Issue 3 November 1997

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 8

AMARA PRAETERMISSA (COLEOPTERA, CARABIDAE)

David M Green

Scarce Ground Beetle Found At Devils Spittleful & Rifle Range

Nationally Notable (Scarce) Category B – Nb – NOTABLE B. Found grubbing under detritus and dead leaves around silver birches and heather; identified with Lindroth (1974), a recently newly reprinted RES key; confirmed by Paul F. Whitehead. Listed in Hyman and Parsons (1992) as widespread but local throughout Britain. Sandy heath (as is the Devils Spittleful) is a known habitat – so are sand dunes, chalk soils, and arable field margins – but these fields are probably in the Brecks (a large sandy area) says Paul Whitehead. Also recorded from old railway tracks and ornamental deciduous woodland. Found often under dry leaves. Adults recorded April-August.

Has not been previously recorded for Worcestershire BRC. Widespread in Britain but local as could be expected. Some habitats are under threat of destruction; some are degraded by natural succession into woodland, so maintenance of bright, open conditions is required. Perhaps in summary it requires the sort of ground that has a surface that warms quickly in the sun – that is, dry, sandy to gravelly, and lightly vegetated – as the beetle needs warmth for activity. Exposed sand at the very surface warms quickly in sun and heats air just above. Hence a significantly warmer microclimate on the surface and above just a few millimeters high, supporting beetle activities periodically when the weather would be otherwise to cold. Hymen and Parsons say the adult is vegetarian. The larvae is predatory – which could imply the larvae is more dependent on microclimatical warm periods than the adult, because heat is necessary to allow strenuous, muscular activity necessary for catching and restraining prey compared with eating a seed.

Lindroth (1949, Fennoscandia) says it prefers dry conditions, and is tolerant of soils, even uniform particles, of diverse particle sizes from gravel to fine particles (in the case of the Spittleful, fine and sandy), and is averse to cultivated land. From observations the adult food is probably exclusively seeds, and fruits (perhaps for the water). Many adult carabids apparently scavenge a mixed diet of fresh dead animal and vegetable; many Amara species adults eat plants mostly.

Amara – there are about 30 species of Amara in Britain; generally of similar characteristic body shape as in the drawing (that was made with the help of a squared graticule on a microscope) with short legs, two long hairs next to the eye; often with a brassy surface lustre, owing to microscopic regular engraved lines on the surface, or more shiny. They are usually found in dryer places, in open country with short vegetation, under matted plant or dry leaves, rather than stones or logs, which is the place to find many carabids.

References:

Hyman PS and Parsons MS (1992) A Review of Scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. JNCC Peterborough.
Lindroth, CH (1949, Fennoscandia) – translation 1992: Ground Beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandinavia. A Zoogeographic Study. Part 3, Intercept, Andover, England.
Lindroth, Carl H (1974) – reprint 1996 – Coleoptera: Carabidae. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. Vol 4, part 2. Royal Entomological Society of London.
Whitehead, Paul F (1998) pers com.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 3

LYCOPERDINA BOVISTAE (ENDOMYCHIDAE)

David M. Green

New Beetle National Rarity On A Different Fungus Than Usual

I visited the newly acquired Cruise Hill Wood reserve, near the Knapp and Papermill reserve at Alfrick, in October for photographs, and searched in leaf-litter for to-be-overwintering beetles and flies and snails, finding also a single earth star fungus that was just poking above the leaf litter, disconnected from the ground but supported upright by its down-curled, star-point lobes. I took the fungus home (it was eventually identified as sessile earthstar Geastrum fimbriatum by John Meiklejohn after we had checked the spore diameter) then left it indoors on a cool window ledge in a tall-sided, open margarine container. Three days later, two shiny dark brown beetles (photo, drawing), that were new to me, with a rather pointed elytra (wing cases), were running trapped in the container. They had exited the drying globular body of the fungus, because they were irritated by reduced humidity, and possibly the rise in temperature as evaporation stopped. I mean “irritated” in a the biological sense, of when an organism reacts to a physical stimulus. The habits of beetles are very much influenced by humidity.

After microscopic examination of the beetles, the British beetle identification key, Joy 1932, the most modern key available for the family, indicated this beetle was Lycoperdina bovistae (of family Endomychidae). Beetle check list, Pope (1977) showed no taxonomic changes to the genus Lycoperdina since Joy (1932); neither did Hodge and Jones (1995), the now standard reference work listing beetle species not in Joy. With this particular species the risk of identification error seemed low, as it is of very characteristic body shape, has an indented longitudinal line on each side that may be seen in the illustrations, the antennae are slightly and evenly widened towards the tip, the elytra (wing cases) have no black marking, and the apex of the elytra is rather pointed. It is described in Fowler (1889) as a “curious looking and conspicuous insect”. But since Fowler (1889) another similar rarer British species, one with less pointed elytra and transversely black marked elytra, has been discovered for the genus. Joy describes both species. There are more modern British keys to many other beetle families – the German language many-volumed beetle keys Die Käffer Mitteleuropas by Freude et al are often used in Britain especially when there is no modern British key; but despite being 66 years old, more readable two-volumed old Joy remains useful so it has just been reprinted. Essential was Paul F. Whitehead as a long-term beetle specialist, who was able to confirm my identification.

The beetle I found is listed in Hyman (1994) as a nationally rare (RDB 3), very local, recorded in only three vice counties since 1970; but by old records previously widely spread in some southern counties, and as far north as Leicestershire, but never recorded in Worcestershire. Paul Whitehead, who has been very active in Worcestershire confirmed its newness. Worcestershire BRC have no previous record. Of additional interest, the beetle is associated with certain puffball fungi rather than earthstars.

To investigate how numerous the beetle was at Crews Hill, and to see if it could be found there in puffballs as the usual fungus, I revisited the wood a week later. Entering on the well-used north end public footpath, I discovered I was walking over many common earthstars Geastrum triplex partly hidden in leaf-litter. Pulling some of their onion-shaped bodies apart, inside a strong outer membrane they were damp and powdery. Close examination with a lens revealed Lycoperdina bovistae beetles embedded within. Nearby, a patch of clusters of common puffballs Lycoperdon perlatum, and stump puffball L. pyriforme on rotten wood, contained more as well, indicating that there are plentiful numbers of the beetle in the wood – because these fungi are so common, and my initial find of the beetle was distant. Fowler (1889) remarks that the beetle is very local, but generally found in numbers. (The fungi species are all well described in Pegler et al 1995)

Coincidentally at the nearby Knapp and Papermill reserve, interest in various species of earthstars by the wardens (Stuart and Tina Corbett, see Worcestershire Wildlife News January 1997) resulted in the beetle appearing in insect boxes in which earthstars were contained. So it is likely the population may extend to further local woodland and beyond, in total forming a northerly local population relative to the rest of the British populations in S. Hampshire, E. Sussex, W. Norfolk.

The beetle is a nationally significant addition to the recorded Worcestershire fauna.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are to John W. Meiklejohn for identifying the fungi, and Paul F. Whitehead for confirming the identity and newness to Worcestershire of the beetle.

References

Fowler, WW 1889 Coleoptera of the British Islands 3 180-1
Freude, H et al 1960+approx Die Käfer Mitteleuropas – many vols
Hodge, PJ & Jones RA 1995 New British Beetles: Species not in Joy’s Practical Handbook. British Entomological and Natural History Society.
Hymen, PS and Parsons, MS 1992 A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain Part 1. UK Nature
Conservation no 3. UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
Joy, NH 1932 A Practical Handbook of British Beetles. 2 vols. London. Reprints 1976,1997
Pegler, DN, Læssøe T, and Spooner, BM (1995) British Puffballs, Earthstars and Stinkhorns. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Pope, RD 1977 Kloet and Hinks. A Check List of British Insects. Part 3: Coleoptera and
Strepsiptera. 2nd revised edition. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects Royal Entomological Society of London

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 9

HOLLY BLUES ARE HERE AGAIN

Harry Green

After hearing of many reports of Holly Blues this summer Worcestershire Wildlife Trust sent out a Media Release in July to draw attention to this interesting phenomenon. Coincidentally, Digby Wood of Butterfly Conservation (West Midlands Branch) had sent in an interesting article for the Trust’s Newsletter Worcestershire Wildlife News.

The text of the MEDIA RELEASE was at follows:

After several years in which these attractive blue butterflies have been scarce they are back with a bang this year. Many were seen in gardens in April when the first brood hatched from over-wintering chrysalids. The spring butterflies laid their eggs on holly flowers. These have now completed their life cycles and high-flying blue butterflies are once again on the wing and busy searching round the holly and the ivy. The males are looking for the females and the females for suitable places to lay their eggs on ivy flowers which the summer caterpillars eat.

Harry Green of the Worcestershire Nature Conservation Trust said “Its very good to see these attractive butterflies about in large numbers this year. If you are lucky enough to find a caterpillar (which looks a bit like a tiny green slug) on a holly or ivy flower you may notice that it is often attended by ants which lick special secretions from small glands on the caterpillar’s skin. Ants also attend the chrysalis for the same reward when it forms near the ground. The ants drive off parasites, especially small wasps that lay their eggs into the caterpillar which is then consumed from within. Despite the ants, the parasites get the upper hand in some years and holly blue numbers fall. This of course deprives the parasite of livelihood and butterfly numbers eventually rise again. Definitely a boom and bust lifestyle!

If you see a smart blue butterfly with pale underwings marked with a few black spots in your garden during July its probably a Holly Blue. Some of the biggest colonies are in towns and villages where there are gardens with plenty of holly and ivy. The Worcestershire Wildlife Trust would be interested to hear of sightings”. The “story” was taken up by most local newspapers and radio and a surprising number of people contacted the Trust by phone. Droitwich turned out to be a mega-hot-spot for Holly Blues! The Droitwich response was in part provoked by the cartoon which appeared in the Droitwich Advertiser. Although a few records may have been lost, 80 people contacted the Trust and reported Holly Blues from the following places:

 

Alverley         1
Areley Kings     1
Barnt Green      1
Belbroughton     1
Bewdley          2
Broadwas         1
Bromsgrove      11
Cookley          1
Cutnall Green    1
Droitwich       33
Evesham          2
Hartlebury       2
Kidderminster   11
Lineholt         1
Malvern          1
Pershore         1
Redditch         1
Stourport        2
Tenbury Wells    1
Uphampton        1
West Hagley      1
Wribbenhall      2
Wychbold         1

Total		80

These calls from the public were the tip of an iceberg: there were very large numbers of Holly Blues around. Many callers reported up to ten in their gardens (one reported 20 in a Bromsgrove garden!), and every naturalist in the county mentioned “large numbers of Holly Blues!”. The responses were mainly from North Worcestershire – even the Malvern record was from a man who lived in Bromsgrove. This does not reflect a lack of Holly Blues in South Worcestershire but reflects reaction to the newspaper cartoon and prominent Press coverage. It will be interesting to see what happens in 1998.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 4

WATERWAYS BREEDING BIRDS SURVEY (WBBS)

Harry Green, BTO Regional Representative for Worcestershire

The long-standing Waterways Bird Survey has been without external funding for the last few years. BTO has attempted to secure funding from the Environment Agency and others to re-develop the survey in order to increase its coverage and better meet the needs of potential users. The good news is that this money has now been provided for a one-year pilot survey.

During the course of the new pilot survey the existing WBS will continue as normal, although WBS observers may wish to participate in the new scheme as well.

The pilot survey is called the ‘Waterways Breeding Bird Survey’ (WBBS) and will be based on around 100 randomly selected stretches of rivers and canals. Each site will be surveyed using line transects and needs to be visited just three times. One visit is needed to set up the transect and record habitat data and two visits to collect bird data; this matches the methods used successfully for BBS.

This means that we shall need two or three volunteers to take part in the pilot survey. The pilot aims to test new methods for waterways bird monitoring in the UK and the response of participants and organisers will form an important part of the trial. The Environment Agency are keen for the pilot to go ahead in 1998 and this obviously gives little time for organisation by BTO HQ and RRs.

The survey represents a unique opportunity to enhance the BTO’s bird monitoring work both locally and nationally. It anyone would like to help please get in touch with me as soon as possible. Obviously, you should be able to identify the birds you are likely to encounter along a river or canal!

From the Worcestershire Biological Records Centre

By John Meiklejohn – Worcestershire BRC records manager.

I am pleased to report that there has been an increase in the flow of records reaching the W.B.R.C. Not a flood, but sufficient to make me recruit assistance to keep up-to-date with the entering of the records on the species map cards. The majority of these records have come from the specialist groups, moth trapping sessions, fungus forays, habitat surveys, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust reserves records and the like. Since the first meeting at Hindlip of parties interested in recording the wildlife of Worcestershire, I have handed out quite a lot of the W.B.R.C. recording slips to individuals. Very few of these have found their way back to Smite!

To help with filling in the recording slips, or sending in written records, keep the following points in mind:

Species names – for birds, butterflies, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, common names are acceptable. For all other groups latin binomial names are wanted. (Including moths whenever possible, when checking identifications in ‘Skinner’*the latin names are there!)
Grid references – These are vital. For more uncommon species a six-figure reference is needed. A postal address cannot always be converted easily into a grid ref. For the commoner species, or when there are several records from one area, a grid-ref. for the tetrad or 2×2 km square will suffice, e.g. SO 854532 becomes SO 84/52, i.e 2nd and 5th numbers of the 6-fig. ref. These are even numbers or are reduced to nearest even number below: SP 061395 becomes 06/38 (06 & 38 are the grid lines crossing at the lower left corner of the tetrad.
Location – Please do complete. Name of site, if it has one, e.g. Monk Wood, Kempsey Common, Bow Brook, otherwise a parish name.
Other points – Taxa = Group, e.g Flowering Plant, Mosses, Mammals, Reptiles, order of insect, etc, etc. For the commoner species ‘remarks’ are not needed.
Date – Please include at least the year of the record, if possible the month, and ideally the day as well.

There are a lot of common, easily identified species that are under recorded in Worcestershire. If in doubt about the identity of a less common species try to get it confirmed by an expert and record his/her name and, please, do send in your records!

* Skinner, B (1984) Colour Identification Guide to Moths of the British Isles (Macrolepidoptera). Viking

County Herons On A High

By Shaun Micklewright, BTO’s County Heron Recorder

Since 1928 the BTO have been monitoring Grey Heron breeding numbers in the UK, in fact it is the world’s longest-running species census, beaten only in scope and longevity by the North American Christmas bird count, which began at the turn of the century. In recent years numbers of breeding Grey Herons breeding in the country have risen dramatically from fewer than 4,000 pairs to 6,600. This increase has undoubtedly been helped by the recent spat of mild winters. Grey herons, especially first winter birds, are known to be susceptible to cold spells.

Following the national trend, breeding heron numbers in Worcestershire are now at an all-time high. Worcestershire has two active heronries, our oldest and largest (by one nest) is near Grimley. It has continued to expand by steadily from eleven nests in 1981 to 28 occupied nests in 1997. This is still considered to be a relatively small heronry compared with the country’s largest at Northward Hill in Kent which has 189 occupied nests! Even this would be small if Thomas Pennant was correct in writing to the famous naturalist Gilbert White in 1769 when he described a spectacular heronry at Cressi’s Hall near Spalding where he counted no less than 80 nests in a single oak tree!

The county’s second heronry, in a small wet wood near Upton-upon-Severn, is new, being recently discovered, and it already contains 27 occupied nests, all in mature Scots Pine. It is possible that some of these birds are from Croome Park as migration to more suitable sites is not uncommon. The move may be spread over many years but felling of nearby trees or uprooting by gales of any trees used for nesting is apt to cause a stampede.

With another new heron counting season fast approaching (tradition has it that birds return to their nesting haunts each season with the coming of the February moon) I would very much like to hear from anyone who may know of any other active heronry in Worcestershire.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 6

DANDELIONS IN WORCESTERSHIRE

A W Reid

The humble dandelions cause more problems of identification to botanists than most of the rest of the British flora put together. Even experts who confidently name the tiniest scrap of non-flowering vegetation in the field either lump them together as one aggregate or ignore them entirely. Within the flora project, we decided that we needed to do something about dandelions, but nobody involved had any knowledge of the genus Taraxacum. After some discussion, and rather more arm twisting, I drew the short straw and agreed to try to get to grips with the little devils.

I did not know what I was letting myself in for. I have since discovered that there are over 230 described species recorded in the British Isles, while the botanists who can identify them can be counted on the fingers of one hand. I started by getting hold of a photocopy of the then most recent book on the subject (John Richard’s 1972 Taraxacum Flora), picking a few specimens at random, and trying to match them with the descriptions. This was singularly unsuccessful. Although I soon realised that dandelions covered a wide range of sizes, shapes and appearances, none of them gave a good fit to the descriptions I had.

The only hope left was the national referees. The following year I picked and carefully dried and pressed (or so I thought) several specimens and sent them off to John Richards and Andrew Dudman for expert determination. I eagerly awaited the return of my dandelions and the project’s first positive results within the genus. At last the great day arrived, the postman brought a good sized parcel and I tore off the wrapping paper like a five year old with a birthday present.

The results were rather shaming. My beautiful specimens had been badly selected, poorly pressed and dried and most could not be identified. Returned with them was a helpful note on how to collect and prepare dandelions and a list of the currently accepted British dandelion flora. At least we had a few determinations but there was a problem. Most of the species identified were not mentioned in the 1972 flora so I had no descriptions to check against. The 132 species I knew about had turned into well over 200 (with quite a few of the 132 disappearing from the list).

Why are dandelions so difficult? There are two good reasons. The first reason is sex, or rather the lack of it. All our dandelions are apomictic, that is they do not require pollination for the seeds to grow. Thus every dandelion is a clone of its mother and every mutation potentially creates a new species. The dandelions we see around us today are probably the frozen remnants of an early episode of rampant hybridisation between sexual species which have since died out in Britain and some early apomictic species. So dandelions are difficult because there are an awful lot of them.

With apomictic species, differences may be small but should be consistent, and this is true of dandelions. If the seeds from one clock are grown under standard conditions then each resulting plant will be virtually identical. So identification should still be possible. This is where the second reason kicks in. Dandelions exhibit extreme phenotypic plasticity. Or to put it in English, they look totally different if grown under different conditions. Most characters, but especially leaf shape, change with age, nutrient levels, season, soil type, amount of sunlight, amount of water, and almost anything else you care to mention.

With tremendous help from John Richards and Andrew Dudman I have started to understand what to collect and have a good chance of a positive identification. Because of the seasonal variation, it is only worth collecting at the season of first flowering, certainly not after late May. Plants must be well grown but not too well grown. The drought stressed plant struggling to survive in the crack in the mortar of a wall, and the luxuriant giant from the top of the dung heap are equally atypical and will come back with “indet.” written on them (or even “indet. – indifferent” as I have had)*. Because of the variation so characteristic of dandelions the specimen must be adequate. Two leaves and one badly pressed capitulum simply won’t do.[*indet = indeterminate Ed].

Good drying and pressing are essential. Colour is often vital in identification and dandelions lose colour unless they are dried quickly, with frequent changes of drying paper. Bract size is important and more easily measured on fresh material, so field notes are helpful for this and such features as presence or absence of pollen and style colour. By taking more care with what I collect and how I prepare it I have improved my hit rate of identifications to around 75%.

Each year since, I have sent ever increasing numbers of dandelions to the referees. Many of these I have collected myself, but more recently other collectors have made significant contributions, especially Peter Garner, Terry Knight and Bill Thompson. The county total has risen year on year and 1997 saw a significant landmark as we reached 100 species for Worcestershire. Another recent landmark was the publication of the long awaited BSBI dandelion handbook by Dudman & Richards. I can at last pencil in my own tentative identifications before I send my specimens off to the authors. I even get some of them right now!

Where next? There is still a lot more to be done. Many species remain to be discovered – one of the 1997 additions was from my own garden! Even for the most collected species we have little knowledge of distribution. You can all help if you are willing. All you need to do is buy the new handbook, carefully read the sections on collection and preparation, gather in the harvest and pass them to me. I will get them identified if I think they are good enough to send off. You too can get a first County record!

References:

Dudman AA & Richards AJ (1997) Dandelions of Great Britain & Ireland. BSBI Handbook No 9. Botanical Society of the British Isles.
Richards AJ (1972) The Taraxacum flora of the British Isles. Watsonia. Supplement to Vol 9 pages 1-141.

Urban Slow-worms in Worcester City

By Alan Shepherd

The Slow-worm is a species in national decline despite the impression that its wide distribution may give and Herpetofauna workers have long been aware of the increasing importance of urban sites for this enigmatic reptile. It seems particularly capable of adapting to life on disused allotments or derelict industrial sites and frequently occurs in gardens without the owner being aware of its presence unless it is disturbed when lying up under the cover of the compost heap.

In 1997, the Trust’s Worcestershire Wildlife Consultancy was contracted to undertake Britain’s first ever survey of an urban area that specifically targeted the slow-worm. This was on behalf of Worcester City Council’s Project Greenspace and it has served to highlight just how important the “Faithful City” is for this shy and engaging reptile.

Using a recognised methodology of putting down refugia on the 27 selected sites and making two visits per site (in suitable weather conditions) at fortnightly intervals some basic data was obtained.It is a sad fact that after 25 million years in its current form relatively little is known about the slow-worm – for instance what does it do most of the time? Using tin sheets to attract thigothermic reptiles makes counting easier and on all the survey sites highest number counts were taken. The opportunity to acquire some data on the population dynamics was taken by sexing and ageing specimens whenever possible: slow-worms can be recognised by their individual parietal markings in the same way as adders but within the limits of this project this would have been impossible.

The results of the survey confirm what was always believed – that Worcester does indeed have a large and widely distributed slow-worm population. Part of the survey involved an appeal for public sightings via local radio and press and this yielded 137 replies,all duly passed on to the BRC.

It is virtually impossible to get a Herp worker to put a figure on the possible size of a slow-worm population but Nick Dane Smith in his unpublished PhD suggests a potential of 1000 per hectare in suitable habitat. It is a fact that a translocation from one of the best sites in Worcester yielded 387 captures from 1.25 ha. Anne Riddell in conversation said that she felt that the creatures spend more time buried in the soil than we think; what is certain is that the weather conditions usually thought of as optimum for reptiles do not apply in the case of the slow-worm. In hot weather it will bury itself in the soil, in cooler conditions it will lie under debris, but in damp conditions when its favoured prey, the slug, emerges so does ‘Old No-Legs’, often hunting at dusk.

It seems that the local press trumpeting Worcester as the Slow-worm Capital of Britain is not so far away from fact as it may have seemed. More excitingly, from a conservation angle, at a meeting on one of the prime allotment sites (with potentially the largest single urban slow-worm population in Britain until somebody finds a better candidate) my suggestion that improvement works to access paths could be combined with purpose-designed hibernacula was greeted by the question as to whether I felt that a sanctuary area would be of any use. So we now have the first ever City Council designated slow-worm sanctuary in the world complete with hibernating and hiding areas!

Reference

Riddell, A (ed) (1997) The Slow-worm. Kent Reptile & Amphibian Group.

Butterfly Recording in SP06 (Redditch)

By Patrick Taylor

How it all started.

In Spring of 1995, in response to my suggestion that the WWT Redditch Group should do some organised recording, one of my fellow committee members wrote to Butterfly Conservation to enquire how we might conduct a butterfly survey. As they were just starting the Millennium Atlas project, they were delighted, and suggested that four or five visits to a tetrad would be an ideal way to start, and that this was a chance to make a real contribution to a definitive guide to the distribution of all butterfly species in Britain. So, after a little arm twisting, tetrads were allocated to a number of committee members and the Redditch Butterfly Survey was born.

Despite the late start and appalling weather in June, 268 records were submitted including a total of twenty five species – certainly a lot more than I had dared to hope for. We saved the best until the end of the season – the September work party at Ipsley Alders turned up a Camberwell Beauty, which was seen flying around willows by at least six people – a record we are unlikely to repeat. All records were submitted to Butterfly Conservation and Trust HQ.

I personally learned a lot from my squares – not least that the best way to learn about natural history is to volunteer to survey it! This is also the best way to learn about your local patch – three years on, I still find places within two miles of my front door that look interesting and that I was totally unaware of!

The second year

By April 1996, a few new recruits had joined the original recorders, and this time I allocated potentially interesting sites rather than whole tetrads. I expected more or less a repeat of the 1995 results with more of the early species. At the beginning of July, I started to get regular telephone calls from recorders, reporting new species. First it was White-letter Hairstreaks, then White Admirals and in August, whilst “taking a short cut” across another recorders patch, I found a Clouded Yellow (they did speak to me again eventually!) and two other Clouded Yellow reports followed. In total, 688 records were submitted all of which were passed to the BRC and Butterfly Conservation.

Butterflies of SP06 (Redditch) 1995-96

Note that only 15 of the 25 tetrads were surveyed in 1995-6. Some tetrads in SP06 are in Warwickshire, and these are covered by the Warwickshire Trust.

In 1995, there were very few records before the end of May and some first broods may have been missed.

 

Small Skipper        Recorded in 12 tetrads 
First sighting:      1995: 25/6   1996: 7/7 
Last sighting:       1995: 20/8   1996: 18/8

Common on most grassland throughout the area in July and August.

Large Skipper        Recorded in 12 tetrads
First sighting:      1995: 16/6   1996: 15/6
Last sighting:       1995: 5/8    1996: 4/8

Common on most grassland throughout the area. Generally present in smaller numbers than Small Skipper and not in all the same areas. Season tends to be slightly earlier than Small Skipper.

Clouded Yellow       Recorded in 2 tetrads (1996 only)
First sighting:                   1996: 4/8
Last sighting:                    1996: 19/8

A migrant butterfly, rarely seen this far north in normal years. 1996 was an “explosion” year for migrants and three were recorded in the area.

Brimstone            Recorded in 9 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 12/3   1996: 5/4
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 15/9

Emerges in autumn, overwintering as an adult and re-emerging in early spring. The Brimstone is a “wanderer” and occurs almost anywhere in the area. More numerous in 1996 than in 1995.

Large White          Recorded in 12 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 1/5    1996: 2/6
Last sightings:      1995: 20/8   1996: 23/9

A widespread butterfly, can occur almost anywhere. Significantly fewer recorded in 1996 than 1995.

Small White          Recorded in 14 tetrads 
First sightings:     1995: 19/5   1996: 27/4
Last sightings:      1995: 5/9    1996: 15/9

One of the commonest butterflies in the area, present almost everywhere throughout most of the season. However, in common with the Large White, significantly fewer recorded in 1996 than in 1995.

Green-veined White   Recorded in all tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 19/5   1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 14/9

A grassland butterfly, though it can occur almost anywhere. Did not suffer the same fall in numbers in 1996 as the Small and Green-veined Whites.

Orange Tip           Recorded in 12 tetrads 
First sightings:     1995: 12/3   1996: 6/5
Last sightings:      1995: 18/6   1996: 9/6

A spring butterfly, occurs throughout the area in small numbers.

Purple Hairstreak    Recorded in 5 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 25/7   1996: 3/8
Last sightings:      1995: 5/8    1996: 8/9

A butterfly of oak trees, rarely venturing near the ground. Almost certainly under-recorded, this butterfly has now been found in several woodlands around Redditch and is probably widely but thinly distributed.

White-letter Hairstreak  Recorded in 3 tetrads
First sightings:                  1996: 13/7
Last sightings:                   1996: 12/8

A butterfly of elm trees which is rarely found near ground level, first noted in the area in 1996. Elm is surprisingly common around Redditch, but mostly in the form of cropped hedges. What few standard trees can be found tend to be in poor health, and this butterfly is dependent on such specimen trees. Although it is probably under recorded, the White-letter Hairstreak struggles to survive in its few isolated colonies in the area.

Small Copper         Recorded in 10 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 25/7   1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 31/8

Occurs locally in small numbers, generally in grassland areas. Significantly fewer records in 1996 than 1995.

Common Blue          Recorded in 14 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 25/7   1996: 6/6
Last sightings:      1995: 20/8   1996: 14/9

Strictly a grassland butterfly, though it occurs throughout the area, numbers have been generally small, probably reflecting the generally poor quality of meadows in the area.

Holly Blue           Recorded in 8 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 9/7    1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 9/7    1996: 18/8

Occurs throughout the area. Only one sighting in 1995 but more numerous in 1996. No doubt the 1997 results will show occurrences in almost every tetrad in even larger numbers.

Brown Argus

No records in 1995/95, but discovered at two sites this year.

White Admiral        Recorded in 2 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 25/7   1996: 6/6
Last sightings:      1995: 25/7   1996: 3/8

A very scarce butterfly in the area found only in two of the larger areas of woodland and in very small numbers. It will be interesting to see how the recent woodland management affects this species over the next few years.

Red Admiral          Recorded in 13 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 9/7    1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 23/9

A butterfly whose numbers are significantly boosted by migrants. Common throughout the area, but in significantly larger numbers in 1996 than in 1995.

Painted Lady         Recorded in 13 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 5/8    1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 23/9

This North African migrant can occur anywhere in the area. Just two sightings in 1995, which was a “normal” year. In May 1996, unprecedented numbers of migrants arrived from North Africa and went on to produce a second brood. By August, the Painted Lady outnumbered the Peacock on almost every Buddleia in the area. 55 records were submitted with an average count of more than 10.

Small Tortoiseshell  Recorded in 13 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 22/6   1996: 4/4
Last sightings:      1995: 20/8   1996: 15/9

A common butterfly throughout the area, slightly more numerous in 1995 than in 1996.

Peacock              Recorded in 12 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 24/7   1996: 5/4
Last sightings:      1995: 5/8    1996: 15/9

A common butterfly occurring throughout the area, particularly in August. Slightly more numerous in 1996 than 1995.

Comma                Recorded in 13 tetrads 
First sightings:     1995: 8/7    1996: 6/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 15/9

Occurs throughout the area in small numbers. Quite scarce in 1995, more numerous in 1996.

Camberwell Beauty    Recorded in 1 tetrad
One sighting:        10/9/95

A very rare migrant, especially this far North. Not recorded in Redditch previously.

Small Pearl-bordered Fritillary Recorded in 1 tetrad
One sighting :       18/6/95

A colony of Small Pearl-bordered Fritillaries existed on the site of this single record in the 1970’s. Despite a determined effort, this butterfly has not been recorded since, and could well be extinct in the area.

Speckled Wood        Recorded in all tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 19/5   1996: 17/5
Last sightings:      1995: 23/9   1996: 15/9

A common butterfly of woodlands and shade found from March to October throughout the area.

Wall Brown           Recorded in 1 tetrad
One sighting :       20/8/95

Clearly a very scarce butterfly in the area with just one positive record and a few rumours of this butterfly occurring in the same area a few years ago.

Marbled White        Recorded in 2 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 28/6   1996: 8/7
Last sightings:      1995: 3/8    1996: 4/8

Several small colonies observed in 1995 and 1996 on rough grassland. An extremely large colony has been found in 1997.

 
Gatekeeper           Recorded in 13 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 27/6   1996: 14/7
Last sightings:      1995: 20/8   1996: 31/8

Despite its short season (a single brood from mid-July to late August), this is the most numerous species in the area. 1996 was a particularly spectacular year, and during the first weekend in August, a number of sites produced a count in the hundreds.

 
Meadow Brown         Recorded in 14 tetrads 
First sightings:     1995: 25/6   1996: 29/6
Last sightings:      1995: 12/8   1996: 28/8

A common butterfly of all rough grassland in the area. Present from late June onwards.

Ringlet              Recorded in 12 tetrads
First sightings:     1995: 28/6   1996: 6/7
Last sightings:      1995: 27/7   1996: 10/8

Another common butterfly of rough grassland, but with a single brood during July, it has a very short season.

Small Heath          Recorded in 4 tetrads 
First sightings:     1995: 24/7   1996: 2/6
Last sightings:      1995: 5/8    1996: 15/9

Nationally very widespread, but very local in this area with just a few very small colonies in rough grassland. The best colony is threatened by development, making this species very scarce in 1997.

Why stop at butterflies?

Whilst out recording during 1996, I started jotting down a few plant species (botany not being my strong point) and this, along with the promotion of the BRC set me thinking, why don’t we ask people to record other groups in 1997 whilst they are out counting butterflies? So in 1997, having completed a major redesign of the form, and recruited several more recorders we set to work to record everything!

I haven’t seen any results yet, but I know of a most unlikely new site in the middle of Redditch where three species of orchids occur, including up to 20 spikes of Bee Orchid as well as other plants that were not previously known. Studies of Ipsley Alders have increased the dragonfly list to eighteen species, (including Yellow-winged Darter and Black Darter) which I was told beats the previous Worcestershire site record (Upton Warren) by one! Butterflies have not been ignored either; Brown Argus (previously unrecorded in the area) has raised two broods at two sites.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 9

ENTOMOLOGICAL MEETING AT THE DEVIL’S SPITTLEFUL & RIFLE RANGE

G H Trevis

We are constantly seeking different ways to increase the quality and quantity of recording on wildlife reserves and August 1997 saw a new venture for the Trust. We hosted a joint meeting with the Amateur Entomologists Society (AES) and the British Entomological and Natural History Society (BENHS) at the Devil’s Spittleful and Rifle Range reserve. Joint meetings of this type have many benefits not the least of which is the social opportunity to meet fellow enthusiasts, particularly those from other parts of the country. Experts in different groups add significantly to the records from the chosen site and the less expert can learn more in a single day from the practical experience than from many hours on their own with books and keys.

Members met at the Blackstone Rock car park in the morning and walked down to the reserve. The weather was reasonably fine with sunny intervals, which augured well, and even before we got to the site some members had got detached from the group, having been side-tracked by the finds along the way. The morning and first part of the afternoon were spent recording after which we split up for people to do their own thing before returning later in the evening to run moth traps. Unfortunately, owing to other commitments, I was unable to attend the moth trapping session but I understand the meeting finally broke up about 2 a.m.!

This is the first meeting of the type I have attended and I found it a most stimulating and enjoyable experience. I still have some of the specimens I collected waiting for identification but I feel this just prolongs the enjoyment by giving me something to do in the long, dark winter evenings (at least that’s my excuse for not having completed the work sooner!). I sincerely hope we will be able to arrange more events of a similar nature in the coming year, possibly by having a “blitz” on a particular site to cover as wider a range of species as possible or by having more focused recording e.g. flora, insects, birds etc.. The events will be social as well as scientific with the idea of putting people of similar interests in touch with each other and to introduce some of the learners to the experts. I admit details are not yet finalised (no real excuse for this one except eating and being merry over Christmas and the New Year!) but keep an eye open for more information either directly from the BRC or through the Wildlife Trust Newsletter.

The author was on a steep learning curve at the Devil’s Spittleful and now gives one piece of practical advice to those novices like himself attending a day’s recording meeting for the first time. Be ruthless when it comes to deciding what to take with you! My large bag contained my lunch, cans of drink, photographic equipment, collecting equipment, jars, pots, etc. plus notebook and pens. Believe me, by the end of the day I had a decided list to port and a tendency to walk in circles!

As might be expected, most the records obtained were for common or relatively common species though there were a few more interesting things as well. Martin Harvey, Habitat Conservation Officer for the AES later sent a list of the 84 insect species recorded. These included many moths from the night’s trapping. The following insects were designated as national status:

Red Data Book 2

Philanthus triangulum (Bee-wolf) See elsewhere in this newsletter.

Notable/Nb

Enargia paleacea (Angle-striped swallow)

Local

Coleoptera – Cychrus caraboides, Tytthapsis 16-punctata, Attelabus nitens. Lepidoptera – Catoptria pinella (a pyralid moth), Quercusia quercus (Purple hairstreak), Aricia agestis (Brown Argus), Lymantria monacha (Black Arches), Eilema complana (Scarce Footman), Tipula cava (a crane fly), Sicus ferrugineus (a fly), Ammophila sabulosa (Red-banded sand wasp)

I am also grateful to Martin Harvey for his help in arranging the meeting and to Dave Scott, Warden at Devil’s Spittleful and Rifle Range, for acting as leader on the day.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 1 This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only

News of the Records Centre

By G H Trevis, Senior Volunteer for the Wider Countryside at Worcestershire Wildlife Trust

It is perhaps best to get the bad news out of the way first. We have now received notification that our bid for first tranche funding from the National Biodiversity Network has been unsuccessful. However, the bid was very seriously considered by the adjudication panel who commented on the strength of our case. The successful bid came from Cheshire who were awarded the project mainly on the grounds of their greater size and the fact that they have some coastline which brings in marine as well as terrestrial records. We must now work hard to keep our records centre project moving and look forward to the very real possibility that we will get funding in the second tranche. We will also be able to draw on the expertise, and to some extent time, of the national BRC project officer for advice.

The difficulties surrounding the creation of the records data base have now been largely overcome, due in no small measure to stirring work by Martin Hodgson, and by the time you read this, work on entering data should have started. Mr. Richard Nicol has volunteered to undertake training on the Recorder software and then to help with training other volunteers. I hope to see a small team drawn together who will start work on existing BRC records and then progress to computerising new records as they come in.

The centre needs to be seen to be run on professional, scientific lines which will be acceptable to people submitting records and to those using its services. This will be achieved by an advisory group composed of representatives from both of these groups, chaired by myself, whose function will be to draw up operating procedures and monitor their implementation. A first meeting was held at Lower Smite Farm with a range of representatives to start the ball rolling. However, it was felt that little could be achieved until the outcome of the NBN bid was known. Now that this information is to hand a second meeting will be held to form the working Advisory Group and begin the task of agreeing the procedures.

The careful preparatory work is an essential foundation for a successful BRC but equally important is the collection of reliable records. As you will know the Trusts’ Biological Recording Working Party has been involved in encouraging renewed recording activity and, with the help of the Education Department, in providing training for people who wish to improve their identification skills. The programme of courses for the coming year has now been published so please sign up. A few places are still available! Further initiatives are in the pipeline and will be published later in the year. For those who returned questionnaires expressing interest in recording – I have not forgotten you – and to anyone who is involved in recording but perhaps feels the Trust has not given you the support you would like, please do not hesitate to contact me. Recording is the life blood of conservation, providing the essential basic information for planning our strategies and setting priorities. I cannot stress too highly the value which we place on all records and the people who supply them and I would be glad to hear from anyone with ideas about how we might improve the co-ordination of recording activity and, above all, to establish links between recorders so that we can provide mutual help and support. The next couple of months will be spent planning the work for 1998 so now is the time to put your ideas forward.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 4

ELMS IN WORCESTERSHIRE

Will Watson, Wildlife Consultant

English Elm Ulmus procera Salisbury (syn. Ulmus campestris Miller)

There are three species of elm and several interspecific hybrid combinations that are either native or naturalised in Worcestershire. English Elm Ulmus procera is by far the most widespread of the three species. In spite of the ravages of Dutch Elm Disease it is probably found within most 1×1 km squares in the county. Its characteristics are that mature trees have a massive straight trunk persisting half way through the crown, the bark is deeply cracked which in maturity form square plates, there are branches at all levels which twist and ascend at the top of a dense domed crown, lower limbs become rapidly diffuse becoming short and slender. In sub-mature trees the majority of branches are ascending. The leaves are 5-9cm in length, ovate to circular with a short pointed apex; they are harshly roughened above and rough on the underside, when fully developed they are unusually curled or puckered (Mitchell 1994). The leaves are nearly always attacked by the elm leaf-gall mite Eriophytes ulmicola (Rackham 1980).

The reasons for English Elm’s U. procera continued widespread distribution is that it is native to our region and was widely planted right throughout the medieval period through to the 20th century, mainly in hedgerows (Rackham 1994). Although all mature English Elm trees have succumbed to the disease it survives in hedgerows because of its ability to produce vegetative suckers. Indeed it has largely abandoned sex as a means of reproduction. Its success is further enhanced by the fact that it is invasive and over time out-competes neighbouring species – hence where English Elm U. procera is present we get dominant stretches of elm hedges and dominant stands of suckering elm in woodland (Peterken 1981), often with no other shrub species present. Rackham (1994) considers that its ability to sucker profusely may have developed over time in response to the disease which has struck in past centuries.

Wych Elm Ulmus glabra Hudson (syn. Ulmus montana Loudon.)

Wych Elm Ulmus glabra is a broad spreading tree, the trunk usually forks into a Y shape. Sub-mature trees have smooth (hence ‘glabra’) silvery-grey bark which latter become fissured. The leaves are greater than 7cm in length; they are typically very rough on the upperside with more than 12 lateral veins covered in stiff white hairs, it has a short hairy petiole 2-5mm long, the leaves commonly have a three point apex; although this is not a diagnostic characteristic. It does not sucker freely, although it does coppice well (unlike English Elm U. procera). Wych Elm produces a mass of viable seed with relatively young trees reach fruiting maturity. Although it is vulnerable to Dutch Elm Disease senescence tends to occurs at a latter stage than English Elm U. procera. It is probably present in every 10×10 km square in the county. Wych Elm U. glabra is more tolerant of shady conditions and well adapted to northern climes where it is a major native component species of lowland mixed broad-leaved woodlands with Dog’s Mercury (NVC W8) and lowland mixed broad-leaved woodlands with Bluebell (NVC WIO) in north-west England (Rodwell 1991). In Worcestershire it is an occasional component of such woods. It is often encountered in hedgerows, presumably because it was much planted.

Small-leaved Elm Ulmus minor Miller (syn. Smooth-leaved Elm Ulmus carpinifolia G. Sucklow and Ulmus nitens Moench)

Our rarest elm is the Small-leaved Elm Ulmus minor. Typically a tall tree with a narrow domed crown. Limbs in the upper crown are nearly all vertical, various size of branches ascend from the trunk, and unlike English Elm U. procera arch over to end in long pendulous branchlets with a narrow system of fine curled shoots. The bark has deep long, vertical fissures, commonly the branches have thick corky ridges. It has much smaller leaves than its counterparts being less than 7cm in length; although the leaf shape is extremely variable, they are most typically elliptic with the upper surface of the leaf being smooth and shiny green (Mitchell 1994). Where Small-leaved Elm U. minor is present it too is clonal i.e. produces suckers freely which are genetically identical to the parent plant. It is rarely attacked by the elm leaf-gall mite.

The status of Small-leaved Elm U minor within the county is so far undetermined. Its main centre of distribution is in the east of England which is why it is also referred to as East Anglian Elm. Small-leaved Elm U. minor is probably not native to Worcestershire with its presence being due to deliberate introduction. It is scattered along a 5 kilometre stretch of the A449 between Crossway Green and Ombersley.

Elm hybrids and immediate types

Unfortunately for those people studying elms (know as pteleologists!) there are a bewildering number of elm types. Rackham (1980) cites elms as being the most difficult critical genus in the British flora, Richens (1983) recognises 27 different forms in Essex alone. Intermediates between Wych Elm U. glabra and English Elm U. procera are uncommon and thought to be evolutionary i.e. without fixed characteristics (Rackham 1986). However, it is Small-leaved Elm U. minor which shows the greatest variation and it is this species which hybridises readily with other elms.

Hybrids and intermediate types in Worcestershire

Hybrid elms with fixed characteristic and other intermediate forms are uncommon in Worcestershire because of the scarcity of Small-leaved Elm U. minor. In places where Small-leaved Elm U. minor and English Elm U. procera are found growing in close proximity some suckers have characteristic common to both species. It is likely, as Rackham states, that such crosses are typically variable and can not be classified as true hybrids as they are probably still evolving. However, there are some elm hybrids in the county which show characteristics identical or very close to some of the forms presently described by Richens, Rackham and Mitchell. A very distinctive mature elm is present at Barnard’s Green on the Guarlford Road, Malvern. Its growth form is identical to that of the Huntingdon Elm Ulmus x hollandica var. Vegeta (syn. Ulmus x vegeta), described by Mitchell 1994; as a tree with a regular tall domed crown with a straight clean bole. Its leaves are elliptic, long-acuminate, 10-13 x 8cm, doubly toothed with a petiole between 1-2cm. It was a tree that was very widely planted in the British Isles (Stace, 1991), however, only a few trees currently now survive (Mitchell 1994).

The most likely candidate for a naturalised hybrid elm is the so called ‘Lineage’ Elm which is specifically a woodland elm (Rackham, 1980). It has an intermediate leaf shape between Small-leaved Elm U. minor and Wych Elm U. glabra, but unlike the more familiar hybrid Dutch Elm Ulmus x hollandica it is non-invasive and coppices well. Lineage Elms are often found in homogenous stands and were probably deliberately planted in most situations. This tree is known to occur in Tiddesley Wood where it is locally common and may be scattered in other ancient woodland sites in Worcestershire. Whilst in the Lineage Elm and in some of the other hybrid combinations, phenotypic features can be reasonable determined, their true parentage can probably only be resolved as and when chromosomal analysis is undertaken*

Elm Trees and the Native Elm Programme

Elms grew taller than all other trees in the landscape with both English Elm U. procera and Small-leaved Elm U. minor regularly attaining heights of 120 feet (over 30 metres) or more. Elm wood is of medium weight and strength, but distorts easily and has to be seasoned carefully. Its timber was much valued in building construction and for use in furniture (Milner, 1992). Elm trees with circumferences of over 190cm are rare within the county. In 1996 a national survey was initiated by the Conservation Foundation with the aim of identifying elm trees which could be used for propagation of disease-resistant native stock. Small-leaved Elm U. minor is less susceptible to the disease than English Elm U. procera. In certain parts of Essex and Suffolk elm trees with circumferences of more than 150cm are still commonplace. Likewise some Wych Elms U. glabra reach full maturity and appear not to contract the disease.

So how many fully grown elm trees remain in Worcestershire? The answer is we do not know because we have no recorded data. However, we know of the existence of several Wych Elms trees, other still await discovery. One Huntingdon Elm Ulmus x hollandica var. Vegeta is present at Barnard’s Green – are there others in urban situations? Recently a mature specimen of what is probably Small-leaved Elm U. minor was seen in a hedge to the north of Bewdley.

If we can find and record where our Worcestershire elm trees are distributed we will be able to replace elm trees using seed or cuttings from Worcestershire stock. If you are interested please pick up a copy of the Elm Newsletter in March 1998 at the Worcestershire Biological Recorders meeting.

* A phylogenetic reconstruction of the Ulmus genus based upon morphological and sequence data is being developed by Jayne Armstrong of the Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Glasgow. This will provide a new taxonomic framework which could enable the comprehensive identification of hybrid elms and other forms within the county.

References

Armstrong, J, Gibbs, J, Webber, J, and Brasier, C. 1997. Elm Workshop Proceedings. Elm Newsletter No. 1. April 1997. The Conservation Foundation.
Mabey, R. 1996. Flora Britannica. Sinclair-Stevenson, London pp 58-62.
Milner, J.E. 1992. The Tree Book. (Channel Four Books) Collins & Brown, London pp 49-52.
Mitchell, A. Reprint 1994. Trees of Britain & Northern Europe. HarperCollins Publishers, London pp 247-253.
Peterken, G.F. Reprint 1994. Woodland Conservation and Management. Chapman & Hall, London.
Rackham, 0. 1980. Ancient Woodland. Its History, Vegetation and Uses in England Edward Arnold, Norwich pp 255 -281.
Rackham, 0. 1986. The History of the Countryside. J.M. Dent and Sons, London pp 232-247.
Rackham, 0. 1994. The Illustrated History of the Countryside. Orion Publishing Group, London pp 88-92
Richens, R.H. 1983. Elms. Cambridge University Press.
Rodwell, J. S. (Ed) 1991. British Plant Communities, Volume 1: Woodland and Scrub. Cambridge University Press.
Stace, C.A. 1991. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press pp 137-141.
Wilkinson, G. 1978. Epitaph for the Elm. Hutchinson & Co. Ltd, London.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 7

WORCESTERSHIRE WOLVES

Brett Westwood

In 1995, entomologist Mike Archer from York University was conducting a survey of Hartlebury Common where he had been studying the bees and wasps for some years. In one of the sand patches on the Lower Terrace he found a collection of holes scattered over an area of several square metres and knew straight away that the bee-wolf had arrived in the county at last. In marketing terms, the solitary wasp known as the bee-wolf Philanthus triangulum is sexy. This is an insect with attitude. It’s quite large, bright yellow, attacks honey-bees (no mean feat) and buries their paralysed bodies as you watch! It also has the added chic of being extremely rare in Britain. Or rather, had been. Until the mid-1980s bee-wolves were restricted to a single colony on the Isle of Wight where they dug their burrows in the friable soil of cliff-tops. There were occasional attempts to annex the mainland, but the climate and a lack of suitable immigrants kept an invasion at bay.

At this time the Red Data Book of insects recorded that bee-wolves were threatened and of conservation concern. All of which makes the events of the last ten years even more remarkable. Entomologists studying heathlands in the south of England began to record bee-wolves more regularly. In Hampshire and Surrey they turned up on sandy commons and along the East Anglian coast they tunnelled into dunes and shingle. Eventually they reached Gibraltar Point in Lincolnshire and began to spread westwards towards the Welsh coast and Anglesey. With such phenomenal powers of dispersal, it was inevitable that bee-wolves would arrive on the heaths around Kidderminster …. and they did, with a vengeance.

In August 1997 Harry Green and I found over a hundred burrows in soft sand near the Stourport road at Hartlebury Common . The holes are easy to spot because they are surrounded by a circle of excavated soil as big as a child’s hand and if you look more closely , you can sometimes see the corpse of a bee, discarded by the wasp, perhaps when it was disturbed by a dog-walker. As we peered at the holes we became aware of bee-wolves hovering ponderously nearby, each weighed down by a honeybee, slung close to its body, like a Spitfire on a bombing raid. Each wolf made a direct approach to its burrow ….a bee-line!… and vanished into the sand with its prey in a second or two. This was happening continually as we watched and we estimated that up to forty wasps were present. We never saw the capture, which probably happens out among the heather on the common. Bee wolves fly at their prey and sting it below the thorax, paralysing it immediately. Then, having mopped up any excess nectar from the bee’s mouth-parts, they head back to the burrow. Just how they find their own hole is well-known thanks to Niko Tinbergen, the Nobel prize-winning naturalist, who studied bee-wolves in Holland in the 1930’s. After a reconnoitre from on high the insect comes in low and scans the area around its burrow for landmarks such as pebbles, twigs or pine-cones. It uses these to pinpoint its hole and, as Tinbergen, discovered, can easily be confused if its landmarks are moved. Below ground is a tunnel up to half a metre deep and branching off it are several cells. Each cell is a bee’s tomb. The single egg laid on the slumbering bee within will hatch into the wolf-larva which feeds on the bee, before pupating and emerging the following summer. All bee-wolves are wolf-orphans, they never see their parents who die at the end of the season.

As we progressed over Hartlebury Common we found other, smaller colonies, some slap-bang in the middle of paths. They probably benefit to some extent from the bare soil at the path-side, though continual scuffing will disguise their burrows. Later in August we also found a small colony on Burlish Top at Stourport, so it’s likely that bee-wolves are more common than we realise in north Worcestershire. Just why they have increased so rapidly isn’t too clear. They were always on the north-western edge of their range in Britain and it has been suggested that climatic change has helped them to colonise. Warmer, drier summers mean more active prey and better burrowing conditions, so maybe this is the key to their success. Although they are increasing in range and numbers, bee-keepers have little to fear. Colonies probably account for no more than a few hundred bees each season, a small price to pay for sharing our county with the charismatic bee-wolf.

References:

Richards, OW (1980) Scolioidae, Vespoidea, and Sphecoidea. Hymenoptera, Acauleata. Handbooks for the Identifications of
British Insects Vol 6 part 3(b). Royal Entomological Society of London.
Tinbergen, N (1958) Curious Naturalists. Country Life: London.
Tinbergen, N (1972) The animal and its world. Explorations of an Ethologist. 1932-72. Vol 1: Field Studies. Allen & Unwin: London [contains translations of the original research on Philanthus].
Yeo PF & Corbet S (1983) Solitary Wasps. Naturalists Handbooks No 3. Cambridge University Press.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 7

PATS AND ROBBERS

By Brett Westwood

Britain’s largest fly is alive and well and living on horse-pats in a Worcestershire meadow. That’s what I’d like to be able to say anyway! The hornet robber fly Asilus crabroniformis is an impressive beast, especially when it zooms up from the grass nearby with an angry buzz. Only then do you realise why it gets its name. At close quarters it’s no less dramatic, big and hairy with a black and yellow banded abdomen, and very observant eyes. I saw my first and only hornet robber in a sandy pasture at Hurcott near Kidderminster in August 1995. It was swelteringly hot, and I was taken aback when this huge wasp-like fly rose from the short pony-cropped turf. It flew a short distance and alighted on a pile of horse dung, real text-book behaviour. Following it around the field, dung-hopping, I wondered if it was born and bred on site. The habitat was just right. Hornet robbers like short grass on sand or limestone, grazed by cattle or horses. with lots of pats into which they can lay their eggs. Their larvae are predatory and eat beetle larvae also found in dung. What they don’t like are Ivermectins, chemicals which kill off worms and parasites in cattle and other farm animals, because they also destroy all insect life, including robber fly larvae, in dung. As a result, the hornet robbers are becoming increasingly rare as the map shows. The destruction of old meadows and heathland has also taken its toll, so much so that Asilus is now a priority in the Biodiversity Species Action Plans, one of 116 plants and animals for which conservation in the UK is assured. English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are both committed to preserving its habitats, and along the way, the habitats of a great many other invertebrates too.

The hornet robber hasn’t been seen since at Hurcott, but we haven’t looked too hard! If you do see a huge (20-25 mms) yellow-banded robber-fly in the county, please pass on your information to Harry Green or the Biological Records Office at the Trust headquarters ….. we’d be very grateful to receive records.

References:

Chinery, M (1986) Insects of Britain & Western Europe. Collins. Reprinted Domino Books 1993. [good pictures]
Chinery, M (1993) 3rd Ed. Insects of Britain & Northern Europe. Collins. [picture and a little more information]
Drake, CM (1991) Provisional Atlas for the larger Brachycera (Diptera) of Britain & Ireland. Biological Records Centre, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
Oldroyd, H (1969) Diptera Brachycera section (a) Tabanoidea and Asiloidea. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects Vol 9, part 4. Royal Entomological Society of London.

Worcestershire Record No. 3 November 1997 p. 8

ESSEX SKIPPER ARRIVES IN WORCESTERSHIRE

Mike Williams

At a time when many of our butterfly species are in decline, it is encouraging to be able to report one species which is currently expanding its range and for the first time ever (if we leave aside a possibly dubious record from Arley at the turn of the century) has been reported from Worcestershire. The butterfly in question is the Essex Skipper Thymelicus lineola which is almost identical in appearance to the familiar Small Skipper Thymelicus sylvestris which occurs throughout the county in areas of tall grassland. The Essex Skipper is found in similar habitats but flies on average a week to ten days later, typically emerging around the middle of July, although there is considerable overlap in the two species’ flight seasons. Historically, the Essex Skipper has been confined to south-east England but over recent years has expanded rapidly to the north and west possibly taking advantage of grasses, typically cock’s foot Dactylis glomerata or creeping soft grass Holcus mollis on which it lays its eggs, along the verges of our growing road network. The butterfly was completely unknown from the Midlands counties until 1992 when the species was reported from an old railway line in the east of Warwickshire. Since then it has spread westwards and by the end of 1996 had been reported from 27 tetrads within the county. At the same time, the Essex Skipper has been advancing on Worcestershire from the south with a first report from Gloucestershire in 1996. By the end of that summer it had been reported from 18 tetrads and had already been seen as far north as Cheltenham.

Its imminent arrival in Worcestershire was, therefore, eagerly anticipated and sure enough the butterfly obliged with a report of two individuals on 20th July this year. Perhaps more surprising, however, was the manner and whereabouts of its discovery with the first record coming via two visiting Butterfly Conservation members from Suffolk, where Essex Skippers are widespread, at Monkwood NR. Unfortunately, the significance of this find was not realised and the record only came to light this September amongst a long list of other sightings submitted to the West Midlands branch organiser. What is so intriguing is that, whether colonisation has occurred from the south or the east, if the Essex Skipper has reached Monkwood then it must surely be present elsewhere in the county but we shall now have to wait until 1998 to find out.

Separating out Essex from Small Skippers as adults is not easy but by no means impossible. The main distinguishing feature of the Essex Skipper is that the tips of its antennae are completely black on both the upper and underneath sides. The Small Skipper also has some black on the upper surfaces but the underside of the antenna tip is a fulvous brown. This feature is actually more noticeable than it sounds, if one can get the butterfly to stay still long enough! The Essex Skipper looks as if it has dipped its antennae into a pot of black paint. Another distinguishing feature to look out for ‘Is the underside tip of the forewing which in the Small Skipper is distinctively olive buff in contrast to the rest of the wing, while with the Essex the whole underside of the wing is uniformly orange.

Prospective Essex girls (and boys) should try looking at these differences in a butterfly field guide over the winter so that by next July they will be able to help in efforts to find out exactly how much of Worcestershire is now part of the expanding Essex empire.

I Got Those Holly Blues

Reprinted with a few modifications from Worcestershire Wildlife News. (Worcestershire Wildlife News is magazine of the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust).

By Digby Wood

The late Jack Green tells us in “The Butterflies of Worcestershire” that a blue butterfly seen before 20th May is usually a Holly Blue. The other candidates are the Common Blue and the Small Blue which appear at the end of May, but both are creatures of open grassland whereas the Holly Blue is essentially a woodland species invariably seen scudding over the contours of small trees and shrubs in woods and gardens. The females are searching for egg-laying sites and the males are searching for females!

Holy Blues are particularly attracted to the shiny surfaces of evergreens, especially Holly, the food plant of the spring brood caterpillars. When settled on holly leaves with their wings closed, their light silvery-blue underside exactly matches the reflection of the sky on the shiny holly leaves. The underside of the wing has a scattering of tiny black dots but none of the orange crescents that edge the underside of the Common Blue’s wing. The upper side of the male’s wings are bright blue, thinly edged with black and with an outer edging of white, whilst the female looks very becoming with a broad black edge, particularly on the tips of the forewings.

The males of many species of butterfly set up individual territories which they vigorously defend against all other males, but the Holly Blue males appear to be “patrollers”, visiting all the likely-looking small trees and shrubs over a sizeable area. One summer a male with a badly damaged wing appeared in my garden; it was easy to spot in flight and to note that it visited us up to half a dozen times each day as it flew round its patrol circuit.

As the name implies, holly is the food plant of the spring brood caterpillar. The eggs are laid singly on the underside of the holly flower buds. They hatch in a couple of weeks and the caterpillars start to eat the contents of the bud through a neat round hole. As they grow they undergo several moults. One odd thing about the caterpillars of all the blue butterfly family is their special relationship with ants. The caterpillars have a variety of scent-emitting devices which attract the ants, which then collect a sweet, honeydew-like substance of secreted by the caterpillars. The ants return the favour by guarding the caterpillar against the many predatory insects which enjoy eating juicy young caterpillars. In my garden this duty is performed by the common black garden ant Lasius niger which swarms all over the holly trees.

Holly Blue males emerged early this year (30th March) and one week later, when the first females were on the wing, I was lucky enough to see the full courtship ritual of the species. The pair met in mid-air, there was a quick twirl (two seconds), down onto a leaf (one second), a second quick, mid-air twirl (two seconds), down on to a different leaf to couple (two seconds), a total of seven seconds in all! However they remained coupled for about 1½ hours before going their separate ways. The eggs are laid on holly to produce a second brood of butterflies in late July, and these in turn lay on ivy flower buds forming in late summer. The caterpillars pupate in the autumn and pass the winter as chrysalids to emerge as the bright blue butterflies of April.

One further curiosity about the Holly Blue is the way the numbers fluctuate from year to year. It appears that 1997 is the start of a period of plenty which may continue for three, four or even five years, but eventually the numbers will suddenly drop to near zero and very few will be seen for several years, only for the cycle of glut and famine to be repeated. The reasons for this behaviour are not really known, but it is believed to be largely caused by a build-up in the population of parasitic ichneumon wasps which sting and lay their eggs in the caterpillars. Of course, in killing the entire local population of Holly Blues the parasites also bring about their own demise, enabling re-colonisation by butterflies from the surrounding countryside to begin again.

If you have a nice summary spot in your garden, big enough to plant a Holly tree, there is a very good chance that it will attract Holly Blues into your garden. Try to grow female trees: hollies have their male and female flowers on separate trees. Eggs laid on male flowers have less chance of producing butterflies as the caterpillars have to find their way from the shrivelling male flowers up to the tender leaves growing on the tips of branches if they are to survive. Eggs laid on female flowers have no such problem as the developing berries provide ample food. Even the garden varieties of holly with variegated leaves will attract the butterflies, but beware of the varietal names: Silver Queen is male, and Golden King is female!

Bibliography

Green, JE (1982) A Practical Guide to the Butterflies of Worcestershire. Worcestershire Nature Conservation Trust.

Emmet, AM and Heath, J (1990) The moths and butterflies of Great Britain & Ireland, Vol 7, part 1, The Butterflies. Harley Books.

Thomas J and Lewington, R (1991) The Butterflies of Britain & Ireland. Dorling Kindersley and The National Trust.