Bulletin of the Royal Entomological Society Volume 38 (2) 2014

ENTOMOLOGY DOWN UNDER

BUTTERFLIES: LIVING, DEAD ANDRECENTLY REVIVED

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS:HOW, WHERE AND WHY?

2014

meetings of the societyfor more information on meetings and contact details see meetings page on www.royensoc.co.uk

Special Interest Group meetings occupy either a whole day or an afternoon (check www.royensoc.co.uk for details).

June 4 RES AGMVenue: The Mansion House, St Albans

Jun 23-29 National Insect Week

Aug 3-8 European Congress of Entomology Venue: University of York

Sep 3 Aphid Special Interest GroupVenue: Harper Adams UniversityConvenor: Simon Leather

Oct 14 Behaviour Special Interest GroupVenue: Rothamsted Research, HarpendenConvenor: Jason Chapman and James Bell

Nov 5 Orthopterists’ Special Interest GroupVenue: Natural History MuseumConvenor: Björn Beckmann

Nov 21 SW Regional MeetingAnd now for something completely different... Exploring the fringes of entomologyVenue: Plymouth UniversityConvenor: Peter Smithers

2015Sept 2-4 Ento’ 15 Annual Science Meeting and International Symposium

Insect Ecosystem ServicesVenue: Trinity College DublinConvenors: Jane Stout

Olaf SchmidtArchie MurchieEugenie ReganStephen JessBrian Nelson

2016Sep 5-8 Ento’16

Venue: Harper Adams University College, ShropshireConvenor: Simon Leather

antennaBulletin of the

Royal Entomological Society

The Royal Entomological SocietyThe Mansion House,

Chiswell Green Lane, Chiswell Green,St. Albans, Hertfordshire AL2 3NSE-mail: antenna@royensoc.co.uk

Editors:Peter Smithers

(University of Plymouth)

andDavid R. George

(Northumbria University)

Editoral Assistant:Jennifer Banfield-Zanin

Consulting Editor:Prof Jim Hardie

Assistant Editors:Duncan Allen (Diary), Adam Hart (Outreach)

Business Manager: Registrar

COPY DATESFor Antenna 38 (3) – 1st July 2014 (PS)

For Antenna 38 (4) – 1st October 2014 (DG)Diary Copy date:

five days before Antenna copy date above.

Any facts or opinions expressed in this bulletin are the soleresponsibility of the contributors. The Royal Entomological Societyand the Editors cannot be held responsible for any injury or losssustained in reliance thereon.

The Royal Entomological SocietyThe Mansion House, Chiswell Green Lane,

Chiswell Green, St. Albans, Hertfordshire AL2 3NS.Tel: 01727 899387 • Fax: 01727 894797

E-mail: info@royensoc.co.uk

The Royal Entomological Society is a scientific societyfounded in 1833 and incorporated by Royal Charter in1885 for the improvement and diffusion of entomologicalscience exclusively.

Officers 2013/2014President: Prof J. A.Thomas OBE (F)

Honorary Treasurer: Prof H. D. Loxdale (F)Honorary Secretary: Dr A. K. Murchie (F)

Honorary Editorial Officer: Prof L. M. Field (F)Vice Presidents: Prof M. F. Claridge, Dr C. Thomas

Members of Council:Prof S. R. Leather (F), Mr D. Allen (M),

Dr R. O. Clements (Hon. F), Dr K. Reinhardt (F),Mrs J. P. North (F), Mr P. Smithers (Hon. F),

Mr C. P. Farrell (Hon. F.)

Chairs of Standing Committees:Prof H. D. Loxdale – Finance CommitteeDr A. K. Murchie – Meetings CommitteeProf L. M. Field – Publications Committee

Dr G. Port – Membership CommitteeDr A. J. A. Stewart – Insect ConservationDr R. O. Clements – Library Committee

Registrar:Mr W.H.F. Blakemore E-mail: bill@royensoc.co.uk

Director of Science:Prof R.J. Hardie E-mail: jim@royensoc.co.uk

Director of Outreach:Dr L.A.N. Tilley E-mail: luke@royensoc.co.uk

Regional Honorary Secretaries:Dr D. George (North), Dr J. Stockan (Scotland),

Mr P. Smithers (West), Dr G. J. Masters (East England),Mr J. S. Badmin (South East),

Dr A. Murchie (Northern Ireland)

Library: Mrs Valerie McAtear, Librarian (lib@royensoc.co.uk)The Library is open to Fellows and Members from 9.00am to4.30pm Monday to Thursday and 9.00am to 3.30pm on Friday.The Library is not open on Saturdays and Sundays or publicholidays, and such other times as may be notified in Antenna.

Subscription Rates 2014The following are the subscription rates due on 1st March 2014:Fellows £54; Members £48; Students £25; Fellows and Membersover 65 £32. The journals of the Society are available to individualFellows and Members at preferential rates via the SubscriptionsDepartment at The Mansion House. Antenna is supplied free ofcharge to Fellows and Members not in subscription arrears.Cancellation of Journal subscriptions must be notified toSubscriptions Department before the 31st October in the yearpreceding cancellation.

Printed by Cravitz Printing Company Limited1 Tower Hill, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4TAemail: cravitzprinting@btconnect.com

COVER PICTURE

Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus, 1758, the common 7-spot ladybird.Photograph: John Tennent

Note from photographer: “My colleague Peter Russell and I saw several aggregations of theseladybirds in the crevices of dead twigs on an Acacia bush growing on a sand dune between theocean and salt pans on the Cape Verde Island of Maio in November 2013. The temperature was40˚C, and this was the only one of a dozen Acacia bushes harbouring the ladybirds.”

CONTENTS

Editorial

Correspondence

Article – Climate change and bugs down under

Article – Butterflies of Semuliki National Park, Uganda

Article – Malcolm Barcant (1913-1936) and the butterflies ofTrinidad and Tobago

Article – François-Jules Pictet and the Neuroptera

Article – A tour of insect collections in the UK: First stop - The Cole Museumof Zoology

Article – Photographing Oxford’s Lepidoptera type collection

Society News

Meeting Reports

Obituary – Michael Locke

Announcements

Book Review

Diary

74

75

77

82

90

95

103

113

119

123

137

140

142

143

Hello and welcome to the second issueof Antenna vol. 38. Whilst on a breakfrom writing this editorial I was pleasedto spot my first Bombus spp. of the year(I should perhaps note that it’s still earlyApril, I live in the centre of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and I’m currently ‘lab-based’). With any luck insects of allshapes and sizes will be on the wing andabundant by the time this issue goes toprint. As I’ll be returning to fieldworklater this year, I’m also hopeful that thesummer of 2014 will go some waytowards compensating for the recentspring smog and winter wash-out thatsubjected so much of the UK tosignificant and prolonged flooding.

In this issue we feature several articlesthat focus or touch upon common

themes, climate included. In an article by William Hentley that focuses onentomology ‘down-under’, a wealth of work to investigate insect responses toclimate change is reported. Our front cover, with an image captured by JohnTennent, demonstrates how 7-spots cope with higher temperatures, aggregatingtogether (presumably in response to pheromone-driven cues) in a dead acaciastump to escape 40°C heat on Cape Verde Island. The importance of museumcollections as a resource to inform on past insect distributions, for example whenstudying recent responses to changing climate, is covered in an article by RichardKelly, and work to evaluate present-day insect populations in understudied yetimportant habitats is the focus of Scott Forbes’s article on the butterflies ofSemuliki National Park. Reviews of the work and contributions of pastentomologists are provided by both John and Anita Hollier (on François-JulesPictet) and Richard Baker (on Malcolm Barcant), linking again with entomologicalcollections and with butterflies reoccurring as the focus in the latter of thesecontributions. Continuing upon lepidopteran lines, and with a shared focus onentomological collections, Katherine Child and Zoë Simmons provide an updateon the recently reopened Oxford University Museum of Natural History and workthat has been underway there to digitally catalogue and improve access to theinstitutions’ butterfly and moth type collections. The role of museums in providingpublic and scientific access to entomological material also features in RichardKelly’s article, this being the first in a planned series of contributions from Richardon insect collections throughout the UK.

This issue also features the usual correspondence, Society News, obituaries, bookreviews and announcements. These include multiple responses to John Firth’s callfor species suggestions (see Issue 37:4) and reports on this year’s Verrall Lectureand Supper, Postgraduate Forum and the 2013 Irish Regional Meeting. The latterof these reports contains author abstracts from the meeting, with Antenna alsobeing selected to provide a similar summary of papers delivered at the forthcomingEuropean Congress of Entomology in York. These will be delivered to our readersas one-page ‘summary articles’ in a Special Issue of Antenna that will also featureadditional ECE-based material to mark and commemorate the event. Peter, Jenand I are all scheduled to attend the ECE and so hope to see many of you there. Ifyou’ve just presented a particularly interesting paper, you can expect at least oneof us to track you down and ‘gently encourage’ a submission! This issue’s SocietyNews also includes a short but important note from Gordon Port on the recentlyapproved use of the suffix Mem.R.E.S for (full) members of the Society.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you that responded so enthusiatically to ourprevious call for suggested improvements to, or content for, future issues ofAntenna. Feedback received was universally useful and all thoughts and suggestionshave been taken into account when formulating our vision for the years ahead.More to come on this in future issues.

Dave George

EDITORIAL

Guidelinesfor

submittingphotographs

To maintain a high quality we suggestthat submissions for Antenna bepresented via e-mail or on CD. Filesmust be in a PC-compatible formatpreferably in MS Word.

Electronic images can beembedded in the Word document butwe will also require separateelectronic images. These imagesshould be at least 300dpi at an imagesize that is either equal to, or greaterthan the expected final publishedsize.

Please do not submit images thathave been printed from a computeron a domestic inkjet or laser printer.Even if the camera is a good one andphoto quality paper is used, thegraininess is very hard to deal with. Ifplain paper is used, the prints arevirtually unusable.

Photos taken on film should ideallybe submitted as slides or as reasonablesized prints for us to scan oralternatively they can be scanned inby authors provided the scanner iscapable of scanning at up to 1200dpi.

If an image is intended for thefront cover then the photographshould be in portrait format (i.e. theshape of the final image) and willneed to be quite a large file size (atleast 5,000kb) or a good quality slideor print.

To give an idea as to what happenswhen the image is not of sufficientsize, take a look at these twophotographs. One is 300dpi and theother is 72dpi.

300dpi

72dpi

74 Antenna 38 (2)

CORRESPONDENCE

There was a considerable response to my suggestion in the last issueof Antenna (37/4) that the photographs (printed again here for thosewho may not have seen them originally) were of a Satyrid, possiblyErebia.

There was a spread of opinion as to its identity, but all were unitedin the view that it was not a Satyrid!!

I’m very grateful to all who took the trouble to contact me, eitherdirectly, or via the Editorial team, and I have been greatly enlightenedby their views and suggestions.

Almost all were of the view that it was an extremely melanic smallNymphalid, although Emilio Balletto suggested Hamearis lucina.Mark Young suggested a ‘small Fritillary’, and Owen Lewis andMartin Ebejer narrowed it down to Melitaea, while Tony Irwinsuggested Mellicta varia or athalia.

Most people however, suggested an aberrant form of Mellictaathalia including; Chris Luckens, Ken Willmott, Tony Pickles, and ArtShapiro. Mike Percival and Willy dePrins went to considerable troubleto point me toward Figures 60 & 67 on Plate 44 in Vol 4 of Verity’sfamous book, which I reproduce here:

I am extremely grateful to Paola Tozzi and her assistant Raphaelain the Zoology library at the University of Florence for allowing meaccess to it.

Figures 60 & 67 on the extreme right are labelled by Verity as‘forma cymothoe (Bert)’ but are of two separate specimens fromdifferent localities.

Roger Payne referred me to some excellent pictures, also labelled‘ab cymothoe’, Marc Heath (marcheathwildlifephotography.zenfolio.com) on www. ukbutterflies.com, which Ireproduce here by kind permission, and I am grateful to Peter Eelesfor putting us in contact.

Mike Percival and John Tennent both suggested that the specimensI photographed near Arezzo were also ab cymothoe and I agree thatthere is some resemblance although I think that the Arezzo examplesare more extreme aberrations, though on the same general theme. Irather agree with Jim Reid that they represent a new and unnamedaberration for which the name ab stercoratae might be appropriate,after the little valley where I found them.

In summary, I have no doubt that all those correspondents whosuggested that ‘my’ butterfly was an aberrant Mellicta athalia wereabsolutely correct, but it disturbs me slightly that so much of theidentification is based on the argument that ‘A’ looks like a pictureof ‘B’ shown by ‘X’ who said it was Mellicta athalia ab..., and thatmuch of the original identification was based on the circumstantialevidence of a few individuals found flying amongst a large populationof normal individuals of a readily identifiable species. I rather agreewith Karl Bailey who suggested that a more definite identificationcould be achieved by breeding from the aberrants and seeing whatturns up, as it were! Unfortunately such an exercise is quite beyondmy competence and inclination!

To be fair Martin Ebejer attempted a little more rigour by pointingout that the chequered fringes, the banded antennae and the creampost-discal band are not features found in Erebia, but I would justpoint out that they are all found in some members of the genus, andI also thought that my photo showed at least some suggestion of theswollen veins at the base of the forewing.

The really rigorous evidence however, was provided by theaforementioned Karl Bailey, who told me that he has consistentlyproduced these aberrants in captive populations of M. athalia bytemperature stressing the pupa, whether high or low, I am notentirely sure. Unfortunately, he has not so far been able to provideme with pictures of the resulting aberrations. I gather that he haspublished extensively on this matter and I tried to read one of hispapers, but found it a bit impenetrable (sorry Karl – this says moreabout me than about you!). Nevertheless I bow to his extensiveexpertise on this matter.

So, the winner is. . . Mellicta athalia celadussa ab cymothoe(stercoratae?)

John FirthCortona, Italy, March 2014

—————————

In response to John Firth,Antenna 37(4) pp. 198-200Sir,

My copy of Antenna dropped on the mat this morning with somefine photographs of European butterflies taken by J. Firth in centralItaly. The final two pictures, which the author thought to be asatyrine, possibly of the genus Erebia, or even a new species, depictan extreme aberration of one of the common Melitaea butterflies(Nymphalidae), probably M. athalia. Nice pictures though!

John Tennent

Sir,

With regard to the images on page 200 of Antenna 37(4), I wouldsuggest to John that these may represent a (slightly aberrant) femaleof Melitaea varia Meyer-Dür, 1851. This species is known from thecentral Appenines in Umbria and may well extend into easternTuscany at elevations above 1200m. The underside markings on theforewing are aberrant discally by elongation, but the hind wing looksfairly typical. I have not seen images of females from Italy, but someof this sex from Alpine France and Switzerland are dark above with

Oops, I got it wrong(or so it seems!)

Antenna 38 (2) 75

very reduced orange patterning. See page 507 of Tshikolovets, 2011,Butterflies of Europe and the Mediterranean Area.

An alternative is Melitaea athalia, especially if the photo was takenat a location significantly lower than 1200m. If it is from higherelevation then further determination would probably need aspecimen, dissecting kit and a microscope rather than a photo.

Regards, Alan Cassidy MRES

Dear Mr Firth,

I was interested to read your paper in the last Antenna (Vol 37(4) ).You ask for ideas on the species illustrated in figures 7 & 8. This isnot an Erebia as you suggest, but a melanic aberration of a fritillary.These aberrations occur in many fritillaries and in the most extreme

cases the species is sometimes not immediately apparent. It is thushelpful to know what species it was flying with.

I think your photos are of ab. cymothoe Bertolini of the HeathFritillary Mellicta athalia Rottemburg. This aberration is illustratedon plate 31 in Aberrations of British Butterflies by A.D.A. Russwurm(1978) and earlier on plate 5 in Varieties of British Butterflies by F.W.Frohawk (1936), under the name ab. navarina Selys-Long, an earliername for this aberration.

Ab. cymothoe certainly occurs in Italy as Verity has photos of twospecimens in his Le Farfalle Diurne D’Italia, vol.4, (1950), tavola 44,figures 60 & 67.

I hope that this is helpful.Yours, Mike Perceval

Prof. Loxdale’s recent and illuminating article on Frederick Merfieldmakes several contentious assertions regarding his standing inprimatology. Each of these points needs some clarification orcorrection.

For example, he asks, “But is it actually true that Jane Goodall wasthe first to observe chimpanzees fashioning tools…?” He goes on tostate, “So I would boldly assert that it was Fred Merfield, rather thanJane Goodall, who was in fact the first to observe and record the useof tools by chimpanzees.” (Presumably, he means chimpanzees innature, as published accounts of tool-using captive chimpanzeesappeared much earlier.)

Goodall (1964) was the first to publish findings on wildchimpanzees making and using tools, in her case, as noted by Loxdale,for acquiring subterranean termites (Macrotermes spp.) by ‘fishing’them out of their mounds. However, previous published accounts ofwild chimpanzees using tools appeared earlier (e.g. Savage & Wyman,1844; Beatty, 1951). None of these previous reports (includingMerfield’s) mentioned raw materials being modified to produce tools.(This distinction between making versus using is important: Manycreatures, including ants and wasps, use found objects as tools, butmany fewer taxa make them, Shumaker et al., 2011.) Thus, Goodall’sposition as the first to report tool manufacture seems secure.

Prof. Loxdale goes on to lament that “Nevertheless, he [Merfield]seems to have been largely overlooked for this discovery.” On thecontrary, Goodall has always cited Merfield’s report, starting with herinitial article in 1964, as well as in her magnum opus, TheChimpanzees of Gombe (1986, Cambridge University Press).Similarly, reviews of animal, and especially primate, technologycontinue to cite Merfield (e.g., McGrew, 1992; Shumaker et al.,2011). Thus, Merfield has not been overlooked.

So, why has Merfield not achieved comparable fame? Perhapsbecause he published only an anecdote, that is, a one-off, minimaldescription. Goodall, on the other hand, published a series ofquantitative, detailed analyses of chimpanzee tool use, based ondecades of careful observation. (This distinction is not trivial:Sarringhaus et al., 2005, showed that while many anecdotes turn outto be prescient, others never recur.) Thus, Goodall has been rightlyrecognised as the authority, scientifically.

Finally, in case anyone wonders about Merfield’s report ofchimpanzees using tools to extract honey from the undergroundhives of bees (presumably Meloponini) being replicated, the answeris yes. First reported by Goodall (1970)!

ReferencesBeatty, H. (1951) A note on the behavior of the chimpanzee. Journal ofMammalogy 32: 118.

Goodall, J. (1964) Tool-using and aimed throwing in a community of free-living chimpanzees. Nature 201: 1264-1266.

Goodall, J. (1970) Tool-using in primates and other vertebrates. Advancesin the Study of Behavior 3, 195-249.

McGrew, W.C. (1992) Chimpanzee Material Culture. Implications forHuman Evolution. Cambridge University Press, 277 pp.

Sarringhaus, L.A., McGrew, W.C. & Marchant, L.F. (2005) Misuse ofanecdotes in primatology: lessons from citation analysis. AmericanJournal of Primatology 65: 283-288.

Savage, T.S. & Wyman, J. (1844) Observations of the external charactersand habits of the Troglodytes Niger, Geoff., and on its organization.Boston Journal of Natural History 4: 362-386.

Shumaker, R.W., Walkup, K.R. & Beck, B.B. (2011) Animal Tool Behavior.The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals. Rev. edit. Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 282 pp.

William C. McGrew

Merfield, Goodall and chimpanzee tools

76 Antenna 38 (2)

Professor McGrew is undoubtedly right in some of the things hesays, but I would like to point out that my article was essentiallyabout the Merfields (Fred, Hilda and children) and their life andtimes in the Cameroons and interest in insects, with manyspecimens sent back to the UK, including to the NHM (thenBritish Museum (Natural History)) in London. I am of course anentomologist not a primatologist/anthropologist, and whether thetools the chimps used in the Fred Merfield observation werefashioned or not (I presume the Professor means stripped ofaccompanying foliage to make a long, flexible probe) I cannot say,but the fact remains that Jane Goodall, born in 1934, was only asmall infant when Merfield made his observations in, I presume,circa 1936 or thereabouts. And there I rest my case. My commentsare not meant to be a put-down of Jane Goodall; I am sure she, aDame and all, is famous enough to withstand any such comments.But I do feel Merfield should get more claim to fame than he has

received so far. That is all I wished to state... briefly. He may beknown in the scientific circles that Prof. McGrew moves in and itmay be true that he (Merfield) is cited by Goodall in her book TheChimpanzees of Gombe, but Merfield has undoubtedly beeneclipsed by her! His pioneering observation still has merit andwhilst he was not studying chimps (or even gorillas) in a long-termscientific way, he did observe something in the wild that hadhitherto been largely unreported to the scientific community atthat time, and was indeed very important. It is also worth notingthat there were very few such intelligent naturalists/zoologistswandering around the forests of West and Central Africa, let alonetrained anthropologists, in the time period we are speaking of (i.e.the early 20th C.)... and even today, as we know, such forests arepotentially very dangerous places, both in terms of dangerouswildlife and more especially dangerous human beings, e.g. guerrillasin the Congo.

Reply from Hugh Loxdale

Climate change andbugs down under

William Hentley

Centre for Ecology and HydrologyMaclean Building

Benson LaneWallingfordOxfordshire

OX10 8BB

We hit the big 400 mark last year, withambient concentrations of atmosphericcarbon dioxide reaching theunprecedented figure of 400 parts permillion – a 40% increase on pre-industrial levels. The latest IPCC reportconfirmed current projections andreduced uncertainty. So what does thismean for insects? My recent trip DownUnder to New Zealand and Australiaopened my eyes to the scope ofexperimental work being undertaken inthis area, ranging from insects thatnibble on the roots to those thatmunch away in the tree top canopies.

I kicked off my visit by speaking ata symposium on Insects and ClimateChange organised by Dr Scott Johnsonand Professor James Cook, both at theUniversity of Western Sydney. Thisone day symposium was held inAuckland as part of EcoTas 2013 (thejoint meeting of the EcologicalSocieties of Australia and NewZealand), and offered fresh insightsinto how global climate change mightaffect insects. After a very successfulconference I headed to the southisland visiting the New ZealandBiotron at the Bio-Protection researchcentre, part of Lincoln University. TheNew Zealand Biotron facility consistsof six controlled environmentchambers. Each chamber has twolevels, a growth chamber on top and arhizotron below (Fig. 1). This allowsresearchers to independently controlthe temperature above- and belowground. Stuart Larsen, who overseesthe facility, and his colleagues havedeveloped a camera probe that allowsyou to see within each of therhizotrons, exposing the secret life ofroots. At the moment there hasn’tbeen any entomological researchundertaken in the New ZealandBiotron, but researchers at Lincoln andSydney, led by Michael Rostas, hope totest whether climate change aboveground decouples interactionsbetween root herbivores and theirnatural enemies. This will hopefullyopen the door for more entomologicalresearch in this amazing facility.

Figure 1. The New Zealand Biotron,controlled environment growth chamberabove and independently controlledrhizotron below.

Antenna 38 (2) 77

78 Antenna 38 (2)

New entomologists

Moving over the ditch to Australia Ivisited the University of Western Sydney(UWS) Hawkesbury Institute for theEnvironment. I found training inentomology alive and well at UWS, withthe current unit coordinated by ScottJohnson being one of the most popular;intake is expected to reach over 100undergraduates next year. In particular,students prepare an invertebratecollection which accounts for a quarterof their overall mark. ‘Students really getinto this aspect of the unit’, Johnsoncommented, ‘and while some of theskills associated with preparing suchcollections might seem old fashioned, itgenuinely helps students understandand learn about different taxa’. Some ofthe collections were fascinating (Fig. 2),and the undergraduates were clearlyenthusiastic. Sharleen Knox remarkedhow ‘… It was an excellent way to learnthe orders of invertebrates (which wasinvaluable at exam time), gave me agreater understanding of how museumcollections are put together and anappreciation of the beauty anddifferences of our local invertebrates’.Monique Laing, another buddingentomologist, said ‘We encounterinsects and invertebrates every day ofour lives, but I never imagined howmuch diversity there would be…It gaveme the opportunity to study a range oforganisms and relate it to howimportant they are to the world’.

EucFACE

From the very small insects in thecollections to the towering Eucalyptus

Figure 2. Invertebrate collections prepared by Sharleen Knox, Monique Laing and Justine Peel.

trees in the newly-built Free AirCarbon dioxide Enrichment facility.FACE is usually created using verticalpipes arranged in a circle. The diameterof this circle can vary from 1m to 30m.Using an array of CO2 sensors andcomplex control equipment, CO2 isinjected into the centre of the ringsthrough the individual pipes until therequired CO2 concentration isreached. Despite seeing photographs ofthese facilities, nothing can prepare youfor the scale of each of the rings. Witheach of the six rings being 25m in

diameter and 28m tall, this installationis very impressive (Fig. 3). Turned on inspring 2012, there have already beensome effects of CO2 enrichment onthe plant life; but what does this meanfor the insect life?

Current research projects include tri-trophic interactions in the forestunderstory, including a PhD projectundertaken by Sarah Facey. ‘I anticipatethat under elevated CO2, someherbivorous insects may become lessabundant as a result of declining foodquality. This could have knock-on

Figure 3. High up in the canopy in one of the EucFACE rings with Scott Johnson.

Antenna 38 (2) 79

Figure 4. An example of some of thechewing herbivory taking place in the treetops in the elevated CO2 FACE rings.

effects for animals, which feed onherbivorous insects, including spidersand other natural enemies. Futureclimates could therefore see alteredherbivore and predator speciescompositions compared with what wehave today’, Facey explained.

Twenty metres higher than Sarah inthe understory, Andrew Gherlenda,another PhD student is investigatinghow elevated CO2 affects leaf chewingbeetles. The 43-metre high cranesvisible in Fig. 3 are not formaintenance; they allow scientists toget up close and personal with insectsliving in the canopy (Fig. 4). Describinghis findings so far, Andrew explained‘[in elevated CO2] we’ve seen anincrease in developmental time and leafconsumption by the eucalypt leafbeetle (Chrysophtharta m-fuscum)while its pupal weight decreased’.Andrew offered an explanation for this,stating ‘changes in insect responseswere mediated by changes in leafchemistry which decreased leaf qualityat elevated CO2’.

Figure 5. Below, the whole tree chambers; Right, me checking forinsect herbivory inside one of the whole tree chambers.

This FACE facility is in the earlystage of its life, there are manyquestions that can be answered usingthis set up. David Ellsworth, chiefscientist responsible for the facility said“It’s time for these long-term CO2experiments to address whethermature natural ecosystems show CO2fertilisation, or other climate factorslike drought and low nutrients ‘wash-out’ the CO2 effect”.

Whole tree chambers

Nestled within the same forest as theFACE facility, you could be mistakenfor thinking alien space ships hadlanded, but these are in fact ‘whole treechambers’ that allows the environmentaround individual trees to bemanipulated (Fig. 5), providing carbondioxide CO2 concentrations andtemperatures anticipated in climates ofthe future. The tree chambers canaccommodate growing trees up to 10-m tall while simultaneously monitoringthe exchange of CO2 and water

80 Antenna 38 (2)

vapour. Kirk Barnett, a recent recruitfrom Missouri, is studying the effects ofelevated temperature and drought onplant chemistry and its effects on aniconic defoliator of eucalypts, theChristmas beetle, as part of his PhDproject. ‘The whole-tree chamberfacility enables multidisciplinarystudies of climate change impacts onforest trees at scales ranging from leaf-level chemistry to integrated treegrowth and function, including plant-insect interactions in a changingclimate,’ said Prof. Mark Tjoelker, chiefscientist.

Rain-exclusion experiments

In the world’s driest continent, it cameas no surprise to see that researcherswere investigating the responses of

Figure 6. The rain shelters of the new DRI-GRASS facility.

insects to altered precipitation patterns,both in arboreal and grassland systems.The new DRI-GRASS facility(Drought and Root-herbivore Impactson GRASSlands) explicitly involvesroot-feeding herbivores. ‘Grasslandsaccount for significant amounts ofcarbon sequestration’, explainedJohnson, ‘yet we don’t know how twinstresses of root damage and droughtmight affect this’.

These are exciting times forentomological research Down Under,but what does this mean for the UK?The soil and ecosystem may be verydifferent from other parts of the world,but many of the processes underlyingecosystem functioning are the same.Plants, for example, have commonresponses to CO2, nitrogen and

phosphorus, regardless of where theyare in the world. Therefore, thequestions being answered by thisresearch Down Under can haveimportant implications forentomological research elsewhere.Much of the work that takes placeDown Under is linked to Europe andthe USA by the extensive list ofcollaborators. Without their expertise,many of the experiments, or evendesign of the facilities, would not havebeen possible. It was great to seeentomology featuring so prominentlyin these research programmes – goodonya!

Antenna 38 (2) 81

Butterflies of SemulikiNational Park, Uganda

Scott ForbesThe Open University

hkxpat@gmail.com

endemism with around 98% ofAfrotropical species and approx-imately 76% of the genera notoccurring outside the region(Carcasson, 1964).

The park is also confined within thenarrow African equatorial belt whichextends from the Atlantic at BasseCasamance in Senegal to westernTanzania and western Kenya. This beltof forest is only interrupted by theDahomey Gap, a broad band ofGuinean forest-savannah mosaic thatextends to the coasts of Togo, Benin andGhana. All the lowland rainforests ofAfrica are restricted within this narrowequatorial belt. These lowland forestsare richer in biomass and plant speciesthan any other vegetation type inAfrica and subsequently provide one ofthe richest habitats for butterflies. They

contain the greatest diversity ofbutterfly species, though notnecessarily abundance. This diversitygradually reduces with altitude.

Salient characteristics ofSemuliki National Park

Semuliki National Park has an area of219 km2 and is part of the CentralAfrican Congo Basin forest system ofthe Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC), being separated from the Ituriforest of the DRC only by the SemlikiRiver. It is separated from the rest ofEast Africa by the Rwenzori Mountainrange and with it being located withinthe Albertine Rift (Fig. 1), the westernarm of the Great Rift Valley, it isincluded within the EasternAfromontane biodiversity hotspot(Myers et al., 2000).

The Afrotropical region andequatorial belt geography

Semuliki National Park, a lowlandrainforest in western Uganda, willbecome the focus of my attention forthe next four years of doctorate studyon its butterfly composition andconservation. It is a little-known andisolated pocket of protected tropicalrainforest within Uganda’s NationalPark network managed by the UgandaWildlife Authority (UWA).Considerably more famous for itsbirdlife, with over 400 species (Chegeet al., 2002), than its insect fauna, Irealised on a trip there in 2011 thathere was the perfect location toundertake Afrotropical butterflyresearch. It is located within thebiogeographic Afrotropical region(Crosskey and White, 1977), a regiondefined to include Africa south of theSahara, including Madagascar andSouthern Arabia. This region hasapproximately 4,000 butterfly species;roughly 20% of the world’s total, andis second only in species number to theNeotropical region, which hasapproximately 8,000 species. Thebutterflies of this biome showremarkable regional species-level

Figure 1. Albertine Rift Valley.Map courtesy of the PAWAR project / Woods Hole Research Center.

82 Antenna 38 (2)

Semuliki National Park is a closedcanopy, moist semi-deciduous forest,with an altitude ranging from 670 m to760 m and is the only lowland forest inUganda. There has been no accuratehistorical meteorological data taken forthe Park, but average temperature isaround 300 C and average rainfallaround 1,500 mm/year. With a CentralAfrican influence on its fauna and florathe park is comprised predominantly ofUganda ironwood, Cynometraalexandrii, with other common treesincluding the Wild Oil Palm, Elaeisguineensis, and a number of different figtree species, including Ficus vogeliana,which provide an excellent foodresource for my targeted butterflycommunities. There are small areas ofbamboo swamp near the Semliki Riverdominated by Mitragyna stipulosa anda small area of grassland coveringapproximately 75 ha enclosed withinthe forest. Areas of the park have poordrainage and in the rainy seasons,between March-May and Sept.-Dec.,these can experience extensiveflooding.

Figure 2. Semliki River.

The park is bordered to the south bythe main Fort Portal to Bundibugyoroad and to the north by the SemlikiRiver (Fig. 2), which runs north forapproximately 140 km from thenorthern end of Lake Edward in theDRC, eventually draining into LakeAlbert in Uganda. The river alsoeffectively divides Semuliki NationalPark from the Ituri forest in the DRC.Long ago an inquisitive colonialadministrator was making his waythrough the forest and came across anas yet unnamed river. An old lady fromthe local Bakonzo tribe happened to bepassing with a wicker basket half full offish strapped around her head, so hestopped her and asked her in Swahiliwhat the river was called. The old lady,not understanding Swahili, assumedthat this was yet another plunderingadversary who was actually wanting toknow what was in her basket, and notwanting to tell him that she had fishreplied in her Lukonzo language‘semuliki, semuliki’ translating as‘nothing, nothing’. So the ignominiousname was duly noted and wrongly

transcribed by the administrator as‘Semliki’ and has been retained. Thisword in both guises is also used for TheSemliki Wildlife Reserve which bordersLake Albert and also for the SemulikiNational Park (the correct spelling).

Afrotropical research andhistorical studies on

Lepidoptera at Semuliki

Research on African Lepidoptera andtheir conservation is urgently neededwith the present pressures for multipleland use on protected land and thepossible effects of climate change.Although it is situated within one ofthe most biodiversity rich regions ofAfrica in The Albertine Rift, this regionalso has a very high human populationdensity. Logistically, working withLepidoptera in Africa also produces itsown personal challenges. The scarcityof resources for field-based research, asmall local research community,together with climate difficulties makesany research proposition a stimulatingchallenge.

Antenna 38 (2) 83

Research in Semuliki has beenrestricted in the last few decades due toinstability within the region, a lack ofgeneral security and an incredibly badaccess road from the nearest town, FortPortal, 60 km away. The last large scalebiological survey was a Uganda ForestDepartment, now National ForestAuthority, census of its fauna and florain 1996 (Howard and Davenport,1996). Since 1996 small scale researchhad amounted to a trickle of studies,mostly by ornithologists. An excellentnew road, recently built by the Chinese,now allows access to the ParkHeadquarters from Fort Portal in lessthan 45 minutes, with the roadcontinuing on to the border of the DRC.

Unlike other East African countries,such as Kenya (Larsen, 1991) orTanzania (Kielland, 1990), there is nocountry guide to Uganda’s butterflies. AsSemuliki has its faunistic influence fromCentral Africa the excellent but now rare‘Papillons du Zaire’ by Lucien Berger hasproved my most useful aid for fieldidentification and is still also a highlyaccurate source of information. The storybehind this publication, commissionedby the then President of Zaire, MobutuSese Seko, is a fascinating historicalanecdote. Apparently, the majority of thecopies of this book that were publishedended up being stored at the Mobutupalace deep in the jungle at Gbadolite asgifts for visiting dignitaries. A few copieswere distributed to Mr Berger for hispersonal use and to provide for friends.On Mobutu being expelled from thecountry in 1997 his palatial residencewas ransacked and the remaining booksthat he had stored were destroyed. Onlya few copies remain and the price of acopy reflects the scarcity and quality ofthe book.

The Lepidoptera data from the 1996census showed Semuliki to be the mostbutterfly rich park in Uganda,containing 309 species from a countrywith a total of approximately 1,300species (Davenport, 2001). My firstperiod of research was primarilyinterested in any changes in thebutterfly biodiversity of the park since1996 and the patterns of communitybiology making up that biodiversity. Ifocused on the frugivorous species ofthe family Nymphalidae (thebrushfoots), primarily because they areeasily caught in traps which have beenbaited with fermented banana. Thisallowed quantification of speciesrichness and evenness and over thelonger term would allow monitoring of

trends in species diversity andcommunity structure with a focus onunderstanding resource availability andseasonality. Subsequently, theintroduction of a long-termcollaborative monitoring programmewith UWA, investigating the spatial andtemporal variation of communities,would allow a greater understanding ofthe park’s ecosystem and thereforeenable an influence on futuremanagement actions, especially withrespect to the butterfly communitiespresent in Semuliki.

Semuliki habitat

There are no roads into the park andso the entrances to the Park’s trailshave to be accessed by foot. There aretwo main trails in the park (RedMonkey trail, named after one of thecommon primates found in the park,and the Kirumya trail named after anearby river). About 10 km apart, bothtrails eventually lead to the SemlikiRiver around 14 km west of the parkboundary road. There is a markeddifference in the forest structurearound these trails with Red Monkeycontaining classic dense closed canopyironwood forest with an openunderstorey. The forest around theKirumya trail has quite extensivesections that had been allocated to thesurrounding local communities forcultivation during Idi Amin’s era. Withfurther encroachment of the Parkcontinuing during Amin’s period andbeyond, all settlers were evicted fromthe Park in the early 1990’s before itwas granted National Park status in1993. In this section of the park youcan find abandoned fruit orchards andcoffee or cocoa plantations and thesecondary forest understorey can befairly impenetrable, except with theuse of a machete. Community resourceuse of the park is now allocated to aperiod of one day per week, when thewomen of the surroundingcommunities can enter the forest forthe collection of deadwood. TheBatwa, the original inhabitants of theforest, are allowed unrestricted accessto the forest, although they are notallowed to live there. Fishermen areallocated permits to catch fish in theSemliki River.

The two accessible trails are idealtransects, allowing for samplereplication in the park but at differentlocations, thus taking into account thepark’s spatial habitat heterogeneity. Ihave employed the traditional method

of trap type used in the tropics, thisbeing the hanging of cylindrical vanSomeren fruit-baited traps (Fig. 3) atvarious height elevations (forest floorto canopy), using fermented bananas asbait. These traps attracted thefrugivorous butterflies from the familyNymphalidae, especially the largeAfrotropical genera Bebearia,Euphaedra and Bicyclus. There werealso rarer catches of Cymothoe,Charaxes and Euriphene species.

Capturing, photographing andidentifying specimens

The canopy traps were positioned withthe assistance of one of the Batwa fromthe local communities. I hired the localBatwa King, named Joffra (Fig. 4), whoseclimbing skills were impressive. Heclimbed seven trees in one daypositioning the canopy traps at a distanceof between 20-25m above the ground.The heights of the canopy traps wereaccurately measured using a rangefinder.In the forest I am also assisted by twoarmed rangers from UWA whoaccompany me at all times, providingwelcome security in the unlikely eventof buffalo or elephant meetings. Theseare not unusual, and during the initialphase of my first period of research I wascharged by a buffalo in a small grasslandarea. Elephant tracks are regularly seenon the trails while chimpanzees are

Figure 3. van Someren Trap example.

84 Antenna 38 (2)

Figure 4. Joffra, Batwa King with Justice.

Figure 5. Handling Charaxes fulvescens.

Figure 6. Charaxes pollux feeding afterhandling

Figure 7. Bicyclus feeding on banana baitafter handling

It is not uncommon during the earlydry season period when speciesabundance is greatest to have over 100butterflies caught in the traps at onetime. All butterflies in the traps whichare not readily identified in the field arephotographed. For photographing, thebutterfly is held gently by the thorax(Fig. 5) which immobilises it and allowstime to take the necessary images ofboth its dorsal and ventral surface. Allthe Nymphalidae caught in the trapsare robust enough to tolerate thishandling and appear unaffected by theexperience. After handling andphotographing a Charaxes for example(Fig. 6), I can place it on my arm orhand and it will immediately startprobing its proboscis for myperspiration. The smaller Bicyclusspecimens on release onto banana baitwill begin feeding immediately onceplaced on the bait (Fig. 7). This systemcannot be used for the butterflies fromthe family Pieridae or Lycaenidaefound at Semuliki as I have found eventhe lightest of handling can causedistress. The scales can be easilydamaged while handling and so anyspecies from these families caught in ahand net are placed in a small pot andphotographed. Pierids and Lycaenids,although found in the forest, are rarelycaught in traps. Pierids are, however,commonly seen at mud puddles onforest tracks.

Initial data analysis suggests thatthere is a peaking of abundance anddiversity at the end of the wet seasonand beginning of the dry season. At theend of the dry season there is a largedecrease in both species diversity andabundance with some very commonspecies found at the beginning of thedry season, for example Bebearia

laetitiodes, disappearing almostcompletely. This change in temporalabundance and diversity in Africanequatorial tropical forests is commonand can also be found in the AtlanticForests of Brazil (J. Carreira, perscomm). Trapping data has yielded anestimated 344 species which is close tothe original 1996 census of 309 species.However, the more varied samplingmethods and extended period oftrapping used during my research haveidentified more than 80 new speciesrecords additional to the 1996 census.

Some of the more commonlytrapped species

The majority of trap captures are fromthe Nymphalidae subfamilies,Limenitidinae and Satyrinae.Nymphalidae butterflies are identifiedas having only four functional legsinstead of the usual six, with a reducedpair of forelegs. The higher systematicsof the Nymphalidae family is still amatter of some conjecture betweenvarious authors, and the subfamilyLimenitidinae has been described as an‘unnatural assemblage’ by Harvey(1991). A more recent attempt toreclassify the Nymphalidae family byFreitas (1999) has considered sixdistinct groups based on characteristicsof both adult and larval morphology.However, this is again being supersededby ongoing molecular work on theNymphalidae family by Wahlberg(2003). Details of current work andinformation can be found on thewebsite of his ‘NymphalidaeSystematics Group’.

The colourful African genusEuphaedra Hubner 1819 is the secondmost species-rich in Africa after thegenus Acraea, currently with more than200 recognised species and numeroussubspecies (Hecq, 1999). It is thelargest entirely endemic genus found inAfrica although interestingly the larvalfood plants, Sapindaceae andAnacardiaceae, are not exclusivelyAfrotropical (Ackery, 1988).Euphaedra, along with the genusBebearia, are characteristically commonon forest floors of good condition.

The genus is characterised by aforewing dorsal subapical band and acharacteristic ventral basal wing patternshape and colour (Figs. 8 and 9), withthe majority of species having a white,cream or orange subapical band and adiffuse basal pattern of various shadesand colours. The dorsal pattern istremendously variable, but the ventral

Antenna 38 (2) 85

Figure 8 (left). Euphaedra alacris; Figure 9 (right). Euphaedra hollandi.

Figure 10. Aletis helcita.

86 Antenna 38 (2)

pattern of the hind wing is generallyspecies specific, with the commonfeatures being a selection of differingblack spots and stripes, sometimes witha splash of pink.

The genus was revised by Hecq(1976) and divided into eight well-defined sub-genera based onmorphological and anatomicalcharacteristics. Hecq considers thatthere are no intermediate species. Theyare exclusively frugivorous, beingparticularly attracted to rotting forestfloor fruits (in Semuliki this is providedby the numerous figs that drop to theforest floor) and are therefore easilydrawn to the forest traps. There can beparticular difficulty in distinguishingbetween species of the red eleus groupwhich all mimic the unpalatable dayflying moth Aletis helcita (Fig. 10).Hecq (1997) considers that there are12 species in the eleus group which aredistinguished by very slight differencesin the white subapical band on theforewing. There are possibly threespecies of the red eleus group presentin Semuliki; Euphaedra eleus,Euphaedra alacris and Euphaedrarattrayi. Compared to the 1996 datamy current research has added eight orpossibly nine new recorded species tothis location, with a new total of 14species of Euphaedra.

Another common genus found in thetraps from the subfamily Limenitidinaeis Bebearia Hemming (1960), anAfrotropical genus which comprises 95species. Again the taxonomy of thisgroup is complex and was last updatedand summarised by Hecq (2000). Thisgenus is taxonomically close to thegenera Euphaedra and Euriphene andthe traditional method of separatingEuphaedra and Bebearia is by thecolour of the labial palps; grey inBebearia and orange in Euphaedra.Other major defining characteristicsseparating the two genera are thatBebearia show strong sexual

dimorphism and the subapicalforewing band shape is generallythinner (Fig. 11). While in Euphaedra,sexual dimorphism is not as markedand is only evident through secondarycharactersitics such as wing margins.

One of the commoner species ofBebearia found in the traps, togetherwith Bebearia laetitiodes and Bebeariabrunhilda, is Bebearia cocalia. It hasbeen described as part of a complex –the mardania complex whichcomprises five species (Holmes, 2006),with each species being separable onone aspect of the angle of the apicalband on the forewing, wing venation orfemale genitalia. Females of manyBebearia and Euriphene species mimicCatuna crithea (Fig. 12), also a speciesfrom the Nymphalidae subfamilyLimenitidinae. Catuna crithea does notactually appear to be distasteful topredators, but the mottled brown andwhite wing pattern may provide theadvantage of camouflage in theshadowy mottled light of closed canopyforest floors (Larsen, 2005). Fourfurther Bebearia species have beenrecorded since the 1996 census.

Another genus that contributesgreatly to the trapping figures isBicyclus Kirby (1871), the bushbrowns, a large endemic African genus,from the subfamily Satyrinae (Fig.13).This genus, which is again currentlyunder revision, was monographed 40years ago by Condamin (1973).Unfortunately all the images in thebook are in black and white, but thedistribution of each species is describedand it is currently the only detailedresource of its kind. There are 21species that have been described fromSemuliki, however the taxonomy forthis genus is still far from complete andone species found in Semuliki, Bicyclusmesogena, is two or possibly even threespecies (O. Brattstrom, pers comm).Females of certain species of Bicycluscan be impossible to distinguish and are

really only roughly identified by theirsize and the presence of males in thesame vicinity. Some Bicyclus species,however, can be identified by theirmodified wing scales, called hairpencils, or androconial spots whichexcrete pheromones to attract femalesor repel other males. This genus ischaracterised by undergoing markedseasonal polyphenism of the size of theeyespot markings on the wings. Thedorsal wing eyespots appear to beinvolved in mate signalling, while theventral characters may play a role inpredator avoidance (Oliver, 2009).Onespecies, Bicyclus anyana (not found atSemuliki), is extensively studied as amodel for the study of wing patterndevelopment and genetics (Beldadeand Brakefield, 2002).

The Afrotropical genus CymothoeHubner (1819), the gliders, from thesubfamily Limenitidinae also contributesa number of different species, but withvery low numbers. Usually Cymothoespecies are caught in traps as singles andvery rarely will there be more than oneindividual for each Cymothoe species ina trap. We have image data for 12 speciesso far, either through trapping or through

Figure 11 (left). Bebearia barce; Figure 12 (right). Catuna crithea.

Figure 13. Bicyclus alboplagus.

Antenna 38 (2) 87

conventional collecting with a net. Thisgenera exhibits strong sexualdimorphism (Figs. 14 and 15) and allCymothoe, with the exception ofCymothoe caenis, are restricted toprimary forests. The females ofCymothoe caenis which are found atSemuliki are infraspecifically variableand up to 20 forms have beendescribed (Ackery and Vane-Wright,1995; Berger, 1981). West of the NigerDelta in Nigeria, Cymothoe caenisfemales are monomorphic and this hasled to the proposal of a recent changein its taxonomy by Van Velzen et al.(2009) to describe this species ofCymothoe caenis as being a distinctspecies, Cymothoe druryi.

Finally, the Nymphalidae subfamilyCharaxinae is predominantlyrepresented by the genus CharaxesOchsenheimer (1816), whichcomprises over 183 species in Africaand approximately 250 subspecies(Henning, 1989). These are wellrepresented in the traps, but usually assingle specimens. Charaxes fulvescensis the most common species trapped.Few Charaxes species are found inopen or savannah country, with themajority of species being found in ornear large tracts of forest. Thispreference for unbroken strands ofevergreen forest allows some speciesto be considered as excellentbioindicators of forest health. AdultCharaxes feed on decomposinganimal or plant matter and alsoanimal scats. They are extremelyrobust butterflies and very fast flyers.They are frequently caught in bothunderstorey and canopy traps. Thecensus of 1996 listed 27 species andthe current research has added afurther five species to this number:catachrous, viola, hadrianus, epijasiusand anticlea. Semuliki National Parkcan therefore claim to contain over15% of all Charaxes species found inAfrica.

The future

The lowland forests of Africa havesuffered considerably through habitatdestruction, degradation and human landuse pressures. This will undoubtedlyhave an effect on butterfly speciesdiversity found within these forests.Semuliki National Park is effectivelymanaged and management is proactivein terms of conservation measures. Thefuture for this relatively small tract offorest appears to be positive.

Further research will consider verticalstratification and effect on compositionwithin the park, with trapping alsooccurring deeper into the forest awayfrom the trail network. A long-termmonitoring programme investigatingseasonal trends in spatial and temporalabundance and diversity is acollaborative project that is continuingwith the UWA. Another collaborativeeffort with Makerere University in

Figure 14 (left). Cymothoe cyclades female and Figure 15 (right) Cymothoe cyclades male.

Semuliki Team: L to R. Joffra, Justice, Martha and Scott Forbes

Kampala is permitting the digitisation ofthe 20,000-30,000 butterfly specimenspresently being housed in theUniversity’s museum. Specimens will bephotographed and their data collatedand uploaded for dissemination onto theinternet. My own research work inSemuliki is also aiming to encouragelocal Ugandan undergraduate studentsto participate in small scaleentomological research projects, byproviding field equipment, appropriatefield literature and technical expertise.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express considerablethanks to the Uganda WildlifeAuthority for their backing andongoing logistical support while I ambased at Semuliki. I would also like torecognize the invaluable assistance ofmy two field assistants JusticeOlibokiriho and Martha Ndyabahika.

88 Antenna 38 (2)

Together with Joffra, aka ‘The King’,their commitment and work ethic in theproject are exemplary, even under thetesting conditions in which we work.

Extreme thanks are also due to DrOskar Brattstrom from the University ofCambridge for his invaluable assistancein opening up the intricacies anddelights which is Bicyclus identification.

Also, thanks are due to colleagues atthe National Scottish Museum ofEdinburgh entomology collectionsdepartment, Dr Keith Bland and MrRichard Lyszkowski for our too

infrequent conversations around thecoffee table. I am also indebted to mysupervisor, Dr Mike Gillman at TheOpen University, for his invaluableinsight and advice in tropicalLepidoptera research.

I am grateful for the opportunity tohave visited Mr Steve Collins at theAfrican Butterfly Research Institute inNairobi, whose advice and access to hisspecimens provided some clarity forthe more difficult to identify Bebeariaand Euphaedra species. Thanks are alsodue to Jean-Pierre Lequeux in Kampala

for assistance in any Charaxes or Papilioidentification queries. I am alsoindebted to Mr Robert Ducarme, fromBeni in the DRC, who provided medata on butterflies of the Ituri Forest.

I would also like to extend my sincereappreciation to the Ruffords SmallGrant Foundation and the RoyalEntomological Society for providing thefinancial assistance that is opening up theentomological secrets at Semuliki. Theirfunding is also contributing to thedigitisation work at Makerere University.

References

Ackery, P.R. (1988). Hostplants and classification: a review of nymphalid butterflies. Biological Journal of the LinneanSociety of London 33: 95-203.

Ackery, P.R.,Smith, C.R. and Vane-Wright, R.I. (1995). Carcasson’s African butterflies: A catalogue of the Rhopaloceraof the Afrotropical region. CSIRO, East Melbourne.

Beldade, P. and Brakefield P.M. (2002). The genetics and evo-devo of butterfly wing patterns. Nature Reviews Genetics3: 442-452.

Berger, L. (1981). Les Papillons du Zaire. Weissenbruch, Brussels. Carcasson, R.H. (1964). A preliminary survey of the zoogeography of African butterflies. East African Wildlife Journal2: 122-157.

Chege, F., Onyango, G., Drazu, C. and Mwandha, S. ( 2002). Kibale and Semuliki Conservation and DevelopmentProject, Evaluation report.

Condamin, M. (1973). Monographie du Genre Bicyclus (Lepidoptera Satyridae). Memoires de L’institut FondamentalD’afrique Noire, Ifan-Dakar.

Crosskey, R. W. and White, G.B. (1977). The Afrotropical region – a recommended term in zoogeography. Journal ofNatural History 11: 541-544.

Davenport, T.R.B. ( 2001). The Butterflies of Uganda. An annotated catalogue. Uganda Forest Department. Freitas, A.V.L. (1999). Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera), filogenia com base em caracteres de imaturos, com experimentosde troca de plantas hospedeiras, Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera), filogenia com base em caracteres de imaturos, comexperimentos de troca de plantas hospedeiras. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Sao Paulo, xii+170.

Harvey, D.J. (1991). Higher classification of the Nymphalidae. In: Nijhout, H.F. (Ed.), Appendix B, SmithsonianInstitution Press, DC, 255–273.

Hecq, J. (1976). An attempt at the classification of the genus Euphaedra Hbn. (Lepid. Nymphalidae. African).Lambillionea 76, 38-48, 53-63.

Hecq, J. (1997). Euphaedra. Lambillionea. Union des entomologistes belges. c/o Musee Royal de l’Afrique Centrale,Leuvensesteenweg 13, B. 3080 Tervuren, Belgium.

Hecq. J, (1999). Euphaedra. Butterflies of the world, Part 4, Nymphalidae III. Goecke and Evers, Keltern, Germany.Hecq, J. (2000). Bebearia. Butterflies of the world, Part 9, Nymphalidae IV. Goeke and Everss, Keltern, Germany.Henning, S. F. (1989). The Charaxinae Butterflies of Africa. Aloe Books, P O Box 2017, Johannesburg 2000, SouthAfrica.

Holmes, C. W.N. (2006). A reappraisal of the Bebearia mardania complex (Lepidoptera Nymphalidae). TropicalZoology [S.l.], 14(1): 31-62.

Howard, P. and Davenport, T. (1996). Semliki National Park, Biodiversity Report. Uganda Forest Department, P.O.Box 1752, Kampala, Uganda.

Kielland, J. (1990). Butterflies of Tanzania. Hill House Publishers, 4916 Boroy, Norway.Larsen, T.B. (1991). The Butterflies of Kenya and their Natural History. Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford.Larsen, T.B. (2005). Butterflies of West Africa. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, DenmarkOliver, J.C, Robertson, K.A. and Monteiro, A. (2009). Accommodating natural and sexual selection in butterfly wingpattern evolution. Proc Biol Sci. 276 (1666): 2369-75

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots forconservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Van Velzen, R., Larsen, T.B. and Bakker, F.T. (2009). A new hidden species of the Cymothoe caenis-complex(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from western Africa. Zootaxa 2197: 53–63.

Wahlberg, N., Weingartner, E. and Nylin, S. (2003). Towards a better understanding of the higher systematics ofNymphalidae (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28: 473-484.

Antenna 38 (2) 89

Malcolm Barcant (1913-1986)and the butterflies

of Trinidad and Tobago

Abstract

Malcolm Barcant was born in Trinidadand was a resident amateurlepidopterist there for around 60 years,but left the island in 1974 to spend therest of his life in Florida. His book,Butterflies of Trinidad and Tobago,published in 1970, is still the mainsource of reference. He was an avidcollector, amassing a very largecollection which has been preservedand is now housed and displayed atAngostura Ltd., manufacturers of rumand Angostura bitters, near Port ofSpain. It is regarded as one of the mostimportant collections in the Caribbeanand 2014 marks the celebration of the40th anniversary of the AngosturaBarcant butterfly collection. Barcantalso bred butterflies in captivity, carriedout breeding experiments and wrotescientific papers. He added 13 newspecies to the Trinidad list and wasinvolved in descriptions of others newto science.

Introduction

Many resident and visiting naturalistshave collected butterflies in Trinidadand Tobago and these islands are aparticularly rich and rewarding placefor lepidopterists. Apart from visitors,some of the early naturalists andmembers of the Trinidad and TobagoField Naturalists Club were collectorsand cataloguers in the 1890s and early1900s, but some Trinidadian collectionsat the Natural History Museum inLondon date back to earlier decades.Amongst the more familiar collectorsare Robert Dick (died in 1943),Sir Norman Lamont (1869-1949),Margaret Fountaine (1862-1940),William James Kaye (1875-1967) aswell as Malcolm Barcant (1913-1986).Kaye, having first visited the island in1898, published extensive work onTrinidad’s butterflies until 1940.Matthew Cock has done extensivework during the last 30 years onbutterflies, especially skippers(Hesperiidae) (see Lamas, 2013), and

moths from Trinidad and Tobago.Tikasingh’s (2003) paper refers toother collectors, collections and lists,and provides an extensive bibliography.More recently, Homer (1966)described a butterfly collecting trip toTrinidad and meeting MalcolmBarcant, an account which includessome of the difficulties and problemsfaced while on this trip. De Wormsvisited Trinidad and Tobago in 1968,and with the help of Malcolm Barcant,collected, identified and listed thebutterflies seen and caught in Trinidad(de Worms, 1969). Lamas has achecklist of certain groups (2004) andan annotated bibliography ofNeotropical butterflies (2013). A majorproblem about some early collectionsis that they lack a detailed provenance,‘Trinidad’ being insufficient for seriousscientific work or in a case mentionedby Tikasingh (2003), where the namegiven on the label was St George’s,without any reference to Trinidad.

Butterfly populations depend mainlyon climate and a country’s geographicalposition for their numbers. As a result,“Trinidad in proportion to its size, isperhaps the richest place on earth forbutterflies” (Barcant, 1970). Thereasons for the richness are many –sunshine, high temperatures andhumidity, luxuriant flowering growthand, in the case of Trinidad, nearness toSouth America. Tobago has a sparsepopulation of butterflies comparedwith those found in Trinidad (Barcant,1982; and see note 1).

Brief biography

Malcolm Barcant was born in Trinidadin 1913 and died from a heart attack inFlorida in 1986, to where he hademigrated and become an Americancitizen in the 1970s. He was educatedat St Mary’s College in Port of Spainand in England at Ealing Priory School(now St Benedict’s School), London,and attended the Imperial College ofTropical Agriculture from where hegraduated with a Diploma in

Richard A. BakerSchool of Biology

University of LeedsLeeds LS2 9JT, UK

90 Antenna 38 (2)

Agriculture, although agriculture wasnot to be his career. He became achartered accountant in Trinidadeventually working for his owncompany. His other ‘career’ was as anamateur lepidopterist for which hebecame famous throughout the world.He married Madeleine Germaine‘Jimmie’ Seheult (1911-2013) in 1940(note 2) and they had three children.

Barcant began collecting butterfliesin Trinidad when he was eight years ofage and later visited other Caribbeancountries looking for butterflies, as wellas Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador,Mexico, Panama and Brazil. Trinidad,however, was his home and it was therewhere his main collecting took place.After acquiring a car in 1946 he wasable to travel much further afield in thepursuit of his hobby.

He recalls interestingly in his book(p.179) one collecting trip in May 1927when he was only 14 years of age. Itwas to a local area in the FondesAmandes valley in St Anns, Port ofSpain, which is vividly remembered byhis son Roger (pers. comm. Roger

Figure 1. Malcolm Barcant - from the family album

Barcant) who often went with him oncollecting trips there as a young boy inthe 1950s:

“The rainy season had just come andalthough early in the year butterflieswere abundant. The catch had been agood one. The day was one in whichevery minute was filled withexpectancy, a rarity was likely at everyturn in the road…. I was then young inthe game and had never seen protesilaus[Graphium protesilaus The NorthernWhite Page] in flight before. But todayI knew immediately what they were asthey made a hasty disturbed exit up theroad and out of sight. Instinctively Ifollowed slowly expecting nothing. Tenminutes and two hundred yards laterthe two White Pages were sitting a footapart drinking water from moist sandon the road… An approach withcaution from behind was essential. Itseemed like hours before I got to astriking distance to net the two in onedownward stroke but one was caught,the other escaping to rise twenty feetin a crazy, fast disturbed flight. I put thekilled Papilio, a perfect specimen, on

the wet sand to look for the other. Inseconds he dived to earth and withquivering wings settled quickly on hisdead brother as if in silent sympathy.This second easy capture together witha boxful of other rarities brought to aclose a most memorable day ofcollecting in Trinidad”

When Barcant decided to leaveTrinidad, Angostura Ltd. (note 3)stepped in, bought the collection andfirst exhibited the butterflies in 1975 aspart of the company’s 150th anniversarycelebrations. The formal openingceremony was performed by EricWilliams, the first Prime Minister, andIan Lambie, chairman of the ExhibitionCommittee, said in his opening remarksthat “Our country in proportion to itssize, is perhaps the richest country inthe world for butterflies”. The twoislands are currently estimated to haveover 750 species, a substantial increaseon Barcant’s (1970) figure (note 4).Some Latin names have changed since1970 and Lamas’s (2004) catalogueupdates the taxonomy. Roegner (2003)is right to point out that habitatdestruction, following urbanization,development, and other human threats,as well as climate change, have had aserious effect on total numbers sincethe 1970s. Cock (2005), however,expressing a personal opinion, believesthat few, if any, indigenous species(excluding vagrants and migrants) havebecome extinct in the last 100 years orso.

In 1976, the first year of theRepublic, Malcolm Barcant wasawarded the Chaconia Medal, Goldclass, for “long and meritorious services”to lepidopterology in Trinidad. He haddiscovered 13 new species and twonew to science, the latter being namedafter him, Heliconius hecale barcanti(note 5) and Pachythone barcanti (note6). He also wrote the standard work,Butterflies of Trinidad and Tobago,published by Collins in 1970.

The collection

Malcolm Barcant started collectingbutterflies in his garden at home andthe Gorgeous Yellow and the Jauned’Abricot were amongst his firstcaptures, but when the family movedto a new home, it was found that hisentire collection had been virtuallydestroyed by other insects. Thecollecting began again and this time theRiker mounting method was used (note7) to prevent attack by both insects and

Antenna 38 (2) 91

fungi. He soon realized that differentbutterflies flew at different times ofday, so he collected at different times,sometimes three times a day in schoolholidays. In the later years his emphasisbecame more on collecting new or rarespecies and replacing specimens in thecollection which were old or damaged.Record cards were maintained showingthe name and number of the speciesand each specimen had a label givingdate and place caught.

Angostura Ltd. acquired thecollection in 1974. It would appear thatRoegner (2003) is wrong in stating that“He endeavored to take his famousbutterfly collection with him but wasprohibited from doing so by thegovernment”. According to Angostura,Barcant was reluctant to take thecollection with him, believing it wouldbe more beneficial to the people ofTrinidad and Tobago. In his words, “Thecollection belongs to all the people ofTrinidad for educational purposes. Whoknows, it might motivate someone tosee the beauty in nature, and thatreason is enough to leave it with thepeople” (pers. comm.. RondaBetancourt, Angostura, to author 2December 2013). An arrangement wasmade, through a friend ThomasGatcliffe, one of the Directors ofAngostura Company at the time, topurchase and house the collection. Thecollection at present is in a purposebuilt room, made to accommodate and

Figure 2. The programme of 1975 exhibition.

display it, at Angostura Ltd.,Laventille, two miles east of Portof Spain.

The original exhibition in1975 included “Foreign andcrossbreds exhibits” featuringthe Morpho cross breeds andhybrids bred from 1965-1968and “Special feature items”.The collection numbers over6,000 specimens, from whatwere said to be 623 speciesfrom Trinidad. They aremade up of 14 families,illustrating the diversity ofthe island’s butterflies,and include 72 speciesfrom the Nymphalidae(note 4), 110 speciesfrom the Metal Marks,family Riodinidae, and230 species of Skippers

(note 8), family Hesperidae. The“Special features” exhibits includedexamples of life histories, books,collecting equipment, articles and thepostage stamp issue from 1972. Theexhibition was described by Carr(1975) in a local newspaper as a “rareand valuable collection” and “amongthe finest in the world”.

Barcant (1970) added at least oneother collection to supplement hisown. The collection of Robert Dick,who died in 1943, went to his nephewPercy Rodriguez and when he died in1961, Barcant acquired the collection.It is not known if other collections or

Figure 3. The butterfly display at Angostura Ltd. Courtesy of Ronda Betancourt, AngosturaLtd. for help and permission.

specimens were obtained by exchange,purchase or donation.

Barcant’s other work onbutterflies

It is important to appreciate thatBarcant was not just a collector ofbutterflies. He carried out breedingexperiments (Barcant, 1981), wrotescientific papers (Barcant, 1982),popular works (Barcant, 1975) and thestandard book on the butterflies of thetwo islands. He knew about whatmakes a new species and recognizedthe small differences in structure,colour and form. He added new speciesto the Trinidad list and two new toscience (Barcant, 1982; Tite, 1968). Hecorresponded with specialists at theCarnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, USAand the Natural History Museum atTring in Hertfordshire, part of theBritish Museum (Natural History) as itwas then known, and sent materialthere for identification and description.On describing a new species fromTrinidad, Tite (1968) wrote, “Fullacknowledgement is here made to Mr.Malcolm Barcant… the discoverer ofthis interesting addition to the fauna ofthe island; who not only brought theinsect to notice, but generouslypresented two males (including theholotype) to the British Museum(Natural History)”. In his younger daysBarcant was also an active member ofthe Trinidad and Tobago Field

92 Antenna 38 (2)

Naturalists’ Club, gaining and sharinghis knowledge with the other dedicatedamateur naturalists of Trinidad.

The successful breeding of theEmperor butterfly, Morpho peleidesinsularis, in captivity and subsequentcross breeding experiments aredescribed by Barcant (1981). These areof particular interest and probablymark his greatest scientificachievement. Living males of M.achillaena, from Rio de Janeiro, Brazilwere shipped to Trinidad and crossedwith females of M. peleides fromTrinidad and gave good fertility to theF4 generation indicating that they werethe same species. The appearance ofmelanic forms of M. peleides during thebreeding experiments led him tospeculate on the genetic andenvironmental basis of this melanism,as well as on speciation andgeographical distribution.

Apart from his collection, Barcant’smost lasting legacy is his bookButterflies of Trinidad and Tobagopublished in 1970 and now out ofprint. It was compiled over a ten year

Figure 4. Plate 12 from Barcant’s (1970) book. Help from Imogen Plouviez, Permissions Department, Harper Collins, is acknowledged.

period from the notes he hadmaintained over the years. The book isnot a conventional one in the academicsense and is written mainly forlaypeople and amateurs withoutdetailed taxonomy and with longscientific descriptions being avoided.There is even a chapter on “Answers topopular questions”. The book is

comprehensively illustrated withcoloured plates of good quality, butlacks an index. Barcant bases his booknot on systematics but on habits andhabitats and groups the butterfliesunder such headings as “Butterflies ofthe home garden, the shade dwellers,the tree settlers and forest dwellers”.This gave rise to some criticism.

Figure 5. The postage stamps.

Antenna 38 (2) 93

Quesnel (1973), in his review,questioned that the author “rejects astraightforward taxonomic classification”and was critical of the use of the term‘rarity’ by the author, whom he believedwas referring to the collection ratherthan to the field. However, the book waswritten for the non-specialist andtherefore some of these criticisms areunjustified in this author’s opinion. Cock(2005) and S.N.A.J (1971 – probablyJacobs) wrote positive reviews and, onthe whole, the book was well receivedand has been well used by travellingnaturalists.

On the 18th February 1972, a set ofstamps was issued by the postal serviceshowing six butterflies from Trinidadand Tobago. Malcolm Barcant wasinvolved as a consultant and helped tochoose the species and their floralbackgrounds (note 9). The speciesillustrated on the stamps were chosenfor their beauty, rarity and generalappeal and are all indigenous to

Trinidad. They are arranged with abackground of an appropriate plant,since many butterflies are very specificabout their food plant (Owen, 1971).The stamps are made up of thefollowing values and names - 3cMorpho hybrid (Barcant), 5c PurpleMort Bleu (Eryphanis polyxena, 6cJaune d’ Abricot (Phoebis philea), 10cPurple King Shoemaker (Preponalaertes demodice), 20c Southern WhitePage (Graphium telesilaus), 30c LittleJaune (Eurema proterpia) with theircommon and Latin names presented.

Conclusion and assessment

Malcolm Barcant made an enormouscontribution to the study of butterflies,especially in Trinidad and Tobago, andwas an important collector in theCaribbean. He also maintained andbred butterflies in captivity and carriedout breeding experiments. Hiscollection has been preserved and is ofsignificant scientific and educational

value, particularly for the schools inTrinidad. The collection and exhibitionitself draw attention to the need for theconservation and protection ofbutterflies and together form animportant contribution to the naturalhistory of Trinidad and Tobago.Important collections such as this oneneed to be preserved and displayed andtheir records kept.

Acknowledgements

Without the generous help andenthusiasm of Malcolm’s son RogerBarcant, who was kind enough to lendme several items, this article would nothave been written. Ronda Betancourtfrom Angostura Ltd. also helped toclarify certain points and providedpictures of the present display.Matthew Cock was kind enough toread through a draft and make severaluseful comments and corrections. I amalso pleased to acknowledge the help ofAngostura Ltd.

Notes

1. Barcant (1970) includes the Tobago species in his checklist, but the 123 species comes from the work of a Britishcollector, W. S. Sheldon, in the 1930s and the same figureis included in the ‘Butterflies of Tobago’ Internet sourcegiven below.

2. Born in Port of Spain in 1911, ‘Jimmie’ died on May 212013, aged 101, in Lakeland Florida.

3. Angostura Ltd. manufactures rum and the well knownAngostura bitters and has been in Trinidad for nearly 200years, celebrating its 150th anniversary in 1975.

4. The number of species quoted by different authors variessomewhat. A reviewer of the book (SNAJ) says 617 speciesand the same figure is quoted by Barcant in his book.Numbers have increased since that time. The currentestimate is much greater, thought to be around 750, largelydue to our increased knowledge of the Hesperiidae. Alsothe classification has changed somewhat – the Morphidae,Satyridae, Heliconiidae, Brassolidae, Libytheidae andIthomiidae are all now subsumed in Nymphalidae assubfamilies or tribes – Cock to author 18 December 2013.

5. Now considered a subspecies from Venezuela, named afterBarcant because he was the first to illustrate it, based on avagrant specimen now in the Angostura-Barcant collection- Cock to author 18 December 2013.

6. This is now considered to be a synonym of Pachythoneerebia Bates – Cock to author 18 December 2013.

7. The pin is extracted after setting and the specimens areplaced on cotton wool against glass in shallow drawers.

8. This was the number included in the 623 speciesrecognized from Trinidad. Barcant had far fewer species ofSkipper in his collection - Cock to author 18 December2013.

9. This information is taken from the Trinidad Philatelic SocietyBulletin number 101, September – October 1976: 1-3, andis based on Barcant’s account.

ReferencesBarcant, M. (1970) Butterflies of Trinidad and Tobago. Collins, London: 1-314.

Barcant, M. (1975) Tropical butterflies. Caribbean Tempo 3(1): 10-15.Barcant, M. (1981) Breeding experiments with Morpho peleides insularis(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in Trinidad, W.I. New York EntomologicalSociety 89(2): 80-88.

Barcant, M (1982) Two new subspecies of Heliconiinae (Lepidoptera:Nymphalinae from Tobago, West Indies. Bulletin of the Allyn Museum68: 1-5.

Carr, A. (1975) Angostura’s Butterflies Sunday Guardian September 14,1975: 8.

Cock, M. J. W. (2005) Book reviews , Butterfly Trails by H. R. Roegner.Journal of the Trinidad and Tobago Field Naturalists’ Club 66.

De Worms, C. G. M. (1969) Barbados, Grenada, Trinidad, Tobago (April-May, 1968). Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation 81: 33-39.

Homer, T. J. G. (1967) Trinidad, October-December 1966. Entomologist’sRecord and Journal of Variation 79: 163-171.

Lamas, G. (Ed.). (2004). Checklist: Part 4A. Hesperioidea-Papilionoidea.Gainesville, Florida: Association for Tropical Lepidoptera.

Owen, D. F. (1971) Tropical butterflies. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Quesnel, V. C. (1973) Book review. Malcolm Barcant. Butterflies ofTrinidad and Tobago. Journal of the Trinidad and Tobago Field Naturalists’Club : 91-92

Roegner, H.R. (2003) Butterfly Trails. Harry R. Roegner, Xlibris, USA.S. N. A. J. (1971) Book review. The butterflies of Trinidad and Tobago, byMalcolm Barcant. Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation16/3/71- 15/4/71:120-121.

Tikasingh, E.S. (2003) The history of zoological collections in Trinidadand Tobago. Living World Journal of the Trinidad and Tobago FieldNaturalists’ Club 1-8.

Tite, G. E. (1968) On a new species of the genus Pachythone from Trinidad(Lepidoptera: Riodinidae. The Entomologist 101: 223-226.

Internet sourcesLamas G (2013) Bibliography of butterflies. An annotated bibliographyof the Neotropical butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Papilionoideaand Hesperioidea). Revised electronic edition. 1-672. http://nymphalidae.utu.fi/cpena/ Lamas_2013_Annotated_ Bibliography.pdf

Butterflies of Tobago. Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_butterflies_of_Tobago

There are several photo galleries such as that of Tom Murraywww.pbase.com/tmurray74/trinidad_tobago_butterflies

94 Antenna 38 (2)

François-Jules Pictetand the Neuroptera

John HollierMuseum of Natural History, Geneva

Anita Hollier

CERN, Geneva

François-Jules Pictet (1809-1872) ofGeneva was an early specialist of theNeuroptera. The Neuroptera asconceived by Linnaeus was, by ourstandards, a very heterogeneous entityincluding hemimetabolous andholometabolous insects which are nowarranged in various orders from theEphemeroptera to the Neuroptera(sensu stricto). Pictet was influential toour understanding of these groups andis regarded as the “father” of theEphemeroptera (Peters et al., 1980)and Plecoptera (Aubert, 1946). Hiswork was far ahead of its time andincluded studies of larval as well asadult morphology, ecology and habitatrequirements. Although he was limitedby the optical instruments available atthe time, his work still seemsremarkably modern compared withthat of his contemporaries.

François-Jules Pictet de la Rive (itwas customary in Geneva to add thewife’s maiden name to that of herhusband, to help differentiate thenumerous members of the oligarchicleading families) was born into one ofthe oldest and best connected familiesin Switzerland (Candaux, 1974). Hisfather, Jean-Pierre Pictet Baraban(1777-1857), had studied Philosophyand Law at the Geneva Academy, andScience in Paris with another well-known Genevan, the botanistAugustin-Pyramus de Candolle (1778-1841). Candolle held the chair ofBotany and Zoology at the GenevaAcademy from 1816 until 1834 andlaid the foundations of the code ofbotanical nomenclature used today.Assistant Professor of ExperimentalPhysics at the Geneva Academy, Jean-Pierre Pictet was also active in politicsand a member of the local learned andcultural societies.

Encouraged by his father, the youngJules (as he was known) did well at theGeneva College and also studiedprivately with Jean Humbert (1792-1851), an expert on oriental languages(Soret, 1872). He entered the GenevaAcademy in 1823, first studying thehumanities for three years and taking adegree in Letters, then science for three

more, taking a degree in Science. Hefollowed that by a year of law. Heparticularly shone at science andbecame an intimate friend of Candolle,the friend and colleague of his father.While still a student, Pictet was activein adding to and curating thecollections of the Musée Academique,precursor of the Geneva NaturalHistory Museum. He also accompaniedhis father on the Alpine explorationsthat resulted in a joint publication onthe Mt Blanc massif (Pictet & Pictet,1829).

In 1830, Pictet went to Paris to studyunder Cuvier at the Jardin des Plants(precursor to the Paris Natural HistoryMuseum). Here he was in contact withsome of the greatest naturalists of hisday; as well as Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) the staff included EtienneGeoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1884),André Duméril (1774-1860), Henri deBlainville (1777-1850), Marie-Jean-Pierre Flourens (1794-1867) and PierreAndré Latreille (1762-1833). Pictetwas particularly influenced byLatreille’s assistant (and later successoras Professor of Entomology) VictorAndouin (1797-1841), who had

Figure 1. The young Pictet.

Antenna 38 (2) 95

Figure 2. Ephemera vulgata (from Pictet, 1845).

2 Antenna 38 (2)96 Antenna 38 (2)

co-founded the journal Annales desSciences in 1824 and would be afounding member of the EntomologicalSociety of France in 1832. It wasAndouin who suggested that he workon the Neuroptera. As well as thelectures and practical work at theJardin des Plantes, Pictet readvoraciously, attended salons andtheatres, and wrote accounts of all hehad seen, including the 1830 JulyRevolution, to his family in Geneva.

For the next few years Pictet dividedhis time between Geneva, where hebegan teaching at the Academy as ademonstrator, and Paris where hecontinued his research at the Jardin desPlantes. Although the larvae of a fewspectacular neuropteran species likethe antlions were known, virtuallynothing of the morphology or ecologyof the immature stages of most groupshad been studied, and it was here thatPictet focused his efforts. Sampling inmany rivers, streams, lakes and pondsaround Geneva, Pictet collected thelarvae of caddis flies and other aquaticgroups to describe and rear wherepossible. In general, only late instarlarvae could be reared and Pictet’snomenclature and descriptions make itdifficult to tell which species is meantin some cases (Aubert, 1947).Nevertheless, Pictet was breaking newground.

In his first paper on the subject(Pictet, 1832) he describes the nymphsof five stoneflies then placed in thegenus Nemoura Latreille, one of whichhe described as a new species. He madesome comparisons with mayflynymphs, showing that they weresimilar but distinct. Amazingly, this wasthe first demonstration that stoneflynymphs were aquatic (which hadpreviously been surmised) andhemimetabolous (which had not). Hisnext paper (Pictet, 1833) dealt withstoneflies then placed in the genus PerlaGeoffroy, describing seven nymphs andfour new species. Here he noted thesimilarities between Perla and Nemouraand placed them together as a distinctfamily. He definitively separated themfrom the holometabolous caddis fliesand lacewings. Both of these paperswere read to the Geneva Société dePhysique et de l’histore naturelle,which elected him to full membershipin 1832.

Pictet’s main concern during thisperiod was with the caddis flies, whichwere the subject of his first large scalemonograph (Pictet, 1834). In this work

Figure 3. Nemoura trifasciata (from Pictet, 1832).

Figure 4. Phryganes (from Pictet, 1834)

Antenna 38 (2) 97

Figure 5. Phryganes (from Pictet, 1834).

98 Antenna 38 (2)

he pioneered use of the morphologyand ecology of the caddis larvae to helphim define the genera into which hedivided his species. His rearingexperiments allowed him to associatethe larvae and adults of 52 species, andthe monograph included thedescription of 91 new species. Themonograph was accompanied by 20hand coloured plates, and, ratherstrangely, the habitus illustrations of theadults were printed life-size. Amongstthe treasures of the Museum are someof the original drawings made by Pictetfor this monograph, which arewatercoloured and also painted life-sized. This monograph Pictet submittedfor the Prix Davy, which was dulyawarded to him. The money for theprize had been donated by Lady Davyin recognition of the help she hadreceived from Candolle in arrangingthe funeral and interment of herhusband, the great British scientist andinventor Humphry Davy in Geneva,where he succumbed to his final illnessin 1829. There is a certain poetic justicein the awarding of the prize becauseone of Davy’s last works was a bookabout fly fishing (Davy, 1828), withillustrations of caddis and artificial flies.The Trichoptera type specimens in theMuseum have been listed byBotosaneanu & Schmid (1973).

In 1834 Pictet married Eléonore dela Rive, a member of another of themost important Geneva families, andrelated through her mother to both theSaussure and the Necker families. Thefollowing year, 1835, there was areorganisation of the teaching at theAcademy, and the chair of Botany andZoology that Augustin-Pyramus deCandolle had occupied was divided,with Candolle’s son Alphonse Pyrame

Figure 6. Original paintings made by Pictet.

taking the chair in Botany, and Pictetthat in Zoology. Pictet also taught othercourses including physics. He was soonrecognised as a talented lecturer andinspiring teacher (Soret, 1872).

In 1836 Pictet published an accountof the alderfly genus Sialis, describing

Figure 7. Hydropsyches (from Pictet, 1834).

the morphology of the larva and itsdevelopment, showing that it isholometabolous and adding a secondspecies (Pictet, 1836a). In this paper hedivides the Neuroptera into six naturalgroups that are remarkably similar tothe current system of orders, although

Antenna 38 (2) 99

he erroneously places theNemopteridae with the Mecoptera andleaves the Megaloptera and theRaphidioptera with the Neuroptera. Inthe same year he returned to thestoneflies of the Geneva region,describing 11 more species and giving

precise localities with ecologicalinformation (Pictet, 1836b). On a moreexotic note, he wrote two papers aboutspecimens sent to him from Bahia inBrazil by Jacques Blanchet (1807-1879), one describing a species ofhanging fly (Bittacidae) and two caddis

flies, and the other discussing somelarval cases and larvae of caddis flies(Pictet, 1836c & d). The specimens inthe Museum are discussed by Hollier(2007).

In 1841 Pictet published amonographic revision of the stonefliesin two volumes, the second containing53 plates, many of which were handcoloured. As well as discussing theanatomy and function of both nymphsand adults, he also created severalgenera and laid the basis for the currentsystematics of the order (Aubert,1946), again using the form andecology of the nymphs to divide hisspecies. Once again, the plates have thepeculiarity that the habitus drawings ofthe adults were printed life-size. Themonograph included the description of57 new species, but the identity ofsome of the smaller species remainsunclear (Aubert, 1947). The typespecimens of Pictet’s Plecoptera havebeen catalogued by Zwick (1971).

The first monographic treatment ofthe mayflies was published by Pictet intwo volumes, the text in 1843 (Pictet,1843a) and the 47 plates in 1845.Once again, the anatomy and ecologicaladaptations of nymphs and adults arediscussed, and nymphal morphologyplayed an important role in definingthe genera. Pictet described 31 newspecies and pointed out the largedifferences in some species in theappearance of the subimago and imago,and between the sexes. Although it wasprincipally based on the fauna of theGeneva area, this work neverthelessforms the basis of the currentsystematics of the order. He alsopublished one paper on dragonflies(Pictet, 1843b), but did not work ontheir systematics.

At this point in his career, Pictetabandoned entomology and dedicatedhis research to palaeontology. Therewas some overlap and Pictet studiedthe Baltic amber Neuroptera fauna, butit would appear that his contributionwas made in the early 1840s (seePictet, 1846), even though the workappeared much later (Pictet-Baraban &Hagen, 1856). His reason forabandoning the Neuroptera is unclear.It has been suggested that the death ofAndouin may have played a role(Peters et al. 1980) but the politicalupheaval in Geneva leading up to the1846 Revolution was probably moreimportant. Although politicallyconservative, Pictet not only retainedhis chair after the Radicals of James

Figure 8. Sialis(from Pictet, 1836a).

100 Antenna 38 (2)

Figure 9 (above). Perla bipunctata (from Pictet, 1841); Figure 10 (below). Perlides (from Pictet, 1841).

Fazy took power and rewrote theconstitution, but also acted as Rector ofthe Academy during this troubledperiod. Once order had been restoredthe number of lecturers in thebiological sciences was increased andPictet concentrated on palaeontology,publishing his ground-breakingpaleontological textbook andnumerous monographs (see Soret,1872). Pictet was also active incantonal and national politics, taking aconservative but pragmatic view of thedevelopment of the federalconstitution of Switzerland.

His teaching and example meant thatentomology flourished in Geneva. Themost important contribution was madeby Henri de Saussure (1829-1905)who had been inspired as a student atthe Academy to study VespidHymenoptera and who went on tobecome an authority on theOrthoptera (Hollier & Hollier, 2013).Another of Pictet’s students, AloïsHumbert (1829-1887), became thefirst curator of the natural historycollections of the Museum andcollaborated with Saussure onMyriapoda as well as with Pictet onpalaeontology. Pictet’s son Albert-Edouard (1835-1879) published on theNeuroptera (s.l.) of Spain following anexpedition there with Rudolf Meyer-

Dür (1812-1885), while another son,Alphonse (1838-1902), published onthe Orthoptera, mainly in collaborationwith Saussure.

Pictet’s entomological collection didnot go directly to the Museum, but wasused, and added to, by his son Albert-Edouard. On the death of Albert-Edouard their joint collection wasgiven to the Museum by his sonCamille (1864-1893), himself adistinguished expert of Coelenteratesand contributor to the GenevaMuseum. These specimens were thengiven Museum labels (see Hollier,2007) which make it difficult to tellwhich specimens had been used byPictet for his descriptions and whichwere added to the collection later(Aubert, 1946, Zwick, 1971,Botosaneanu & Schmid, 1973). Manyspecimens were probably lent or givento other entomologists, such as HermanHagen (1817-1893) who continued theBaltic amber study started by Pictet(published as Pictet-Baraban & Hagen,1854), and whose collection is now inMuseum of Comparative Zoology inCambridge, Massachusetts. Zwick(1971) found syntypes of several ofPictet’s stonefly species in the BerlinNatural History Museum, although it isnot clear how they got there. Pictet’sentomological collections remain

Antenna 38 (2) 101

the Natural History Museum as aseparate entity. Largely as a result of hisscientific work and tireless advocacy,the collections were rehoused in apurpose-built Museum as part of thenew complex of buildings designed toaccommodate the University (as theAcademy became known in 1872).Although he died just before it opened,Pictet is still recognised as thegodfather of the Museum.

ReferencesAubert, J. 1946. Les Plécoptères de la Suisse romande. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologische Gesellschaft 20: 8-128. Aubert, J. 1947. Notes sur la collection de Plécoptères du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genève (Coll. Pictet). Revue suisse deZoologie 54: 545-552.

Botosaneanu, L. & Schmid, F. 1973. Les Trichoptères du Muséum d’Histoire naturelle da Genève (Situation en 1970-1971). Revuesuisse de Zoologie 80: 221-256.

Candaux, J.-D. 1974. Histoire de la famille Pictet 1474-1974 (Two volumes). E. & M. Pictet, Genève. Davy, H. 1828. Salmonia: or Days of fly fishing in a series of conversations. With some account of the habits of fishes belonging to the genusSalmo. John Murray, London.

Hollier, A. & Hollier, J. 2013. A re-evaluation of the nineteenth-century naturalist Henri de Saussure. Archives of natural history 40:302-319.

Hollier, J. A. 2007. Continuité entre le Musée Académique et le Muséum actuel – l’exemple des “Névroptères du musée” de F.-J.Pictet. Bulletin Romand d’Entomologie 24: 51-54.

Peters, J., Arvy, L. & Peters, W. L. 1980. Pictet and Eaton: Les premiers specialists des Ephéméroptères pp. 531-537 In: Flannagan, J.F. & Marshall, K. E. (eds) Advances in Ephemeroptera Biology. Plenum Press, New York.

Pictet, F.-J. 1832. Mémoire sur les larves de Némoures. Annales des sciences naturelles 26: 369-391, plates 14-15. Pictet, F.-J. 1833. Mémoire sur les métamorphoses des Perles. Annales des sciences naturelles 28: 44-65, plates 5-6. Pictet, F.-J. 1834. Recherches pour servir à l’histoire et à l’anatomie des Phryganides. Cherbuliez, Genève & Baillière, Paris & London. Pictet, F.-J. 1836a. Mémoire sur le genre Sialis de Latreille, et considérations sur la classification de l’ordre des Névroptères.Annalesdes sciences naturelles 5: 69-81, plate 3.

Pictet, F.-J. 1836b. Description de quelques nouvelles espèces d’insectes du bassin du Léman. Mémoires de la Société de Physique et del’Histoire Naturelle de Genève 7: 173-190.

Pictet, F.-J. 1836c. Description de quelques nouvelles espèces de Névroptères du Musée de Genève. Mémoires de la Société de Physiqueet de l’Histoire Naturelle de Genève 7: 399-404.

Pictet, F.-J. 1836d. Note sur les étuis de Phryganes envoyés du Brésil par m. Blanchet. Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, Sciences etArts 5 : 198-200.

Pictet, F.-J. 1841. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des Insectes Névroptères. Famille des Perlides (Two volumes). Kessmann,Genève & Baillière, Paris.

Pictet, F.-J. 1843a. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des Insectes Névroptères. Famille des Ephémérines. Kessmann & Cherbuliez,Genève & Baillière, Paris.

Pictet, F.-J. 1843b. G. Cordulie Cordulia Leach. C. splendide Cordulia splendens Pictet. Magasin de zoologie, d’anatomie comparé et depaléontologie. Plate 117, pp.1-3.

Pictet, F.-J. 1845. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière des Insectes Névroptères. Famille des Ephémérines. Planches. Kessmann, Genève& Baillière, Paris.

Pictet, F.-J. 1846. Considérations générales sur les débris organiques qui ont été trouvés dans l’Ambre et en particulier sur les insectes.Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles 2: 5-16.

Pictet-Baraban [sic], F. J. & Hagen, H. A.1856. Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteren der Vorwelt. Pp. 41-121, plates 5-8. In:Berendt, G. C. (ed.) Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt. Band 2. Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, Berlin.

Pictet, J.-P. & Pictet, F.-J. 1829. Nouvel itinérere des vallées autour du Mont-Blanc. Cherbuliez, Geneva & Ballimore, Paris.Soret, J.-L. 1872. François-Jules Pictet, notice biographique. Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, Archives des sciences physiques etnaturelles 43: 342-413.

Zwick, P. 1971. Die Plecopteren Pictets und Burmeisters, mit Angaben über weitere Arten (Insecta). Revue suisse de Zoologie 78:1123-1194.

Figure 11. Beatis (from Pictet, 1845).

102 Antenna 38 (2)

A tour of insectcollections in the UK:First stop – The ColeMuseum of Zoology

Richard Kelly

richard.kelly.nh@gmail.com

@Worldwide_Richi

There is a common argument in theheritage sector regarding thefundamental point of a museumcollection. Are they there for thepreservation of objects or are they therefor the exhibition of objects to thepublic? I would argue the latter; ofcourse a large part of a museum’s job isto preserve objects for futuregenerations, but there wouldn’t seemmuch point to this unless people canaccess and learn from them. Thenumber of insect specimens in museumcollections globally is vast withestimates of up to 724 million, notincluding those that have yet to beproperly identified and catalogued(Nishida, 2006). But how much of thisimmense collection is available for thepublic, or for that matter for thescientific community to access?

That is where I come in. As a keenentomologist-in-training making my

way in the world of natural historycuration, the editors of Antenna havekindly offered me a regular slot toexplore the insect collections of the UKand to share my findings with theirreaders. Many museums in the countresof the UK have insect collections, someare small and hidden away whilstothers are vast and held withinmuseums that have the space and thefunds to exhibit them (for example:Natural History Museum, London –estimated 30 million insect specimens).They all have a role to play in publicengagement with insects and so thepurpose of this series of articles is totake a tour of insect collections in theUK, large and small, and to shed lighton their extent and potential.

As well as exploring these collectionsI will be meeting the people behind thescenes, interviewing the curators andother staff involved with museum

Antenna 38 (2) 103

Figure 2 (previous pages): The WiseCollection of tropical butterflies at The ColeMuseum. There are around 60 trays ofspecimens from all over the world. Theexamples shown are only a few of thewonderful specimens in the collection.

Figure 3 (left): The Bastin Collection showsspecimens of economic importance.

insect specimens. The larger museumsmay have specific curators for specificgroups of animals, but smallermuseums may have only a singleindividual who cares for all collectionsand requires a broad range ofknowledge on the natural world. I willbegin this first article with a look athow insect collections can be utilisedby the scientific community forresearch purposes and how they canengage with people to increase publicinterest.

Insect collections for thescientific community

Natural history museums are importantscientific and cultural centres ofknowledge that allow people toobserve the natural world. Theyprovide an arena, within which currentideas can be displayed alongside objectsand specimens to tell stories thatpeople would otherwise not hear. Thecollection of the natural world allows arecord of things that have past so thatwe may make inferences on thepresent, and predict things to come.The research potential of the vastglobal collections we have alreadyamassed is substantial and specimenscan inform on topics such asbiodiversity, species distribution andevolution. Brooke (2000) wrote apertinent article in TREE about whymuseums matter and although thearticle concentrates primarily on avianspecimens the principles discussed areevident throughout natural historyheritage. In short, the article reportshow changes in biodiversity ordistribution over time can beilluminated with museum collections.Living insects provide an excellent toolfor studying the natural world. Theirsmall size, large numbers and incrediblediversity allow for studies that couldnot be carried out on larger organisms.It is also true that, as a collection withina museum, insects can represent a keytool in scientific investigations as wellas beautiful specimens to observe perse. Engagement with insects in amuseum setting is thus beneficial toexperts who may use them as aresource for their research, or to public

106 Antenna 38 (2)

education and interest. A quick internetsearch for biological studies involvingmuseum collections brings up severalbodies of work that are worthy of note.One study in Rome consideredpatterns in insect extinction throughurbanization, using a long-term data setattained from museum collections toinform on conservation managementstrategies (Fattorini, 2011). Anotherstudy used museum collections toinvestigate the diversity of freshwaterinsects in Madagascar (Vuataz et al.,2013). By using museum collections ofinsects this study was able to avoid(often expensive) field sampling. Livespecimens caught in the field are stillimportant, but these two studies ablydemonstrate that insect collections canalso be used to inform on topical issues.

The very nature of museumcollections lend to their usefulness inscientific research. Collections areusually well documented, organisedand specimens are often identified tospecies level. This allows researchersmore time to ponder on the processesthey are analysing, and less time staringdown a microscope trying to figure outwhether that really is an indentation onthe hind tibia or not. Currently thereare several cross-institutional andinternational online projects to attemptto centralise the information held bydifferent museums into an easilyaccessible catalogue. The GlobalBiodiversity Information Facility(GBIF) and European Natural HistoryNetwork (Synthesys) are two suchinitiatives. GBIF currently holds recordsfor over 433 million specimens, almost35 million of which are insects (GBIF,2013). Synthesys is an EU wide

Figure 4 (and next page): The interestingway in which the specimens are displayedgives the viewer a closer look at the insect’sway of life.

Antenna 38 (2) 107

initiative to bring together informationin natural history catalogues into onefully accessible system (Synthesis,2013). The main aim of these projectsis to allow access to information forresearchers and the public that waspreviously ‘hidden’ away in institutespecific databases.

Museum collections, as with anyother data, are not infallible and aswith any source of information thereare inherent issues to be overcomebefore data can be robustly used.Graham et al. (2004) wrote a review ofmuseum based informatics andconsidered how collections can beapplied to biodiversity analysis. Theauthors explained in the review thatthere are problems with inaccuracies inidentifications. This is especially truewith older collections where the namesof the specimens may have changedsince their initial collection. My ownexperience working on insectcollections in museums confirms thatthis is indeed a significant issue.Furthermore, many specimens mayonly have common names in theirdescriptions, this also being restrictiveto their potential ‘value’ (at least as aresearch resource). It is also true,however, that it takes less time tocheck for inaccuracies than to startfrom scratch identifying each

specimen. Graham et al. (2004) alsoreport that bias in the locations ofsampling must be corrected for. Again,from my own experience working withinsect collections, I can fully supportthat specific collectors tend to sourcespecimens from their ‘home range’, orfrom an otherwise defined area ofinterest. Though this is hardlysurprising, especially from theperspective of an amateur collector,this bias may nevertheless impede onthe usefulness of collections forscientific research. It could be argued,however, that as long as the specimensform a representative sample of thearea under study then problems will belimited.

Insect collections and publicengagement

Insects are astounding creatures thatare arguably the most important animalgroup on the planet (although I’m nodoubt preaching to the convertedhere!) As entomologists we know howbeautiful and interesting insects are, butunfortunately not everyone has thesame impression of them. Museumscan often represent the onlyeducational contact members of thepublic have with insects outside ofnature documentaries. For many,museum collections also offer a rare

portrayal of insects in a positive light,in a setting where they are not beingswatted from food, or attempting touse us to obtain a blood-meal. Thisopportunity to educate people on thepositive attributes of insects should befully exploited; one of the reasons forthis series of articles is to look atwhether museums are doing thisalready, or whether they could domore. How many insects are ondisplay? How accessible are they? Arethere related workshops and eventsavailable? These are all importantquestions when considering how muchpeople can take away from a visit to amuseum and the insects held within it.

First stop: The Cole Museum ofZoology, Reading

It seems fitting that the first stop onour tour of entomological collections isin the same location as the FirstEuropean Congress of Entomology,which took place at the University ofReading in 1978. The University has alively and diverse School of BiologicalSciences and a BSc in Zoology whichhas run since the beginning of the 20th

Century. Reading has a focus ontaxonomy and species identification,and is one of the few universities in thecountry to offer specific entomologicaltraining at undergraduate level. The

108 Antenna 38 (2)

Antenna 38 (2) 109

Figure 5 (previous page): Collection ofpinned insects mostly collected in thesurrounding area often by members ofuniversity staff.

is a relatively small but nationallyimportant museum, curated by DrAmanda Callaghan who looks after allof the specimens with the help ofvolunteers. This is a museum I am quitefamiliar with having volunteered heremyself for the past few years.

The Cole Museum is one of threemuseums at the University, the othersbeing the Museum of English RuralLife and the Ure Museum of GreekArchaeology, and can be found on themain Whiteknights campus. Themuseum has an impressive collection ofzoological specimens, most of whichwere collected by Professor FrancisCole between 1906 and 1939. It alsoholds a fascinating collection ofhistorical medical books that werebought by the university fromProfessor Cole’s private collection afterhis death in 1959. In 1939 the journalNature stated that the collection wasunrivalled by contemporaries at thetime and a former keeper of zoology atthe British Museum (Natural History)referred to it as the gem among Britishmuseums of comparative anatomy(Franklin, 1960). The same could besaid today given that the Cole’scollections, unlike many of its kind andage, are still intact and remain one ofthe most important collections of thecomparative anatomy of animals in theUK.

Working at the then UniversityCollege of Reading, Professor Cole wasable to amass a collection withmethods not always available to othercollectors. He would actively involvestudents at the university college byasking that they donate any interestingspecimens found during research fieldtrips. Although active collection mostlyceased after 1939, student involvementin the museum is still strong today.Volunteers are welcome to help withthe daunting task of ‘collectionsmanagement’ and meet once a week towork on the collections. Volunteeringwith the insect collections for the pastfew years, the team I am personallyinvolved with has been organising thespecimens and digitising theircatalogue.

Members of the public are welcometo visit the museum, which is openMonday to Friday 9:30am to 4:30pm,

but the primary purpose of thecollection, as Dr Callaghan points out,is as a teaching resource for theuniversity. The Zoology degree at theuniversity has its roots in the work ofthe first Professor of Zoology atReading, Professor Cole, and has gonefrom strength to strength, now offeringone of the most balanced degrees inZoology available in the UK. The Colecollections are used by moduleconvenors in the practical elements ofteaching, and there is even a third yearexam based on animal specimens fromthe Cole collections.

Curator: Dr Amanda Callaghan

As with Professor Cole before her, DrCallaghan is an academic at theuniversity and works with the ColeMuseum out of a passion for naturalhistory. During our chat Amandaexplains that museum curation was notsomething she had thought aboutduring her early career, but it was herkeen interest in natural history andtaxonomy that led her to the role whencalled upon by her predecessor.Although warned that getting tooinvolved with the university levelmanagement side of the museumwould not be in her best interest, sheexplains that this became a necessarypart of the job if the museum was topersist. Amanda explains about thedifficulties a small museum like theCole faces when it comes to funding.Especially in today’s economic climateit becomes all the more important formuseums to remain ahead of theirgame and to be as up-to-date andaccessible as possible.

When asked what it is that makesthe Cole Museum stand out Amandaexplains that as far as she knows it isthe only zoological collection that wasformed at the beginning of the 20th

century that is still intact. There aremuseums that are older, but thosefrom the same period of time as theCole have closed. The museumtherefore allows a look at the naturalhistory collections of the time, andindeed the collectors of the time, likefew other places. The collections wereoriginally based on comparativeanatomy, this being Professor Cole’sarea of expertise, and are still verymuch in the same condition as whenthey were collected. Dr Callaghan’sinterests lie more with taxonomy andordering the natural world to make itmore understandable and accessible, sothe collections are now presented with

taxonomy in mind.

Insect collections at the ColeMuseum

There are an impressive number ofinsect specimens at the Cole Museumspread over four collections. The WiseCollection of tropical butterflies isnotable by any measure and includesmany beautiful specimens from all overthe world, including Burma, Kenya,Ghana and Sierra Leone (figure 2).Several trays of these are on display inthe main area of the museum and formhalf of the overall insect display. TheBastin Collection was amassed byHarold Bastin before the First WorldWar and mainly consists ofeconomically important insects,particularly those from theLepidoptera, Diptera, Neuroptera,Coleoptera and Plecoptera (figure 3).The trays are housed in the cabinetthey were donated in and are accessibleto students and to the public who wishto take a look. Bastin’s insects are notsimply pinned into trays, but insteadhave been displayed in a moreinformative manner, including larvaeand pupal cases where possible. Certainspecimens are even pinned in such away that their habitats are illustrated(figure 4). Impressively, some of thecaterpillars have been ‘blown’ andmounted dry. The labels on the outsideof the drawers have been applied withmodern day taxonomy, but inside thedrawers the original labels remain,giving an impression of the change intaxonomy since the collection wasoriginally put together.

The main teaching collection is noton display in the museum and is usedonly for delivering university modules.These specimens are usually collectedduring field trips or dissertation projectsand are used during undergraduateand postgraduate entomologicalidentification classes. Many of my ownspecimens from my final year projecton the coleopteran family Scraptiidaehave ended up in this collection. Thenthere is the largest of the collections,consisting of pinned insects collectedover the past 80 years. Coleoptera andHymenoptera feature greatly in thecollection, but there are also specimensfrom Trichoptera, Hemiptera,Lepidoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera andMantodea (figure 5). They have mostlybeen sampled in or around theBerkshire area, often by members ofstaff at the university. Some of the morespectacular specimens have been pickedout to give a flavour of the collection’s

110 Antenna 38 (2)

Antenna 38 (2) 111

When asked about the reaction tothe insect collections from students andthe public Amanda explains that thelatter tended to respond to the spiderspecimens more than anything else;indeed Amanda hadn’t heard anyspecific responses about the insectcollections. Regarding the students,Amanda explains that there is aperception, even among zoologystudents, that insects are boring. Iwould agree that this seems to be thecase with some of my peers, many ofwhom are dismissive of invertebrateson the whole. The main reason for thiscould be a lack of exposure, andAmanda tells me that throughout heryears of teaching she has noticed thatstudents will often arrive with anegative or apathetic view of insects,but after exposure to their diversity andbeauty will leave the university wantingto pursue a career involving at leastsome aspects of entomology. Thisseems to support that it is access to theresource that allows the true benefit ofinsect collections to be realised.

Without access to insect collections,and without exposure to them in aninteresting and educational light, themajority of people will retain theirnegative opinions towards this group.

Within the Cole accessibility of thecollections to the public is impressivefor such a small museum with very fewstaff. Students are also greatlyencouraged to use the collections aspart of their study. There are noworkshops or events per se, but toursare offered by student volunteers andare quite an enjoyable way toexperience the museum. There areseveral insect displays includingspecimens caught by students on thecampus and the tropical butterflies arepositioned in a way that attracts the eyeas walking through the museum. TheBastin Collection is fully accessible,though the main body of tropicalbutterflies and other pinned insects arenot. This is largely explained by the factthat the pinned insects are still beingorganised and there are plans to displaythem once the collection is ready.

The Cole Museum has provided uswith the ideal starting point for ourtour of insect collections in the UK.This small but important museum isinvolved with teaching the nextgeneration of zoologists and fills an

important role in the community,allowing access to its collections toanyone who is interested. But can it domore to engage the public with thecollections and more specifically theinsect collections? In the next article Iwill be exploring the collections of theUK further. Comparisons can, andindeed will, be drawn betweeninstitutes to highlight ways in whichmuseums can improve their access tothe public. It should always beremembered though that eachmuseum is special in its own right andcomparisons should not be made todiscredit the work of any one museumbased on that of another. This series ofarticles is meant only to advise thesector from the perspective of a freshpair of eyes, and to highlight thecollections and their ‘delivery’ indifferent museums. And of course totake a look at lots of interesting insects!

If you are the curator of an insectcollection and would like to berepresented in an article in this seriesplease do get in touch on my Twitteraccount and I will be happy to arrangea visit. If you haven’t discovered theexciting world of Twitter yet (I only didso recently) then my email address isalso provided above.

Figure 6 (previous page): Some of the morespectacular specimens from the pinnedcollection, including a rather amazinglooking mole cricket and some verycolourful grasshoppers.

Further ReadingThe Cole Museum www.reading.ac.uk/colemuseum/The Cole Library:http://www.reading.ac.uk/special-collections/collections/sc-cole.aspx

ReferencesBrooke, M. (2000). Why museums matter. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15(4), pp.136-137.Fattorini, S. (2011). Insect extinction by urbanization: A long term study in Rome. Biological Conservation, 144, pp.370-375.Franklin, K.J. (1960). ‘Francis Joseph Cole, 1872-1959’. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 5, pp.37-47.GBIF. (2013). Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available at: http://www.gbif.org/. [Accessed: 17/02/14].Graham, C., Ferrier, S., Huettman, F., Moritz, C., Peterson, A.T. (2004). New developments in museum-based informaticsand applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(9), pp.497-503.

Nishida, G.M. (2006). Museums and display collections. In: Resh, V. and Carde, R. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Insects, 2nd edition(pp. 680-684). Exeter: Imprint Academic Press.

Synthesys. (2013). Synthesis of systematic resource. Available at: http://www.synthesys.info/network-activities/synthesys2-na3/. [Accessed: 17/02/14].

Vuataz, L., Sartori, M., Gattolliat, J., Monaghan, M.T. (2013). Endemism and diversification in freshwater insects ofMadagascar revealed by coalescent and phylogenetic analysis of museum and field collections. Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution, 66(3), 979-991.

112 Antenna 38 (2)

Photographing Oxford’sLepidoptera type

collectionIf you step into the main court of thenewly reopened Oxford UniversityMuseum of Natural History(OUMNH) at the moment, you willfind yourself overlooked by strikinglarge scale images of sixteenLepidoptera specimens from the HopeEntomological Collections (HEC). Theinsects in the ‘Light Touch’ exhibitionhave been chosen to celebrate theplethora of colour, delicate shapes andintricate patterning found within thisinsect order and they form the core ofthe ‘Re-emergence’ theme for themuseums’ reopening.

In December 2012, the museum wasclosed to the public for 14 months sothat essential repairs to the originalVictorian glass roof could beundertaken, it opened its doors oncemore on February 12th of this year.Prior to this, at the first sign of rain youwould have seen staff hastily

distributing yellow buckets around themuseum’s galleries, ready to catch theinevitable streams of water that woulddrip from the roof. The difficulties ofworking with 150 year old glass meantthat the main gallery space of themuseum had to be closed to the publicand four layers of scaffolding wereerected and boarded. During the periodof closure each of the roof tiles wasremoved, cleaned, replaced andresealed, so that the museum is nowmuch brighter and watertight for thefirst time since its original openingin1860.

The photographs which helpcelebrate the museum’s long awaitedre-opening are not only of some of theHope collection’s most beautifulbutterflies and moths but also some ofits most historically important. Theimages are, appropriately, suspendedhigh up from the balcony and have

Katherine Child & Zoë Simmons

Life Collections,Hope Entomological Collections,

Oxford University Museumof Natural History

Parks Road, OXFORD, OX1 3PW

http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/

Antenna 38 (2) 113

Figure 1. A view of the museum’s south balcony with images from the ‘Light Touch’ exhibition.

been printed onto fabric banners,which tie in well with the gothicarchitecture of their surroundings(Figure 1). The majority were not takenspecifically for the exhibition, but werepart of a large-scale project tophotograph the museum’s Lepidopteratype specimens.

The museum houses somewhere inthe region of 3,500 to 4,000 Lepidopteratypes. Because of their historic andscientific significance (as well as thedelicate nature of these insects), it is notalways practical to put them in the post.By photographing each one we canprovide a valuable alternative to mailingthem, as well as opening up access to thecollections for any researchers aroundthe world who are interested in studyingthese specimens.

The insects in the exhibition hailfrom countries around the globe, withrepresentatives from Europe, Africa,Asia, North, South and CentralAmerica. The collectors and authorsassociated with them include suchnotable names as Alfred Russel Wallace,Geoffrey Douglas Hale Carpenter(Hope Professor from 1933-48), JohnObadiah Westwood (Hope Curatorfrom 1857-1893) and Francis Walker,who was a prolific author and named

countless species held within the Hopecollections. There are a few non-typesin the exhibition as well – specimenssuch as Antigonis felderi (Figure 2)which were included simply becausethey are so visually stunning.

An electronic catalogue of thebutterfly and moth types had alreadybeen completed when the imagingproject, funded by Museums and

Libraries Association DesignationDevelopment Fund, began in June2010. It was my job to undertake theimaging of the specimens and for eachof the insects I took dorsal and ventralphotographs, as well as photographs ofall of the historic labels associated withthem. The project was finallycompleted in February 2013 – 7,517photographs later!

Figure 2. Antigonis felderi Bates 1864, one of the ‘Light Touch’ exhibition’s non-type specimens.

114 Antenna 38 (2)

Shape and colour play an importantrole when identifying Lepidoptera, soit was imperative to capture the colouras accurately as possible. This was aparticular challenge given that thecolour of the subject matter oftenchanged depending on the angle it wasviewed at when under direct light.Many moths and butterflies can lookquite brown or black when viewedfrom directly above, but when tilted ata certain angle will display a fantasticiridescent sheen of blue, purple, green,pink, silver or gold. Similarly some ofthe very small moths in the collectionlook quite unpromising to the nakedeye and it is not until they are placedunder a microscope that tiny flecks ofgold or silver or extremely finepatterning becomes apparent.

Maintaining as near to accuratecolour as physically possible in theimages was an on-going process. Thecamera I used for most of the types andtheir labels was a Nikon D50 SLR. Ittook a while to find the best settings forthe colour temperature, saturation,contrast and so on, and it turned outthat what worked perfectly for onespecimen was not necessarily the casefor the next, even with consistentlighting. Computer monitors neededregular calibration, and the camera’ssettings often needing tweaking as workprogressed – it was frequently a case oftrial and error (particularly in the initialstages).

The majority of the images will havehad some degree of processing afterthey were taken. Photoshop has manyuseful tricks for altering individual orall colours in a photograph, and in thisway it is possible to get them a littlenearer to the colour of the originalsubject, if this has not been achievedfirst time.

As to the question of capturing aspecimen’s iridescence… often tiltingthe light box would give reasonableresults, or adding extra light from theside, or even photographing the insectwithout any extra lighting, just usingthe available light in the room and aslower shutter speed.

When photographing the smallermoths, I was able to take advantage ofthe museum’s photo-micrographysystem, which comprises a Leicacamera mounted on top of amicroscope and software which allowsyou to take multiple imagesthroughout the depth of a specimen.Another program – Helicon Focus –then selects all the in focus parts of

each photograph and combines themto make one complete, in focus image,giving you much greater depth of fieldthan you would be able to achievewithout this multiple image stacking.The system’s pretty straight forward touse, and it’s really good fun, especiallywith smaller insects.

As I worked my way through all ofthe types in the collection, I graduallybecame familiar with the names of theauthors and collectors associated withthe specimens, as well as some of theparticular shapes and colours of thelabels used by different entomologists.Westwood’s diamond shaped labelswith an underlined W at the top andAlfred Russel Wallace’s small circularlabels being among the mostdistinctive. Though the handwriting onsome of the older labels was often

tricky to read, it was always fascinatingtaking them off the pin and seeing whatinformation was given. Often adescription of the habitat or climate inwhich the creature was caught wasgiven in spidery hand writing.Occasionally the labels even containeddrawings or diagrams showing parts ofthe insect.

Some of the more memorable labelsinclude the description of how the typespecimen of the moth Aegeria ferox(Meyrick 1929) was caught in thesummer of 1927:

‘I saw this flying slowly and heavilyamong herbage and caught it as anIchneumon, taking it from net verygingerly in fingers for fear of gettingstung! Later saw another and was againimpressed by the mimicry. Amar, nearGulu.’ (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The finished plate for the type of Aegeria ferox, the labels describing details of howthe specimen was caught.

Antenna 38 (2) 115

Figure 4. The type of Banisia fenestrifera clearly demonstrating the reason for its Latin name, ‘windowed creature’.

Figure 5. The type of Eusemia dentatrix, with possible tooth shapes decorating its wings?

116 Antenna 38 (2)

Figure 6. The aptly named Barsine scripta (scripta meaning written).

Figure 7. Polythlipta splendidalis, ‘Splendid wings’, still looks worthy of its name 149 years after this type specimen was caught.

Antenna 38 (2) 117

The Ichneumon referred to is aparasitic wasp, and this seems to haveinfluenced the naming of the species:ferox is Latin for fierce. Another labelwritten in 1912 for the type Tortrixcallopista (Durrant 1914) whichmeasures less than a centimetre whenits wings are outstretched, simply givesthe number 625 and states:

‘Very tiny but of much importance.Em. Jan 27th.’

Other labels give information suchas: ‘In swamp’ or ‘very dry country’ ormore specifically: ‘Flying around houseamong flowers at Bwaidoga … 10am,sunshine’. Often labels were madefrom recycled documents or envelopes,some of which still have penny redstamps on their backs.

Not coming from an entomologicalbackground, often the full scientific orhistorical significance of the labelspasses me by, but one thing I reallyenjoyed about the Lepidoptera projectwas looking at the species names. Evenwith little or no knowledge of Latin,many of these names are close enoughto the English for their meanings to beclear, or else to be intriguing. It isalways pleasing to find a name whichplainly describes the specimen. Manywere descriptive of colour, such as:Horaga amethystus, (amethyst), Pitheaferruginea, (rusty), Hyblaea flavipicta,(yellow painted), Speiredoniaprunicolora, (plum colour), Zebroniapyrrhalis, (flame coloured stripes), justto name a few examples.

Others describe a particular featuresuch as the aptly named Banisiafenestrifera. Fenestri is Latin forwindows and fera for beast or creatureand this specimen comes completewith a small four paned transparent

window in either wing (Figure 4).Similarly, Eusemia dentatrix (Figure 5)which, with a little imagination, couldbe described as having four pairs ofpulled teeth decorating its deep blackwings. Then there is Edeta icarusalis,(Icarus wings), with its swirling moltenwaxy patterning; Opsirhina parallelina,decorated by two distinct sets ofparallel lines; Hierochthonia featheri, asoft green feathery looking moth;Cyclosia noctipennis, (night wings),which is a deep velvety black dottedwith bright white or pale blue points ofcolour; Lyclene vagilinea, (roaminglines) – as the name sugests; theunfortunately named Macariapustularia, whose patterning is actuallyvery pretty; Botys conglobatalis withsimilarly attractive globules of colour;and Hypoprepia ziczac, and Barsinescripta (Figure 6) with theirwonderfully scribbled-on lookingwings.

Some were more vague in theirdescriptions, such as: Polythliptasplendidalis, (splendid wings), (Figure7); Asteroscopus nodosus,(complicated); Dysphania magnifica,(from which the Spanish word formagnificent is derived); Sacada decora,(beautiful); Poecilosoma gaudens(delights).

Then there were names whichseemed to describe something aboutthe specimen’s behaviour or nature,such as Pseudopompilia mimica (Figure8), a moth which cleverly mimicspompilid wasps; Synemon notha withnotha being Latin for ‘fake’ and thisparticular moth having clubbedantenna that resemble those of abutterfly; Prodenia reclusa and Ephyraprivata are both small brown moths

which I imagine to be shy; similarlyAclonophlebia inconspicua andLasiocampa inobtrusa; then there isCeaena inquieta meaning restless or‘unquiet’ and Bethura minax, minaxbeing Latin for menacing, though it isunclear quite why this small brown softlooking moth should have been namedso.

There were also those names whichI presume relate to the difficulties andsubsequent resolutions which arosewhen describing the species: Erosiaconflictaria; Cosmophila inconclusa;Leptosoma confusum; Acontia indecisa;Boarmia contraria; Homopteraintractabilis; Nadagara indeterminata;Fisera perplexata; Eupithecia inexplicataand reassuringly, Ophisma correctataand Cotuza confirmata.

Many species names relate to aspecific locality, others such as Pintiainsularis and Chaerocampa insularis,(coming from Singapore and Seramrespectively) make reference moregenerally to their island locations,(insularis is Latin for islands).

With others the guess work becomestrickier: Does Egnasia parsimonalisrefer to the way the specimen changedhands perhaps?; Teracolus interruptusmay have to do with the abrupt changein the colour of its wings from cream toa bright vermillion at the tips;Leptosoma absurdum and Sesquialteraridicula are disappointingly both quitemodest in appearance… Otheruncertainties include: Botysinhonestalis; Agrotis interferens; Ephyracontentaria; Pseudomya desperata;Erosia indignaria; Acidalia destituta andScoparia stupidalis.

The majority of the species names Icame across run along descriptivethemes, but with the more unusual orunlikely names such as those above, itis fun to imagine the stories whichmight lie behind them.

The type photography project wasfirst and foremost a practical way ofbringing these important insects tothose researchers or scientists who needthem. The current exhibition furthersthat by bringing some of the moredecorative and interesting insects,which would normally be tucked awaysafely in their drawers, out into thenewly shining light of main court for allto enjoy.

All of the type images will be onlineand made accessible through themuseum’s website in the very nearfuture: http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk/

Figure 8. Pseudopompilia mimica, the type specimen of this cleaver wasp mimicking moth.

118 Antenna 38 (2)

Society News

Student Essay CompetitionOnce again the judges faced the difficult task of selecting three winners from the many excellent submitted essays and forthe first time since the competition began the judges failed to reach an immediate consensus as to who the winners were.There was a healthy debate, but after much re-reading a decision was made and the following essays were selected.

The Judges would like to congratulate all of the entrants on the fascinating range of articles that was submitted this yearand to encourage those who did not gain a prize to try again next year.

Congratulations go to the three winning entries that appear below.

1st PRIZE

The Lessons of theLepidopteran

Galen CobbWooster College

galen.cobb54@gmail.com

One day, Bobby the Blue Jay wasflying over a meadow, when hesaw fluttering below him a largeorange butterfly. Oh boy, hethought, a nice tasty treat beforeI fly home! So he swooped down to take a bite. Just as he wasabout to clamp his beak down, he heard a voice call out. “You don’t want to do that,” warned the butterfly. “My

name is Mrs. Monarch and my bright orange stripes are tellingyou that I’m poisonous. You’ll get awfully sick if you try toeat me. I’m what they call aposematic. Let my colours be awarning to you!”Disappointed, Bobby flew away wary of this colourful foe.

Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus

A monarch’s bright colors and ornate patterning act aswarning signals to its predators to stay away. They are highlydistasteful and toxic to many predators, including birds.1 In astudy in which scientists fed a blue jay a monarch, the birdpromptly threw up and refused to eat any monarchs laterpresented to it.2 Poisonous organisms that exhibit bright

Mem.R.E.S.Following discussion at the Membership Committee and Council it hasbeen agreed that Members of the Royal Entomological Society may usethe suffix 'Mem.R.E.S.' after their name. Student members may use thesuffix when they have completed their degrees and have become fullmembers of the society.

Gordon Port on behalf of the Membership Committee

colouration are called aposematic. Bright colouration helpspredators more easily learn to avoid dangerous prey.3

Bobby searched the meadow more carefully, when he sawan antenna waving from a leaf. Then, he spotted thebutterfly’s eye. Perfect, he thought, this grey-blue colouredbutterfly shouldn’t be poisonous. He flew straight at thebutterfly, aiming his beak at its head. To his surprise, just ashe bit down, the butterfly he crushed flew away.

Above him a bunch of crows cawed and hawed. “ThatEastern Tailed-Blue Butterfly really fooled you! You weren’tgoing for its head. You ate the back of its hind wings.”

Sure enough when Bobby opened his beak, he saw twotorn pieces of wing fall out. He could now see that what hethought were antennae were two thin tails on the end of thewing and the eyes he thought he had seen were dark eye-likespots on the back of the light coloured wing.

Frustrated, he flew off into the forest back towards hisevening perch.

Eastern Tailed-Blue butterfly, Cupido comyntas

The Eastern Tailed-Blue butterfly and related species, mostnotably ones known as the Hairstreaks, have these antenna-like tail projections on their wings. Eye-spots on the rear edgeof their wings are also common. Some species can move thesebackside appendages as if they were real antennae.4 Scientistsbelieve that these features are meant to confuse predators.Predators will attack the wings of the butterfly, mistaking itfor the butterfly’s nutritious head. In some cases, the predatorgets fatigued from the unsuccessful attacks and gives upentirely.5

Antenna 38 (2) 119

The sun was setting and the forest lighting was dim. AsBobby swooped by a tree, he saw a flash of red and blackstriped wings. One last chance, he thought. But just assuddenly as the colourful wings appeared, they disappeared. “I could have sworn that moth was right here.” He looked

around in wonderment. He went to perch on a tree. Just ashe landed, from the trunk the flash of colour emerged again.Quickly, he followed it and just as he was going to catch it,the moth once again vanished! Bobby was very confused. Hesaw his friend, Nigel the Nighthawk. “Nigel, what’s happening? Every time I try to catch one of

these red and black striped moths, it disappears.”“My old friend, you are not alone. These moths continually

confuse me. Their top set of wings blends so perfectly withbark of these trees and when they move that flash of theircolourful underwings is so startling I can hardly think beforethey land and disappear again.”

Underwing moths, genus Catocala

The Catacola have a sharp contrast between their upper andlower wings. The upper wings are intricately patterned withbrowns, grays, and blacks. Behaviourally, they fold their lowerwings under these patterned upper wings, so the upper wingsact as camouflage shields while they are perched. The lower,or under, wings have brilliant patterning of red and blackstripes. If a predator comes too close, the underwing mothswill quickly open their wings exposing this colour and flyaway. Scientists believe that this unexpected flash of colourstartles the predator.7,8While the predator is disoriented, themoth is able to fly to another perch and once again blend

with its surroundings. Predators have shown an ability toadjust over time to the colours and patterns.8

“Between the poisons and trickery, I give up on thesebutterflies and moths,” declared Bobby. So he swooped downand searched in the leaf debris until he found a fatearthworm. “Finally, a meal without complications.” Bobby chomped

down and flew off to his perch to enjoy his wingless snack.

References1. Skelhorn, J. and Rowe, C. 2010. Birds learn to use distastefulnessas a signal of toxicity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: BiologicalSciences. 277: 1729-1734.

2. Bower, L. and Fink, L., 1985. A natural toxic defense system:cardenolides in butterflies versus birds. Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences. 443: 171-188.

3. Cott, H. B. 1940. Adaptive colouration in animals. Methuen,London, U.K.

4. Volz, L.J., Taylor, E.M., Simpson, K.B., Field, B.S., McCloud, E.S.,Davis, J.L. 2013. Flexural stiffness and false head behavior inLycaenidae hind wings. Integrative and Comparative Biology 53: E386.

5. Sourakov, A. 2013. Two heads are better than one: false headallows Calycopis cecrops (Lycaenidae) to escape predation by ajumping spider, Phidippus pulcherrimus (Salticidae). Journal ofNatural History 47: 1047-1054.

7. Sclenoff, D. H. 1985. The startle response of blue jays to Catocala(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) prey models. Animal Behavior. 33: 1057-1067.

8. Ingalls, V. 1993. Startle and habituation responses of blue jays(Cyanocitta cristata) in a laboratory simulation of antipredatordefenses of Catocala moths (lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Behavior.126: 77-96.

2nd Prize

Worlds withinworlds, within achanging world

Sarah LukeDepartment of Zoology,University of CambridgeDowning StreetCambridgeCB2 3EJsarah.h.luke@gmail.com

“What are we doing today?” my Malaysian research assistant,Ling, asks. “Cuci batu” – washing rocks, I reply. “The stream’s really

dirty”, I joke. “We must make sure all the rocks are clean”.We place our Surber sampler – a metal frame and net

combination for catching aquatic invertebrates – over therocks and pebbles on the stream bed, and start to disturb therocks, gently cleaning and scrubbing each stone in turn. Aswe ‘wash’ the rocks, insect larvae clutching their surfaces aredislodged and swept into the net. I continue to joke as we complete the survey. “Would your

family laugh if they knew you were washing rocks?”“Yeah – scientists are ‘gila’!” he replies. “Crazy!”But then we hoist the sampler out of the stream and see a

net teeming with life – a whole world within a world of arainforest stream in Borneo. We tip the net out into a whitetray and excitedly look to see what we’ve caught. These bigones are dragonfly nymphs – can you see their terrifying jaws?

Those ones have gills all down their bodies – they’reEphemeroptera. These are like mosquito larvae, says Ling.Yes, they’re a type of Diptera – ‘true flies’. We pick outanything that’s moving with dropper pipettes and put it intoalcohol to kill and preserve it for later identification.We repeat this across multiple points in a stream to make

sure we have a good sample of the whole insect community,and we repeat it across multiple streams each surrounded bydifferent land use to look for differences between streams.I’m interested in the effects of rainforest logging andconversion of forest to oil palm plantations on streamecosystems in Malaysian Borneo. Rates of logging in theregion are high because of the valuable timber industry andalso to clear land to grow oil palm – the tree which producesthe palm oil that is increasingly used in processed foods,cosmetics and biofuels around the world. This land usechange is an important part of the economic development ofMalaysia, but also causes significant impacts on naturalecosystems and the amazing biodiversity of the region.Logging and oil palm plantations can damage streamsthrough inputs of sediment and pollutants, reducing shadingand decreasing the amount of leaves and wood that fall intothe stream. However, we know very little about how thisaffects the insects living in these streams, and the functionsthey perform, and what conservation steps can be taken totry to reduce the bad impacts.Once our collections are done I bring the insect specimens

back to the UK for identification. It’s important for us toidentify what we have found so that we can assess the ‘health’of the streams and look for significant changes caused bylogging and oil palm. How many insects we’ve caught, howmany different species and the identity of these species –whether they’re ones you only find in forest, or only inBorneo, or ones that feed on a particular thing or will happily

120 Antenna 38 (2)

eat anything, or perhaps one that can withstand pollution orones that really can’t – are all important things to know. Butunfortunately insect larvae are too small to be able to identifythem live or without magnification. We need to see themunder a microscope to appreciate the detail of theseorganisms and the fascinating differences between them thatseparate first one order from another, and then when we geta bit further, different families, genera and finally species fromeach other. A world of intricately different species, withindifferent groups, is brought to life under the microscope. I work with undergraduate students doing their research

projects, and using keys, books and scientific papers, we tryto puzzle it out. First we identify the larvae to order: big orsmall eyes, tails or no tails, gills on its body? No? Well does ishave a large plate-like jaw? How about long thin pointy jaws?And when we’re happy with this we dig deeper and into the

world of families – the next most detailed taxonomic level.“The mayfly gills are so delicate. You can see what look like

blood vessels.”“I’ve got a hairy armpit Plecoptera here!” We look at a

stonefly nymph whose gills grow in tufts from the top of itslegs.Unfortunately the taxonomy of many of these Malaysian

insect larvae is not yet well known enough for us to be ableto identify everything to species, but even identifying themto family level will tell us important things about thesestreams and how they are being affected by the changingworld around them. We hope we can learn some more aboutthem, try and find some ways to help protect them, andcrucially, get people excited about a hidden world.

3rd Prize

Sweet dreams andthe Vitruvian Fly

Mariana De NizPhD student, Institute of CellBiology, University of Bern,Switzerland

mariana.denizhidalgo@izb.unibe.ch

Any character that has earneda place in the works of JosephConrad, David Livingstone, Patrick Manson, and – why not –Jumanji, is worth at least its own essay. The character?Possibly the most intimidating presence of the tropical world:the tsetse fly. The first time I heard about the tsetse fly some decades ago,

was indeed through Chris Van Allsburg’s Jumanji, whereaside from monsoons, monkey troops and rhino stampedes,the most memorable characters were huge tsetse flies capableof inducing sleep! Naturally, aside from Van Allsburg’simagination, the tsetse fly has for centuries captivatedacademics and writers, and many forms of human knowledgeand skill in an attempt to control human sleeping sickness,and nagana. In memoirs recovered from the African colonialperiod, tsetse flies were often referred to as ‘owners’ of entirevalleys and lands between the Sahara and the Kalahari.Owners… It is difficult to picture, and indeed a humblingidea, that of an insect pre-dating humans by millions of years,dictating the spread of man-made settlements and in factdefining economy, health and, for many, lifespan. While the trypanosomes are intriguing creatures

themselves, the tsetse flies are more than the delivery-personnel for the parasite. With a unique anatomy rangingfrom a scary proboscis to peculiar reproduction methods, eyeoptics, aerodynamics and wing geometry, this fly is one of akind. Despite countless extraordinary characteristics, I willdedicate my story to two of the features that would maketsetse flies my nominee for the Time insect of the year, if sucha tradition existed.When I first looked at a tsetse fly under the microscope, I

felt as adventurous as Steve Irwin taming crocodiles: the onlythought in my mind when I saw the proboscis was whetherthe fly was adequately anaesthesized! The proboscis of allhematophagous insects, is a scary device: imagine mouthpartsand mandibles packaged into tubes, stuck into your skin forblood sucking. Not very pleasant! But even among insects,

there are mouthparts…and mouthparts. It is less scary tothink of my or your teeth in a tubular version, as opposed tothose of a shark. In the case of the tsetse fly, not only is theproboscis much longer; it is an actual piercing machine,armed with teeth and rasps at the tip, able to destroysubcutaneous capillaries and of producing miniature pools ofblood that are suctioned by a ‘pump’ in the diaphragm. Thedenticles at the tip help cut into the skin and actually anchorthe proboscis during feeding... The closest equivalent I canthink of in our size-scale is the fearsome eel’s mouth with itsraptorial pharyngeal jaw. Needless to say, it is a painful bite!The trypanosome puts the importance of the proboscis at

a new level: the proboscis harbours the infective metacyclics,and injects them together with saliva into the hosts duringblood feed…Time to sleep! In fact, the parasite itself isbelieved to worsen the already intimidating feeding process!In order to form pools of blood and feed on them, the flymust inject anti-coagulant factors and inhibit the host’shaemostatic reactions. Apparently, the parasite hampers theanti-haemostatic potential of the saliva, forcing the fly to feedfor longer – do more bites – to increase the chances ofparasite transmission. More bites!?The second feature that makes these flies quite peculiar,

lies more in the field of optics. The fly seems to have anexotic colour taste. The eyes show a preference for pthalogenblue, due to increased spectral sensitivity in the 400-500nm-wavelength range in specific cell types. Black and UV-reflecting white, on the other hand, stimulate the encounter,luring tsetse flies to landing sites. No one knows why, butcurrent hypotheses include the association of the colourswith suitable hosts, and the association of black and blue withdaytime shadows that the fly may relate to resting places.Having discovered such peculiar taste, humans havedeveloped ingenious designs for tsetse traps that combine thecolours in cloths of various shapes that simulate movement.Impregnate these bi-colour cloths with artificial odoursspecific to each fly species, and voila! You’ll have a flymagnet… While travelling through tsetse fly-inhabited zonesin Uganda and becoming aware of the traps around me, Iquestioned my bias towards black and blue in my clothing…oh well, apparently, they dislike yellow! Certainly fascinating creatures, tsetse flies have played a

major role in the composition of the current Africanlandscape and health along the ‘tsetse-belt’. Among thevarious descriptions and analyses of this insect, I found onethat conveyed a rather straightforward message defining ourstruggle with them, which I found memorable. “Most tsetseflies are physically very tough. Houseflies are easily killed witha fly-swatter but it takes a great deal of effort to crush a tsetsefly.”

Antenna 38 (2) 121

SCHEDULE OF NEW FELLOWS AND MEMBERSas at 5th March 2014

New Honorary FellowsNone

New Fellows (1st Announcement)Mr Andrew Frederic Edwyn Neild

Dr Emilio GuerrieriDr Charles Vincent

Dr Richard Montague MerrillProfessor Malcolm Burrows

Upgrade to Fellowship (1st Announcement)None

New Fellows (2nd Announcement and Election)Dr Richard Michael Smith

Professor Locke Rowe (as at 4.12.13)

Upgrade to Fellowship (2nd Announcement and Election)Mr T M D Ranjith De Alwis (as at 4.12.13)

New Members AdmittedDr Johanna Lindahl (as at 4.12.13)

Mr Corin PrattMiss Kelleigh Greene (as at 4.12.13)Dr Ivan Hiltpold (as at 4.12.13)

Dr Olaf SchmidtDr Nicholas Peter Swift

New Student Members AdmittedMiss Fevziye Hasan (as at 4.12.13) Mr Geoff StanleyMiss Ceri Marie Watkins Mr Alan R DavisMiss Alice May Gribble Miss Mary SumnerMr Jack Lee Mr David SwanMiss Eleanor Passingham Miss Sue ShemiltMiss Sarah Anne-Leigh Scriven Miss Katrina DaintonMiss Ruth Wade Ms Ashley LyonsMs Myrsini Eirini Natsopoulou Mr James WilsonMs Alix Dawn Blockley Miss Charlotte MillerMr William Garrood

Re-Instatements to FellowshipMr Peter Michael Hammond

Re-Instatements to MembershipDr Faye Messervy

Dr Jo-Anne Nina Sewlal

Re-Instatements to Student MembershipNone

DeathsMr R S George, 1951, Bournemouth

Professor H Z Levinson, 1975, GermanyMiss R M Badcock, 1956, PowysDr J C Taylor, 1959, AustraliaMr M J Sharp, 1978, Whitsable

122 Antenna 38 (2)

Meeting Reports

Meeting report: The State of Insect Conservation in Ireland

Archie Murchie

In late October 2013, the Botanic Gardens in Dublin hosted a meeting on the ‘State of Insect Conservation in Ireland’, whichwas well attended by around 90 entomologists from across Ireland, Britain and Europe. The two day meeting was sponsoredby the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), organised by the Royal Entomological Society and supported by theAgri-Food & Biosciences Institute, Belfast and the National Biodiversity Data Centre, Waterford.

The meeting was opened by Dr Ciarán O’Keeffe (Director NPWS),with plenary speakers Prof. Jeremy Thomas (RES President /University of Oxford) and Dr Chris van Swaay (ButterflyConservation Europe). The first day was titled ‘Untangling the web –where are we with the Marsh Fritillary’ and the second day ‘Hoveringon the edge – threatened species evaluation in Ireland’. As part of theconference, there was also a special public lecture on the Painted Ladyby Dr Constanti Stefanescu (Granollers Museum of Natural Sciences).

Although the topic of this meeting was insect conservation, muchof the discussion related to land-use management in Ireland, and inparticular the role of agriculture, fisheries and forestry in habitatmaintenance. Although the usual threats to wildlife of intensificationof agriculture were highlighted, so too were the dangers posed byabandonment and lack of management. It would seem that agricultureis an integral part of insect conservation and in maintaining the Irishfauna. This is crucial if Ireland as a whole is to meet European targetsfor preserving biodiversity.

This was a most enjoyable meeting with detailed accounts of hands-on, practical conservation, an excellent venue and good craic. One ortwo pints of the black stuff may also have been consumed.

The Dublin Botanic Gardens hosted the State of Insect Conservation in Ireland meeting.

(L to R): Dr Eugenie Regan (UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge),Dr Brian Nelson (NPWS), Prof. Jeremy Thomas (RESPresident / University of Oxford), Dr Archie Murchie(AFBI), Dr Ciarán O’Keeffe (Director NPWS)

Antenna 38 (2) 123

Abstracts

Professor Jeremy Thomas

(Royal Entomological Society/Oxford University)

Lessons for Conservation from Recording Change in InsectPopulations

Rigorous recording schemes to measure change in insectpopulations have existed for approaching 50 years in the UK,and have developed greatly in Ireland and other Europeancountries in recent decades. Their aims range from samplingmacro-invertebrates in order to assess the quality of Europeanfreshwaters for human health, and – more importantly forthis meeting - to informing conservationists of changes inspecies’ status. For conservation, two complementaryapproaches have been invaluable: mapping schemes thatrecord distributional changes and monitoring schemes (e.g.Rothamsted Insect Survey, UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme)that generate time-series of population changes on fixed sites.To date, the longest running and largest-scale insect recordingschemes across Europe involve Butterflies and macro-moths,but recent work suggests that other insect taxa haveexperienced similar or amplified declines.

In addition to the basic tasks of informing conservationistsof what is happening to native insect species, where theyoccur, and providing a base-line against which localconservation initiatives can be assessed, terrestrial recordingschemes are providing a wide range of benefits, ranging fromraising public (and political) interest and involvement ininsects to many insights into the structure and dynamics ofspecies’ populations. Examples of the latter includeunderstanding the migratory patterns of mobile species; anaid to identifying the main different drivers of change indifferent species; predicting the impacts of future land-useand climate changes; and insights into the existence, or not,of regionally adapted races of species, as well as their plasticityin the face of environmental change.

Brian Nelson

(Science Unit, NPWS, Dept Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht)brian.nelson@ahg.gov.ie

The conservation status of the Marsh Fritillary in Ireland 2013

The Article 17 report on the status of priority species andhabitats in Ireland was completed in 2013. The reportcovered the 6 year period 2007-2012 and the assessments

were made with reference to the previous reporting periodof 2000-2006. The overall conservation status of the MarshFritillary was assessed as Unfavourable. This is due to anassessment of a declining population and that the threats andpressures identified as operating currently are not likely toreduce over the next cycle. Range and habitat for the specieswere both considered Favourable. The species has been foundthroughout Ireland although the range is concentrated in thecentre and west. In the eastern coastal counties fromWaterford to Louth the species has always been restricted butthe recent find of the species on North Bull Island withinDublin City shows that even here there are areas that cansupport the species. It is more widespread in Wicklow thanpreviously appreciated.

Population in Marsh Fritillary is very difficult to measure.Counts of the adults or webs are prone to large variation andwithout a long time series, trends can be difficult todetermine. Limited data from the Irish Butterfly monitoringscheme indicates a decline and the expert opinion of the RedList assessment was that the population has declined byperhaps 30%. More data is needed on site occupancy inIreland which is considered the best surrogate for population.Are sites diminishing in number or are they becoming smallerand more isolated?

Questions that have come about from the surveys forNPWS include the following. Is the species more mobile inIreland than elsewhere in its range and is this mobilitypreventing the declines and isolation of populations seenelsewhere? How significant is grazing in maintaining sites? Island abandonment a significant factor in some areas creatingtemporarily suitable habitat? How do we explain theinconsistencies of occurrence on windswept heaths inDonegal with apparent need for shelter? Why is the speciesnot all over the Burren? Is grazing holding it back? Is theboom and bust population a product of declining habitat andfood resource? Why do we not see many parasites and if theseare not significant what controls the population? Answers tomany of these questions may be impossible to find, but someare essential to maintaining this our only Annex II insectspecies a widespread feature in the Irish countryside.

Kyle Hunter

(Natural Heritage, Northern Ireland Environment Agency)Kyle.hunter@doeni.gov.uk

The conservation status of the Marsh Fritillary in NorthernIreland 2013

2012/13 saw the 3rd round of European Reporting underArticle 17 of the EU Habitats Directive. Marsh Fritillary wasselected as a pilot to test the reporting tool and mechanismwith the report being completed mid-2012. Three mainstatus areas were reported on including Range, Populationand Habitat with pressures and threats identified. Data wasmined from NIEA Art 11 and ASSI surveillance programmesand from the Centre for Environmental Data and Recording(CEDaR); this was used to inform expert opinion and drawconclusions. Evidence from outside NIEA was ofteninaccurate and lacked consistency in survey approach; thispresented a risk to the quality of the output. Knowledge gaps,recommendations for future work and surveillance wereidentified through the reporting process with the aim toprovide statistically robust, fit for purpose data to facilitateaccurate reporting in 6 years time.

The President and Dr Brian Nelson enjoying the conviviality of aDublin hostelry

124 Antenna 38 (2)

Georgina Thurgate

(Natural Heritage, NIEA) Georgina.thurgate@doeni.gov.uk

The conservation status of the Marsh Fritillary in NorthernIreland 2013

To help fill this knowledge gap, NIEA funded CEDaR tocarry out Marsh Fritillary surveys in Counties Fermanagh andTyrone. In 2012 a survey was carried out to assess thedistribution of Marsh Fritillary colonies, the number of larvalwebs and the quality of suitable habitat. The survey focusedon 7 large target areas outside of the designated site network,which were identified by NIEA as the most likely to holdMarsh Fritillary habitat. Using a variety of NIEA datasets andCEDaR records, as well as rapid field assessments, the targetareas were reduced to approximately 300ha for detailedsurvey. The results of the survey were undoubtedly impactedby the adverse weather conditions experienced in 2012, butnevertheless 118 larval webs were found at 15 of the 41survey sites. Another survey is currently being conducted in21 Areas of Special Scientific Interest in Counties Fermanaghand Tyrone.

Will Woodrow

(Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd, Sligo)

Notes and lessons learnt from Marsh Fritillary population andhabitat surveys in north and west Ireland

Surveys of marsh fritillary populations were undertaken indifferent parts of North and West Ireland in 2011, 2012 and2013. These surveys have all been aimed at improving ourunderstanding of the distribution, population ecology andneeds of the species. They have allowed for populationmonitoring of sites, the testing and development of a habitatassessment approach as well as rapid assessment approachesfor large, previously unsurveyed areas.

During this time detailed population surveys have beenundertaken in successive years for the first time on some sites,providing insight into how the species uses sites over timeand raising speculation on how it responds to environmentalpressures. Populations at different sites were observed tochange in both numbers and in the spatial use of the siteduring two years of survey in 2011 and 2012. Habitatcondition remained largely the same for most sites during thetwo years with the exception of noted deterioration at oneor two sites, highlighting how easily such sites can bedamaged by management change.

A number of parameters were recorded at web locationsand the association of webs with areas of structuredvegetation in general and with individual features, such astussocks, in particular, was notable. It is considered that suchfeatures are likely to have a role to play in the ecology ofdifferent stages of the species but may also be indicative ofmore established sites rather than ones that have been subjectto recent management change.

Surveys in 2013 concentrated on habitat assessments andrapid surveys of large areas of potentially suitable habitat inorder to gain a picture of the area of potentially suitablehabitat, and hopefully to find new colonies in two bordercounties. Experience from earlier survey seasons allowed forconfidence in the potential for rapid survey approach tolocate populations of marsh fritillaries. New colonies werefound during the 2013 surveys, a number of which werelocated on small, disparate or impacted sites. Large areas ofsuitable habitat were found and mapped in 2013. Many of

these areas had no marsh fritillaries recorded in 2013 despitethe species being recorded in the wider locality, or in somecases at the site, in previous years.

Three years of surveying for marsh fritillaries has helped tobetter understand the species in terms of ecology anddistribution. It has also raised further questions relating tothe population dynamics of the species in the widerlandscape and has highlighted the need for conservation ofsuitable habitat for the species throughout its range.

Faith Wilson

(Ecological Consultant, Wicklow)

The Marsh Fritillary survey of south and east Ireland 2012

Faith Wilson, Ken Bond, Patrick Crushell, Peter Foss &Christian Osthoff

Marsh Fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) is the only insectspecies in Ireland listed under Annex II of the EU HabitatsDirective. As part of our national monitoring obligations,NPWS commissioned a survey of Marsh Fritillary sites in Sand E Ireland in 2012. 32 sites were surveyed in the field anda search for larval webs was conducted. Habitat condition wasassessed over the entire site and at the location of each larvalweb. Breeding was confirmed at 16 of the 32 sites surveyed.Within these sites larval webs were recorded at 20 of the 46sub-sites surveyed. In general webs were mostly found insub-sites which were deemed to be in good condition. Of the46 sub-sites surveyed, 35 sub-sites were found to be in goodcondition, with nine sub-sites being suitable but under grazedand one sub-site deemed unsuitable. The most commonhabitats with Marsh Fritillary was wet grassland, followed bycutover bog (PB4) and rich fen and flush (PF1). Otherhabitats used by breeding Marsh Fritillary included drycalcareous and neutral grassland (GS1), dry meadows andgrassy verges (GS2) and dry humid acid grassland (GS3) – 2,3 and one sub-site respectively. Only one coastal site withdune slacks (CD5) was surveyed. Dry calcareous heath(HH2) was present at two sub-sites.

In terms of habitat management 11 sub-sites were grazedby cattle, deer were the principal grazer at 4 of the Wicklowsites, seven sub-sites were grazed by horses and 22 sub-siteshad no grazing at all. The vast majority of webs were locatedamongst structured vegetation (97%), with no evidence ofgrazing (93%) and an absence of low invading scrub (85%).85 % of webs were recorded from locations where theabundance of Succisa exceeds 10 individuals / m².

Several of the sites had previous records of larval webs andthere appears to have been a decline in breeding populationsof Marsh Fritillary at these sites. The species is in urgent needof a national species action management plan supported byan agri-environment scheme, which would support andincentivise landowners with breeding Marsh Fritillary on theirlands to implement an appropriate grazing regime.

Dave Allen

(Allen & Mellon Environmental Ltd, Belfast)

Don’t forget the bycatch – adding value to Marsh Fritillarysurveys

When undertaking marsh fritillary larval web surveys thesurveyor spends a great deal of time staring at the ground.Inevitably non-target species will be seen and rather thandismissing them natural curiosity led the author to try and

Antenna 38 (2) 125

identify some of the more seemingly obvious invertebrates.Many are easy to identify and have turned out to haveapparently local distributions or are even true rarities such asthe attractive ground beetle Lebia cruxminor. Recording thebycatch does not impact in any negative way on the primarytask of recording marsh fritillary larval webs. After over fiveyears work it is now possible to define an expectedinvertebrate assemblage associated with typical Irish marshfritillary habitat. It is hoped that increased awareness of thissuite of species will result in increased recording and anincreased knowledge of these species in Ireland.

Nigel Bourn

Butterfly Conservation, Dorset, UK nbourn@butterfly-conservation.org

Landscape scale conservation for the Marsh Fritillary: casestudies from the UK

Ecological theory, from island biogeography tometapopulations have encouraged conservationists to thinkbeyond single site safeguard to operating at a landscape scale.Here we describe how recent advances in metapopulationtheory have influenced the work of Butterfly Conservation.

Butterfly Conservation staff are involved in over 70‘landscape scale’ projects, which for the purpose of this papercan be defined as ‘the coordinated conservation andmanagement of habitats for a range of species across a largenatural area, often made up of a network of sites’. Here Idescribe three case studies of our work to conserve the MarshFritillary Euphydryas aurinia. In all cases recent declines havebeen high but targeted conservation effort across thelandscapes has begun to yield positive results. Two casestudies will illustrate work undertaken by ButterflyConservation with our conservation partners in the southwest of Britain, the ‘Two Moors threatened butterfliesproject’ and the ‘Dorset marsh fritillary project’, while a thirdwill look at the situation in Scotland. The key lessons learnedfrom over 10 years of experience will be explored and are ofrelevance across other highly intensified agricultural systems.

Neil Ravenscroft

(Wildside Ecology, Suffolk, UK) neil@wildsideecology.com

Habitat Associations in the Burren and Scotland: Chalk andCheese?

Surveys of Marsh Fritillary Euphydryas aurinia populationswere undertaken during 2012 in two distinct parts of its NWEuropean range – the Burren, SW Ireland, and on the Isle ofIslay, western Scotland. Both populations were highlyrestricted in 2012. The populations of the Burren and Islayoccur in seemingly very different environments: the formeron thin soils over limestone and the latter largely on acidicpeats and other wet soils. Despite this, they share manyfeatures, including extensive landscapes with abundanthabitat that is far more widespread than E. aurinia, andsimilar web microhabitats.

Recent work on Islay suggests that sites that remain occupiedduring population contractions have complex vegetation andimproved edaphic conditions compared with abandoned sites.These features were also characteristic of web locations in theBurren. The foodplant Succisa pratensis is not always moreabundant at these higher quality sites, but appears healthierand often shows features associated with younger populations.Vegetation is usually short and grazed heavily, but livestock in

extensive grazing systems concentrate on these areas – highquality sites also exist in the absence of livestock. I believe thatintrinsic site character is the principal component of habitatquality and precedes general vegetation composition andmanagement, but it is difficult to tease apart the relativeimportance to E. aurinia of the variety of factors operating inthese habitats without studying their impacts on its biology.Current work on Islay is examining caterpillar biology andfoodplant condition during the acute spring feeding period inrelation to the persistence of E. aurinia. The rate of siteturnover is high on Islay and the population is expandingcurrently and will probably peak again around 2016.

Andy Bleasdale

(NPWS, Dept of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht)andy.bleasdale@ahg.gov.ie

Agri-environment in Ireland. How do we get to where we needto be?

Ireland has obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directivesto ensure that Natura 2000 sites are protected andappropriately managed. As most of the lands of the State aremanaged through farming, agricultural policy, programmes,schemes and measures are central to the conservation offarmland biodiversity. Article 8 of the Habitats Directiveenvisages funding being targeted towards the cost of managingNatura 2000 sites. The EU Commission takes the view thatfunds are made available through, and should be sourcedfrom, the existing financing instruments. Improved targetingof future financial supports under the Rural DevelopmentProgramme for Ireland 2014-2020 is critical if farmlandbiodiversity is to be protected in designated areas and in thewider countryside in High Nature Value (HNV) farmland.

The Prioritised Action Framework, which Irelandsubmitted in 2013, provides a focus on realistic priorities forNatura 2000 over the next programming period. This isfurther elaborated for biodiversity in the wider countrysidein the National Biodiversity Plan 2011-2016, which mirrorsthe targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Thisprioritisation will allow Ireland to plan in a strategic way tomeet the main biodiversity challenges of the years ahead.

The biodiversity challenges for Ireland in the upcomingprogramming period include restoration goals, cessation ofturf cutting, grazing regulation in the uplands, addressingspecies declines, closure of ECJ cases etc. Over the last fifteen

The ‘Flash Speakers’ await their turn for a mini-presentation

126 Antenna 38 (2)

years, Ireland has had four separate adverse findings againstit in regard to failures to meet the requirements of the NatureDirectives.

In the next period, Ireland must ensure better targeting andspending of monies, improve monitoring, reporting anddelivery of agri-environmental schemes and structures,address policy anomalies and perverse incentives and ensurebetter integration and balance between direct supports andagri-environment supports.

Chris van Swaay

De Vlinderstichting – Dutch Butterfly Conservation,Wageningen, Netherlands. chris.vanswaay@vlinderstichting.nl

Red Listing and Monitoring of Butterflies at a European scale

The main goal of IUCN Red Lists is to provide informationand analyses on the status, trends and threats to species. In2010 the European Red List of Butterflies showed that of the435 butterfly species in Europe, 40 were consideredthreatened or extinct. A third of the species is in decrease,with nowadays the strongest declines in Eastern Europe. Themain threats are agricultural intensification andabandonment.

Where Red Lists are only updated once every ten years ormore, indicators can provide annual updates of changes inbutterfly diversity by using Butterfly Monitoring Schemes. Ishow two types of indicators: a species-trend indicator (theEuropean Grassland Butterfly Indicator) and a community-change indicator (the European Butterfly Climate ChangeIndicator). The Grassland Butterfly Indicator shows that thepopulations of characteristic grassland butterflies havedeclined by 50% since 1990. Because of the changing climate,butterfly communities have shifted more than 100km northin 20 years, much more than birds, but much less than thetemperature. The Irish Butterfly Monitoring Scheme is doingvery well and is an important addition to the Europeantrends. With all the other schemes it is possible to keep trackof changes in butterflies in Europe.

Brian Nelson

(NPWS, Dept of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin)brian.nelson@ahg.gov.ie

Overview and Application of Irish Invertebrate and Insect RedLists to Date

Red Lists of Irish insects have been produced since 2006 withthe List of Irish Bees. A new series of Red Lists commencedin 2009 and insects and invertebrates understandably giventhe number of species have been a significant focus of theprocess. There are certain requirements that need to be inplace before a red list assessment can be undertaken and theseinclude a verified and comprehensive database and expertisein the Irish fauna. There have been five invertebrate red listscompleted to date covering four taxonomic and oneecological group. This still only represents about 3.5% of theIrish invertebrate fauna. Some of the projected red lists doinclude some species rich groups including the Larger Moths(750) species) and ground beetles (165 species). Theapplicability of the red lists are just being developed. Theiruse in site assessment should be much more common than itis and NPWS should use it as a criterion for NHA declaration.Some of the red listed species may be considered forSchedule 5 of the Wildlife Act if it can be demonstrated thatthe species would benefit from this level of protection.

Úna Fitzpatrick

(NBDC, Waterford)

Red Lists: the Next Steps

A Red List assesses the extinction risk from Ireland. However,the IUCN point out that conservation priorities cannot bebased solely or primarily on extinction risk. The relationshipbetween species identified as threatened with extinctionthrough the Red List process and those that should berecognised as national conservation priorities will bediscussed. Moving on from a Red List, through toidentification of conservation priority species and theultimate conservation of these species within the landscapethrows up a number of significant national data needs. Threeof these needs will be discussed with suggestions on how theymight be addressed.

Richard O’Callaghan

(NPWS, Dublin)

Freshwater Pearl Mussel Conservation in Ireland

The Freshwater Pearl Mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera andMargaritifera durrovensis are two of Ireland’s mostendangered invertebrates. Freshwater pearl mussels have beenin decline throughout their European range for much of thepast century, with the key driver of this decline arising fromchanges of land use intensity and associated drainage,resulting in increases in the levels of sediment and nutrientdelivered to rivers from the surrounding catchment area.These increases in sediment and nutrients levels in thesenaturally oligotrophic rivers have impacted mussel habitat, inparticular on juvenile habitat by clogging gravels, impairingoxygen exchange to juvenile gravels and increased algalgrowth. In response to the threat to the freshwater pearlmussels, Ireland has designated 27 Special Areas ofConservation (SACs) and has prepared Sub-basinManagement Plans (SBMP) for each of these Natura 2000populations. The SBMPs adopted a catchment based modelto address point sources (e.g. quarries and municipal wastetreatment systems) and diffuse sources (e.g. agriculture andforestry) of sediment and nutrient pressures. This paper aimsprovide an update of the species conservation status inIreland and will also outline current conservation approachesthat are being used to support the conservation andrestoration of freshwater pearl mussel populations and theirhabitat.

Garth Foster

(Balfour-Browne Club, UK)

Freshwater Habitat Assessment Arising from the Red List

Many naturalists, especially birdwatchers, keep lists of thespecies they have seen in a year or in a particular place. Waterbodies, being better defined than many terrestrial habitats,make listing their faunas feel purposeful too. This listing is anend in itself for many, but apart from personal satisfactionand to aid recollection, what purpose can it achieve? It is hardto see how it increases knowledge about the species orpromotes the group. A better objective would be to produceas complete a site list as possible, a standardised inventory,which can then be interpreted and evaluated against otherlists. The forthcoming Manual of Irish Water Beetles will bea water beetle equivalent of a botanical habitat manual,providing information on the species that would be expected

Antenna 38 (2) 127

on the sampling methodology, description of the habitats andaccounts for the most important species and assemblages ofIrish water beetles. It derives its content from the WaterBeetles of Ireland recording initiative and the Red List of IrishWater Beetles.

Eugenie Regan

(UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge)

Mind the Gap: gap analysis of protected areas for red listedspecies

Eugenie Regan and Marcos Moreno

This paper aims to determine the extent to which threatenedIrish freshwater invertebrates are protected by existingconservation areas networks, i.e. do currently known sites forthese species fall within Natura 2000 or other protectedareas? If some species are not protected, which species arethey and what habitats do they occur in?

We looked at known Irish sites for water beetle, freshwatermollusc, mayfly, and dragonfly species with threat categoriesof critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable. Theresults show that existing protected areas in the Republic ofIreland and Northern Ireland provide a reasonablerepresentation of the regionally threatened species of waterbeetle, freshwater mollusc, dragonfly and mayfly. However,some species are inadequately represented, in particular thoseassociated with streams. Streams, therefore, appear to be amajor gap in our network of protected sites. This study is oneof the first assessments to objectively look at the overlap of theNatura 2000 network with areas of freshwater biodiversity.

Rachel Hamill

(CEDaR, Belfast)

An introduction to the invertebrate communities of golf coursesand upland wildfire areas throughout Northern Ireland.

Through the TCV/HLF Natural Talent Apprenticeshipscheme over the course of the last year I have beenundertaking research into the biodiversity of golf courses. Theemphasis being on the study of ground beetles, spiders andLepidoptera communities. I used the standard methodologyof pitfall trapping with twenty traps in four different transectson each of the seven courses. The field season ran from Aprilto September, so I am still in the process of sorting andidentifying specimens. To date, I have recorded eleven speciesof Carabidae. To catch the Lepidoptera I used a combination

of mercury vapour and heath traps. To date, I have recordedfive species that have been listed as Northern Ireland PrioritySpecies. Following on from a moth leaf mining course Icompleted in September 2013 I found a Callisto denticulella(Thunberg, 1794) mine on an apple leaf which is a newrecord for Northern Ireland. The results from this project willprovide a starting point for future research into golf coursesand the habitats they currently or possibly could provide tosupport Northern Ireland’s biodiversity, particularly withreference to priority species. I have also been involved in theinvertebrate section of Dr Ruth Kelly’s (QUB) research intothe impact of wildfires on upland habitats. The samemethodology was used as on the golf courses. We placedtwenty pitfall traps in four transects across each of the sixstudy sites. Two transects were in burnt areas and two werein unburnt. This approach has facilitated the study of speciesthat colonise areas post-fire. An overview of each project andcurrent key findings will be discussed.

John Breen

(University of Limerick) john.breen@ul.ie

The Hairy Wood Ant Formica lugubris in Ireland - can it besaved?

The Irish population of the Hairy Wood Ant, Formicalugubris, is genetically distinct from those in England; it is anancient colonization and not a human introduction. Thisiconic woodland keystone species has large conspicuous nests,which are easy to locate during the active season. Thecolonies are host to myrmecophiles – mainly beetles(Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) – which are not found away fromthe nests. The species is classified as Near Threatened on theIUCN global red list and its distribution in Ireland has beenin serious decline, especially in recent decades. Nests are nowconfined to five localities: two adjoining Coillte properties inTipperary, one Coillte property in Galway, Killarney NationalPark and one privately-owned cut-over bog in Tipperary. Thegenetics study also showed that the Irish population of thisspecies has just one queen per nest and one nest per colony;this has implications for the conservation of the species inIreland as the effective population size is now very low.Honeydew collected from aphids (Cinara spp.) on suitable“aphid trees” is the major food item of adult workers.Conservation of the species in Ireland will require theimplementation of carefully considered measures in highpriority areas where the species is still found. This will includereduced coupe size at felling, and continuous-covermanagement, to limit the extent of clear-felling, the plantingof suitable tree species which support the target aphid species(Cinara spp.): Scots pine, but not Lodgepole pine, spruces(both Norway and Sitka), and larches (European andJapanese). The aim will be to develop a mosaic of patches ofmixed-aged trees which is more likely to encourage thedevelopment of new nests. Hopefully the answer to thequestion in the title is Yes.

Dave Allen

(Allen & Mellon Environmental Ltd, Belfast)

Hunting Leprechauns: the Search for the White Prominent

The White Prominent Leucodonta bicoloria (D. & S.) was firstdiscovered in Ireland in 1858 and last seen in 1938, someeighty years later, somewhere in the Killarney area of CountyKerry. Over the next seventy years many lepidopterists

Prof. Garth Foster and one of the locals.

128 Antenna 38 (2)

searched in vain for this beautiful and enigmatic species.Others doubted or came to doubt its very existence in Irelandor Britain, suspecting fraud, some even gave lectures on thesubject! In 2008 a five man team assembled by Allen andMellon headed to the Caragh Lake catchment of CountyKerry. This area was selected for a number of reasons; fewrecent records of lepidoptera, suitable old birch trees andmost importantly the 1912 records of Canon Foster fromCounty Down, a Lepidopterist of impeccable reputation.Most previous efforts had centred on Killarney National Park.On the night of 7th-8th June 2008 light traps were operatedon Robert’s Island, in the grounds of a private hotel on theshores of Caragh Lake. Early in the morning of the 8th a malewhite prominent was discovered close to a Robinson trap byMark Telfer. A total of seven males were captured over twonights, all in the same small area. In June 2009 a wider searchof the Caragh Lake catchment found nearly 100 individualsat a scatter of sites encompassing an area of over 20 squarekilometres. The catch included two females which laid fertileeggs allowing a detailed study of the larval stage. A secondvisit in late July that year discovered a single caterpillar aswell as adults still on the wing, a month beyond the recordedflight season. The various stages of the project were madepossible with grant aid from the Heritage Council.

Will Woodrow

(Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd, Sligo)

Recent findings on the Irish Annulet Odontognophos dumetataand implications for its conservation

The Irish population of the Irish Annulet Odontognophosdumetata moth was first recorded in 1991. Researchfollowing this discovery considered it to be a subspecies ofthis southern and Mediterranean species and most similar tothe subspecies occurring in the Spanish part of the range. Thesubspecies has been subject to some study since its discoveryin Ireland (e.g., Martin 1997), leading to a consideration thatit is mainly found where its foodplant Purging BuckthornRhamnus cathartica occurs in association with limestonepavement and winter flooding. The known range in Irelandfalls entirely within the eastern Burren, and largely within thetwo SACs and the Burren National Park. The conservationmanagement of the Burren National Park and SACs requiresdecisions to be made on issues such as scrub clearance forhabitat management and a survey was contracted by NPWSto provide understanding of the distribution and needs of thespecies in order to facilitate balanced management decisions.

In 2012 and 2013, Irish Annulet adult and larval surveyswere undertaken within the known range. The surveys weredesigned to provide an enhanced understanding of theecology of the species, and particularly the extent to whichfactors such as scrub height, habitat type, proximity to waterand presence of limestone pavement and grykes areimportant. Adult surveys in 2012, together with an analysisof historic records provided a confirmation on known rangeof the species and general habitat inhabited. Larval surveysin 2013 allowed for the collection of data relating to purgingbuckthorn bushes where Irish Annulet caterpillars wererecorded or notably absent.

Results showed a strong affiliation with purging buckthornbushes below 1.5 metres, and affiliation with isolated busheson limestone pavement. Caterpillars were largely absent fromareas of dense or higher scrub spreading onto grasslandhabitat, even when this was in fairly close proximity to

limestone pavement. In such situations, caterpillars of otherspecies, such as the Tissue moth were often present in largenumbers. In some areas of apparently suitable habitat in closeproximity to the core population, no adults or caterpillarswere recorded. The results will assist in decisions onconservation management of the area but also raise furtherquestions relating to why the species appears to have such alimited range in the locality.

Eugenie Regan

(United Nations Environment Programme WorldConservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge)

Butterfly monitoring – from the national and internationalperspective

The Irish Butterfly Monitoring Scheme was established in2007 and although the scheme has been running for less thanten years, it has clearly shown the importance of datagathered by citizen scientists in understanding the changes inour insect fauna. Butterfly monitoring is not new. A similarscheme has been running in the UK for over 35 years and inthe Netherlands for over 20 years. In fact, there are nownational butterfly monitoring schemes in nine Europeancountries as well as North America, South Africa andAustralia. There is now an opportunity to have a global viewof how butterflies are faring and to build a network ofbutterfly monitoring schemes around the world.

Inga Reich

(National University of Ireland, Galway)ingaimperio@gmail.com

Kerry Slug recent research findings

Inga Reich, Rory Mc Donnell, Cindy Smith, Mike Gormally

The distribution of the Kerry Slug Geomalacus maculosus, aspecies protected under EU and Irish law, was believed to belimited to northern Iberia and to south-west Ireland. In July2010, the species was found in a commercial coniferplantation in Connemara, about 200 km north of itspreviously known Irish range. A subsequent survey found nopopulations between the two Irish distribution areas,suggesting that the slug was most likely introduced toConnemara by forestry. In an attempt to trace the sourcelocation of the Connemara population and to generally assessthe extent of genetic variation within Irish populations,partial sequences of the mitochondrial 16SrDNA and COIgenes were compared from 36 G. maculosus specimenssampled from 12 locations throughout Ireland. Results show,that for both markers only a single haplotype is present inIreland. The same markers were used for 42 specimenssampled from seven locations in northern Spain and threelocations in northern Portugal. In this region, 23 haplotypeswere found for COI and 22 for 16SrDNA and these clusteredinto several regional clades. The reduced genetic diversity ofIrish populations compared to Spain and Portugal suggest thepresence of a genetic bottleneck probably due to foundereffects. Capture-mark-recapture experiments carried out inthe plantation show, that G. maculosus occurs with densitiesof up to 23 individuals per m2 and that there is a strongpositive correlation between capture success andtemperature. No significant difference could be found in themean number of sympatric slug species Lehmannia marginatacaptured at a site where G. maculosus is present and at a sitewhere the Kerry Slug is absent.

Antenna 38 (2) 129

Postgraduate Forum 2014Louise Mair

The RES postgraduate forum was heldthis year at the University of York, withover 30 delegates attending over thetwo days. There was an excitingprogramme consisting of four guestspeakers, ten oral presentations fromstudents and eight poster presentations.

The forum opened with apresentation from Professor ChrisThomas, an ecologist at the Universityof York. Chris discussed the impacts ofclimate change on butterflies in Britain,illustrating how the research that hisgroup carries out has identified effectsof microclimates and adaptations inhost-plant use, which have resulted incomplex species’ responses to climatechange. There was a broad range ofbackgrounds amongst the invitedspeakers, with a second presentationcoming from Dr Larrisa Collins, asenior entomologist at FERA. Larissaprovided a great insight into life as anapplied entomologist, detailing howher work has a widespread impact inareas such as tackling pest outbreaks.This was contrasted with the work ofVicky Kindemba, who is a conservationdelivery manager for the charityBugLife. Vicky spoke about thepractical conservation and publiceducation programmes that BugLifecarries out, and provided an insight intothe challenges and pleasures of workingin the charity sector.

As always, student talks covered adiverse range of subjects, making for avery interesting programme. The firststudent presentation was delivered byVictor Brugman, whose researchinvestigates the human and avian biting

behaviour of mosquitoes in UK farms,and who fielded a pressing question forfield entomologists; are some peoplereally more attractive to mosquitoesthan others? Duncan Procter presentedhis field work results demonstrating aclear link between afforestation and thespread of a wood ant in Yorkshire.James Rainford’s research investigatesthe diversification of insects andinvolves some very large and complexphylogenetic trees. Sarah Scriven wasthe final speaker on the first day,presenting results of her enviable fieldwork studying tropical butterflybehaviour at forest-palm oil plantationboundaries.

The poster session was held at theend of the first day. Buoyed by somefree wine, there were interestingposters from Jamie Alison, Yi-HueiChen, Yee Man Theodora Cho, EsamElghadi, Joe Roberts, Charlotte Rowley,Lucinda Scriven and James Wilson. Thesession was followed by the traditionalaprès-forum drinks and dinner, whichas always was great chance to socialiseand of course discuss research.

The fourth and final guest speaker,Luke Tilley, talked to attendees on thesecond day. Luke offered usefulinformation on the RoyalEntomological Society and what it cando for graduate students, in particularwith regards to funding opportunitiesto support student research. Amongstthe student speakers, William Hentleyintroduced a change of format with hispresentation on the obstacles he facedduring his PhD and how he overcamethem, imparting wisdom for early stage

PhD students. Ants were on the menuagain with a talk from Sam Ellis onresource distribution in complex socialinsect societies. James Hourstondiscussed whether AM fungi enhancethe ‘alarm signal’ emitted by infestedplants to natural enemies. EleanorHeyworth explained how she has beenstudying competition betweenendosymbiotic bacteria using aphidhaemolymph transfers. FranciscaSconce presented fieldwork resultsquantifying the relationship betweenCollembola diversity and landmanagement strategies. Student talkswere rounded off by Ruth Wade, whoseresearch investigates how predictedchanges in precipitation are likely toimpact tri-trophic interactions in abarley ecosystem.

The forum was concluded with aseries of handshakes as the prize-winners were congratulated. First prizefor poster presentations went to JamieAlison, with Lucinda Scriven as therunner up, while Eleanor Heyworthwon the oral presentation prize andJames Hourston was the runner up. Theoverall standard of presentations wasexcellent, and the forum was a veryenjoyable couple of days. Thanks toeveryone who attended, especially tothose who gave oral or posterpresentations, to our guest speakers,and to Cathleen Thomas and RodBlackshaw for judging the talks andposters. Many thanks also to KirstyWhiteford and Dr Luke Tilley forproviding help and support during theorganisation of the forum.

The Verrall Supper 2014S. R. Leather

Last year with a certain degree oftrepidation I organised The VerrallSupper for the first time on my own!Those of you interested in knowinghow my first year went can find anaccount in Leather (2013). I had addedto the stress quotient by making anumber of changes to the event, first bychanging the venue from ImperialCollege to the Rembrandt Hotel, just

opposite the Victoria & AlbertMuseum, second by changing theticketing system, thirdly by altering theseating allocation method andintroducing round tables and finally bychanging the dress requirement fromlounge suits to smart casual (before Ibecame a member of the EntomologicalClub, I had already started to subvertthis rule, not actually owning a suit of

my own anyway). I am told that theevening was a great success; I was toostressed to really notice but certainlythe emails that I received after theevent put my mind at ease.This year I introduced yet another

change, email invitations and renewals.Last year we collected as many emailaddresses as possible, well Clive Farrellactually did the collecting, but it was a

130 Antenna 38 (2)

joint decision. Despite a few‘undeliverables’ the email bookingsystem worked remarkably well and 185entomologists ranging in age from 21 towell over 80 turned up at theRembrandt Hotel on March 5th wherethey were greeted by the ever-

dependable Clive Farrell and one of myex-PhD students, Dr Jennifer Banfield-Zanin, whom had met me earlier in theday to discuss some papers we arewriting and found herself co-opted tocollect money from those memberswithout cheque books. I should pointout that people pay a subscription tojoin the Verrall Association ofEntomologists, not to pay for the dinner.The dinner, which comes with wine(another new innovation), is part of themembership package. The subscriptionis traditionally not fixed, rather, anamount is suggested, with theexpectation that most will pay it andthat a significant number will generouslyexceed it and thus enable the less well-off to attend without undue hardship.This is a tradition that I fully support,although I fear that not enough of thenewer well-salaried members are aware

of this. This year we had 46 femalemembers including Marion Gratwick,who was one of the first ever women toattend. My aim next year is to try to getto an even sex ratio. It was nice to seeso many of my ex-students, PhD andMSc, plus lots of Tweeters. I leave you with assorted scenes ofrevelry and intrigue!I hope that this fairly randomassortment of pictures gives you someflavour of the evening and alsohighlights the fact that the VerrallSupper is no longer entirely populatedby old grey-bearded entomologists,although of course there are still someof us left!

Leather, S.R. (2013) The Verrall Supper2013 - New organiser – New venue.Antenna, 37, 138-139

Ward Cooper and Professor Mike Claridge – discussing a futurebook deal?

Ashleigh Whiffin and Craig Perl – two of the first Harper AdamsUniversity MSc Entomology graduates. I can never resist a chanceto get in a plug for the course and I should also mention that Craigand Ashleigh were also part-funded for their course by the RoyalEntomological Society Scholarship scheme.

Charles Godfray & Keith Bland – Keith taking advantage of the relaxed dress code!

Antenna 38 (2) 131

Everyone facing the camera at this table is an ex-student of mine! None of these are ex-students of mine! Also proof that not allentomologists are male or old.

Chatting about Collembola? Flic Crotty & Fran Sconce with CarlyBenefer.

Gia Aradottir (Rothamsted Research) and Tilly Collins (ImperialCollege) – Tilly was my first Giant Willow Aphid PhD student andthen was co-supervisor of Gia who was my most recent Giant WillowAphid PhD student. And we still don’t know where it goes in thewinter!

Helen Roy, Gordon Port and John Whittaker Part of Top Table; Van, Gill van Emden, Chris Lyal, Richard Lane andMike Siva-Jothy

132 Antenna 38 (2)

Top Table again - The Verrall Secretary is conspicuous by hisabsence – he must be taking photos!

James Logan from the London School of Hygiene and TropicalMedicine and team.

Entomologists at the bar! Happy Diners – including Hugh Loxdale and Helen Roy

2014 Verrall LectureArchie K. Murchie

The 2014 Verrall lecture was deliveredby Prof Greg Hurst from the Universityof Liverpool on the topic of the‘Extended genome: the impact ofmicrobial symbionts on insect ecology andevolution’. Dr Andy Polaszek welcomedthe audience on behalf of the NaturalHistory Museum and the Society,explaining that as the Flett lecturetheatre had been booked in advance wewere in the pleasant but compactsurroundings of the Sir Neil Chalmersseminar room.

Prof Hurst explained that he wouldbe talking about the esoteric subject (tosome) of bugs inside bugs. That is, theimportance of inheritable microbes oninsect function and diversification. The

basic experiment to investigate this isto feed antibiotics to insects (usuallytetracycline hydrochloride in honeywater). A whole range of things canhappen next: tsetse flies go sterile ordie; aphids become susceptible tofungal diseases; rove beetles lose theirtoxicity to predators; vectors canbecome more or less efficient attransmitting diseases; males of thespecies can suddenly appear wherethere were no males before. Sosymbionts are inheritable traits that canbe beneficial or detrimental to the host.The relationships between microbesand insects have been ongoing formillions of years and therefore arehighly entwined, in some cases

resulting in clear co-cladogenesis. Sohow many insect species host howmany bacteria? Greg reckonedcertainly all phloem and obligate bloodfeeders. In addition, it is not onlybacteria; there are inherited fungi,viruses and even a mealy bug. Heshowed a slide of an ant holding itssymbiotic mealy bug, only this wasencased in amber dating from about 20million years ago. It is clear thatsomething works. Symbionts havemany abilities. They can digestcellulose, produce toxins, and act asbioreactors. They can even be deployedoutside the host, e.g. fungal gardeningby ants. Symbionts can also be used forpest or vector control. In Australia,

Antenna 38 (2) 133

entomologists have manipulatedWolbachia symbionts of Aedesmosquitoes with the aim of reducingtransmission of dengue. In effect, this isa form of modifying genetics withoutgenetic modification.The second part of Greg’s talk

focussed on the ‘World’s most beautifulbutterfly’ Hypolimnas bolina and itsmale-killing bacteria. Greg explainedthat symbionts have Dr Jekyll and MrHyde characteristics. The Mr Hyde partis that they kill males. Transmission isheritable but horizontal transmission israre. For example, Wolbachia aretransmitted inside the ova duringoogenesis. Males therefore represent adead-end for the symbiont. Therefore,symbiont infection can kill males,produce feminisation of males orinduce parthenogenesis. All of whichalters the sex-ratio of the hostpopulation, with subsequent ecologicaland evolutionary effects. Greg referredto the work of ‘the two Emilys’ (EmilyDyson and Emily Hornett), whomapped the sex ratio and Wolbachiainfections of H. bolina in the islands ofsouth-east Asia (Samoa, Borneo, thePhilippines and French Polynesia). Bylooking back to historical records andmuseum specimens, what they foundwas that a ‘male-killer’ Wolbachia hadspread through the islands at variousdates in the past, as demonstrated bythe appearance of largely femalepopulations. However, they also foundmore recent examples in thePhilippines of a host factor that ‘rescuesmales’: a dominant suppressor gene thatallows males, but retains Wolbachia. Theselection pressure to produce males isintense and between 2001 and 2005this genetic change swept through the

islands of Samoa, radically swinging thesex ratio back to unity and thusproviding one of the strongest examplesof rapid natural selection.

Greg finished up this fascinating talkby pondering on advice that he had

previously given to research students,which was to work on somethingwidespread... don’t get wrapped up ina small, obscure field. However onreflection, he wondered if this wasentirely good advice as sometimes itwas the rare ‘one off’ situations thatmight reveal how unusual (but veryimportant) transitions occurred, such asthose observed in insect sexdetermination systems.

The President gave a vote of thanksto Prof. Hurst and opened the floor toa raft of questions, which no doubtinspired discussions long into theVerrall Supper. We would like to thankGreg for an excellent Verrall lecturethat cast light on the interdependenceand genetic jostling between insectsand microbes. Our sincere apologies tothose in the overflow room who lostsound. Unfortunately, the technicaldifficulties meant it was ‘not alright onthe night’. We are delighted toannounce that the Flett has been pre-booked for the Verrall lecture for thenext three years!

Prof. Greg Hurst presenting the 2014 Verrall lecture.

Left: Prof. Jeremy Thomas, Prof. GregHurst and Dr Andy Polaszek after theVerrall lecture at the Natural HistoryMuseum.

Below: Prof. Greg Hurst and thePresident take some questions.

134 Antenna 38 (2)

Report on the RES 2013 Northern Meetingand Meeting of The Medical and

Veterinary Entomology Special InterestGroup. Thurs 5th December 2013,

Northumbria University, UK

David George

The well-known phrase ‘it’s grim upnorth’ certainly applied to the weatherwhen entomologists gathered inNewcastle upon Tyne for the RES 2013Northern Meeting and Meeting of TheMedical and Veterinary EntomologySIG. Northumbria University hostedthe meeting, their first for a RESgathering, with parts of the campusonly re-opening shortly beforehandafter being closed due to storm damageto buildings. The meeting was co-organised by Dr David George(Northumbria and RES Hon. Sec. forthe North) and Prof Steve Torr(Liverpool School of Tropical Medicineand RES Med. Vet. Ento. SIG Co-ordinator), with Dr Gordon Port

Antendees getting into the Chritmas spirit.

Dr Ahmed Rashed Abdelnabi (left) and Prof Olivier Sparagano (right).

Antenna 38 (2) 135

(Newcastle University) assisting withsession chairing duties.

The theme of the meeting was‘Insect Pest Management’, with twosessions planned before lunch onagricultural and medical pests, and anafternoon session on veterinary pests.As it turned out talks in the agriculturaland veterinary sessions needed to beswitched due to travel delays, with DrBob Finn’s offering on ‘CytochromeP450s: the key to the acaricideresistance lock?’ being included in thefirst session, and Andy Evan’spresentation on ‘Pest managementbelow ground through confusion anddiversion’ being moved to a slot afterlunch. Thanks to Bob for agreeing tothe last minute timetabling change, andAndy for persevering with his delay-stricken trip down from Scotland.

In all eight platform presentationswere delivered throughout the day,along with a ‘Welcome and overview ofresearch at Northumbria’, provided byProf Olivier Sparagano (NorthumbriaUniversity) to open the meeting. Prof.Steve Lindsay (Durham University)kindly agreed to serve as KeynoteSpeaker, delivering his excellentpresentation titled ‘Can we reducemalaria by improving housing?’ duringthe Medical Pest Management session.This session also included a memorableinvited talk from Prof. Paul Reiter(Institut Pasteur, France), the meeting’sInternational Speaker, on the subject of‘Dengue Control: Why did GorgasSucceed. And why have we failed!’Other talks covered a broad body ofresearch, from flowering field marginsto dust mites, with details of allpresentations and speakers providedbelow. Several interesting and engagingposters were also displayed over lunch.

The organisers would like to thankall those that attended the meeting, andespecially those that presented theirwork, for making it an interesting andinformative event. Though numbersattending were less than hoped, thesmall but enthusiastic nature of thegroup made for an enjoyable andfriendly atmosphere. Thanks also to DrLuke Tilley (RES) for manning theregistration desk, and the RES forfunding the meeting and supportingtravel for the Keynote and InternationalSpeakers.

Presentations delivered at theRES 2013 Northern Meeting and

Meeting of The Medical and VeterinaryEntomology Special Interest Group

Welcome and overview of research at Northumbria

Prof. Olivier Sparagano, Associate Dean for Research and Innovation inthe Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, UK.

Session One: Agricultural Pest Management

Chair: Dr. Gordon Port, Newcastle University, UK

Flowering field margins for combined ecosystem service provision

Dr. David George, Northumbria University, UK

Pest management below ground through confusion and diversion

Dr. Andy Evans and Dr. Craig Rogers, SRUC, UK

Session Two: Medical Pest Management

Chair: Prof. Steve Torr, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Prof. Steve Lindsay, Durham University, UK

Can we reduce malaria by improving housing?

Integrated Vector Management: Collateral effects of insecticide-treated nets for malaria control on other vector borne diseases

Anne Wilson, Durham University, UK

Child Car Seats: a habitat for dust mites and reservoirfor harmful allergens?

David Clarke, Dr. Mike Gormally, Dr. Miriam Byrne, National Universityof Ireland, Ireland

INTERNATIONAL SPEAKER: Prof. Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur,France

DENGUE CONTROL: Why did Gorgas succeed. And why have wefailed!

Session Three: Veterinary Pest Management

Chair: Dr. David George, Northumbria University, UK

Cytochrome P450s: the key to the acaricide resistance lock?

Dr. Robert Finn, Northumbria University, UK

Effects of ‘tiny targets’ on trypanosomiasis in livestockin NW Uganda

Lucas Cunningham, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK

The poultry red mite, Dermanyssus gallinae: A pest ofemerging significance?

Dr. David George, Dr. Robert Finn, Kirsty Graham, Prof. OlivierSparagano, Northumbria University, UK

136 Antenna 38 (2)

OBITUARY

In Memory

Michael Locke(1929-2013)

Michael Locke, who died on 20October 2013 in London, Ontario, wasamong the most influential insectscientists of his generation whose workilluminated insect development andcell biology. Gifted with extraordinaryintelligence, restless curiosity, and quietdetermination, he was able to spotcrucial lacunae in our knowledge ofhow insects function, to identify withgreat precision the appropriatequestions, and, using a variety of tools,provide answers that were unfailinglyprovocative.

Born in 1929, Locke attendedDrayton Manor Grammar School inEaling, London, England, and, afterobligatory National Service in the RAF,took up a state scholarship toCambridge, obtaining a double first inthe Natural Sciences Tripos, an earlyrecognition of his talent. He joined thegrowing group of students of V.B.Wigglesworth on the top floor of theZoology Department, obtaining hisPhD in 1956. He later earned a DSc forhis additional work.

The three papers from his doctoralwork, published in the QuarterlyJournal of Microscopical Science in 1958,had a fresh look at the structure anddevelopment of insect tracheae. Heused electron microscopy (EM) todemonstrate that tracheoles exhibit thesame taenidial structure as the rest ofthe tracheal system and demonstratedconvincingly that the taenidia arosesimply as a result of physical forcesgenerated during development. Moreimportantly, he identified and exploredan apparent paradox: although thenormal developmental pattern resultedin a series of branching tubes in eachsegment in which the total crosssectional area after each branchingremained approximately constant (anobservation first made by the Danishphysiologist Krogh), the system wasalso capable of considerable plasticity.A series of simple surgical approachesoutlined the dimensions of thisplasticity and hinted at the existence ofboth tissue gradients and blood-bornefactors. These papers are still attracting

citations more than half a century afterpublication, a clear indication of theirinfluence.

Michael, perhaps surprisingly, tookup a position at the University of theWest Indies in Jamaica. Among theconsequences was his adoption of theskipper butterfly Calpodes ethlius as anexperimental model. Easily reared, thelarvae are transparent, permitting theobservation of events in livingspecimens. He used this model toexplore a paradox in the secretion ofthe wax layer of the cuticle. Thecurrent dogma held that this layerreached the cuticle via pore canals, butoften the melting point exceeded 60oC.A paper in Nature showed that finalsynthesis of the wax occurred aftersecretion. Note that while the solutionto the paradox was important, so alsowas the identification, and clearstatement, of the problem.

While in the West Indies, he alsotook up the question of segmentaldevelopmental gradients that had been

Antenna 38 (2) 137

raised by his analysis of trachealgrowth. In two extraordinary papers,completed while on leave inCambridge, he used clevertransplantation of Rhodnius cuticle andunderlying epidermis to explore theeffect on cuticular pattern of rotatingthe transplants. While the concept ofdevelopmental gradients had been inthe air for many years, these paperswere the first to provide anunequivocal demonstration of theirexistence, and launched a renewal ofinterest. The papers continue to attractcitations.

These early papers exemplify Locke’sapproach that characterized all of hiswork. First, identify the paradox orproblem, and provide a clear analysisleading to an experimental approach tosolve or at least further clarify theproblem. All of this is written inunfailingly clear, simple, easilycomprehended prose. Indeed, thesepapers could easily be used in teachingabout how to write in science.

During a six month leave inCambridge, Locke used the EM toexplore the question of wax secretionin Calpodes. This marked the beginningof his use of the EM as the primary(although not exclusive) tool for hisresearch. He was still to some degree anovice, however, and he spent thesummer of 1960 in the RockefellerInstitute (now University) with KeithPorter exploring the ultrastructure ofinsect cuticles, particularly pore canals.By the time that the paper (which stillattracts citations) appeared in 1961,Michael had been recruited by HowardSchneiderman to the faculty of theDepartment of Biology to join a largegroup of developmental biologists atWestern Reserve University (later CaseWestern) in Cleveland. Others in thegroup were also former students ofVBW: Tony Watson, John Edwards,Peter Lawrence, Michael Berridge. Thisperiod was enormously productive anda flood of papers appeared, mostlyconcerned with the tracheal system orthe epidermis and cuticle. It would bea mistake, however, to regard these assimply descriptive biology. In each case,the observations were directed towarda specific problem in the cellulardynamics of the insect system. At leastone of these publications, on cuticulin,was designated as a “citation classic”.

During this period, a new interest inthe movement of protein within andbetween tissues developed, exemplifiedby a series of five papers using the fat

body of Calpodes (including one inScience and another in Nature) with hisstudent, Janet Collins.

In 1971, Michael was attracted to theUniversity of Western Ontario to bechair of the Department of Zoology. Itwas perhaps an odd appointment, givenhis commitment to research, but heremained as chair for 14 years withexternal reviews every 5 years. Duringall of this time, he continued hispersonal research programme, workingpersonally at the bench, providingleadership by example. Given agranting system that rewards professorsas managers, directing the research ofothers, it is a remarkable achievement.His interests in the cell biology ofepidermal cells and fat body wereundiminished, and papers on a widevariety of problems emerged. Ofparticular note are those on the beadsof the Golgi complex, and theexploration of ferritin. The Golgi beadswere at first challenged, informally andamusingly, by those who regardedinsects as “lower” organisms and hencenot particularly relevant to “real”(mammalian) cells. Michael extendedthe reach of his research and showedthat they were observable in mousetestes.

As always, however, he remainedclose to the organism. An example isthe remarkable discovery of thetracheal lung in Calpodes, stemmingfrom his recognition that, althoughevery cell in an insect received a directsupply of oxygen via the trachealsystem, there was one exception: theblood cells. Generations of insectscientists had failed to recognise thisproblem. Michael did, and thetransparent Calpodes was the idealorganism to answer the question. Isuspect that I was not the only scientistto feel a little foolish for having missedthat anomaly. Curiously, others havenot taken up this interesting andimportant question. Although Calpodeshas a specialised tracheal structure, thatis not the case in all insects. Thefundamental question, identified byMichael, remains: how do blood cellsget their oxygen?

Michael was frequently at his best asa synthesizer of a field. Those papers,often invited, are not simply therecitation of his research, but developnew insights. The paper “What everyepidermal cell knows” in the Festschriftfor Wigglesworth marking his formal“retirement” in 1967 is still relevant, asis his contribution to the remarkable

volume he developed with DavidSmith to celebrate Wigglesworth’s 80thbirthday 13 years later. For several yearsin the 60s, he served as editor of theannual Symposium of the Society ofDevelopmental Biology and Growth(now the Society of DevelopmentalBiology).

Like most academic scientists, heleaves the legacy not only of a body ofpapers (about 200 in all) and severalbooks, as author or editor, but also alegacy of students. Among his doctoralstudents from the time in Clevelandwere Joan Lai Fook (faculty atUniversity of Toronto), Susan Bonner-Weir (faculty at Harvard), JosephKunkel (faculty at the University ofMassachusetts), and Eugenia Wang(faculty at the University of Louisville).At Western, his doctoral studentsincluded Reddy Palli (faculty at theUniversity of Kentucky), Jan Ryerse(faculty at St Louis University), HelenNichol (faculty at the University ofSaskatchewan), David Brodie(pharmaceutical industry), Tim Brac(Brac Scientific Consulting), OanaMarcu (SETI Institute), and Alan Tuck(faculty in Medicine, Western). Amongthe post docs at Cleveland wereMichael (now Sir Michael) Berridgeand Peter Lawrence, both of whomreturned to Cambridge, and at Western,David Carter (UC Riverside), CherylKetola (Fanshawe College) and RobDean (faculty, Western).

Various honours recognized hisachievements: Fellow of the RoyalSociety of Canada, Fellow of theEntomological Society of Canada andof the Entomological Society ofAmerica, Honorary Fellow of the RoyalEntomological Society, KillamFellowship. The award by the RES ofthe Wigglesworth Medal andLectureship at the InternationalCongress of Entomology in Brazil gavehim great pleasure, since Wigglesworthwas his inspiration.

I think it is important that I shouldsay something about Michael,Cambridge and Wigglesworth. Being astudent in that environment was clearlya defining experience in Michael’s life,as it was in mine. Certainly it changedmy life. VBW was required to take onstudents as a condition of the QuickProfessorship that he occupied. Oncehe was satisfied that you had selectedand defined a worthwhile problem, youwere left to get on with it, leavingWigglesworth free to get on with hisresearch, his consuming interest. This

138 Antenna 38 (2)

single-minded commitment to, andpersonal involvement in, research atthe bench impressed Michael and hetried, successfully in my view, toemulate that behavior within theconstraints of a very different academicenvironment in North America. Forstudents of Wigglesworth, thedissertation was YOURS, the paperswere YOURS. There were nocommittees to satisfy, no course workrequired, and Wigglesworth refused toread the dissertation or drafts of thepapers. But that did not implyindifference. Because I had the privilegeof returning to the group as a Fellow,and because I visited VBW at least onceper year until the late 80s, I was able toobserve him more closely. He wascertainly aware of what the studentswere doing, and while he would neverintervene directly, he might ask aboutprogress, implying perhaps that youhad better get on with it. He alsofollowed the progress of formerstudents. VBW had a strong preferencefor students from Canada, a strategicmove designed to strengthen insectscience in Canada, and he took a greatinterest in what he referred to as hisCanadian mafia. He was thus pleasedthat Michael had taken on the job atWestern and often asked about hisprogress. Incidentally, Michael was thesecond Wigglesworthian to serve aschair of Zoology at Western. A.W.A.Brown, who was chair during my timeat Western, had worked his way acrossthe Atlantic in a cattle boat to workwith VBW in the late 30s while he wasstill at the London School of Hygieneand Tropical Medicine.

And that brings me to Michael theman. He was, as already noted,blindingly bright, unswervinglyprincipled and above all, rational. Heset very high standards for himself (andothers!): good enough was not in hisvocabulary. At the same time, he wasalso entirely self-contained: extrovertis not a characteristic that leaps tomind. All of that sounds cold andhumourless, and first encounters couldbe daunting or even terrifying.

He was in fact a man capable of greatgenerosity and kindness, particularly forthe young. Evidence of that can befound in the acknowledgments of hishelp by many authors from what mightbe regarded as competing labs. He wasgenerous about recognising thecontributions of others to his thinkingand about authorship: his long-timeassistant at Western was a co-author onmany of his papers.

Although he served as chair for 14years, he regarded most“administrators” in universities assuperfluous, and he frequently turnedhis devastating sense of humour in theirdirection, often in the form of acarefully crafted bit of writing. I wishthat I had retained one piece, writtenwhen he was dealing with bowelcancer. He compared theadministrative process in universities tothe fascination of the aged with theirown digestive process: “a far too carefulinspection of the product combinedwith an excessive use of paper”. Heeven managed to insert a bit ofinvective in his address for theWigglesworth Medal, published in theJournal of Insect Physiology.

Michael married Audrey in 1953,before beginning his doctoral work.They had four children. In 1980,Michael married his former student,the formidable Janet Collins, who lefta position in Biology at Dalhousie tojoin him in London. She entered lawschool at Western, qualified as a lawyer,and served on the Board of Governorsat Western.

He was, for a supposedly entirelylogical predictable man, capable ofgreat surprises. On one occasion, hetook me after dinner to the basementwhere he revealed the equipment heused in lapidary. He explained thatsince he no longer had the time to cutsections, he found that he neededsomething to do with his hands. (I notethat VBW produced soapstonecarvings, often of Rhodnius). As in hisscience, lapidary was done at a level ofperfection matched only by the best

professionals. Michael was incapable ofsuperficiality. The lapidary led him toan interest in objects fashioned frombone, and eventually ivory and horn.He developed so much expertise thathe was consulted about antiquitiesmade from these materials. Typically,his examination of bone identifiedsome questions about the details of theaccepted structure, and a paper in theJournal of Morphology resulted.Similarly, he investigated the structureof ivory from a wide variety of animals.That study also resulted in a paper inthe Journal of Morphology that includedcharacteristic sketches that clarified theapparent complexity. A book on bone,ivory and horn appeared at the end of2013, after his death.

He and Janet shared an interest ingardening, and the garden at the backof their home in London was aperfection, whether it was dominatedby flowers or, as happened suddenly,converted to a vegetable garden,including a miniature swamp, fed byrun-off from the roof.

It has been, by any measure, anextraordinary life that has enriched ourscience, and the lives of many students.For me personally, I have oftenremarked that I have led a life full ofgood fortune and great privilege. Thatlife has been enhanced by the privilegeof having Michael Locke as a friend.

Ken G Davey OC FRSC

Distinguished ResearchProfessor Emeritus

Department of BiologyYork University

4700 Keele Street, TORONTO, ONCANADA M3J 1P3

Reprinted with permission of the Editorfrom the Bulletin of the EntomologicalSociety of Canada, Volume 46(1), 2014

Antenna 38 (2) 139

-

-

140 Antenna 38 (2)

Understanding honey bee colony losses Four papers published today in the Journal of Apicultural Research describe the results of surveys of beekeepers in 22 countries worldwide. Two present information on losses of honey bee colonies from the 2012-13 winter gathered from a total of more than 22,000 beekeepers together owning nearly 1 million colonies. The first paper1 reports colony losses from the USA for the 2012-13 winter. These losses were much higher than reported for the previous year (22.5%), but at approximately 30%, they are exactly average for losses since the recent surveys began in 2006-7. The difference between the last two years highlights the differences in the weather experienced. Amateur beekeepers tended to blame losses on factors which should be within their control, such as starvation, or weak colonies going into winter, whilst commercial beekeepers tended to blame factors outside their control such as pesticides and queen problems. The parasitic mite Varroa was a key factor reported,

low down the list of reported causes. Meanwhile, the second paper2 reports the results from standardised questionnaires developed by members of the COLOSS research association from 19 mainly European countries. For the first time, the authors have attempted to model the influence of various factors on the losses, with some striking results. Significant factors identified with colony losses were the age of queen bees in colonies going into winter, the treatment of varroa, and access by foraging honey bees to agricultural crops such as oilseed rape and maize. This could support the current concerns about pesticides widely used on these crops, but there is also growing evidence that the decline for bees in areas of intensive agriculture may be because mass flowering crops provide food for only part of the year in a landscape otherwise devoid of bee forage, and also that these crops may provide poor quality food for bees. The third paper3 documents for the first time colony losses in Luxembourg from 2010-2012. Although a small country, the losses reported seem to fit in well with what is known of losses in neighbouring countries. Finally, in contrast to these results from the northern hemisphere, the last paper4 reports data from South Africa. Whilst these losses (29.6%) are comparable with those reported elsewhere, the causes seem to be different. The main cause reported by the South African beekeepers is the Cape honey bee, which acts as a social parasite in colonies of the more common savannah honey bee. The authors emphasise that the causes of colony loss experienced in the northern hemisphere, although present in South Africa, appear to be less threatening there, and uniquely African factors seem to be more significant.

IBRA Science Director and JAR Senior Editor Norman Carreck says: story of increased honey bee colony losses, and these new papers increase our confidence that we are

[Ends]

International Bee Research Association

The world's longest established apicultural research publishers

PRESS RELEASE

[embargoed until 00:01 GMT on 26/2/14]

U n i t 6 , C en t r e C o u r t , M a i n A v en u e , T r e f o r e s t ,

Rhondda Cynon Taf, C F 3 7 5Y R , U K .

TEL: +44 (0)29 2037 2409 Email: mail@ibra.org.uk

Antenna 38 (2) 141

Book ReviewThe Cicadas of Thailand, Volume 2. Taxonomy and Sonic Ethology

by Michel Boulard

436 pages, 384 B/W photos, line drawings and sonograms (soundtracks available online),97 colour plates with 400 photos, 24.5 × 17 cm. Hard-cover.

Siri Scientific Press, 2013; in English.

ISBN 978-0-9567795-9-5

Obtainable from Siri Scientific Press <books@siriscientificpress.co.uk>; cost £120.00 (plus p/p).

Further details online at: <http://www.siriscientificpress.co.uk>.

It is my pleasure to introduce a new comprehensive and very impressive book devoted to thecicadas of Thailand to the readers of Antenna. It is the fifth volume of the continuingmonograph series produced by Siri Scientific Press under the general editorship of DavidPenney. The book represents a 436 page volume from the leading world expert onCicadomorpha, resulting from 13 years of his work on the taxonomy and behavioural ecologyof cicadas in Thailand. It is a sequel to the preceding book by the same author devoted togeneral characteristics of Thai cicadas published by White Lotus Publishers (Bangkok) in 2007.The reviewed book starts with two Prefaces (in English and French, pp. 5–6), a list of Contents(p. 7), followed unexpectedly by Lists of all the figures included in the volume (384 in total;pp. 8–10), colour plates (97 in total; pp. 10–11) and audio tracks (109 in total; p. 11). The mainpart of the book (pp. 14–335) consists of three Chapters, Conclusions, Endnotes to the chapters,References and two Appendices.

Chapter 1 (pp. 14–16) provides a brief description of the studied region, including theprovinces of Thailand visited by the author (22 field trips between March 2000 and December2011), technical details on how sound recording was done and a very brief morphologicalcharacteristic of cicadas. Unfortunately, there is no information on a depository (or depositories)of the studied material; one can only suspect that the studied collections are mainly preserved

in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris as mentioned for the types of newly described species (see below). Chapter2 (pp. 17–20) provides a simplified classification of Thai cicadas based, as the author noted in the previous chapter (p. 15), on “aconventional schema that is accessible to all”. No reference to this schema has been provided and thus it is unclear whether it isa personal author’s view, which seems to be the case, or a conventionally accepted opinion. The studied species are classified intwo subfamilies, Cicadinae (tymbal cover present) and Cicadettinae (tymbal cover absent), with three tribes in each; one tribe(Cryptotympanini) is designated with a new taxonomic status. The subfamily Cicadinae is also subdivided in 15 subtribes, ofwhich two (Aolina and Balintina) are erected as new. In my opinion, it would be useful if this Chapter also included anidentification key, at least to subtribes, and comparative illustrations of the characters discussed to make it indeed accessible toall. Chapter 3 (pp. 20–316) is the main section of the book containing detailed accounts of 42 genera, 6 tribes, 15 subtribes and143 species studied, of which 78 species were discovered and described by the author (a very impressive score indeed!). Every(sub)tribe and genus are provided with taxonomic diagnoses, plus synonymy lists for the genera. Each species account consists ofthe following subsections: synonymy list, distribution in Thailand, brief morphological description, main measurements of bothsexes and ethological notes. The latter are particularly comprehensive, giving lots of original information about the species’ biologyand particularly its sonic communication; acoustic identity cards of all species are illustrated and described in detail. The value ofall this information for new generations of cicada students can hardly be underestimated, especially as the soundtracks of 109species can be freely accessed via the site of Siri Scientific Press, online at: http://www.siriscientificpress.co.uk/Pages/ThaiCicadaSoundtracks.aspx. Taxonomic accounts of newly described species are more detailed and additionally include theinformation on the depository of the type specimens, etymology for the new name and separate morphological descriptions ofmale holotypes and female allotypes; both sexes are photographed, but only male genitalia are illustrated. A total of eight newspecies from three genera are described in this work: Abroma (1 species), Huechys (1) and Pomponia (5). The Conclusion section(pp. 317–318) summarises the previous content of the volume and the state of the knowledge of cicada fauna of Thailand.Unfortunately, there is no comparison of this fauna with those of neighbouring regions and no estimate on how many unrecordedcicada species are likely to occur in Thailand. The reference list (pp. 322–331) includes 233 works, of which 55 were publishedby the author. Appendix 1 (pp. 332–334) contains a taxonomic list of all taxa included in this volume. Appendix 2 lists all Errataand corrigenda recorded for volume 1, the previous book by the same author. A taxonomic index (pp. 336–339) and a set of 97colour plates, with 400 eco-photos of cicadas taken in their natural settings, conclude this impressive book.

Overall, this volume has made a very good impression on me, particularly with regard to its comprehensiveness, and I wish tocongratulate the author and publisher for such fine work. Despite the book containing taxonomic, ecological and ethologicalinformation on cicadas of Thailand only, there is no doubt that it will be useful for anyone studying cicadas of the entire SE Asia.It is indeed a useful reference volume to have both in a private library and in the library of any natural history museum oruniversity.

Dmitri V. LogunovCurator of Arthropods, The Manchester Museum

142 Antenna 38 (2)

DiaryAssistant Editor: Duncan Allen (e-mail: antennadiary@gmail.com)Contributions please! Your support is needed to make this diary effective so please send any relevant items to the diary’s compiler,Duncan Allen, E-mail: antennadiary@gmail.com. No charge is made for entries. To ensure that adequate notice of meetings, etc. is given,please allow at least 6 months’ advance notice.

Details of the Meetings programme can be viewed on the RES website (www.royensoc.co.uk/meetings) and include a registration form,which usually must be completed in advance so that refreshments can be organised. Day meetings usually begin with registration andrefreshments at 10 am for a 10.30 am start and finish by 5 pm. Every meeting can differ though, so please refer to the details below andalso check the website, which is updated regularly.

Offers to convene meetings on an entomological topic are very welcome and can be discussed with the Honorary Secretary.

MEETINGS OF THE ROYAL ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY2014Jun 4 RES AGM

Venue: The Mansion House, St Albans

Jun National Insect Week23-29 Lots happening, please check out…

www.nationalinsectweek.co.uk

Aug 3-8 European Congress of Entomology (www.ece2014.com)Venue: University of York, Heslington, YorkChair of the Organising Committee: Prof. Stuart Reynolds (ece2014@royensoc.co.uk)Confirmed plenary speakers: Janet Hemingway, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UKBruno Lemaitre, Ecole Polytechnique Federale, SwitzerlandNancy Moran, Yale University, USAVojtech Novotny, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech RepublicJohn Pickett, Rothamsted Research, UKChris Thomas, University of York, UK

The 10th European Congress of Entomology will be held in the University of York from Sunday 3rd (opening ceremony) toFriday 8th August. There are currently 48 sessions being organised on all aspects of entomology. Please look at the website(www.ece2014.com), which has up-to-date information.

Sep 3 Aphid Special Interest GroupVenue: Harper Adams UniversityConvenor: Prof. Simon Leather (simonleather@harper-adams.ac.uk)

Oct 14 Behaviour Special Interest GroupVenue: Rothamsted Research, HarpendenConvenor: Dr Jason Chapman (jason.chapman@rothamsted.ac.uk) and Dr James Bell (james.bell@rothamsted.ac.uk)

We shall be holding an Insect Behaviour SIG with the theme of “sensory biology” at Rothamsted, and we welcomesubmission of oral or poster presentations for this meeting. We have some agreed speakers already (tentative titles arebelow), but there are still plenty of slots for interested speakers. To submit an oral or poster presentation for this one-daymeeting, please email the convenors.

Dr Gabriella Gibson, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich “Auditory communication in mosquitoes”Prof Daniel Robert, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol “Hearing and the electro-reception senses in insects”Prof Gareth Jones, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol “Sky wars: moths v bats”

Antenna 38 (1) 143

144 Antenna 38 (2)

Nov 5 Orthopterists’ Special Interest GroupVenue: Natural History Museum, from 1.30 – 8.00 pmConvenor: Dr Björn Beckmann (orthoptera@ceh.ac.uk)

Everyone is very welcome to attend the annual Orthopterists’ meetings, whether to present research or just to listen and meetothers. Talks, posters and other contributions are welcomed on grasshoppers, crickets and related groups (cockroaches,earwigs, stick insects, mantids). Both initial observations and ideas, as well as completed research can be presented.

A draft programme will be posted online and circulated in the autumn. To date we are expecting a talk by Mike Edwards on theconservation and current status of the Field Cricket (Gryllus campestris) in Britain. Suggestions for further speakers are welcome,e.g. students working on Orthoptera.

CostEither a full price of £14.00 to include a cold buffet with wine at about 6:00 pm, and tea and biscuits during the afternoonOr a reduced price of £4.00 to include tea and biscuits only, if you are not staying for the buffet.

RegistrationPlease register by sending an email to orthoptera@ceh.ac.uk, or by post to Björn Beckmann, Centre for Ecology& Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, providing the following details:your first name, surname, and institution if applicable (for name badge)title of talk or poster, if you would like to present somethingindicate whether you will be staying for the buffet or not, and any special dietary requirements

Nov 21 South-West Regional MeetingAnd now for something completely different... Exploring the fringes of entomologyVenue: Plymouth UniversityConvenor: Mr Peter Smithers (psmithers@plymouth.co.uk)

2015

Mar 4 Verrall lectureVenue: The Flett lecture theatre, NHMConvenor: Dr Archie K. Murchie

Jun 3 RES AGMVenue: The Mansion House, St Albans

Sept 2-4 Ento’ 15 Annual Science Meeting and International SymposiumInsect Ecosystem ServicesVenue: Trinity College DublinConvenors: Drs Jane Stout, Olaf Schmidt, Archie K. Murchie, Eugenie Regan, Stephen Jess, Brian Nelson

Speakers confirmed to date:Janne Bengtsson (Uppsala, Sweden)Sarah Beynon (Pembrokeshire)Jerry Cross (East Malling)Tom Bolger (Dublin)Dave Goulson (Sussex)Alexandra-Maria Klein (Freiburg, Germany)Simon Leather (Harper-Adams)Craig Macadam (Buglife, Stirling)Sarina Macfadyen (CSIRO, Australia)Jane Memmott (Bristol)Charles Midega (ICIPE, Kenya)Michael D. Ulyshen (USDA – Forest Service, USA)

2016

Sep 5-8 Ento’16Venue: Harper Adams University College, ShropshireConvenor: Prof. Simon Leather

Agricultural and Forest Entomology provides a multi-disciplinary and international forum in whichresearchers can present their work on all aspects of agricultural and forest entomology to otherresearchers, policy makers and professionals.2014 print or online prices: UK £707, Euroland C= 900, USA $1,307, Rest of World $1,5232014 print and online prices: UK £813, Euroland C= 1,035, USA $1,503, Rest of World $1,752

Ecological Entomology publishes top-quality original research on the ecology of terrestrial and aquaticinsects and related invertebrate taxa. Our aim is to publish papers that will be of considerable interestto the wide community of ecologists.2014 print or online prices: (with Insect Conservation and Diversity) UK £1,157, Euroland C= 900, USA$2,145, Rest of World $2,5012014 print and online prices: UK £1,340, Euroland C= 1,035, USA $2,467, Rest of World $2,873

Insect Conservation and Diversity explicitly associates the two concepts of insect diversity and insectconservation for the benefit of invertebrate conservation. The journal places an emphasis on wildarthropods and specific relations between arthropod conservation and diversity.2014 print or online prices: UK £707, Euroland C= 900, USA $1,307, Rest of World $1,5232014 print and online prices: UK £813, Euroland C= 1,035, USA $1,503, Rest of World $1,752

Insect Molecular Biology has been dedicated to providing researchers with the opportunity to publishhigh quality original research on topics broadly related to insect molecular biology since 1992. IMB isparticularly interested in publishing research in insect genomics/genes and proteomics/proteins.2014 print or online prices: UK £1,178, Euroland C= 1,496, USA $2,177, Rest of World $2,5382014 print and online prices: UK £1,354, Euroland C= 1,722, USA $2,504, Rest of World $2,920

Medical and Veterinary Entomology is the leading periodical in its field. The Journal covers all aspectsof the biology and control of insects, ticks, mites and other artropods of medical and veterinaryimportance.2014 print or online prices: UK £678, Euroland C= 864, USA $1,255, Rest of World $1,4652014 print and online prices: UK £780, Euroland C= 994, USA $1,445, Rest of World $1,685

Physiological Entomology is designed primarily to serve the interests of experimentalists who work onthe behaviour of insects and other arthropods. It thus has a bias towards physiological and experimentalapproaches, but retains the Royal Entomological Society’s traditional interest in the general physiologyof arthropods.2014 print or online prices: UK £646, Euroland C= 796, USA $1,156, Rest of World $1,3492014 print and online prices: UK £717, Euroland C= 915, USA $1,330, Rest of World $1,551

Systematic Entomology encourages the submission of taxonomic papers that contain information ofinterest to a wider audience, e.g. papers bearing on the theoretical, genetic, agricultural, medical andbiodiversity issues. Emphasis is also placed on the selection of comprehensive, revisionary or integratedsystematics studies of broader biological or zoogeographical relevance.2014 print or online prices: UK £1,113, Euroland C= 1,416, USA $2,059, Rest of World $2,4032014 print and online prices: UK £1,279, Euroland C= 1,629, USA $2,368, Rest of World $2,764

Subscriptions and correspondence concerning back numbers, off-prints and advertising for the sevenprincipal journals of the Society should be sent to the publishers, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ. (customerservices@blackwellpublishing.com)

Antenna (Bulletin of the Society). Free to Members/Fellows. Published quarterly at an annual subscriptionrate of £40 (Europe), £42 (outside Europe), $70 (United States). This journal contains entomologicalnews, comments, reports, reviews and notice of forthcoming meetings and other events. Whileemphasising the Society’s affairs, Antenna aims at providing entomologists in general with a forum fortheir views and news of what is going on in entomology. Subscriptions and advertising enquiries shouldbe sent to the Business Manager at The Mansion House, Chiswell Green Lane, Chiswell Green, St.Albans, Hertfordshire AL2 3NS and any other enquiries to the Editors.

Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. This series now covers many families of variousOrders. Each Handbook includes illustrated keys, together with concise morphological, bionomic anddistributional information. A full list of Handbooks with order form is available. See websitewww.royensoc.co.uk

Symposia. Nos. 1-3 were published by the Society; Nos. 4-10 by Blackwell Scientific Publications: Nos.11-17 by Academic Press and No. 18 by Chapman & Hall, No. 19 by Kluwer, No. 20, 21, 22 and 23by CABI.

Publications of theRoyal Entomological Society

omof Ento Xth Eur

mologyopean Congr

ess e r

, UKkorYsi erUniv

ugu3-8 Aomof Ent

K, korty of Y

41t 20usmology

L itB

s ery speakPlenar

omologapplied entwill include all im

mation: scien orinfopic of The main t

s will include:

.gyant issues of basic t mpor

op , and the tty nce – socieomo ess is: Ent f the congr

an nd pic cs olo ogy

y o cademCzech Aytnovech NoojtV

a exsity of TerUnivanancy MorN

landSwitzerechniqytolEcole P

euno LemaitrBr

e Budejo f Sciences Cesk

Atin, USusas at A

ale, Lausanne, ederue F

vi ce o

and accommodat mat orther infurF

ensyo4@r1ece20anising CommOrg

epublic Czech Ry o cademCzech A

ms or tion booking ftration, abstregistion, r

soc.co.uk:actee cont mitt

e Budejo f Sciences, Cesk

ac ct r

ce, vi o

ailable on:vaand accommodat

OMOLOGNTELAGES © ROYA IMALL

.ecewww

ms or tion booking f

O PHOTRINSTEMK ROY EXCEPTETYIOCSLACI

4.com1e20