NOTES ON THE SUFFOLK LIST OF COLEOPTERA: 1 —CARABIDAE DAVID R . NASH
Ever since their inception, it has been a function of these Transactions to act as a repository for records of flora and fauna new to the county. The object of the present series of papers is, (a) to collate new county records from my own collecting and that of colleagues, (b) to bring together published records previously unnoticed in this journal which appear to constitute new county records, (c) to identify new records from lists published in these Transactions where new records have not been indicated, (d) to provide critical notes upon species where relevant, and (e) to recommend deletion of records where strong evidence for such deletions can be provided. In 1957, B. P. Moore published a check list and a county distribution of the British Carabidae (Moore, 1957a, 1957b). This extensive piece of research based upon published and unpublished records, has provided a foundation for all subsequent work on the distribution of our Carabidae. In the present paper a number of species are brought forward as new to Suffolk since they are listed by Moore as occurring in the county. Space obviously did not allow Moore to publish the data upon which his records were based, and he now no longer works in this country. In some cases I am unaware of published or unpublished records of the species concerned, whilst in others I have data which Moore may have used in order to justify their inclusion as Suffolk insects. In the list which follows, species cited by Moore as occurring in Suffolk but for which I have no further information, are simply accompanied by his initials—B.P.M. — in brackets. Throughout the paper all references to Moore apply to his 1957 publications. Species for which there is no previously published county record, as far as I can ascertain, are prefixed by a double asterisk. Species not previously noted in the index to these Transactions as new Suffolk insects but for which records have been published elsewhere, or occasionally herein, are prefixed by a single asterisk. Two, or four figure N.G. references are provided whenever possible. When a species has been recorded from the same
Vol. 17, Part 4
locality more than once, the grid reference is only given against the first record for that site. N o m e n c l a t u r e follows Lindroth (1974). CICINDELINAE *Cicindela maritima
In his county distribution Charts, Moore deletes both C. sylvatica Linnaeus and C. hybrida Linnaeus as Suffolk insects presumably because their sole claim to inclusion in our list is based on records which are in most cases over 150 years old (vide Morley, 1899 p . l ) . O n the other hand, the local C. maritima D e j . which was formerly regarded as a subspecies or variety of hybrida is afforded a place by Moore on our county list. CARABINAE Nebriini *Leistus
This recent immigrant was first recorded from Kent (Crowson, 1942). N o f u r t h e r example was found until Gilbert (1954) secured a second individual on September 26th, 1953 at H o r r i n g e r , near Bury St Edmunds. Since that time, the insect has proceeded to establish itself very successfully having now been recorded from about a dozen counties. It appears to be spreading steadily westwards from its initial foothold in S.E. E n g l a n d and has been found in recent years as far west as H a n t s . (Haines, 1972), Wilts. (Skidmore, 1972), and the Isle of Wight (Appleton, 1974). In addition to the Bury record, the beetle has been reported on at least three occasions from Tuddenham (presumably West Suffolk) — ( M a c n u l t y , 1962; 1963; 1964), and also from Staverton Park (Welch and Harding, 1974). I have taken single examples as follows: 7.ix.70—under brick, Hollesley H e a t h , T M 3446 ; 3.vii.71 — swept grasses beside Tunstall C o m m o n , TM 3755; 31.viii.7 — a m o n g leaves etc. at base of Beech, Shrubland Park, Barham, T M 1153. C. S. B. has provided the following records: 25.viii.65, 26.vii.67, 26.vii.71 — s e v e r a l exx. found under pine log bark, in moss etc—singly in 1967, Rendlesham, T M 35; 22.vi.69, 29.viii.72, 9.vii.75 — singletons in garden or house, Westbury R d . , Ipswich, T M 14; 30.vii.71 — several under stones in woods n e a r O r f o r d , T M 45.
N O T E S ON T H E S U F F O L K LIST O F COLEOPTERA
Notiophilini ' Notiophilus germinyi Fauvel (= hypocrita auctt.) Although listed by Moore as having been taken in the county, I am not aware of a previously published record. I have records of this rather uncommon, usually heathland species as follows: 30.vii.68 — o n sandy path in Rendlesham Forest, Eyke, T M 35 (C. S. B.); 29.V.73—running on heath, Blaxhall, TM 3856; 24.viii.73 — u n d e r stone on beach area, Thorpeness, TM 4760; 29.v.77— under rubbish on heathland, Foxhall, TM 2344; 14.X.77—under stone, Tunstall Common, TM 3754 (H.M.). All records are based upon single examples.
Scaritini *Dyschirius luedersi Wagner Although Wagner separated his new species luedersi from D. aeneus D e j e a n in 1915 and reported it at that time from England, it was not until 1933 that the attention of British coleopterists was drawn to its existence as a British insect (Blair, 1933). Published records of aeneus prior to Blair's paper are, therefore, unreliable. The only published record of luedersi for the county of which I am aware, is contained in a list of captures at Barton Mills by the late F. D. Buck (Buck, 1957) who found it on the banks of a pond which was 'considerably below the level of the surrounding country and was muddy rather than sandy'. In August, 1972, luedersi was taken in the Dunwich Marshes with D. globosus (Herbst) and thoracicus (Rossi) E . W . A . / C . J . ) . I have single examples taken as follows: 13.iv.76—on foreshore mud, Holbrook Bay, TM 1634; 22.V.76 — beaten from seaweed, Orford, T M 4249. I also took luedersi commonly on the edge of a pond at Middle Fen, Lopham, Norfolk TM 0580 on 21.iv.76. This would appear to represent not only an addition to Pope's extensive list from the locality (Pope, 1969), but also a new county record since luedersi s distribution is given by Lindroth (1974) as England, North to Suffolk. There is a single Suffolk example of luedersi in Morley's collection (teste D . R . N . ) which was taken l.vi.26 at Oulton Broad. I can find no published record of this particular insect. It was doubtless an oversight on Morley's part that the beetle was not added to the Suffolk list in these Transactions.
Vol. 17, Part 4
Bembidiini Bembidion "Bembidion
quadripustulatum iricolor Bedel
Not noted by Moore from Suffolk. Morley, however, recorded the species as riparium O l . in 'The Coleoptea of Suffolk', p. 10, and he changed the name in his own copy of the book following the discovery that riparium (sensu Fowler 1887) was in fact the iricolor of Bedel (vide Fowler and Donisthorpe, 1913 p.9). There are extant in the Morley Collection eight examples of iricolor taken in 1897 at Felixstowe, and one taken at Cattawade, 12.iii. 1903; the latter probably from the Suffolk side of the Stour. C. S. B. has taken single examples as followsi 24.vii.59 — under seaweed, Chantry Point, Orford, TM 44; 3.viii.61 — wet reed litter, Benacre Broad, TM 58; 10.ix.61 — in mudcrack of dried-up lagoon, Bawdsey, TM 33. I have a single example washed from the edge of a brackish dyke at Barthorp's Creek, Hollesley, T M 3744, on l.iv.73. * * Tachys bistriatus Duftschmid Not noted by Moore from Suffolk. This tiny, local Carabid was taken on 29.viii.72 in an old strawstack at Wangford (E.W.A./C.J.). Pterostichini *Pterostichus gracilis (Dejean) This beetle is recorded in Moore's list so that he must have known of reputed Suffolk examples. I am unaware of any published or unpublished records. *Pterostichus
A single specimen of this local species was taken in September, 1952 in the Woodbridge area (Gould, 1953). M o o r e does not record the beetle from the county. The insect is quite distinctive and not likely to have been misidentified. In addition, Mr. A. A. Allen checked most of the beetles recorded by A. W. Gould. Moore may perhaps have missed the longicollis record because it was contained in a list of miscellaneous beetles from Suffolk and elsewhere. Agonum
nigrum Dejean ( = atratum auctt. nec Duftschmid)
This insect was added to the Suffolk list (as A. atratus Duft.)
NOTES ON THE SUFFOLK LIST OF COLEOPTERA
on the basis of a single example taken at Oulton, 6.v. 24. by C. G . D o u g h t y , and checked subsequently by Morley (Elliott 1930). Morley later recorded a further example from the ditches at Oulton Broad (Morley, 1934b) but the insect is not in his collection â€” at least not above the name atratus. I have examined the insect taken by Doughty which is in his collection at the Ipswich Museum. It is plainly not nigrum. It does not agree with my single example of A. versutum Sturm and I can only make it out to be a very small moestum Duftschmid. T h e beetle is being submitted to Dr. M. Luff for a second o p i n i o n . t Morley has a single specimen standing over atratus in his collection with the d a t a â€” 1 2 . i v . 1935 one fished on weeds on water of ditch N. Cove.' This, likewise, is not nigrum (which usually has a quite distinctive thorax) and appears to be only moestum. If M o o r e ' s county record for nigrum was based solely upon the published records of Elliott and Morley cited above, then we should query whether the beetle occurs with us since, as can be seen from the above, Morley's ability to recognise nigrum is questionable. Moore may, however, have seen nigrum f r o m Suffolk. Zabrini *Zabrus tenebrioides
(Goeze) (B. P. M.)
Taxonomically, the smaller, usually brownish coloured, non-metallic m e m b e r s of s.g. Ophonus have caused great trouble chiefly because of g r e a t i n t r a s p e c i f i c V a r i a t i o n and the f r e q u e n t absence of reliable external characters. Positive identification usually involves dissection of the aedeagus. Morley (1899) recorded Harpalus puncticollis Payk. from several localities, no doubt using Fowler's (1887) interpretation of the species to effect his determinations. In 1870. h o w e v e r , T h o m s o n had discovered that puncticollis was made u p of two species and he described the new species as rectangulus. T h e latter was considered by Sharp, the British authority o n Ophonus at that time, to be widely distributed in E n g l a n d , whilst puncticollis was of rare occurrence (vide Fowler and D o n i s t h o r p e , 1913 pp. 333-4). Morley later (1934a) reported puncticollis Pk. from Butley. His failure to t D r Luff has kindly confirmed my determination.
Vol. 17, Part 4
c o m m e n t on the insect found there as a species new to the county or upon its rarity, points to his having ignored the work of Sharp which Fowler and Donisthorpe (loc. cit.) reported, and it would seem he was still referring to puncticollis Payk. sensu Fowler, 1887. H. puncticollis is recorded only from Somerset, Dorset, Berks., and Cambs. and is probably always found on chalk or limestone in o p e n country (Lindroth, 1974). Most of Morley's records are probably referrable to puncticeps Stephens ( = rectangulus Sharp nec C. G. Thompson). Harpalus (O) rufibarbis Fabricius ( = subpunctatus Stephens, seladon Schauberger, brevicollis auctt. nec Serville) A s may be surmised from the synonymy, old records of this species are unreliable. T h e beetle is recorded by Moore from the county (as subpunctatus Steph.). The record of rufibarbis F. by Tuck from the Bury district should be discounted (Morley, 1899) since we now recognise an allied species schaubergerianus Puel which was not described until 1937. This is a quite common species and I can provide the following records: 28.viii.6Ö one at Claydon, TM 14; 3.vii.71 — one under elm log bark, Ufford, TM 3051; 2 . V . 7 6 — c o m m o n under stones on old gravel working at B r a m f o r d , T M 1247; 30.v.76—one under stone, Lt. Blakenh a m , TM 1149. I am unaware of any other reliable published county records. * Harpalus
This rather locally distributed beetle is usually found on chalk and sand in open country. It has occurred to me quite c o m m o n l y on the chalk downlands of Wiltshire. Not recorded by M o o r e from Suffolk. I can provide the following records: 17.iv.61 — a Single melanic example in a chalk pit, Lt. Blakenham, T M 14 (vide N a s h , 1974); 25.iv.73 — o n e running in sun, Shrubland Park, B a r h a m , T M 1252; 8.V.77 — a pair from moss in chalk pit, Lt. B l a k e n h a m , T M 1048. "Harpalusparallelus
M o o r e in his distribution charts and checklist records H. melleti H e e r from Suffolk and gives parallelus Sharp as a synonym.
N O T E S ON T H E S U F F O L K LIST OF COLEOPTERA
Lindroth (1971) has shown that Moore's interpretation of melleti is incorrect and that the true melleti of Heer is concealed under the name 'brevicollis'. He points out that the true meaning of the name 'brevicollis Serville' cannot be discovered because Serville's original specimens are lost and proposes treating it as a 'nomen dubium' because the name has been used for three different species viz. rufibarbis F., schaubergerianus Puel, and parallelus Dej. H. melleti Heer is a rare beetle known in this country only from southern England (Dorset to Kent). It is highly probable, therefore, that Moore's record for 'melleti H e e r ' should be referred to parallelus Dej. Fortunately, Mr. A. A. Allen informs m e â€” i n litt. 6.iii.76â€”that he has seen and checked parallelus taken by the Rev. T. B. Kitchen at O r f o r d , so that this species can be authoritatively added to our list. It should be noted that 'brevicollis Serv." was recorded without comment in these Transactions from Haughley (Harding, 1971). It is unlikely that the beetle concerned was the true melleti, and the record should probably be attributed to one of the more common species previously confused under this n a m e (vide supra). Harpalus honestus
This beetle features in Moore's list of doubtful species occurring in this country and is queried for Suffolk. Morley (1899, p.6) records H. ignavus var. honestus as being found 'sparingly with the type at Foxhall'. It has recently been proved that two good species are involved and not just one insect and its variety viz. H. rufitarsis D u f t s c h m i d ( = ignavus Fowler nec D u f t . ) and H. honestus Duftschmid ( = ignavus D u f t . ) The true honestus appears to be a chalk hill insect and is only securely known in this country on the basis of old records from Kent and Berks, (vide Allen. 1964). It would seem likely, therefore, that Morley's insects were only rather metallic rufitarsis, particularly since this insect is typically found in sandy habitats as at Foxhall. There are no metallic rufitarsis in Morley's collection. Anisodactylus nemorivagus Duftschmid Not recorded by M o o r e from Suffolk, this rare heathland species was taken by the late A. E. G a r d n e r from tufts at T u d d e n h a m (presumably West Suffolk) on 5.iv.64. (Gardner, 1964).
Natural History, Vol. 17, Part 4
**Bradycellus distinctus (Dejean) Old published records of this beetle are unreliable, most of them being referrable to B. sharpi Joy, a new species which Joy separated from the true distinctus of Dejean—vide Allen, 1959. B. distinctus would appear to be a very local coastal species which seems to prefer sandy soil. Lindroth (1974) records distinctus from only Dorset, Hants., Kent, Berks.(?), Cheshire, Glamorgan, and Ireland. In August, 1971 the species was swept in the evening at Walberswick (E.W.A.), and it was taken again the following year at Blythburgh on 26th August (E.W.A./C.J.). Apparently, Morley did not check his insects Standing over the name distinctus when Joy published his paper and there is no space labelled for sharpi. None of these insects are from Suffolk. ** Bradycellus sharpi Joy (—distinctus sensu Fowler, 1886 nec Dejean, 1829) I have the following records for this species which are not noted by Moore from Suffolk: 27.xii.74— in moss covering the ground of a small damp pit just inside Bentley Long Wood, near Ipswich, TM 1039; 12.ix.77—swept mixed Vegetation on track edge, Felshamhall Wood, TL 9357 (H.M.); 23.X.27 — under loose bark of dead log, Monkspark Wood, Felsham, TL 9257 (H.M.); 3.ii.78—under log, Wolves Wood, Hadleigh, TM 0543 (H.M.). All records based upon single specimens. B. sharpi seems most often to be found amongst leaves and in moss in shaded places, usually near water. Hammond (1969) gives its habitat as the edges of damp woodland but Haines (1976) in an interesting discussion of the habitat preferences of B. sharpi and harpalinus Serville, records the former from not especially damp, mixed beech—oak woodland. Allen (I.e. under distinctus) suggests that sharpi should probably be considered very local and uncommon, and certainly not common as Joy indicates in his 'Handbook' (1932). Hammond (I.e.) believes neither extreme is correct. Lindroth (1974) considers it 'locally abundant' which would seem a most appropriate compromise. *Stenolophus mixtus (Herbst) Morley (1939) reported this insect running on very wet mud in Scots Hall woods on 13th May 1939, and exhibited it after a Suffolk Naturalists' field meeting in the same locality on Ist
NOTES ON THE SUFFOLK LIST OF COLEOPTERA
J u n e 1939, when the beetle was again found in great numbers. M o r l e y n o t e d that the insect was new to Suffolk but it was not b r o u g h t f o r w a r d as such in the section devoted to new species at the f r o n t of the volume. T h e beetle was subsequently r e p o r t e d by G . B u r t o n (as vespertinus Pz.) f r o m the N e e d h a m M a r k e t a r e a ( B u r t o n , 1942). T h e r e are eleven exx. f r o m the Dunwich locality in the M o r l e y c o l l e c t i o n — o n e , 13.V.39, the rest 3.vi.39, all taken a b o u t w e t m u d . I can a d d the following records: 5.viii.62 — a few u n d e r stones near pools in pits, B a m h a m H e a t h , T L 87, and a singleton in leaves in dry swamp in the same locality 26. v.63 ( b o t h records C . S . B . ) *Stenolophus
N o t r e c o r d e d by M o o r e f r o m Suffolk. T w o examples of this local a n d rare species were f o u n d (? at grass roots by a brackish ditch) at W o o d b r i d g e on 14.ix.52 ( G o u l d , 1953). Mr. A . A . A l l e n (in litt.) informs m e he has also seen and checked skrimshiranus t a k e n in the county by the Rev. T. B. Kitchen ( d a t a unavailable). "Acupalpus
dorsalis (Fabricius) ( B . P . M . )
Licini * Badister dilatatus
Of t h e t h r e e British species of Badister s.g. Baudia, dilatatus has t h e widest ränge, whilst peltatus (Panzer) and anomalus (Perris) a r e m u c h r a r e r , each being recorded f r o m only three c o u n t i e s . K e v a n , (1955) provides a key to the s.g. and d i s t r i b u t i o n a l data. It isinteresting that in t h e 2 0 years between K e v a n ' s p a p e r a n d L i n d r o t h ' s ' H a n d b o o k ' (1974), no new c o u n t y r e c o r d s for the two r a r e r species a p p e a r to have b e e n p u b l i s h e d , whilst dilatatus has apparently still not b e e n f o u n d f u r t h e r n o r t h t h a n Lincoln. A s a result of overhauling his collection following K e v a n ' s p a p e r , A . A . A l l e n (1957) recorded a few B. dilatatus at W o r l i n g t o n , W. Suffolk f r o m the m u d d y edge of a p o n d in p e a t , M a y , 1952. H e also c o m m e n t s : T h e last locality is very n e a r B r a n d o n w h e n c e B. peltatus Panz. was recorded on the a u t h o r i t y of T h o u l e s s (Fowler and D o n i s t h o r p e , 1913, Col. Brit. Isl., 6: 203); it is p r o b a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , that the species t a k e n was actually dilatatus which at that time was not k n o w n to be B r i t i s h . ' *Badister
Bonelli ( B . P . M . )
Vol. 17, Part 4
References Allen, A. A. (1957). A few records of Badister (Baudia) anomalus Perris, and dilatatus Chaud. (Col., Carabidae). Eni. Mon. Mag. 93, 20. , (1959). Bradycellus distinctus Dej. (Col., Carabidae) new to Kent, and B. sharpi Joy new to Essex. Ent. Mon. Mag. 95, 273. , (1964). Harpalus honestus Duft. (Col., Carabidae) contirmed as British. Ent. Mon. Mag. 100, 155-157. Appleton, D. (1974). Leistus rufomarginatus (Dufts.) and Dyschinius ludersi Wagner (Col., Carabidae) from Isle of Wight. Ent. Mon. Mag. 110, 231. Blair, K. G. (1933). Dyschirius luedersi Wagn. in Britain. Ent. Mon. Mag. 69, 151-152. Buck, F. D. (1957). Collecting Coleoptera in East Anglia. Entomologist 90, 282-284. Burton, G. (1942). Some uncommon Suffolk Beetles. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 5, 36-37. Crowson, R. A. (1942). Leistus rufomarginatus Duft. (Col., Carabidae) new to Britain. Ent. Mon. Mag. 78, 281-282. Elliott, E. A. (1930). The Coleoptera of Suffolk. Second Supplement. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 1, 121-126. Fowler, W. W. (1887). The Coleoptera of the British Islands vol. 1. Reeve and Co. Fowler, W. W. and Donisthorpe, H. (1913). The Coleoptera of the British Islands vol. 6 - Supplement. Lowell, Reeve and Co. Ltd. London. G a r d n e r , A. E. (1964). Anisodactylus nemorivagus Duft, recorded from Suffolk. Proc. S. Lond. ent. nat. Hist. Soc. 1964, 4. Gilbert, O. (1954). A further record of Leistus rufomarginatus D u f t . (Col., Carabidae) in Britain. Ent. Mon. Mag. 90, 148. G o u l d , A. W. (1953). A third season with Coleoptera. Ent. Mon. Mag. 89, 175. Haines, C. P. (1971). Leistus rufomarginatus (Duft.) (Col. Carabidae) established in Hampshire. Ent. Mon. Mag. 107, 190-191. , (1976). Some notes on Bradycellus sharpi Joy and B. harpalinus Serville (Col., Carabidae). Ent. Mon. Mag. 112, 96. H a m m o n d , P. M. (1969). A note on wing-development etc. in British Bradycellus s.str. (Col., Carabidae). Ent. Mon. Mag. 105, 155-156.
NOTES ON THE SUFFOLK LIST OF COLEOPTERA
H a r d i n g , P. T. (1971). Coleoptera taken during 1970 from arable fields at Haughley Research Farms. Suffolk Natural History 15, 445-449. Joy, N. H . (1932). A Practical Handbook of British Beetles. Witherby. Kevan, D. K. (1955). T h e identification of Badister peltatus (Pz.), dilatatus C h a u d . , and anomalus (Perris) (Col., Carabidae, Licini). Ent. Mon. Mag. 91, 207-210. Lindroth, C. (1971). Taxonomic notes on certain British ground beetles (Col., Carabidae). Ent. Mon. Mas. 107, 209-223. , (1974). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insectsâ€” Coleoptera. vol. IV, part 2. Royal Entomological Society of L o n d o n . MacNuIty, B. J. (1962). L. rufomarginatus recorded from T u d d e n h a m , Suffolk. Proc. S. Lond. ent. nat. Hist. Soc. 1962, 53. , (1963). L. rufomarginatus recorded from Tuddenham, Suffolk. ibid. 1963, 12. , (1964). L. rufomarginatus recorded from Tuddenham, Suffolk. ibid. 1964, 8. M o o r e , B. P. (1957a). T h e British Carabidae (Coleoptera). Part I: A check list of the species. Entomologist's Gazâ€˘ 8, 129-137. , (1957b). The British Carabidae (Coleoptera). Part II: T h e county distribution of the species. ibid., 171-180. Morley, C. (1899). The Coleoptera of Suffolk. Plymouth. , (1934a). Harpalus puncticollis Payk. reported from Butley. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 2 - Proceedings for 1934, clxiv, clxix. , (1934b). Anchomenus atratus Dft. reported at Oulton. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 2 - Proceedings for 1934, clxix. , (1939). Stenolophus mixtus Hbst. reported at Scots Hall. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 4 - Proceedings for 1939, lxxvii, lxxviii. Nash, D . R. (1974). A melanic specimen of Harpalus (O.) schaubergerianus Puel (rufibarbis auctt.) (Col., Carabidae) from Suffolk. Ent. Mon. Mag. 110. 252. P o p e , R. D. (1969). A preliminary survey of the Coleoptera of R e d g r a v e and Lopham Fens. A Supplement. Trans Suffolk Nat. Soc. 14, 189-207. S k i d m o r e , P. (1972). Miscellaneous notes on some insects in the Doncaster Museum collections. Entomologist 105 180-182.
Vol. 17, Part 4
Welch, R. C. and Harding, P. T. (1974). A preliminary list of the fauna of Staverton Park, Suffolkâ€”Part 2, Coleoptera. Suffolk Natural History 16, 287-304. Acknowledgements Mr. E. W. A u b r o o k of The Tolson Memorial Museum, Huddersfield collected in the county in 1971, and Mr. C. Johnson of Manchester Museum collected with him in 1972. I am grateful to Mr. Aubrook for letting me have lists of their captures and for allowing me to include them here. I am also grateful to Mr. C. S. Barham, and Mr. H. Mendel of Ipswich Museum for allowing me to include their unpublished records. Mr. Mendel also most kindly helped me check the Morley collection and diaries and allowed me to study critical species. The records of the above collectors are accompanied by their initials. All other records are my own except where stated. I would also like to thank Mr. A. A. Allen for providing details of H. parallelus and S. skrimshiranus.
David Ridley Nash, Road, Lawford, near Manningtree,