DOCSLIB.ORG

Recommendations for New Topics to Be Added to the LOT Agenda Item: 08.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recommendations for New Topics to Be Added to the LOT Agenda Item: 08.1 International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT Agenda item: 08.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW TOPICS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF TOPICS FOR IPPC STANDARDS (TOPICS RELATED TO COMMODITY STANDARDS) (Prepared by the IPPC Secretariat in consultation with selected SC members) 1. Background 1.1 November 2015 Standards Committee (SC) meeting: [1] At their 2015 November meeting (refer to section 5 of the meeting report1), the SC discussed the concept of a commodity standard and agreed to several recommendations, which were presented to CPM-11 (2016). [2] The SC also reviewed the eleven submissions received in response to the 2015 biennial call for topics for IPPC standards (all submissions are publicly available on the IPP2). Out of these eleven submissions, five were commodity related proposals and the SC had the following discussion on these proposals for new topics for IPPC standards (extract from November 2015 SC report): 2015-002: PRA for commodities (priority 1, strategic objectives A, B, C) [243] The SC felt this was an important topic but some expressed concern in relation to the issues associated with “commodity standards”. However, given the current standard setting work programme and priorities, the SC felt that, should this topic be approved, it was unlikely to be worked on until at least 2018 by which time the issues associated with commodity standards should be resolved. Topic 2015-004: Use of systems approach in managing risks associated with the movement of wood commodities (Priority 4, strategic objectives B, C) [247] The SC considered this submission did not meet all of the core criteria. The SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-006: International movement of apples (Priority 3, strategic objectives A, C) [251] The SC considered this submission to be important but felt it was too early to add specific commodity standards to the List of topics for IPPC standards at this time and it also lacked support from other regions. Therefore, the SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-007: International movement of tomato fruit (Priority 4, strategic objectives A, C) [253] The SC considered this submission to be important but felt it was too early to add specific commodity standards to the List of topics for IPPC standards at this time and it also lacked support from other regions. Therefore, the SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-009: International movement of lumber (Priority 4, strategic objectives B, C) [257] The SC considered there were some feasibility challenges, and that the submission lacked supporting information and evidence of wider strategic support. The SC also felt that the work on the draft ISPM on the International movement of wood (2006-029) should be completed first at it might address this topic. The SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. [3] Out of the five submissions for commodity topics listed above, the SC only recommended the inclusion of the following topic to the List of topics for IPPC standards: 2015-002: PRA for commodities (priority 1, strategic objectives A, B, C). 1 Report of the SC November 2015: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/81824/ 2 2015 Submissions for topics: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/calls-topics/ International Plant Protection Convention Page 1 of 8 12_SC_2016_Nov (08.2) Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT 1.2 CPM-11 (2016) meeting: [4] In April 2016 (refer to section 8.3 of the meeting report3), CPM-11 (2016) discussed the concept of a commodity standard and agreed that the development of commodity standards is no more relevant, feasible or higher priority than any other standards or implementation tools and that there is nothing in the current standard setting procedure that prevents CPs from proposing topics for standards that harmonize the management of phytosanitary risks on a particular commodity or group of commodities. [30] During this discussion, some contracting parties (CPs) stated the need to shift the focus of standard setting to include developing more commodity standards to the benefit of both importing and exporting countries. They proposed to develop as a pilot a fully-fledged commodity specific ISPM with a narrow scope that included options for specific requirements and pest management measures. The benefits and challenges of developing commodity specific standards would be obtained as a result of the process of development of such a pilot standard. They considered that there is a continuum of scopes from broad to very narrow commodity standards and that further analysis was not needed to define and apply layers for commodity standards in the Framework for Standards and Implementation. [30] Some CPs acknowledged the complexity that CPs face in dealing with commodities through ISPMs and proposed to follow the regular process for topics as they could not see the urgency to add an extra process. They suggested developing a regional standard for a specific commodity of interest as a possible way forward. However other CPs pointed out that the development of a regional standard would not provide CPs with the experience in developing a global standard. [5] The Secretariat confirmed that the SC had not recommended to the CPM any of the proposals for topics that were made for commodity specific ISPMs with a narrow scope. [6] CPM-11 (2016) reviewed the SC recommendations for new topics to be added to the List of topics for IPPC standards and had the following discussion on commodity-related proposals (refer to section 9.4 of the meeting report4): [52] Some CPs proposed the topic on PRA for Commodities should not be added to the list of topics as they felt that NPPOs needed practical knowledge and experience, which could be gained through a pilot project on one commodity standard with a narrow scope and not by working on a concept standard. [53] Another CP supported the proposed addition of the topic as the approach was consistent with other approaches taken for previous standards. They noted that such a standard could provide a policy framework and ultimately create a link between ISPM 11 (Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests) and others similar to that currently done by both ISPM 27 (Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests) and ISPM 28 (Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests). [54] It was also proposed that, as commodity standards were considered of high priority, efforts should be made to select a topic for a pilot on a specific commodity standard by CPM in 2016, for example by selecting one of the topics proposed in the 2015 call for topics or by holding an extra call for commodity specific topics during 2016. But other CPs felt the regular standard setting procedure should be followed. [55] Another CP noted that if the intention was a standard on PRA for Commodities, it would be better to consider the re-organization of the PRA conceptual framework (ISPM 2 and 11) as well as other topics in the work program like "pest risk management". In this way if a standard on PRA for specific commodities were to be approved in the future, it could be added as an annex of this revised conceptual framework. [7] The CPM requested the SC to reconsider the topic on PRA for Commodities (2015-002) as well as other proposals for commodity standards which were made in response to the 2015 call for topics, with further input from the CP who submitted the topic. 3 Report of the CPM-11 (2016): https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/82487/ 4 Report of the CPM-11 (2016): https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/82487/ Page 2 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT XX_SC_2016_Nov (08.2) 1.3 May 2016 Standards Committee (SC) meeting: [15] The SC had a conceptual discussion about commodity standards and what they should cover and where to include them within the Framework, in response to the CPM pointing out that there were no commodity standards listed as gaps. The following suggestions were made: - The SC should consider developing criteria for determining which proposals for commodity standards should be included in the Framework. The criteria should include elements of global concern, for instance food security, and consideration of the level of pest risks. - Whether the SC should try to work, as a first step, on developing a document, or try out developing a standard for one specific commodity, to agree on what the content of a commodity standard should be, based on which it should be easier to determine which topics to include in the Framework. - Efforts should be made to identify the actual phytosanitary issues of global concern and how best to address them (standard, treatment, implementation tool, or other). - Whether only some commodities would need internationally harmonized standards for their international movement because for many commodities there may be sufficient guidance to address the pest risk. - The SC should encourage countries to share information about their bilateral arrangements for commodities including the treatments used. [16] The SC Chairperson noted that these points would be discussed further in the SC November 2016 meeting, but suggested that it would also be valuable to examine more in detail what countries wish to achieve with commodity standards. The SC asked that the small SC- Implementation and Review Support System (IRSS) group (hereafter “small SC-IRSS group”, see also section 3.3 of this report) prepare a proposal for an IRSS survey on commodity standards; the outcomes of which would help the SC determine the criteria for this type of topic.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entomology) 1968, Ph.D
    RING T. CARDÉ a. Professional Preparation Tufts University B.S. (Biology), 1966 Cornell University M.S. (Entomology) 1968, Ph.D. (Entomology) 1971 New York State Agricultural Postdoctoral Associate, 1971-1975 Experiment Station at Geneva (Cornell University) b. Appointments and Professional Activities Positions Held 1996-present Distinguished Professor & Alfred M. Boyce Endowed Chair in Entomology, University of California, Riverside 2011 Visiting Professor, Swedish Agricultural University (SLU), Alnarp 2003-2009 Chair, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside 1989-1996 Distinguished University Professor, University of Massachusetts 1988 Visiting Scientist, Wageningen University 1984-1989 Professor of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 1981-1987; 1993-1995 Head, Entomology, University of Massachusetts 1981-1984 Associate Professor of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 1978-1981 Associate Professor of Entomology, Michigan State University 1975-1978 Assistant Professor of Entomology, Michigan State University Honors and Awards (selected) Certificate of Distinction for Outstanding Achievements, International Congress of Entomology, 2016 President, International Society of Chemical Ecology, 2012-2013 Jan Löfqvist Grant, Royal Academy of Natural Sciences, Medicine and Technology, Sweden, 2011 Silver Medal, International Society of Chemical Ecology, 2009 Awards for “Encyclopedia of Insects” include: • “Most Outstanding Single-Volume Reference in Science”, Association of American Publishers 2003 • “Outstanding
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Common Pathways by Which Non-Native Forest Insects Move
    Journal of Pest Science (2019) 92:13–27 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-0990-0 REVIEW Common pathways by which non‑native forest insects move internationally and domestically Nicolas Meurisse1 · Davide Rassati2 · Brett P. Hurley3 · Eckehard G. Brockerhof4 · Robert A. Haack5 Received: 18 February 2018 / Revised: 29 April 2018 / Accepted: 12 May 2018 / Published online: 30 May 2018 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract International trade and movement of people are largely responsible for increasing numbers of non-native insect introductions to new environments. For forest insects, trade in live plants and transport of wood packaging material (WPM) are considered the most important pathways facilitating long-distance invasions. These two pathways as well as trade in frewood, logs, and processed wood are commonly associated with insect infestations, while “hitchhiking” insects can be moved on cargo, in the conveyances used for transport (e.g., containers, ships), or associated with international movement of passengers and mail. Once established in a new country, insects can spread domestically through all of the above pathways. Considerable national and international eforts have been made in recent years to reduce the risk of international movement of plant pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) No. 15 (WPM), 36 (plants for planting), and 39 (wood) are examples of phytosanitary standards that have been adopted by the International Plant Protection Convention to reduce risks of invasions of forest pests. The implementation of ISPMs by exporting countries is expected to reduce the arrival rate and establishments of new forest pests. However, many challenges remain to reduce pest transportation through international trade, given the ever-increasing volume of traded goods, variations in quarantine procedures between countries, and rapid changes in distribution networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera of North America 5
    Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Lepidoptera of North America 5. Contributions to the Knowledge of Southern West Virginia Lepidoptera by Valerio Albu, 1411 E. Sweetbriar Drive Fresno, CA 93720 and Eric Metzler, 1241 Kildale Square North Columbus, OH 43229 April 30, 2004 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University Cover illustration: Blueberry Sphinx (Paonias astylus (Drury)], an eastern endemic. Photo by Valeriu Albu. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 Abstract A list of 1531 species ofLepidoptera is presented, collected over 15 years (1988 to 2002), in eleven southern West Virginia counties. A variety of collecting methods was used, including netting, light attracting, light trapping and pheromone trapping. The specimens were identified by the currently available pictorial sources and determination keys. Many were also sent to specialists for confirmation or identification. The majority of the data was from Kanawha County, reflecting the area of more intensive sampling effort by the senior author. This imbalance of data between Kanawha County and other counties should even out with further sampling of the area. Key Words: Appalachian Mountains,
    [Show full text]
  • Part a Risk Management
    REGISTRATION REPORT Part A Risk Management Product name(s): ISOMATE-CLR MAX Chemical active substance(s): E,E-8,10 dodecadienol (codlemone), 153 mg/dispenser or 392 g/kg Dodecanol, 22 mg/dispenser or 57 g/kg Tetradecanol, 5 mg/dispenser or 14 g/kg Z-11-Tetradecenyl acetate, 150 mg/dispenser or 385 g/kg Z-9-Tetradecenyl acetate, 30 mg/dispenser or 77 g/kg Southern Zone zonal Rapporteur Member State: France NATIONAL ASSESSMENT FRANCE (authorisation) Applicant: SUMI AGRO France zRMS Finalisation date: 2017-09-25 ISOMATE-CLR MAX Page 2 /23 Part A - National Assessment FRANCE Table of Contents 1 Details of the application ............................................................................. 4 1.1 Application background ................................................................................. 4 1.2 Letters of Access ............................................................................................ 5 1.3 Justification for submission of tests and studies ............................................ 5 1.4 Data protection claims ................................................................................... 5 2 Details of the authorisation decision .......................................................... 5 2.1 Product identity .............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Substances of concern for national monitoring ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alien Invasive Species and International Trade
    Forest Research Institute Alien Invasive Species and International Trade Edited by Hugh Evans and Tomasz Oszako Warsaw 2007 Reviewers: Steve Woodward (University of Aberdeen, School of Biological Sciences, Scotland, UK) François Lefort (University of Applied Science in Lullier, Switzerland) © Copyright by Forest Research Institute, Warsaw 2007 ISBN 978-83-87647-64-3 Description of photographs on the covers: Alder decline in Poland – T. Oszako, Forest Research Institute, Poland ALB Brighton – Forest Research, UK; Anoplophora exit hole (example of wood packaging pathway) – R. Burgess, Forestry Commission, UK Cameraria adult Brussels – P. Roose, Belgium; Cameraria damage medium view – Forest Research, UK; other photographs description inside articles – see Belbahri et al. Language Editor: James Richards Layout: Gra¿yna Szujecka Print: Sowa–Print on Demand www.sowadruk.pl, phone: +48 022 431 81 40 Instytut Badawczy Leœnictwa 05-090 Raszyn, ul. Braci Leœnej 3, phone [+48 22] 715 06 16 e-mail: [email protected] CONTENTS Introduction .......................................6 Part I – EXTENDED ABSTRACTS Thomas Jung, Marla Downing, Markus Blaschke, Thomas Vernon Phytophthora root and collar rot of alders caused by the invasive Phytophthora alni: actual distribution, pathways, and modeled potential distribution in Bavaria ......................10 Tomasz Oszako, Leszek B. Orlikowski, Aleksandra Trzewik, Teresa Orlikowska Studies on the occurrence of Phytophthora ramorum in nurseries, forest stands and garden centers ..........................19 Lassaad Belbahri, Eduardo Moralejo, Gautier Calmin, François Lefort, Jose A. Garcia, Enrique Descals Reports of Phytophthora hedraiandra on Viburnum tinus and Rhododendron catawbiense in Spain ..................26 Leszek B. Orlikowski, Tomasz Oszako The influence of nursery-cultivated plants, as well as cereals, legumes and crucifers, on selected species of Phytophthopra ............30 Lassaad Belbahri, Gautier Calmin, Tomasz Oszako, Eduardo Moralejo, Jose A.
    [Show full text]
  • 5.7 MB Perennial Flower Strips – a Tool for Improving Pest Control in Fruit
    Technical guide 2018 | No. 1096 Functional agrobiodiversity Perennial flower strips – a tool for improving pest control in fruit orchards Why sowing flower strips in orchards? Orchards are interesting habitats for biodiversity • They provide natural enemies with shelter and due to their perennial character and their diversi- food (pollen, nectar, alternative preys) that allow fied structure. They are potentially attractive for them to maintain their populations within the both pollinators and pests’ natural enemies. Diver- orchard and to produce more offspring. sifying orchards with non-crop vegetation such as • The flower strips’ proximity to the crop makes it flower strips can provide additional opportunities easier for the predators and parasitoids to reach to maintain and develop these populations and the pests and thus increase biological pest control, thus optimize ecosystem services. especially for little, mobile species. • Undisturbed ground zones in flower strips pro- Advantages of sown flower strips: mote beneficial arthropods that live on the soil • Flower strips in drive alleys enhance the surface such as ground beetles and spiders that complexi ty of the orchard ecosystem, which is feed on pest larvae. attractive to many species of predators, parasi- toids and pollinators. A diversified and complex ecosystem provides better biological pest control. Interaction between natural enemies promoted by flower strips and phytophagous pests Ladybird beetles Hoveries Bats Parasitic wasps Birds N s a e t i Predatory bugs u r m a e l n s e e t n s l e P e a m r Moths u i t e s a Ladybird larvae Lacewing larvae N Beetles Aphids Psylla Spiders Rove beetles Ground beetles Earwigs Pollen and nectar Alternative insect hosts Pest caterpillars and pupae Throughout the year, sown flower strips maintain a diverse population of natural enemies close to the fruit trees.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Population Dynamics of Argyrotaenia Citrana in Northwest
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THIS OF Alan Lee Knight for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology presented on April 3, 1986. Title: Regional Population Dynamics of-Argyrotaenia citrana in Northwest Caneberry: Phenology, Overwintering Survivorship, and Movement as Measured by Pheromone Traps and Larval Sampling. Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Developmental requirements were determined for both larva and pupa as 503 and 176 degree-days (dd) above a lower threshold of 5°C. Adult emergence occurred from 300 to 700 dd accumulated from January 1st. Cumulative male emergence preceded female's by 50- 80 dd. A PETE phenology model modified to include a temperature-dependent female activity function to regulate oviposition significantly improved prediction of egg hatch. Two pheromone trap catch peaks occurred in fields with overwintering populations. The first coincided with peak male emergence; as female emergence peaked, pheromone trap catches declined. The second peak occurred after 750 dd and varied in size with the first peak. The influence of female moth/pheromone trap competition on temporal patterns of trap catch was studied in a semi-enclosed courtyard. Three distinct periods of pheromone trap catch interpretation each bounded by a specific ratio of active males-to-calling females were seen. Two trap catch peaks typically occurred. Field sampling of overwintering populations, laboratory temperature bioassays, and controlled field experiments demonstrated that age-specific differences in cold hardiness exist among larval stages and correlation of historical winter temperatures with pheramone trap catch suggests winter severity is a major factor influencing the timing of spring emergence. A large grid of pheromone traps canbined with larval sampling were used to assess regional overwintering survivorship and seasonal movement patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Tortricinae) and Evolutionary Correlates of Novel Secondary Sexual Structures
    Zootaxa 3729 (1): 001–062 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Monograph ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2013 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3729.1.1 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CA0C1355-FF3E-4C67-8F48-544B2166AF2A ZOOTAXA 3729 Phylogeny of the tribe Archipini (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Tortricinae) and evolutionary correlates of novel secondary sexual structures JASON J. DOMBROSKIE1,2,3 & FELIX A. H. SPERLING2 1Cornell University, Comstock Hall, Department of Entomology, Ithaca, NY, USA, 14853-2601. E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, T6G 2E9 3Corresponding author Magnolia Press Auckland, New Zealand Accepted by J. Brown: 2 Sept. 2013; published: 25 Oct. 2013 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 JASON J. DOMBROSKIE & FELIX A. H. SPERLING Phylogeny of the tribe Archipini (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Tortricinae) and evolutionary correlates of novel secondary sexual structures (Zootaxa 3729) 62 pp.; 30 cm. 25 Oct. 2013 ISBN 978-1-77557-288-6 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-77557-289-3 (Online edition) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2013 BY Magnolia Press P.O. Box 41-383 Auckland 1346 New Zealand e-mail: [email protected] http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ © 2013 Magnolia Press 2 · Zootaxa 3729 (1) © 2013 Magnolia Press DOMBROSKIE & SPERLING Table of contents Abstract . 3 Material and methods . 6 Results . 18 Discussion . 23 Conclusions . 33 Acknowledgements . 33 Literature cited . 34 APPENDIX 1. 38 APPENDIX 2. 44 Additional References for Appendices 1 & 2 . 49 APPENDIX 3. 51 APPENDIX 4. 52 APPENDIX 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Number 75, December 2018
    ARAB AND NEAR EAST PLANT PROTECTION NEWSLETTER Number 75, December 2018 Editor-in-Chief Ibrahim Al-JBOORY – Faculty of Agriculture, Baghdad University, Iraq. Editorial Board Bassam BAYAA – Faculty of Agriculture, University of Aleppo, Aleppo, Syria. Khaled MAKKOUK – National Council for Scientific Research, Beirut, Lebanon. Thaer Yaseen – Regional Plant Protection Officer, FAO-RNE, Cairo Shoki AL-DOBAI – Integration & Support Team Leader International Plant Protection Convention Secretariat (IPPC) Ahmed DAWABAH – Plant Pathology Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Egypt Ahmed EL-HENEIDY – Plant Protection Research Institute, ARC, Giza, Egypt. Safaa KUMARI – International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Tunis, Tunisia. Mustafa HAIDAR – Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, AUB, Lebanon. Ahmed KATBEH – Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. Bouzid NASRAOUI – INAT, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia. Wa’el ALMATNI – Ministry of Agriculture, Damascus, Syria. Raied Abou Kubaa – Italian National Research Council (CNR-Bari) Editorial Assistant . Tara ALFADHLI – P.O. Box 17399, Amman11195, Jordan The Arab Society for Plant Protection and the Near East Regional Office of the FAO jointly publishes the Arab and Near East Plant Protection Newsletter (ANEPPNEL), three times per year. All correspondence should be sent by email to the Editor ([email protected]). Material from ANEPPNEL may be reprinted provided that appropriate credits are given. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this newsletter do not necessarily imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations or the Arab Society for Plant Protection (ASPP), concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory, city or area, or its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Lockerbie Wildlife Trust Eskrigg Reserve May 2016 News Bulletin
    Lockerbie Wildlife Trust (www.lockerbie-wildlife-trust.co.uk) Eskrigg Reserve Scottish Charity No: May 2016 News Bulletin SC 005538 1. Views of the pond on four different days in May. 2. Confirmed wildlife sightings at the Reserve in May. a. Birds Blackbird, Blue Tit, Bullfinch, Buzzard, Carrion Crow, Chaffinch, Chiffchaff, Coal Tit, Cuckoo, Goldcrest, Goldfinch, Goosander, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Great Tit, Greenfinch, Grey Heron, Greylag Goose, Grey Wagtail, House Martin, House Sparrow, Jackdaw, Jay, Kestrel, Lesser Redpoll, Little Grebe, Mallard, Mandarin, Moorhen, Mute Swan, Nuthatch, Oystercatcher, Pheasant, Raven, Robin, Siskin, Song Thrush, Sparrowhawk, Starling, Swallow, Willow Warbler, Wood Pigeon, Wren. b. Mammals Common Shrew, Soprano Pipistrelle Bat, Bank Vole, Mole, Noctule Bat, Rabbit, Red Squirrel, Roe Deer, Wood Mouse. c. Amphibia Frog, Toad. d. Invertebrates Black Slug, Buff-tailed Bumble Bee, Green-veined White, Orange-tip, Small Tortoiseshell Butterflies, Blue-tailed, Common Blue and Large Red Damselflies, Hoverflies, Midges, Brimstone, Nettle Tap and Water Carpet Moths, Drinker Moth caterpillar, Mosquitoes. Photographs: Jim Rae 1" " 3. May Photo-gallery. Row 1: Female Mallard and ducklings (JR), Robin (JR), Little Grebe (JR) Row 2: Young Red Squirrel (JR), Cuckoo Flower (JR), Bank Vole (BL) Row 3: Grey Heron (JR), Pink Purslane / Common Stork's-bill (JR), Great Spotted Woodpecker (JR) Row 4: Spider (JR), Nettle-tap (JR), Non-biting Midge (JR) Photographs: Bob Little (BL), Jim Rae (JR) 2" " 4. Planned Activities 4th/5th - Jim attended a Small Mammal Survey and Identification course run by Andy Riches, Dumfries and Galloway Mammal Recorder, at Rouken Glen Country Park. 12th - Jim attended a Squirrel Hair Training course run by Alexa Seagrave, Saving Scotland's Red Squirrels, at Lochfield Cottage, Lochmaben.
    [Show full text]