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