Moths Count Ne wsl etter 2012 Teenage kicks!

The National Recording Scheme (NMRS) is officially a teenager (not in terms of years, although sometimes it does feel that way) but in terms of the number of records it holds; a staggering 14.1 million macro-moth records from the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The NMRS database contains almost three million more records than were published in the Provisional Atlas of the UK’s Larger Mother Shipton (R. Thompson) at the end of 2010 and, since last year’s newsletter, we’ve received an additional 2.3 million moth records from the moth recording community. We’ve been inundated with records A further four million moth records were submitted to us from County Moth Recorders, Record Collators and Local in refreshed local datasets between December 2011 and Record Centres; local datasets comprising some eight million April 2012. Les Hill our Database Manager is currently records were su bmitted between July and the end of processing these records for incorporation into the NMRS November 20 11, and all of these records were refreshed database and there will be a further NBN Gateway refresh on the Moths Count website ( www.mothscount.org ) in late summer. As reported previously we will only have and on the National Network (NBN) Gateway one data refresh on the NBN Gateway in future years. in early May. In order for County datasets to be included we must receive them by 31st March at the very latest each year.

There are other moth datasets available on the NBN Gateway, however, the NMRS is not responsible for them Moth neither can we guarantee their accuracy. Even within the NMRS dataset and despite all the verification checks Night provided by expert County Moth Recorders a few errors and omissions are expected. If you spot any obvious ‘clangers’ 2012 please contact us or the relevant County Moth Recorder. Don’t forget to The lion’s share of moth records in the NMRS database submit all your records continue to come from England (80%), with Wales ( 10% ), for Moth Night 2012 Scotland (8%), Northern Ireland (1%), Channel Islands (21-23 June) by (0.8%) and Isle of Man (0.2%) making up the remainder. 30th November. Visit www.mothnight.info Vice-county (VC) datasets vary in size. South Hampshire and Hertfordshire are by far the largest. Since last year’s to enter your records. newsletter we have received additional data for Dorset making it the third largest dataset in the NMRS. >> 02 Moths Count Newsletter 2012

>> The number of historical (pre year 2000) records in the Recording coverage reflected in the NMRS database has NMRS database is steadily increasing (figure 1), which is increased significantly since the first dataset was imported great news, although the proportion of historical records in December 2007. The map (figure 2) shows the number is decreasing over time – i.e. the difference between historical of macro-moth recorded per 10km square. and modern is increasing. Many County Moth Recorders The darker the colour the more species recorded, 10km have now incorporated the Biological Record Centre (BRC) squares that are white have either not had any moths and Rothamsted Survey (RIS) data into their local recorded in them or the data for those particular squares datasets. These historical records provide an important have not been submitted to us by the relevant County Moth baseline upon which analyses of species range changes Recorder. Only 7% of 10km squares do not have records can be assessed. In terms of historical records, the top three due to no recording or non-submission of data. If you want vice-counties for each country are listed below (table 1). to help to fill in the gaps we advise that you get in touch On average 39% of records in each VC dataset are from with the relevant County Moth Recorder prior to going on before the year 2000, but there is much variation. Sixty-two a targeted moth-ing trip. VC datasets are below average and eight vice-counties have not submitted any pre 2000 records at all! The latter 1 to 100 Species is particularly disappointing as it means there can be no 101 to 200 Species assessment of distribution change over time for any moth 201 to 300 Species species in these counties, until the situation is addressed. 301 to 400 Species 401 to 500 Species Table 1: Top three vice-counties per country with the 500 + Species highest percentage of historical (pre 2000) records.

Vice-county No. historical % of historical records records

England Oxfordshire 44,223 85.0 Surrey 124,850 71.6 North Northumberland 46,402 69.9

Wales Montgomery 20,127 22.1 Glamorgan 69,402 23.2 Radnorshire 8,540 24.5

Scotland North Ebudes 13,719 95.6 Mid-Perthshire 37,554 75.2 Peebleshire 6,107 75.1

Northern Londonderry 1,549 49.2 Ireland Armagh 12,475 48.9 Down 26,722 41.3

16

14 s d r 12 o Figure 2: NMRS Macro-moth species density at 10km square c e resolution. The darker the colour the greater the number of R

) 10

s h t

n species recorded. o o i

l 8 l M i

f m o (

r 6

e In contrast with the ‘white-holes’, on average 157 moth b

m 4 species have been recorded per 10km square. The most u N 2 species rich square is WA50 on Alderney in the Channel Islands where 519 macro-moth species have been recorded, 0 2010 2011 2012 followed by TR02 near Dungeness, Kent 513 species and SY79 near Dorchester, Dorset where 506 species have been

Figure 1: Cumulative number of all moth records and historical recorded to date. The top five 10km squares for the number (pre 2000) moth records in the NMRS database since 2010. of macro-moth species recorded are listed in table 2. 03

Table 2: Top five 10km squares - number of macro-moth species Two moths (Six-spot Burnet and ) are again featuring in this year’s Big Butterfly Count ( www.bigbutterflycount.org ), 10km square Location Number of which takes place from Saturday 14th July to Sunday 5th moth species August. In last year’s Big Butterfly Count, Six-spot Burnet WA50 Alderney, Channel Islands 519 numbers were up and it was the tenth most abundant species TR02 Dungeness, Kent 513 reported, with 10,932 being seen by participants. The Silver Y SY79 Nr. Dorchester, Dorset 506 was scarce during the 20 11 Count and was ranked 21st with only 562 individuals being recorded. The Big Butterfly Count SU50 Nr. Fareham, Hampshire 503 takes only 15 minutes of your time and is a great way to help SY58 West Bexington, Dorset 487 raise awareness and support conservation, even if you already take part in moth recording and other schemes. Last year So far the NMRS database holds records for 860 34,000 people took part and we’re hoping for even more macro-moth species which have been recorded in the UK, in 2012. Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The most widespread moths are Silver Y and Large Yellow Underwing both Day-flying moths are also counted in the Wider Countryside species have been recorded in over two-thirds of 10km Butterfly Survey (WCBS). In 2011, 41 moth species were squares. The top five macro-moth species recorded in reported by WCBS volunteers and 40 new 10km square the NMRS are listed in the table below. records were generated. The most widespread species was Table 3: Top five most widespread macro-moths at 10km resolution the Silver Y and the most abundant species was the Six-spot Burnet. Encounters with day-flying moths are great to Common name Taxon % coverage introduce people to moths and moth recording and to help dispel myths and misconceptions about moths. Silver Y Autographa gamma 69.9 Large Yellow The Humming-bird Hawk-moth had a good year in 20 11. Underwing Noctua pronuba 68.9 Our simple online survey (www.butterfly-conservation.or g/ Silver-ground Carpet Xanthorhoe montanata 66.1 migrantwatch) aimed at members of the public gathered Dark Arches Apamea monoglypha 65.7 9,096 individual sightings from over 8,000 people. Many more Common Carpet alternata 64.1 records were received than in previous years and it was the greatest total for the Humming-bird Hawk-moth in Britain and Ireland in a year.

We thank each and everyone who has supported the NMRS by submitting records or through donations. Special thanks go to the moth recording community and the County Moth Recorders in particular. Without your efforts it would not be such a successful scheme. Butterfly Conservation is keeping its commitment made at the beginning of the Moths Count project to sustain the NMRS in the long-term, beyond the duration of Heritage Lottery Funding. We are very grateful to ongoing funding from the Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Redwing Trust, Royal Entomological Society and Scottish Natural Heritage. Silver Y (D M Walters)

The NMRS data is already being used within Butterfly Are you missing Conservation and partner organisations for conservation and out on E-moth? policy work. Over the year ahead we will be using the NMRS data to make a start on an updated macro-moth species E-moth is an electronic newsletter from the Moths status assessment with Natural England. The NMRS data Count project. If you would like to receive it, please will also be used with updated Rothamsted Insect Survey contact Butterfly Conservation (01929 400209) or trends in a new State of Britain’s Larger Moths report which ([email protected]) with your email address. is due to be published later this year. 04 Moths Count Newsletter 2012

Online recording is on its way

The long-awaited online recording system for the National The new system will enable recorders to enter full details Moth Recording Scheme (NMRS) is almost ready for use. of their sightings, including exact or vague counts, recording After 18 months of development in conjunction with our methods, behaviour etc. Sites can be entered simply as partners De Vlinderstichting (Dutch Butterfly Conservation), grid references, if these are known, or by searching on place the online system is now entering a rigorous testing phase name or postcode and then marking the location on an prior to being made freely available to moth recorders. onscreen map or satellite image (see screenshot bottom left).

The system will automatically assign records to vice- counties , enabling data to be passed easily to the appropriate County Recorder.

Another advantage of the system is that it will carry out checks on each record at the time of input, alerting the user to records that fall outside of the normal range and flight period of each species and providing an opportunity to confirm the details.

The system will provide a straightforward but comprehensive tool for recorders to enter, store, manage and manipulate their own moth records. By encouraging more recorders to computerise their sightings, the system will help reduce the huge amount of time that County Moth Recorders spend entering records received by letter, form, phone and email. All records entered into the online recording system will be forwarded to County Moth Recorders for verification and for inclusion in county datasets and, thus, onto the NMRS. Therefore, as previously, no records (including those entered into the online system) will enter the official As well as facilitating the transfer of moth sightings from NMRS database without having been collated and checked the recorder to the County Moth Recorder and NMRS, by the relevant County Moth Recorder. the system will also provide interesting features for the user. Species information pages (see screenshot above) give photos, flight period charts and distribution maps for each moth. The maps will enable recorders to see their records in context with those of other online recorders and the ‘official’ distribution of each species from the main NMRS database, and can be changed from national to county level. Over time, additional analysis features will be added, further improving the system for recorders who want to interpret their own records.

Announcements will be made via the Moths Count website, E-moth newsletter and other sources when the NMRS online recording system is launched and ready for use, and we hope that it will be a great benefit for moth recorders. 05

Rothamsted Insect Survey u pdate National Moth Reco rders’ Meeti ng 2013 In recent months the Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS) The third National Moth Recorders’ Meeting will be has undergone some large changes, along with its parent held on 26th January 2013 at the Birmingham and institute, Rothamsted Research. The outcome of this is Midland Institute, central Birmingham. Further details that as of 2nd April this year the RIS became a “National and booking information will be circulated in due Capability” and is now sponsored by the Government course on the Moths Count website via the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research (www.mothscount.org ). Council (BBSRC). This funding should ensure the continuation of the RIS over the coming years and demonstrates the importance attached to the data collected. National Moth Recorders ’ M eeting 2012

The second UK-wide moth recorders’ meeting was held in January 2012 in Birmingham. Almost 200 people attended double the number compared to the inaugural meeting in 2011. Once again participants travelled from across the UK and Republic of Ireland to network with friends and colleagues and listen to the varied and interesting talks.

Along with the annual update on the National Moth Recording Scheme, the speakers covered topics ranging from moth group activities, moth conservation news, the hot-off-the- Barnfield trap – this site first started trapping in press field guide to micro-moths, moth migration studies and 1933 and has been running constantly since 1965 (RIS) exciting discoveries in the ‘evolutionary arms race’ between moths and bats (see page 06). Thank you to everybody that Chris Shortall ([email protected]) has been came and to the speakers for presenting fascinating talks. appointed as the administrator for the light trap network and is the first point of contact. A volunteers’ website (http://rislighttrapnetwork.wordpress.com ) has been launched as a forum, this enables volunteers to network, announce interesting records and post identification queries.

Due to staff changes, volunteers are being relied upon for trap servicing, basic maintenance and catch identification. It is hoped that this will allow RIS to continue running the same number of traps with reduced resources. This new chapter in the history of RIS will enable continued growth of the network. Like the NMRS, the RIS could not exist without the efforts of their volunteers and the appreciation of the time and effort that volunteers put in remains undimmed.

Professor Jane Hill fielding questions at the National Moth Recorders’ Meeting (Z. Randle) 06 Moths Count Newsletter 2012

Sky Wars Moths vs. Bats

Professor Gareth Jones presented a very interesting talk on bats and moths at the National Moth Recorders’ Meeting in January. The following provides a summary of some of the exciting discoveries that he covered.

In terms of co-evolution prey (moths) and predators (bats) are under different selection pressures – survival versus dinner. Both bats and moths have developed mechanisms to outwit each other in their predator-prey relationship. The shorter generation time of moths may allow anti-predator adaptations to evolve faster than countermeasures in bats.

Bats are major predators of moths and other nocturnal flying . Moths have existed for probably around 140 million years compared to bats which evolved around 70 million years ago. Many insects have developed defences against echolocating bats. Insects in at least seven different orders Brown Long-eared bat eating including lacewings, beetles, mantids, crickets and flies, a Large Yellow Underwing moth (G. Jones) have evolved ears and several moth families including the Arctiidae, Geometridae and can hear ultrasound Some bats take prey from surfaces rather than hunting flying as a protection against echolocating bats. The simple insects. This is known as gleaning. Gleaning bats emit low eardrums (tympana) in moths are most sensitive to amplitude calls, and may even switch off echolocation when frequencies between 20-60kHz, the same frequencies used hunting eared moths. Both the Grey Long-eared bat and by most species of echolocating bat. When encountering a Brown Long-eared bat are gleaning species. Studies carried foraging bat, moths with ears have an advantage over those out to examine the diets of these species, through faecal without ears and their chances of survival are 40% higher. DNA analysis and morphological faecal examination, found that lepidopterans were the dominant constituent. Noctuids In order to avoid being eaten, some species of moth use with ears were in fact the main prey consumed; Brown elaborate flight manoeuvres to escape bats. These include Long-eared bat (83.3%), Grey Long-eared bat (71%). veering away from distant faint sounds or, more dramatically, dropping out of the sky in response to intense, close bat The most common moth species in the diet of the Grey calls. Some tiger moths have taken another evolutionary Long-eared bat were Large Yellow Underwing, Silver Y, step in the ‘arms race’ against bat predators. They make Dark Arches and swift moths. Three moth species were ultrasonic clicking sounds in response to bat calls, which common in the diet of the Brown Long-eared bat; Large Yellow could be to warn bats that they are distasteful (i.e. “don’t Underwing, Square-spot Rustic and . Whether eat me”), to startle the bats or even to jam the bats’ these moths are preferentially selected or simply represent the echolocation signals. most abundant prey items at the time of the study is unclear. Both bat species ate proportionally more moths in summer. Despite these adaptations and manoeuvres, Barbastelle bats successfully prey mainly upon eared moths. They do Moth wing scales have a remarkable role to play in this by emitting calls that are quieter (10-100 times lower protecting them from preying bats. Recent studies in amplitude) and, therefore, inconspicuous to moths compared have measured how wing scales absorb different ultrasonic to those of other aerial-hawking bats. This ‘stealth frequencies in two moth species from the Arctiidae , echolocation’ enables the bat to detect the moth before Spilosoma niveus and Rhyparioides amurensis and two the moth has chance to escape. butterfly species; Indian Cabbage White Pieris canidia and Asian Pale Clouded Yellow Colias erate . These species were chosen as they are among the most common moth and butterfly species in parts of China. 07

Scanning electron microscope images showed that moth Zoe Randle scales are made up of honeycomb-like hollows, resembling Surveys Officer, Butterfly Conservation and Gareth Jones sound-absorbing material, but these structures were absent Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol from butterfly scales. Micro-reverberation chamber experiments revealed that the moth scales absorbed significantly more of the ultrasonic frequencies emitted by echolocating bats More information: compared to the butterfly scales. Models were used to predict Goerlitz et al. 2010. Current Biology 20 : 1568-1572 the detection distance of moths with and without scales. Jones 1990. In Prague Studies in Mammalogy The presence of scales reduces the detection distance of Razgour et al. 2011. Ecology and Evolution 1: 556-570 moths by bats by 5-6%, which, although small, does enhance Rydell & Jones 1994. Oikos 73 : 419-424 moth survival and is potentially of evolutionary significance. Zeng et al . 2011. PLoS ONE 6: e27190. This suggests that some moths have evolved stealth tactics to reduce their conspicuousness to echolocating bats.

The downs and the ups of the Fie ry Clea rwing

The Fiery Clearwing Pyropteron chrysidiformis is one of Britain’s most threatened moths and as such, is protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, 198 1. For more than ten years, populations at all known sites have been monitored, initially through English Nature’s Species Recovery Programme and, more recently, under the auspices of Butterfly Conservation’s Action for Threatened Moths Project. Monitoring is carried out by counting eggs on the stems of the larval foodplants; Curled Dock crispus and Common Sorrel R. acetosa.

The number of eggs found at each site has fluctuated widely, usually in relation to the weather during the adult emergence period. However, observations show that there is also a general downward trend in numbers at all sites. In east Kent this is due to scrub encroachment on the breeding areas but in north Kent the main threat is coastal erosion. Butterfly Conservation Fiery Clearwing (R. Thompson) has funded small scale scrub clearance works in east Kent for several years in an attempt to maintain a viable population but there are problems with illegal camping, fires, etc. on the It is unlikely that all of the attempted colonisations will be cleared areas. successful, although in recent years the moth appears more flexible in its choice of breeding sites, perhaps as a result It is not all bad news however. There is evidence in the last of climate change, and the future looks brighter than it has few years that the Fiery Clearwing is attempting to spread out done for many years. and colonise new sites. In east Kent, new colonies have been found both inland of and north of the previously known areas, Butterfly Conservation would like to thank Tony Rouse whilst in north Kent there is a spread both east and west along for carrying out monitoring and practical conservation work the coast. Recent beach restocking, entailing replacement of over a number of years, and the land owners and managers eroded material using machinery, by the Environment Agency for their cooperation and assistance. provided ideal habitat which was rapidly colonised and now supports the strongest colony in Britain. Tony Davis Moth Conservation Officer, Butterfly Conservation 08 Moths Count Newsletter 2012

What ’s causing the decline of moths in Britain?

Recent studies from Britain (the Rothamsted Insect Survey), the (see Moths Count Newsletter 2011) and Finland have provided the first confirmation of national-scale declines in a species-rich insect group. In each case there were highly significant overall declines among the large number of moth species studied. Taken together, these studies provide convincing evidence of moth declines on a large geographical scale, which mirror patterns recorded among butterflies. Lappet (R. Thompson) However, the causes of these pervasive moth declines are poorly understood. We need a better understanding of these causes so as to ensure that diverse and abundant moth populations can thrive in the future. As a first step, Butterfly Conservation has reviewed the evidence relating to causes of moth declines.

Direct evidence relating to the causes of moth declines is extremely limited, but correlative studies and extrapolation from closely-related insects suggest that habitat degradation (particularly because of agricultural intensification) and climate change are likely to be the major drivers of change. There is currently little evidence of negative population-level effects on moths caused by chemical or light pollution, non-native species or direct exploitation, although some of these may Intensive arable (J. Brittin) yet prove to be important.

There are a number of important questions, Recognising the substantial declines of many moth species in many parts of Britain (and elsewhere) through recording stemming from the review, that Butterfly and monitoring is essential, but only identifies the problem. Conservation would like to see answered: The crucial next steps are to understand the causes of change and, most importantly, to influence land management I What are the key elements of modern, at a national scale to try to reverse the worrying trends. intensive farming that damage moth populations? Richard Fox I How can we improve agricultural and woodland Surveys Manager, Butterfly Conservation management for moths?

I What effects, if any, does light pollution have on moth populations? More information: Fox 2012. Insect Conservation and Diversity I How significant is climate change in altering Can be accessed for free at moth distributions and abundance in Britain? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752- 4598.2012.00186.x/full 09

One hundred up!

With the recent occurrences of Bucculatrix chrysanthemella , margarotana , Carpet vetustata and Wainscot nonagrioides , amongst others, in Britain, one hundred species have been added to the British list from 2000 onwards. To put this into context, c.540 species were added to the British list in the period 1900 to 1999 (Parsons, 2003). Caution is needed with this total as, for example, this does include some accidental imports, such as the Castor Semi-looper Achaea janata , two pupae (one dead) of which were found on pomegranates in Crawley, Sussex, in 2010. However, the figure does not include some other new Fir Carpet (M. Sennitt) arrivals, i.e. those intercepted on foodstuffs etc. at airports and determined by FERA (The Food and Environment Research Clearly the period of change experienced towards the end Agency). A few additional species have been added through of the last century is continuing and shows no sign of slowing taxonomic considerations, e.g. effractana , Eucosma down, perhaps driven through the effects of climate change, fulvana and E. parvulana , and are not included in this total. the horticultural trade and the planting of non-native plants which can provide habitat for expanding species, or a combination of these. Detection rates may also be increasing, due to the increase in recording effort. Which will be the next 100 species to be found?

Mark Parsons Head of Moth Conservation, Butterfly Conservation

More information: Parsons 2003. Entomologist’s Record & Journal of Variation , 115 : 49-66.

Sclerocona acutellus (J. Day)

Of the 100 species, pre 2000 records have been found for Conse rvation nine species, such as heringella and Dioryctria sylvestrella . Of those species first found from 2000 onwards, Bulletin Number 12 17 are now considered to be resident, this total excluding The latest edition of the Lepidoptera those which may be overlooked long-term residents, such Conservation Bulletin (number 12) is now as Infurcitinea captans and the Reedbed Plume . The Horse Chestnut Leaf-miner Cameraria ohridella available to download from our website is perhaps the most notorious of these newly established www.butterfly-conservation.org/ arrivals, being first recorded at Wimbledon in 2002. Others lepidopteraconservationbulletin that have become established include italica , Clancy's Rustic Platyperigea kadenii and Sombre Brocade The Bulletin summarises the work carried out by Dryobotodes tenebrosa . A possible eighteenth species, Butterfly Conservation and our partner organisations Black-spotted Chestnut rubiginosa may also be over the course of 2011. Conservation efforts for resident as several were found in a small area of Kent over a broad selection of highly threatened moths and the last winter; perhaps this species’ status will become butterflies across the UK are described and other cle arer in the coming autumn. A number of other species articles include updates on Lepidoptera recording, that had been recorded prior to 2000 have also become Butterfly Conservation reserves and Butterfly established in this country since the new millennium, Conservation Europe. There is also a selected including Sclerocona acutellus and the Processionary Bibliography covering publications of interest in 2011. Thaumetopoea processionea . 10 Moths Count Newsletter 2012

Ghost Moth and studies in Aberdeenshire

I first became interested in the in 2006. Pied Wagtails were diving into long grass at Gairlochy near the west end of the Caledonian Canal. They knocked their prey against the tow path to remove the wings which I collected and identified as those of female Ghost Moths. When I saw Ghost Moth described in Waring and Townsend’s book as a lekking species, I was anxious to find a ‘lek’ (communal display site) near my home in Aberdeenshire as I had previously studied lekking birds (Capercaillie and ). Ghost Moth in cop. (N. Picozzi)

It took several late evening searches over the next two years before I found a suitable site and was relieved when However, they have a second attractant. Displaying Ghost first one then a few more males from the long grass, Moth males produce a from brushes on the Cow Parsley, Ground Elder and Sorrel at about 22.40 BST. hind tibia which are everted in flight and they may also Each seemed to more-or-less hold position close to the scent-mark vegetation for itinerant females to detect. top of the vegetation, although there were some chases. This is puzzling as the antennae of both sexes are very Occasional females were seen about 10 minutes later flying short and seem unsophisticated compared to, say, those through the lek, sometimes landing close to a male which of the male Emperor Moth. immediately flew to her and rapidly copulated remaining locked in cop , the male suspended beneath the female There are some fascinating similarities and differences for up to an hour or more. The display period ended almost between the mid-summer displays of the Gold Swift and imperceptibly around 45 minutes after the start; one minute Ghost Moth. The Gold Swift, unlike the Ghost Moth, is most they were there, the next all had vanished from view. often found displaying around and is the only other of the five swifts found in Britain also to produce I now measure incident light intensity using a very sensitive and display communally. Males display for an hour or two meter and this gives consistent results for light levels at the in the late evening and finish shortly before the Ghost Moth beginning and end of the display. Danish biologists have displays begin. The hind legs of the male are even more found that the wing scales of the male are not actually white highly specialised which indicates that the production but have an internal meshwork that reflects light (much as of pheromones is especially important for this species. a ‘cat’s eye’ road marker) and Swedish biologists have The gold patches on the forewings may also make the male found that the male’s wing reflectivity is at its most intense conspicuous when hovering or ‘signalling’ when at rest on relative to the dwindling available light about half way vegetation with wings fluttering while suspended vertically through the display period. Clearly, visibility is of major by its forelegs. Pheromones must be of considerable importance to the display, although it also renders the male importance to both species even though their effective range, particularly vulnerable to predation; the swift moths are given the short antennae of both species, may be rather among the earliest of Lepidoptera to have evolved and localised. I suspect that in view of their physical adaptions, never subsequently evolved an auditory defence against visual stimuli are of greater importance for the Ghost Moth bats. Instead they rely on displaying briefly at dusk close and pheromones for the Gold Swift, but this is necessarily to or just below the top of the vegetation and this probably speculative. Few moths offer such an opportunity for confuses, to some extent, the bats’ ability to detect them anybody to observe their mating behaviour. Questions by echolocation. remain for the future, in particular how sedentary are the males and do they mate with more than one female during the brief flight period? Only marking may settle that.

Nick Picozzi Moth Recorder, Aberdeenshire 11

Can we manage to set up a national recording scheme for micro-lepidoptera?

The wonderful success of the macro-moth recording scheme has been so exciting that it has raised hopes of trying something with micro-moths. Quite a few recorders have been so engaged by the charm of micros that they have tried to identify them, and various websites and chat-rooms are full of discussions about difficult species and whether they can be diagnosed from photos. Until recently the lack of books and reliable pictures has been a serious geoffrella (M. Parsons) problem, with the only useful guides being the expensive but excellent ‘low volume number’ issues of the The major practical difficulty is that so many species cannot Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland (MBGBI) be identified from photos, however good these may be. and Barry Goater’s book on the pyralids. For some species, it is necessary to dissect the genitalia However, websites such as Ukmoths, before they can be reliably sorted out and for others it helps chatrooms like Scottish moths (and many enormously to know the foodplants and/or feeding signs – others), and recent books, including leaf-mining can be a very rewarding autumn activity! Often Chris Manley’s photographic guide, safe identifications need the existence of a voucher specimen Colin Hart’s book on plume moths and and, of course, many moth enthusiasts do not like killing the new field guide published in May moths! Some families, for example the Coleophoridae, 2012, by Phil Sterling and Mark Parsons, have innumerable very similar species – how can a new graced with Richard Lewington’s brilliant recorder ever gets to grips with these? paintings, have now made micros a bit more manageable and it seems certain Despite these problems, more and more people are getting that more and more recorders will include them in their study. excited by micros, and want to record them, and so there is real momentum. In October 2011 Butterfly Conservation A major limitation is knowing which species are found in which hosted a discussion meeting about whether a national areas and the answer is often difficult to find! At the start of the recording scheme can be designed and funded. Many of MBGBI series, one of the founding editors, A Maitland Emmet, the most active micro recorders attended and there was so compiled maps showing the vice-county distribution of all much enthusiasm and good will that Butterfly Conservation micros, based mostly on the experience of his many micro- is now trying to plan such a scheme. This is fraught with lepidopterist friends, and these are the maps published in the practical difficulty. Alarmingly many records reported on the books. However, Volume 1 appeared in 1976 and so the various websites are not currently saved for the future and original maps are now long out of date. To overcome this, there some seem to end up with doubtful identities! Furthermore, have been annual updates, published in the Entomologist’s many of the hard-working vice-county recorders are already Record , based on the field work of around 80-100 micro- over-worked with the macros and can’t contemplate lepidopterists and currently edited by myself and John including the micros, even if they could help identify them! Langmaid. The maps are just hard copy, but the Scottish Nevertheless we must try and harness all the energy and records have been digitised and maps published by Mark Cubitt tighten up the problems, and so perhaps Butterfly on the East of Scotland Branch of Butterfly Conservation Conservation will, in time, be able to develop a national website (www.eastscotland- scheme. Let’s hope that this all works out well. butterflies.org.uk/scottishmicros.html). Unfortunately it is just too big a job for volunteers to do the same for the many Mark Young more records from English, Welsh and Irish vice-counties. County Moth Recorder for Kincardineshire, South Aberdeenshire and North Aberdeenshire. For selected families, and for leaf-miners, there are more detailed mapping schemes, but most families are not yet covered by these schemes. 12 Moths Count Newsletter 2011

Special Offer for Moths Count newsletter readers – join Butte rfly Conservation for one year FREE! It would be great if all Moths Count newsletter readers were members of Butterfly Conservation. So if you’re not already a member why not take advantage of this special offer by joining today and getting one year’s membership free*? Butterfly Conservation members receive: I A welcome pack containing set of postcards, car sticker and lots of interesting information I Our exclusive full-colour magazine Butterfly , three times a year Moths Count I Membership of the local Butterfly Conservation Branch I Opportunities to take part in monitoring and Contacts recording schemes General enquiries I Regional newsletters and invitations to walks, info @butterfly-conservation.org 01929 400209 talks and other events in your area Richard Fox Project Manager When you join you will need to set up a direct debit but no rfox @butterfly-conservation.org 01 626 368385 payment will be taken during your free year. We will write to you a month before your renewal is due at the end of the first Les Hill year to remind you - if you don’t want to continue your Database Manager lhill butterfly-conservation.org 01929 406008 membership at that time you can just let us know. @ Zoë Randle We hope you will take advantage of this very special offer Surveys Officer and by this time next year we will have persuaded you to zrandle @butterfly-conservation.org 01 929 406006 continue supporting our work in the future.

Join online at www.butterfly-conservation.org/join Acknowledgements or call 01929 406015 using promotional code: MCFREE1 The ongoing Moths Count project is supported financially Already a member? by The Redwing Trust, Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Why not consider giving Butterfly Conservation Membership Royal Entomological Society, Scottish Natural Heritage to a friend or loved one as a special gift? and many other individuals and partners. Business *Offer valid until 31 October 2012 for new members only on completion partners include Anglian Lepidopterist Supplies, of a direct debit using the above promotional code. Apollo Books, British Wildlife Publishing, MapMate, Nectar Creative and Watkins & Doncaster.

The Redwing Trust

Moths Count Butterfly Conservation Manor Yard East Lulwort h Dorse t BH20 5QP t 01929 40020 9 www. mothscount.or g e info @butterfly-conservation.org

Butterfly Conservation, Company limited by guarantee, registered in England (2206468) Registered Office: Manor Yard, East Lulworth, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 5QP. Charity registered in England and Wales (254937) and in Scotland (SCO39268). MC 15 Designed and produced by nectar creative.com 01942 681648. Printed on 100% recycled stock using vegetable based inks.