The Suffolk Argus
The Millennium
Atlas of Norfolk Butterflies - A Further Appraisal By Richard Stewart Can I add to some of Rob Parker's comments in the last ½rgus'. I found the text very full and interesting, picking up some new information in the process. Considering the size of reproduction, the photos were excellent, being in focus and a helpful guide to identification, not just through their variety but also because they were grouped closely together. Several Suffolk comments needed much closer checking - Rob mentioned the Chalkhill Blue transposition, but the suggestion that the Green Hairstreak is declining in Suffolk translates, in reality, to genuine expansion into areas off the heathlands, though admittedly the national publication got it wrong as well. Bearing in mind I made it quite clear in the first column of my detailed Suffolk Butterflies article in BC News, Winter 2001, that there was no conclusive proof of a breeding colony of the Queen of Spain Fritillary in Suffolk, the comment: "reports of a permanent colony in Suffolk have continued throughout the late 1990s" is unfortunate. I also doubt if the authors could justify the comment "The White Admiral is unlike any other British butterfly in appearance" if they saw one in the canopy, flying alongside a female Purple Emperor. And to be told "Some authors ascribe a named form to individuals with such spots, but in our experience it is very rare for there to be no blue markings at all", in respect of v. caeruleopunctata, Small Copper, is very misleading. Certainly in Suffolk there are several recorders closely examining this species and their evidence is in clear contradiction. However, my main concern is with the distribution maps. These are certainly clear but also very limited, simply because of there having
Spring 2003 been only 83% coverage from 1989-2000 and just 22,000 records, that is about 2,000 a year: not enough, surely, for a comprehensive set of distribution maps. Even those covering the more common species have large gaps and in the case of the Brown Argus the comment that it "has colonised the entire county in little more than a decade" unfortunately is directly below a largely empty map, including many completely recordfree 10 km squares. This lack of coverage is most evident in the bottom right hand corner of the maps, i.e. administrative Norfolk, which is also vice-county Suffolk on our maps. Species after species has large gaps which are covered on Suffolk maps, the Essex Skipper being perhaps the most obvious example. This has detailed coverage in this area, representing a genuine expansion since the mid-80's Suffolk survey. Since I compiled and issued updated species distribution maps every year from 1993-99, a simple telephone call to me, Martin Sanford, Richard Fox or Jim Asher would •have released this data. Perhaps it just emphasises the need for closer liaison between adjoining East Anglian branches, which hopefully will occur once a Regional Officer is appointed.
BrownArgus by Douglas Hammersley
22
Editorial· byJim Foster Regular readers will know that for many years the author of this page has been Richard Stewart, however he resigned from the Committee at the Annual General Meeting in September. I have taken over the mantle as the sole editor where recently Richard and myself were joint editors. Richard has undertaken a tremendous amount of work for the conservation of butterflies in Suffolk. He has been Conservation Officer (Butterflies) since the formation of the Suffolk Branch in 1993, County Recorder (Butterflies) since 1994 and Joint Newsletter Editor of the Suffolk Argus from July 1998. Throughout his period of office he has been a very active committee member and carried out numerous tasks on behalf of the Branch. This work culminated in the publication of'The Millennium Atlas of Suffolk Butterflies' in 2001. Richard's outstanding endeavours were acknowledged recently when committee colleagues presented him with Michael Salmon's superb new book: "The Aurelian Legacy - British Butterflies and their Collectors". Well done Richard, and thank you for all the enthusiastic work you have done on our behal£ An advantage Richard had when writing the editorial was that he could draw on his experiences as County Recorder, furthermore, he was in a previ~us incarnation an English teacher, and therefore had a way with words. Your present editor, a retired qualified accountant, has more of a way with figures than with words, consequently readers may well find the editorial rather shorter than previously. This is a new venture for me but I will do my best. In the previous issue of The Suffolk Argus under the Lavenham field meeting, reference was made to an unidentified plant as follows, "with just one plant, probably a spurge, causing identification problems in the well-cleared former
railway cutting". Two members, Derek and Valerie Soper who attended that meeting decided to return to the site in early June and found it in flower. They noted the botanical characteristics and identified it as Common Gromwell Lithospermum officinale, a member of the Borage Family. They pointed out that Gromwells have a very hard seed hence the scientific name that means "stone seed". I note in Simpson's Flora of Suffolk that the species is, "Formerly frequent, now becoming scarce. Not usually in any quantity". Thank you Derek and Valerie for identifying this plant for us. For those who have yet to attend a Suffolk Branch field meeting this emphasises the fact that although Lepidoptera are the main motive for the meetings most of those who attend have interests wider than butterflies and moths. Thus field meetings can give rise to us furthering our knowledge and understanding of all aspects of natural history. Turning to this issue, those of you that have been following the Apollo articles by our former Chairman James Mann will see that he has at last found his quarry. Episode 4 also includes illustrations of the butterfly. Enclosed with this newsletter is the 2003 programme. The Committee have as before endeavoured to create a varied selection of meetings both 'home and away' and for moths as well as butterflies. The out of county trips provide members with the opportunity of seeing species that are absent or uncommon in Suffolk. We would like to see more members attending the field meetings as only a small proportion of the membership in Suffolk currently participate. These meetings can be a pleasant social event in addition to the natural history, so why not give them a try.
3
