I sent a few emails yesterday and already have had one response from the Parish Council. Good job I did cos it appears that the master tree and surrounding area is for the chop next in January!
I'm not letting anyone do that to MY brown hairstreaks!
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
Hmmmm .... that looks like M.arion obscura ~ maybe not now ~ my memorised names are all over 30 years now and could well be long since changed or updated.padfield wrote:Netting with a professional net is probably less harmful overall than chasing a butterfly over fragile habitat. It does the butterfly no harm and allows close examination. Here is a large blue quite happy to sit around on my thumb after being netted and examined:mouse wrote:Surely the net would hurt it?
I let it go immediately. With some groups (Mellicta, Pyrgus, Erebia) netting may be the only way of getting an accurate picture of which species fly in an area. I have identified exactly two Piedmont ringlets in my local region, both of which were cruising past and only identified by netting.
Guy
Yep - a very dangerous assumption indeed. I suspect they only think of nesting birds when they make statements like this.Susie wrote:"We also only cut hedges in late autumn / winter to ensure conservation and maintain habitats."
I had an amusing experience a few months ago on a Park & Ride bus in Cambridge. A man suddenly stated talking very loudly and boringly on his mobile phone apparently intent on making sure everyone on the bus knew just how important his line of business was. Lots of rolled eyes from the other passengers and after a few minutes, I walked across to him and asked him in a hushed voice to talk more quietly as “the rest of us are not the least interested in your conversation”. He loudly informed me and the rest of the passengers that I was an “obnoxious gentleman” (not quite sure how you can be obnoxious AND a gentleman – a real oxymoron). He stormed off to the upper deck and peace and quiet was restored to the lower level with nods of approval from fellow passengers.Be careful if you see someone acting suspiciously - just talk to them in a civilised manner.
I think that the draining of the Fens put paid to Swallowtails at Wicken, not collectingNeil Jones wrote: ... we might still have the Large Blue in the West Country and the Swallowtail at Wicken as original
populations rather than precarious re-establishments. .
You could well be on the right lines there. Correction you are most certainly.NickB wrote:I think that the draining of the Fens put paid to Swallowtails at Wicken, not collectingNeil Jones wrote:
... we might still have the Large Blue in the West Country and the Swallowtail at Wicken as original
populations rather than precarious re-establishments. .
I remember you telling me that at the time John and I thought that was an excellent observation. And didn't you make a similar unexpected discovery about Black/W.L Hairstreaks? I think you said that you had found a presumed "Black Hairstreak" egg on sloe and subsequently to your surprise, you bred a White Letter from it - or was it the other way round (ie, Black H egg on elm?)I also found Swallowtail ova on Angelica Angelica sylvestris ( IIRC the nomenclature correctly ) as well as on its more normal Fenland foodplant, Milk Parsley ( Peucedanum palustre ~ again IIRC) Both distantly related members of the Umbelliferae (ditto spelling/names)
Nick. The Aurelian Legacy suggests that the last large Coppers were Home Fen (specimen dated 1860) and Norfolk Broads four years later in 1864.The last Large Coppers were also from the Fens, so it is possible that they may also be reintroduced....so it is not all bad news
I don't think this is they way to go. First of all someone has looked at the genetics of the captive stock, I believe, and they are not very diverse at all. Increasing the numbers will have no effect on this . It will not create any genes that are not present.jackharr wrote:
A varied genetic stock will of course be necessary. I have never bred Large Coppers myself, but I understand that they are not too difficult. And now to be controversial. Maybe BC should at the appropriate time encourage members to breed from the already substantial captive stock to build not only numbers but also genetic diversity.
Jack
The chemical composition of the plants in the Rutaceae ( including citrus and choisya) is similar.jackharr wrote:
And another unexpected observation from the literature. Our Swallowtail larvae will apparently feed on the shrub Mexican Orange Blossom Choisya ternata - perhaps not quite so bizarre as it sounds as some tropical species of Swallowtail use Choisya naturally.
Jack
I have also read that Large Copper had been re-introduced at Woodwalton Fen near Peterborough at some time or other; I understand the need for secrecy in some quarters as collectors do still, unhappily, continue their "hobby"....but I do also find it very frustrating when information is "kept out of the public domain" for these reasons.jackharr wrote:... plans are already being made for Large Coppers in the Broads. Indeed, a couple of years ago one adult was reported (presumably a small scale trial release, most likely unofficial) in the Yare Valley to the east of Norwich.
Jack
That was true but the stock died out circa 1994.I have also read that Large Copper had been re-introduced at Woodwalton Fen near Peterborough at some time or other
We’re not as bad as birders though. It is the obsessive secrecy of the birding community that has quite directly led to my own loss of enthusiasm.Similarly, I find the secrecy behind sites where "special" species are established, smacks of an exclusivity that I feel uncomfortable about; if you aren't a member of that "club" you are assumed to be a potential liability, not a potential friend and ally!