Pugs of the UK - with Reference to Devon's Subspecies (By Phil Dean, 3Rd May 2015)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Sharon J. Collman WSU Snohomish County Extension Green Gardening Workshop October 21, 2015 Definition
Sharon J. Collman WSU Snohomish County Extension Green Gardening Workshop October 21, 2015 Definition AKA exotic, alien, non-native, introduced, non-indigenous, or foreign sp. National Invasive Species Council definition: (1) “a non-native (alien) to the ecosystem” (2) “a species likely to cause economic or harm to human health or environment” Not all invasive species are foreign origin (Spartina, bullfrog) Not all foreign species are invasive (Most US ag species are not native) Definition increasingly includes exotic diseases (West Nile virus, anthrax etc.) Can include genetically modified/ engineered and transgenic organisms Executive Order 13112 (1999) Directed Federal agencies to make IS a priority, and: “Identify any actions which could affect the status of invasive species; use their respective programs & authorities to prevent introductions; detect & respond rapidly to invasions; monitor populations restore native species & habitats in invaded ecosystems conduct research; and promote public education.” Not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that cause/promote IS intro/spread Political, Social, Habitat, Ecological, Environmental, Economic, Health, Trade & Commerce, & Climate Change Considerations Historical Perspective Native Americans – Early explorers – Plant explorers in Europe Pioneers moving across the US Food - Plants – Stored products – Crops – renegade seed Animals – Insects – ants, slugs Travelers – gardeners exchanging plants with friends Invasive Species… …can also be moved by • Household goods • Vehicles -
Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002
Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002 A Report on the Micro-Moths, Butterflies and Macro-Moths of VC58 S.H. Hind, S. McWilliam, B.T. Shaw, S. Farrell and A. Wander Lancashire & Cheshire Entomological Society November 2003 1 1. Introduction Welcome to the 2002 report on lepidoptera in VC58 (Cheshire). This is the second report to appear in 2003 and follows on from the release of the 2001 version earlier this year. Hopefully we are now on course to return to an annual report, with the 2003 report planned for the middle of next year. Plans for the ‘Atlas of Lepidoptera in VC58’ continue apace. We had hoped to produce a further update to the Atlas but this report is already quite a large document. We will, therefore produce a supplementary report on the Pug Moths recorded in VC58 sometime in early 2004, hopefully in time to be sent out with the next newsletter. As usual, we have produced a combined report covering micro-moths, macro- moths and butterflies, rather than separate reports on all three groups. Doubtless observers will turn first to the group they are most interested in, but please take the time to read the other sections. Hopefully you will find something of interest. Many thanks to all recorders who have already submitted records for 2002. Without your efforts this report would not be possible. Please keep the records coming! This request also most definitely applies to recorders who have not sent in records for 2002 or even earlier. It is never too late to send in historic records as they will all be included within the above-mentioned Atlas when this is produced. -
Pests in Northwestern Washington Prompted a 1994-1995 CAPS Survey of Apple Trees to Identify All Leaf-Feeding Apple Pests Currently in Whatcom County
6. Biology / Phenology a. Biology 1. Exotic Fruit Tree Pests in Whatcom County, Washington Eric LaGasa Plant Services Div., Wash. St. Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 42560, Olympia, Washington 98504-2560 (360) 902-2063 [email protected] The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) has conducted detection surveys and other field projects for exotic pests since the mid-1980's, with funding provided by the USDA/ APHIS Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) program. Recent discovery of several exotic fruit tree pests in northwestern Washington prompted a 1994-1995 CAPS survey of apple trees to identify all leaf-feeding apple pests currently in Whatcom County. Additional exotic apple pest species, new to either the region or U.S. were discovered. This paper presents some brief descriptions of species detected in that project, and other exotic fruit tree pest species discovered in northwest Washington since 1985. Table 1. - Exotic Fruit Tree Pests New to Northwestern Washington State - 1985 to 1995 green pug moth - Geometridae: Chloroclystis rectangulata (L.) An early, persistent European pest of apple, pear, cherry and other fruit trees. Larvae attack buds, blossoms, and leaves from March to June. Damage to blossoms causes considerable deformation of fruit. Larvae are common in apple blossoms in Whatcom County, where it was first reared from apple trees in 1994. This pest, new to North America, was also recently detected in the northeastern U.S. Croesia holmiana - Tortricidae: Croesia holmiana (L.) A common pest of many fruit trees and ornamental plants in Europe and Asia, where it is considered a minor problem. Spring larval feeding affects only leaves. -
Additions, Deletions and Corrections to An
Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO AN ANNOTATED CHECKLIST OF THE IRISH BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA) WITH A CONCISE CHECKLIST OF IRISH SPECIES AND ELACHISTA BIATOMELLA (STAINTON, 1848) NEW TO IRELAND K. G. M. Bond1 and J. P. O’Connor2 1Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, School of BEES, University College Cork, Distillery Fields, North Mall, Cork, Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> 2Emeritus Entomologist, National Museum of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. Abstract Additions, deletions and corrections are made to the Irish checklist of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera). Elachista biatomella (Stainton, 1848) is added to the Irish list. The total number of confirmed Irish species of Lepidoptera now stands at 1480. Key words: Lepidoptera, additions, deletions, corrections, Irish list, Elachista biatomella Introduction Bond, Nash and O’Connor (2006) provided a checklist of the Irish Lepidoptera. Since its publication, many new discoveries have been made and are reported here. In addition, several deletions have been made. A concise and updated checklist is provided. The following abbreviations are used in the text: BM(NH) – The Natural History Museum, London; NMINH – National Museum of Ireland, Natural History, Dublin. The total number of confirmed Irish species now stands at 1480, an addition of 68 since Bond et al. (2006). Taxonomic arrangement As a result of recent systematic research, it has been necessary to replace the arrangement familiar to British and Irish Lepidopterists by the Fauna Europaea [FE] system used by Karsholt 60 Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society No. 36 (2012) and Razowski, which is widely used in continental Europe. -
2011 Biodiversity Snapshot. Isle of Man Appendices
UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot. Isle of Man: Appendices. Author: Elizabeth Charter Principal Biodiversity Officer (Strategy and Advocacy). Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, Isle of man. More information available at: www.gov.im/defa/ This section includes a series of appendices that provide additional information relating to that provided in the Isle of Man chapter of the publication: UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot. All information relating to the Isle or Man is available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5819 The entire publication is available for download at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5821 1 Table of Contents Appendix 1: Multilateral Environmental Agreements ..................................................................... 3 Appendix 2 National Wildife Legislation ......................................................................................... 5 Appendix 3: Protected Areas .......................................................................................................... 6 Appendix 4: Institutional Arrangements ........................................................................................ 10 Appendix 5: Research priorities .................................................................................................... 13 Appendix 6 Ecosystem/habitats ................................................................................................... 14 Appendix 7: Species .................................................................................................................... -
Barrowhill, Otterpool and East Stour River)
Folkestone and Hythe Birds Tetrad Guide: TR13 D (Barrowhill, Otterpool and East Stour River) The tetrad TR13 D is an area of mostly farmland with several small waterways, of which the East Stour River is the most significant, and there are four small lakes (though none are publically-accessible), the most northerly of which is mostly covered with Phragmites. Other features of interest include a belt of trees running across the northern limit of Lympne Old Airfield (in the extreme south edge of the tetrad), part of Harringe Brooks Wood (which has no public access), the disused (Otterpool) quarry workings and the westernmost extent of Folkestone Racecourse and. The northern half of the tetrad is crossed by the major transport links of the M20 and the railway, whilst the old Ashford Road (A20), runs more or less diagonally across. Looking south-west towards Burnbrae from the railway Whilst there are no sites of particular ornithological significance within the area it is not without interest. A variety of farmland birds breed, including Kestrel, Stock Dove, Sky Lark, Chiffchaff, Blackcap, Lesser Whitethroat, Yellowhammer, and possibly Buzzard, Yellow Wagtail and Meadow Pipit. Two rapidly declining species, Turtle Dove and Spotted Flycatcher, also probably bred during the 2007-11 Bird Atlas. The Phragmites at the most northerly lake support breeding Reed Warbler and Reed Bunting. In winter Fieldfare and Redwing may be found in the fields, whilst the streams have attracted Little Egret, Snipe and, Grey Wagtail, with Siskin and occasionally Lesser Redpoll in the alders along the East Stour River. Corn Bunting may be present if winter stubble is left and Red Kite, Peregrine, Merlin and Waxwing have also occurred. -
Desktop Biodiversity Report
Desktop Biodiversity Report Land at Balcombe Parish ESD/14/747 Prepared for Katherine Daniel (Balcombe Parish Council) 13th February 2014 This report is not to be passed on to third parties without prior permission of the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre. Please be aware that printing maps from this report requires an appropriate OS licence. Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre report regarding land at Balcombe Parish 13/02/2014 Prepared for Katherine Daniel Balcombe Parish Council ESD/14/74 The following information is included in this report: Maps Sussex Protected Species Register Sussex Bat Inventory Sussex Bird Inventory UK BAP Species Inventory Sussex Rare Species Inventory Sussex Invasive Alien Species Full Species List Environmental Survey Directory SNCI M12 - Sedgy & Scott's Gills; M22 - Balcombe Lake & associated woodlands; M35 - Balcombe Marsh; M39 - Balcombe Estate Rocks; M40 - Ardingly Reservior & Loder Valley Nature Reserve; M42 - Rowhill & Station Pastures. SSSI Worth Forest. Other Designations/Ownership Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Environmental Stewardship Agreement; Local Nature Reserve; National Trust Property. Habitats Ancient tree; Ancient woodland; Ghyll woodland; Lowland calcareous grassland; Lowland fen; Lowland heathland; Traditional orchard. Important information regarding this report It must not be assumed that this report contains the definitive species information for the site concerned. The species data held by the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre (SxBRC) is collated from the biological recording community in Sussex. However, there are many areas of Sussex where the records held are limited, either spatially or taxonomically. A desktop biodiversity report from SxBRC will give the user a clear indication of what biological recording has taken place within the area of their enquiry. -
Strawberry Root Weevil and Black Vine Weevil By: Christelle Guédot, UW – Madison Fruit Crop Entomology and Extension
Wisconsin Fruit News Volume 2, Issue 4 – May 26, 2017 In This Issue: General Information General Information: Soil-borne diseases of fruit crops: Soil-borne diseases of fruit crops: Introduction Introduction By: Sara Thomas-Sharma and Patricia McManus page 1 IPM: Monitoring pest populations The soil is a major source of plant pathogens – fungi, nematodes, and bacteria and action thresholds – that cause a variety of diseases in fruit crops (Fig. 1, following page). Soil-borne page 2 diseases can also be ‘disease complexes’, caused by a combination of pathogens and Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic specific soil conditions, and some soil-borne pathogens such as nematodes can update additionally vector viruses. Soil-borne pathogens often have: page 3 • A wide host range, infecting multiple crops Insect Diagnostic Lab update • Ability to survive as non-pathogens in organic debris page 4 • Hardy survival structures (in the soil or on the plant) that can withstand Berry Crops: temperature differences, dry conditions, and long periods without a plant Spotted wing drosophila forecast for 2017 host. page 5 • A preference for specific soil/water conditions (e.g., nematodes prefer sandy Strawberry root weevil and Black soils and Phytophthora prefers waterlogged soils). vine weevil page 5 Symptoms associated with soil-borne diseases can be aboveground and/or belowground. Aboveground symptoms (Fig. 1 A, B) such as wilting, stunting, and Cranberries: Cranberry degree-day map and yellowing are more readily observed, and call attention to an underlying problem. On update the other hand, it is only when infected plants are uprooted (Fig. 1 C, D), that page 7 belowground symptoms such as root/crown rot, discoloration of vascular system, etc. -
Toby Austin's Garden Moth List
Toby Austin’s Garden Moth List Orange Swift Triodia sylvina Common Swift Korscheltellus lupulinus Ghost Moth Hepialus humuli Nematopogon swammerdamella Cork Moth Nemapogon cloacella Tinea trinotella Horse-chestnut Leaf-miner Cameraria ohridella Bird-cherry Ermine Yponomeuta evonymella Orchard/Apple/Spindle Ermine Yponomeuta padella/malinellus/cagnagella Willow Ermine Yponomeuta rorrella Yponomeuta plumbella Ypsolopha ustella Diamond-back Moth Plutella xylostella Plutella porrectella Ash Bud Moth Prays fraxinella Hawthorn Moth Scythropia crataegella Oegoconia quadripuncta/caradjai/deauratella Crassa unitella Carcina quercana Luquetia lobella Agonopterix alstromeriana Mompha sturnipennella Blastobasis adustella Blastobasis lacticolella Twenty-plume Moth Alucita hexadactyla Beautiful Plume Amblyptilia acanthadactyla Stenoptilia pterodactyla Stenoptilia bipunctidactyla Common Plume Emmelina monodactyla Variegated Golden Tortrix Archips xylosteana Argyrotaenia ljungiana Chequered Fruit-tree Tortrix Pandemis corylana Dark Fruit-tree Tortrix Pandemis heparana Pandemis dumetana Syndemis musculana Lozotaenia forsterana Carnation Tortrix Cacoecimorpha pronubana Light Brown Apple Moth Epiphyas postvittana Lozotaeniodes formosana Summer Fruit Tortrix Adoxophyes orana Flax Tortrix Cnephasia asseclana Green Oak Tortrix Tortrix viridana Cochylis molliculana Cochylis atricapitana Acleris holmiana Acleris forsskaleana Acleris comariana/laterana Acleris cristana Garden Rose Tortrix Acleris variegana Pseudargyrotoza conwagana Phtheochroa rugosana Agapeta -
2 Pamber BAO Appendi
Appendix 1 - Historical land use in the Parish and its influence on biodiversity. Not to belittle it, but Pamber Parish’s good fortunes in the biodiversity department are down to luck. Underlying clay and gravel mean the land is agriculturally poor and for centuries it was fit for little more than growing trees, cutting hay and grazing a few animals. Land ownership and tenancy regimes meant much of the population scratched a living from relatively small plots: one man with an axe and a scythe, and not much more. This historically small-scale, English-style subsistence farming resulted in a mosaic of land use and habitats that persists in Pamber today, in places. And looking at old maps and reading the landscape’s archaeology and ancient hedgerows means you can trace the history of land use back to the days of Roman occupation. To use rather flowery language, the landscape of Pamber Parish is like a palimpsest - an ancient parchment manuscript, used and reused over time with previous text and boundaries scraped away and overwritten but not entirely obscured. Hints of the past can be discerned by those with a keen and informed eye. Appendix 2 - Additional notable and protected species cited in the draft (subsequently adopted) Pamber Forest SSSI management plan General information about most of Pamber’s taxa groups is summarised in the main document and more specific information about birds, mammals, butterflies and flora is either covered there, or in Appendix 1. However, HBIC records are incomplete in many regards and the following list comprises a selection of the more notable invertebrate species for which Pamber Forest was deemed significant when its management plan was drawn up, and which pertained to its SSSI designation. -
NUMBER 13 – August 2010 Wallblings
Herald Moth, Pamber © Paul Sterry NUMBER 13 – August 2010 Wallblings... Welcome to the 13th Hantsmoths newsletter, delayed more than usual due to my annual foray across the Channel to pastures warmer where the moths are more exotic and therefore covers July and August together. Thanks to Tim for putting the bulk of this missive together in my absence. Please keep the news coming in, either to me directly at mike AT hantsmoths.org.uk, or via the Hantsmoths yahoogroup. Until the next time, Good mothing! Mike --------------- 1 Request for info: Cnephasia pumicana – new to British (and Hampshire) list For those who don’t get the Ent.Rec., the following is lifted directly from Entomologist’s Rec. J. Var. 122 (2010) (authored by JRL & DJLA), announcing a new species to the British list. “Moths of the genus Cnephasia Curtis are notoriously difficult to identify from their external morphology. It is often necessary to make a genitalia preparation to be sure of the identity. Whilst examining such preparations JRL observed a striking difference between two males of this complex. The paper by Chambon & Genestier (1980) illustrated and described these differences and suggested we had two species under the name of pasiuana . C. pumicana had been sunk into the synonymy of C. pasiuana by Razowski (1989), although Karsholt & Razowski (1996) mention that this synonymy was not accepted by Jaroś (1993). It was also included as a distinct species in Novak & Liška (1997), Szabóky et al. (2002) and in Aarvik (2004). It remains listed as a synonym of pasiuana in the popular work by Razowski (2002). -
Scottish Macro-Moth List, 2015
Notes on the Scottish Macro-moth List, 2015 This list aims to include every species of macro-moth reliably recorded in Scotland, with an assessment of its Scottish status, as guidance for observers contributing to the National Moth Recording Scheme (NMRS). It updates and amends the previous lists of 2009, 2011, 2012 & 2014. The requirement for inclusion on this checklist is a minimum of one record that is beyond reasonable doubt. Plausible but unproven species are relegated to an appendix, awaiting confirmation or further records. Unlikely species and known errors are omitted altogether, even if published records exist. Note that inclusion in the Scottish Invertebrate Records Index (SIRI) does not imply credibility. At one time or another, virtually every macro-moth on the British list has been reported from Scotland. Many of these claims are almost certainly misidentifications or other errors, including name confusion. However, because the County Moth Recorder (CMR) has the final say, dubious Scottish records for some unlikely species appear in the NMRS dataset. A modern complication involves the unwitting transportation of moths inside the traps of visiting lepidopterists. Then on the first night of their stay they record a species never seen before or afterwards by the local observers. Various such instances are known or suspected, including three for my own vice-county of Banffshire. Surprising species found in visitors’ traps the first time they are used here should always be regarded with caution. Clerical slips – the wrong scientific name scribbled in a notebook – have long caused confusion. An even greater modern problem involves errors when computerising the data.