iRecord verification (again)

Dave has recently made several important points about submitting records to iRecord (https://upperthamesmoths.blogspot.com/2024/01/irecord-verification.html) to help with the verification process. As well echoing Dave's advice (and again thanking you all for the terrific recording effort), I would like to add a few comments on this topic based on my experience as the VC22 verifier for photo records over the last few years (the County Moth Recorder, Martin Harvey, does all non-photo records).

Additional information

Many moths that come to light are worn and some are 'difficult' species to identify, and it is surprising that sometimes relatively contentious records are submitted without any further information other than the recorder's name, date, and location. While the recorder must have spent time on the identification process (unless it is a guess!) quite often none of this decision-making is imparted to the verifier. I know it takes time, especially when one has a large number of entries to make, but the more detail you can give the better. In addition, as Dave has already noted, some species require a comment to get the record accepted (e.g., that you have checked the hindwing colour of Hoary Footman, or the extent of copper colour of the underside of the hindwing of Svensson's Copper Underwing). Again, if you have recorded a moth outside its usual flight period it is great if you can say so: e.g. "Unusually early/late date, but checked carefully to confirm the species". That way we know that the date is correct, and was not the result of being mis-entered.

Photos

I echo Dave's plea about adding photos: also please make the image sufficiently large (or crop the original) and adequately exposed so that the verifier can check the species without having to download the image to enlarge or darken/lighten it (surprisingly common in my experience). For the many micro-moths that have a roof-like resting position, a single close-up photo taken at an angle that allows markings on the dorsum to be seen as well as those on the costa can be sufficient for identification. However, especially where there is some uncertainty about the ID or the moth is worn I find it extremely helpful if photos at more than one angle are included with the record (I hope that it goes without saying that taking images on a clear background in natural light is often crucial).

Generic records

I am relatively relaxed about records being submitted at or 'relegated' to the genus on iRecord when a species cannot be identified definitively. Thus, the record remains on the system and should further information come to light allowing a more secure identification they can be upgraded. This might seem unlikely but possible examples of further information like this in the new edition of the Field Guide to the Micro-moths (Sterling, Parsons & Lewington 2023) are the absence of a black spot near to the wing base to identify Willow Ermine Yponomeuta rorrella when compared to other Small Ermines, and the differences in length of labial palps in distinguishing Pandemis species.  Although, as Dave has said, generic records will not be useful for further species biodiversity analysis, and will be under-represented in compilations of abundance (as in the UTB Moth Atlas), these records do perhaps give some indication of the extent of the inaccuracy.

For those who are just beginning to use iRecord (the recommended recording format for all three vice-counties), there are short guides to getting started on the website of Upper Thames branch of Butterfly Conservation (https://www.upperthames-butterflies.org.uk/recording) and a Help section on the iRecord website that includes a more comprehensive guide as well as some helpful videos (https://irecord.org.uk/help).

John Thacker (with input from Martin Harvey)

Harwell, Oxon