalcia lariciphila (Wachtl) is known. This is a pest of larch (Billany & Brown, 1980; Shinohara, 1997). Cephalcia arvensis 1s distinguished from C. /ariciphila by its much paler colour pattern; the antennal scape and abdominal venter are mostly pale in C. arvensis, whereas they are mostly black in C. lariciphila (see Benes, 1976, and Achterberg & Aartsen, 1986, for more details). I wish to thank Dr George C. McGavin and Mr James Hogan, Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, for the loan of material, and Mr Darren J. Mann of the same institution for his helpful information on the L. A. Carr collection. REFERENCES Achterberg, C. van & Aartsen, van B., 1986. The European Pamphiliidae (Hymenoptera: Symphyta), with special reference to the Netherlands. Zoologische Verhandelingen 234: 1-98. Battisti, A. & Zanocco, D., 1994. Biosystematics of Cephalcia arvensis Panzer group. I. Description of Cephalcia fulva n. sp. (Hymenoptera Pamphiliidae). Redia 77: 297-311. Benes, K., 1976. Revision of the European species of Cephalcia Panzer, 1805 (Hymenoptera, Pamphilidae). Studie CSAV 3: 1-68. Billany, D. J. & Brown, R. M., 1980. The web-spinning larch sawfly, Cephalcia lariciphila Wachtl (Hymenoptera: Pamphiltidae), a new pest of Larix in England and Wales. Forestry 53: 71-80. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 135 Kraus, M., 1998. Einige fiir Deutschland oder Bayern neue Blattwespen (Hymenoptera: Symphyta), pp. 35-41. In: Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Kommentierte Bestandsaufnahme, Goecke & Evers, Keltern. Pschorn-Walcher, H., 1982. Pamphiltdae. pp. 23-57. In: Schwenke, W. (Ed.), Die Forstschddlinge Europas, 4, Hautfliigler und Zweifliigler. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin. Quinlan, J. & Gauld, I. D., 1981. Symphyta (except Tenthredinidae), Hymenoptera, New Edition. Handbooks for the identification of British Insects 6 2(a): 1—67. Shinohara, A., 1997. Web-spinning sawflies (Hymenoptera, Pamphiliudae) feeding on larch. Bulletin of the National Science Museum (A) 23: 191-212. Xiao, G.-r., Huang, X.-y., Zhou, S.-z., Wu J. & Zhang, P., 1992. Economic Sawfly Fauna of China (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). 226 pp. Tianze Eldonejo, Beijing. (In Chinese.) SHORT COMMUNICATION Dorcatoma dresdensis Herbst (Col: Anobiidae) and its parasite Diospilus ephippium (Nees) (Hym: Braconidae) reared from Phellinus pomaceus.—Examination of some brackets of the uncommon wood-decay fungus Phellinus pomaceus, 7.11.1999, revealed a small number of beetle grubs. A section of the bracket was retained for rearing. Two adult Dorcatoma dresdensis Herbst were later found in the rearing chamber together with about 7 or 8 specimens of the parasitic wasp Diospilus ephippium (Nees). The brackets were characteristically on a blackthorn stem and the host bush was located in an old overgrown hedge. The location was Churn Bank, Elkstone, E. Glos (SO91) and the hedge forms the upper boundary of an area of ancient wood pasture along the banks of the River Churn. This Nationally Scarce beetle has only once previously been reported from the county (Alexander, 1995), from a Ganoderma adspersum bracket on an ancient parish boundary beech at Rendcomb (SP00) in 1994—a locality only five miles downstream along the Churn Valley. This area appears to be a hot-spot in the county for the genus as D. flavicornis (F.) was reared in numbers from red-rotted heartwood of a fallen oak branch gathered the same day a short distance downstream, the first record of this species for the county since 1919 (Atty, 1983). Singletons of the beetle Aderus oculatus (Paykull) and an Eustalomyia anthomyiid fly also emerged from this material. Other species present at the site include Orchesia micans (Panzer), typically developing in brackets of Jnonotus hispidus on the old ash pollards in the valley. This Orchesia is very widespread in this fungus throughout the Cotswold Hills—I know it from fourteen 10km squares in the county, mainly in old wood-pasture or ancient wood-edge situations. This is in marked contrast to O. undulata Kraatz which is confined to the larger ancient oakwoods and old parklands and the rarer O. minor Walker, which is also confined to the Cotswold ancient woodlands. Thanks to Ted Green for finding the fungus and to Mark Shaw for identifying the wasps.—K.N.A. ALEXANDER, 14 Partridge Way, Cirencester. Gloucester GL7 1BQ. REFERENCES Alexander, K. N. A., 1995. Dorcatoma dresdensis Herbst (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) new to Gloucestershire. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 8: 137. Atty, D. B., 1983. Coleoptera of Gloucestershire. Cheltenham, privately published. 136 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 SOME FURTHER RECORDS OF CHRYSOLINA AMERICANA (L.) (CHRYSOMELIDAE) IN LONDON M.V.L. BARCLAY Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD DARREN J. MANN The Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW. Chrysolina americana (L.), the ‘rosemary beetle’, is a striking rainbow-coloured leaf beetle which, in spite of its misleading scientific name, is a characteristic insect of southern Europe where it is extremely abundant on rosemary Rosmarinus officinalis L. and lavender Lavandula spp. (Lamiaceae) in rural and urban areas. It is extending its range northwards in Europe, having recently reached Belgium (Lays, 1988) and The Netherlands (Beenen & Winkelman, 2001). It was first recorded potentially breeding in the UK at the Royal Horticultural Society Gardens at Wisley (TQ0558: VC17) (Halstead, 1996), and on lavender near the Shell Building, London (TQ3079: VC17) (Menzies, 1999). A single specimen was taken in a garden at Bookham Common (TQ1256: VC17) in 2000 (Barclay & Menzies, 2001) and specimens were taken in 1998 at Dinton Pastures Country Park (Halstead, 1999) and Winnersh (Smith, 2001), Berkshire (both SU77: VC22). There 1s also a colony in the grounds of the Tate Gallery, Middlesex (TQ3078: VC21) (BMNH Enquiries database, number 2000/68), and unpublished records from Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire, East Norfolk and Essex (Salisbury, 2002). Here we contribute some recent records and observations from London. In September 2001 R.T. Thompson and P. R. Kirwan-Taylor took an example on ‘curry plant’ Helichrysum sp. (Asteraceae) in a garden near Walton Street, Chelsea (TQ2778: VC21); over the next week several more were found in the same garden on rosemary, a much more probable host-plant. Two specimens were taken walking on a wall in Imperial Road, Fulham (TQ2676: VC21), one at 11.30 p.m. on 9.x.2001 (DJM) and the other at 10.30 p.m. on 21.x1.2001 (MVLB). There was no obvious lavender or rosemary nearby, the only plant being a large Russian vine Fallopia baldschuanica_ (Regel) (Polygonaceae) which may have provided shelter for hibernation. On 10.x.2001 MVLB took an example, covered in dew, on a wall in Castelnau, Barnes (TQ2277: VC17) at 08.00 a.m. A garden nearby had recently planted rosemary and lavender bushes. It 1s noteworthy that the three last specimens had moved, by night, some distance from their host-plants. It 1s possible they were searching for suitable hibernation sites, but Salisbury (/oc. cit.) suggests that the species remains active and feeds during warm spells throughout the winter months. Further observation of the species’ seasonal behaviour in Britain may help to explain these nocturnal movements. We visited the Shell Building colony twice during 2001. On the first occasion on 16.vi.2001 at 4 p.m. around 30 specimens were observed clustered, immobile on the flower heads of the lavender. On 17.x.01 at 6.15 p.m. the lavender plants had been cut right back, and only two C. americana were observed, running actively over the plants; perhaps members of this colony were also dispersing away from the host- plants. This colony has been present since at least 1997 (Menzies, 1999), and appears to be quite robust. Exhalant heating ducts which blow warm air over a part of the Shell Building colony may benefit the species by raising the ambient temperature by a BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 137 few critical degrees. Nonetheless, the colony’s small size makes it very vulnerable to use of insecticides, change in land use, or irresponsible collecting. It is difficult to say whether single specimens collected around London are the result of natural dispersal from existing populations, or whether they represent independent introductions with newly purchased plants or substrate from infested garden centres or abroad. Unlike many Chrysolina, C. americana 1s able to fly (Jolivet, 1997). The rosemary in the Walton Street garden was long established, while the plants in the Barnes garden appeared to be newly planted. Although apparently suitable patches of lavender exist all over London (where it is a ubiquitous street plant) the beetle is still extremely patchily distributed. On 22.11.2002 a female C. americana was noted on the wall in Imperial Road by MVLB suggesting that the species had successfully overwintered at this site. On 5.vi.2002 a specimen was brought to MVLB from Lavender in a garden at Merton Park, Wimbledon (VC17:TQ2469) by A. Galsworthy. Our thanks to R.T. Thompson, P.R. Kirwan-Taylor and A. Galsworthy for allowing us to use their London records of C. americana. Thanks also to Andrew Salisbury and Duncan Sivell for helpful comments. REFERENCES Barclay, M. V. L. & Menzies, I. S., 2001, Survey of Bookham Common: Fifty-ninth year: Progress report for 1999; Coleoptera. London Naturalist 80. Beenen, R. & Winkelman, J. 2001. Notes on Chrysomelidae in The Netherlands (Coleoptera). Entomologische Berichten (Amsterdam) 61(5): 63-67. Jolivet, P. 1997. Biologie des Coléopteres Chrysomelides. Boubée, Paris. 1-279. Halstead, A. J. 1996. Possible breeding by the rosemary beetle, Chrysolina americana L. in Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 9(2): 107-108. Halstead, A. J. 1999. [Exhibit at 1998 BENHS Annual Exhibition.] British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 12(3): 174. Lays, P. 1988. Chrysolina americana (Linne) Belg. nov. sp. (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Chrysomelinae), une espéce méditerraneenne en Belgique. Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale Belge d’Entomologie 124(1—3): 29-33. Menzies, I. S. 1999. [Exhibit at 1998 BENHS Annual Exhibition.] British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 12(3): 177. Salisbury, A. 2002. The rosemary beetle, Chrysolina americana (L.) (Col., Chrysomelidae) in Britain. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 138: 77-80. Smith, M. N. 2001. [Exhibit at 2000 BENHS Annual Exhibition.] British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 14(3): 168. SHORT COMMUNICATION A gynandromorph of Gonepteryx cleopatra L. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae).—Purchased at the 1999 Amateur Entomologists’ Society annual exhibition from Nigel South of Misterton, Somerset, who took it at Parga, Greece (39° 18’ N, 20° 23’ E) in May 1998, and presented at the 1999 BENHS annual exhibition (British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 13(3) p.153 Plate 2, Fig. 10). The specimen is predominantly male with areas of pale green/white female coloration on all the wing surfaces. The data and dull yellow underside patches identify it as G. c. cleopatra f. 138 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 italica Gerhard (=f.massilensis Foulquier) (Tolman & Lewington, 1997). Photo- micrographs were exhibited showing selected upperside details. In mammals, the sex of an individual is determined indirectly by the sex chromosomes it carries, through the kinds and relative proportions of the sex hormones thus produced in the gonads and circulating in the blood. Females carry two *X’ chromosomes (denoted ‘XX’), on account of whose likeness they are referred to as the homogametic sex, while males carry one X and a dissimilar ‘Y’ (denoted ‘xX Y’) and represent the heterogametic sex (Ford, 1957). In Lepidoptera, in contrast, it is the male which is homogametic and the female heterogametic, with the “X’ and “Y’ equivalents being denoted instead as the *Z’ and ‘W’ chromosomes respectively (Harmer, 2000). Furthermore, in Lepidoptera the sex of each cell is determined directly by the two sex chromosomes contained therein. Development proceeds through the process of cell division. The two sex chromosomes in the ‘parent’ cell are duplicated, and the cell then divides in such a way that each of the two ‘progeny’ cells receives one copy of each of the two ‘parent’ chromosomes. Thus a male ZZ cell will divide to give two ZZ cells, and a female ZW cell will give two ZW cells, with normal individuals comprising cells all of the same sex (Ford, 1957). However, abnormalities in cell division may occur and can produce gynandro- morphs (Ford, 1957). The key determinant of sex is the number of Z-chromosomes (two in males, one in females) which provide the deciding balance of male- determining genes, rather than the presence or absence of a W which is functionless in determining sex. Cells receiving any other number of Zs die. In the G. cleopatra, tissue that would normally have developed as male has developed as female. Such a condition can arise in two ways. The first is the loss of one of the duplicated Z- chromosomes in a dividing parent cell, resulting in one ZZ and one Z progeny cell. The second is an unequal allocation of the duplicated Z-chromosomes to the progeny cells, so that one becomes ZZZ and dies while the other becomes Z. In both cases the ‘Z cell will be female and continue to divide as such, resulting in a mosaic of male and female tissue. When the loss of a Z occurs in the egg at the first cell division, a bilateral gynandromorph results. Should the duplicated Zs in a dividing ZW cell be unequally allocated to the progeny cells, then one of them becomes ZZW and thus male, while the other becomes W and dies. This mechanism cannot therefore produce the bilateral condition. Gynandromorphs are distinct from ‘intersexes’ which result from too even a balance between the number of male-determining genes on the Z-chromosomes and female-determining genes on the non-sex chromosomes or ‘autosomes’. This can arise when individuals from locally evolved populations interbreed, or when species are hybridised. Intersexes are also distinct in that they start developing as one sex but later switch to the other, and thus can have structures of an intermediate type. Gynandromorphs and intersexes are both forms of ‘hermaphrodite’, which describes any animal where the two sexes are combined, by whatever means (Ford, 1957). Gynandromorphs represent a class of homoeotic transformation, where tissue typical of one part of an organism develops at a position typical of another tissue type. In gynandromorphs, pattern features typical of one sex develop at the corresponding position in the other sex (Niyhout, 1991). In common with many gynandromorphs, the G. cleopatra showed several unconnected and variably sized patches of transformed tissue spread randomly across the wings, a pattern of transformation commonly referred to as a ‘mixed gynandromorph’, and _ the specimen described above represents the only case known to the author of a predominantly male mixed gynandromorph of the species: a predominantly female BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 139 mixed gynandromorph of G. c. cleopatra taken by R. W. Parfitt in 1974 at St Tropez, France (43° 16’ N, 6° 39’ E), and currently in the possession of Peter May of Bognor Regis, W. Sussex, was presented at the Amateur Entomologists’ Society’s Annual Exhibition at Kempton Park, London on 7.xii.2000. In Lepidoptera, each wing scale represents a single cell of one colour-type only. Assuming each patch of cells to have originated from (and so be a ‘clone’ of) a single mutated cell, the transformation must have occurred many times independently on different parts of the wings. The cause of such mutations is not well understood, but the resemblance of gynandromorphs to the somatic variegation known in plants and vertebrates suggests they may be due to transposable genetic elements that move and insert themselves at points in the chromosome DNA (Niuhout, 1991). Environmental stress can increase the rate of transposition, and some transposable elements may be able to move between cells as appears to be the case in fruit flies, Drosophila (Pollard, 1988). Indeed this might explain the occurrence of the gynandromorphism on all eight wing surfaces, despite the establishment during development, of autonomous developing regions or ‘compartments’ whose boundaries homoeotic clones cannot cross (Sibatani, 1980; Goodwin, 1984; Ho, 1992). Alternatively, transposable elements could have been already present in each compartment, but separately activated. I thank Barry Lockyer of the School of Biological Sciences, Southampton University, for his assistance in producing the photomicrographs, and Peter May for permission to cite the additional record—LEONARD WINOKUR, Flat 3, Charles Court, 7 Darwin Road, Southampton, Hampshire SOI5 5BS. REFERENCES Ford, E. B. 1957. Butterflies. 3rd Edition. London, Collins. Goodwin, B. C. 1984. A relational or field theory of reproduction and its evolutionary implications. In: Ho, M.-W. & Saunders, P. T. (Eds). Beyond neo-Darwinism—an introduction to the new evolutionary paradigm. Academic Press, London, pp. 219-241. Harmer, A. S. 2000. Variation in British butterflies (illustrated by A. D. A. Russwurm). Paphia Publishing Ltd., Lymington, Hampshire. 293 pp. Ho, M.-W. 1992. Development, rational taxonomy and systematics. Rivista di Biologia— Biology Forum 85: 193-211. Nuyhout, H. F. 1991. The development and evolution of butterfly wing patterns. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press. Pollard, J. W. 1988. New genetic mechanisms and their implications for the formation of new species. In Ho, M.-W. & Fox, S. W. (Eds). Evolutionary processes and metaphors. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 63-84. Sibatani, A. 1980. Wing homoeosis in Lepidoptera: a survey. Developmental Biology, 79: 1-18. Tolman, T. & Lewington, R. 1997. Butterflies of Britain and Europe. London, HarperCollins. 320 pp. 140 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 BOOK REVIEW World Catalogue of Insects Volume 3, Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) by Anders N. Nilsson. Apollo Books, 2001, 395 pages, hardback, Danish Kroner 690.00 excl. postage. Available from Apollo Books, Kirkeby Sand 19, DK-5771 Stenstrup, Denmark. This is the third volume in this series to deal with a major family of water beetles. It follows a similar format to the previous volumes on the Hydraenidae and Hydrophiloidea with some differences. This catalogue lists all the taxa described up to the end of September 2001. All taxa of the same rank are listed alphabetically not systematically. For each taxon a reference is given to the original description. The distribution of each genus and species by zoogeographical region only is given, together with the number of species in each taxon. For genus-group names, the type species and how and where the type species was designated are given, and in most cases a reference to a work containing a modern description. For species-group names, the type locality and a characterisation of the existing types are given. A reference is given to lectotype and neotype desig- nations, and the current and original combinations are given. For most valid names a reference to a work containing a modern description is given. For each subjective synonym a reference 1s given to the work in which the synonymy was given for the first time. Fossil taxa are listed separately. There are appendices listing infrasubspecific names and ‘nomina nuda’, and species excluded from the family. The catalogue includes an index to the specific and supraspecific taxa treated. The bibliography includes all published works containing original descriptions of taxa of Dytiscidae, and all the works cited in the catalogue. Up to date catalogues are an essential tool not only for the taxonomist but also for all those involved in studying biodiversity. However the problem with printed catalogues is that they are out of date before they are produced. It should be possible to produce regular updated electronic versions of catalogues such as this one, which could be made available at a nominal cost to the purchasers of the original printed version. Let us hope that the publishers of this and other catalogues take this into consideration. BRIAN LEVEY BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 141 THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTY INVERTEBRATE ATLAS ROGER K. A. MORRIS clo 241 Commonside East, Mitcham, Surrey CR4 1HB. roger.morris(@english-nature.org.uk Abstract. County atlases need to move away from the traditional dot-map approach to one that helps to answer questions and poses new questions to be tackled as part of the development of Biodiversity Action Plans. This is an opportunity for the entomological community and others to demonstrate the contribution that the amateur naturalist has made, and is making, to our knowledge of the British fauna. Projects such as the Surrey Wildlife Atlas series clearly demonstrate that a new approach is possible, but there is also a need for innovative approaches to sponsorship, marketing and fund management. This account discusses some of the lessons learnt during production of one volume for the series and provides guidelines for future recorders. INTRODUCTION At the dawn of the 20th Century the Victoria County Histories provided the main written record of the fauna of the Counties of Britain. These accounts were based on an imprecise knowledge of the full extent of the British fauna and, as such, many must be treated with a degree of caution. Even so, they remain an important historical record and the foundation for subsequent accounts. Since then, biological recording has been transformed. The national mapping schemes organised through the Biological Records Centre at Monks Wood are best known, but can only produce an outline of overall national distribution. The production of county accounts by local enthusiasts, even simple lists that outline the general extent of individual species’ distributions (e.g. Chandler, 1969), were an important advance, but county atlases provide a much more detailed picture of plant and animal distribution at a local level. Early mapping schemes largely comprised the collection of data sufficient to produce dot maps, but often failed to capture a great deal of incidental information which makes a recording scheme really worth supporting. Such data remain in the national datasets and are a disappointment because so much more could be done with them today if only they were more detailed. At a local level, publications might also have included accounts of noteworthy species from particular sites, or records of rarer species, but in today’s world such accounts are of limited value unless some interpretation is attached and data are provided to properly identify the locations of their occurrence. Amongst the models available in the mid-1980s when the Surrey Atlas recorders started work were Emmet & Pyman (1985) and Evans & Evans (1973) for moths; Rotheray (1979) for hoverflies; and Burton (1983), Lousley (1976) and Philp (1982) for vascular plants. At that time, the botanists, especially Lousley, were the only ones to make a serious attempt to consider biogeography in any detail. Even today, new works place very little emphasis on interpreting invertebrate distribution in relation to drift and hard geology, yet this concept is well known and has been adopted for some time by English Nature as a foundation for local conservation strategies (the concept of “Natural Areas’). The importance of these physical attributes for invertebrate distribution cannot be over-emphasised. For example, the solid geology 142 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 will affect the nature of groundwater emerging from flushes, and depending upon the level of base-richness, this will affect the distribution of assemblages such as soldier- flies. Equally, the general porosity of surface layers will also affect the distribution of other species such as those associated with thermophilic conditions and good drainage; thus there is coincidence between such species and drift deposits such as the periglacial sands of Lincolnshire and East Anglia. THE POTENTIAL WORTH OF THE COUNTY ATLAS Any atlas is a snapshot in time, reflecting what the enthusiasts consider important at that moment. But, today’s atlas will have a far wider audience. This is particularly true in terms of nature conservation where land-use planning requires environmental assessment, and major conservation initiatives are directed through the Biodiversity planning process (DoE, 1994; DoE, 1995). Both draw on the published under- standing of localised distribution of plants and animals, but it is the latter which could be an important driver and opportunity for the entomological community. Depending on the available literature and previous interest in a particular group, the historical record is the foundation for any new atlas. What have been the additions, changes and losses over recorded time? Published records for a particular area are, however, highly dependent on a sequence of field naturalists with relevant interests working the same area over a long timescale. The bulk of the atlas will, however, concentrate on the known current distribution of individual species. Given sufficiently detailed recording, they are the foundation upon which Biodiversity Action Plans may be formulated in a county context. With few exceptions, however, it is unlikely that the current generation of maps will properly reflect many major declines or expansions, because of the inconsistencies and disparities between past and present recording effort. Moreover, real changes can only be properly identified by stan- dardised recording methods, which are largely outside the scope of county schemes. Even so, expansions and contractions of range can be discerned and are sometimes well publicised, e.g. the demise of the large blue Maculinea arion (L.) and the expan- sions of range of Roesel’s bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii (Hagenbach), the long- winged cone-head Conocephalus discolor (Thunberg), and the bee-wolf Philanthus triangulum (Fabricius). All of these have been quite dramatic and are therefore well known, but slower declines or expansions are harder to pick up with poor historic coverage and inconsistent levels of recording. Thus, today’s atlases, which should be the foundation for establishing trends in distribution and frequency, must be based on comprehensive, detailed and accurate records which are accessible in the future. In recent years, county atlases have been an important vehicle for developing ideas on invertebrate indicators and assemblages. Starting with dead-wood hoverfly assemblages first proposed by Stubbs (1982), Whiteley (1987) refined the concept and added a series of possible wetland hoverfly indicators, to which there are now ideas on heathland and chalk downland hoverfly assemblages (Morris, 1998). All of these indicator lists have largely arisen from the county atlas process, and scope for developing indicator assemblages improves with greater knowledge of a particular biogeographic zone. For example, in Surrey, an extensive range of possible heathland and chalk grassland/woodland indicators could be proposed, drawing on detailed maps for butterflies (Collins, 1995), dragonflies (Follett, 1996), larger moths (Collins, 1997), hoverflies (Morris, 1998) grasshoppers and crickets (Baldock, 1999), ladybirds (Hawkins, 2000). Habitat indicators can be helpful in conservation management, and interpretation of datasets supplied for sites. They are particularly useful for the non-specialists who BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 143 would not otherwise know the range of species with particular habitat affinities but may need to as part of their job (e.g. Conservation Officers in English Nature or the Wildlife Trusts). For example, the presence of species with particular habitat affinities included on lists for sites that do not support such habitats may raise doubts about the records themselves or may suggest that records represent vagrants. Equally, the absence of specialist species from lists may give an indication of the impacts of particular management regimes or the degree of recording effort. Whichever is the case, such records require further investigation. The Surrey Wildlife Atlas series has shown that county atlases can also be used for disseminating new biological information, including those odd anecdotal comments that might be lost in a notebook or obscurely noted in a journal. For the entomo- logist it is an excellent opportunity to provide new information on food plants, flower visits, prey items or behavioural observations. With sufficient data, local phenology can be depicted. Similarly, investigations into changing frequency or responses to climate could lead to a more rounded and comprehensive publication. If, however, the principal recorder is not greatly motivated by such fields, the data are centralised and might be forwarded to others for more detailed investigation. The key message is that the establishment of a recording scheme is an opportunity to create a data set which may be of use not only now, but also across a range of applications in future, both nationally and by local records centres. The production of an atlas has the potential to be an important driver for renewed recording activity. It can either stimulate individuals to visit sites which they have not visited previously or may encourage them to forward the data they hold in notebooks or in machine-readable form. Both of these impacts are important, firstly in widening the available coverage; secondly by capturing a body of information that was hitherto largely inaccessible. Ideally it should also lead to improved recording quality as well as ensuring that relevant data are incorporated into the data set. LINKS TO BIODIVERSITY PLANNING A great deal of effort and money is going into the production of national, regional and local Biodiversity Action Plans. Partnerships led by statutory conservation agencies (Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage) the national voluntary organisations (e.g. RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts) and local authorities (County, Metropolitan, Unitary or District Councils) have been established. Key to the delivery of Biodiversity plans is the survey and monitoring package that evaluates needs and successes; this is the National Biodiversity Network (NBN). RECORDER 2000 is intended to provide the means of capturing the data and provides the links between local records centres and national initiatives to monitor the status of British wildlife. Usually, the first point of action for lesser-known taxa is a new survey. This is a major opportunity for local recording schemes to work in partnership, where recorders provide the data and, hopefully, the Biodiversity partnership provides the resources to disseminate the results; but it must be a symbiotic relationship. Recorders must recognise that the data collected has more of a purpose than simply producing a dot map or guide to the best places to record/collect insects; and the Biodiversity partnerships must not simply see the recorders as providers of infor- mation on the cheap. Entomologists are encouraged to supply data not only to recording schemes, but also to site owners and managers. A simple list of species recorded is often the best that a site manager can expect, so the publication of a county atlas that helps to put 144 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 the records into context is of particular value. This should augment the advice and information provided in the various national reviews (e.g. Falk, 1991; Kirby, 1992; Hyman & Parsons, 1992). A further improvement to an atlas would be the inclusion of notes on specific conservation measures which may be helpful in a county context, spelling out the importance of particular habitats or features which are overlooked, scarce or under-valued. A well produced and researched county atlas may also act as the vehicle for disseminating the actions needed to secure the well-being of locally or nationally threatened species. Follow-on projects could be initiated in a similar way to the work of the BENHS on the hoverfly Chrysotoxum octomaculatum Curtis, the robberfly Asilus crabroniformis Linnaeus and the bee-fly Thyridanthrax fenestratus (Fallen) (Miles, 1999). POPULATION TREND ANALYSIS Analysis of the data collected for Surrey from 1985 to date provides a number of indications of population and phenological trends. For example, the apparent declines in frequency of the hoverflies Rhingia campestris Meigen and Platycheirus peltatus (Meigen) are discussed in Morris (1998). The analysis of Rhingia campestris stimulated further countrywide analysis leading to a much better understanding of the relationship between the frequency of this species and periods of drought (Ball & Morris in prep.). Changes in the emergence times of Epistrophe eligans (Harris) are also apparent over the same period (Morris, 2000), showing that this species has undergone a clear shift towards earlier emergence. Extensive recording has also provided an opportunity to evaluate the real or perceived scarcity of particular species. A good example of this is that of the bee Hylaeus cornutus Curtis which is listed as Red Data Book 3 in Falk (1991), but is actually widely distributed across ruderal sites in the London suburbs (Morris, 1992). These examples illustrate how important it is for recorders to get away from the concept of only visiting ‘good’ sites, retaining records of just the spectacular or scarce species, or simply noting first and last dates of occurrence. There are a number of key messages which all entomologists would be advised to take on board: e Make an effort to record from sites that do not immediately strike you as exceptional. e Retain data on all species encountered, not just the rarities. e Try to retain material from other taxa which can be forwarded for identification by others. e If you run static traps (such as malaise traps) try to get as much material as possible identified by offering material to recorders of taxa other than those in which you are interested. e Try to retain quantitative as well as qualitative data. e Encourage friends to take a similarly enlightened approach. DATA REQUIREMENTS AND LESSONS Ball and Morris (1992) provided clear instructions to recorders of the national Hoverfly Recording Scheme, which might usefully be repeated here: 1. All records should comprise a full date, the site name and name of the recorder. Recorders should not give a date range (e.g. 1978-1995), as this is not even helpful in producing a dot map across date classes. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 145 2. A four-figure grid reference is the minimum required; six-figure references are more desirable but only if they can be accurately ascribed to the location of capture. 3. Where possible, records should be accompanied by notes on flower visits, oviposition behaviour or prey items. 4. Details of the habitat should be provided, but generalised notes such as ‘hedgerows, grassland, woodland and scrub’ are fairly meaningless. A more detailed description of the site as a whole would be helpful, and in particular a description of the site of capture. Details of site ownership should be given if known. The altitude of the capture site (in metres or feet) is helpful. 7. If records are passed on third-hand, they can often lead to confusion unless they are conveyed accurately. ou As a minimum, the first two criteria are essential. Most recording schemes have a tendency for the maps to reflect recorder effort and not the true distribution of species (Rich, 1998). To overcome this, the Surrey Wildlife Atlas Project recorders have made strenuous efforts to visit as many otherwise unrecorded sites (tetrads) as possible. As a result, 95% of the 540 tetrads in Surrey were visited during the hoverfly survey for example; this included many sites that would have failed to inspire the majority of entomologists and which frequently yielded few noteworthy records. Ideally, data should be collected in an entirely consistent manner, ensuring that coverage is even both in terms of recording intensity on a particular visit and in terms of the numbers and spacing of visits over a season, as described by Rich (1998). There is, however, a long way to go before there are sufficient recorders who are both taxonomically competent and committed to data collection. Furthermore, recording invertebrates is largely dictated by favourable weather, so employing the rigorous survey that botanists can adopt is simply not feasible. At this stage the key lessons are: Encourage recorders to visit as wide a range of sites as possible. Encourage repeat visits over the entire season. Encourage collection of material for schemes in addition to your own. Push for as much detail as possible. Provide feedback on gaps in the data. Be prepared to discount data that are incomplete or seemingly inaccurate. Even with a very active recording scheme organiser, the vast bulk of records are likely to come from a nucleus of perhaps a dozen individuals, with small-scale contri- butions from many others. To be a success, a scheme needs to show that it is making progress and is giving feedback. Production of a newsletter is one obvious way of giving feedback, but other ways include making an effort to contribute to other schemes; such data are appreciated and may lead to better links between recorders. Importantly, making an effort to collect a wider range of data than just one’s own interest area means that the returns from time and financial costs of survey are maximised. Also, it is quite surprising just how often one gets a disproportionately large number of records of scarce species when collecting groups other than one’s own specialism. 146 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 DATABASE MANAGEMENT There are a number of good databases on the market (e.g. MAPMATE), but the most versatile is RECORDER 2000, marketed by the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Despite this versatility, it is not regarded as a straightforward package and has attracted disparaging comments to the extent that the majority of recorders prefer other packages. Ideally, before starting to enter data, establish whether the local records centre (often run by the County Wildlife Trust) has a standard list of sites and boundary maps. Synergy with others will ultimately mean that data can be more readily incorporated into a database, which is used to safeguard sites and inform the Biodiversity process. Some centres may even establish close links with you so that you get help with setting up your database. The maps produced for this article and for the Surrey atlases were all produced using the UK DMAP package (in its Windows version). This is a very simple package, but there may be a need to create new boundary files unless they can be obtained from other sources. For further information on this program and its implementation, see Morton and Collins (1992). ATLAS PRODUCTION Planning the project is always very difficult without an idea of the likely format and the funds that might be available for inclusion of illustrations and photographs. Even so, it is worth starting the writing process early on. This allows time for the development of ideas, which can be tested as the project develops; for example testing the validity of possible indicator assemblages or impressions gained of the ecology of particular species. Literature searches often yield interesting anecdotes, which lighten the text and may also provide avenues for investigation if undertaken at an early stage. Likewise, it is important to plan for photographic illustrations and to make sure that they will be available. If a county atlas is to be of any real use today, bearing in mind the need to establish links with geology and known distribution of habitats, it is essential to chose a scale for mapping that can be used to interpret patterns of distribution. To emphasise this, Fig. 1 depicts the distribution of the hoverfly Cheilosia soror (Zetterstedt), a known indicator of calcareous habitats. Even the shift from tetrad (2-km square) to 5-km squares masks the distribution considerably, whilst that for 10-km squares is next to useless. This 1s an important lesson to remember and emphasises just how important it is to get as detailed and widespread coverage as possible. It is also important to remember that mapping packages can translate more accurate grid references into the cruder grids used for mapping, but cannot do this in reverse if the data are not that accurate in the first place; thus all data should be stored in their most accurate form. MARKETING AND SPONSORSHIP STRATEGIES The Surrey Wildlife Atlas Project provides a useful model of how a series of publications can be achieved using pump-priming. The Project is a partnership between local recorders and the Surrey Wildlife Trust, with the recorders undertaking the fieldwork and preparing the texts, and the Trust undertaking the BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 The distribution of Cheilosia soror in Surrey Distribution at 10km” level Fig. 1. The distribution of Cheilosia soror at 2km, 5km and 10 km. 147 148 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 typesetting, print management and marketing. Production of the early volumes was also greatly helped by the Trust making no charge to the production account for typesetting costs which were done ‘in house’, although this is of course an option that is not always available to other projects. The project started with popular volumes (Butterflies and Dragonflies) that would attract sponsorship and would sell well, which meant that a reserve of income was quickly generated and could be used to offset the costs of later publications. Running at one volume per year, this has been possible for the first seven years, but as less popular groups are covered there has been a need to seek further priming sponsorship. Even so, for a relatively modest level of sponsorship (ca. £22,000), a widely applauded series (7 volumes) has been produced and has established the foundation for many future titles. The important lesson is the value of creating a loop whereby income from sales underpins the next volume, a model that could be adopted by Biodiversity partnerships across the country. The Surrey Wildlife Atlas project opted to produce volumes that were both informative and attractive. Colour plates are incorporated at considerable cost, but these make the series appealing to a much wider audience and perhaps also make them more marketable to those with just a passing interest in, say, hoverflies or larger moths. Some reviews have questioned the scientific worth of such illustrations (e.g. Agassiz, 1998), but in marketing terms they are invaluable. Indeed, such an approach can greatly enhance the reputation of a series e.g. Marren (2002) who compares favourably the extent of colour plates in Reptiles and Amphibians of Surrey (Wycherley & Anstis, 2001) with those of the comparable New Naturalist. This may not offer the scientific purist any comfort, but it is important to remember that sales to a wider audience mean that income is maximised early on and books do not end up stockpiled (they can take up a great deal of space and are not earning anything). Recouping costs quickly is an important factor in allowing the establishment of an ongoing series; in my view, a title going out of print relatively quickly (given a reasonable print run) is a good thing because it has proved popular and generates income for future titles. Thus, pricing is a fine balance between achieving sufficient return on the investment to fund future volumes and setting a price that attracts readers who might not otherwise make such a purchase. The Surrey Wildlife Atlases are noted for their reasonable price: for example Marren (2002) remarks on this achievement when comparing the recently published Amphibians and Reptiles volume with the comparable New Naturalist. However, trade sales of the Atlas series, which comprise a not insignificant proportion of the sales, do little more than recoup costs on unit price. Deciding on the length of the print run is very important. A short print run puts up the unit price, whilst longer runs reduce the unit price and increase storage costs. Before deciding on a print run, consider seeking advice from others who have published similar works and get an idea of what the market will support. Figure 2 provides some feedback on the relative marketability of the Surrey Wildlife Atlas series. Likewise, it is worth weighing up the merits of softback and hardback; the unit cost of hardback is not that high, but can substantially improve a book’s marketability. Similarly, the format is important. Remember that bigger formats demand greater shelf space and balance this against the benefits or disadvantages that such a format gives in terms of layout. The Surrey Wildlife Atlas series is AS, a format which seems to work very well. The main issue to consider is how to get back the original investment sufficiently quickly that it can be reinvested in another title. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 149 Print Total Title Year Pages Plates run Price™. sales** Butterflies 1995 87 16 1000 £12.00 768 Dragonflies 1996 87 16 1000 £12.00 485 Larger Moths 1997 533 16 800 18.002 313 Hoverflies 1998 244 16 700 Plo.007 270 Grasshoppers & Crickets 1999 at 16 700 PlO0" 253 Ladybirds 2000 136 16 800 12.008 337 Amphibians & Reptiles 2001 112 32 800 Pls002 Kol *Excluding postage & packing. **Tncluding trade sales. 'Full details obtainable from Surrey Wildlife Trust, School Lane, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 OJN. Fig. 2. Production details of the Surrey Wildlife Atlas series to January 2002. LIMITATIONS In promoting the establishment of a county atlas project, it is also important to bear in mind a number of possible long-term issues, which need to be addressed. Firstly, an atlas is only as good as the level of recording achieved, and good coverage demands considerable effort. Work on the moth and hoverfly volumes started in 1985 and they finally reached the bookshelf in 1997 and 1998 respectively. The Orthoptera volume started earlier still, but stalled with the lack of a suitable publisher. Any prospective recorder should expect to spend around ten years on such a project. Experience in Surrey and nationally shows that in the period leading up to the production of an atlas there is a definite increase in interest in both recording and submitting records. This rapidly tails off without feedback, and once a project has been completed, interest in further detailed recording wanes quickly. Thus, thought must be given to new projects once the network of recorders is up and running. This 1s essential if start-stop recording is to be avoided. Secondly, a recording scheme is only as active as the principal co-ordinator, and most co-ordinators are likely to run out of energy; eventually there is a need to think of succession management. Co- ordinators themselves should recognise when their interest has waned and there is a need to find someone with greater enthusiasm to take over a successor scheme. At the moment, consistent means of recording habitat data are very limited. Not all recorders are necessarily proficient botanists. Furthermore, many do not have access to, say, the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) (e.g. Rodwell, 1992). Equally the NVC may not be the best means of defining invertebrate habitat, which is as much related to structure as it is to species composition. Projects to identify assemblages associated with particular plant communities have a very long way to go, but active and detailed recording should gradually help the process. CONCLUDING COMMENTS This account was written following publication of Hoverflies of Surrey (Morris, 1998) and after a series of requests for advice on how to prepare and publish an atlas. 150 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 It is hoped that it serves that purpose and gives potential recorders some ideas on how to achieve success. The modern county atlas has the potential to appeal to a wider audience than just those students of a chosen subject. This audience may include generalists, ecologists, site managers and consultancies, and of course the statutory nature conservation agencies, so there should be enough for the non- specialist to understand and interpret the importance of particular species or assemblages of species. It is important to bear in mind that the production of atlases is expensive and storage of unsold books is also costly in terms of storage space. Thus it is important to make an atlas or series of atlases sufficiently versatile to the needs of a wider audience and therefore more marketable. Try to ensure that the data collected are forwarded to the local record centre and national scheme at the earliest possible occasion. These schemes should be seen as the long-term repository for relevant data and may be able to use the data in many other ways. Equally, national schemes may hold data which have not been submitted to the local scheme and should be in a position to download it to you (but be patient). There is a major chance for the entomological community to provide the sort of feedback which ensures that opposition to collecting does not result in blanket bans and the restriction of entomology to academia and professionals. After all, the majority of our most respected entomological surveyors largely honed their skills in an amateur capacity, and the bulk of the material in museums comes from private collections. At the start of the 21st century, there is scope for a further quantum leap in biological recording providing the foundation for a continuing tradition of amateur natural history recording, which must be the envy of the world. FORTHCOMING VOLUMES ON THE FAUNA OF SURREY The Surrey Wildlife Atlas Project will continue to publish new titles. Projects in hand at the moment include Shieldbugs; Bees, Ants and Wasps; and Mammals. There is an embryonic scheme for British Soldierflies and their allies (together with the Conopidae), and also interest in developing a county checklist for beetles. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It seems a very long while since Martin Newman (then Director of Surrey Wildlife Trust), Graham Collins and I sat in a pub in Pirbright musing over a fine pint and the idea of an atlas series. Following that meeting, Martin developed a business plan which he placed before Surrey Wildlife Trust’s Council. It was a brave Council decision to support the project and one that has given Surrey Wildlife Trust a high profile as a leader in publishing quality county atlases. Today, the Surrey Wildlife Atlas project has received widespread acclaim, with all volumes receiving excellent reviews. With seven volumes on the shelf and at least three more planned, it makes a huge contribution to our knowledge of the fauna of Surrey. Everyone involved in the project owes much to Martin Newman’s enthusiasm for the project and his belief in its financial viability. The Surrey Wildlife Atlas Project has also been a success because of the combined efforts of individual naturalists who have contributed records and enthusiastic County Recorders. However, equal credit goes to Clare Windsor the designer of the series, to Paul Wickham the present Director of the Surrey Wildlife Trust who has been a strong supporter of the Project, and to Roger Hawkins who has proof-read each volume. It is an example of good practice, which offers a model for others. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 ily I am most grateful to Alastair Kirk at Surrey Wildlife Trust who provided helpful comments on this text and provided the sales figures. I also thank colleagues Rob Cook, Dr Keith Porter and David Stone at English Nature and Dr Tim Rich for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this account. REFERENCES Agassiz, D., 1998. Book Review: Larger Moths of Surrey by Graham A. Collins. Entomologists Record and Journal of Variation 110: 147-148. Baldock, D. W., 1999. Grasshoppers and Crickets of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. Ball, S. G., Morris, R. K. A., 1992. Progress report 1, March 1992. Hoverfly Newsletter 14. Burton, R. M., 1983. Flora of the London Area. London Natural History Society, London. Chandler, P. J., 1969. The hover-flies of Kent. Transactions of the Kent Field Club 3: 139-202 Collins, G. A., 1995. Butterflies of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. Collins, G. A., 1997. Larger Moths of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. DoE, 1994. Biodiversity, the UK Action Plan. HMSO, London. DoE, 1995. Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report. HMSO, London. Emmet, A. M., Pyman, G. A., 1985. The larger moths and butterflies of Essex. Essex Naturalist 8. Evans, L. K., Evans, K. G. W., 1973. A survey of the macrolepidoptera of Croydon and north- east Surrey. Proceedings of Croydon Natural History and Scientific Society XIV: 273-408. Falk, S. J., 1991. A review of the scarce and threatened bees, wasps and ants of Great Britain. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation 35. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Follett, P., 1996. Dragonflies of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. Hawkins, R. D., 2000. Ladybirds of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. Hyman, P., Parsons, M. S., 1992. A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation 3. JNCC, Peterborough. Kirby, P., 1992. A review of the scarce and threatened Hemiptera of Great Britain. UK Nature Conservation 2. JNCC, Peterborough. Lousley, J. E., 1976. Flora of Surrey. David and Charles, London. Marren, P., 2002. Book Reviews: Amphibians & Reptiles of Surrey. British Wildlife 13: 225. Miles, S., 1999. BENHS Indoor meeting 15 June 1999. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 12: 247. Morris R. K. A., 1992. Hylaeus cornutus in south London. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 5: 186-187. Morris, R. K. A., 1998. Hoverflies of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. Morris, R. K. A., 2000. Shifts in the phenology and distribution of hoverflies in Surrey: do these reflect the effects of global warming? Dipterists Digest (second series). 7: 103-108. Morton, A. J., Collins, G. A., 1992. Distribution analysis of Surrey Lepidoptera using the DMAP computer package. Nota Lepidopterologica 15: 84-88 Philp, E. G., 1982. Atlas of the Kent Flora. The Kent Field Club. Rich, T., 1998. Squaring the circles—bias in distribution maps. British Wildlife 9: 213-219. Rodwell, J. S., 1995. British Plant Communities Volume 3. Grassland and montane communities. Cambridge University Press. Rotheray, G. E., 1979. Atlas of the Diptera of Staffordshire part 1: Hoverflies. Staffordshire Biological Recording Scheme publication No. 5, City Museum & Art Gallery, Stoke on Trent. Stubbs, A. E., 1982. Hoverflies as primary woodland indicators with reference to Wharncliffe Wood. Sorby Record 20: 62-67. Whiteley, D., 1987. Hoverflies of the Sheffield area and North Derbyshire. Sorby Record Special Series No. 6 Wycherley, J., Anstis, R., 2001. Amphibians and Reptiles of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust, Pirbright, Surrey. 152 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 2001 ANNUAL EXHIBITION Imperial College, London SW7—10 November 2001 The following account of exhibits has been compiled by R.D.G. Barrington (British butterflies), G.A. Collins (British Macrolepidoptera), H.E. Beaumont (British Microlepidoptera), N.M. Hall (Foreign Lepidoptera), P.J. Chandler (Diptera), R.G. Booth (Coleoptera), A.J.A. Stewart (Hemiptera), A.J. Halstead (Hymenoptera and other orders). The photographs for the two colour plates were taken by D.E. Wilson and the cost of printing these plates was met by a grant from the Hammond Memorial Fund. Exhibits under the theme “‘Hedgerow Insects” were invited as part of the Annual Exhibition in 2001. The notes from these exhibits have been incorporated in the usual categories but, where appropriate, mention has been made if specimens were exhibited under this theme. BRITISH BUTTERFLIES BAILEY, K.E.J.—Temperature shock experiments on various butterflies, applied at the late larval/early pupal stage. Various aberrations were shown of Jssoria lathonia (L.), Polygonia c-album (L.), Euphydryas aurinia (Rott.), Apatura iris (L.), Aglais urticae (L.) and Lasiommata megera (L). Little work has been done on temperature shocks in the family Satyridae and so the results in megera are interesting (see also report on exhibit of P. Tebbutt). Unlike the Nymphalids, in which most temperature shock work has been carried out, L. megera showed no smooth range of increasingly aberrant patterns. Aglais urticae aberrations bred under natural conditions from inbred stock of ab. pseudoconnexa (Cabeau) (in which the central forewing costal black marking is joined to the basal spot on the inner margin). This included a possible example of homoeosis and an interesting new form in which the underside is heavily shaded with brown. This form appeared weak. Temperature shocks on pupae of pseudoconnexa produced a striking combination of this aberration with ab. semiichneusoides (Pronin). (Plate 1, Figs 10,12) A bilateral gynandromorph of E. aurinia from bred stock. BJE 2001 Exhib. Plate 1 (opposite) Butterflies 1: Lysandra coridon ab. grisea, Wiltshire, D. Humphrey 2: L. coridon gynandromorph, August 2000, Chilterns, B. Fensome 3: Polyommatus icarus ab. alba-radiata, R.D.G. Barrington. 4: Maniola jurtina ab. postmultifidus, Dorset, July 2000, B. Fensome. 5: Celestrina argiolus gynandromorph, Coventry, Warcs. 2001, T. Gosling exhib. D. Brown. 6: Polyommatus icarus ab antidigitata bred ex Battle, Sussex, P. Tebbutt. 7: Pieris napi ssp. thomsoni gynandromorph bred from Northern Scotland, R. D.G. Barrington. 8: Hesperia comma, male transitional ab. dupuyi (Ober.), P. Tebbutt 9: Boloria selene with blackish hindwings, cold shock, P. Tebbutt, 10: Aglais urticae ab pseudoconnexa temp. shock with ab. semiichneusoides, bred 2001., K.E.J. Bailey. 11: Boloria euphrosyne, 26.v. 2001, A.M. Jones. 12: Aglais urticae ab. pseudoconnexa bred new form with underside heavily shaded with brown, K.E.J. Bailey. 13: Argynnis paphia ab. nigricans. July 2001, A.M. Jones. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 I N Ww PLATE 1 154 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 BARRINGTON, R.D.G.—Captured aberrations in 2000 and 2001 included a Polyommatus icarus (Rott.) ab. alba-radiata (Courv.) (Plate 1, Fig. 3). This was probably due to a spell of very hot weather at the time it would have pupated. A gynandromorph of Maniola jurtina (L.), forewings male, hindwings mixed, but very unusual in showing its effects on the underside only. Eight female M. jurtina ab. postmultifidus (Lipscomb), including extreme forms, from a hay meadow in Somerset. About 50 of this rare variety have been seen in this one field over the last four years—a level far higher than has been recorded elsewhere before. Bred aberrations: a) M. jurtina ab. postmultifidus, eight females bred in an F, from a wild Somerset female. In the most extreme form the lower half of the underside hindwing central band is entirely obliterated. This is a dominant form and results from previous breeding experiments suggest that the homozygote may be lethal. b) Eight Pyronia tithonus (L.) ab. multiocellata (Oberthtr) bred in the F;, generation from an original Devon female. The most well-developed had two very large, pupilled extra spots on each forewing and five on the upperside on each hindwing. This is a multifactorial form. c) A series of Pieris napi (L.) ssp. thomsoni Warren bred from Northern Scotland. This included a mixed gynandromorph affecting three wings (Plate 1, Fig. 7) and a female with very heavily scaled forewing veining. The rest of the series comprised ab. fasciata (Kautz). The original female showed this form in a minor way and it has been developed through three generations of inbreeding to produce very strongly marked forms. A proportion of the females in each brood was of form flava (Kane). This produces females with yellow ground colour on the upper surface, the yellow varying from very pale to intense. Rarely it affects the underside too, but is sex- limited and so does not occur in the male. BEAUMONT, H.E.—Anthocharis cardamines (L.), a gynandromorph, mainly affecting the underside, with streaks of orange on an otherwise female insect. Captured Denaby Ings, Mexborough, South Yorkshire 21.v.2001. BROWN, D.—Celastrina argiolus (L.) gynandromorph, Coventry, Warws., 2001. T. Gosling (Plate 1, Fig. 5). BUTCHER, A.J.—A very white specimen of Colias croceus (Geoffroy) f. helice (Hb.) ab. albissima (Ragusa) in which even the upperside hindwing discal spot is white. Captured at Alfriston, Sussex on 3.vii.1996. BUTLER, A.L.—Lysandra bellargus (Rott.) ab. albicincta (Tutt), Swanage, August 2001. Aglais urticae (L.) ab. semiichneusoides (Pronin), Polygonia c-album (L.) ab. sagitta-album Frohawk and Vanessa atalanta (L.) ab. klemensiewiczi (Schille) were all produced by temperature shocks to the pupa. FENSOME, B.—Maniola jurtina (L.) ab. postmultifidus (Lipscomb), Dorset July 2000. The most extreme of this form on record, with the whole of the hindwing median band broken up and partially obliterated by dark scaling (Plate 1, Fig. 4). Lysandra coridon (Poda), a mixed gynandromorph from the Chiltern Hills, August 2000 (Plate 1, Fig. 2). A gynandromorph of Anthocharis cardamines (L.), Waresley, Beds., June 2001. Polygonia c-album (L.) ab. suffusa Tutt, June 2001, and 6 aberrations of L. coridon showing minor variation in spotting and ground colour from pupae that were artificially chilled. HARMER, A.S.—Short series of Aphantopus hyperantus (L.) from various localities. This included southern England (Dorset, Hampshire and Sussex), Scotland (Dalbeattie Forest and Barcloy Hill in Dumfries and Galloway) and Ireland (Milford, Co. Donegal). Compared to the English form the Scottish race is smaller and greyer on the under surface, with ocelli reduced in size. The Irish form is similar BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 155 to the Scottish in wing size and ocelli, but the underside is a darker brown than those from England and Scotland and more heavily covered in yellow scales. In flight even fresh specimens appeared worn. A. hyperantus ab. lanceolata (Shipp) bred from Sussex stock, and female ab. lanceolata+ arete (Miller) from a combination of Sussex and Dorset strains. Polyommatus icarus (Rott.), short series from southern England, Scotland (Dumfries and Galloway, Tayside, Highland), Orkney and Ireland (Co. Sligo and Co. Donegal). The univoltine (Scottish and Irish) races tend to be bigger (except those from Orkney) and the females more blue. The males often show ab. nigromaculata (Cockerell), with a series of black spots on the upperside hindwing mirroring the position of the black spots in the marginal lunules of the underside. HUMPHREY, D.—Nine specimens of Lysandra coridon (Poda) taken in a Wiltshire locality since 1990, including several ab. grisea (Tutt) (Plate 1, Fig. 1). JONES, A.M.—The results of breeding from a captured homoeotic Argynnis paphia (L.) showing splashes of underside hindwing coloration on the underside of each forewing. 150 eggs were laid but many were infertile. The F, produced 10 typical adults and 11 showing homoeosis. The F, from pairings between homoeotic adults was very weak and produced 20 type insects and none showing homoeosis. Out-crossing homoeotic males to f. valesina (Esper) females produced 37 typical adults and 15 showing homoeosis. All examples of homoeosis were minor. Breeding experiments with the fly Drosophila have shown that homoeotic mutations can be inherited in a simple Mendelian fashion. This important breeding experiment shows clearly that homoeosis can be heritable too in A. paphia, but in a rather more complex, or irregular, pattern. Colias croceus (Geoffroy), 2 aberrations bred in December 2000 in an F, from a female captured in west Sussex. A male ab. chrysotheme (Stephens) and a female ab. pseudomas (Cockerell). A fine aberrant underside of a female Boloria euphrosyne (L.) showing ‘obsolete’ forewings and unicolored and streaked hindwings. The upperside forewings were ‘obsolete’ and confluent, the hindwings slightly melanic and confluent. Captured 26.v.2001 (Plate 1, Fig. 11). Two captured forms of Argynnis paphia (L.), July 2001. A male ab. nigricans (Cosmovici) and an extreme female ab. oce/lata (Frings) (Plate 1, Fig. 13). KNILL-JONES, S.A.—Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg) from Afton Down, Isle of Wight, 5.vi.2001. MIDDLETON, A.F.—A female Papilio machaon L. with aberrant wingshape. Emerged from captive-bred stock, June 1988. A male Polygonia c-album (L.). ab. obscura (Closs.) (New Malden, Surrey, 21.vii.1986). REVELS, R.C.—Bred aberrations of Aphantopus hyperantus (L.). Several strong ab. /anceolata Shipp selected from a brood of 400 in June/July 2000 and 200 in June/July 2001. This strain originates from F, larvae given to the exhibitor by A.S. Harmer in 1997. A selection of aberrations that combined ab. /anceolata and arete (Miller). Maniola jurtina L. ab. postmultifidus (Lipscomb). Examples bred in the F, and F, generations from F, larvae of Somerset origin, given to the exhibitor by R.D.G. Barrington. The aberrations were stronger in the F, generation than in the F,. A male lacking the apical eyespot, ab. anommata (Verity) emerged unexpectedly in the F,. Pieris napi (L.)—Specimens showing heavy dark scaling on the veins bred in Fg and Fy generations from an original Bedfordshire female captured in August 1997 156 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 which was also heavily veined. In the F;, F, and F; generations, albino specimens (ab. pallidus Frohawk) appeared but proved too weak to breed. Lysandra coridon (Poda) aberrations from the northern Chilterns included ab. antidigitata (B.&L.) and ab. inaequalis (B.&L.) Photographs showing the life history of Limenitis camilla (L.) STOKES, D.—3 gynandromorphs of Anthocharis cardamines (L.). One reared by C. Davidson in 1993 and noticed a few days after emergence in his greenhouse amongst many typical specimens. The second was reared from a wild-collected larva in 2000. The brood was to be released on the assumption that all were type, and this specimen was only noticed at the point of release. The third was captured in a carrier bag from the middle of a nettle patch on | June 2001. TEBBUTT, P.—A range of aberrations resulting from temperature shock experiments. This included some good melanic forms of Argynnis paphia (L.), extreme forms of Polygonia c-album (L.) and 3 strong aberrations of Boloria selene (D.&S.), two showing ‘obsolete’ forewings and blackish hindwings (underside hindwings silver rayed) (Plate 1, Fig. 9). The third showed confluent forewings and black hind wings. Two Lasiommata megera (L.) ab. mediolugens (Fuchs) showing darkened central forewing fascia produced by cold-shocking the pupae. Interestingly mediolugens can also have a genetic basis, being inherited in a simple Mendelian ratio. These exhibited specimens have no genetic basis but are exact phenocopies of that genetic form. Various aberrations of Polyommatus icarus (Rott.) from cold-shocked pupae. They included examples with partially and totally obsolete spotting and a male ab. antidigitata (Courv.) (Plate 1, Fig. 6) Bred aberrations included an extreme Lycaena phlaeas (L.) ab. remota (Tutt) and four Anthocharis cardamines (L.) ab. umbrosa (Culot) with blackish suffusion of the orange apical patches. Also Pieris napi (L.) with light apical markings in both sexes. Captured aberrations included P. napi ab. confluens (Schima), Pyronia tithonus (L.) male ab. nov. with enlarged areas of fulvous on all wings and Aphantopus hyperantus (L.) ab. cabeaui (Pionneau), showing the spotting completely absent from the forewings and three small spots on each hindwing. An unnamed underside form of Pararge aegeria (L.) with three apical ocelli on each forewing, an Aricia agestis (D.&S.) ab. unicolor (Lempke) and Hesperia comma (L.), males ab. clara (Tutt) and transitional to dupuyi (Ober.) (Plate 1, Fig. 8) and females ab. suffusa (Tutt) and pallidapuncta (Tutt). BRITISH MACROLEPIDOPTERA ALBERTINI, M.V.—Examples of Hypena rostralis (L.) from Bucks. and Berks., reared from larvae found on Humulus lupulus L., 24—28.vu.2001. BELL, R.A.—Some moths bred in recent years, including: Hyles gallii (Rott.), female from Thorpeness, E. Suff., 30.vii.2000; Trigonophora flammea (Esp.), female from Durlston Head, Dorset, 19.x.1997; Mythimna unipuncta (Haw.), female from Breage, W. Corn., 31.viti.2000; Ennomos autumnaria (Werne.), females from Rye, E. Sussex, 16.ix.2000; and Cerastis leucographa (D.&S.), female from Gussetts Wood, Bucks., 20.iv.1996. BROOKER, R.J. & MASTERS, I.D.—Asymmetrical aberrations of: Noctua pronuba L., Haslemere, Surrey, 26.viii.1973; Orthosia gothica (L.), Middleton-on-Sea, W. Sussex, 14.1v.2001. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 Si) Brown, D.C.G.—Apyles gallii (Rott.), Coventry, Warks., 24.vu1.2001 (T. Gosling). Aberrations of: Plusia putnami gracilis Lempke, Malham Tarn, Mid-west York, 1.viii.2001; Xanthorhoe montanata (D.&S.), Grange-over-Sands, Westm., 29.v.2001; Herminia grisealis (D.&S.), Hampton Magna, Warks., July 2001 (P. Robbins). BUTCHER, A.G.J.—Moths from Grain, W. Kent including: Malacosoma castrensis (L.), 14.vitt.2001; Aplasta ononaria (Fuess.), a probable migrant, 25.viii.2001; Mythimna obsoleta (Hb.), showing a range of variation; and Chilodes maritimus (Tausch.), normal form, 31.vit.1999, ab. nigristriata Stdgr., 1.vu.2001, ab. wismariensis Schmidt, 1.vii.2001. An aberration of Malacosoma neustria (L.) with united cross-lines, Hamstreet, E. Kent, 6.vul.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 10). CLANCY, S.P.—Immigrant and vagrant moths from E. Kent: Pelosia muscerda (Hufn.), Orlestone Forest, 5.vui.2001; Eilema caniola (Hb.), Lydd, 13.x.2001; Cryphia algae (Fab.), New Romney, 10.vii.2001; Hecatera dysodea (D.&S.), Littlestone, 13.vii.2001; Trisateles emortualis (D.&S.), Hamstreet, 28.vu.2001. Anticollix sparsata (Treit.), Battle, E. Sussex—new to VC14. An aberration of Cosmorhoe ocellata (L.), Aviemore, Elgin, 11.vi.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 4). CLARKE, J.H.—Moths from the Isles of Scilly, W. Corn., vii.2001, including: Agrotis puta insula Rich.; Eumichtis lichenea scillonea Rich.; Noctua comes Hb.; Euxoa tritici (L.); Cryphia muralis (Forst.); and Abrostola triplasia (L.). Migrant examples of Eupithecia abietaria (Goeze) from Birchett Wood, E. Kent, 4.vu.2001 and Gravetye Forest, E. Sussex, 5.vi1.2001. Forms and aberrations, including: Mimas tiliae (L.) ab. roseotincta Schawerda; Hydrelia sylvata (D.&S.) abs. goodwini Banks and intermedia Banks; Antitype chi (L.) abs. nigricans Tutt, suffusa Robson and olivacea Stephens; and Angerona prunaria (L.) ab. fuscaria Prout, Birchett Wood, E. Kent, 4.vii.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 5). Cook, R.R.—Lepidoptera from the Isles of Scilly, W. Corn., vii.2001: Agrotis puta insula Rich.; and Abrostola triplasia (L.). Clearwings attracted to pheromone lures: Synanthedon tipuliformis (Cl.), Wimborne, Dorset, 21.v1.2001; S. andrenaeformis (Lasp.), Sovell Down, Dorset, 8.vu.2001; Bembecia ichneumoniformis (D.&S.), Portland, Dorset, 15.vi1.2001. Hypena rostralis (L.), reared from larvae, Iford, Dorset, 7.vui.2001. DICKSON, R.J.—Very late examples taken at Fareham, S. Hants: Peribatodes rhomboidaria (D.&S.), 13.x.2001; Caradrina morpheus (Hufn.), 27.x.2001. The migrant Cyclophora puppillaria (Hb.), Fareham, 19.x.2001. DoBson, A.H.—Moths from the BENHS field meeting at Leigh Woods, N. Som.: Discoloxia blomeri (Curt.); and Abraxas sylvata (Scop.). From N. Hants: Helicoverpa armigera (Hb.) reared from a larva in a supermarket lettuce, 11.1.2001; Heliothis peltigera (D.&S.), Bramley Frith Wood, 17.x.2001; Calaena haworthii (Curt.) and Spodoptera exigua (Hb.), Winnal Moors, 11.vi1.2001. On behalf of P. Boswell, Greywell, N. Hants: Cucullia absinthii (L.), 27.vi.2001; Paradrina clavipalpis (Scop.), a dark aberration, 29.1x.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 16). EZARD, A.S.—A selection of moths from the Yorkshire coast, including: Dasypolia templi (Thun.); Cucullia asteris (D.&S.); Agrotis ripae (Hb.); Mythimna litoralis (Curt.); Apamea furva britannica Cock.; A. oblonga (Haw.); and Scotopteryx bipunctaria cretata (Prout). HALL, N.M.—A specimen of YXestia rhomboidea (Esp.) from Earley, Berks., 13.vii.2001. Noctua janthe (Borkh.), from Earley, Berks., and N. janthina (D.&S.), from France, to show the difference between the species (q.v. Langmaid, J. R.). HART, C.—An immigrant example of Eupithecia abietaria (Goeze) from Reigate, Surrey, 5.vu.2001. There are only four previous Surrey records. [Examples were taken at South Croydon and West Molesey during the same immigration—GAC .] 158 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 HAYWARD, R.—Migrant moths taken in 2001: Rhodometra sacraria (L.), Slough, Bucks., 14 and 17.x.2001; Hy/es gallii (Rott.), Black Park, Bucks., 25.vi.2001. Moths from Two Bridges, S. Devon, including: Mythimna turca (L.), 6.vu.2001; Antitype chi (L.), 25.viit.2001; and Amphipoea lucens (Frey.), 24.vii.2001. Shargacucullia lychnitis (Ramb.) from Slough, Bucks, 13.vii.2001. HENWOOD, B.P.—Photographs of Bembecia ichneumoniformis (D.&S.) which were flying over a South Devon beach in the company of Cerceris arenaria (L.) (Hym.: Sphecidae) and Ancistrocerus oviventris (Wesm.) (Hym.: Eumenidae) which they greatly resembled in flight. Photographs of larvae exhibiting apparent snake-mimicry, from Central American hawk-moths to British Jdaea. Although the latter are considerably smaller than the smallest snake, they all exhibit similar patterns with eye-marks and a tapering body. H1GGs, G.E.—Moths from the Island of Raasay, N. Ebudes, 3—10.ix.2001. HONEY, M.R.—Moths from the Wetland Centre, Barn Elms, Surrey during 2001 including: Rhizedra lutosa (Hb.) aberration (Plate 2, Fig. 18); Archanara dissoluta (Treit.); and a reared example of Hecatera dysodea (D.&S.), the first modern record for VC17. JENKINS, A.—From Scotland: Scotopteryx chenopodiata (L.); Crocallis elinguaria (L.); and Apamea zeta assimils (Double.). From the Great Orme, Caern.: /daea dilutaria (Hb.). JOHNS, F. (exhibited by M. Townsend)—Agrotis crassa (Hb.), Cury, W. Corn., evan 999. KNILL-JONES, S.A.—Moths from Freshwater, loW, including: Mythimna vitellina (Hb.), 5 and 18.x.2001; Trigonophora flammea (Esp.), 20.x.2001; Cyclophora puppillaria (Hb.), 14 and 16.x.2001; Xylena vetusta (Hb.), 24.11.2001; Dryobota labecula (Esp.), 14-18.x.2001 (3). Aberrations from Freshwater, including Ennomos alniaria (L.), 4.viii.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 9) and Ochropleura plecta (L.), 29.viii.1966 (Plate 2, Fig. 13). LANGMAID, J.R.—From Southsea, S. Hants: Noctua janthina (D.&S.), 9.vii.2001—new to Britain (Plate 2, Fig. 11)—together with Noctua janthe (Borkh.) to show differences (Plate 2, Fig. 12); Mythimna favicolor (Barr.), 24.vi.2001; Abrostola tripartita (Hufn.), 4.viii.2001, an asymmetrical aberration. MARSHALL, L.A.—Moths from Gosport, S. Hants: Petrophora chlorosata (Scop.), a dark form, 6.vii.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 6); Craniophora ligustri (D.&S.) ab. coronula Haw., 24.v1.2001; Helicoverpa armigera (Hb.), 21.x.2001. McCormick, R.F.—Biodiversity Action Plan moths recorded in Devon in 2001: Scotopteryx bipunctaria cretata Prout, Berry Head, Brixham, 28.vu.2001; Hydrelia sylvata (D.&S.), Burrator Reservoir, Sheepstor, 8.vii.2001, Great North Wood, Buckland Monachorum, 2.vii.2001, Great Torrington, 27.vi and 21.vu.2001; Mythimna turca (L.), Burrator Reservoir, Sheepstor, 8, 15 and 24.vii.2001, Two Bridges, 6.vii.2001; Polymixis xanthomista statices (Gregs.), Hartland Point, 28.vill.2001; Moma alpium (Osb.), Great Torrington, 27.vi and 21.vu1.2001; Lygephila craccae (D.&S.), Hartland Point, larvae 5.vii.2001, adults 3 and 28.viii.2001; Schrankia taenialis (Hb.), Great North Wood, Buckland Monachorum, 11.viii.2001, Great Torrington, 21.vu.2001. Other species from Devon including: Cossus cossus (L.), Great North Wood, 2.vii.2001; Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.), Teignmouth, 19.vi1.2001; Spilosoma urticae (Esp.), Exminster Marshes, 18 and 25.vi.2001; Abrostola triplasia (L.), Great North Wood, 2.vu1.2001, Holcombe, 6.vii.2001. NASH, S.—Immigrant species from Durlston Head, Swanage, Dorset including the second British record of Zanclognatha lunalis (Scop.), 4.vii.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 15). BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 159 Also from there: Rhodometra sacraria (L.), 16.x.2001; Orthonama obstipata (Fab.), 12 and 29.x.2001; Mythimna albipuncta (D.&S.), 4.v. and 17.viii.2001; M. vitellina (Hb.), 12—29.x.2001; Trigonophora flammea (Esp.), 29.x.2001; and Helicoverpa armigera (Hb.), 16.x.2001. Immigrant species from Fernham, Berks: R. sacraria, 1— 29.x.2001 (17); Hyles gallii (Rott.), 13.vu.2001; Atolmis rubricollis, 4.vu.2001; M. albipuncta (D.&S.), 17.x.2001; Meganola albula (D.&S.), 2.viii.2001; M. vitellina (Hb.), 18.vii and 24.x.2001; Xy/ena vetusta (Hb.), 21.x.2001; and Spodoptera exigua (Hb.), 9.vii.2001. PARSONS, M.S.—An example of Ochropleura leucogaster (Frey.) from Walditch, Dorset, 29.x1.2000. PHILLIPS, J.W.—Lepidoptera captured or reared during 2001 including: Anarta melanopa (Thunb.), Tomintoul, Banff; Hemaris fuciformis (L.), reared from larvae, Chiddingfold, Surrey; and Chortodes fluxa (Hb.), Powerstock Common, Dorset. PLANT, C.W.—Aberrations of British moths with typical forms for comparison: Epirrhoe alternata (Mill.), Sawbridgeworth Marsh, Herts., 27.vu.1990; Alcis repandata (L.), Conygar Quarry, Clevedon, N. Som., 26.vi.2001; Timandra comae (Schmidt) (griseata (Peters.)), Bishop’s Stortford, Herts., 24.viii.2001, J. Fish & J. Reeves (Plate 2, Fig. 7). PORTER, J.—Moths from Chessington, Surrey, including: Odontopera bidentata (Cl.) ab. nigra Prout, 14.v.2000; Menophra abruptaria (Thunb.) ab. fuscata Tutt, 6.vi.1996; Apamea monoglypha (Hufn.) ab. aethiops Tutt, 16.vii.1998; Cryphia domestica (Hufn.), a selection of forms, 1998-2001; Mimas tiliae (L.) ab. brunnea Bartel, 5.vi.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 17). REVELS, R.C.—A leucistic example of Noctua pronuba L., Biggleswade, Beds., viii.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 14). ROUSE, A.—A bilateral gynandromorph of Lasiocampa trifolii (D.&S.) f. flava C.-Hunt reared from a Dungeness, E. Kent, larva, the female side also ab. obsoleta Tutt. Hydrelia sylvata (D.&S.), four examples showing a range of variation, Densole, E. Kent, 29.vi.2001. Lacanobia oleracea (L.), a melanic example, Densole, Ee Kent..23.¥,2001. SHARPE, P.—Aberrations including: Spilosoma lubricipeda (L.), Dungeness, E. Kent, 16.vi.2001 (Plate 2, Fig. 8); Lomaspilis marginata (L.), Dungeness, E. Kent, 16.vi.2001 and Kingsthorpe, Northants, 16.vi.1999 (Plate 2, Figs 2,3). SPALDING, A.—Examples of Luperina nickerlii (Frey.) from Cornwall, Essex, north Wales, western Ireland and east Germany showing the range of variation. SWIFT, S.—Melanthia procellata (D.&S.), a melanic example from W. Sussex, 14.vi1.2001. TREMEWAN, W.G.—Immigrant Lepidoptera recorded from Playing Place, Truro, W. Corn. in 2001: Lithosia quadra (L.) (possibly resident); Orthonama obstipata (Fab.); and Rhodometra sacraria (L.). TUNMORE, M.—Moth aberrations from Church Cove, Lizard, W. Corn.: Cryphia muralis (Forst.); and Agrotis exclamationis (L.). WARING, P.M.—Cyclophora porata (L.): three individuals from Oakley Wood within Bernwood Forest, an ancient woodland site in Buckinghamshire, 23.v.1984, 31.vu.1984 & 19.vii.1986, representing first and second generation. Data from a programme of intensive light-trapping in Oakley Wood, in which 17 adults were captured in 1984 and four in 1985, were presented. These showed that the adults were more numerous in the second generation and the most productive time to trap them was 1—22 August. The moths occurred in a range of habitats within the wood, from oak woodland consisting of 40-year-old Quercus robur to conifer 160 waco per re PEATE? BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 161 plantations planted in the 1950s, with only scattered oaks and oak scrub remaining. WEDD, D.—Moths from England and the Channel Isles: Lymantria dispar (L.), examples of the long-extinct British race together with moths from the Channel Isles and Europe; Tachea atriplicis (L.), examples from England, where it is extinct, and the Channel Isles, where it has recently become established; Thaumetopoea processionea (L.), now resident in the Channel Isles, in Britain known only from a handful of immigrants, all since 1983; Se/enia lunularia (Hb.), an increasingly common immigrant to Jersey, now breeding there—multiple- brooded in contrast to the univoltine British race. Unusual species from Henley- on-Thames, Oxon.: Discoloxia blomeri (Curt.); Meganola albula (D.&S.); and Rhodometra sacraria (L.). YOUNG, D.A.—Lepidoptera from Tunstall Forest, E. Suff. in 2001: Hyles gallii (Rott.), one of two recorded in June; Herminia tarsicrinalis (Knoch), recorded commonly in the forest and at other sites in the area; Xestia rhomboidea (Esp.); Spilosoma urticae (Esp.); Tethea ocularis octogesimea (Hb.), melanic, 29.v.2001. Scopula rubiginata (Hufn.), two broods recorded regularly in the Woodbridge— Ipswich area, E. Suff. BRITISH MICROLEPIDOPTERA [Nomenclature follows the checklist of Bradley 2000] BEAUMONT, H.E.—Lampronia fuscatella (Tengst.), Potteric Carr, Doncaster (VC63), 25.v.2001, the first Yorkshire record since 1919. Nematopogon pilella (D.&S.), Little Don Valley, Langsett (VC63), 28.v.2001; Recurvaria leucatella (Cl.), Lindrick, Rotherham (VC63), 30.vii.2001, only the third Yorkshire record in the past hundred years. Goniodoma limoniella (Staint.), Welwick salt marsh (VC61), reared in numbers in late June and early July from seedheads and stems of Limonium vulgare collected 30.v.2001 (with R. I. Heppenstall), the first Yorkshire record. Bactra lacteana Carad., Hutton Conyers, Ripon (VC65), 1.viii.2001 (C. H. Fletcher leg.), the first Yorkshire record. Eucosma conterminana (H.-S.), Idle Stop, Misson, Notts. (VC56), 25.vi1.2001, the first Nottinghamshire record. Endotricha flammealis BJE 2001 Exhib plate 2 (opposite) Moths 1: Dioryctria sylvestrella, Greatstone, E. Kent, 30.vu.1999, S. Clancy. 2, 3: Lomaspilis marginata, Kingsthorpe, Northants, 16.vi.1999, and Dungeness, E. Kent, 16.vi.2001, P. Sharpe. 4: Cosmorhoe ocellata, Aviemore, Elgin, 11.vu.2001, S. Clancy. 5: Angerona prunaria ab. fuscaria, Birchett Wood, E. Kent, 4.vii.2001, J.H. Clarke. 6: Petrophora chlorosata, Gosport, S. Hants, 6.vii.2001, L. Marshall. 7: Timandra comae, Bishops Stortford, Herts., 24.viu.2001, J. Fish & J. Reeves, exhib. C.W. Plant. 8: Spilosoma lubricipeda, Dungeness, E. Kent, 16.vi.2001, P. Sharpe. 9: Ennomos alniaria, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, 4.vii.2001, S.A. Knill-Jones. 10: Malacosoma neustria, Hamstreet, E. Kent, 6.vii.2001, A. Butcher. 11: Noctua janthina, Southsea, S. Hants, 9.vii.2001, J.R. Langmaid. 12: N. janthe, to show differences, J.R. Langmaid. 13: Ochropleura plecta, Freshwater, Isle of Wight, 29.viiil.1966, S.A. Knill-Jones. 14: Noctua pronuba, leucistic ab. Biggleswade, Beds., viii.2001, R. Revels. 15: Zanclognatha lunalis, Durlston Head, Swanage, Dorset, 4.vii.2001, S. Nash. 16: Paradrina clavipalpis, Greywell, N. Hants, 29.1x.2001, P. Boswell exhib. A.H. Dobson. 17: Mimas tiliae ab. brunnea, Chessington, Surrey 5.vi.2001, J. Porter. 18: Rhizedra lutosa, Barn Elms, Surrey, 2001, M.R. Honey. 162 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 (D.&S.) and Evergestis pallidata (Hufn.), specimens of each from vice-counties 61 & 63; both are spreading northwards and westwards in Yorkshire. BLAND, K.P.—Ethmia pyrausta (Pall.), The Cairnwell, Aberdeenshire, 28.v.2001, at rest on snowbed at 810m., first VC92 record. Cosmopterix orichalcea Staint., Kilmory, Isle of Rum, reared 10—13.v.2001 from mines (also exhibited) in Anthoxanthum odoratum (Sweet Vernal-grass) collected 1.1x.2000. First confirmation of resident status in Scotland. Scythris picaepennis (Haw.), Kincraig Point, Fife (VC85) emerged 26.v.2001 from larval webs among Thymus sp. collected 5.v.2001. Caloptilia azaleella (Brants), Blackford, Edinburgh, 1/2.vii.2000 at MV light, first Midlothian (VC83) record. Leucoptera orobi Staint., Kinloch Glen, Isle of Rum, emerged 13.v.2001 from mine in Trifolium pratense collected 31.vii.2000, previously unrecorded foodplant in Britain. BUTCHER, A.J.G.—Isle of Grain, Kent. Eucosma metzneriana (Treits.), 13.vi.1999 & 1.vu.2001; two further moths recorded in 2001 may indicate a local colony. Cataclysta lemnata (L.), a melanistic female taken 26.vii.2001 with a typical specimen for comparison. Loxostege sticticalis (L.), 24 & 25.1x.2001; Oncocera semirubella (Scop.), 6.x.2001 an unusually late date, perhaps indicating a partial second generation. BUTTER, P.—Microlepidoptera from Devon, including Grapholitha lobarzewskii (Now.), three specimens; Donacaula forficella (Thunb.); Platyptilia isodactylus (Zell.); Catoptria falsella (D.&S.); Catoptria margaritella (D.&S.), localities and dates not stated. Agriphila latistria (Haw.), Barnstaple, Devon, the first VC4 record and Porlock, Somerset, dates not stated. CLANCY, S.—Euchromius ocellea (Haw.), south-east Kent, two specimens taken during vi.2001. Haimbachia cicatricella (Hb.), near Dymchurch, Kent, 27.vu.2001. Agriphila tristella (D.&S.), New Romney, Kent, 2001, four examples with pale forewing streak lacking or much reduced. Catoptria verellus (Zinck.), Lydd, Kent, 5.vu1.2001, this and one taken the previous night in Hampshire are the first British records since the late 19th century. Eudonea delunella (Staint.), near Battle, East Sussex, two of five specimens taken late vi.2001, the first from the vice-county since before 1905. Maruca vitrata (Fabr.), West Hampstead, London, ca. 15.viti.2000. Duponchelia fovealis Zell., Canterbury College, Kent, 3.x.2001, the first Kent record. Dioryctria sylvestrella (Ratz.), Greatstone and near Dymchurch, both south-east Kent, 30.vii.1999, located in collections during 2001 and currently constituting the first British records. (Plate 2, Fig. 1) Zophodia grossulariella (Zinck.), West Kingsdown, Kent, 21.v.2001, the second Kent and third British record. CLARKE, J.—Schoenobius gigantella (D.&S.), Birchett Wood, Ham Street, Kent, at MV light 4.vii.2001. Nascia cilialis (Hb.), Filsham, Hastings, East Sussex, 21.vu.2001. Dioryctria schuetzeella Fuchs, Birchett Wood, Ham Street, Kent, at MV light 4.vi1.2001; Gravetye Forest, East Grinstead, West Sussex, 5.vul.2001. Epischnia bankesiella Rich., Portland, Dorset, reared ex larvae on Inula crithmoides. Nephopteryx angustella (Hb.), Dartford Heath and Bowman’s Heath, Dartford, Kent, reared ex larvae, emerged x/xi.2000 and early spring 2001. Davis, A.M.—An exhibit publicising the Pyralid and Plume Recording Scheme and showing progress since its launch in 1994. Attention was drawn to a recent increase in records of the resident species Cryptoblabes bistriga (Haw.) and Apomyelois bistriatella subcognata (Rag.) and the potential colonists Duponchelia fovealis Zell. and Sciota adelphella (F.v.R.). GIBBS, D.—Bohemannia auriciliella (Joann.), Pine Wood, Berkshire (VC22), 22.vi.2001 (conf. J.R. Langmaid). The first Berkshire and perhaps the fourth British record. Acanthopsyche atra (L.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), vacated male case 20.v.2001 (conf. P. H. Sterling). Second Dorset record of this nationally scarce moth. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 163 Pachythelia villosella (Ochs.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), vacated male and female cases 4.vi & 6.vul.2001. Infurcitinea argentimaculella (Staint.), Redfield, Bristol (VC34), male on garage wall 14.vu.2001. Ochsenheimeria urella F.v.R., Wavering Down, Somerset (VC6), 15.vi1.2001. Leucoptera spartifoliella (Hiibn.), Troopers Hill, Bristol (VC34), 4.vu.2001. Bucculatrix maritima Staint., Sand Point, Somerset (VC6), reared from pupa on Aster 18.v.2001. Phyllonorycter strigulatella (Lien. & Zell.), Pine Wood, Berkshire (VC22), swept in open woodland 27.vii.2001 (det. J.R. Langmaid); there are few Berkshire records. Phyllonorycter lautella (Zell.), Pine Wood, Berkshire (VC22), 27.vii.2001. Glyphipterix forsterella (Fabr.), Avonmouth, Bristol (VC34), 29.v.2001. Tinagma ocnerostomella (Staint.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), 4.vi.2001; most Dorset records are from coastal cliffs. Argyresthia cupressella Wals., Pine Wood, Berkshire, (VC22), 22.vi.2001, probably the first Berkshire record. Coleophora siccifolia Staint., Leigh Woods, Somerset (VC6), 30.v1.2001. Coleophora conyzae Zell., Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), reared from cases on Inula, 30.vi.2001. Coleophora kuehnella (Goeze), Leigh Woods, Somerset (VC6), 30.v1.2001. Pseudatemelia josephinae (Toll), Leigh Woods, Somerset (VC6), 30.vi1.2001. Monochroa lucidella (Steph.), Avonmouth, Bristol (VC34), several along margin of artificial lake 5.vu.2001. Chionodes fumatella (Dougl.), Bath, Somerset (VC6), a pair amongst moss growing on concrete 14.vi1.2001. Mompha divisella H.-S., Redfield, Bristol (VC34), 18.iv.2001, a strong colony in urban garden galling Epilobium. Scythris grandipennis (Haw.), Tickenham Hill, Somerset (VC6), 26.v1.2001. Pammene gallicana (Guen.), Bath, Somerset (VC6), common amongst Daucus 14.vi1.2001. Crambus hamella (Thunb.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), 15.vin.2001. Thisanotia chrysonuchella (Scop.), Tickenham Hill, Somerset (VC6), 30.v.2001. Oxyptilus parvidactylus (Haw.), Coillard Hill, Somerset (VC6), 20.vi.2001. Capperia britanniodactyla (Gregs.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), many over small area of Teucrium 6.vu1.2001. Merrifieldia baliodactylus (Zell.), Tucking Hill, Somerset (VC6), one amongst Origanum 16.vu1.2001. Adaina microdactyla (Htibn.), Stokeford Heath, Dorset (VC9), 4.vi.2001, abundant at this site; Tucking Mill and Burledge Hill, Somerset (both VC6), vacated galls 5.vii.2001 and 23.vi.2001 respectively. HALL, N.M.—Cydia amplana Hb., Hastings Country Park, 19.viii.1996. HECKFORD, R.J.—Coleophora arctostaphyli Meder, The Craig, South Aberdeen (VC92), one early instar case on Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 4.v1.2001. Possibly only the third known locality in VC92. Stathmopoda diplaspis (Meyr.), Marsh Mills, Plymouth, Devon (VC3), reared 25.11.2001 from the calyx of a pomegranate bought at a local supermarket 8.x11.2000. An adventive new to the British Isles and Europe. Levipalpus hepatariella (Lien. & Zell.), Newtonmore, Easterness (VC96) (with J. R. Langmaid), larvae in tubes in the soil near lower leaves of Antennaria dioica 6.v1.2001, moth reared 13.vi.2001 (larva not previously found in the British Isles and not in continental Europe until 1987); Glen Tilt, East Perth (VC89), 5.i1x.2001, first VC89 record. Metzneria metzneriella (Staint.), Newtonmore, Easterness, 6.vi.2001, first VC96 record. Xystophora pulveratella (H.-S.), between Easter Cullachie and West Cullachie to the west of Nethy Bridge, Easterness (VC96) on a short stretch of the verge to the south of the B9760, larvae in folded leaves of Trifolium pratense 14.1x.2000, moths reared 11 & 13.1v.2001. Previously unrecorded locality and foodplant in the British Isles. Bryotropha dryadella (Zell.), Grays, Essex (VC18), larvae in tubes among Barbula unguiculata, a Barbula sp. and a Bryum sp. 29.11.2001, moth reared 29.1v.2001; Swanscombe, Kent (VC16), larvae in tubes among Barbula unguiculata, a Barbula sp. and a Bryum sp. 29.11.2001, moths reared 28.1v.2001 (both with D.J.L. Agassiz), first Kent record; Berry Head, Brixham, South Devon (VC3), larva in tube among Crenidium molluscum 8.iv.2001, moth reared 9.v.2001. Larva 164 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 previously unknown both in the British Isles and in continental Europe. Bryotropha similis (Staint.), Devil’s Elbow, Glen Shee, East Perth (VC89), larvae among Bryum and Schistidium spp. 4.1v.2001, moth reared 25.vi.2001. Bryotropha senectella (Zell.), Billacombe, Plymstock, South Devon (VC3), larva in a tube among Homalothecium lutescens 29.1v.2001, moth reared 24.v.2001; Blairlogie, West Perth (VC87), larvae in tubes among Bryum sp. 2.vi.2001, moth reared 7.vu.2001. Athrips tetrapunctella (Thunb.), between Easter Cullachie and West Cullachie, on the same stretch of verge as Xystophora pulveratella and on the same date, larvae among spun leaves of Vicia cracca, moths reared 8 & 10.iv.2001. Previously unrecorded locality and foodplant in the British Isles. Syncopacma albifrontella (Hein.), Morrone Birkwood NNR, South Aberdeen (VC92), 5.v1.2001, new to the British Isles. Dichomeris juniperella (L.), Crathie and Rinabaich, both South Aberdeen (VC92) (with J.R. Langmaid), larvae in tubes amongst Juniperus communis 2 & 3.vi.2001 respectively, moths reared 29.vi & 26.vi.2001. Both are new localities for the species. The larva was first recorded in the British Isles in 1854 and not again until this discovery. The larval description in Meyrick, E. ({1928]), 4 revised Handbook of British Lepidoptera p.647) is wrong. Pempelia palumbella (D.&S.), Crownhill Down, South Devon (VC3), larvae in tubes amongst Erica cinerea 20.1 & 17.11.2001, moths reared 28.iv & 16.v.2001. Ground colour of larvae brown, not green as stated by Buckler (1901), The larvae of the British butterflies and moths 9:282—283), this is possibly the first time that the species has been reared from larvae found in the wild in the British Isles. Ephestia figulilella Gregs., Marsh Mills, Plymouth, South Devon (VC3), reared from the calyx of a pomegranate bought at a local supermarket 5.1.2001, moth reared 8.vii.2001. Second Devon record and previously unrecorded imported pabulum in the British Isles. HENWooD, B.P.—Opostega salaciella (Treits.), Dawlish Warren, South Devon (VC3), 3.vii.2001 (with R.F. McCormick). Gymnancyla canella (D.&S.), Dawlish Warren, South Devon, 3.vii.2001 (with R.F. McCormick), first Devon record. Platytes alpinella (Hb.), Dawlish Warren, South Devon, 3.viii.2001 (with R.F. McCormick). Coleophora maritimella Newm., Dawlish Warren, South Devon, reared ex larva on Juncus maritimus 24.vi.2001, first VC3 record. Cydia molesta (Busck), Newton Abbot, South Devon, reared ex. larva in Italian plum 20.vi.2001. Glyphipterix linneella (Cl.), Torquay, South Devon, resting on trunk of Tilia 26.v.2001. Pediasia contaminella (Hb.), Berry Head, South Devon, 28.vi1.2001 (with R.F. McCormick), the third Devon site. Bucculatrix thoracella (Thunb.), Plymouth city centre, South Devon, reared ex cocoon on trunk of Tilia 16.v.2001; cocoons were abundant on the trunks. Grapholita lobarzewskii (Now.), Abbotskerswell, South Devon, a fresh specimen on the inside of the exhibitor’s kitchen window 31.v.2001. It may have originated from an apple brought in from the garden in the autumn and spent the winter in the kitchen. Gypsonoma dealbana (Fr6l.), Abbotskerswell, South Devon, reared ex larva on Quercus robur. An associated photographic exhibit showed the characteristic autumn feeding of the larva, a silken tube covered externally with frass and discarded head capsules on the underside of the leaf, which had not previously been recognised as belonging to this species. Sitochroa palealis (D.&S.), Prawle Point, South Devon, 23.vi.2001 (with R.F. McCormick). HONEY, M.R.—Specimens of a nepticulid from the Natural History Museum Wildlife Garden and Buckingham Palace gardens in 2001 which have been identified as Ectoedemia heringella (Mariani), a leaf miner of holm oak not previously recorded in Britain. KNILL-JONES, S.A.—A selection of mainly undetermined microlepidoptera from the Isle of Wight (VC10). Loxostege sticticalis (L.), Freshwater, Isle of Wight, 27.1x.2001. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 165 LANGMAID, J.R.—Stigmella carpinella (Hein.), Stansted Forest, West Sussex, two specimens reared from Carpinus betulus mines collected 14.x.2000, first VC13 record. Lampronia capitella (C\.), Mynthurst Wood, Surrey, 21.v.2001. Parornix carpinella (Frey), Stansted Forest, West Sussex, a specimen reared from Carpinus betulus collected 15.x.2000, first VC13 record. Acrolepiopsis assectella (Zell.), Southsea, Hampshire, a specimen at MV light 17.vii.2001. Levipalpus hepatariella (Lien. & Zell.), Inverness-shire, a specimen reared from Antennaria dioica collected (with R.J. Heckford) on 6.vi.2001. Agonopterix assimilella (Treits.), near Braemar, Aberdeenshire, two males and two females reared from green larvae (the larva 1s usually brown) on Cytisus scoparius collected 3.vi.2001 during an expedition with R.J. Heckford. The specimens show marked sexual dimorphism, the females being larger and paler than the males. Gelechia senticetella Staud., Southsea, Hampshire, at MV light 28.vi.2001, the second VCI1 record. Dichomeris juniperella (L.), Deeside, Aberdeenshire, two specimens reared from larvae on Juniperus communis collected (with R.J. Heckford) 2—3.vi.2001. Blastobasis sp. (undescribed), Bishop’s Waltham, Hampshire, at MV light, 27.vi1.2001. The species was first found by R.J. Dickson in 1998. Celypha rivulana (Scop.), Southsea, Hampshire, 31.vii.2001, a particularly dark specimen. Catoptria verellus (Zinck.), Southsea, Hampshire, at MV light 4.vi1.2001, first Hampshire record. Pediasia contaminella (Hb.) ab. sticheli Const., Southsea, Hampshire, 28.vu.2001. MANNING, D.V.—Palpita vitrealis (Rossi), Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, at MV light 22.x.2001 (D. Larkin leg.), the first VC32 record. Homoeosoma nebulella (D.&S.), Ampthill Park, Bedfordshire, 21.1x.2001, first VC30 record. McCormick, R.F.—Pediasia contaminella (Hiibn.), Berry Head, Brixham, Devon, several seen 28.vi.2001, an unusual habitat, being limestone instead of sand. Platytes alpinella (Hb.), Dawlish Warren, Devon, several seen 4.vi1.2001; the last previous record at the site was 18.viii.1984 and subsequent searches had failed to rediscover it. Evergestis extimalis (Scop.), Teignmouth, Devon, 28.v1.2001. Phlyctaenia stachydalis (Germ.), Great North Wood, Buckland Monachorum, several seen 2.vi.2001. Gymnancyla canella (D.&S.), Dawlish Warren, Devon, 4.vi1.2001 (with B.P. Henwood), the first Devon record. NASH, S.—Fernham, nr. Faringdon (VC22): Chilo phragmitella (Hitbn.), 4.vit.2001; Calamatropha paludella (Hb.), 4.vu & 5.viii.2001; Ostrinia nubilalis (Hb.), 23.vi & 9.vii.2001; Sitochroa palealis (D.&S.), 14.viii.2001; Nephopterix angustella (Hb.), 20.1x.2001; Eudemis profundana (D.&S.), a well marked example 20.vil.2001; Pyrausta aurata (Scop.), an aberrant specimen 28.vii.2001. Durlston Country Park, Dorset (VC9): Schoenobius gigantella (D.&S.), 4.vu1.2001, one of two taken in 2001 and thought to be the first county records since the 1960s; Evergestis extimalis (Scop.), 4.vil.2001; Udea fulvalis (Hb.), 17.viti.2001; Palpita vitrealis (Rossi), five on 12.x.2001 & one 29.x.2001; Conobathra tumidana (D.&S.), 4.vii.2001. Church Norton, Pagham Harbour, Sussex (VC13): Eudonia_ pallida (Curt.); Pempelia genistella (Dup.); Conobathra tumidana (D.&S.), all taken 25.vii.2001. PARSONS, M.S.—Dioryctria sylvestrella (Ratz.), Shaggs, Dorset, |.viii.2001. First Dorset record; this species first occurred in Britain in Kent in 1999. Walditch, Dorset: Cosmopterix pulchrimella (Chamb.), 13.x.2001,° new to Britain; Hellula undalis (Fabr.), 18.x.2001; Endothenia ustulana (Haw.), 30.vi.2001 & 17.vii.2001; Argolamprotes micella (D.&S.), 4 & 6.vii.2001; Amblyptilia punctidactyla (Haw.), 19.x.2001. Tilshead, Wiltshire: Monochroa elongella (Hein.), 20.vi.2001; Metzneria aprilella (H.-S.), 20.vi.2001; Grapholita caecana (Schlag.), 20.vi.2001. 166 BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 PHILLIPS, J.W—Cynaeda dentalis (D.&S.), Gunner Point, Hayling Island, Hampshire, reared ex larvae 2001. Udea decrepitalis (H.-S.), Loch Arkaig, Inverness-shire, reared 2001. PLANT, C.W.—Duponchelia fovealis Zell., Hexton chalk pit, Hertfordshire, 20.x.2001. PORTER, J.—Lampronia capitella (Cl.), Leigh, Surrey, 26.v.2001. Glyphipterix schoenicolella Boyd, Lightwater, Surrey, 21.vi1.2001. Tachystola acroxantha (Meyr.), Chessington, Surrey, 12.v.1999; Babbacombe, Devon, 13.vili.2001. Gelechia turpella (D.&S.), Mitcham, Surrey, at rest on Populus nigra trunk 24.vi.1998. Syncopacma polychromella (Rebel), Hook, Surrey, on window inside office building 1.11.1999, the second British record. Phalonidia curvistrigana (Staint.), Iden, East Sussex, reared from Solidago collected 10.1x.2000. Commophila aeneana (Hb.), Leatherhead, Surrey, 20.v.1999 & 26.v.2001. Tortrix viridana (L.), Ashtead, Surrey, one yellow moth amongst probably at least ten thousand typical moths at seven light traps. Apotomis sauciana (Frol.), Abinger, Surrey, larva swept from Vaccinium 27.v.2001. Elegia similella (Zinck.), Ashtead, Surrey, 25.vi.2001. SHARPE, P.—Oecophora bractella (L.), Tintern, Monmouth., 17.vi.2001. Dichomeris ustalella (Fabr.), Tintern, Monmouth., 17.vi.2001. Archips oporana (L.), Elvedon Forest, Suffolk, 27.1x.2000. Acleris cristana (D.&S.), Salcey Forest, Northants. 12.vin.1995. Acleris literana (L.), Pitsford, Northants. 30.vii.1995. Catoptria permutatella (H.-S.), Trinafour, Perthshire, 7.vu.2001. Uresiphita polygonalis (D.&S.), Durlston, Dorset, 13.x.2001. Duponchelia fovealis Zell., Northampton, 19.x.2001. Assara terebrella (Zinck.), Canford, Dorset, 22.vi1.2000. Ancylosis oblitella (Zell.), Northampton, 8.1x.1995. SIMS, I.—Antispila treitschkiella (F.v.R.), Medmenham, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, cases from Swida sanguinea 10.1x.2000, adults hatched 26.v.2001. Diplodoma herminata (Geoff.), Bear Wood, Wokingham, Berkshire, cases in cobwebs on tree trunks 28.v.2001, hatched 21.vi.2001. Dahlica inconspicuella (Staint.), Dungeness, Kent, cases under roofing felt on strand line 28.1.2001, male hatched 5.xi.2001, female hatched 12.11.2001. Bucculatrix cristatella Zell., Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, mines on leaves of Achillea millefolium 30.vi.2001, hatched 18.vii.2001. Parectopa ononidis (Zell.), Wickford, Essex, mines in leaves of Trifolium repens 8.vii.2001, hatched 24.vu1.2001. Coleophora violacea (Strém), Hainault Forest, Chigwell Row, Essex, cases on Prunus spinosa 4.x.2000, hatched 22.v.2001. Coleophora binderella (Koll.), Froxfield, Hungerford, Berkshire, case on leaf of Corylus avellana 21.v.2001, hatched 24.v1.2001. Coleophora potentillae Elisha, Hainault Forest, Chigwell Row, Essex, cases on leaves of Rubus fruticosus 14.x.2000, hatched 25.v.2001. Coleophora alcyonipennella (Koll.) = frischella auct., Wickford, Essex, case on seed of Trifolium repens 8.vi.2001, hatched 1.viti.2001. Coleophora conyzae Zell., Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, cases and mined leaves of Pulicaria dysenterica 9.vi.2001. Coleophora solitariella Zell., Iver Heath, Berkshire, cases on leaves of Stellaria holostea 22.1v.1998. Coleophora albidella (D.&S.), Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, case on Salix cinerea 23.v.2001, hatched 9.vi.2001. Coleophora striatipennella (Nyl.), Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, cases on seeds of Cerastium fontanum 30.vi1.2001, one moth hatched 28.vi.2001, the only one from around 200 cases to emerge the same year as larval feeding. Larvae were collected while still feeding in the seed heads; no parasites have been reared so far. Coleophora trochilella (Dup.), Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, case on Pulicaria dysenterica 6.vi.2001, hatched 29.vi.2001. Coleophora peribenanderi (Toll), Lower Earley, Reading, Berkshire, cases on Cirsium arvense 9.vi.2001, hatched 27.vi1.2001. Also parasites, hatched indoors by 10.vii.2001. Perittia obscurepunctella (Staint.), Bear Wood, Wokingham, Berkshire, mines on Lonicera periclymenum 25.vi.2000, cocooned BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 15: 3/4; 2002 167 on sallow bark and wood, hatched 25.v1.2001. Parasitoids hatched indoors by 24.vu1.2000. Stms, I., CHANDLER, J.M. & GALE, B.A.—An exhibit to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Biology of the leaf miners by Erich Hering (1951), still the only comprehensive text on minology, and to draw attention to the splendid collection of leaf mines that was bequeathed to the BENHS by the late Eric Bradford. Exhibited were examples of lepidopterous leaf mines and a display of the principal books available for their identification. SLADE, D.J.—Bucculatrix thoracella (Thunb.), Roath, Cardiff, Glamorgan, at UV light 30.vi1.2001; Cathays Cemetery, Cardiff, leaf mine 21.1x.2001; the first VC41 records. Coleophora asteris Mihl., Berrow, Somerset, at MV light 22.vi.2001, gen. det. D.J. Slade (B.E. Slade leg.). Phtheochroa sodaliana (Haw.), The Knap, Barry, Glamorgan, 23.viii.2001 (with D.R.W. Gilmore & M.C. Powell), first VC41 and possibly first Welsh record. Neosphaleroptera nubilana (Hb.), Welsh Hawking Centre, Barry, Glamorgan, 1|.vii.2001, first VC41 record. THIRLWELL, I.R.—