A huge amount of work has gone into collecting Macro- records, particularly in the last few years, to achieve the maximum coverage possible for the forthcoming Atlas of Larger Moths. While County and Vice County Recorders (CMRs) are still very busy preparing and sending the macro- moth data to Butterfly Conservation, the rest of us are beginning to wonder what to concentrate on next. Although the recording of larger moths will continue, the passing of the Atlas deadline has definitely left a bit of a void waiting to be filled. And what better way to plug that gap than to take on the Microlepidoptera?

Many of you will already have dabbled, or even dived with enthusiasm into this large but often bewildering group of . With well over 1500 resident or regular migrant smaller moths in Britain (compared to around 900 macro-moth and 83 Butterfly ) this certainly presents an interesting challenge, but it just so happens that help is at hand. With perfect timing the National Moth Recording Scheme (NMRS) has been expanded to include all validated micro-moth records.

The primary aim of this newsletter is to introduce moth recorders to the Micro-moth side of the NMRS and its new National Verification Guidelines and Grades. It is also designed to explain the verification processes that will be applied to your micro-moth records at a county and at a national level. To start the ball rolling, a general introduction to the micro-moths and their recording in Cheshire, Cumbria & Lancashire has been provided and it is hoped this will answer most of the questions you have about this exciting new project.

WHAT IS A MICROMOTH?

This sounds a simple question but, surprisingly, there is not a simple answer. You’d think it relates to those really tiny ones that are often passed over as too difficult to identify. Well, I suppose, yes it does to some extent, but the micros are much more variable and diverse than that. For instance, if you have found and recorded hortulata (the small magpie moth), then you’ve already made a micro-moth record! small magpie moth (Photo: Ben Smart)

1

A quick look through the new Agassiz, Beavan and Heckford checklist (AB&H – see below) doesn’t resolve things either. Between the first and last listed micromoths in AB&H you will find the Swift moths, the Burnets, the Clearwings, moths such as the Goat Moth and the biggest surprise of all – the Butterflies. We, of course, warmly welcome those many butterfly recorders to the micro-moth recorders club! Gatekeeper - an honorary micromoth? (Photo Ben Smart)

But, of course, this isn’t the whole story. In AB&H, as was the case in its forerunner, the Bradley list, are listed in Taxonomic Order (an order running from the most primitive to the most developed). They start with what might best be described as fully paid up, card- carrying members of the micro-moth club – Micropterix (such as M. aureatella), Eriocrania, and ; Britain’s smallest moth () being amongst them. The Swift moths, and a few other larger species, are also listed here amongst our most primitive species. At the opposite end of this list of micro- Micropterix aureatella moths are the , which includes the familiar (Photo: Ben Smart) grass moth Agriphila straminella and some more ‘macro- moths’ and the butterflies slotted in-between.

So ‘Micro-moths’ don’t fit neatly into any taxonomic category. They are purely a human attempt to categorise a group of moths by size rather than taxonomically, which inevitably results in anomalies. How many of us have looked at Pleuroptya ruralis (mother of pearl) and become frustrated that it can’t be found in our macro-moth books? This large species looks completely out of place as a micro.

As a rule you are usually safe in considering anything smaller than Agriphila straminella seriata (small dusty wave), for example, to be a micro (apart, (Photo: Ben Smart) of course, from the mother of pearl and related species).

CONFUSING MICROS AND MACROS

As mentioned above with the mother of pearl, there are some micros that might be confused with macro-moths. One that often caught new recorders out in the pre-internet days was Tortrix viridana (green oak tortrix) which was not infrequently recorded as Earias clorana (cream-bordered green pea). This doesn’t seem to happen nearly so much these days as common micro-moths become more widely known.

2

Strangely it is more often that the problem occurs the other way around. A few of our larger moths can be mistaken for micros. Prominent amongst these is Nycteola reveyana (oak nycteoline) which resembles an Acleris species or other similar Tortricid moths with its distinctive bell-shape when at rest. Another potential confusion area is the small Snout moths. Schrankia costaestrigalis (the pinion- streaked snout) is often confused with members of the Pyralidae or Crambidae. Despite these minor problems, increased familiarity with the full range of micro-moths will help both your micro- and macro-moth identification skills.

WHAT DO I NEED TO STUDY MICRO-MOTHS?

There are a wide variety of County and National websites that contain a wealth of information but the first and best step is to obtain a copy of a good field guide. Sterling, Parsons and Lewington, a Field Guide to the Micro-moths of Great Britain and Ireland is an excellent place to start and I suspect many of you will already have a copy. This book, with its identification key, drawings of moths in their natural resting position, informative text and generalised distribution maps has everything a beginner and more experienced recorder needs. Not all species are shown but it is an excellent starting point. I’d also thoroughly recommend the Second Edition of Chris Manley’s, British Moths - photographic guide to the moths of Britain and Ireland.

If you want to avoid getting too swamped early on, then try the Common Micro-moths of Berkshire. Many of the species in this guide are also found in Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire while the text, with accompanying photos, has excellent pointers and tips on what to look for when trying to identify these commonly encountered moths. See the end of this Newsletter for more details of this and the other books mentioned above.

Small glass tubes (see photo) are essential for the study of micros as the larger plastic ones do not allow easy examination of the smaller species. A 10x hand lens is another ‘must-have’ to allow close examination of a moth’s forewing markings and external structures such as antennae and palps, all of which aid identification. A net can be handy on occasions.

It may surprise some that a moth trap is not listed here. Although they add considerably to the number of micromoths recorded, so much more can be learnt from daylight-hours fieldwork. It is therefore an additional tool in recording the smaller moths rather than the main one.

WHERE DO I FIND THEM?

Micro-moths or their larvae can be found in almost all habitats, including in plants under water, but where better to start than by having a look in or around your house. Even if the garden is small with

3 few if any plants there will be micros around. Some come into houses to rest, overwinter, or even spend their whole life cycle. Keep your eyes open for that small dark mark on the wall or ceiling in a corner of a cool room - it might be a moth (if not it’s time to redecorate!) or look for dead ones on window sills. Have a wander around outside looking for larval feeding signs or, as spring approaches, tap a few plants or shrubs to see what appears. Always have a little pot handy!

Within no time, you’ll have recorded Endrosis sarcitrella (white-shouldered house moth), Hoffmanophila pseudospretella (brown house moth) or a Mompha species or two overwintering in the house or shed. In the garden around a wood pile Nemapogon cloacella (cork moth) or sulphurella will fly at dusk and out of the plants there will be a good chance that you’ll disturb Epiphyas postvittana (light-brown apple-moth). (Photo: Ben Smart)

If you have a conifer hedge you’ll without doubt add a couple more species by tapping the leaves to watch the tiny Argyresthia trifasciata or even smaller Argyresthia cupressella fly out in the summer months. On the popular garden shrub, Pyracantha, you are bound to find the feeding signs of the pyracantha (or firethorn) leaf-miner. A search on UK Moths http://ukmoths.org.uk/ under Phyllonorycter Argyresthia cupressella leucographella will show you what to look for. (Photo: Ben Smart)

Further afield – well, what a huge range and diversity of insects await you at any time of year in all habitats. You’ll need to get used to the idea that there is no closed-season for moths. If you put your moth trap away in the autumn and bemoan those long cold winter nights and a late arriving Spring, think again. Larvae are out there with readily identifiable feeding signs, seed heads can be collected for a bumper emergence of exciting insects in spring, moths can be found hibernating and even on the coldest and most unfriendly of February days, larval spinnings might be found in lawn or wall mosses.

Just imagine the thrill of looking at a pristine, newly-emerged micro that you, on your very own, have managed to find and breed through from the larval stage. Photographs can be taken, not of a dull, worn specimen from a moth trap, but of a moth in all its freshly-emerged glory, as can be seen in Ben Smart’s high-quality photographs of bred moths.

A FEW WIDESPREAD SPECIES

Some species can be found as adults, larvae or by the larval feeding signs for much of the year. To give a flavour of how easy it is to start recording micro-moths here are three examples of common and widespread species that will be recordable within a short distance of your home.

4

Stigmella aurella

Stigmella aurella mine Stigmella aurella (Photo: Ben Smart) (Photo: Ben Smart)

As one of our smallest moths, the adult of this species is rarely seen, unless bred, and are very difficult to identify. Obligingly however the larval feeding signs make this one of the easier species to record over most of the British Isles and in almost every month of the year. The long, winding mine filled with broadly dispersed frass (droppings) are only found in one other species (Stigmella auromarginella), a very rare moth found only in coastal areas of Dorset and The Burren, Western Ireland. A few other scarce bramble feeders are also southern in their distribution but have blotch mines rather than long galleries. One other rather local species, Stigmella splendidisimella, has a very thin frass line although S. aurella occasionally has mines resembling this. For more details and photographs covering Bramble-feeders have a look at http://www.leafmines.co.uk/html/Plants/rubus.htm

04.045 Stigmella aurella (a moth) Records max of 20 in week 14 9 0050 Stigmella aurella

8 VC59 & 60 1

7 SD SE

6 9 5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4 8

3 7

2

6 Records max of 4 in week 15

1 5 SD SE

9 4 Records for Year 2000 onwards [2km] Records for Years before 2000 [2km] 8 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SJ 1 2 3 4 56 78 9SK 1 2 7 SJ 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 SK 1 2 VC58 - 2627 RECORDS FROM 1749 SITES

5

Anthophila fabriciana

In contrast to S. aurella, the adult nettle-tap will initially prove the simplest way of recording this species. It can be found sitting on or flying around stinging nettles wherever they occur from mid-April to early November. The larvae (or their small dense webs) are also easy to locate and identify allowing recording of this moth for most of the year.

Anthophila fabriciana (nettle-tap moth) web and pupa (Photo: Ben Smart)

Anthophila fabriciana

nettle-tap moth (Photo: Ben Smart)

48.001 Anthophila fabriciana (a moth) Records max of 155 in week 23 9

8

7

6

5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4

3 0385 Anthophila fabriciana 2 1

1 SD SE SD SE

9 9

8 8

7 7 SJ 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 SK 1 2

6 Records max of 154 in week 23 VC59 & 60 5

4 VC58 Records for Year 2000 onwards [2km] Records for Years before 2000 [2km] 2044 RECORDS FROM 1033 SITES 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9SK 1 2

6

Pleuroptya ruralis

This is a common and regular visitor to moth traps across Britain in late June to early September. The larva, like the previous species, feed on stinging nettles and can be found feeding in a rolled leaf in the Spring. If a green larva with some white is found in the autumn in a rolled leaf this could be P. ruralis or Anania hortulata (small magpie) giving you the chance to breed either species and conceivably, when including the nettle-tap, give you three larvae for the price of Larval feeding sign of Pleuroptya ruralis one on your garden nettles. (mother of pearl) on stinging nettle (Photo: Ben Smart)

Pleuroptya ruralis mother of pearl (Photo: Ben Smart)

63.038 Pleuroptya ruralis (Mother of Pearl) Records max of 1166 in week 31 9

8

7

6

5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4 1405 Mother of Pearl (Pleuroptya ruralis)

1 3

SD SE 2

9 1 8 SD SE 7

9 6 Records max of 807 in week 30

8 5

7 4 Records for Year 2000 onwards [2km] SJ 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 SK 1 2 Records for Years before 2000 [2km] VC59 & 60 VC58 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jly Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SJ 1 2 34 56 78 9SK 1 2 5540 RECORDS FROM 548 SITES

7

CODE OF CONDUCT

The study of the micro-moths will, in the early stages, often require retaining a live moth to show someone or getting a good photo to pass around. Moths can be kept safely in a fridge for a couple of days in a glass pot without harm.

However, not all micros are identifiable from easily seen external features. This will often involve keeping a moth to enable examination of, perhaps, its hindwings, a part of the head structure (palps or antennae), legs or underside of the abdomen, under a microscope and, with some, dissection.

This, quite understandably for some recorders, is a step too far so it is essential from the start to appreciate that not all micro-moths can be named from external features. For those who do wish to keep a specimen for closer examination it is strongly advised that the Code of Conduct for the study of Insects and other Invertebrates is adhered to (see link for details). http://www.mothscount.org/uploads/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20collecting%20insects.pdf

It will be seen that this detailed and informative document covers a lot more than just information about retaining specimens. It is highly recommended reading for all those engaged in the recording of moths, be it light trapping, breeding or building a reference collection.

LEARNING MORE ABOUT MICROS

As mentioned above, a popular way of getting to grips with micro-moths is to build up your own reference collection of photographs, taking shots of all the different species you find. They provide you with an easily accessible resource, a good reminder of what you have already encountered and can be sent to your CMR to help verify a record, if required. It is important that they are of good quality, so avoid worn specimens, make sure they are in focus and close enough to see the moth clearly. It is often good to take two or maybe three photos of each from different angles to ensure all the important identification features are visible.

There will be a proportion of micros that cannot be positively identified from a photo. That is why it is always important to hang on to a live moth until someone has advised if a photograph is sufficient for identification purposes (see Guideline notes on page 10). At this stage, you can then decide if you feel comfortable in retaining a specimen for more detailed examination, often under a microscope. It goes without saying that if a moth such as these is not retained then a positive identification won’t be possible.

If you decide against keeping voucher specimens then there is another way you can benefit from by looking at retained, set moths. Try visiting your local Museum. A phone call or email will usually be all that’s needed to find out what collections they have and get approval to go behind the scenes and examine these very important resources. Always go with a particular task in mind, such as a small group of species that you want to learn more about. A combination of a good identification field guide and regular Museum visits will work wonders with your identification skills.

In North-west England, Tullie House Museum (Carlisle), World Museum Liverpool and Manchester University Museum are fantastic resources that should be on all micro-lepidopterist’s visit list.

8

USE OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES

You will notice that scientific names have been used throughout this newsletter and this is mostly the case in micro-moth field guides and text books. It is one of the worries you may have when starting to study micros.

Do you need to learn these scientific names?

It is a very good idea to get to grips with them but the first thing to say is, ‘don’t panic’! I guess you are familiar with dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus rex and Diplodocus. These are scientific names which have been learned through regular use; you are comfortable using them and, most importantly, know what they refer to. The same will happen with the names of regularly encountered micros, although you won’t, hopefully, be encountering too many T. rex during your field trips.

Perhaps the most important factor relating to scientific names is that those who will be helping you with naming the moths and developing your skills will all be familiar with them. Searching to find out what a ‘plain fanner’ is will not be high on the list of priorities for someone who has many requests for help in his/her email inbox or on face-book. This name, in fact, refers to Glyphipterix fuscoviridella, a species which microlepidopterists will immediately be familiar with, be it at home or abroad. Help them to help you by getting Glyphipterix fuscoviridella used to the scientific names. (Photo: Ben Smart)

NATIONAL MOTH RECORDING SCHEME - GUIDELINES

To accompany the launch of the new Micro-moth Recording Scheme, Butterfly Conservation, together with a team of microlepidopterists, has developed a set of Verification Guideline notes. These can be seen or downloaded via the links below. They explain why guidelines were considered necessary and also allocate a grade to each British species according to how difficult they or their larval feeding signs or cases are to identify.

The Verification Guideline notes are repeated below on pages 10-12 but the much larger spreadsheet, with full species guideline gradings, was too large to include in this document and is best downloaded or viewed on-line.

Verification Guideline notes: http://www.mothscount.org/uploads/Micro-moth%20verification%20guidance%20(final).pdf

Grade Guidelines for all British Species http://www.mothscount.org/text/73/Guidance_notes.html click on Micro-moth Grading Guidelines to look at or download.

9

VERIFICATION GUIDELINE NOTES

Introduction

The following ‘Verification Guidelines’ have been devised and compiled to help recorders and CMRs decide which micro-moths need careful consideration before records are submitted to the NMRS. Some may find it useful to use these guidelines in conjunction with the vice-county distribution maps currently available online on the Moths Count website ( http://www.mothscount.org/ ). Some identification issues may need referring to the Regional, or even the National panels, that have been put in place to support the VCRs. See page 13.

There will be plenty of the larger micro-moths, such as Pleuroptya ruralis (mother of pearl), Anania hortulata (small magpie), Hypsopygia costalis and Pterophorus pentadactyla (white plume moth), where the moths can be easily identified and where no similar looking species occur. Typically, these records will be accepted as submitted and only those which occur outside their usual flight period, habitat or geographical range are likely to be questioned. However, it will assist the CMR if these checks are made to rule out any potential misidentifications before submitting the record. This sort of information is Hypsopygia costalis readily available in books and on-line facilities. Once (Photo: Ben Smart) experience has been gained with the different families there will be many species that can be accepted without further evidence being required. If a recorder has had the species checked before it is unlikely that subsequent records of the same species will need querying again (unless dissection is required or, perhaps, the species is very scarce).

Why additional evidence may be needed:

Many micro-moths are not straightforward to determine. In these cases, it is best to assume that species that have not been encountered before will be best retained as a photograph (or in some cases a specimen, see the guidelines) for examination by an experienced micro-moth recorder or a local Moth Forum before being finally assessed by the CMR.

Sometimes a photograph will not suffice and a specimen will be required, for example identification can often hinge on hindwing shape and markings, or other parts of the moth’s structure that are not readily shown on a photograph. If in doubt, submit a photograph whilst retaining the live moth (most can be kept alive for a few days in an airtight dry pot in a fridge). It should be borne in mind that the relevant identifier or CMR may not be able to respond immediately. The on-line maps (mentioned above) should help identify potential new vice-county records (maps are also becoming increasingly available in identification guides). All potential new vice-county records should be supported by one or more good quality images or, in some cases, a specimen. Please bear in mind many species cannot be determined without a specimen (see guidelines). If a scarce or very scarce species is suspected and a specimen is likely to be required for accurate determination, please ensure that only one, or at most a very few, specimens are retained.

10

When taking photographs of micro-moths, ensure that the moth is not too worn (this can make identification by this means difficult or impossible). It is important that the moth is clearly visible, that the picture is not blurred and that, preferably, two images from different angles are submitted. An idea of scale should be included in the image if possible. Additional information, such as capture date and location will help aid determination. If subsequently submitting a record when the moth has been determined by a third party, ensure that the determiner’s name is given along with that of the recorder. This is particularly important as the CMR may require more information.

The use of the Verification Guidelines

The criteria listed below aim to provide a framework for the verification of micro-moths for the National Moth Recording Scheme. These criteria cover the adult moths and species more regularly recorded as leaf-mines or as larval cases. The criteria are applicable at the UK level, but it may be that local or regional knowledge could be used to adapt individual species gradings.

The grading assumes that moths identified were in a good or adequate condition when originally determined. When assessing submitted records or datasets, consideration is likely be given to the level of experience and expertise of individual recorders as part of the verification process, for example even very common and relatively distinctive species could be misidentified by novice recorders (it is also worth noting even more experienced recorders can make mistakes). The relevant CMR should always be involved in the verification process (and, where relevant, in the identification) and given the opportunity to view a specimen or photographs if required (an exception to this is where an alternative local arrangement, in liaison with the CMR, has been made).

Additional evidence, such as flight period, available habitat or larval foodplant, should be used when verifying records, particularly for scarcer or more unusual records. These details are not given in the tables below. If a species has been bred from a known foodplant, this may reduce the verification evidence required for some Category 2 - 4 species and advice should be sought from the CMR or relevant expert. In the Grade guidelines (see link page 9) a few very brief notes are given in a comments field, for example highlighting species that are considered Extinct, and, where relevant, with an indication if the presence of a larva, pupa or cocoon is required to confirm leaf-mining species.

The Verification Criteria Important note: All potential new Vice-county records should be supported by one or more good quality images showing all the critical identification features or by a specimen (see guidelines).

A) Adult moths:

Category 1: Generally distinctive species unlikely to be confused with other species. Usually accept record within documented range and usual occurrence period for the region; otherwise one or more good quality photographs, or possibly a specimen, would be required. Applies to species which will quickly become familiar to those gaining experience in micro- moths.

Category 2: Can be confused with other species. Good quality photographs or possibly a specimen will be required if the recorder is not familiar with the species. If records have

11

previously been submitted and accepted, Category 1 criteria may apply subject to confirmation from your CMR. Worn examples are likely to be unidentifiable unless a specimen is retained for microscopic examination.

Category 3: Very scarce species (includes very scarce adventives/immigrants). A voucher specimen may be required by your CMR (seek advice before releasing the moth). A good set of photographs showing all critical identification features clearly may suffice in some cases.

Category 4: Dissection required.

N.B. Because nearly all the look very similar no attempt has been made to add an adult code to this family (see photo of a bred Ectoedemia atricollis).

Ectoedemia atricollis B) Larval cases: (Photo: Ben Smart)

For many larval case records (and particularly for the Coleophoridae), great care should be taken to ensure the foodplant is correctly named. A wrongly named foodplant will almost certainly lead to an incorrect moth determination. Pabulum is used instead of foodplant (below) to indicate that some larvae (such as in the Psychidae) feed on non-plant material.

C1: Same as Adult Category 1.

C2: A good quality photo or specimen of the case and plant/pabulum is required.

C3: A good quality photo or specimen of the case and plant/pabulum and the bred moth is required.

Coleophora milvipennis C4: As in C3 and the moth requires dissection. (Photo: Ben Smart)

The case must be well developed and, with the Coleophoridae, feeding should be observed (larvae can fix their cases away from the host plant). Information on the style of feeding (e.g. peppering leaves, consuming large parts of a leaf etc.), the time of year when the fully-fed case occurred and habitat, amongst others, can all assist with identification.

C) Leaf-miners:

Category A: Accept record without the need to see the actual leaf or a good photo.

Category L: Either the leaf or a good photograph required. Stigmella tityrella Mine on beech Category R: Moth needs to be reared and, in some (Photo: Ben Smart) cases, may require dissection.

12

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL PANELS

To further assist CMRs, Regional Panels have been established across the United Kingdom, consisting of a small number of experienced micro-lepidopterists in each region. The Northern Regional Panel is composed of five micro-lepidopterists with wide experience of micros within this region and elsewhere. They are there to provide support to CMRs with specific identification problems. Should the Regional Panel be unable to resolve an issue or require more expertise in deciding on a specific identification, details can be passed onto a small group of members of the National Panel. This Panel includes national experts and those running national recording schemes.

SUBMITTING RECORDS

On submission to your CMR, your records will be checked and he or she will get in touch if they have any queries (see page 17 for details of how each county prefers records to be submitted).

To reduce the likelihood of your CMR needing to contact you about a record, it is vitally important that you have checked the National Grading Guidelines for your species, read the appropriate information to see if all species occur in your region, fly at the appropriate time of year and that the habitat is correct. Moths do occasionally wander and can fly out of season at rare times, but most errors can be spotted by these essential checks. This will also help to reduce the workload of your CMR.

If the guidelines suggest a good photo or specimen is required (for example Mompha jurrasicella, see photograph), do follow this requirement unless agreed otherwise with your CMR.

As the Micro-moth side of the NMRS is still very new it will take a while for the large backlog of data to be checked and submitted by your CMR. This may involve the need to revisit previously submitted records. Once this process is complete then verified records are likely to be sent in on an annual basis. Mompha jurrasicella (Photo: Ben Smart)

Since the Micro-moth part of the Scheme started in Spring 2016 sets of records have been winging their way into Butterfly Conservation from across the British Isles. Data from 39 Vice Counties ranging from Cornwall to the Shetland Islands has been submitted. The largest set so far (up to the end of January 2017) was the 176,000 plus records from Huntingdonshire and this brought the Scheme total to 1.21 million. All before the end of its first full year!

13

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS?

In Cheshire and Lancashire, the CMRs, and those assisting them, are busy going through all the records to make sure all errors and typos are excluded before submission of the data to the new Scheme. As you’ll appreciate this is a significant task with around a quarter of a million micro-moth records for each of Cheshire and Lancashire. Cumbria are off to a flying start and have already submitted their 30,000-species database – no pressure on their more southerly neighbours then!

Throughout the North-West region research has been carried out to a greater or lesser extent into historic records in journals, Museums, private collections etc., but much more needs to be done. To ensure that records sent to the NMRS are as accurate as possible these are all undergoing a re- assessment process. This includes checks to see if specimens of the trickier species are still present, how experienced the recorder was, whether a species has since been renamed or split into two or more species etc. We also have much more detailed information on distribution, life history, habitat requirements and identification difficulties these days than was the case in previous centuries. These factors are all brought together to decide if a record is considered acceptable for inclusion in the National Scheme database.

The historic records, however, only represent a small percentage of the overall data. Most records held on the County databases are relatively recent in origin (c1980 onwards). This, in theory, makes checking them a less complicated task. However there are still many issues such as errors made during data entry or overlooked misidentifications etc. Additionally checks will take into account the Guideline grades and this has presented us with a significant but not unexpected problem with respect to the large numbers of leaf-mining records. Many of the Stigmella roborella identifications made between the late 1970s to early Mine on oak 2010s were based on keys which, in their time, were (Photo: Ben Smart) cutting edge. More recently a reassessment of these has confirmed that many, particularly those based on vacated mines (where the larva has already left the leaf), are no longer considered reliable. One example is Stigmella roborella where the egg position is needed for acceptance of a first brood mine record and a larva being in-situ. for a second brood record.

As part of the assessment process, a meeting was held in January 2017 involving Cheshire and Lancashire. Cumbria has already dealt with this process and widely advertised and made available the guidelines to their recorders). Those attending were briefed on the progress with data checks and discussed issues arising from this, particularly with reference to a standard approach to the more difficult identification issues across the region. It was suggested that it would be useful to raise the profile of the new Scheme, with its Guidelines and Grades. Also it was felt it would be useful to explain to recorders in our region what checks are taking place to ensure the accuracy of data before records are submitted to the NMRS. Hence this Newsletter.

14

HOW CAN YOU HELP YOUR COUNTY RECORDER?

This summarises some of the comments mentioned above and adds some extra ways in which you can assist your CMR with his/her considerable workload. It is essential to remember that a CMRs post is totally voluntary and will have to be fitted in around all other aspects of their lives. They need all the help and support you can give!

1) So, carefully check your identifications against information contained in the National Guidelines, Field Guides, Websites etc. before submitting your records. It would also be of considerable help to your CMR for you to re-visit your previously submitted records and, having checked the National Guidelines, inform the CMR if you consider any are no longer valid.

2) Send in your records regularly in the format requested, even of the most common and widespread species.

3) A CMRs workload, particularly if there is only one person involved, leaves limited time to carry out additional tasks like investigating historic records. Offers of help are always welcomed and if you think you can help by visiting a Museum to extract data for the area or are willing to go through Entomological Journals on-line to extract records, then do get in touch with your CMR.

4) Identification queries are welcomed by CMRs. However, as these often build up and may take time to resolve, one way to help reduce the CMR’s workload would be to post the requests onto a local Forum first. That way an identification might be sorted quickly and easily (assuming the national grades suggest the moth can be identified from a photo), while at the same time benefitting other users of the Forum in their own learning processes. Don’t forget to make a note of the determiner’s name for when your record is submitted. The CMR will then be able to go back to the recorder or determiner if required. Do take care when receiving on-line identifications as comments made might just be suggestions rather than definite identifications. If there is any doubt, always ask those suggesting the identity if they are 100% certain.

5) Assist in survey work of rare species. In some regions, there will be rarities in your area that would benefit from regular monitoring. In Cumbria and Lancashire this could be which occurs in limestone areas. Contact your CMR to see if there are any you can help with.

Anania funebris (Photo: Ben Smart)

15

USEFUL FIELD GUIDES AND WEBSITES

A small number of the most useful books and sites that are essential reading for those starting micro- moth recording are listed below. Many more books specialising on individual micro-moth families or groups are also available as are a considerable number of county and other websites.

Books:

Sterling, P., Parsons, M. and Lewington R., 2012. Field Guide to the Micro-moths of Great Britain and Ireland.

Manley, C., 2015. British Moths, Second Edition – A Photographic Guide to the Moths of Britain and Ireland.

Berkshire Moth Group, 2013. Common Micro-moths of Berkshire. This has some excellent tips for identifying many of the common micros which are also found in N. W. England.

Forthcoming Field Guide - Exclusive: News has recently been received about a forthcoming book which will cover an extensive range of field tips for finding micro-moth larvae in the North West. Ben Smart has reached an advanced stage in this innovative and unique project which will cover feeding signs, leaf- mines or larvae of over 300 species (with over 600 high-quality photographs) of the North- west’s micro-moths. Further information will be made widely available once the book becomes available.

Websites:

UK Moths - http://ukmoths.org.uk/ Photographs and information covering many of Britain’s micro- and macro-moths.

British Leaf-miners - http://www.leafmines.co.uk/index.htm An extensive range of photographs, distribution maps and plenty of life history information relating to British leaf-mining larvae.

Gelechiid Recording Scheme - http://www.gelechiid.co.uk/ Contains photographs, distribution maps and information on many aspects of British Gelechiid moths identification and life history.

Lepiforum - http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl A German website with a incredible photo resource of many moth species that are also found in Britain. Enter a species name in the Volltextsuche box at the top of the page.

16

WHO ARE YOUR VICE-COUNTY or COUNTY MICRO-MOTH RECORDERS?

VC58 Cheshire Steve Hind VC59 South Lancashire Richard Walker VC60 North Lancashire John Girdley VC69 & 70 Cumbria Liz Still

Contact details for the above and all the UKs other VCRs can be found at: http://www.mothscount.org/text/57/county_moth_recorders.html

PREFERRED FORMAT FOR SENDING IN RECORDS

Any e-mail correspondence relating to this newsletter should be directed to the appropriate County Moth Recorder for your area.

Cheshire: http://www.record-lrc.co.uk/c2.aspx?Mod=Downloads&Do=ListFile&SubCategoryID=38 Records can be submitted via MapMate sync file or the CMG Recording Form. The latter is found at the above link, at the bottom of the rECOrd LRC download page.

Cumbria: www.cbdc.org.uk/recording/send-us-records This takes you to the Cumbria Biodiversity Data Centre website that has all the options relating to record submissions explained and from where forms are downloadable.

Lancashire: http://www.lancashiremoths.co.uk/contacts Full details of all methods and procedures are contained on this link.

WEBSITES AND FORUMS

Cheshire: There is not a specific Cheshire website but recorders are encouraged to keep in touch via the Cheshire Moth Forum hosted by rECOrd at Chester where there is frequent discussion, especially over micro-moth identifications. The posts can be accessed at: http://www.record-lrc.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=24&sid=79c9f9c06d95b7ae2349624355e9cff1

Cumbria: Yahoo (Cumbria Moths) - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CumbriaMoths/info Facebook (Cumbria Moth) - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1484989568463053/

Lancashire: Website - http://www.lancashiremoths.co.uk/ Facebook – www.facebook.com/groups/119829941488294

17

REFERENCES

Agassiz, D. J. L., Beavan, S. D. & and Heckford, R. J., 2013. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of the British Isles. This is the definitive checklist for British butterflies and moths and should be followed when submitting records to your County Recorder. If you are still using the Bradley list and/or numbers, please update to this new list.

Berkshire moth Group, 2013. Common Micro-moths of Berkshire. A Guide to Identification of Some Common Micro-moths.

Manley, C., 2015. British Moths, Second Edition; a Photographic Guide to the Moths Britain and Ireland. A large proportion of Britain’s micro-moths or, in some cases their larval feeding signs, are illustrated by colour photographs and accompanied by distribution maps and limited text.

Sterling, P. H., Parsons, M. & Lewington, R., 2012. Field Guide to the Micro-moths of Great Britain and Ireland. Over 1000 of the micro-moths found in the British Isles are described and illustrated. The book contains an excellent key to micromoth families and many tips on identification.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Very many thanks to Ben Smart for the use of his magnificent photographs; to John Girdley, Steve Hind, Kevin McCabe, Ben Smart, Liz Still and Richard Walker for their advice and comments in developing this newsletter; to Steve Hind and Gary Hedges for providing the Cheshire and Cumbria distribution maps; to Graham Dixon, Alex Parsons and Pete Marsh for more recent data handling and problem solving, to Zoe Randle of Butterfly Conservation for her help throughout the development of the national project and to Carolyn Palmer for her continued support, understanding and help with formatting this newsletter. Finally, without my good friend Kevin McCabe’s extensive data entry work, help and support over the last 20 or so years, Lancashire would be nowhere near ready to cope with this new and exciting project. Thanks for all your help and support Kev.

Stephen Palmer, February 2017

18