Suffolk Moths Blog » Moth records

Call for records please.

Neil — Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:09:54 +0000

I would like to ask if anyone has any outstanding records for 2019 then could they please get them to me as soon as they are able before the moth season for this year really starts to get going. Please … Continue reading →

National Moth Night Data

Raymond Watson — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:32:25 +0000

National Moth Night Data must be recorded before 2nd December.

I have just uploaded one set of data on the Moth Night recording data sheets. In doing so I realised that there were two different recording sheets for moths. The other being found through Butterfly conservation web site. Having uploaded to the Moth Nights web site and then being shown a map of all sites uploaded so far, my other data set was not on it. There were also very few other sites in Suffolk. I have emailed the moth night info to ask if I have to re-load the first data set to their recording sheet.

I have now received a reply to the email.

If you record it on the general data recording sheet in Butterfly Conservation it does not get transfered as a record set for the National Moth Night.

I therefore have to re-enter that data onto the National Moth Nights recording data sheet.

As Neil points out there is very little data there at the moment for Suffolk.

irecord v Mapmate

keith — Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:59:58 +0000

Does anyone use irecord. Is it better/easier than using mapmate. Or is it not as good?

White-mantled Wainscot

Raymond Watson — Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:51:51 +0000

I note that there has been a post of what appears to be a White-mantled Wainscot caught in Somerset. Posted on the Migrant Moths Facebook site early on the morning of 18th. Does the species occur as an immigrant or … Continue reading →

Was 2016 a poor year at IGC?

Neil — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 11:24:33 +0000

Following on from Raymond’s message, thought I’d have a look at my results for the same period. I have run lights for around 20 years at 2 regular sites that haven’t changed, supplemented with additional trapping in the summer at other spots on the site to cover different habitats.
Here are my species totals:
2012 – 649
2013 – 746
2014 – 710
2015 – 738
2016 – 689 (with just a small number to add once confirmed).

Looking at these figures, 2016 looks just slightly below average here. 2012 was a cold wet summer so no surprise the total is the worst for the period. I don’t think this tells the whole story though, so now here is a list of the total number of moths caught for the same period:
2012 – 27876
2013 – 31477
2014 – 31423
2015 – 35114
2016 – 27471

Again, it can be seen that 2012 was poor, but then 2016 was slightly worse for numbers compared to a more average figure of over 3000 here. I think also the number of trap nights will add more to the picture, as I don’t trap every night but just pick the better ones.
I trapped on 124 nights in 2016 and have just compared this to 2015 when I trapped on 113 nights. I was away on holiday for a week in May and June plus 10 days in July in 2016 so I know I put in more effort once I returned in July and also in the autumn when migration was taking place. But even putting in this extra effort didn’t boost numbers of moths trapped. I do go on holiday every summer for a few weeks so I don’t think me being absent would make a lot of difference to the 2016 totals (especially in May and June that year).
My feeling on 2016 was that it wasn’t too bad for the variety of moths seen but certainly the actual numbers trapped were down, especially so with the common moths like the underwings. The first 6 months were terrible, with very poor numbers of quakers and the only moth in numbers being the migrant Plutella xylostella. I put the blame mainly on the mild winter. At least this year we have been getting cold snaps so it will be interesting to see if things are better than 2016.

Anyone else able to add information on their trap results? Be good to see some figures from other parts of Suffolk.

Neil

2016 a poor year for moths?

Raymond Watson — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:11:31 +0000

It was often said during 2016 that it was a poor year. A number of expected species didn’t turn up or moths were low in number. The year was later than average after a poor spring. However, after gathering all my records together and toting up the list for my garden with the 2016 records I found that the 38 species new to the list had pushed my total over the 1000 mark. So I investigated further by looking at the annual totals for the 5 years since I started trapping in Suffolk.

2012…680 species. 2013…745 species. 2014…726 species. 2015…738 species. 2016…751 species.

To all intents and purposes the trapping in my garden has been much the same over the 5 years, with two Robinson type traps with MV bulbs except for 2012 when I started with just one trap. It has varied a little in location and sometimes other traps have also been used but not (in my opinion) to significantly affect the overall annual totals. My conclusion is that perhaps there was nothing wrong with 2016 and we may have just been expecting too much. Can anyone else add to this conclusion or refute it?

Mapmate users – an alert on the new checklist patch.

Neil — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 15:52:45 +0000

I know some moth recorders in Suffolk use this program so I thought I’d put out some news on the latest patch. This is a complete revision of the moth checklist to the new order. I downloaded and applied it to my Mapmate and things all went wrong. I always then check my site species list as a test to see if all is OK, this time it wasn’t, over 100sp were missing! All records seemed to be there however. Found out on the web that the new patch was missing some of the moth families hence why my list was shortened. Has since been rectified with an update to the patch so if you have downloaded and applied this patch when you got the newsletter alert about it recently it will be worth going onto the Mapmate site and downloading and applying it again to get the full list. I’ve done that and it now works fine. With the new system in place however you won’t be able to use the old numbers anymore, they have been removed! Doesn’t affect me as I tend to use the moth names anyway.

Neil

New species to me as a spin-off from plant collecting

Raymond Watson — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:09:04 +0000

During October whilst on the local salt-marsh at Hollesley as part of my investigation into Eucosma tripoliana I picked a couple of rush stems to return home for identification. The rush was Juncus maritimus. I happened to leave the stems on the desk top of my insect area (I am not the tidiest of people). Yesterday I came across one of the Juncus seeds crawling up the window! A Coleophora maritimella larva. I have to apologise for the poor photography but I found it difficult when it would not keep still. Non-the-less the colouring and patterning complies with the species expected.

Records reminder

Tony Prichard — Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:38:39 +0000

Now I’ve started posting reminders I’ll carry on.

I’ve received records for 2014 from lots of recorders already and thank you to those that have sent them in. This is just a gentle nudge to those yet to send in their records that it would be good to get 2014 wrapped up before the field season starts in earnest.

All that said I’ll accept records at any time of year and for any period – so if you do have some old records gathering dust in the attic – dig them out and send them in – they will be put to good use.

Thanks, Tony

Submitting Moth Night Data

Raymond Watson — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:18:44 +0000

After reading about Neil’s difficulties with the data entry I felt rather guilty at asking Matthew to enter my data for me so thought I ought to try it myself. I did not have the problems experienced by Neil. However I would add a few comments and advice.

I have a relatively fast broadband connection. My browser is Firefox.

Submit the basic information prior to any species records to ensure that is acceptable.

I entered my data in batches, marked up on an excel sheet in a window on my desktop visible along with the web site entry form. This meant I knew exactly which species I had added since once 123 species had been added the web site no longer displayed further entries through my browser, though they had been accepted. Provided you fill in all the blocks for the first species in a batch the data is copied for the next species. If you don’t it is very tedious filling in every box separately. I ran down my species names in a batch and then ran down the numbers found. If you decide to do it all in one batch it might still be wise to start with one small batch to check all is OK. Hope it goes well.

OK so I have to edit my comments. Yes there was a problem. No records accepted above 123! Am now submitting a second page for the same date for the remaining species. Could be a browser issue? Don’t know but they couldn’t find any of my records above the 123 count.