Full text of "British journal of entomology and natural history"

See other formats

December 2007

ISSN 0952-7583

VoL 20, Part 4

^Psaa >

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, Coppice Place, Perry Wood, Selling, nr Faversham, Kent ME 13 9RB (Tel:
01227 752291) email; jbadmin(g)btinternet.com

Associate Editor: M. Wilson, Ph.D., F.R.E.S., F.L.S. Department of Biodiversity & Systematic
Biology, National Museums & Galleries of Wales, Cardiff CFIO 3NP. (Tel: 02920 573263)
email: Mike. Wilson(a)nmgw. ac.uk

Editorial Committee:

D. J. L. Agassiz, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
R. D. G. Barrington, B.Sc.

P. J. Chandler, B.Sc., F.R.E.S.

B. Goater, B.Sc., M. I. Biol.

A. J. Halstead, M.Sc., F.R.E.S.

R. D. Hawkins, M.A.

P. J. Hodge

T. G. Howarth, B.E.M., E.R.E.S.
I. F. G. McLean, Ph D., F.R.E.S
M. J. Simmons, M.Sc.

P. A. Sokoloff, M.Sc., C.Biok,

M. I. Biol., F.R.E.S.

R. W. J. Uffen, M.Sc., F.R.E.S.
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, Readins, Berkshire
RGIO OTH, UK. Tel: 01189-321402. The Journal is distributed free to BENHS members.

Typeset by Tavistock Digital Data, Tavistock, Devon.

Printed in England by Henry Ling Ltd, Dorchester, Dorset.

BRITISH ENTOMOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY
Registered charity number: 213149

The Society arranges a programme of talks on Saturdays at various locations in Great Britain
and a joint evening lecture with the LNHS in London in September. In addition, workshop
meetings are held at the Society’s headquarters and the well-known ANNUAL EXHIBITION
takes place in the autumn. The 2008 Exhibition is planned for Saturday 8 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 obtained 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. The
Society’s web site, http;//www. benhs.org.uk, has the latest news.

Applications for membership to the Membership Secretary: D. Young, 22 Wordsworth Close,
Saxmundham, Suffolk IP 17 IWF. Tel: 01728 603568.

Subscriptions and changes of address to the Assistant Treasurer: R. D. Hawkins, 30D
Meadowcroft Close, Hoiiey, 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: A. J. Halstead, 17 Highclere Gardens,
Knaphill, Woking, Surrey GU21 2LP. Tel; 01483 489581 (evenings).

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, 17 Chantry Road, Wilton, Salisbury,
Wiltshire SP2 OLT. Tel: 01722 741487. email; jmuggleton@aol.com

Society Website: www.benhs.org.uk for recent information on the Society’s meetings
programme and general society details.

Cover photograph: Panaphis jiigkmdis (Goetze) feeding on the upper leaf surface of walnut. Photo:
Malcolm Storey.

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., 20; 2007

221

THE EFFECT OF MOTH TRAP TYPE ON CATCH SIZE
AND COMPOSITION IN BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA

Tom M. Fayle^*, Ruth E. Sharp^ and Michael E. N. Majerus^

^Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ
'^14 Greenview Court, Leeds, LS8 ILA
^Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EH
* Corresponding author

Abstract

Light trapping is a common method for collecting flying insects, particularly
Lepidoptera. Many trap designs are employed for this purpose and it is therefore
important to know how they differ in their sampling of the flying insect fauna. Here
we compare three Robinson-type trap designs, each of which employs a 125W
mercury vapour bulb. The first uses a standard bulb; the second uses the same bulb
with the addition of a Pyrex beaker, often deployed to prevent bulbs from cracking in
the rain, and the third uses a bulb coated with a substance that absorbs visible
wavelengths of light (also known as a black light). The black light trap caught fewer
moths than either of the other traps, and had lower macromoth species richness and
diversity than the standard + beaker trap. This lower species richness could be
accounted for by the smaller number of moths caught by the black light trap.
Furthermore the black light caught a different composition of both species and
families to the other two trap types. Electromagnetic spectra of the three trap types
showed the black light trap lacked peaks in the visible spectrum present in both of
the other traps. We therefore conclude that the addition of a beaker to a Robinson-
type trap does not make catches incomparable, but use of a black light does. These
differences are probably due to lower total emission of radiation in the black light
trap, thus catching fewer moths overall, and the lack of visible radiation produced,
meaning that moths most sensitive to visible wavelengths are not attracted.

Introduction

Light trapping has long been used as a method for collecting Lepidoptera for a
variety of purposes, from biodiversity monitoring (Conrad et ai, 2006) to pest
detection (Hendricks et a!., 1975). In recent years the analysis of long-term light
trapping datasets has revealed drastic declines in many species of British moth
(Conrad et ai, 2006). With such a wide range of uses it is important to know what
affects the catch of a moth trap.

A variety of factors are known to affect the numbers and identities of moths
caught in a trap. The phase of the moon affects the catch, as does the temperature
and degree of cloud cover (Yela & Holyoak, 1997). These factors are not generally
under the control of the person carrying out the survey and cannot be manipulated
directly. Those which can be controlled include the placement and design of the trap.
The height of the trap above the ground can affect the catch (Baker & Sadovy, 1978),
but the majority of traps are set at, or near to, ground level. Perhaps the single most
important feature is that of trap design.

A wide range of designs are currently used (Muirhead-Thomson, 1991) making
comparisons between studies problematic. The Rothamsted trap has an incandescent

222

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

tungsten filled 200W bulb and often uses a killing jar as the receptacle for insects. The
Robinson trap, on the other hand, uses a mercury vapour bulb, and insects are kept
alive. The portable Heath trap uses a low wattage strip light and can therefore be run
from a car battery (Majerus, 2002). Black lights, which emit predominantly
ultraviolet wavelength light, can be used in a variety of traps where light pollution
may be an issue, or where the target group is attracted mainly to those wavelengths.
Taylor and French (1974) found that a Robinson-type trap caught four times as
many moths as a Rothamsted-type trap, demonstrating the large effect trap type can
have on catch size. The use of planes of material in proximity to the light source
(baffles) to intercept insects is also common (Southwood, 1987). Yela and Holyoak
(1997) claim that the most important factor affecting catch size is that of light
intensity, with more moths being caught at higher intensities. But this cannot be the
only important factor as Williams (1951) found that a 125W ultraviolet bulb caught
greater numbers of moths than a 200W standard bulb. Blomberg et al. (1976) showed
that a black light trap caught fewer moths than a mercury vapour light trap, but
there is no mention of the locations of the two traps being rotated between nights,
and the black light bulb was considerably less powerful (125W) than the mercury
vapour light bulb (160W). So the wide range of trap designs employed is likely to
catch differing samples of moths. To our knowledge there is no study which assesses
the efficiency of commonly used Robinson-type traps with different bulb set-ups.
This study compares three such trap set-ups. All three traps are of Robinson-type
and use three pin bayonet fitting 125W mercury vapour bulbs (supplier; Watkins and
Doncaster Entomological Suppliers), One uses a standard bulb only (standard, S),
one uses a standard bulb with the addition of a Pyrex beaker to protect it from
cracking in the rain (standard + beaker, Bk), and one uses a standard 125W mercury
vapour black light bulb (black light, Bl). This consists of a standard bulb coated with
a substance which absorbs most visible wavelengths, as supplied by Watkins and
Doncaster Entomological Suppliers, We hypothesise that the reduction in visible
wavelengths in the black light treatment may reduce catch, while the addition of a
beaker might either absorb certain wavelengths, thus reducing the catch, or act as a
baffle increasing the catch.

Methods
Study site

The three traps were placed in an equilateral triangle of side 4.5m by the weather
station of Juniper Hall Field Centre, adjacent to a field and also to the field centre
gardens. While the close proximity of the traps probably led to some mixing of the
moths attracted to the different lights this meant that we could be confident that the
same moth community was being sampled by all three traps. They were run for six
nights between 20.00 BST and 06.00 BST from 29 June to 4 July 2001. The traps were
not run on the night of 1 July. The traps were rotated each night to control for any
effects of position on moth catch. Although the traps were run for only a short
period of time we feel that since the traps were all in close proximity, observed
differences were due to trap design rather than trap location (we were unable to test
for this due to small sample size). The weather was warm and dry during the study
period with a daytime maximum temperature range of 21.4°C-28.5°C and a night
time minimum range of 10.6°C-15.1°C. Cloud cover at 09.00 BST ranged from 0/10
to 8/10 and the total rainfall for the period was 0.6mm.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

223

Identification

Macrolepidoptera were identified to species using Skinner (1998). Microlepidop=
tera were identified to family using Chinery (1993) and Goater (1986). Note that the
micromoth family Pyraiidae is employed sensu lato to include the subfamilies
Pyralinae, Pyraustinae and Crambinae (Goater, 1986).

Statistical methods

Differences across trap types in total moth abundance and macromoth species
richness per trap were tested using ANOVA. Moth abundance was logged as
population processes are inherently multiplicative (Ian Woiwod, pers.com.). Logged
moth abundance was included as a co variate in the analysis of species richness. All
residuals were normally distributed with homogeneous variances. Tukey’s pairwise
comparisons were used to compare individual trap types with each other. Diversity
was calculated using Fisher’s a (Fisher et al, 1943) as this index is not biased by
small sample size and has good site discriminant ability when used on light trap
macrolepidoptera data (Taylor et al, 1976). The index was calculated for the
accumulated data for each trap type as this helps to reduce biases caused by small
sample size. Fisher standard errors for the diversity index were calculated
analytically for the accumulated data (Taylor et al, 1976; Magurran, 1988). Pairwise
differences in diversity were tested using t-tests (assuming unequal variance).
Differences in family composition across the three trap types were tested using chi-
square tests on the data summed across all six nights, with an initial test across all
three trap types being followed by pairwise tests between trap types. Less abundant
families were collapsed into “other” for these tests to avoid expected values less than
five. Estimates 7.5 was used to calculate Fisher’s a and its standard error (Colwell,
2004). The ordination technique Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) was
used to assess differences in family composition and macrolepidoptera species
composition. Species occurring in only a single trap on a single night were excluded
from these ordination analyses. Minitab 13.31 was used for all statistical analyses
with the exception of the ordinations, which were carried out in Community Analysis
Package 1.50.

Electromagnetic Spectra

300“850nm electromagnetic spectra of all three traps were taken using a UV/visible
spectrometer in order to relate differences in the wavelengths of emitted light to their
moth catches. Total radiation emitted across all wavelengths was calculated by
summing the area beneath the spectra.

Results

Abundance, species richness and diversity

In total 4168 moths were caught in the three traps over six nights. These consisted
of 689 macromoths (eight families, 95 species, see Appendices 1 and 2) and 3479
micromoths (five families, see Appendix 2). Fewer moths were caught in the black
light trap than in either of the other traps (Fig. la, ANOVA: ¥2^5 = 18.05, P< 0.001,
Tukey’s pairwise comparisons: S-Bl, P = 0.002; S=Bk, P = 0.290; Bl-Bk, P<0.001).
There was no difference in the numbers of macromoths caught by the different trap
types (Fig. lb, ANOVA: F2j5 = 3.54, F = 0.055), although the trend was similar to

224

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Fig. 1. Comparisons between the three trap types of; (a) total moth abundance, (b) macromoth
abundance, (c) macromoth species richness in relation to macromoth abundance, (d)
macromoth species diversity (Fisher’s a index). Different letters indicate significantly different
means.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

225

% 15

nPyralidae
%’■" BNoctuidae
■■■ . ■ T ortricidae

^Thyatiridae
□ Geometridae

□ Pterophoridae
ID Arctiidae
■ Sphingidae
^ Other

Standard Standard + beaker Black

Fig. 2. Relative abundances of moths of different families found in the three trap types summed
over all six nights. Note that the y-axis ends at 30%, as the majority of moths caught in all three
trap types were pyralids. Families with less than ten individuals in total were summed as
“other”. These were: Coleophoridae, Drepanidae, Hepialidae, Notodontidae and Tisheriidae.

that seen for total moth abundance. Absolute macromoth species richness was higher
in the standard + beaker trap than in the black light trap, while the standard trap did
not differ in species richness from either of the other two trap types (ANOVA:
F2 15 = 4.63, P = 0.027, Tukey’s pairwise comparisons: S-Bl, P = 0.227; S-Bk,
F = 0.414; Bl-Bk, P = 0.022). But once macromoth abundance had been taken into
account macromoth species richness did not differ among trap types (Fig. Ic,
ANCOVA: F2 14 = 0.91, P>0.05, see Appendix 1 for details of the species caught).
The macromoth diversity (Fisher’s a) was lower in the black light trap than that in
both the standard trap and the standard + beaker trap, while the diversity of the
standard and standard + beaker traps did not differ (Fig. Id, T-tests: S-Bl, t = l. 30,
d.f. = 10, P<0.001; S^Bk, ?=1.86, d.f. = 10, F = 0.090; Bl-Bk, / = 9.67, d.f. = 10,
P<0.001).

Family and species composition

The representation of the moth families differed across the three trap types
(X^ = 96.1, d.f= 16, P< 0.001, Fig. 2, see Appendix 2 for family abundances). The
catch of the black light trap differed from that of the other two trap designs (S-Bl,
X^ = 58.5, d.f=8, P<0.001; Bl-Bk, x^ = 68.4, d.f=8, F<0.001), while those of the
other two trap designs were not different (S-Bk, x^= 14.3, d.f=8, F = 0.075). There
was a greater proportion of sphingids, thyatirids and noctuids, and a smaller
proportion of pyralids in the black light trap. The high proportion of pyralids caught
in all trap types was due mainly to large numbers of grass moths (i.e. Crambus spp.).
These differences in family composition are also clearly shown in the ordination. The

226

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

Fig. 3. Ordinations (DCAs) of: (a) family composition and (b) macromoth species composition.
Points in close proximity represent traps with a similar moth community, while those far apart
represent those with a dissimilar moth community. Polygons show the distribution of the black
light trap points. Families and species represented at only one trap on only one night were
excluded from the analyses.

points representing black light trap catches cluster in the upper right of the plot (with
the exception of a single point) showing that the family composition of this trap
differs from that of the other two trap types (Fig. 3a). The family compositions of the
standard and standard + beaker traps are similar, as shown by overlapping sets of
points representing the catches of these two trap types. The different trap types show
a similar pattern to that seen at the family level in terms of macromoth species
composition (Fig. 3b). Here the black light catch is completely distinct from the
catches of the other two trap types, which are again similar to one another. A Venn
diagram of the macromoth species caught in the three trap types shows that the
majority of species caught were present either in the standard trap or the standard +
beaker trap or both (Fig. 4).

Electromagnetic spectra

The electromagnetic spectra from the standard and standard + beaker traps both
show a single peak in the ultraviolet region at 366nm and then further large peaks in
the visible region at 405nm, 436nm, 546nm, 578nm and 618nm with a smaller peak
on the border of the visible and infrared regions at 698nm (Fig. 5). The spectrum for
the black light shows only the 366nm peak in the ultraviolet region, all other peaks
being absent. The total amount of radiation emitted was similar for the standard trap
and the standard + beaker trap at 0.206|iW/cm^ and 0.253)aW/cm^ respectively, and
considerably less for the black light trap at 0.012pW/cm2.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

227

Fig. 4. Venn diagram showing macromoth species caught in the three trap types.

Discussion

The black light trap caught fewer moths overall, catching only 36% and 27% of
the numbers caught in the standard and standard + beaker traps, respectively. There
were also fewer macromoth species and a lower macromoth diversity in the black
light trap compared to the standard + beaker trap. The smaller number of species in
the black light trap is what would be expected if one was sampling fewer individuals
from the same population as the other two traps. But this does not explain the
differences between catches entirely as the black light trap caught a different set of
species and families from the other two trap types. So not only will the use of a black
light trap give fewer moths, but it gives a different impression of the moth
community. Furthermore, out of the 95 species of macromoth caught in total only
nine were unique to the black light trap and all of these were singletons. Therefore
the use of a black light in place of a standard mercury vapour bulb does not catch
extra species of macromoth, but instead catches a characteristic subset of those
species caught using the standard set-up.

Is it possible to explain the differences observed in terms of the electromagnetic
spectra of the different bulbs? The addition of the beaker does not change the
spectrum of the bulb, and this is reflected in the fact that no differences were
observed in abundance, species richness, or composition between the standard trap
and the standard + beaker trap. Nor does it seem to act as a baffle, although there is
a non-signiflcant increase in the overall moth catch of 32% (P = 0.29). It is possible
that the small catch size of the black light trap is partly due to the reduction in total
radiation emitted, as found by Yela and Holyoak (1997). But the difference in
community composition between the black light trap and the other two traps,
particularly with respect to the pyralids, indicates that the black light is attracting a
particular subset of the taxa found in those two traps. Hendricks et ai (1975) found
that some noctuid pests preferred fluorescent black lights while others preferred
green lights, so this is not without precedent. One possibility is that those moths most
sensitive to visible wavelengths of light are not attracted to the black light trap.

Certain wavelengths repel some species, as may be the case with the sphingids in
this study. There were a greater number of them in the black light trap than the other
two traps, indicating that perhaps the visible light emitted by the other traps deters

228

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

(a)

Wavelength (nm)

Fig. 5. Electromagnetic spectra (300-850nm) of (a) standard trap, (b) standard + beaker trap
and (c) black light trap. This range includes ultraviolet radiation (200-380nm), visible light
(380-750nm) and infrared radiation (750nm and above). The unit of intensity is pW/nm/cm^.

them from entering. Hsiao (1972) has shown that when moths approach very close to
a bright light source they are often repelled by it, so this explanation seems likely. It
is possible that each species has sets of wavelengths to which it is most attracted or
repelled.

In conclusion, the addition of a beaker to a standard Robinson-type trap does not
affect the moth catch significantly, whereas painting the bulb with a visible light-
reducing coating reduces the total moth catch and macromoth species richness and
diversity, catching only a subset of the moths caught by the other two traps.
Observation of electromagnetic spectra in relation to this suggests that species
respond in different ways to certain wavelengths of light, with species attracted by
visible light not being present in the black light trap. Comparative studies of such
responses, in conjunction with studies of the species’ ecology may shed light on the
unsolved mystery of why moths are attracted to light.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Roger Northfield for assistance in moth
identification, Rufus Johnstone for his help with statistics and Jo Wilson for allowing
us to take spectra of the three trap types. The staff of Juniper Hall field centre were

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 2«: 2007

229

very obliging and supplied weather data. Many thanks also to Ed Turner for his

helpful comments and for transcribing a set of comments onto email. We are also

grateful to Ian Woiwod for his comments on this manuscript.

References

Baker, R.R. & Sadovy, Y. 1978. Distance and nature of light-trap response of moths. Nature
276: 818-821.

Blomberg, O., Itamies, J, & Kuusela, K. 1976. Insect catches in a blended and a black light-trap
in northern Finland. Oikos 27: 57-63.

Chinery, M. 1993. Insects of Britain & Northern Europe. HarperCollins, London.

Colwell, R.K. 2004. Estimates: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from
samples (http : / /pur! . oclc . org/ estimates) .

Conrad, K.F., Warren, S.W., Fox, R., Parsons, M.S. & Woiwod, LP. 2006. Rapid declines of
common, v/idespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis.
Biological Conservation 132: 279-291.

Fisher, R.A., Corbet, A.S. & Williams, C.B. 1943. The relation between the number of species
and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of
Animal Ecology 12: 42-58.

Goater, B. 1986. British pyralid moths: a guide to their identification. Harley Books, Colchester.

Hendricks, D.E., Lingren, P.D. & Hollingsworth, J.P. 1975. Numbers of boilworms, tobacco
budworms, and cotton leafworms caught in traps equipped with fluorescent lamps of 5
colours. Journal of Economic Entomology 68: 645-649.

Hsiao, H.S. 1972. Attraction of moths to light and to infrared radiation. San Francisco Press, San
Francisco.

Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm Limited, London.

Majerus, M.E.N. 2002. Moths, The New Naturalist. HarperCollins, London.

Muirhead-Thomson, R.C. 1991. Trap responses of flying insects. Academic Press, San Diego.

Skinner, B. 1998. The colour identification guide to moths of the British Isles. Viking, London.

Southwood, T.R.E. 1987. Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect
populations. Chapman & Hall, London.

Taylor, L.R. & French, R.A. 1974. Effects of light-trap design and illumination on samples of
moths in an English woodland. Bulletin of Entomological Research 63: 583-594.

Taylor, L.R., Kempton, R.A. & Woiwod, LP. 1976. Diversity statistics and the log-series
model. Journal of Animal Ecology 45: 255-272.

Williams, C.B. 1951. Comparing the efficiency of insect traps. Bulletin of Entomological
Research 42: 513-517.

Yela, J.L. & Holyoak, M. 1997. Effects of moonlight and meteorological factors on light and
bait trap catches of noctuid moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental Entomology
26: 1283-1290.

Appendix 1. Macromoth species caught summed over all six nights

Standard

Standard
+ beaker

Black

HepialMae

Hepialus humuli (L.).

Ghost Moth

Hepialus lupuUnus (L.)

Common Swift

Thyatiridae

Habrosyne pyritoides (Hufn.)

Buff Arches

Tetheelia fluctuosa (Hb.)

Satin Lutestring

Thyatira batis (L.)

Peach Blossom

230

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Standard

Standard
+ beaker

Black

Drepanidae

Drepana falcataria (L.)

Pebble Hooktip

Geometridae

Aids repandata (L.)

Mottled Beauty

Apeira syringaria (L.)

Lilac Beauty

Biston hetularia (L.)

Peppered Moth

Campaea margaritata (L.)

Light Emerald

Camptogramma bilineata (L.)

Yellow Shell

Chloroclysta truncata (Hufn.)

Common Marbled Carpet

Cidaria fuhata (Forst.)

Barred Yellow

Epirrhoe rivata (Hb.)

Wood Carpet

Eulithis pyraliata (D. & S.)

Barred Straw

Eulilhis testata (L.)

The Chevron

Eupitheda pimpinellata (Hb.)

Pimpernel Pug

Eupitheda satyrata (Hb.)

Satyr Pug

Eupitheda suhfuscata (Haw.)

Grey Pug

Eupitheda succenturiata (L.)

Bordered Pug

Eupitheda tantillaria Boisd.

Dwarf Pug

Eupitheda tenuiata (Hb.)

Slender Pug

Eupitheda valerianata (Hb.)

Valerian Pug

Eupitheda venosata (Fabr.)

Netted Pug

Eupitheda vulgata (Haw.)

Common Pug

Hemithea aestivaria (Hb.)

Common Emerald

Horisme tersata (D. & S.)

The Fern

Idaea aversata (L.)

Riband Wave

Idaea biselata (Hufn.)

Small Fan-footed Wave

Idaea dimidiata (Hufn.)

Single-dotted Wave

Idaea straminata (Borkh.)

Plain Wave

Idaea trigeminata (Haw.)

Treble Brown Spot

Lomaspilis marginata (L.)

Clouded Border

Lomographa temerata (D. & S.)

Clouded silver

Melanthia procellata (D. & S.)

Pretty Chalk Carpet

Pasiphila rectangulata (L.)

Green Pug

Peribatodes rhomboidaria (D. & S.) Willow Beauty

Philereme vetulata (D. & S.)

Brown Scallop

Xanthorhoe fluctuata (L.)

Garden Carpet

Sphingidae

Deilephila elpenor (L.)

Elephant Hawk-moth

Deilephila porcellus (L.)

Small Elephant Hawk-moth

Laothoe populi (L.)

Poplar Hawk-moth

Mimas tiliae (L.)

Lime Hawk-moth

Smerinthus oceUata (L.)

Eyed Hawk-moth

Sphinx ligustri (L.)

Privet Hawk-moth

Notodontidae

Notodonta dromedarius (L.)

Iron Prominent

Stauropus fagi (L.)

Lobster Moth

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

231

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Standard

Standard
+ beaker

Black

Arctiidae

Eilema lurideola (Zink.)

Common Footman

Spilosoma lubricipeda (L.)

White Ermine

Spilosoma iuteum (Hufn.)

Buff Ermine

Tyria jacobaeae (L.)

The Cinnabar

Noctuidae

Abrostola tripartita (Hufn.)

The Spectacle

Acronicta leporina (L.)

The Miller

Acronicta psi (L.)

Grey Dagger

Agrotis clavis (Hufn.)

Heart and Club

Agrotis exclamationis (L.)

Heart and Dart

Apamea lithoxylaea (D. & S.)

Light Arches

Apamea monoglypha (Hufn.)

Dark Arches

Apamea remissa (Hb.)

Dusky Brocade

Autographa gamma (L.)

Silver Y

Autographa pulchrina (Haw.)

Beautiful Golden Y

Axylia putris (L.)

The Flame

Blepharita adusta (Esp.)

Dark Brocade

Charanyca trigrammica (Hufn.)

Treble Lines

Craniophora ligustri (D. & S.)

The Coronet

Diachrysia chrysitis (L.)

Burnished Brass

Diarsia mendica (Fabr.)

Ingrailed Clay

Euxoa nigricans (L.)

Garden Dart

Hada plebeja (L.)

The Shears

Herminia grisealis (D. & S.)

Small Fan-foot

Hoplodrina blanda (D. & S.)

The Rustic

Hypena proboscidalis (L.)

The Snout

Lacanobia oleracea (L.)

Bright-lined Brown-eye

Lacanobia w-latinum (Hufn.)

Light Brocade

Laspeyria flexula (D. & S.)

Beautiful Hooktip

Lygephila pastinum (Treit.)

The Blackneck

Melanchra persicariae (L.)

Dot Moth

Melanchra pisi (L.)

Brom moth

Mesapamea secalis (L.)

Common Rustic

Mythimna comma (L.)

Shoulder-Striped Wainscoat

Mythimna ferrago (Fabr.)

The Clay

Mythimna impura (Hb.)

Smokey Wainscot

Mythimna obsoleta (Hb.)

Obscure Wainscoat

Mythimna pallens (L.)

Common Wainscot

Noctua pronuba (L.)

Large Yellow Underwing

Ochropleura plecta (L.)

Flame Shoulder

Oligia strigilis (L.)

Marbled Minor

Photedes minima (Haw.)

Small Dotted Buff

Polia trimaculosa (Esp.).

Silvery Arches

Protodeltote pygarga (Hufn.)

Marbled White-spot

Pseudoips prasinana (L.).

Green Silver Lines

Rivula sericealis (Scop.)

Straw Dot

Rusina ferruginea (Esp.)

Brown Rustic

Xestia c-nigrum (L.)

Setacious Hebrew Character

Xestia triangulum (Hufn.)

Double Square-spot

Total abundance

229

327

133

Total species richness

232

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Appendix 2. Numbers of individuals of each moth family caught summed over six nights

Standard

Standard
+ beaker

Black

Hepialidae

Thyatiridae

Drepanidae

Geometridae

Sphingidae

Notodontidae

Arctiidae

Noctuidae

134

199

Coleophoridae

Pterophoridae

Pyralidae

1266

1646

397

Tisheriidae

Tortricidae

Totals

1554

2059

555

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Physatocheila smreczynskii China (Hemiptera: Tingidae) in the Tamar Valley of

Cornwall and Devon. - The apple-tree lacebug has a very restricted distribution across
the southern English counties. It has been known in Devon for some time - ‘not
common’ (Bignell, 1906) - but no details of the old Devon records have yet been found
and there appear to be no subsequent records. The discovery of a population at Slew
Orchard, Sydenham Damerel (SX4074), 23.viii.2004, is therefore worth reporting.
This orchard is predominantly old cherries but also includes a few old apple trees.
Another population was found on a group of three remnant old orchard apple trees
at Haye Farm, Bohetherick, St Dominick (SX4167), in East Cornwall, 20.vii.2006.

In both cases the lacebugs were associated with a very small number of apple trees.
The St Dominick area has many other remnant orchards but no other populations
could be found. Similarly in south Devon in 2004, two other areas of apple orchards
failed to produce any lacebugs. This suggests that the species is capable of surviving
on small groups of old apple trees but is of very restricted occurrence and relatively
immobile - it appears not to readily colonise other apple trees even when relatively
close by. The St Dominick site is the second known from Cornwall (Alexander, 2005).

The Slew survey was part of a wider English Nature commissioned project on
orchard wildlife, while the St Dominick work was part of a survey of the National
Trust’s Cotehele Estate. There is now a Tamar Orchards project. The increasing
interest in the conservation of traditional orchards is good news. - Keith N.A.
Alexander, 59 Sweetbrier Lane, Heavitree, Exeter EXl 3AQ.

References

Alexander, K.N.A. 2005. Ten additions to the Heteroptera (Hemiptera) of Cornwall. British
Journal of Entomology & Natural History 18: 54.

Bignell, G.C, 1906. Hemiptera Heteroptera (Bugs). In: Page, W. (ed.) The Victoria History of
the County of Devon. London: Archibald Constable & Co Ltd.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

233

THE PLAT ANUS LACE BUG, CORYTHUCHA CILIA TA (SAY)
(HEMIPTERA: TINGIDAE), A NEARCTIC PEST OF PLANE TREES,

NEW TO BRITAIN

C. P. Malumphy, S. Reid & D. Eyre

Central Science laboratory, Sand Hutton, York, Y041 ILZ

Abstract

In September and October 2006, Corythucha ciliata (Say) was reported in
Bedfordshire. This is the first record of this Nearctic tingid in Britain. It was causing
feeding damage to imported London plane {Platanus x hispanica) and Oriental plane
{P. orientalis) trees at two commercial plant nurseries, and to mature plane trees
{Platanus sp.) growing in adjacent hedgerows. It has been introduced to several other
European countries where it has become an important pest of plane trees. In
northern Italy C. ciliata can cause decline and death of trees in combination with two
fungi, Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & Halsted f.sp. platani Walter and Apiognomonia
veneta (Sacc. & Speg.) Hohn.. The host range, biology, geographical distribution and
economic importance of C. ciliata are reviewed.

Introduction

The Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI) of the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) inspected a commercial plant
nursery. East of Bedford, Bedfordshire on the 28th September 2006. Inspectors
collected leaf mine samples from Oriental plane Platanus orientalis L. (Platanaceae)
trees imported from France and submitted them to the Central Science Laboratory
(CSL) for diagnosis. The leaf mines were caused by the larvae of Phyllonorycter
platani (Staudinger) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), an introduced species that has
become naturalised in southern England since 1989 (Emmet, 1991). Also present in
the samples were fourth and fifth-instar lacebug nymphs, suspected to be Corythucha
ciliata (Say) (Hemiptera: Tingidae). This was confirmed by rearing the nymphs to
adulthood in quarantine at the Central Science Laboratory under licence (No. PHL
251C/5482/C09/2006), which took three days at 21.5°C. The Plant Health & Seeds
Inspectorate reinspected the nursery on the 6th and 10th October 2006 and found
large numbers of C. ciliata nymphs and adults causing chlorosis, in some cases
severe, to the foliage of over one hundred P. orientalis and London plane
{Platanus x hispanica Muenchh.) trees (up to 7 m tall) imported from France, and
on mature plane {Platanus sp.) trees (up to 15 m tall) growing in a hedge
approximately 50 metres from the nursery. A second commercial nursery was visited
in Bedfordshire on the 1 1th October and C. ciliata nymphs and adults were found on
Platanus spp. imported from Italy and on six-year-old Platanus trees grown at the
nursery from cuttings. This is the first time that C. ciliata has been found in Britain.
The presence of this new pest was publicised by Defra (Malumphy et al., 2006) and
by a special interest group (Malumphy & Reid, 2006). The purpose of this
communication is to publish collection details for the first time and review the host
range, biology, geographical distribution and economic importance of C. ciliata.

Corythucha ciliata is commonly known as the ‘sycamore lace bug’ in North
America (Halbert & Meeker, 1998), where P. orientalis is known as American
sycamore. However, the name sycamore lace bug could be confusing in Britain, as it
does not feed on sycamore {Acer pseudoplatanus L.). ‘Platanus lace bug’ would be a

234

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

more accurate designation in the UK and be consistent with the common names used
in Europe, for example in Austria and Germany, ‘Die Platanen Netzwanze’ (Billen,
1985; Hopoltseder, 1984; Hopp, 1984), France, ‘Le tigre du platane’ (D’ Aguilar et
al, 1977; Anon., 1986), Italy, ‘La tingide del platana’ (Arzone, 1975) and Spain,
‘tigre del platano’ (Serra Planas, 1982).

Adult (Fig. 1) specimens of C. ciliata have been deposited at the Central Science
Laboratory, the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH), the Huntarian
Museum, Glasgow and National Museum Wales, Cardiff.

Detection and identification

Adults and nymphs of C. ciliata feed on the underside of leaves causing chlorosis
and desiccation of tissue (Fig. 2), first near the veins, and subsequently affecting the
entire leaf, which may drop prematurely (Maceljski & Balarin, 1973; Venturi, 1976;
Chauvel, 1988). Heavy infestations cause conspicuous chlorosis, which is easily
observed some distance away from the infested tree (PHSI, pers. comm., 2006). The
tingids also produce droplets of liquid frass, which dry out as black spots on the
lower surface of the leaves (Fig. 3); the leaves are also covered in nymphal skins,
which have remained attached to the leaf after moulting (Chauvel, 1988).

The eggs are elyptical, brown, with a lighter operculum; 0.5 mm long by 0.2 mm
wide; laid in groups of 3-8 in the angles of the main vein on the undersides of the leaf
(Maceljski & Balarin, 1974; Hopoltseder, 1984). There are five nymphal stages (Horn
et fl/.,1979). The nymphs (Fig. 4) are dorso-ventrally flattened, oval in shape, black
and spiny. The adult bodies are almost black in colour but this is hidden beneath a
grey/cream net or lace-like structure on the upper surface (Figs. 1 and 5). They attain
a length of 4 mm; the females are slightly larger than the males.

Detailed morphological descriptions of the adult are given by Maceljski & Balarin
(1972, 1974) and are illustrated by Maceljski & Balarin (1974), Tomic & Mihajlovic
(1974), D’ Aguilar et al. (1977), Hopoltseder (1984), Gessler & Mauri (1987) and
Chauvel (1988). The fifth instar nymph is described and keyed out by Horn et al.
(1979). Maceljski & Balarin (1974) describe all developmental stages.

For practical purposes, the association with Plat anus should be diagnostic for this
species in Britain as no other tingid species feed on this genus in Britain.

Geographical distribution

Corythucha ciliata is of North American origin and occurs in the eastern USA and
southern Canada (Baker, 1972; Halbert & Meeker, 1998). It was accidentally
introduced into Europe being first recorded in Padova, Italy in 1964 (Arzone, 1975).
It has since spread throughout Italy (Battisti & Giulini, 1983; Marletto & Menardo,
1984; including Sicily, Hoffmann, 1978), and Austria (Hopoltseder, 1984; Zukrigl &
Hobaus, 1989), Bulgaria (Josifov, 1990), Croatia (Maceljski & Balarin, 1972, 1973),
France (D’Aguilar et al, 1977; D’Aguilar, 1982; Duverger, 1983; Anon., 1986;
Chauvel, 1988; Decoin, 2006), Germany (Hopp, 1984; Billen, 1985; Heckmann &
Rieger, 2001; Hoffmann, 2003), Greece (Tzanakakis, 1988), Hungary (FAO, 1977;
Saly & Ripka, 1989), Russia (Voigt, 2001; Gninenko & Orlinskii, 2004), Serbia
(Tomic & Mihajlovic, 1974; Vasic, 1975), Slovenia (Maceljski & Balarin, 1972),
Spain (Gil Sotres & Mansilla Vazquez, 1981) and Switzerland (Maceljski &
Balarin, 1972; Gessler & Mauri, 1987; Wyniger, 2003).

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

235

Fig. 1. Corythucha ciliata adult (Photo: James Turner of the National Museum Wales).

It has recently been introduced to Asia: China (Streito, 2006), Japan (Tokihiro et
al., 2003) and South Korea (Chung et ai, 1996;); and South America: Chile (Prado,
1990).

Host plants, biology and natural enemies

The preferred host of C. ciliata is reported to be P. occidentalis (Maceljski &
Balarin, 1972, 1973; Rogers et al, 1982; Halbert & Meeker, 1998) and in southern
Europe it is also commonly found on P.xhispanica { = P . x acerifolia Willd.)

236

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Fig. 2. Corythucha ciliata feeding damage to
upper surface of leaf (CSL).

Fig. 4. Corythucha ciliata nymph (CSL).

Fig. 3. Corythucha ciliata frass depositied on
lower leaf surface (CSL).

Fig. 5. Corythucha ciliata adult (CSL).

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

237

(Balarin, 1972, 1973; FAO, 1977; Maceljski & Rogers et aL, 1982; Hopoltseder, 1984;
Battisti et aL, 1985). Other Platanus hosts include P. orientalis L. (Maceljski &
Balarin, 1972; Battisti et aL, 1985), P. racemosa Nutt. (Rogers et aL, 1982) and
P. wrightii S. Wats. (Rogers et a!., 1982).

Several other host plants are listed in the literature, including Broussonetia
papyrifera (L.) L’Her. ex Vent. (Moraceae) (Rogers et aL, 1982; Halbert & Meeker,

1998) , Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch (Juglandaceae) (Baker, 1972; Rogers et aL, 1982;
Halbert, & Meeker, 1998), Chamaedaphne sp. (Ericaceae) (Rogers et aL, 1982;
Halbert & Meeker, 1998), Fraxinus sp. (Oleaceae) (Baker, 1972; Rogers et aL, 1982;
Halbert & Meeker, 1998), Moms sp. (Moraceae) (Baker, 1972) and Quercus laurifolia
Michx. (Fagaceae) (Baker, 1972).

The biology and ecology of C. ciliata has been studied in France (Chauvel, 1988),
Korea (Park et aL, 1999), Hungary (Oszi et aL, 2006) and Italy (Venturi, 1976;
Battisti et aL, 1985). Corythucha ciliata adults overwinter under loose bark, leaf litter
and crevices, and tolerate extreme temperatures as low as — 30°C (Chauvel, 1988).
The exfoliation of the outer bark, especially in P. x hispanica, may be determinant in
the successful use of Platanaceae by C. ciliata. Overwintering occurs, by preference
and often in large dense aggregations, under exfoliated bark platelets in situ (Paul F.
Whitehead, pers. comm., 2007). The adults congregate on the developing leaves in
the following spring. The females deposit up to 350 eggs on the lower surface of the
leaves, (D’ Aguilar et aL, 1977), with an average of 100 eggs per female (Battisti et aL,
1985). Nymphs stay close together at first, only moving to new leaves after they reach
the fourth instar. In the south of France it takes 43 to 56 days to complete the life
cycle, and in Italy just 29 to 36 days (Chauvel, 1988); two or three generations can
occur each year. In Italy, the eggs of the first generation are laid at the end of April or
beginning of May, those of the second at the end of June or beginning of July, and
the third in August-September (Venturi, 1976). The optimum temperature for egg
and nymph development was estimated to be 25°C in Korea, and the longevities of
adults were 41 days and 37 days for females and males, respectively (Park et aL,

1999) .

Maceljski (1986) reported that the adults are good fliers, whereas Wade (1917)
reported that the wings of the adults are very delicate, and they rarely fly very far;
however, supported by wind they can be blown over many kilometres. Both authors
suspect that human activity is the main cause of its spread over long distances.

Twenty-eight species of natural enemies of C. ciliata have been recorded in Italy
(Travella & Arizona, 1987).

Economic importance

Infestations of C. ciliata on Platanus can cause severe chlorosis, partial defoliation,
reduction in growth and thinning of fronds (Venturi, 1976; Chauvel, 1988),
particularly in young trees (Maceljski, 1986). Damage is most noticeable on plane
trees planted for ornamental purposes in parks and urban areas and increases
through the year from July to September (Battisti et aL, 1985). Several consecutive
years of severe lace bug damage, combined with other stress factors, may kill the
trees. Damage is more severe during dry weather. In northern Italy, the lace bug in
combination with two fungi, Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & Halsted f.sp. platani
Walter (Ascomycetes: Ceratocystidaceae) and Apiognomonia veneta (Sacc. & Speg.)
Hohn. (Ascomycetes: Valsaceae), can cause decline and death of trees (Anselmi et aL,
1994). The former fungus is a quarantine-listed pest in the EU and the latter is native
to the UK. It is suspected that the lace bugs may serve as vectors for these fungi.

238

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Although C. ciliata has been found feeding on other host genera in the USA, it has
not been recorded damaging these plants.

Corythucha ciliata is also reported to be a major public nuisance as large numbers
of C. ciliata land on people in parks and open-air cafes in southern Europe. They
may also invade homes in large numbers (Maceljski, 1986) and have even
occasionally been reported ‘biting’ humans (Venturi, 1976).

Conclusions

Corythucha ciliata has been introduced into the UK on imported plane trees from
either or both of Italy and France. The presence of this pest in northern France
(Decoin, 2006) suggests that it will be able to naturalise and spread in Britain. The
extent of the infestations at the nurseries where the pest was first discovered and the
presence of the pest on trees off the nursery premises indicates that is likely to have
been present for more than one season and thus may have already been transported
to new locations by trade.

The size of some of the trees being imported into the UK and the scale of the trade
make it very difficult for the Plant Health & Seeds Inspectorate to conduct effective
inspections of these plants. Not all trees, which are moved between EU member
states with a plant passport, such as Platanus sp., are inspected by the PHSI and the
current inspection regime is probably inadequate to prevent further introductions.
The import of large trees from southern Europe is likely to continue to provide a
pathway for the introduction of other non-native plant pests into Britain. For
example, the American oak lace bug, Corythucha arcuata (Say), was introduced into
Italy in 2000 and spread to Switzerland in 2001/2002 (Forster et ai, 2005) and is
likely to spread within Europe both naturally and over large distances by trade. This
oak pest is on the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation
(EPPO) alert list.

Any suspected findings of non~indigenous insects on recently imported plants
should be passed to the local Defra PHSI or to the Plant Health & Seeds Inspectorate
Headquarters, York (Tel.: 01904 455174, email: planthealth.info@defra.gsi.gov.uk).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Helen Long and Richard Venelle of the Plant
Health & Seeds Inspectorate for collecting samples and providing information; Dr
Mike Wilson and Richard Turner of the National Museum Wales for supplying a
photograph of C. ciliata; and Paul F. Whitehead for providing valuable comments
on the manuscript and sharing his observations on C. ciliata. The Plant Health
Division of Defra funded this work.

References

Anonymous. 1986. Presence reconu du tigre du platane dans la region Parisienne. Phytoma 383:
38.

Anselmi, N., Cardin, L. & Nicolotti, G. 1994. Plane decline in European and Mediterranean
countries: associated pests and their interactions. Bulletin OEPP 24: 159-171.

Arzone, A. 1975. La tingide del platano in Piemonte: ciclo biologico e diffusione. Monti e Boschi
26: 19-27.

Baker, W. L. 1972. Eastern Forest Insects. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1175.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

239

Battisti, R. de, Forti, A. & Zangheri, S. 1985. Indagini sulla biologia della tingide del platano
{Corythucha ciliata (Say)) (Rhynchota Tingidae) nel Veneto. Frustula Entomologica 7-8;
125-141.

Battisti, R. de & Giulini, P, 1983. II platano e un suo dannoso parassita; Corythucha ciliata
(Say). Institute di Entomologica Agraria, Universita di Padova, Pagua, Italy. Signum
Edizioni: 49-51.

Billen, W. 1985. Die Platanen - Netzwanze Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Hemiptera: Tingidae) nun
auch in der Bundersrepublik Deutschland. Gesunde Pflanzen 13: 530-531.

Chauvel, G. 1988. Le Tigre, Grave ravageur du pletane en France. Phytoma No. 401
September-October 1988. pp. 46-50.

Chung, Y-J., Kwon, T.-S., Yeo, W.-H., Byun, B.-K. & Park, C.-H. 1996. Occurrence of the
sycamore lace bug, Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Hemiptera: Tingidae) in Korea. Korean
Journal of Applied Entomology 35: 137-139.

D’ Aguilar, J. 1982. Le tigre du platane. Phytoma 336: 30.

D’Aguilar, J., Pralavorio, R., Rabasse, J. M. & Mouton, R. 1977. Introduction en France du

tigre du platane: Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Het. Tingidae). Bulletin de la Societe
Entomologique de Prance 82: 2-6.

Decoin, M. 2006. Cote arbe en ville gerer 7 bio-agresseurs. Phytoma No. 597, October 2006.

Duverger, C. 1983. Sur la presence de Corythucha ciliata Say en Dordogne (Hem. Tingidae).
Entomologiste 39: 252.

Emmet, A. M. 1991. Phyllonorycter platani (Staudinger, 1870) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae)
new to Britain. Entomologists’s Record and Journal of Variation 103: 279-282.

FAO. 1977. Hungary - Corythucha ciliata on plane trees. PAO Plant Protection Bulletin 25: 128.

Forster, B., Giacalone, L, Moretti, M., Dioli, P. & Wermelinger, B. 2005. Die amerikanische
Eichennetzwanze Corythucha arcuata (Say) (Heteroptera, Tingidae) hat die Sudschweiz
erreicht. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 78: 317-323.

Gessler, C. & Mauri, G. 1987. Diseases and pests of the plane tree situation in Ticuro. Botanica
Helvetica 97: 349-356.

Gil Sotres, M. C. & Mansilla Vazquez, J. P. 1981. Descripcion de una nueva plaga del Platanus
spp. en Espana. Comunicaciones INIA. Proteccion Vegetal 15: 11.

Gninenko, Y. I. & Orlinskii, A. D. 2004. New insect pests of forest plantations. [Russian]
Zashchita i Karantin Rastenii. Izdatel’stvo Kolos, Moscow, Russia 4: 33.

Halbert, S. E. & Meeker, J. R. 1998. The sycamore lace bug, Corythucha ciliata (Say)
(Hemiptera: Tingidae). Entomology Circular (Gainesville). Division of Plant Industry,
Gainesville; Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, USA 387: 2.

Heckmann, R. & Rieger, C. 2001. Wanzen aus Baden- Wuerttemberg: Ein Beitrag zur Faunistik
und Oekologie der Wanzen in Baden- Wuerttemberg (Insecta, Heteroptera). Carolinea 59:
81-98.

Hoffman, H. J. 1978. Zur ausbreitung der Platanen-Gitterwanze Corythucha ciliata (Say) in
Sudeuropa (Heteroptera: Tingidae. Entomologische Zeitschrift 88: 206-211.

Hoffmann, H. J. 2003. Die Platanengitterwanze Corythucha ciliata (Say, 1872) erreicht den
Niederrhein (Heteroptera). Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte 47: 67-70.

Hopoltseder, H. 1984. Die Platanen-Netzwanze-ein neuer Schadling in Ostosterreich.
Pflanzenarzt 37: 10-11.

Hopp, I. 1984. Die Platanen-Netzwanze Corytucha ciliata (Say) nun auch in der Bundersrepu-
blik Deutschland. Entomologische Z., Prankf A.M. 94: 60-63.

Horn, K. F., Wright, C. G. & Farrier, M. H. 1979. Identification of the 5th nymphal stage of 10
species of Corythucha. Journal of the Georgian Entomological Society 14: 131-136.

Josifov, M. V. 1990. On the appearance of the Nearctic species Corythucha ciliata new-record
Say 1832 Heteroptera Tingidae in Bulgaria. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica 39: 53-56.

Maceljski, M. 1986. Current status of Corythucha ciliata in Europe. Bull. OEPP 16: 621-624.

Maceljski, M. & Balarin, I. 1972. A new member of the injurious entomofauna of Yugoslavia -
Corythuca ciliata (Say), Tingidae, Heteroptera. [Serbo-Croatian]. Zastita Bilja 23: 193-205.

Maceljski, M. & Balarin, I. 1973 (1972). Preliminary note on the appearance of a new species of
insect pest in Yugoslavia - the bug Corythuca ciliata (Say) Tingidae, Heteroptera. [Serbo-
Croatian] Acta Entomologica Jugoslavica 8: 105-106.

240

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Maceljski, M. & Balarin, I. 1974. Untersuchungen uber einen neuen amerikanischen Schadling
in Europa, die Platanen-Netzwanze, Corythuca ciliata (Say). Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde ,
Pfianzen- und Umweltschutz. 47; 165-170.

Malumphy, C. & Reid, S. 2006. First British Record of Corythucha ciliata (Say), Tingidae. Het
News, 2nd Series, no. 8 Autumn 2006, 10.

Malumphy, C., Reid, S. & Eyre, D. 2006. Platanus lacebug Corythucha ciliata. Plant Pest Notice
No. 46 (October 2006), 3 pp.

Marletto, O. O. & Menardo, R. 1984. Micromi ceti isolate da Corythucha ciliata Say. Bollettino
del Lahoratoris di Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo SilvestrV 4\-. 183-187.

Oszi, B., Ladanyi, M. & Hufnagel, L. 2006. Population dynamics of the sycamore lace bug,
Corythucha ciliata (Say) (Heteroptera; Tingidae) in Hungary. Applied Ecology and
Environmental Research 4: 135-150.

Park, J.-D., Kim, C-S., Lee, G.-S., Park, Y.-S., Kang, S.-H. & Shin, S.-C. 1999. Effect of
temperature on the development of sycamore lace bug, Corythucha ciliata (Hemiptera:
Tingidae). Journal of Korean Forestry Society. 88: 555-561.

Prado, C. E. 1990. Presence of Corythucha ciliata Say in Chile. Hemiptera Heteroptera
Tingidae. Revista Chilena de Entomologia 18; 53-56.

Rogers, J., Locci, R. & Vescovo, P. 1982. Tree Pathology 3. The association between
Corythucha ciliata and saprophytic fungi in plane trees. Riv. PatoL Veg. 18: 149-156.

Saly, K. R. & Ripka, G. 1989. The distribution of the tingid bug of sycamore in Budapest.
[Hungarian] Novenyvedelem. 24: 324-326.

Serra Planas, J. 1982. Corvthucha ciliata, tigre del platano. [Spanish] Agricultura 51 (604), 888-
889.

Streito, J. 2006. Note sur quelques especes envahissantes de Tingidae; Corythucha ciliata (Say,
1932), Stephanitis pyrioides (Scott, 1874) et Stephanitis takeyai Drake & Maa, 1955
(Hemiptera Tingidae). Entomologiste (Paris) 62; 31-36.

Tokihiro, G., Tanaka, K. & Kondo, K. 2003. Occurrence of the sycamore lace bug, Corythucha
ciliata (Say) (Heteroptera: Tingidae) in Japan. Research Bulletin of the Plant Protection
Service Japan 39: 85-87.

Tomic, D. & Mihajlovic, L. 1974. The American lacebug Corythuca ciliata (Heteroptera,
Tingidae), a new and serious pest of Plane trees in Belgrade. [Serbo-Croatian] Sumarstovo
27: 51-54.

Travella, L & Arizone, A. 1987. Investigations of the natural enemies of Corythucha ciliata Say
Rhynchota Heteroptera. Redia 70: 443^58.

Tzanakakis, M. E. 1988. First records of the sycamore lace bug Corythucha ciliata Say in
Greece. Entomologia Hellenica 6: 55-58.

Vasic, M. 1975. Suzbijanja Americke mreszaste stenice {Corythucha ciliata Say) na platanima u
drvoredima I parkovima u beogradu. Sumarstvo 28: 59-64.

Venturi, F. 1976 (1974). Una nuova minaccia per i nostri platani: il tingitide americano
Corythuca ciliata Say. Frustula Entomologica 12: 9.

Voigt, K. 2001. The first Russian record of Corythucha ciliata (Say) from Krasnodar
(Heteroptera: Tingidae). Zoosystematica Rossica. Zoologicheskii Institut, Rossiiskaya
Akademiya Nauk, St Petersburg, Russia 10: 76.

Wade, O. 1917. The sycamore lace-bug {Corythuca ciliata. Say). Oklahoma Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 116, 16pp.

Wyniger, D. 2003. Nachweis von Corythucha ciliata (Say, 1832) (Heteroptera, Tingidae) aus
dem Kanton Bern (Schweiz). Mitteilungen der Entomologischen Gesellschaft Basel 53: 79-
80.

Zukrigl, S. & Hobaus, E. 1989. Zur Verbreitung der Platanen-Netzwanze {Corythuca ciliata
Say) in Osterreich. [German] Pflanzenschutzherichte 50; 105-117.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

241

TWO SPECIES OF THRIPS (THYSANOPTERA) NEW TO BRITAIN,
NEOHEEGERIA DALMATIC A SCHMUTZ AND
FRANKLINIELLA PALLIDA (UZEL), WITH AN UPDATED KEY
TO THE BRITISH SPECIES OF FRANKLINIELLA KARNY

Dominique W. Collins

Central Science Laboratory , Sand Hutton, York, Y041 ILZ.
dom.collins@csl.gov.uk

Abstract

Two species of thrips are each reported for the first time in Britain. The first,
Neoheegeria dalmatica Schmutz (Phlaeothripidae), was found on Stachys byzantina
Koch at two locations during 2007, initially in a domestic garden in York in June,
and then again in July, in a domestic garden in Ashford, Kent. The second,
Franklinielia pallida (Uzel) (Thripidae), was collected from Sedum acre L. at
Denham, Buckinghamshire, in July 2006. Information on the identification and
biology of these species is provided, along with an updated key to the British species
of Franklinielia.

Neoheegeria dalmatica

A well established clump of lamb’s ear, or lamb’s tongue, Stachys byzantina Koch
(Lamiaceae), in a domestic garden in Rawcliffe, York, was noted to be infested with
adult phlaeothripid thrips. Specimens were first collected by the author on 03.vi.07
and four females and three males slide-mounted. These were identified as
Neoheegeria dalmatica Schmutz (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae) using information,
and a key, provided by Minaei et al. (2007), and the identification was subsequently
confirmed after comparison with specimens of this species supplied by Bert
Vierbergen of the Plant Protection Service, the Netherlands. Further specimens,
male and female, were subsequently collected from the plants at intervals.

Alerted by the above finding, a colleague of the author examined the single
S. byzantina plant at his daughter’s garden in Willesborough, Ashford, Kent, on
19.vii.07 (R. P. Hammon). This, too, was found to be infested with N. dalmatica.
Three of the twelve flower heads (the upper whorls only) were brought back to the
laboratory and from these 37 adults and 94 first-instar larvae were extracted. These
thrips were also collected from an established plant, one that was already present in
the garden before the present occupants moved into the house in 2005. No other
member of the Lamiaceae was present in the garden.

The host plants in the garden in York had been purchased as young plants and
planted out between 2002 and 2004 (Heather Johnson, pers. comm.); the original four
plants have subsequently developed into a conspicuous grouping with 40+ stalks.
The thrips were initially all located at the base of the developing flower spikes, but on
later occasions were seen crawling across the whole flower heads. Thrips were only
occasionally seen on the leaves. Numbers increased over the course of several weeks,
with several hundred adults present on the clump of lamb’s ear on 23.vi.07; adults
were still present in large numbers on the plants on 05.vii.07, this despite several
intervening periods of sustained and, at times, very heavy rain in a very wet June.
Mating behaviour was observed a number of times between 23.vi.07 and 05.vii.07
with one adult dorsally mounting the length of the other and the two then bringing
their tubes alongside for no more than 4-5 seconds at most, before disengaging. A

242

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

small number of eggs were first noted at the base of the flower heads, on the lower
whorls, on 01.vii.07. These were oval-cylindrical, cream to pale-orange in
colouration, apparently lacking sculpture on the surface, and approximately
0.425x0.175 mm in size. On the plants, the eggs looked as if they were simply
held in place by the tangled downy matrix, but closer examination of an egg under a
high-power microscope revealed the presence of a small pedicel at one end suggesting
that these were probably glued to the plant as is found in other phlaeothripids
(Lewis, 1973). One flower head (the upper whorl only) was removed to the
laboratory on 02.vii.07 and kept inside a Universal tube in an incubator at 22°C± 1.
Within 48 hours live larvae were seen and after a further five days the tube was
washed out with alcohol and 93 larvae were recovered. Only three eggs had been
visible on the outer surfaces of the flower head, indicating that the majority of the
eggs had been deposited deep in the downy matrix, presumably as protection from
predators. Outdoors, first-instar larvae were first seen on the plants on 07.vii.07, but
only small numbers were ever seen and later instars were never found. The last
sighting of thrips on the plants was that of a single adult and two larvae on 24.vii.07.
The rest of the plants in the garden were searched at intervals but N. dalmatica
remained restricted to the S. byzantina plants. Only one other member of the
Lamiaceae was present in the garden, a solitary mint plant, Mentha sp. No related
plants were visible in adjacent gardens.

Following a recent redefinition of the genus Neoheegeria, which has restricted the
taxon to just four species (Minaei et al., 2007), it seems clear that the genus is
primarily associated with the flowers of Lamiaceae. Neoheegeria dalmatica is found
on downy plants in the genera Phlomis and Stachys, with records from S. byzantina
recorded by Pelikan (1995) (as N. hammani Priesner), Mantel & Vierbergen (1996)
and Vierbergen (2001). The species’ range is primarily across the southern
Palaearctic, at warmer latitudes, from Spain to Azerbaijan, although Fauna
Europaea (http://www.faunaeur.org/) records the species from France, Germany,
the Netherlands and Poland. The species has apparently only been recorded twice in
the Netherlands, once in 1967 and once at the beginning of this decade (Mantel &
Vierbergen, 1996; Vierbergen, 2001). The Dutch cases were both associated with
swarming behaviour by the thrips, in one case with large numbers found
overwintering behind wallpaper in a domestic living room. No hint of swarming
behaviour can be attached to the British findings.

The fact that the two British populations were found so far apart, in each case
on well established plants, suggests that N. dalmatica is likely to be established
here. Vierbergen, however, has suggested that the species would not be able to
survive in the Netherlands without a means of overwintering under protected
conditions, such as within heated buildings. Here the thrips were highly visible on
the plants, not least because of the numbers present. Thrips were not noticed on
the plants in previous years, although in the York case the householder is a keen
gardener. Nevertheless, it remains possible that the thrips were present, possibly
in lower numbers, and were introduced with one or more of the plants; but this
would have required the population to have survived at least three winters.
Lamb’s ear is commonly grown in British gardens, and is also present across the
country as a garden escape. Together, with other potential hosts in the
Lamiaceae, this provides a reservoir of plants from which these particular
infestations might have originated, although the precise date of introduction
(natural or mediated by man) can only be a matter of conjecture. Whether the
species will be found on the same plants in future years, or indeed elsewhere in
Britain, remains to be seen.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

243

Neoheegeria dalmatica is a medium to large brown haplothripine species (Fig. 1),
with four sense cones on antennal segment IV, a well developed maxillary bridge,
and medially constricted forewings with duplicated cilia. However, unlike members
of the genus Haplothrips, the species has three strong sense cones on antennal
segment III (Xyiaplothrips subterraneus (Crawford) [treated as Haplothrips sub-
terraneus Crawford in Mound et al., 1976], which similarly has three sense cones on
antennal segment III is restricted to lily bulbs and is only present on the British list
due to the quarantine interception, by the United States, of the type series on
exported British bulbs). It may additionally be characterised by the presence of the
following characters: predominantly brown antennal segments, although many
specimens have patches of yellow diffusing upwards into the brown from the bases of
segments III-VI; long, pale, pointed postocular setae; well developed, long or
moderately long, pale, pointed major setae on the pronotum (anteromarginals,
anteroangulars, midlaterals, epimerals, and posteroangulars); maxillary stylets
widely separated in the head; clear wings, apart from at the base, where three long,
pale pointed setae are set in a triangular rather than linear arrangement; brown mid-
and hind-tarsi; a normally-sized fustis; no development of metathoracic sternopleur-
al sutures extending backwards from the mid-coxal cavities. The females mostly lack
a fore tarsal tooth, although a few individuals were found to have a very small tooth
on one or both tarsi. In the male, the fore tarsal teeth are well developed (there is
variable allometric growth with some individuals displaying both larger fore femora
and larger fore tarsal teeth). The male pseudovirga is slender, but widened at the
apex to give a clasper-like effect. No other phlaeothripid is associated with
S. byzantina. The first-instar larva is pale with light brown sclerotisation on the
antennae, thorax, legs and abdominal segments IX-X (Fig. 2).

Frankliniella pallida

Seven adult female and one adult male Frankliniella pallida (Uzel) (Thysanoptera:
Thripidae) were collected from flowers of biting stonecrop, Sedum acre L.
(Crassulaceae), growing on small patches of wasteland near to a small car park at
Denham Quarry, Denham, Buckinghamshire, on 19.vi.06. The species determination
was made using keys by Vierbergen (1995) and Strassen (2003), and after comparison
against specimens of F. pallida and other species in the collections of the Natural
History Museum, London (NHM). Thrips tabaci Lindeman and T. fuscipennis
Haliday were also beaten from the same plants.

Frankliniella pallida is a flower thrips feeding on pollen, found across continental
Europe and further east to Kazakhstan and Iran (Strassen, 2003). It has also been
recorded from Tunisia (Nakahara, 1997) and China (Feng, 1992). One specimen held
by the NHM is labelled as having been collected from Siberia without more specific
location details {Polygala sibirica, 18.viii.l928, O. Skolop). The species is
polyphagous, with records from the following plant genera: Helianthemum
(Asteraceae); Brunellia (Brunelliaceae); Dianthus (Caryophyllaceae); Sedum (Crassu-
laceae); Dipsacus (Dipsacaceae); Lotus, Genista, Ononis, Trifolium (Fabaceae);
Thymus (Lamiaceae); Polygala (Polygalaceae) (specimen collection labels, NHM,
London; Bagnall, 1934; Mound, 1968). However, Vierbergen (1995) notes that the
preferred host in the Netherlands is S. acre.

Nakahara (1997) recorded 159 species in the genus Frankliniella, the majority of
which are found in the New World. Frankliniella pallida is one of just four species
found naturally in Europe (the others being F. intonsa (Trybom), F. nigriventris
(Uzel) and F. tenuicornis (Uzel)); a further three species are synanthropic, introduced

244

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Figure 1. Neoheegeria dalmatica, adult male.

Figure 2. Neoheegeria dalmatica, first-instar larva.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

245

Figure 4. Frankliniella pallida, chaetotaxy of the head and pronotum.

246

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

species associated with commercial horticulture {F. fusca (Hinds), F. accident alls
(Pergande) & F. sc/mltzei (Trybom)).

Frcmklmiella pallida is a predominantly pale yellow species with light brown
patches on the abdominal tergites (Fig. 3). Strassen (2003) notes that occasionally the
head and thorax are yellow brown, or the abdomen is brown. Of the other
Frankliniella species recorded from Britain, F. intonsa and F. tenuicornis are both
predominantly brown in colouration, making them visually distinct from the paler
F. pallida even in the field. Frankliniella schultzei is restricted to quarantine
interceptions and unlikely to be encountered in the wild (Collins, 2006). In Britain,
F. pallida is most likely to be compared with the introduced pest species,
F. occidentalism even though that species is confined to protected cultivation. The
latter is, however, widely distributed in commercial glasshouses, and has been
occasionally found outdoors in the immediate vicinity of glasshouses in the summer
months. There is no documentary evidence that F, occidentalis has survived and
persisted outdoors in Britain independent of a protected environment and such a
finding would be of considerable interest to agricultural scientists (e.g., see
McDonald et al., 1997). The two species can be separated by differences in the
chaetotaxy of the head and pronotum as described below in the key.

Frankliniella pallida is not the only species in the genus to have been introduced to
Britain since the publication of the key to British species of thrips in the relevant
Royal Entomological Society handbook (Mound et al., 1976); Frankliniella
occidentalis was first introduced to British commercial glasshouses in 1986 (Baker
et aim 1993). An updated key to the species of Frankliniella recorded from Great
Britain is therefore presented below. Mound et al. (1976) regarded Iridothrips iridis
(Watson) as an aberrant species of Frankliniella and included it in their key for the
British Frankliniella. This was not generally accepted and current practice (e.g.,
Strassen, 2003) is to treat Iridothrips as a valid genus, although Mound (2002) argues
that the two species in the genus, I. iridis and I. mariae Pelikan are probably not
closely related at all. Iridothrips iridis is included in the key below in order to allow it
to be used as a continuation from the generic key for the Thripidae presented in the
RES Handbook.

Key to the species of frankliniella found in Britain

1. Internal furca of mesothorax without a median spinula; sense cone on antennal
segment III simple; 9 usually micropterous, always micropterous; metanotal
median setae slim, no more than half as long as the metanotum; tergites
sculptured between median pair of setae; head strongly prolonged in front of

eyes Iridothrips iridis (Watson)

In leaf sheaves o/Iris pseudacorus.

- Internal furca of mesothorax with a median spinula; sense cone on antennal

segment III forked; both 9 and (f always macropterous; metanotal median setae
three-quarters the length of the metanoum; tergites not sculptured between
median setae 2. (British species of Frankliniella)

2. Metanotum without campaniform sensillae 3

- Metanotum with two campaniform sensillae. ....................... 5

3. Head relatively long, clearly projecting forwards (but by no more than the
length of the diameter of an ocellus) between anterior margin of eyes and the
base of the antennae; female body colouration dark brown, male paler; antennal
segments III-IV pale, V uniformly dark; posterior margin of abdominal

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

247

segment VIII with an irregular comb of broadly-based, but very short,

microtrichia. tenuicornis (Uzel)

Relatively common and widespread; in grasses.

- Head not extended so in front of the eyes ......................... 4

4. Ocellar setae III placed well in front of a line joining the anterior margins of the
posterior ocelli; posterior margin of abdominal segment VIII with the comb
present and developed medially in the female, comb absent in the male; base of
sense cone on antennal segment VI normal; female body colouration brown,
male paler; antennal segments III-IV and at least the base of V pale

........................................... intonsa (Trybom)

Relatively common and widespread; polyphagous, in flowers.

- Ocellar setae III located close together (placed apart about four times the
diameter of one of the setal bases) and placed on, or just behind, a line joining
the anterior margins of the posterior ocelli; posterior margin of abdominal
segment VIII with sparse, short, microtrichia in the lateral thirds only, or the
comb absent; base of sense cone on antennal segment VI enlarged, more oval
than circular (can be difficult to see); female body colouration brown or

pale schultzei (Trybom)

Species found around the world but with a very restricted distribution in Europe; in
Britain, commonly intercepted on imported cut flowers; only one female ever found
in Britain outdoors (Pinus, Berkshire, 1914).

5. Postocular seta S4 about three times the length of the other postocular setae and
nearly as long as ocellar setae III; pronotal anteromarginal setae nearly as long
as the anteroangular setae; usually four minor setae between the anteromarginal
setae (occasionally 2 or 3); female of adventive form usually with dark yellow/
orange head and thorax, and brown abdomen ...... occidentalis (Pergande)

The ‘western flower thrips’; first introduced into Britain in 1986, now commonly
found in commercial glasshouses, particularly those growing ornamental flowers;
polyphagous, in flowers.

- Postocular seta S4 sometimes a little longer than the other postocular setae but
at most about twice as long, clearly shorter than ocellar setae III; pronotal
anteromarginal setae much shorter than the anteroangular setae, about half as
long (Fig. 4); two minor setae between the anteromarginal setae; female
predominantly pale with light brown patches on the abdominal tergites

pallida (Uzel)

Known from one population (Sedum acre flowers, Denham, Buckinghamshire,
2006).

Discussion

This paper records the first British findings of two species of thrips known from
continental Europe, Frankliniella pallida and Neoheegeria dalmatica. Because the
distribution of British, and indeed European, thrips records is heavily influenced by
the collecting activities of a very small number of researchers, it is difficult to draw
hard conclusions from isolated records as to the current distribution of more rarely
collected species, and the nature and speed of their spread. Nevertheless, both species
here were found on the host plants with which they are particularly associated in the
Netherlands (albeit with only two records in the case of N. dalmatica), where the
nearest continental geographic records are to be found. It is reasonable to predict
that F. pallida will be found more widely, at least in southern England. The
(relatively) high visibility of N. dalmatica on S. byzantina in domestic gardens should

248

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

mean that entomologists alerted by this paper will soon be able to confirm, or refute,
the suggestion that the species is established in Britain.

Voucher specimens of both F. pallida and N. dalmatic a have been deposited in the
collections of the NHM, London, and the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), York.

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Roger Hammon for locating the second population of
N. dalmatica, to Jon Martin for allowing access to the collections at the NHM,
London, to Bert Vierbergen for the loan of specimens of Neolieegeria dalmatica, and
to Dan Pye (CSL) for the photography.

Reeerences

Bagnall, R. S. 1934. Contributions towards a knowledge of the European Thysanoptera. V.

Annals and Magazine of Natural History 14; 481-500.

Baker, C. R. B., Barker, I., Bartlett, P. W. & Wright, D. M. 1993. Western flower thrips, its
introduction and spread in Europe and role as a vector of tomato spotted wilt virus. BCPC
Monograph No 54: Plant Health and the Single Market, pp. 355-360.

Collins, D. W. 2006. Odontothrips confusus Priesner (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) new to Britain
and recent records of other British thrips. British Journal of Entomology & Natural History
19: 145-156.

Feng, J. N. 1992. Seven new records of Thripidae (including Frankliniella pallida and
Taeniothrips picipes) from China. Entomotaxonomia 14: 235-236. (in Chinese)

Lewis, T. 1973. Thrips, their biology, ecology and economic importance. Academic Press,
London. 349 pp.

Mantel, W. P. & Vierbergen, G. 1996. Additional species to the Dutch list of Thysanoptera and
new intercepted Thysanoptera on imported plant material. Eolia Entomologica Hungarica
57 (Suppl.): 91-96.

McDonald, J. R., Bale, J. S. & Walters, K. F. A. 1997. Low temperature mortality and
overwintering of the western flower thrips Erankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera:
Thripidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 87: 497-505.

Minaei, K., Azemayeshfard, P. & Mound, L. A. 2007. The southern Palaearctic genus
Neolieegeria (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae); redefinition and key to species. Tijdschrift
voor Entomologie 150: 55-64.

Mound, L. A. 1968. Review of R. S. Bagnalfs Thysanoptera collections. Bulletin of the British
Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) Supplement 11; 1-181.

Mound, L. A. 2002. The Thrips and Erankliniella genus-groups: the phylogenetic significance of
ctenidia. In Marullo, R. & Mound, L. A. (eds): Thrips and Tospoviruses: Proceedings of the
7th International Symposium on Thysanoptera. Australian National Insect Collection,
Canberra, pp. 379-386.

Mound, L. A., Morison, G. D., Pitkin, B. R. & Palmer, J. M. 1976. Thysanoptera. Handbooks
for the Identification of British Insects. Volume 1, Part 11: 1-79.

Nakahara, S. 1997. Annotated list of the Erankliniella species of the World (Thysanoptera:

Thripidae). Contributions on Entomology , International 2: 355-389.

Strassen, R. zur. 2003. Die terebranten Thysanopteren Europas und des Mittelmeer-Gebietes.
Goecke & Evers, Keltern. 277 pp.

Pelikan, J. 1995. Thysanoptera. In; Rozkosny, R. & Vanhara, J. (eds), Terrestial invertebrates
of the Palava Biosphere reserve of UNESCO, I. Eolia Eacultatis Scientiarum Naturalium
Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis,. Biologia 92: 1-208.

Vierbergen, G. 1995. The genus Erankliniella in the Netherlands, with a key to the species
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Entomologische berichten 55: 185-192.

Vierbergen, G. 2001. Thysanoptera. Phlaeothripidae. Diagnostic Activities. Plant Protection
Service, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Annual Report 2001. Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries, pp. 46^8.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

249

MOTHS WHICH HAVE COLONIZED THE ISLE OF WIGHT
IN RECENT YEARS (PART 2)

D. T. Biggs' and S. A. Knill-Jones-

^Plum Tree Cottage, Albert Road, Gurnard, Cowes, Isle of Wight P031 8JU
Moorside, Moons Hill, Totland, Isle of Wight P039 OBU

Introduction

Since the previous paper (Knilh Jones, 1998) a further seventeen species of moths
(twelve micros and five macros) have colonized the Isle of Wight bringing the total
number of Lepidoptera recorded from the Island to more than 500. Details of their
establishment, dates, localities and abundance are given here. Records for the
Microlepidoptera have been extracted from Langmaid & Young (1998-2006).
During the last ten years the Island has experienced milder winters and warmer
summers as has been the trend in the previous two decades giving further evidence
for global warming.

These conditions have been conducive to the spread of rapidly colonising species.
However, it is probable that more species with localised distribution have
disappeared due to habitat changes and that the total number present on the Island
may have declined.

ECTOEDEMIA HERINGELLA MARIANI (NEPTICULIDAE)

On 3.ii.07 D.T.B. examined a previously uninspected plantation of holm oak,
Quercus ilex on the Osborne House estate on the Island and was surprised to find
that every leaf of every tree was affected by the upper surface corridor mines of this
moth. The identity of the causer was confirmed by Dr J.R. Langmaid. Later that
month it was clear that the rest of the Osborne estate holm oak population was
affected and it was known that these trees had not been affected the previous year.
During the spring of 2007 mined leaves caused by this species were found in six of the
Island’s ten-kilometre squares. Until 2001 this moth was only known from the
Mediterranean islands, Corsica, Sicily and Cyprus, and from Italy, Yugoslavia and
Greece. An imago had been taken in South Kensington in 1996 but was not
positively identified until 2001 (Honey, 2002). By 2005 it was only known from
Greater London but by mid-2007 it had been recorded from all along the south coast
from Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to Suffolk and from the inland counties of
Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire {pers. comm. J.R.L.).

PHYLLONORYCTER PLATANI STACDINGER (GRACILLARIIDAE)

This species was discovered new to Britain in October 1990 by A.M. Emmet in the
grounds of Imperial College, South Kensington, mining the leaves of London plane,
Platanus X hispanica (Emmet, 1991). By 1998 it had spread across London to
southeast England and north to the midlands. It appeared in Hampshire in 1998 and
was first found on the Island 27.ix.04 at Fairlee, near Newport, on a tree which had
been inspected the previous year and which was then unaffected. The find by D.T.B.
was confirmed by J.R.L. The mine starts as an inconspicuous corridor alongside the
main vein and later develops into an inflated tentiform blotch which deforms the leaf.

250

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

The moth is spreading slowly across the Island with trees now in three ten-kilometre
squares affected. Originally the moth was native to south-eastern Europe where its
host is Oriental plane, Platanus orientalis, which is found eastwards to India. The
moth has spread throughout Europe in recent years, reaching the Netherlands in
1965, Denmark 1978 and Sweden 1991. By 2007 it has been found in southern
England, East Anglia, the midlands and north to Lincolnshire and Lancashire (pers.
comm. J.R.L.).

PHYLLONORYCTER LEUCOGRAPHELLA ZELLER (GRACILLARIIDAE)

First recorded for Britain in February 1989 from Wickford in Essex by A.M.
Emmet, it was soon found to exist throughout south and east Essex (Emmet, 1989).
The larva causes a conspicuous silvery tentiform blotch on the upper surface of the
leaf of firethorn, Pyracantha coccinea, centred over the midrib and flecked with small
rusty red spots. By 1998 it was known from across southern England and across the
Midlands to N.E. Yorkshire. It was first recorded from Hampshire in 1998 and from
the Island 31.iii.01 when 146 mines were counted, some tenanted, some vacated,
from one yellow-berried Pyracantha bush in Gurnard (D.T.B., confirmed by J.R.L.).
It has now been found in eight of our ten ten-kilometre squares, on hawthorn,
Cotoneaster and apple as well as Pyracantha. Originally native to Europe south of
the Alps the moth has spread through northwest Europe during the last 40 years as
planting of Pyracantha has increased, particularly on new housing developments. So
far as the U.K. is concerned it is now found right up to southern Scotland (J.R.L.).

CAMERARIA OHRIDELLA DESCHKA & DIMIC (GRACILLARIIDAE)

This now notorious invader was first found on the Island as tenanted mines on
horse chestnut, Aesculus hippocastanum at Pelham woods, Ventnor, 15.ix.04
(D.T.B.). The first British record had been from Wimbledon, south London in July
2002. It was found in Oxford in 2003 and in Hampshire in 2004. It is now found right
across the Isle of Wight. Deschka and Dimic described it as a new species in 1986, it
having been found in Macedonia for the first time in 1985 (Deschka & Dimic, 1986).
Since then it has spread rapidly northwestwards across Europe, reaching Austria in
1989, Germany 1992 and the Netherlands by 1999. The larvae produce multiple
elongated pale brown blotch mines on the upper surface of the leaves of A.
hippocastanum but so far on the Island not on red chestnut, A. x carnea. By mid-2007
the moth had been reported from the whole of southern England, East Anglia and
the Midlands north to Cheshire (J.R.L.).

PHYLLOCNISTIS XENIA HERING (GRACILLARIIDAE)

This species was first recorded in Britain on 9Jx.74 by E.C. Pelham-Clinton from
near Dover, Kent (Pelham-Clinton, 1976). He had found some superficial upper-
surface leaf-mines on grey poplar, Populus x canescens. The mines were characterised
by a thick central track of frass and the long sinuous silvery mines ended at the leaf
margin where pupation occurred in a small leaf fold. It was found near Canterbury in
1982 and in Devon 1992. The first Island record was of mines on white poplar, P.
alba on St Helen’s Duver 17.viii.02 (Sue Blackwell and Bill Shepard, identified by
D.T.B. and confirmed by J.R.L.). The only other Island site so far recorded is
Osborne where tenanted mines were found 15.vi.07 by D.T.B. on P. alba. The moth

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

251

is found in Europe from Poland to Spain but is reported to be local and uncommon.
By mid-2007 it was known from coastal counties from Dorset to Norfolk (J.R.L.).

TACHYSTOLA ACROXANTHA MEYRICK (OECOPHORIDAE)

This adventive colonist was first recorded on the Island from Gurnard ll.viii.02
(D.T.B., identified by J.M. Cheverton, confirmed by J.R.L.). Its first appearance in
England had been in South Devon in 1908. It is a native of S.E. Australia. After the
initial record in 1908 only three more specimens were found until 1970. Since then it
has spread, reaching Somerset in 1981, Cornwall 1985, Hampshire 1994, London
1996 and Kent 1999. By mid-2007 records had been received from coastal counties
from Cornwall to Suffolk and from the West Midlands north to Lancashire. The
larva lives in leaf litter and the adult moth can be found from April to November.

BlASTOBASIS LACTICOLELLA rebel (BLASTOBASIDAE)

This moth is a native of Madeira but it appeared in London in 1946 and has
spread from there, initially slowly into the southeast of England. Since about 2000 it
has spread much more rapidly and much further afield, now (2007) being found from
the south coast of England to the north of Scotland (J.R.L.). It first appeared in
Hampshire in 1993 and on the Isle of Wight 14.vi.l999 at Freshwater (S.K.-J.). The
larva feeds on fresh and dead plant material, dead insect material and bird
droppings.

MOMPHA STURNIPENNELLA TREITSCHKE (MOMPHIDAE)

A deformed seed-pod of rosebay willowherb, Chamerion angustifolium was found
in Bouldnor Forest 26.viii.1998 (D.T.B.). It was taken home and from it hatched
ll.ix.l998 a Mompha sp. which was identified as this species by J.R.L. The first
confirmed English record was of an adult hatched from galls found at Oxshott,
Surrey in 1950. Since then it has spread slowly and it is now found (2007) from
Dorset to Norfolk, in the Welsh Marches and Midlands, north to Lancashire and
Yorkshire. It first appeared in Hampshire in 1995. Its native range is from central
and northern Europe across to Central Asia and the Russian Far East.

COSMOPTERIX PULCHRIMELLA CHAMBERS (COSMOPTERIGIDAE)

Just before Christmas, 22.xii.2006, mines of this new Island moth were found at
Shanklin on pellitory-of-the-wall, Parietaria judaica (D.T.B., confirmed by J.R.L. ).
One contained a larva. Since then heavy infestations of the moth have been found at
two other sites in the southeast of the Island. The moth first appeared in England in
Dorset (2001) and Cornwall (2004) (Sterling, 2004). Its original range was from
France and Switzerland through southern Europe to Greece and former Yugoslavia.
The larva forms a conspicuous white blotch on the upperside of the leaves. Plants
growing in shaded situations seem to be preferentially mined. By mid-2007 the moth
had been recorded from Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex and
Berkshire (J.R.L.).

252

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

COCHYLIS MOLLICULANA ZELLER (TORTRICIDAE)

The occurrence of the above species in Britain is documented by John Langmaid
(Langmaid, 1994), following his discovery and dissection of a specimen taken in his
light trap at Southsea on 21.viii.l993. It was later found that two earlier specimens
had been taken at Portland, Dorset, in late June 1991 and at Lyme Regis, Dorset, in
early July 1993. In 1994, larvae were found in great abundance in heads of bristly ox-
tongue Picris echioides, on waste ground at Southsea, Portsmouth. Since then it has
colonised the south coast of England. On 5.viii.2006 lights were set up in Parkhurst
Forest and Tim Norris later identified one of the tortrices as this species which was
new to the Isle of Wight. This species is probably widespread in the Mediterranean
region.

CrOCIDOSEMA PLEBEJANA ZELLER (TORTRICIDAE)

The earliest record of this species appears to be that of a specimen taken by E.R,
Bankes on 10.x. 1900 at Street, South Devon and the next specimen was taken at light
on 13.viii.l922 in North Devon. In September, 1957 H.C. Huggins and R.M. Mere
confirmed that this species was breeding on Tresco, Isles of Scilly, by obtaining
larvae in the leaf axils and ripening fruits of tree-mallow Lavatera arborea. It was
first found in Hampshire at Martyr Worthy in 1961 (Goater, 1974) and now appears
to have become established at low density along the coast of South Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight. On the Isle of Wight it was first taken at Freshwater on 27.ix.1983
and again on 18.xi.l990 and l.xii.l991. It was recorded inland at Binstead on
l.xi.l999. It is now regularly taken at Totland in the late autumn.

EVERGESTIS LIMBATA L. (PYRALIDAE)

Simon Colenutt was the first person to record this species in this country when he
took two examples on 23.vii and 30.vii.l994 in his light trap at Chale Green on the
Isle of Wight (Colenutt, 1995). He recorded two further examples on 14.vii. and
21.vii.l995 and S.K.-J. took it for the first time at Freshwater on 3.vii and
10.vii.l999. Since then it has been regularly recorded along the south coast of the
Island and there is also evidence of a second brood as it has been taken in September.
It has also been discovered in Sussex. It is easy to rear on its foodplant garlic mustard
AUiaria petiolata and the larva has been found with success in the wild. It is to be
found also at a low density in Hampshire.

NOCTUA JANTHINA BORKH. (NOCTUIDAE)

On 9.vii.2001 John Langmaid found a specimen of the above species in his garden
moth trap in Southsea, Hampshire (Langmaid, 2002), which was the first time that it
had been taken in Britain. This moth was recorded in small numbers in Kent and
Sussex in 2003 and has since been extending its range along the south coast of England
(Clancy, 2002). On 26.vii.2006 it was taken at Bonchurch on the Isle of Wight by James
Halsey and will most likely become established on the Island in future years.

DRYOBOTA LABECULA ESPER (NOCTUIDAE)

This south European species was first noted on Jersey, Channel Island in 1991 and
specimens were reported from Guernsey in 1995 and several more the following year

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

253

suggesting residency. Terry Rogers took the first example for mainland Britain at
Freshwater on 15.xJ999 (Rogers, 2000) and S.K.-J. captured one at light at
Freshwater on 22.xi.1999. It was recorded again at Freshwater in 2000 and 2001
whence it was unrecorded until 2004 when several more were taken at Freshwater. It
was taken for the first time at Luccombe on 21.X.2004 and at Bonchurch where six
were recorded at the end of October. This species is now well established on the south
coast of the Isle of Wight and over sixty examples were recorded in 2006. It now is
established on the mainland at Dorset and Hampshire.

Cry PHI A ALGAE (NOCTUIDAE)

In July 1859 two specimens were said to have been taken at Disley, Cheshire and in
1873 another was reported from Hastings, East Sussex (Waring & Townsend, 2003).
Over one hundred years passed before the species reappeared in England with a
capture at Southsea, Hampshire, on 21.viii.l991. From that date it has occurred in
small numbers mostly in the south of England between mid-July and early
September and in recent years has become established in several localities. It was first
recorded on the Isle of Wight on 27.viii.1992 at Freshwater; at Ninham on
23.viii.1996 at at Brading Marsh on 29.vii.2001. Since that date several have been
recorded every year at Bonchurch and in 2006 eight examples were taken at
Bonchurch and one at Totland which is evidence that it is now established in the
south of the Island.

PLATYPERIGEA KADENII FREYER (NOCTUIDAE)

This south-eastern European species were recorded for the first time in Britain on
3.x. 2002 at New Romney, Kent (Clancy & Honey, 2003). Four more were taken in
the Dungeness area the following year and since then it has rapidly extended its range
along the south cost of England. It was first recorded on the Island at Bonchurch on
26.ix.2005. Further records followed from Bonchurch with singles on 26 & 28. xi with
two more each on 23 & 26.x; one was taken at Totland on 16.x. In 2006 48 examples
were reported from Bonchurch, Shanklin & Totland which is evidence that this
species is now firmly established on the Island.

HyPENA OBSITALIS HUBN. (NOCTUIDAE)

This species was first recorded in Britain at Bloxworth, Dorset on 21.ix.l884. Since
then it has been recorded six times before the first was noted on the Isle of Wight at
Shanklin on 27.i.l968, One was caught by Peter Cramp in his porch at Ventnor on
5.xii.2004 and another was found hibernating in a cave at St. Lawrence on 19.i.2005.
This species has been recorded from St. Lawrence, Ventnor, Bonchurch and Totland
and there were five records in 2006 which suggest that it may be established at these
localities where the larvae feed on pellitory {Parietaria) and possibly nettle. It
overwinters as an adult. It has been considered to be resident in the Channel Islands
since the early 1960s, and on mainland Britain from 1990 following its discovery near
Torquay, South Devon. Larvae have been found on numerous occasions and the
species is now known to be well established in the Torbay district of Devon.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dave Wooldridge for reading and commenting
on the script and to Dr. John Langmaid for confirming the identity of the new micro-
moths found on the Isle of Wight and for information about their British distribution

254

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Up to mid-2007. Thanks also go to Simon Colenutt, Peter Cramp, James Halsey and

Terry Rogers for their records and other information.

References

Bradley, J. D. 2000. Checklist of Lepidoptera recorded from the British Isles (2nd Edition,
revised), Fordingbridge.

Clancy, S. P. 2002. Noctua janthina (Borkh.) new to Britain. Atropos 16; 38-39.

Clancy, S. P. & Honey, M.R. 2003. Clancy’s Rustic (Platyperigea kadenii) (Freyer) - the first
British record. Atropos 20: 14-16.

Colenutt, S. R. 1995. Evergestis limhata (L.) (Lep. Pyralidae) new to mainland Britain.
Entomologist’s Record of Journcd of Variation, 107: 197.

Deschka, G. & Dimic, N. 1986. Cameraria ochridella n. sp. aus Mazedonien, Jugoslawien
(Fepidoptera; Fithocelletidae). Acta Eng. JugosL, 22: 1 1-23.

Emmet, A. M. 1989. Phyllonorycter leucographella (Zeller, 1850) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae)
in Essex: a species new to Britain. Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation 101: 189-194.

Emmet, A. M. 1991. Phyllonorycter platani (Staudinger, 1870) Lepidoptera; Gracillariidae).
New to Britain. Entomologist’s Record and Journcd of Variation 103: 1-2.

Goater, B. 1974. Butterflies and moths of the Isle of Wight. 439pp. Faringdon. p. 135.

Honey, M. 2002. In Report of 2001 Annual Exhibition of B.E.N.H.S. British Journal of
Entomology and Natural History 15: 164.

Knill-Jones, S. A. 1998. Moths which have colonized the Isle of Wight in recent years. British
Journcd of Entomology and Natural History 10: 1998(1997) 226-229.

Langmaid, J. R. 1994. Cochylis molliculana (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) new to British
fauna. Entomologist’s Gazette 45: 255-258.

Langmaid, J. R. 2002. Noctua janthina ([Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775]) (Lep.: Noctuidae): a
yellow underwing moth new to the British list. Entomologist’s Record and Journal of
Variation 114: 19-22.

Langmaid, J. R. & Young, M. R. 1998-2006. Microlepidoptera Reviews for the years 1998-
2006. Entomologist’s Record & Journcd of Variation 111-118.

Nash, D. R., Agassiz, D. J. L., Godfray, H. C. J. & Lawton, J. H. 1995. The pattern of spread
of invading species: two leaf-mining moths colonizing Great Britain. Journcd of Animal
Ecology 64: 225-233.

Parenti, U. 2000. A Guide to the Microlepidoptera of Europe. Musee Regionale di Scienze
naturali, Torino.

Pelham-Clinton, E. C. 1976. Phyllocnistis xenia Hering, 1936. A recent addition to the British
List of Lepidoptera. Entomologist’s Record and Journcd of Variation 88: 161-164.

Rogers, T. 2000. The first British record of the Oak Rustic {Dryohota labecula) (Esp.) Atropos,
9: 18-19, PI. 7. fig. 16 (G. Smith).

Sterling, P. H. 2004. Cosmopterix pulchrimella (Chambers, 1875) resident in mainland Britain.
Entomologist’s Gazette 55: 118.

Waring, P. & Townsend, M. 2003. Eield Guide to the moths of Great Britain and Ireland. British
Wildlife Publishing. 432pp.

Ant Hills in Add Grassland by Nigel Reeve (2006). The Royal Parks, Richmond.

This new colour leaflet published by The Royal Parks will be of interest to
everyone working in nature conservation as it provides a simple and straightforward
explanation of the lives of yellow meadow ants Lasius flavus and why they build such
prominent nest mounds in old pastures. The ecological value and nature
conservation management aspects are also discussed. The leaflets are available free
from Nigel Reeve at The Royal Parks, Holly Lodge, Richmond Park, London TWIO
5HS.

Keith Alexander

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

255

THE SPECIES OF COT ESI A CAMERON
(HYMENOPTERA: BRACONIDAE: MICROGASTRINAE)
PARASITISING LYCAENIDAE (LEPIDOPTERA) IN BRITAIN

Mark R. Shaw

Honorary Research Associate, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street,
Edinburgh EH I IJE

Abstract

A key is given to five species of Cotesia (C. astrarches (Marshall), C. cuprea (Lyle),
C. inducta (Papp), C. saltatoria (Balevski) and C. tenebrosa (Wesmael)) that
parasitise the larvae of Lycaenidae in the British Isles. Two (C. inducta and
C. saltatoria) are newly recorded from Britain and one (C. astrarches) is raised from
synonymy. Taxonomic notes, host records and distributional data are given for all
species. A lectotype is designated for Apanteles astrarches Marshall, 1889.

Introduction

Species of Cotesia Cameron (Braconidae: Microgastrinae) are endoparasitoids of
Lepidoptera larvae, especially (but not exclusively) those of so-called “macro-
lepidoptera”. They are koinobionts - that is, the host continues its life for a time
after being parasitised - and different species are either solitary or gregarious with
respect to their host. Usually oviposition is into an early instar of the host larva, and
the fully-fed Cotesia larva(e) erupts from a later host instar to spin its sometimes
characteristic cocoon(s) externally: often the host does not die immediately after
parasitoid eruption, but is left in a voluntarily quiescent state and dies only some
days later. These parasitoids are often reared by entomologists who collect
caterpillars but Cotesia is a large genus and reliable identification sometimes proves
troublesome, even though most species have quite narrow host ranges. This paper
treats the species that parasitise Lycaenidae in Britain.

Nixon (1974), in his revision of N.W. European species of the part of the
traditional genus Apanteles that was later (Mason, 1981) recognised as Cotesia,
included only two species with rearing records from Lycaenidae in Britain, that he
called Apanteles arcticus Thomson (in error for (Thomson)) and Apanteles cupreus
Lyle. Subsequently Papp (1986) showed that in mainland Europe two species had
gone under the name A. arcticus, which he called A. arcticus and A. tenebrosus
(Wesmael), but he did not record the former from Britain. Because Nixon (1974) had
included Apanteles astrarches Marshall (described from Britain) as a synonym of
A. arcticus, Papp (1986) was obliged to assign it and he tentatively (but erroneously)
placed it as a synonym of A. tenebrosus.

Largely through the generosity of many people who have donated reared
parasitoids, a considerable quantity of British Cotesia reared from various
Lycaenidae has been amassed at the National Museums of Scotland, in which five
species are present. In addition to the recognition of C. astrarches as a valid species
distinct from C. tenebrosa, two species, C. inducta (Papp) and C. saltatoria
(Balevski), are newly recorded as British. The identity of the true C. arctica
(Thomson), which might either be a different (non-British) species or a junior
synonym, is not addressed.

All of the species treated here are plurivoltine; C. inducta overwinters in its cocoon
but the other species do so only as (presumably first instar) larva(e) in an

256

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

overwintering host larva. Two species, C. inducta and C. saltatoria, are strictly
solitary but the others are gregarious with respect to the host. Cotesia inducta is
obviously not closely related to the other four species, but even among these four
only C. astrarches and C. tenebrosa seem likely to form a natural group (though
formal phylogenetic assessment is lacking).

Females can be identified through the information given below, and in a following
section a commentary is given for each species to clarify its nomenclature and host
relations.

Unless indicated otherwise, all material is in the National Museums of Scotland
(NMS).

Identification

Notes on recognition, characters and terminology

Microgastrinae, to which Cotesia belongs, can be separated from other Braconidae
through keys given by Shaw & Huddleston (1991) or van Achterberg (1993). General
features are their 18-segmented antennae, small or only moderate size, usually rather
robust build, and comparatively large hind coxae. As well as through Mason (1981),
Cotesia can be fairly reliably recognised among Microgastrinae by the combination
of a more or less strongly rugose propodeum ( = the posterior part of the mesosoma,
which is the middle body section) that usually also has a medial longitudinal carina,
the first tergite of the metasoma parallel-sided or somewhat widening towards its
posterior, at least the apical part of tergite 1 and much of tergite 2 more or less
rugose, the ovipositor normally comparatively short and its sheaths extending at
most only a little beyond the apex of the hypopygium (and then for a distance not
exceeding the length of the hind basitarsus), and venation of the fore wing in which
the 2nd submarginal cell ( = 2nd cubital cell, sometimes also called the areolet) is
open - that is, vein 2rS"m in Shaw & Huddleston (1991) =r-m in van Achterberg
(1993) is absent (this last is the character that defined the traditional, but
polyphyletic, ‘‘'Apanteles’’’’ sensu lato). The bodies of most Cotesia species are
essentially black (a few exceptions occur). As far as parasitoids of British Lycaenidae
are concerned, any braconid whose larva (or larvae) comes out of the host larva to
spin a silken cocoon (or cocoons) that is not suspended on a thread will probably be
a species of Cotesia, though there are some campoplegine ichneumonid parasitoids of
Lycaenidae that do this, and care should also be taken not to confuse the brown,
tanned cuticular puparia of Tachinidae (Diptera) as cocoons.

Antennal segments are numbered from the head so as to include the scape and
pedicel; thus the first in the flagellum is the third antennal segment. As all
Microgastrinae have 18, segment 15 (which is used in the key for comparative
purposes as it is less prone to collapsing or loss through breakage than the more
distal segments) is therefore the 4th from the end. The malar space is the shortest
distance from the eye to the mandibular socket. The conspicuous anterior tentorial
pits are situated near the upper margin of the clypeus laterally and measurements are
taken from their middle (deepest part); ratios refer to a facial view. The height of the
face plus clypeus is measured perpendicularly from the level of the lower margin of
the antennal sockets to the lower margin of the clypeus at its centre. The width of the
face is the shortest distance between the eyes. The metasoma is the posterior body
part (also known as the gaster), and Tl, T2 and T3 refer respectively to its first
(anterior), second and third tergites (the SEM illustrations given here have T2 and
T3 in plane but often not Tl, the length of which is therefore difficult to appreciate).

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

257

Although fused, T2 and T3 have a clearly visible suture between them. The
hypopygium is the enlarged posterior sternite of the metasoma that is modified to
support the ovipositor. The metacarp is the vein of the fore wing that extends along
the anterior margin distal to the pterostigma towards the wing apex, and the radial
cell is the (poorly defined) cell beneath it.

Cotesia inducta is easily recognised (in both sexes), but the other four species are
less easy to separate. All four have the hind femur black and the hind tibia more or
less reddish over about its basal half with subequal spurs that only just reach, or fall
slightly short of, the mid-length of the basitarsus. The truncate or subacute
hypopygium is developed to a comparable degree, and the ovipositor sheaths are
rather long and slender, frequently appearing to be cylindrical and projecting well
beyond the hypopygium (but this is very variable in death, and in some species a
more tapered and dagger-like manifestation is also seen). Useful characters are
present in the proportions of the face and eyes, the antennae, the basal (i.e. anterior
three) tergites of the metasoma, and wing venation. Unfortunately, however, there is
considerable variation in each of these in the long series available; therefore in the
key several characters are expressed in each couplet, and majority rather than total
agreement should sometimes be expected. Cocoon colour seems to be reliably
consistent (although cocoons lose colour both with age and from immersion in
alcohol). As is the general situation in Cotesia, males (which have much longer
antennal segments and hence antennae) show weaker character development and are
also more variable than females, and the key given below does not accommodate
them at all well.

Females of the five British species can be distinguished by the key that follows.
Obviously the key cannot be used to identify specimens that have not been reared
from Lycaenidae, and it should be noted that further species parasitise Lycaenidae in
mainland Europe. Italicised characters in brackets are confirmatory rather than
dichotomous. Figs 1-14 were taken on a CamScan MX 2500 scanning electron
microscope at 15 kV and spot size 2. Generic placement of butterfly names follows
Lafranchis (2004).

Key to females of species of Cotesia parasitising Lycaenidae in Britain

1 . T3 not or scarcely longer than T2 and with rugose sculpture over almost all of
its surface, almost as intense as on T2 (Fig. 1); hind femur largely orange,
infuscate at extreme apex or sometimes (especially in overwintering generation)
a little more extensively; hind tibia orange, weakly infuscate in at most apical
fifth; underside of scape usually strikingly orange (but often black in
overwintering generation); overwintering in cocoon. ( Mesonotum and hind coxa
with rather distinct deep punctures. Solitary. Cocoon lemon yellow )

inducta (Papp)

- T3 obviously longer than T2 and largely unsculptured, in any case clearly
contrasting with the more or less strong rugose sculpture of T2 (Figs 2-5); hind
femur usually entirely black; hind tibia more or less reddish basally, becoming
infuscate over at least most of apical half; underside of scape always black;
overwintering inside host larva ................................ 2

2. Eyes relatively large, usually at least slightly converging (downwards) for almost
whole length of face (Fig. 6), and height of eye ca 4.0 times malar space; face ca
1.1 times as wide as height of face plus clypeus (Fig. 6); malar space ca 0.8 times
basal width of mandible (Fig. 7); hind tibial spurs a little longer, more or less
reaching middle of hind basitarsus; a large species, ca 3 mm; solitary. ( Antenna
ca 0.9 times as long as fore wing, its segment 15 usually ca 1.2-1. 3 times longer

than wide. Tl usually strongly and often rather linearly widening posteriorly: T2
ca 3.3 times wider than long (Fig. 2). Distance between eye and anterior tentorial
pit usually ca 0.4 times distance between pits (fig. 6). Metacarp ca 2. 2-2. 5 times
as long as its distance from apex of radial cell. Cocoon bright yellow)

saltatoria (Balevski)

- Eyes smaller, diverging or at most parallel at middle of face and below (Figs 8-
1 1), and height of eye at most ca 3.8 times malar space; face at least 1.2 times as
wide as height of face plus clypeus (Figs 8-11); malar space at least as long as
basal width of mandible (Figs 12-14); hind spurs shorter, not quite reaching
middle of hind basitarsus; smaller species, usually not more than 2.5 mm;
gregarious [but broods of 1 could occur] ......................... 3

Figs 1-3. Cotesia species, metasoma in dorsal view. 1. Cotesia inducta (Papp). 2. Cotesia saltatoria (Balevski).
3. Cotesia cuprea (Lyle).

Figs 4-7. Cotesia species. 4, 5. Metasoma in dorsal view. 6. Head in facial view. 7. Head in ventro-anterio-
lateral view. 4. Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael). 5. Cotesia astrarches (Marshall). 6, 7. Cotesia saltatoria
(Balevski).

260

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

3. Antenna thin, about as long as fore wing, its segment 15 usually 1. 5-2.0 times
longer than wide; outer side of hind coxa basally dull; malar space about as long
as basal width of mandible (Fig. 12); distance between eye and anterior tentorial
pit 0.4 or less times distance between the pits (Fig. 8); T2 slightly less transverse,
ca 3.0 times wider than long, almost its whole surface often more or less evenly
rugose (posteriorly) or at least the anterolateral sulci usually poorly developed
(Fig. 3); metacarp ca 2.4-2. 7 times its distance from apex of radial cell. (T1
strongly, sometimes roundly, widened towards apex. Ovipositor sheaths usually
appearing slender and cylindrical. Face ca 1.2 times wider than height of face plus
clypeus (Fig. 8). T3 sometimes slightly sculptured basally. Cocoons white)

cuprea (Lyle)

- Antenna more robust, about three quarters as long as fore wing, its segment 15

usually 1.0-1. 2 times (rarely up to 1.4 times) longer than wide; outer side of hind
coxa basally rather shiny; malar space at least ca 1.2 times longer than basal
width of mandible (Figs 13,14); distance between eye and anterior tentorial pit
at least 0.5 times distance between the pits (Figs 9-11); T2 slightly more
transverse, ca 3.2 times wider than long, and usually with fairly distinct
anterolateral sulci separating less sculptured margins (Figs 4, 5); metacarp
usually less than 2.4 times its distance from apex of radial cell. (Ovipositor
sheaths often appearing to be more tapered, but very variable in death. T3 smooth
basally ) 4

4. Eyes smaller, strongly diverging below, their lower margin well above level of

anterior tentorial pits (Figs 9, 10); face ca 1.3 times wider than height of face
plus clypeus and ca 1.2 times wider than height of eye (Figs 9, 10); cheeks
sometimes appearing very bulging (Fig. 10) and the lower part of the face and
clypeus produced centrally; distance between eye and anterior tentorial pits ca
0.7-0. 8 times distance between pits (Figs 9, 10); malar space ca 0.5 times height
of eye and ca 1.5 times basal width of mandible (Fig. 13); metacarp shorter, ca
1. 7-2.0 times its distance from apex of radial cell; T1 very variable but usually
more strongly widening posteriorly (Fig. 4, but note that T1 is not in plane),
sometimes strongly so; cocoons whitish tenebrosa (Wesmael)

- Eyes larger, less strongly diverging below, their lower margin only a little above

level of anterior tentorial pits (Fig. 11); face ca 1.25 times wider than height of
face plus clypeus and about as wide as height of eye (Fig. 11); cheeks scarcely
bulging (Fig. 1 1) and the face flatter; distance between eye and anterior tentorial
pit ca 0.5-0. 6 times distance between pits; malar space ca 0.3 times height of eye
and ca 1.25 times basal width of mandible (Fig. 14); metacarp longer, ca 2.0-2.4
times its distance from apex of radial cell; T1 very variable but usually less
widened posteriorly (Fig. 5), sometimes hardly widened at all; cocoons distinctly
yellow. astrarches (Marshall).

Taxonomy, distribution and biology
Cotesia astrarches (Marshall), stat, rev.

Marshall (1889) described this species from four specimens reared in England from >
a larva of ''Lycaena astrarche'\ now Aricia agestis (Denis & Schiffermiiller), by
[G.C.] Bignell, stating them to be 1 9, 3 (f. Nixon (1974) placed Apanteles astrarches
Marshall, 1889, in synonymy with Microgaster (Apanteles) arcticus Thomson, 1895
(which was described from non-reared material), making no comment other than the

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

261

indication “syn. nov.” despite his placing the nominal taxon with the earlier name
(astrarches) as the junior synonym; an anomaly which has been widely followed (e.g.
Fitton et aL, 1978). Nixon’s curious action is possibly explained by his statement that
he had seen the type of arcticus without his mentioning the type material of
astrarches, which was in Plymouth museum and which he presumably had not
examined. Subsequently Papp (1986), who had previously (Papp, 1973b) seen the
type of arcticus, separated two species in A. arcticus sensu Nixon, that he called A.
arcticus and A. tenebrosus (Wesmael), putting “? astrarches"' in synonymy with the
latter, remarking that {Cotesia arctica] (described from Arctic Norway) is a rare
species, and (by implication) recording only [Cotesia tenebrosa] from Britain.

There is considerable material in NMS conforming to [Cotesia arctica] sensu
Nixon which fairly readily falls into two groups, one corresponding to C. tenebrosa
(q.v.) and the other, comprising numerous broods (see below) reared from Aricia
agestis and A. artaxerxes (Fabricius), agreeing with the syntype material of Apanteles
astrarches Marshall, which I have examined (Bignell collection, Plymouth City
Museum and Art Gallery). The type series comprises four specimens glued more or
less face down to a card, with the labels “3064”; “Type [word inside red circle]”;
“Apanteles astrarches Marsh.”; and “Ap. Astrarches n, sp. next octonarius”.
Although the series is of 2 9? 2 J* rather than the 1 9^ 3 J* stated in the original
description, it clearly should be accepted as authentic and I here designate the top left
specimen, a female, as the lectotype in accordance with my labelling and indication
attached to the mount. Incidentally, the recognition of the two closely related species
(together comprising arcticus sensu Nixon) as C. tenebrosa and C. astrarches
fortuitously somewhat dodges the importance of the identity of the true C. arctica in
this context as, even if it is conspecific with one or the other (which seems unlikely
and it should be noted that it was not described from reared material), C. arctica
would be a junior synonym in either case.

In NMS there are 56 broods of between two and 13 individuals (usually about four
to six, but often around 12 - possibly representing additional oviposition visits?) of
C. astrarches reared from Aricia agestis in central E. England and N. Wales (45
broods; VCs 49, 54, 57, 61, 62, 64; R. Menendes Martinez, R. Wilson) collected on all
three of its main foodplants Helianthemum nummular ium, Geranium mode and
Erodium cicutarium, and from Aricia artaxerxes in eastern C. and S. E. Scotland and
N. England (11 broods; VCs 65, 66, 69, 81, 82, 90; P. Summers, M. R. Shaw)
collected on H. nummularium. The impression of a northern distribution of this
species in Britain probably simply reflects a massive sampling bias (cf. Shaw, 1996
and unpublished; Menendez et aL, in prep.).

All of the British C. astrarches seen to date have been reared from Aricia species,
with the possible exception of one brood, doubtful because only a single male
emerged, from Cupido minimus (Fuessly) collected in S. E. Scotland (VC 81; A.
Buckham). While two broods reared from Tomares ballus (Fabricius) in Spain
(Granada; M. Gines Munoz) and two broods from ? Polyommatus thersites
(Cantener) (or possibly Agrodiaetus sp.) in Greece (N. Peloponnese; T. Lafranchis)
that appear to be morphologically compatible with C. astrarches (and had similarly
pale yellow cocoons) might suggest a wider host range, it is unsafe to determine them
as this. In addition to the possibility that these specimens may belong to one or more
additional biological species, the situation in mainland Europe is complicated by the
presence of the extremely similar Cotesia specularis (Szepligeti), although that seems
to be a slightly smaller species that generally produces larger broods and has white
cocoons. C. specularis parasitises lolana iolas (Ochsenheimer) and Lampides boeticus

Figs 8-11. Cotesia species, head in facial view. 8. Cotesia cuprea (Lyle). 9, 10. Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael). 11.
Cotesia astrarches (Marshall).

Figs 12-14. Cotesia species, head in ventro-anterio-lateral view. 12. Cotesia cuprea (Lyle). 13. Cotesia
tenebrosa (Wesmael). 14. Cotesia astrarches (Marshall).

(Linnaeus) regularly in southern Europe, but it might have a wider host range and it
is unclear whether its cocoon colour is constant.

Cotesia cuprea (Lyle)

This gregarious species was described as Apanteles cupreus by Lyle (1925) from
four broods reared from Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus) in England, and has been
redescribed in detail by Wilkinson (1945). It is a well-known and often common
parasitoid of L. phlaeas, and a brief account of its causing repeated local extinctions

264

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

within a metapopulation of this host in England is given by Ford (1976), It probably
parasitises most or all other Lycaena species in Europe: it is recorded by Nixon
(1974) from L. helle (Denis & Schiffermuller), and from L. dispar (Haworth) below.

Wilkinson (1945) included single series supposedly reared from each of
Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg) and Plebejus argus (Linnaeus) in France in his
redescription of Apanteles cupreus. While the former could not easily be reassessed,
the latter brood (also recorded by Nixon (1974)) is in the BMNH and, having seen it,
I concur with the identification of the specimens, though the host determination is
less easy to accept. Two series of Cotesia reared on separate occasions from Lampides
boeticus collected in France at St Jean de Luz, Basses=Pyrenees, that were recorded
by Nixon (1974) as A. cupreus (and erroneously stated to be from two sites) are also
in BMNH, and one specimen carries a Nixon determination label dated 1955 [there is
no evidence that he re-examined the specimens in the course of his 1974 revision].
The specimens are in rather poor condition, but they are certainly not C. cuprea and
are provisionally referred to C. specularis, which appears to be a regular parasitoid of
this host in mainland southern Europe (see note under C. astrarches, above). There
are several literature references to [C. cuprea] as a regular parasitoid of
polyommatine Lycaenidae (e.g. Fiedler et aL, 1995) but, in the absence of clear
confirmation of any, C. cuprea would appear, from the material in NMS, to be
strongly specialised to Lycaenini and not to parasitise Polyommatini regularly.

In NMS there are ten typically coloured broods reared from L. phlaeas, nine
collected in England (VCs 29, 30, 32, 33, 60; R. L. E. Ford, P. Marren, R. Revels,
D. Stokes, P. Tebbutt, /. P. Tuffs) and one in France (Ariege; D. Corke). Two
additional broods reared in autumn from this host collected in S. E. Scotland (VC 82;
P. Summers) have the hind tibia almost completely reddish (rather than being
strongly infuscate on about its apical two fifths, as is usual in both early summer and
autumn broods), but they appear to belong to this species. There are also two broods
reared on separate occasions from semi-captive stock of Lycaena dispar in England
(VCs 21, 31; P. W. Crjbb, L. Martin), and a brood from an unidentified Lycaena
species from Finland (Aland; S. van Nouhuys). Brood sizes range from 2-28; most are
in the upper teens.

Cotesia inducta (Papp)

New to Britain (cf. Revels, 2006). This species was described from non-reared
material as Apanteles indue tus from Hungary (Papp, 1973a) and later recorded also
from Slovakia, Bulgaria and Turkey (Papp, 1986), though its hosts had remained
unknown (ef. Papp, 1990). During the 1990s I received separate lots of reared
specimens from Spain as follows: 2 9. 1 J", Nevada, Mijas, ex Celastrina argiolus
(Linnaeus) [coeoons received with the specimens are on Hedera flower buds], em.
14. xi. 1993 {J. E. Pateman); 1 9^ Girona, El Cortalet, Aiguamolls de FEmporda
National Park, ex C. argiolus on Rubus ulmifolius, em. 17.vii.l996, (C. Stefanescu);
and 1 9^ Barcelona, Can Riera de Vilardell, ex Glaucopsyche melanops (Boisduval)
on Dorycnium liirsutum, coll. 23.V.1999, em. v/vi.l999 (C. Stefanescu). This
demonstrated that C. inducta is a solitary parasitoid of certain polyommatine
Lycaenidae and suggested that it is widespread in Southern Europe. It was,
nevertheless, surprising to receive British specimens for determination, first reared in
2004 by Richard Revels from C. argiolus in Bedfordshire (VC 30), where it has
subsequently proved to be well spread and abundant from this host, both in the
autumn generation on Hedera and in early summer on Cornus (cf. Revels, 2006).
Further examples of C. inducta reared from C. argiolus in the British Isles have been

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

265

received from Bob Aldwell in 2006 reared from host larvae collected in the autumn of
2005 on Hedera in the south-eastern suburbs of Dublin (Ireland, VC H21), and from
Peter Summers who collected parasitised larvae on Hedera at three sites in N.
Yorkshire (VC 64) in the autumn of 2006. A single specimen received from Richard
Revels reared from Satyrium w-album (Knoch) on Ulmus glabra in 2006 in
Bedfordshire, as well as further material from Spain (Granada) reared in 2006 from
both Callophrys avis Chapman (5) and Tomares ballus (Fabricius) (1) by Miguel
Gines Munoz, added members of the tribe Eumaeini to its host spectrum and suggest
that a substantial range of Lycaenidae are probably susceptible to parasitism by this
species. More hosts in Britain are likely to become known: it is noteworthy that the
host range known so far for C. inducta not only spans two tribes of Lycaenidae but
also involves species feeding on low plants as well as shrubs. It would be interesting
to know if it is capable of overwintering as a larva inside a diapausing host larva: if
not, then this might limit its host range.

Revels (2006) includes a good colour photograph of a living female: when present,
the orange scape is a particularly easy recognition feature, though British specimens
from overwintering cocoons generally have the scape black or nearly so.

The ease with which C. inducta is now found as a parasitoid of C. argiolus in the
British Isles and the lack of records prior to 2004 suggests that it is a fairly recent
arrival, as C. argiolus has been regularly collected in the larval stage over the years,
and the adults of C. inducta are strikingly and conspicuously unlike other British
species of Cotesia. Papp (1987) states that the N. American species Cotesia cyaniridis
(Riley), which was described from ''Cyaniris pseudargiolus'' (now regarded as a
subspecies of C. argiolus), is “very similar” to C. inducta, which might suggest a
transatlantic origin for the British (and presumably European) population. However,
it is clear both from the original description of Apanteles cyaniridis Riley in Scudder
(1889) and from Muesebeck's (1921) key to North American species of Apanteles
(sensu lato), that C. inducta and C. cyaniridis are different species (indeed, according
to an illustration in Fiedler et al. (1995), C. cyaniridis would appear to be a
gregarious species). It is therefore presumed that the British population has resulted
directly from the presence of C. inducta further south in Europe, and that it is a
genuine member of the Palaearctic fauna.

Cotesia saltatoria (Balevski)

New to Britain. This species was described as Apanteles saltatorius from non-
reared material collected in Bulgaria (Balevski, 1980), and it appears that it was

J. Papp who was responsible for recognising it as a solitary parasitoid of
polyommatine Lycaenidae (cf. Baumgarten & Fiedler, 1998, who record it from
Lysandra coridon (Poda) and Polyommatus icarus). Reared material in NMS had
remained unidentified for many years (e. g. recorded as Cotesia sp. in Shaw, 1996),
but Papp’s interpretation is followed here.

In NMS there are 14 British specimens reared from P. icarus collected from a wide
spread of localities in England, and in S.E. Scotland (VCs 2, 11, 54, 58, 61, 83;

K. P. Bland, R. L. H. Dennis, J. L. Gregory, M. Oates, R. Menendes Martinez), eight
specimens from Aricia ages t is collected from both Geranium molle and Er odium
cicutarium in central E. England (VCs 28, 53, 54; R. Menendes Martinez), and four
from Aricia artaxerxes collected on Helianthemum nummularium in S. E. Scotland
and N. England (VCs 57, 69, 81, 82; P. Summers). Additionally there is a specimen
from Lysandra coridon collected in Germany (Bavaria; K. Fiedler, don. J. Papp),
three specimens from IP. icarus collected in France (Var, Hautes-Alpes; M. R. Shaw),

266

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

two from Polyommatus amandus (Schneider) collected in Spain (Granada; F. Gil-T,

M. Gines Munoz), and one from either Aricia cramera (Eschscholtz) or A. agestis also
from Spain (Asturias; M. Gines Munoz).

A few of the individuals seen from Aricia are rather small, with somewhat more
divergent eyes and consequently a relatively wide face. While they could be mistaken
for specimens of C. astrarches with a brood size of one, others from Aricia are more
typical of C. saltatoria and, even in the less typical examples, the anterior tentorial pit
is only marginally closer to the mandible than the eye (cf. Figs 7 and 14) and the
cocoon colour is bright. Therefore the variation seen is interpreted as the result of the
relatively small size of the host species compared with Polyommatus.

Cotesia tenebrosa (Wesmael)

Although the type material of Microgaster tenebrosus Wesmael was not reared,
there is no reason to doubt the current interpretation (Papp, 1986). The appearance
of the name on the British check list (Fitton et al., 1978, who list Apanteles tenebrosus
as a synonym of A. saltator (Thunberg) [a non-British species] following Shenefelt,
1972) has, however, been at variance with this, as can be seen from the various non-
lycaenid hosts listed for it by Shenefelt (1972). Papp (1986) showed that Nixon’s
(1974) interpretation of ''Apanteles arcticus Thomson” was incorrect, but the
situation is more complicated than Papp’s (1986) conclusion that [Cotesia] tenebrosa
is the correct name, and that Apanteles astrarches Marshall is probably a synonym,
as the two species had been confounded in Nixon’s (1974) concept (see under
C. astrarches, above).

In NMS there are British broods of C. tenebrosa from Lysandra bellargus
(Rottemburg) (ca seven broods, J. A. Thomas), L. Icoridon (A. Harmer) and Plebejus
argus {K. Murray) from S. England (VC 9), and Polyommatus icarus from both

N. Wales and central E. Scotland (VCs 48, 90; M. J. Morgan, ^R. M. Lyszkowski). In
addition there are broods from P. argus collected in Finland (Aland; V. Hyyryldinen),

L. bellargus in Andorra (/. Dantart), IP. icarus (two broods) in France (Var;

M. R. Shaw) and a total of five broods in Spain, from Everes alcetas (Hoffmannsegg)
(Girona; M. Ginh Munoz), Lysandra arragonensis (Gerhard) (Albacete; M. Gines
Munoz), L. albicans (Herrich-Schaffer) (Granada; M. Gines Munoz), L. coridon
(Lerida; M. Ginh Munoz), and Meleageria daphnis (Denis & Schiffermuller) (Burgos;
M. Gines Munoz).

ACKNOWLEDGEM ENTS

The author is grateful to all the people indicated in the text for giving him
specimens reared from Lycaenidae for the National Museums of Scotland collection,
sometimes (R. Menendez Martinez, R. Revels, P. Summers) crucially or in large
numbers. Diane Mitchell graciously took the SEM images and Mike Rothnie kindly
manipulated them for publication. Mike Fitton and Gavin Broad made several
helpful comments on the MS. The author also thanks the staff and trustees of the
BMNH for access to that institution’s collection, and Helen Fothergill of Plymouth
City Museum and Art Gallery for loaning the type material of Apanteles astrarches
Marshall.

References

Achterberg, C. van 1993. Illustrated key to the subfamilies of the Braconidae (Hymenoptera;

Ichneumonoidea). Zoologische Verhandelingen 283: 1-189.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

267

Balevski, N. A. 1980. New species of Apanteles Foerst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) from
Bulgaria. Entomologischeskoye Obozreniye 59: 350-362 (in Russian) [English translation in
1982, Entomological Review, Washington 59: 93-106].

Baumgarten, H.-T. & Fiedler, K. 1998. Parasitoids of lycaenid butterfly caterpillars: different
patterns in resource use and their impact on the hosts’ symbiosis with ants. Zoologischer
Anzeiger 236: 167-180.

Fiedler, K., Seufert, P., Pierce, N. E., Pearson, J. G. & Baumgarten, H.-T. 1995. Exploitation of
lycaenid-ant mutualisms by braconid parasitoids. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera
31(1992): 153-168.

Fitton, M. G., Graham, M. W. R. de V., Boucek, Z. R. J., Fergusson, N. D. M., Huddleston,
T., Quinlan, J. & Richards, O. W. 1978. A check list of British insects, second edition
(completely revised). Part 4: Hymenoptera. Handbooks for the Identification of British
Insects 11(4): i-ix + 1-159.

Ford, R. L. E. 1976. The influence of the Microgasterini on the populations of British
Rhopalocera (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Entomologist’s Gazette 27: 205-210.

Lafranchis, T. 2004. Butterflies of Europe. Paris.

Lyle, G. T. 1925. Some Braconidae new to Britain. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 61:118-
123.

Marshall, T. A. 1889. Species des Hymenopteres d’ Europe et d’Algerie (ed. E. Andre) 4 (1888).
Beaune.

Mason, W. R. M. 1981. The polyphyletic nature of Apanteles Foerster (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae): a phylogeny and reclassification of Microgastrinae. Memoirs of the
Entomological Society of Canada 115: 1-147.

Muesebeck, C. F. W. 1921. A revision of the North American species of ichneumon-flies
belonging to the genus Apanteles. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 58
(1920): 483-576.

Nixon, G. E. J. 1974. A revision of the north-western European species of the glomeratus-gvoup
of Apanteles Forster (Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research 64:
453-524.

Papp, J. 1973a. New Apanteles Forst. species from Hungary (Hymenoptera, Braconidae:

Microgasterinae), II. Annales Historico-naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 65: 287-304.
Papp, J. 1973b. A revision of the C.G. Thomson species of Apanteles Forst. (Hym. Braconidae:

Microgasterinae). Entomologica Scandinavica 4: 59-64.

Papp, J. 1986. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae:
Microgastrinae) IX. The glomeratus-group, 1 . Annales Historico-naturales Musei Nationalis
Hungarici 78: 225-247.

Papp, J. 1987. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae;
Microgastrinae), X. The glomeratus-gxowp 2 and the cultellatus-gvoup. Annales Historico-
naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 79: 207-258.

Papp, J. 1990. A survey of the European species of Apanteles Forst. (Hymenoptera, Braconidae:
Microgastrinae) XII. Supplement to the key of the glomeratus-gioup. Parasitoid/host list 2.
Annales Historico-naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 81: 159-203.

Revels, R. 2006. More on the rise and fall of the Holly Blue. British Wildlife 17: 419^24.
Scudder, S. H. 1889. The butterflies of the Eastern United States and Canada. Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Shaw, M. R. 1996. Parasitism of Aricia species: preliminary results and a call for help. Butterfly
Conservation News 62: 14-15.

Shaw, M. R. & Huddleston, T. 1991. Classification and biology of braconid wasps
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 7(11): 1-
126.

Shenefelt, R. D. 1972. Braconidae 4. Microgastrinae: Apanteles. Hymenopterorum Catalogus
(novo editio) 7: 429-668.

Wilkinson, D. S. 1945. Description of Palaearctic species of Apanteles (Hymen., Braconidae).

Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 95; 35-226.

268

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Host plants of the Pale Mottled Willow Pavadrina clavipalpis (Scop.) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae). - With reference to Len Winokur’s communication (2007) about finding
a larva of P. clavipalpis within a spun leaf of goat willow Salix caprea, near
Winchester (VC 12), one needs to decide whether it is a realistic food plant or not.

The Victorian, Edwardian and pre-war II lepidopterists, not having the
advantages of ultra-violet light to find species, had to rely mainly on fieldwork.
Scorer (1913) listed Poaceae (grasses), Pisum (pea) and seeds of Plantago (plantains).
Allan (1949), a renowned fieldworker and author, listed Plantago spp., Stellaria
media (chickweed), Triticum vulgare (wheat), on the grains and Pisum sativum (field
pea), on the seeds. I have beaten and searched Salix at a number of sites in VC 1 1
and 12 (Dobson, 1989) where P. clavipalpis imagines have occurred at light, but
never found the larvae on bushes or trees. I think it is evident that P. clavipalpis is not
arboreal and that Salix is not its food plant and that it is simply a ‘tourist’ i.e. a non-
predatory species that has no lasting association with the plant, but may be attracted
for shelter, sun-basking or sexual display (Moran & Southwood, 1982).

I have witnessed, though rarely, other species exhibiting apparently unusual
behaviour. One example was of the copper underwing Amphipyra pyramidea (L.) an
arboreal species; I found a larva feeding on prostrate Cotoneaster horizontalis in a
garden far removed from shrubs and trees at Sparsholt College (VC 11). The most
puzzling host association occurred in April 1964, when I collected a disused song
thrush’s nest, which was 1 m up in a thick hedge at Cullompton (VC 3). In school,
the children in my class carefully dismantled the nest to discover its composition. To
our surprise there was a noctuid pupa within the base. I retained the pupa and on
24.V.1964 an adult clouded-bordered brindle Apamea crenata (Hufn.) emerged. This
species, like P. clavipalpis is also a ground level feeding species, firstly on the flowers
and immature seeds of Poaceae and later on the foliage; the pupa is in a loose cell
spun amongst the roots of grasses (Emmet & Heath, 1983). Perhaps the reason for
the larva spinning in the bird’s nest was that its composition appeared like a tangle of
roots. A clue for the clavipalpis larva’s behaviour might be wood; it has been stated
‘the pupa is in a tough cocoon of silk and other available material such as abraded
wood and vegetable debris (ibid. p. 281). Was the larva attracted to the base of Salix
by its woody stem? Why did both individual larvae climb up from ground level?
Perhaps both were escaping adverse conditions on the ground.

I have experienced larvae of P. clavipalpis feeding well above the ground, because
of human activity. On 5.i.l990 I answered a request for help by visiting Mr. & Mrs.
Frith’s cottage in Chestnut Avenue, Eastleigh (VC 1 1). They were being inundated
by numerous larvae dropping from the thatch and falling down the chimneys. The
cottage had been re-thatched the previous year with wheat reed on which, I
presumed, many ova of the culprit, P. clavipalpis, had been laid. Barry Goater (1974)
stated that, ‘it was frequent in towns . . . and throughout the agricultural belt, where
the larvae could be a minor pest in grain stacks and in growing wheat at harvest
(CHD); the larva probably also feeds on wild grasses in chalk pasture.’ C.H. Dixon
lived at Northbridge Farm, Micheldever just under seven kilometres from where
Winokur’s larva was found. Changes in agricultural practices have removed this
species from wheat and pea crops grown there and elsewhere.

I do agree with Len Winokur that S. caprea is a popular food plant for
Lepidoptera. In an unpublished paper (1984) produced for the local Wild Life Trust,
I compiled a list of food plants of Lepidoptera found in North Hampshire (VC 12)
and the number of larval species per plant to show the relative importance of certain

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

269

plants to Lepidoptera, as a guide for conservation. The compilation was based on
Lepidoptera species listed in Goater (1974), but excluding species with fewer than
five specimens recorded and non-breeding migrant species. Food plants were listed
from my experience and the literature: Scorer (1913), Stokoe (1948), Allan (1949),
Emmet (1988) and Emmet and Heath (1979 & 1983). Top of the list for host trees
were S. caprea (goat willow) and Quercus spp. (deciduous oaks), with 180 species
each, followed by Betula spp. (birch) 175, and Crataegus spp. (hawthorns) 150. -
A.H. Dobson, 282 Britten Road, Basingstoke RG22 4HR.-,

References

Allan, P.B.M. 1949. Larval food plants, London: Watkins & Doncaster.

Dobson, A.H. 1984. A list of wild food plants for the Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths including
Microlepidoptera) found in VC 12 North Hampshire and the number of larval species per
plant. Unpublished report.

Dobson, A.H. 1989. Lepidoptera food plant recording for conservation. British Journal of

Entomology & Natural History, 2: 131-138.

Emmet, A.M. (Ed.) 1988. A field guide to the smaller British Lepidoptera, 2nd Edn, London:
BENHS.

Emmet, A.M. & Heath, J. (Eds) 1979. The moths and butterflies of Great Britain And Ireland.
London: Curwen Books.

Emmet, A.M. & Heath, J. (Eds) 1983. The moths and butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland.
Colchester: Harley Books, Vol. 10.

Goater, B. 1974. The butterflies and moths of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Faringdon: E.W.
Classey Ltd.

Moran, V.C. & Southwood, T.R.E. 1982. The guild composition of arthropod communities in

trees. Journal of Animal Ecology, 51: 289-306.

Scorer, A.G. 1913. The entomologist’s log book and dictionary of the life histories of the British
Macrolepidoptera, London: Routledge.

Stokoe, W.H. 1948. Caterpillars of British moths, series 1 & 2, London: Warne.

Winokur, L. 2007. Pale mottled willow Paradrina clavipalpis larva on Salix caprea. British
Journal of Entomology & Natural History, 20: 138.

Holcostethus vernalis (Wolff) (Hem.: Pentatomidae) and Bathysolen nubilis (Fallen)
(Hem.: Coreidae) in Hampshire. - On 29 May 2007, I swept an adult male H. vernalis
from a rough grassy glade in an abandoned orchard in Lock’s Heath, South
Hampshire (VCll) (SU5006). This appears to be the first record of this species in
Hampshire (Bernard Nau, pers. comm?}, and my second coming after another single
male from the former Ore Power Station, Hastings, East Sussex (TQ8210) on 22
September 2003.

On 4 June 2007, I visited part of the old Royal Aircraft Establishment at
Farnborough, North Hampshire (VC 12) (SU8654), where a large area of black
medick Medicago lupulina had developed on foundations of a building demolished in
2002. Having found B. nubilus in similar places in Essex and Kent in recent years, I
was unsurprised to find adults under the first rosette examined. These appear to be
the first seen in Hampshire, and a westerly extension to its known range, lying some
35km from Surbiton, where I found it new for Surrey in 1998. Jonty Denton, 29
Yarnhams Close, Four Marks, Hants, GU34 SDH.

270

BENHS INDOOR MEETING

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

13 March 2007

The President, Mr N. M. Hall chaired the last meeting of the British
Entomological & Natural History Society to be held in the rooms of the Royal
Entomological Society, due to the premises at 41 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 being
sold.

The death was announced of Mr Eric Gowing-Scopes, (librarian helper at the
RES Library for many years) who joined the Society in 1936.

Mr K. Merrifield showed a specimen of an ephydrid fly, Limnellia quadrata
(Fallen) found on the outside of a window at Eastcote, Middlesex on 10. hi. 2007. He
also showed a scale insect, probably Coccus hesperidum L., on a pot plant cyclamen.

Mr P. Hodge showed an oil beetle, Meloe proscarabaeus L. taken at Peasmarsh,
Sussex.

Dr R. Booth noted that the first larval or triungulin stage in the life cycle of oil
beetles needs to be picked up by certain species of soil-nesting solitary bee if the
larvae are to complete their development. This means that adult oil beetles can
appear in places where they have not previously been recorded, thanks to solitary
bees providing a means of dispersal. He also said that identification keys for oil
beetles that are based on colour differences are unreliable.

Mr A. J. Halstead showed an infestation of the Acacia sucker or psyllid, Acizzia
imcatoides (Ferris) on the shoot tips of Acacia retinodes Schlecht. from a private
garden in East Molesey, Surrey. This non-native pest was first recorded in Britain in
1990 and it continues to come into the country on imported Acacia spp.

Mr J. Badmin showed a recently published test version of the Field Studies
Council’s AIDGAP key to adult caddis flies.

The following persons were approved by Council as members of the Society:

Mr Michael Bailey, Mr Andrew Banthorpe, Miss Stella Beavan, Mr Michael
Blencowe, Mr David Bradley, Mr Kevin Coker, Mrs Faith Darlow, Mr Ronald
Elliott, Mr Mark Hammond, Mrs Jan Heaney, Mr David Hodges, Mr Christopher
D. Jones, Mr Anthony J Kingston, Mr Ashley Leftwich, Mr Vlad Prolov, Dr
Michael Snow and Mr Evan S. White.

The Hon. Secretary asked the people at the meeting to contribute to a collection
for the RES caretaker, Mr David Beeson, to show the Society’s appreciation of the
assistance given to the BENHS during the time it had been holding its meetings at 41
Queen’s Gate.

There were no Communications and the Ordinary meeting was then followed by
the Annual General Meeting {BJENH 20:95-110).

Dipterists Forum Fly Identification Workshops

Preston Montford Field Centre. Friday 7-Sunday 9 March 2008
Beginner’s Workshop: How to get going on identification of Diptera. Tutors,
Stuart Ball and Roger Morris.

Advanced Workshop: Tackling parasitic flies - Tachinidae and Rhinophoridae.
Tutors, Matt Smith and Chris Raper.

For more details contact Tel: 0845 330 7378, Email: enquiries.pm@field-studies-
council.org.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

271

BOOK REVIEWS

Six Legs Better ^ A cultural review of myrmecology by Charlotte Sleigh. (Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, 2006). 302pp. Hard cover £36.50. ISBN 0-8018-8445-4.

As someone who has spent a lifetime working on the ecology and population
dynamics of ants I usually describe myself as “a professional myrmecoiogist”. I was
fascinated to read about the origins of the term myrmecology in Charlotte Sleigh’s
book: Six legs better - A cultural history of myrmecology. Apparently I and many
others, now use the term more generally than was intended when William Morton
Wheeler, the famous American ant specialist, first used it in 1906. Sleigh points out
that he used ants as exemplars to understand the evolution of complex behaviours by
making detailed holistic studies of their life-styles in relation to their taxonomy.
Wheeler was anxious to ensure that his work would not be dismissed as mere
“natural history” by the majority of laboratory-based biologists. Similar slurs - “Of
course he’s only interested in ants” - were still in vogue as late as the mid 1970s when
I developed aspects of Michael Brian’s detailed experimental studies of queen control
and brood development of the red ant Myrmica rubra, to try to understand the
ecological basis of why very closely related species have quite different social
structures. The importance of such comparative studies was not fully appreciated
until Edward O. Wilson published "'Insect Societies'' in 1971, where among many
other things he highlighted the importance in many ecosystems of social insects in
general and ants in particular. In Britain this was given practical credence when my
colleague Jeremy Thomas and I demonstrated the vital importance to practical
nature conservation in Europe, of understanding the role of ants in the life cycle of
Large blue butterflies (there are five species belonging to the Maculinea arion
complex in Europe and all figure on Red Data lists).

Wilson has become a world figure in biology especially as an authority on
biodiversity and in the field he called sociobiology, which brings us back to Charlotte
Sleigh’s Six legs better. The crux of her book is the thesis that myrmecology (as
defined by Wheeler) right up to the present has been shaped and developed by three
giants - the Swiss Auguste Forel 1848-1931 and the Americans William Morton
Wheeler 1865-1937 and Edward O. Wilson 1929- . While nobody can deny that

they are probably the three greatest “ant-men” I find it hard to understand why no
exploration is made of William Hamilton’s impact via his theory of “Inclusive
fitness” other than a transient mention that Wilson favoured his ideas. The predicted
consequences of Hamilton’s theory for behaviour and sociality in insects, especially
ants, has been the preoccupation of most ant-biologists throughout the second half
of my career, especially geneticists who have tested the predictions "ad nauseam".

The book is very American-centric, which is not surprising given that it is based on
the published and unpublished works and correspondence of the primary characters,
it would be strange if over their careers much of their scientific interactions had not
been with their own compatriots. This makes the book slightly irritating for a British
reader and no doubt some other European audiences. It is written in an historian’s
style with facts, hearsay and anecdotes mixed together, which I found interesting and
readable when I dipped into any of the various sub-titled sections but made the
historical chain of argument hard to follow.

The are three parts, more or less in the chronological order of the three giants
under the headings Psychological ants (41pp, 2 chapters). Sociological ants (lOOpp, 5
chapters, the last of which is an interesting essay entitled “Ants in the Library - an
interlude”) and Communicational ants (56pp, 2 chapters) followed by a short
conclusional chapter, a list of notes numbered by chapter and a very interesting short
Essay on the Sources. Forel’s early life is outlined in part I, and is set into context

272

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

with the great events of the times and his development of a love for ants which first
influenced his interest in psychiatry and later was influenced by his work with the
mentally ill. While undoubtedly specialists and historians such as Sleigh, will always
be interested in that aspect of his work, Forel joined the immortals among ant-men
mostly through his pioneering work on ant taxonomy. I knew he was a prolific author
but until I read this book I didn’t know that Forel’s collection comprised 3,500 species
all described by himself. Therefore a substantial part of this section is devoted to Forel’ s
interactions with and influence on other ant taxonomists of his time.

Charlotte Sleigh portrays Forel as a serious, puritanical and somewhat obsessed
personality who, in the end, falls out with most rival scientists with the exception of
Carlo Emery. From my reading it seems that Forel was ‘The Authority’, all was well
as long as people deferred to his opinion, sent him material and did not become
rivals, as did Wheeler in later life. People like our own W.C. Crawley are accused of
obscurantism and being too frivolous for the austere Forel, while Horace
Donisthorpe “extended the tradition of Englishmen who failed to understand or
refused to accept the etiquette of exchange”. There is no doubt that Donisthorpe is a
pygmy ant-taxonomist compared to Forel but just possibly such “junior” members
of the taxonomist’s race sent material to their “senior” and found it named and
described with no acknowledgement of themselves. Believe it or not, such things are
not unknown today.

I am not sure how I would get on with Forel if I had access to a time machine but
Wheeler on the other hand, seemed to be a different kettle of fish. In the first
paragraph of section II Sleigh paints a picture of a man who I would have loved to
have met and discussed ants with, and perhaps sampled some of his “bootlegger’s
goods”. This section includes a potted biography of Wheeler and shows how he
struggled to place the study of ants into what I suppose we would call a “modern
scientific context”, taking it beyond mere natural history of the 19th century (Isn’t
God’s creation complex and wonderful? and all that) or the attempts of seeing ants’
behaviour as some sort of psychological continuum culminating in our own. Much
of this is concerned with the influence of natural history on the science of the time
particularly in an American context, while interesting it seems rather irrelevant to a
European audience. Running through this section is the concept of an ant colony as
a sociological unit or super-organism bound together by mutual feeding or
trophallaxis, later shown to be regulated by chemical signalling often seen as control
by one part of the society over another. Certainly this was the prevailing view when I
started working on ants in 1961.

By the time I was doing my first research on ants Wilson had already been working
with ants for almost 15 years, during which time he had made quite a name for
himself, particularly in his development of ideas of biodiversity in relation to island
biogeography. Sleigh shows how at that time he was already gathering the data and
formulating the ideas that lead to his (in terms of ant research) three most influential
books The Insect Societies, Sociobiology and The Ants (the latter with his colleague
Bert Holldobler). Apparently, Wilson rejected the importance of trophallaxis and the
idea of the colony as a super-organism preferring to emphasise the importance of
pheromones in social interactions and behaviours of individuals. Arguably this is
why so many biologists turned to ants when trying to test predictions based on
Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory. On the three or four occasions I have met Wilson
I found him to be a very perceptive, knowledgeable and nice man. However his
career has not always been a tranquil one, he once told me how, in the middle of a
public lecture, he was symbolically tarred and feathered (albeit only with molasses)
by students of colleagues who violently disagreed with his views on the importance of

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

273

inheritance in determining behaviour. Sleigh gives one a flavour of such rivalries in
these chapters.

So, who is going to read this book? It surely will be better received in America than in
Europe, where it might be useful to students on history of science courses. I am not sure
how many practising ant-researchers will read it cover-to-cover. As I said earlier, I
found it very interesting to dip into but hard to follow as a whole. Maybe non-
myrmecologists will find it fascinating and accept the causal connections uncritically. In
the end I was left with a feeling that not many of my older European colleagues (many
now dead) would have recognised such a clear chain of intellectual descent as that
proposed. Perhaps my problem will be typical for other myrmecologists who specialise
within the specialism of myrmecology; after 45 years study I know too much to accept
Sleigh’s account uncritically and too little to really evaluate it as a “true” history of
myrmecology. Despite this I recommend it to any younger scientist studying ants if only
to discover that myrmecology did not begin in 1990 with the publication of The Ants.

Graham W. Elmes

Atlas of the Millipedes (Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland by Paul Lee, with a
contribution from Paul T. Harding. Photographs by Steve Hopkin and Paul
Richards. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 2006, 216pp. Pensoft Series Faunistica 59.
Hardback. €32.00. ISSN 1312-0174, ISBN 978-954-642-277-4.

This Atlas is the culmination of a considerable amount of recording activity by
members of the British Myriapod and Isopod Group. A Preliminary Atlas was
published by the UK Biological Records Centre in 1988 but the offspring is in a
different class altogether. The core of the book is the series of distribution maps for
each species known from Britain and Ireland, showing the general coverage achieved
by the recording scheme with positive records superimposed, which gives an at-a-
glance comparison of distribution in relation to effort. The coverage is impressive for
such an ‘unpopular’ group of invertebrates. Alongside each distribution map is a
page of information which discusses what is known about the species’ biology and
ecology. While interpretation of the densities of 10km squares with records are
always difficult to assess, the broader picture illustrates the ranges of the species very
well. Thus my favourite millipede, the bristly Polyxenus lagurus, is shown to be
widespread across much of southern and south-eastern England, but to be sparsely
distributed elsewhere, where coastal situations are more frequent than inland ones.
This certainly accords with my own experience of the species. A total of 56 species
distribution maps is presented.

The maps are preceded by a foreword by Desmond Kime, introductory text on the
British and Irish fauna, ecology, life histories, collecting and recording, identification
and keys by Paul Lee, plus a review of millipede recording in Britain and Ireland by
Paul Harding. A full and up-to-date checklist is a particularly useful feature. The
most recent Scheme Recording Cards have included a structured classification of
habitat associations and environmental features, and this data set is analysed
towards the end of the book. There follow short sections on conservation and future
recording - three species have been identified as Priority Species in the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan: Metaiulus pratensis, Polyzonium germanicum and Trachy-
sphaera lobata, and the rationale is briefly outlined.

Overall, this is a key publication for those of us involved in the study and
conservation of invertebrates, and will also be especially valuable for local records
centres, translating obscure scientific names into knowledge of distribution and ecology.

Keith N. A. Alexander

274

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

Guide des papillons nocturnes de France edited by Roland Robineau. (Delachaux &
Niestle SA, Paris, 2007). 288pp. ISBN 978-2-603-01429-5, €28.

I obtained a copy of this wonderful book two days before embarking on a
collecting trip in the French Alps and found that it was hardly out of my hands, it
became the only moth book in my travelling library that I consulted. Since becoming
interested in European moths a few years ago this is the book I have been waiting for; a
concise, well illustrated treatment of the French moths, a French ‘Skinner’, in fact.

The book, which is in French, has been written by a collective of amateur
entomologists and contains a preface by Pierre Viette. Nobody should be put off by
the language, with only the most pathetic schoolboy French at my command I have
only had to look up one or two words. After a brief introduction comes a systematic
list of the 1620 species covered, in which the modern ideas of Hausmann and
Mironov and Fibiger, Ronkay and Beck are reflected. Numbers used in the check
lists of Leraut (1997) and Karsholt & Razowski (1996) are given to facilitate cross
referencing. The traditional ‘macro’ families with which English readers will be
familiar are covered with the exception of Zygaenidae and Sesiidae and the addition
of families not represented in the British Isles, Thyrididae, Lemoniidae, Axiidae and
Castniidae. I should perhaps say that in spite of the title diurnal species are included.
There follows a section describing changes to the nomenclature, additions and
deletions since Leraut’s check list with notes explaining and referencing them. There
is also a page on wing morphology, a list of abbreviations and a useful two page
description of the various zoogeographic areas before the main body of the work.

The species descriptions which follow are brief but comprehensive. In each case the
scientific name is given in full, followed by the French vernacular name or names.
Then follow the distribution of the species, distribution in France, comments on the
preferred habitat and altitude extent. There are no distribution maps in order to save
space and because in many cases a species’ distribution is not well enough known.
Comments on behaviour and such points as sexual dimorphism, larval foodplants
and preferences, flight period and voltinism follow. All this information is typically
included in less than ten lines, in a half page column. Each species is referenced by
number to a plate. The plates are photographs of set specimens against a white
background, the majority of which are by Yann Baillet and are of such high quality
that I originally thought they were by David Wilson; they certainly follow his style.
The plates are clearly printed with high definition in marked contrast to some recent
works. The majority of plates are life size but some of the smaller species, pugs and
so on, are magnified. The magnification is clearly shown on each of the 55 plates.
Each species is typically illustrated with only one photograph unless there is marked
dimorphism when there can be up to five. In addition there are a number of line
drawings by Yves Doux illustrating critical identification points in a way that has
now become familiar to us. Again, these drawings are clear and of high quality. It is
interesting to note a number of identification points on common English moths
which I had not seen highlighted previously, as for example the underside characters
of Plusia putnami (Grote) and P. festucae (L.). There are 36 of these sets of similar
insects, in the case of the Footmen, nearly a whole page, but inevitably I would have
liked to see these drawings extended to some other groups where I have particular
identification problems!

The volume concludes with a bibliography, glossary, index and a fascinating little
section on the entomologists cited in this work; I am astounded to learn from this
that Duponchel published 7600 pages in only ten years; and finally a list of societies,
groups, addresses and websites.

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20: 2007

275

My copy was delivered to my door for just over £22 and it is difficult to see how a
book of this quality could have been produced so cheaply, one can only hope that it
will enjoy the high sales it deserves. This volume is very much an identification guide
and is not intended to compete with the major works on European Noctuidae and
Geometridae which are ongoing, although the authors have tried to include the latest
information. In its format, it is case bound 255mm x 205mm without a dust jacket, it
is easy to accommodate in one’s luggage and I cannot recommend it highly enough
to those with an interest in Lepidoptera visiting France and neighbouring countries
and also to those who do not collect abroad, but who wish to see what the next new
migrant may be. ^ j

References

Leraut, P. 1997. Systematic and synonymic list of the Lepidoptera of France, Belgium and Corsica
(2nd edition). 526pp. Alexanor, Wetteren.

Karsholt, O. & Razowski, J. 1996. The Lepidoptera of Europe - a distributional checklist.
Apollo, Stenstrup.

Fleas (Siphonaptera) by Amoret P. Whitaker. 2007. Handbooks for the Identification
of British Insects. Volume 1 Part 16 (2nd Edition). 177pp. Published for the Royal
Entomological Society by the Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury. Softback. £19.00.
ISBN 978^0-90154-685-2.

The RES Handbook on fleas by Frans Smit published in 1957 has remained the
standard identification guide to species of British Siphonaptera for over half a
century. Distribution data on each flea species was printed as a separate publication
as a supplement to the Handbook (Smit, 1957). Since this time the main features used
for identification of fleas have remained virtually unchanged and so the author has
retained the general outline of the original keys and concentrated on simplifying the
wording with the aim of reaching a wider audience. The text has been expanded to
include six additional species, making a total of 62 found in the British Isles.

The Introduction includes sections on biology, morphology, distribution, epidemio-
logical significance, systematics and techniques for the collection and preservation of
fleas. The high conservation status attributed to our native mammals and birds today
means that a licence is necessary to handle most vertebrate hosts. The alternative is to
persuade colleagues who trap these species for scientific survey to search for fleas on
your behalf. Nowadays many counties have their own mammalian and avian study
groups and can be approached for assistance. No species of flea is currently considered
to be endangered, but if a host species were to become critically reduced in numbers,
any flea specific to that host would naturally also become endangered.

In 1957 two superfamilies were recognised: Pulicoidea and Ceratophylloidea.
Today the Order is divided into five superfamilies: Pulicoidea, Ceratophylloidea,
Hystrichopsylloidea, Vermipsylloidea and Malacopsylloidea, as recognised by Smit
(1982). The Malacopsylloidea are not represented in the British fauna. One taxon
in the 1957 Handbook, Ctenophthalmus bisoctodentatus occidentalis Smit has been
synonymised with C. bisoctodentatus heselhausi (Ouedemans). The species added
to the British list are Ischnopsyllus variabilis (Wagner), Ceratophyllus fionnus
Usher, Ceratophyllus chasteli Beaucournu et a!., Ceratophyllus anisus Rothschild,
Palaeopsyllus soricis vesperi Smit and Chaetopsylla trichosa Kohaut.

The main section (120pp) is devoted to the keys. Most of the figures are from the
original publication but more than 30 additional figures have been included in the
new Handbook. All are of an extremely high standard and have an intrinsic beauty

276

BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 20; 2007

of their own. A glossary of terms and 7 figures are provided to illustrate the general
morphology of fleas showing the position of the characters used in the keys and
descriptions. The author recommends that those unfamiliar with fleas should first
identify their specimens to family level using the basic family key which will then
direct them to one of the keys for each of the seven families. Each couplet of the key
is accompanied on the same page by two or more figures making the key easy to use.
Species can be further checked with additional descriptions given later in the book,
together with published distributional data. For each species the data are broken
down to: host species, with county and distribution reference numbers in brackets,
thereby allowing all the existing literature on that species to be accessed, a
remarkable achievement.

For example, four sets of distributional records are given for the human flea Pulex
irritans L. This species is widely recognised as being associated with humans, but no
other primates are generally infested with fleas, and it is probable that man may be a
secondary host, the primary ones being mammals which nest such as the fox, badger
and domesticated animals such as dogs and cats. Host records are split into Homo
sapiens, secondary hosts, accidental hosts (e.g. otter) and ‘unspecified host, generally
“house” ’ - even Surrey and London are listed here, all neatly cross-referenced.

The Handbook is a delight to use and the author and the Royal Entomological
Society are to be congratulated in publishing a fully comprehensive, extremely well
illustrated key to a small, but important Order of British insects. A spur to further
work will occur when an updated Atlas of British Fleas by Robert George is

published in the near future. ^

John Badmin

ANNOUNCEMENT

Conserving Scotland’s Invertebrates - a fresh approach. - No-one can doubt the
importance of invertebrates for the environment whether it is for their contributions
to ecological services like pollination and waste disposal or for the simple pleasures
of seeing butterflies and bumblebees in gardens and countryside alike. Yet many
invertebrates in Scotland are threatened and need conserving.

The Initiative for Scottish Invertebrates is at present a non-constituted alliance of
individuals and organisations working on Scottish invertebrates. The group is currently
consulting with as wide a range of interested parties as possible to gather opinions and
data towards developing a conservation strategy for Scottish invertebrates.

The Conserving Scottish Invertebrates project, funded by Scottish Natural
Heritage and coordinated by Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, will
seek a broad consensus among entomologists and conservationists around the
actions detailed in the strategy. In addition, it aims to raise awareness of Scotland’s
important and distinctive invertebrate fauna amongst the public, conservation
organisations and decision makers.

This is a timely and unique opportunity to make a difference for invertebrates in
Scotland. For the project to succeed we need to engage with as many individuals as
possible with an interest in Scottish invertebrates.

We hope you will respond positively to this opportunity and contribute to the
development of the conservation strategy. In the meantime, if you would like to learn
more about the project or join the Scottish Invertebrate discussion forum then please
contact Craig Macadam at the address below.

Craig Macadam, Conservation Officer (Scotland), Buglife - the Invertebrate
Conservation Trust, Balallan House, 24 Allan Park, Stirling, FK8 2QG. Tel: 01786
447504. Email: craig.macadam(@buglife. org.uk

Bugs Britannica: We want your help

I am fielding a new project about insects and other invertebrates which I hope you will
consider contributing to. It is called Bugs Britannica. The basic idea is to collect as much
information we can find about the ways in which the British people interact with British
invertebrates, whether as visitors to our gardens and homes, as objects of superstition or
symbolic power, or as a significant presence in poetry, art, film and fiction. We are
interested in any local names, such as cheesy-bugs for woodlice or forky-tails for earwigs.
We would be interested to know of any restaurants named after insects (or other
invertebrates), or products that use them in some way.

In other words, we are looking at the ways in which invertebrates enter and enrich our
lives. Hence Bugs Britannica will not be an encyclopaedia of invertebrate natural history,
or a guide to identification, but an exploration of the common ground between
invertebrates and ourselves. Bugs Britannica will be about the things the field guides and
textbooks leave out.

The project is to be written up as a book of which I am the main author, along with
Richard Mabey, author of Flora Britannica and co-author of Birds Britannica. Bugs
Britannica shares the same publisher, and the same philosophy, as these highly-praised
and successful book projects. Like them, the book will be richly illustrated and full of
imagination and insight (and the odd joke). Of course, it will have to cover far more
species than its predecessors, especially as I aim to include all land and freshwater
invertebrates, and also those of the seashore down to low tide level. Hence it will include
not only slugs and garden snails but cockles and oysters, not only woodlice and
centipedes, but crabs and prawns. However, since Bugs Britannica, almost by definition,
will be about familiar animals that attract attention to themselves, it does not need to pay
close attention to species known only to specialists and have no English name. Indeed
much of the content is likely to be about generic groups of invertebrates, slugs rather than
Deroceras and Testacella, blow-flies and horse-flies, not species by species, since it is that
form, mostly, that they enter our literature and popular discourse. On the other hand, I
can envisage an entry for every British butterfly, and many grasshoppers, dragonflies,
leeches and moths. It will, Fm pretty confident, be a riveting, informative and amusing
read, and contain perhaps surprising explanations for many common names, nursery
rhymes, everyday expressions, and historical incidents.

Perhaps I should apologise for the title. Not everyone likes their favourite species
described as a bug. Please read ‘bugs’ as a necessarily punchy short-hand title for the
market, and not in any demeaning sense. All ‘bugs’ are interesting, wonderful, and worthy
of respect, whether they are dragonflies, silverfish, maggots, cockles, earthworms or crabs
(and I agree, a cockle isn’t in any normal sense a bug).

You can find more details of the project at: www.randomhouse.co.uk/ bugsbritannica.
This site includes a blog with 160 contributions logged by the start of October.

If, as I hope, you would like to contribute to Bugs Britannica, you can do so either
through the blog (which is best suited to short messages), through the Society, or by
writing to me at: Bugs Britannica, PO Box 1375, London SWIV 2SA. All contributions
will be acknowledged in the forthcoming book.

As to when Bugs Britannica is to be published, this depends on various imponderables,
but most likely in 2009 or 2010. I hope to drop in a progress report from time to time.

Peter Marren

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY
VOLUME 20, PART 4, DECEMBER 2007

ARTICLES

221 The effect of moth trap type on catch size and composition in British Lepidoptera.

T. M. Fayle, R. E. Sharp & M. E. N. Majerus
233 The Platanus lace bug, Corythucha ciliala (Say) (Hemiptera: Tingidae), a nearctic pest of plane
trees, new to Britain. C. P. Malumphy, S. Reid & D. Eyre
241 Two species of thrips (Thysanoptera) new to Britain, Neoheegeria dalmatica Schmutz and
FranklinieUa pallida (Uzel), with an updated key to the British species of Frankliniella Karny.
D. W. Collins

249 Moths which have colonized the Isle of Wight in recent years (Part 2). D. T. Biggs &

S. A. Knill-Jones

255 The species of Cotesia Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae)
parasitising Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera) in Britain. Mark R. Shaw

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

232 Physatocheila sjureczynskii China (Hemiptera: Tingidae) in the Tamar Valley of Cornwall and
Devon. K. N. A. ALEXANDER

268 Host plants of the Pale Mottled Willow Paradriua clavipalpis (Scop.) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae). A. H. DOBSON

269 Holcostetlius vemalis (WolfO (Hem.: Pentatomidae) and Bathysolen nubilis (Fallen) (Hem.:
Coreidae) in Hampshire. J. Denton

PROCEEDINGS & TRANSACTIONS/SOCIETY NEWS

270 Indoor Meeting

BOOK REVIEWS

254 Ant Hills in Acid Grassland by Nigel Reeve (2006). K. Alexander

271 Six Legs Better - A cultural review of myrmecology by Charlotte Sleigh. G. W. Elmes

273 Atlas of the Millipedes ( Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland by Paul Lee, with a contribution
from Paul T. Harding. K. N. A. Alexander

274 Guide des papillons nocturnes de France edited by Roland Robineau. A. J. Pickles

275 Fleas ( Siplionaptera) by Amoret P. Whitaker. J. Badmin

ANNOUNCEMENTS

270 Dipterists Forum Fly Identification Workshops

276 Conserving Scotland’s Invertebrates - a fresh approach. C. Macadam
ibc Bugs Britannica: We want your help. P. Marren

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "British journal of entomology and natural history"

See other formats