Flanders Moss, Stirlingshire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Fauna Lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 Years Later: Changes and Additions
©Ges. zur Förderung d. Erforschung von Insektenwanderungen e.V. München, download unter www.zobodat.at Atalanta (August 2000) 31 (1/2):327-367< Würzburg, ISSN 0171-0079 "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 5. Noctuidae (Insecto, Lepidoptera) by Vasily V. A n ik in , Sergey A. Sachkov , Va d im V. Z o lo t u h in & A n drey V. Sv ir id o v received 24.II.2000 Summary: 630 species of the Noctuidae are listed for the modern Volgo-Ural fauna. 2 species [Mesapamea hedeni Graeser and Amphidrina amurensis Staudinger ) are noted from Europe for the first time and one more— Nycteola siculana Fuchs —from Russia. 3 species ( Catocala optata Godart , Helicoverpa obsoleta Fabricius , Pseudohadena minuta Pungeler ) are deleted from the list. Supposedly they were either erroneously determinated or incorrect noted from the region under consideration since Eversmann 's work. 289 species are recorded from the re gion in addition to Eversmann 's list. This paper is the fifth in a series of publications1 dealing with the composition of the pres ent-day fauna of noctuid-moths in the Middle Volga and the south-western Cisurals. This re gion comprises the administrative divisions of the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Saratov, Samara, Uljanovsk, Orenburg, Uralsk and Atyraus (= Gurjev) Districts, together with Tataria and Bash kiria. As was accepted in the first part of this series, only material reliably labelled, and cover ing the last 20 years was used for this study. The main collections are those of the authors: V. A n i k i n (Saratov and Volgograd Districts), S. -
Methods and Work Profile
REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services ....................................... -
Micro-Moth Grading Guidelines (Scotland) Abhnumber Code
Micro-moth Grading Guidelines (Scotland) Scottish Adult Mine Case ABHNumber Code Species Vernacular List Grade Grade Grade Comment 1.001 1 Micropterix tunbergella 1 1.002 2 Micropterix mansuetella Yes 1 1.003 3 Micropterix aureatella Yes 1 1.004 4 Micropterix aruncella Yes 2 1.005 5 Micropterix calthella Yes 2 2.001 6 Dyseriocrania subpurpurella Yes 2 A Confusion with fly mines 2.002 7 Paracrania chrysolepidella 3 A 2.003 8 Eriocrania unimaculella Yes 2 R Easier if larva present 2.004 9 Eriocrania sparrmannella Yes 2 A 2.005 10 Eriocrania salopiella Yes 2 R Easier if larva present 2.006 11 Eriocrania cicatricella Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 2.007 13 Eriocrania semipurpurella Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 2.008 12 Eriocrania sangii Yes 4 R Easier if larva present 4.001 118 Enteucha acetosae 0 A 4.002 116 Stigmella lapponica 0 L 4.003 117 Stigmella confusella 0 L 4.004 90 Stigmella tiliae 0 A 4.005 110 Stigmella betulicola 0 L 4.006 113 Stigmella sakhalinella 0 L 4.007 112 Stigmella luteella 0 L 4.008 114 Stigmella glutinosae 0 L Examination of larva essential 4.009 115 Stigmella alnetella 0 L Examination of larva essential 4.010 111 Stigmella microtheriella Yes 0 L 4.011 109 Stigmella prunetorum 0 L 4.012 102 Stigmella aceris 0 A 4.013 97 Stigmella malella Apple Pigmy 0 L 4.014 98 Stigmella catharticella 0 A 4.015 92 Stigmella anomalella Rose Leaf Miner 0 L 4.016 94 Stigmella spinosissimae 0 R 4.017 93 Stigmella centifoliella 0 R 4.018 80 Stigmella ulmivora 0 L Exit-hole must be shown or larval colour 4.019 95 Stigmella viscerella -
Biological Surveys at Hunsbury Hill Country Park 2018
FRIENDS OF WEST HUNSBURY PARKS BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AT HUNSBURY HILL COUNTRY PARK 2018 Ryan Clark Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre April 2019 Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre Introduction Biological records tell us which species are present on sites and are essential in informing the conservation and management of wildlife. In 2018, the Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre ran a number of events to encourage biological recording at Hunsbury Hill Fort as part of the Friends of West Hunsbury Park’s project, which is supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Hunsbury Hill Country Park is designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS). There are approximately 700 Local Wildlife Sites in Northamptonshire. Local Wildlife Sites create a network of areas, which are important as refuges for wildlife or wildlife corridors. Hunsbury Hill Country Park was designated as a LWS in 1992 for its woodland flora and the variety of habitats that the site possesses. The site also has a Local Geological Site (LGS) which highlights the importance of this site for its geology as well as biodiversity. This will be surveyed by the local geological group in due course. Hunsbury Hill Country Park Local Wildlife Site Boundary 1 Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre (NBRC) supports the recording, curation and sharing of quality verified environmental information for sound decision-making. We hold nearly a million biological records covering a variety of different species groups. Before the start of this project, we looked to see which species had been recorded at the site. We were surprised to find that the only records we have for the site have come from Local Wildlife Site Surveys, which assess the quality of the site and focus on vascular plants, with some casual observations of other species noted too. -
Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park
Survey of the Lepidoptera Fauna in Birch Mountains Wildland Provincial Park Platarctia parthenos Photo: D. Vujnovic Prepared for: Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre, Parks and Protected Areas Division, Alberta Community Development Prepared by: Doug Macaulay and Greg Pohl Alberta Lepidopterists' Guild May 10, 2005 Figure 1. Doug Macaulay and Gerald Hilchie walking on a cutline near site 26. (Photo by Stacy Macaulay) Figure 2. Stacey Macaulay crossing a beaver dam at site 33. (Photo by Doug Macaulay) I TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................... 4 I. Factors affecting the Survey...........................................................................................4 II. Taxa of particular interest.............................................................................................5 A. Butterflies:...................................................................................................................... 5 B. Macro-moths .................................................................................................................. -
A-Razowski X.Vp:Corelventura
Acta zoologica cracoviensia, 46(3): 269-275, Kraków, 30 Sep., 2003 Reassessment of forewing pattern elements in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) Józef RAZOWSKI Received: 15 March, 2003 Accepted for publication: 20 May, 2003 RAZOWSKI J. 2003. Reassessment of forewing pattern elements in Tortricidae (Lepidop- tera). Acta zoologica cracoviensia, 46(3): 269-275. Abstract. Forewing pattern elements of moths in the family Tortricidae are discussed and characterized. An historical review of the terminology is provided. A new system of nam- ing pattern elements is proposed. Key words. Lepidoptera, Tortricidae, forewing pattern, analysis, terminology. Józef RAZOWSKI, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, S³awkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland. E-mail: razowski.isez.pan.krakow.pl I. INTRODUCTION Early tortricid workers such as HAWORTH (1811), HERRICH-SCHHÄFFER (1856), and others pre- sented the first terminology for forewing pattern elements in their descriptions of new species. Nearly a century later, SÜFFERT (1929) provided a more eclectic discussion of pattern elements for Lepidoptera in general. In recent decades, the common and repeated use of specific terms in de- scriptions and illustrations by FALKOVITSH (1966), DANILEVSKY and KUZNETZOV (1968), and oth- ers reinforced these terms in Tortricidae. BRADLEY et al. (1973) summarized and commented on all the English terms used to describe forewing pattern elements. DANILEVSKY and KUZNETZOV (1968) and KUZNETZOV (1978) analyzed tortricid pattern elements, primarily Olethreutinae, dem- onstrating the taxonomic significance of the costal strigulae in that subfamily. For practical pur- poses they numbered the strigulae from the forewing apex to the base, where the strigulae often become indistinct. KUZNETZOV (1978) named the following forewing elements in Tortricinae: ba- sal fascia, subterminal fascia, outer fascia (comprised of subapical blotch and outer blotch), apical spot, and marginal line situated in the marginal fascia (a component of the ground colour). -
Aculeate Conservation Group/ Hymettus Report for 2006
Aculeate Conservation Group/ Hymettus Report for 2006 1. Background to 2006 Research. 1.1 During 2006 a new body, Hymettus Ltd., was constituted. Hymettus will take over and extend the role of the Aculeate Conservation Group. This report deals with research originally agreed at the 2005 ACG Annual Review and funded by English Nature (now also re-incarnated as Natural England), but executed under Hymettus Ltd.. During 2006 work was financially supported by English Nature, Earthwatch, Syngenta and the RSPB in accordance with the relevant Annex a documents, which see for details. 1.2 2005 Projects are reported in the following order of taxonomic group: ants, wasps, bees, other projects. 2. Ant Projects. 2.1 Formica exsecta 2.1.1 At the 2005 Review meeting Stephen Caroll was asked to enquire of the Devon Trust as to whether they would be prepared to consider looking at the possibility of proposing a landscape project for the Bovey Basin which would include the habitat requirements of Formica exsecta and , if so, whether a contribution from the ACG towards the costs of looking at this would be appropriate. 2.1.2 The Trust received this request enthusiastically and have submitted a copy of Andrew Taylor’s (their Officer) Report. Stephen Caroll will be able to bring us up to date with developments at the Review meting. The Report is presented here (appendices may be obtained from Mike Edwards): Landscape-scale habitat work in Devon’s Bovey Basin Report to Hymettus Limited, October 2006 1. Introduction The Bovey Basin is located in the Teignbridge district of South Devon. -
The Distribution and Habitat Preferences of Bats in a Temperate Urban Landscape
The distribution and habitat preferences of bats in a temperate urban landscape Paul Lintott July 2015 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Biological & Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences The University of Stirling Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis has been composed by myself and that it embodies the results of my own research. Where appropriate, I have acknowledged the nature and extent of work carried out in collaboration with others. ………………………………………………………………………….. Paul Lintott Summary Urbanisation is a key driver in the loss, fragmentation and modification of natural habitats resulting in the global loss of biodiversity. As the human population, and consequently the rate of urbanisation, continues to increase exponentially it is important to understand how to sustain and enhance biodiversity within the built environment. Cities comprise a complex assortment of habitat types yet relatively little is known of how its composition and spatial configuration can influence species presence or foraging activities. It is therefore necessary to examine habitat use and biodiversity patterns at multiple spatial scales to fully understand how species are responding to the urban matrix. There are few other orders of animals that are as strongly associated with people as bats (Chiroptera); for some bat species human habitations provide roosts and adaptations of the environment provide food sources. However bat species richness generally declines with increasing urbanisation indicating that many species are not able to persist in highly urbanised areas. In this thesis, I show that the behaviour, habitat preferences, and distribution of bats are strongly influenced by the built environment at both a local and landscape scale. -
Species List
Species List for <vice county> [Staffordshire (VC 39)] Code Taxon Vernacular 1.001 Micropterix tunbergella 1.002 Micropterix mansuetella 1.003 Micropterix aureatella 1.004 Micropterix aruncella 1.005 Micropterix calthella 2.001 Dyseriocrania subpurpurella 2.003 Eriocrania unimaculella 2.004 Eriocrania sparrmannella 2.005 Eriocrania salopiella 2.006 Eriocrania cicatricella 2.006 Eriocrania haworthi 2.007 Eriocrania semipurpurella 2.008 Eriocrania sangii 3.001 Triodia sylvina Orange Swift 3.002 Korscheltellus lupulina Common Swift 3.003 Korscheltellus fusconebulosa Map-winged Swift 3.004 Phymatopus hecta Gold Swift 3.005 Hepialus humuli Ghost Moth 4.002 Stigmella lapponica 4.003 Stigmella confusella 4.004 Stigmella tiliae 4.005 Stigmella betulicola 4.006 Stigmella sakhalinella 4.007 Stigmella luteella 4.008 Stigmella glutinosae 4.009 Stigmella alnetella 4.010 Stigmella microtheriella 4.012 Stigmella aceris 4.013 Stigmella malella Apple Pygmy 4.015 Stigmella anomalella Rose Leaf Miner 4.017 Stigmella centifoliella 4.018 Stigmella ulmivora 4.019 Stigmella viscerella 4.020 Stigmella paradoxa 4.022 Stigmella regiella 4.023 Stigmella crataegella 4.024 Stigmella magdalenae 4.025 Stigmella nylandriella 4.026 Stigmella oxyacanthella 4.030 Stigmella hybnerella 4.032 Stigmella floslactella 4.034 Stigmella tityrella 4.035 Stigmella salicis 4.036 Stigmella myrtillella 4.038 Stigmella obliquella 4.039 Stigmella trimaculella 4.040 Stigmella assimilella 4.041 Stigmella sorbi 4.042 Stigmella plagicolella 4.043 Stigmella lemniscella 4.044 Stigmella continuella -
Somerset's Ecological Network
Somerset’s Ecological Network Mapping the components of the ecological network in Somerset 2015 Report This report was produced by Michele Bowe, Eleanor Higginson, Jake Chant and Michelle Osbourn of Somerset Wildlife Trust, and Larry Burrows of Somerset County Council, with the support of Dr Kevin Watts of Forest Research. The BEETLE least-cost network model used to produce Somerset’s Ecological Network was developed by Forest Research (Watts et al, 2010). GIS data and mapping was produced with the support of Somerset Environmental Records Centre and First Ecology Somerset Wildlife Trust 34 Wellington Road Taunton TA1 5AW 01823 652 400 Email: [email protected] somersetwildlife.org Front Cover: Broadleaved woodland ecological network in East Mendip Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policy and Legislative Background to Ecological Networks ............................................ 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 Government White Paper on the Natural Environment .............................................. 3 National Planning Policy Framework ......................................................................... 3 The Habitats and Birds Directives ............................................................................. 4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 .................................. -
Lepidoptera of a Raised Bog and Adjacent Forest in Lithuania
Eur. J. Entomol. 101: 63–67, 2004 ISSN 1210-5759 Lepidoptera of a raised bog and adjacent forest in Lithuania DALIUS DAPKUS Department of Zoology, Vilnius Pedagogical University, Studentų 39, LT–2004 Vilnius, Lithuania; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Lepidoptera, tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species, communities, raised bog, wet forest, Lithuania Abstract. Studies on nocturnal Lepidoptera were carried out on the Laukėnai raised bog and the adjacent wet forest in 2001. Species composition and abundance were evaluated and compared. The species richness was much higher in the forest than at the bog. The core of each lepidopteran community was composed of 22 species with an abundance of higher than 1.0% of the total catch. Tyrpho- philous Hypenodes humidalis (22.0% of all individuals) and Nola aerugula (13.0%) were the dominant species in the raised bog community, while tyrphoneutral Pelosia muscerda (13.6%) and Eilema griseola (8.3%) were the most abundant species at the forest site. Five tyrphobiotic and nine tyrphophilous species made up 43.4% of the total catch on the bog, and three and seven species, respectively, at the forest site, where they made up 9.2% of all individuals. 59% of lepidopteran species recorded on the bog and 36% at the forest site were represented by less than five individuals. The species compositions of these communities showed a weak similarity. Habitat preferences of the tyrphobiontic and tyrphophilous species and dispersal of some of the species between the habi- tats are discussed. INTRODUCTION (1996). Ecological terminology is that of Mikkola & Spitzer (1983), Spitzer & Jaroš (1993), Spitzer (1994): tyrphobiontic The insect fauna of isolated raised bogs in Europe is species are species that are strongly associated with peat bogs, unique in having a considerable portion of relict boreal while tyrphophilous taxa are more abundant on bogs than in and subarctic species (Mikkola & Spitzer, 1983; Spitzer adjacent habitats. -
Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow
Xyleninae 73.087 2385 Small Mottled Willow (Spodoptera exigua) 73.089 2386 Mediterranean Brocade (Spodoptera littoralis) 73.091 2396 Rosy Marbled (Elaphria venustula) 73.092 2387 Mottled Rustic (Caradrina morpheus) 73.093 2387a Clancy's Rustic (Caradrina kadenii) 73.095 2389 Pale Mottled Willow (Caradrina clavipalpis) 73.096 2381 Uncertain (Hoplodrina octogenaria) 73.0961 2381x Uncertain/Rustic agg. (Hoplodrina octogenaria/blanda) 73.097 2382 Rustic (Hoplodrina blanda) 73.099 2384 Vine's Rustic (Hoplodrina ambigua) 73.100 2391 Silky Wainscot (Chilodes maritima) 73.101 2380 Treble Lines (Charanyca trigrammica) 73.102 2302 Brown Rustic (Rusina ferruginea) 73.103 2392 Marsh Moth (Athetis pallustris) 73.104 2392a Porter's Rustic (Athetis hospes) 73.105 2301 Bird's Wing (Dypterygia scabriuscula) 73.106 2304 Orache Moth (Trachea atriplicis) 73.107 2300 Old Lady (Mormo maura) 73.109 2303 Straw Underwing (Thalpophila matura) 73.111 2097 Purple Cloud (Actinotia polyodon) 73.113 2306 Angle Shades (Phlogophora meticulosa) 73.114 2305 Small Angle Shades (Euplexia lucipara) 73.118 2367 Haworth's Minor (Celaena haworthii) 73.119 2368 Crescent (Helotropha leucostigma) 73.120 2352 Dusky Sallow (Eremobia ochroleuca) 73.121 2364 Frosted Orange (Gortyna flavago) 73.123 2361 Rosy Rustic (Hydraecia micacea) 73.124 2362 Butterbur (Hydraecia petasitis) 73.126 2358 Saltern Ear (Amphipoea fucosa) 73.127 2357 Large Ear (Amphipoea lucens) 73.128 2360 Ear Moth (Amphipoea oculea) 73.1281 2360x Ear Moth agg. (Amphipoea oculea agg.) 73.131 2353 Flounced Rustic (Luperina