I discovered active mines of Lyonetia prunifoliella on blackthorn in Finemere Wood, Bucks earlier this month (see here). A couple of them were brought home to rear through indoors and within a few days they'd pupated in the strange hammock arrangement also favoured by its close relative, the ubiquitous Lyonetia clerkella. Today the first adult emerged. Although the moth was found for the first time in Bucks during 2018 (and in Oxon only this year), its spread will no doubt be very fast and soon we'll all be seeing it. The adult has different wing markings to those on clerkella but, being so small, it is likely that moths will have to be potted and looked at with a hand lens in order to check which species they are.
 |
| Cocoon of Lyonetia prunifoliella, 19th September |
 |
| Male Lyonetia prunifoliella, 28th September |
Edit: an additional photo of another adult, showing how variable the markings can be:
 |
| Female Lyonetia prunifoliella, 2nd October |
Dave Wilton Westcott, Bucks
Hi Dave, as a matter of interest do you record the adult that you have reared, or is just the original leaf mine record that the county recorder wants? And where do you release the adult?
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteSo far as recording is concerned, in my copy of MapMate it goes down as an active leaf-mine with the other details added as a Comment. If the larva of any species is reared indoors you can't guarantee that the adult will emerge at the normal time. This moth may end up going to Peter Hall because currently there are only single images of male and female genitalia on the Dissection Website. However, if I was going to release it, with our current knowledge of its distribution I would try to take it back to Finemere Wood (no big deal for me as I visit the site regularly). It certainly wouldn't be released anywhere close by as it is a species not yet on my garden list.
Thanks Dave. I hadn't thought about the fact that the adult may not be emerging at its normal time.
DeleteI've had to amend loads of records here because some of the older recorders recorded the date when the adult emerged. So unfortunately the date gets diluted to a year range and the adult emerged date goes into the comment as Dave says.
ReplyDeleteThis was also flagged up when doing the final checks for the atlas as they indeed threw up dates outside the normal expected periods.
ReplyDelete