Another enhancement

[Pete Eeles]

The "bee in my bonnet" caused by a deep look into the origins of the Silver-studded Blue races has led me to update all of the subspecies distribution information (and I intend to start on the distinguishing features based on morphology next - which also need a thorough update). But one significant change is that I've adopted the convention (in natural history circles) of using vice counties as the basis of distribution descriptions (to complement the distribution maps). This is particularly useful when describing extinct races and other historical records (e.g. "ssp. masseyi was found in Westmorland"). Take a look at the links shown on this page, as an example:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species. ... cies=argus

They all link through to this page:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/vicecounties.php

which is a map I've knocked up showing all of the vice counties, and 2 tables that allow you to find a vice county based on its number, or given a number, find a vice county I think this is definitely an improvement, and I now feel like I know my way around the western isles of Scotland (and know my Ebudes from my elbow ).

All feedback welcome - especially improvements

Cheers,

- Pete

[David M]

This is extremely informative and makes the data on the site even more professional.

I doubt if there's a dedicated set of butterfly web pages anywhere in the world to compete with what you've created for us here, Pete.

I'm absolutely proud to be a member.

[Lancastrian]

Hi Pete.

A particular "bee in my bonnet" is the widespread misconception (fuelled incessantly by the media), that we have lost our "old" Counties, and that they were "abolished" in 1974. No such thing happened ! New administrative boundaries were created yes - but that is all ! Our true historic counties exsist today as they have done for centuries. I, for instance, am continually being told that I live in "Greater Manchester". I do not - I live in "Lancashire".
Vice-Counties, in my humble opinion, merely cloud the matter more. For example, your quote for "Westmorland VC" actually includes the top half of Lancashire ! I must point out though that I fully understand the whole conception of using the Watsonian system of Vice-Counties for wildlife recording purposes, but if everyone continued to use the true and historic County system I think it would be a lot simpler. Again on a personal level, Lancashire in the VC system is split into 3 (inclusive of the Westmorland point already mentioned) which surely is complicating matters ?

Please look at this map: http://www.historiccountiestrust.co.uk/hct_map.htm

I am so sorry to invade this thread, and I am in no way trying to detract from, or criticise your fantastic work, so please do not be offended. I would like to know your thoughts however..

[Pete Eeles]

My thought is - I like it. Not least because these are the county names I used as a child - and (like you) still do today! My conclusion is that this is complementary to the vice counties which, I believe, are the original counties with additional subdivisions that would allow greater precision when referring to a geographic area (and also support some degree of uniformity in terms of the area covered - given that a county like Yorkshire is the size of Northern Ireland!). I'll see if I can weave this into the thinking as well. Thx for the comments!

As for Westmorland - I need to fix the naming. Adrian Riley (in his book) uses "Westmorland and North Lancashire", Wikipedia uses "Westmorland with Furness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-county) and the Biological Records Centre seems to use "Westmorland", as does the National Biodiversity Network

Cheers,

- Pete

[Lancastrian]

Hi Pete,

I have calmed down somewhat now , and to reiterate, I do fully understand the Watsonian system; Your example of Yorkshire making perfect sense. Something that has always irked me though is the fact that the official method of bird recording (BOU) nationally uses the current governmental administrative boundaries - which are continually moving. Sorry to bore you with this, but harking back to my region - all bird records come under "Greater Manchester" which is now a misnomer itself because Greater Manchester no longer "exists" as it has been superceded by the 10 Metropolitan Borough Councils that constitute it ! Other areas must be the same. It is madness in my opinion, and I would like to think that butterfly recording was based on something more permanent than administrative counties.........which brings us to VC counties - a step in the right direction at least

Thanks for hearing me out, and many thanks for a great website !

[Pete Eeles]

No probs, and thx for raising this. And I agree. Looking at a span of maps from 1900 onwards really does show what a mess things are; almost to the point that a given moniker also needs an associated date in order for it to make sense! Especially Westmorland Anyway, as far as Lepidoptera recording goes, this is actually based on grid references. The use of vice counties was purely to align with the conventions used when describing regions with regard to a natural history subject.

Cheers,

- Pete