Phil T
Phil T
Help!! When I try to add a comment to a post I get the following image:
To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with Google.
There is a "Google" button belo this but when I click on it, I lose the comment box and go back to the blog page but in a different place to where I was trying to comment.
Can anyone help me with this please
Spurred on by one or two recent reports from elsewhere in the country of Pammene giganteana flying already, I extracted the MOL pheromone lure from the freezer this afternoon and took it with me to Lapland Farm Meadows near Rushbeds, Bucks where it was left in a trap suspended under a couple of hedgerow oaks from 2.30pm while I did some searching for Brown Hairstreak eggs. The MOL lure (for Grapholita molesta) is one of a handful of lures to which giganteana is known to be attracted. Sure enough, by the time I returned to the same spot an hour later the little chap below was sitting in the trap.
![]() |
| Pammene giganteana, Lapland Farm Meadows 20th February |
Dave Wilton Westcott, Bucks
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
This little moth which was found on the wall near MV trap last night,appeared to be a Tortrix but I recall making the same mistake last year..
This one is very pale and poorly marked.
Is my ID correct ?
Grateful for help with ID. All from Tackley Heath in last week.
Assuming my identification is correct this Turnip seems quite early.
Andy Newbold, Sibford Ferris, Oxon.
| Pupa from under bark |
| Close-up showing cremaster |
I try to set the moth traps at home when I can, but this depends on the intersection of multiple conditions: I have to be at home; it has to fit with other commitments and the weather has to be right.
It was good that all of these came together last night (16th February) because I was aware that it should be a good night for mothing after the mild weather and run of south/south-westerly winds. I was also aware of the weather warning for tonight and rather mixed forecast for the coming days and nights. And it turned out to be a very good night.
My twin-15W actinic trap in the front garden had what I would usually rate as a good night for the middle of February: 25 moths of six species. This included the first-ever Acleris cristana (unfortunately it posed for the photo with mis-folded wings).
| Acleris cristana Newton Longville, 16 February 2024 |
| Pine Beauty Newton Longville, 16 February 2024 |
The Lichen Tortrix, Acleris literana, is described as "local" and has a reasonable number of dots on the Upper Thames Atlas, but I've somehow managed to avoid seeing it before. So I was delighted to find one sitting on the vanes of the garden light trap this morning - what a gorgeous moth! (Buckinghamshire.)
| Lichen Tortrix, Acleris literana |
| Lichen Tortrix, Acleris literana |
Six other species were alongside it, including Yellow Horned, the first one I've recorded for four years and the first one in the garden for eight years. Suspect this says more about my lack of early spring woodland moth trapping than it does about the moths.
| Yellow Horned showing off its yellow horns |
| A nice fluffy Common Quaker |
Hi there,
This took a shine to our living room TV screen last night! I'm failing to make much progress with it - none of the various options seem to be flying at this time of year! Around 0.5/6 cms in length, wings tucked closely round the body, a sprinkling of golden scales and a couple of black spots. That's what I'm seeing, but it's not leading me anywhere!
Suggestions very welcome, David
My second trapping of the year on Wednesday's very mild night brought lots of visitors, compared to a grand total of nil when I first tried at the end of January. I have been puzzling over the one above and wonder - after a fair bit of Agnopterixing - if it is an Oak Nycteoline, which would be new for me? (I'm also trying to find out what 'Nycteoline' means!) All advice appreciated. Martin Wainwright, Thrupp, Oxon
PS I'm having trouble posting comments for some reason so this is just to say Thank You very much to Tim for a Rolls Royce explanation. I've always wanted to have a good read of Maitland Emmet and hope to some day. I had fondly thought of Nycteoline as something which might power a moth trap generator in the wilds, but like Martin H, I am entirely won over by your explanation. It's a very nice little moth. Many thanks again.
There was a Dark Sword-grass in my actinic trap this morning. I know that they can turn up at any time of year, but this was my earliest ever record.
David
![]() |
| Dark Sword-grass © David Hastings |
![]() |
| Caloptilia semifascia, Westcott 13th February |
![]() |
| Ypsolopha ustella, Westcott 14th February |
![]() |
| Agonopterix ocellana, Westcott 3rd February |
![]() |
| Tortricodes alternella, Westcott 8th February |
![]() |
| Oak Beauty, Westcott 3rd February |
![]() |
| Angle Shades, Westcott 13th February |
![]() |
| Pale Pinion, Westcott 14th February |
![]() |
| Hebrew Character, Westcott 4th February |
![]() |
| Ophion variegatus, Westcott 13th February |
Uploading records (I know,late) to irecord I came across this little beauty.Has the jizz Horse-chestnut leaf miner but I 8 month on I am having doubts…
For many years Les Finch and Martin Finch have been producing a series of fascinating reports that explore and analyse the huge amount of moth recording that they carry out. Three new reports for 2023 have been uploaded to the Berkshire Moth Group website, and are now available from the publications page.
At their main trapping site in a Maidenhead garden, up to seven traps were run on each of 337 nights across the year, totalling 2,041 ‘trap nights’. As a result, they saw a few moths: 33,758 macro moths, of 277 species, including 6 species new to the tetrad.
The report analyses these records in relation to previous years, to weather conditions, to longer-term changes in climate and much more, providing lots to think about and to compare to experience at other sites. Here is just one of the many charts included, this one summarising the accumulation of species and individuals during the years 2022 and 2023. Intriguingly, moth abundance recovered well in 2023 compared to the very hot summer of 2022, but the total number of species seen was a little lower in 2023:
Somehow Les also found time to record at two other sites during the year, and has provided shorter reports summarising the results from Bisham Woods and a privately-owned site in Cookham Dean.
Many thanks to Les and Martin for putting so much effort into their recording and analysis, and for sharing the reports with the Berks Moth Group. Well worth a read.
In daylight it was possible to find a larva and gently uncover it for a photo, showing the pale brown head markings that should mean this is the Common Fern Moth, Psychoides filicivora (the other species, P. verhuella, has black head markings). Hopefully I'll be able to rear an adult moth for further confirmation.
It's amazing that the fern survives so well in this rather unpromising corner, and even more amazing that the moths are able to find and colonise this isolated plant.
| 'Habitat' for the Hart's-tongue Fern |
| Underside of leaf showing spores and feeding webs |
| Close up of feeding web |
| Larva inside web - note pale brown head |
Thanks to everyone who has been sending in their Berkshire moth records for 2023. John Thacker and I are fairly up to date with verifying these, and once again we have some great coverage across the county:
To view the above summaries and records in more detail, and to keep up with the latest records as they arrive:
Stoke Goldington (N. Bucks)
This Clouded Drab at the front door lights last night was the earliest garden record by a good 11 days.
![]() |
| Common Quaker, Westcott 28th January |
![]() |
| Chrysolina americana, Westcott 22nd January |