Two micros

I'm not sure if I'm out of practice or just not very good at micros - probably both! These two turned up last night - the white spots on one are confusing me as is the shape of the costal patches on the other. Help?

Thanks, David

Very early Common Pug

I had this pug in the trap this morning (Aston, west Oxon). It looks like a Common Pug to me. If so, it is extremely early.

Any thoughts?

David

Common Pug © David Hastings

May micro

I recently came across an old photo (not assigned) from May 2022 (Stoke Goldington). Whereas it is reminiscent of a dark Elachista utonella, perhaps, but the face is rather hairy, and the antennae erect. Is it even a moth?

Another new Atlas now available

Another adjacent local area Atlas from Jim Wheeler has just gone "live", this time covering the moths of Hertfordshire & Middlesex.  It is linked here and in our permanent links in the right-hand side-bar.

Worn Acleris

Can anyone help ID this one, I thought it was Acleris ferrugana or A. notana, but maybe not. FW is 8mm.

Mark Griffiths, Garsington, Oxford.

Ypsolopha ustella

 This little moth turned up in Chorleywood a few nights ago, alongside a Mottled Umber and a Pale Brindled Beauty:

Rather a plain example, I'm afraid. 

Garden surprise

Finally got round to dissecting some specimens from the garden in 2020 (Great Kimble, Bucks). My garden contains Ox-eye Daisies, but no Tansies, so I was expecting this Dichrorampha to be the Orange-spot Daisy Moth D. alpinana. But the costal fold on the wing looked quite short, and following dissection it appears to be the Orange-spot Tansy Moth, D. flavidorsana. Apologies for the rather scruffy dissection and blurry photos but hopefully the smooth edge to the aedeagus can be seen. 

This is a new species for me, and judging by the Atlas it may be new for Bucks? And I guess it is a cautionary tale that proximity of foodplant is no guarantee of presence of the associated moths.

Close-up of aedeagus showing smooth edges

Westcott, Bucks

Two weeks in and the New Year has now brought eight different macro species and one micro species to the garden here at Westcott, plus two more micros as leaf-mines.  The first five nights of the month were the most productive when we had unseasonably warm weather, with Winter Moth and Mottled Umber appearing on the 1st followed by Dark Chestnut (2nd), Spring Usher, Satellite & Emmelina monodactyla (all 3rd), Chestnut (4th) and Early Moth (5th). I then had to wait until the 12th before the temperature became suitable again, with Pale Brindled Beauty appearing that night.  Moths turned up on the following two nights as well but there was nothing new amongst them (singletons of Winter Moth and Early Moth came to the light early last night before it got too frosty).

It looks as though there'll now be another gap in proceedings until next weekend, after which the nights should be promising once again temperature-wise (if a little windy at times) until the end of the month. 

Early Moths, Westcott 5th January

Dave Wilton Westcott, Bucks    

Very early Common Quaker

I had this Common Quaker visit the garden moth trap last night. I wouldn't normally expect to see a Common Quaker until mid-February at the earliest.

Yet another indicator of global warming I guess. Steve Trigg, Cookham

Mines for ID

  I found these mines today on a Hypericum sp., which I believe were made by Ectoedemia septembrella. Unfortunately they have all been vacated, so presumably the moths emerged last year (the leaves were last year's growth).
If my iD is correct, should I record them against today's date, with an appropriate comment? Or should I record them against a 2023 date range? Or ignore them and wait until I find an active mine-probably later this year? 

Thanks

iRecord Verification

Thanks very much indeed to everyone across our three counties who has been uploading their moth sightings to iRecord.

Here in Bucks I'm now up-to-date with verifying those records which have been entered so far for 2023 (getting on for 20,000, I believe, with more still to come).  This is after the usual hiatus between May and September when I feel it is more important to be out there obtaining records than sitting in front of a computer screen verifying them!

Having been doing this for three years now I have a few observations from VC24 which in some cases would help reduce the verification workload, so may well apply to the other two counties as well.  In no particular order, they are as follows:

Generic grid references:

Use of "generic" grid references for sites is not helpful.  This is a particular problem with large sites, for example Bernwood Forest, where a "generic" grid reference might well be in a completely different tetrad to where the record was actually obtained.  Please try to get each record into its correct kilometre square at the very least.

Records obtained using pheromone lures:

Please always add a brief comment to the record saying this was how it was obtained and identifying the lure used (something like "to VES pheromone lure").  If known, adding the time of day can also be helpful.

Records of early stages:

Some users still seem to be using older versions of iRecord on which the life stage being reported isn't always obvious to the verifier.  Please ensure that for eggs, caterpillars or pupae the stage is clearly stated somewhere on your record otherwise there's a danger that it may incorrectly be assumed to be an adult.  Relying on an attached photo, which won't be downloaded when the data is subsequently extracted for the NMRS, isn't really good enough.  Please add as a comment if necessary, something like "larvae on ragwort" or similar.   

Use of aggregates:

Please do use aggregates, for those well-known pairs/trios of macro-moths which require close inspection, if they haven't been confirmed to species.  That includes Copper Underwing/Svensson's Copper Underwing if the hind-wing undersides have not been checked.  Other than by genitalia dissection, this is the only accepted method of telling those two species apart (forget about palps or forewing markings because, when used on their own, they've been proved to be unreliable).  Looking at the hind-wings involves handling the moth and fully opening the wings on one side to check the amount of copper colouring on the underside - this can't be seen clearly with the wings closed.  If that check has been carried out successfully that's excellent, but please do ensure that a brief comment is added to the record ("hind-wing underside checked" or something similar).  Likewise, records for Hoary Footman will only be accepted without dissection if the colour of the hind-wing has been checked and an appropriate comment has been added to the record.  Again, this involves handling the moth which I accept some recorders don't like doing.  

On the other hand, with micro-moths you will be aware that some quite large groups can't be determined to species without dissection.  In most cases there is little point in uploading records such as "Coleophora species" or even "Cnephasia species", especially if no image is available, because these are simply going to be ignored.

Photos:

Please do add photographs to records wherever possible!  They don't need to be works of art and a quick happy-snap with a phone camera is often good enough to give the verifier confidence that you've identified the species correctly.  Please do make use of the on-line UTB Moth Atlas which, especially for micros, will tell you whether or not an image will definitely be required for a record to be accepted.  It will also give you a good idea whether or not a particular species is unusual for your area.

I've noticed a few occasions where recorders have used the same image for multiple records of the same species on different dates.  Please don't do that!  Images should be applicable to one particular record alone. 

     

Dave Wilton

A Good Start

Much as expected from the forecast, 2024 got off to a good start here at Westcott.  Some paddling around the garden during the daytime on 1st January produced two leaf-miners, Stigmella aurella and Phyllonorycter leucographella.  There were lots of mines of aurella on bramble (Rubus) leaves.  Most were freshly vacated, presumably thanks to the rather warm December, but I did manage to track down two which still had a larva present.  The many leucographella mines on our firethorn (Pyracantha) were mostly just starting out but a couple were reasonably well advanced.

Stigmella aurella on bramble, Westcott 1st January

Phyllonorycter leucographella on firethorn, Westcott 1st January

Adult moths on the night of the 1st comprised Winter Moth (1) & Mottled Umber (2), getting the year-list up and running.  On the 2nd there was the single early arrival of a Dark Chestnut shortly after dark, while Storm Henk was still lashing the area, but nothing else turned up later in the night when conditions were less fraught.  Last night (3rd) brought in singletons of four species, comprising Emmelina monodactyla, Mottled Umber, Spring Usher & Satellite, taking the list of adult species to six so far which is better than normal this early in the New Year.

Spring Usher, Westcott 3rd January

Dave Wilton Westcott, Bucks