You too may well find something interesting

Student B's exotic arachnid friend

This time last year I reported on an ex-taxonomic collectioner who had found a very rare and lovely lichen. You see, how many people are actually looking for these things? Not many. Most are watching ITV2 and playing games on their phones. And even the ones who are interested, are generally happy enough to leave their identification at "lichen" or maybe "some sort of Usnea lichen". But (unless it's really difficult to tell and drives you mad) there's much satisfaction to be had from being able to pin down the exact species.

This week, Student B brought in a cute little jumping spider (family Salticidae) which he'd found living somewhere at the zoo. There are 38 species in this country. But it wasn't any of those - it had very distinctive white pedipalps (which it was waving about) and lovely little spots on its abdomen. Not really knowing where to begin as there are a lot of jumping spiders in the world, we both asked on internet forums (I don't think this counts as cheating in this case). And it seems to be Hasarius adansoni, a common-enough creature in warmer parts of the world like Australia and Japan.

Come and use the lovely microscope camera with your finds- drop me an email.

I looked it up on the Spider and Harvestman Recording Scheme website, and they only have 3 records of it in this country (ever), so I am urging Student B to send in his sighting. Maybe it's living everywhere and nobody's noticed - but maybe it's not. Certainly nobody else has ever reported it from Bristol Zoo. So be encouraged - you really can add to the knowledge we have about the species in this country. You don't have to find anything so exotic of course - even reporting common species is important to provide data about how their numbers and distribution might be changing, or the times of the year that they're active. It's all useful and feeds into a bigger picture.


Meanwhile - I had word from an ex collector of bryophytes, Student H. She's currently on a Bog Conservation placement in the Pennines. She's become so enamoured with the mosses there, that she's set up her own Instagram moss page. How cool is that. It makes me feel very happy. Fluffy and feathered creatures already have a lot of supporters. You can make a difference for the more weird and wonderful plants and animals of this country.

The lovely Sphagnum fimbriatum, CC James Lindsay.

Photograph your specimens through the microscope

I sometimes think of myself as a bit of a Luddite eschewing modern technology (a student laughed at me on a field trip last year for actually using a paper map... I like to think he was sorry when his phone ran out of battery). But when it works I do like it really.

Today I finally got a microscope camera to talk to a computer. I won't bore you with the details because the important thing is that it now works and you can now come and use it. Getting the lighting right seems to be a fine art but I'm getting there. You can zoom in to the important features of your specimens, snap a photo, and then print it out and stick it in your notebook. I used it to identify two freshwater snails and I was very pleased.

They both came from a local pond lined with stone blocks (which apparently used to be where the local gentry washed their carriages - who knows). It didn't look like a very promising environment - it's pretty stagnant with more mud than water! But this actually made it a different sort of habitat to the usual ponds we visit - and so it turned up a species I'd not seen before.

You can see this species is very tightly coiled. It's only about 6mm across, and has 5+ whorls.

But also, it's very thin through - only about 1mm. I managed to hold the shell so you can see its aperture (which is pretty round).

So with these relatively few facts and a look at Collins 'Lakes, Rivers, Streams and Ponds', I identified it as Anisus leucostoma -  the White-lipped ramshorn snail. It doesn't care if the pond it's in dries up a bit: it can resist drought by staying in the mud. There's a similar looking species (Anisus vortex) but it's found in running water (and has an oval aperture) - so can be safely discounted I reckon.

For freshwater and terrestrial species I very much like the drawn illustrations in Janus's 'The Young Specialist Looks at Molluscs' (overlook the daft title) - it shows the shells from different angles (you can get a secondhand copy for about £5, or you're welcome to look at mine). The names can be out of date but that's relatively easily sorted (I might make a list to share).

The other species (in fact the only other thing alive it seemed) was a dextral snail (meaning its aperture is on the right if you hold it upright towards you). You can see the aperture is huge compared to the rest of the shell - it's about 3/4 the height. There's a little dichotomous key to Lymnaea (pond snails) in 'LRSP' - if you follow that (and look at the angle at the top of the aperture) you'll conclude this species is Radix peregra, the romantically-named Wandering snail.

I'm sure with a bit more experience with the lighting (and a bit of fiddling with Photoshop) you could make your photos even clearer. These snails were wet and I probably should have dried them to help with reflections and focusing. But I hope this encourages you that tiny things can be photographed fairly clearly. (You can also have a go down the microscope with your phone, with a steady hand).

Also on the subject of snails, did you know that because their shells are so persistent, they're used by archaeologists and people interested in past climates to work out what environments used to be like? You can see here that freshwater snails have been grouped according to their taste in habitat, so if they're uncovered hundreds of years later you can infer what it must have been like where they were living. My Ramshorn snail is in the (quite rudely titled) 'slum' category. One man's slum is another man's perfectly adequate muddy pond, thankyou. Also, 'catholic' doesn't refer to the snails' religious beliefs, but that they have wide-ranging habitat tastes.

 from Brown (2001) with updated names

So if you're collecting snails - or anything - the moral of the story is to look in a variety of habitats, and then you will find a wider range of species.

Your new skills can help make a difference

A lot of moths visiting a trap in Brunei, 1982. CC image Accassidy.

The other afternoon I was listening to Inside Science on Radio 4, and they had a piece about 'moth snowstorms'. That is, people were remembering when they would drive along in the countryside at night, and moths would be flying in from all angles into their headlights, and they'd have to start their windscreen wipers. It's certainly not something I've experienced in my lifetime. In fact it seems quite a mad idea, even though it must have been unremarkable not so long ago. Something that did ring a bell was motorcyclists saying they used to have to stop regularly and clean their visors of squashed flies. I can remember (in the 90s) saying to my dad that my friend's car was covered in gummy dead insects, and him complaining that it must have meant we were driving too fast. Some people suggest cars might be more aerodynamic these days, which might account for why gummy insects don't seem to be a problem. But that doesn't explain the visor thing - there'd still be insects on visors.

My point is, we seem to be losing insects, fast. Data from amateur entomologists' malaise traps suggest a loss of 75% in the last 25 years. I don't need to tell you that sounds pretty terrifying, when insects are a fundamental part of the food chain and pollinate a lot of plants (including our food plants). It was astoundingly refreshing to hear that the alleged environment minster, Michael Gove, has actually come round to the idea that neonicotinoid pesticides need stricter controls. One can only hope it's not shutting the door after the horse has bolted. You'd imagine spraying pesticides all over fields can't have helped matters, in addition to problems caused by other modern farming methods. So perhaps stopping spraying them might help restore some of the invertebrate populations.

A malaise trap. CC image Ceuthophilus. Nothing to do with uneasy-feeling malaise (though that may be for the insects), but actually invented by the Swedish Mr. Malaise in the 1930s.

Whilst this sounds like environmental doom and gloom (which yes, it probably is) - you have chosen this degree course so presumably want to try to make the world a better place. You can be part of the antidote to your own gloom. By developing your identification skills and submitting records to recording schemes and records centres, you can help make some difference. Your data can feed into a big picture which can persuade the powers that be to actually do something. This might not be a straightforward process because it involves politics. But having the scientific evidence has to be of critical importance, surely.

You might think "ah, what difference can I make? :( " But there really aren't that many people out there who have good identification skills. Particularly if you focus on something even slightly obscure. If you chose to go to a local habitat and record what you find, it's possible that nobody would have done that for ten, twenty years (or even ever). You might find something Really Interesting, and conceivably that could help get the site a modicum of protection one day. And even if you don't, it all becomes part of valuable data about today, and can be compared with what happens in future, and if records exist, with what was present in the past. (iRecord is an easy way to submit a record of anything you find, but if you prefer the support of a specialist scheme, the Biological Records Centre has a comprehensive list of contacts.)

Student A's lovely lichen find. CC image Jason Hollinger (California)

The other day, one of the third years popped in to see me. She chose lichens for her collection last year and got really into them. She'd been out lichen-hunting recently. When she got home and looked in her 'Dobson' guide, one of them seemed to be something unusual. The only species that seemed to match was a distinctive orange-grey lichen with little eyelashy spines around the fruiting bodies. But Dobson said it had only been seen in very few areas and was now thought extinct in this country. She had a tiny sample and we both squinted at it down the microscope. Nothing else seemed to match. I said I thought she should speak to David Hill, my esteemed lichen tutor from my course.

It turns out she was right with her identification and he was "super excited". Isn't that amazing! So this is proof that you too can find and report something excellent. She's brought something back from apparent extinction. I guess the poor lichen was never quite extinct in the first place (though it's evidently very rare) - but the point is, how many people are looking at lichens, and how many people have the skill to identify them? Not many. So your developing skills can make an impact. You can be one of an elite group that is knowledgeable and enthusiastic about lichens, beetles, mosses, or whatever it is that grabs you. We can only conserve things when we know they exist. You will be able to contribute to the body of knowledge of what's out there. Be encouraged.

There are links to over 200 recording schemes at the NBN Gateway.

For your Christmas list*: a hand lens

(*Other popular religious and secular present-buying opportunities are available. Or just treat yourself.)

I've just been to Dartmoor with the new first years. Likely you went on this trip yourself and will be able to recall the amazing Wistman's Wood, an eldritch botanical wonderland dripping with lichens and mosses. I think it's one of my favourite places.

CC image by Alex Jane

Students are obliged to spend some time collecting data about un-botanical things like wind speed. But whenever possible I tried to lure them towards close examination of the weird and diverse species covering the trees and boulders. A few people looked like they got seriously hooked, which was very gratifying. And I think the secret to an appreciation of lichens and bryophytes is a simple thing: a hand lens.

I wish I could present one to everybody but it seems university bean-counters are not keen. I can always lend you one (quality and smeariness varies). But ultimately I would urge you to consider getting one yourself. It doesn't have to cost much and it will last you a lifetime. Plus you will always have it to hand if it just lives in your bag. And you won't have any slight squeamishness about holding it right up to your eye after a dozen other people have had it in their clammy hands. Seriously, it will open up a entire microscopic world that you cannot really predict. I'd say it makes Everything more interesting - the unsuspected detail of plants and invertebrates and all sorts. But in the short term it'll certainly make your collecting a more interesting experience and make it easier to identify what you're looking at.

Like I say a million times, 'Hold it right up to your eye'. CC image from the National Park Service.

But what to get? Magnification of x10 is fine for most things. You can get twin versions which have (say) a x10 at one end and a x15 at the other if you're feeling fancy. Another thing to consider is the diameter. My lens is about 15mm across. Larger diameters are recommended.  I thought I was quite happy with mine but now I'm starting to wonder if a larger diameter wouldn't be better - it transmits more light and makes things easier to see.

You do want something that's of good enough quality that it's not going to annoy you with its blurry pointlessness. You don't necessarily have to spend huge amounts though.

This Quicktest page shows you how different lenses vary in quality (which is quite eye-opening) and therefore in price. They have a large range for sale and they make it very clear what you're getting. There are also many other reliable places, like the local company Brunel Microscopes, or UKGE, or entomological suppliers like Watkins and Doncaster,

 This is the one I have at the moment, from Quicktest, which is about £30 with delivery. It has a slightly larger size than most, so lets in a bit more light, and seems super clear - I'm really pleased with it. But you don't have to go that mad - something about £15 can be pretty decent, judging by the advice linked to above. Cheaper ones are a good way in but they're necessarily blurrier and more likely to fall apart. I bought a load of half-decent ones for work last year, but they're extremely pocketable and disappear constantly. This is disappointing and makes me loathe to spend as much again - but then spending less is a false economy if the lenses are rubbish. So if you're even half keen it's a good reason to get your own and look after it - it should last a lifetime if you don't lose it!

I'd also recommend getting a lovely bright lanyard to attach to it. Then it's much easier to find if you put it down somewhere or it falls into the vegetation. There's a huge selection on Ebay, for example. If you wear your lens round your neck you will recognise and be recognised by other natural history buffs, like some sort of weird masonic tie / handshake. This is not necessarily a bad thing: you might meet someone knowledgeable and interesting. Nerdy, probably. But nerdy about something interesting.

Public domain image by Bill Gillette - girl on a fieldtrip in the Rockies, 1972

A useful thought I read recently - when you're using it, think of it as a keyhole. That is, you must put your eye right up to it to see through. Either bring the object you're looking at towards your eye, or (often more undignified but unavoidable) bring yourself close to the object. The latter is why you might see lichen enthusiasts sprawled across the landscape, bums in air, apparently pressing their faces against the rocks.

And finally, it's possible to integrate this low-tech highly-useful bit of equipment with modern technology: with a bit of practice you can take photos through it with your mobile phone. And those would be perfect stuck in your notebook.

(P.s. - What's more, a lens will repay you handsomely on the field trip to Tenerife, where there are many fascinating plants with strange adaptations to examine microscopically. I much recommend getting one in readiness for that).

Spider headaches

from Wikimedia Commons

 Yesterday, enthusiastic and determined student A came to examine her spider specimens under the microscope. I was feeling alright about being able to help, having done a little bit before, and having taken useful things in on a day course with people who actually knew what they were doing.

But it didn't really work out as planned. And that was because I insisted on throwing us into the dichotomous key. And then we just ended up drowning in the not-exactly-beginner-friendly language. I'm not saying the key is rubbish, that would be unfair. But it's not an encouraging way for the beginner because you have to wade through a lot that would seem obvious to the expert, but is very draining (and largely irrelevant) to the beginner. Astoundingly, student A kept awake and motivated. I however was desperate for a cup of tea and wanted to dash the petri dish across the room.

I just wanted to show that matching a specimen with photos on the internet is not good enough for spiders. Yet I didn't want to inflict such pain and confusion on a first time arachnologist. But there is a middle way. What we should have done (I think) was to draw / note down basic features of the spider, such as:

- The arrangement and number of its eyes (spiders have 6 or 8 in various sizes and configurations)

a spider sketch from my notebook

- The size of its body (in millimetres. You can borrow some vernier callipers from me, it might be easier than a ruler. Spider lengths are measured fom the front of the cephalothorax to the hind end of the abdomen - essentially, from its face to its bum. Not across their legs, although that can make for a scarier sounding distance).

A lovely banana spider from Florida (CC David Maiolo) and its length.

- Whether it had a web or not (and what form it takes if it does)

- Any unusual shape to the body or particular markings / colouration.

- Any differences in the length of the different pairs of legs, and the general air of stoutness / spindliness with regard to body vs leg size.

These are all simple things, and to be honest this must be how an expert will approach a new spider in their head. They're looking at the overall picture to begin with, not immediately delving down into the finer details. To be fair the key does do this a bit, because (to quote my tutor) it "gets rid of the bananas in the fruit bowl." That is to say, the key tries to get all the weird and obviously different species out the way first. But this feels like a struggle to the first-time user of the key, because they don't realise that this is what's happening. This is partly to do with a lack of illustrations, I think.

The rare Ladybird spider (Ereus Sandaliatus). CC Viridiflavus. A "banana in the fruitbowl."

Armed with the information in your notebook, you can narrow down a few possible families using the lateral key later on in Jones-Walters book. That shows you much more clearly what the differences in body shape, eyes, webs and so on are between the different families. It's not going to solve everything, but I think it's a good start. You can worry about the dichotomous family key when you've got confidence from the lateral one, and go on to look at them in detail in Collins, for example. There are lots of things you'll probably have to / want to get to grips with, like spinnerets and calamistrums and trichobothia and epigynes. But give yourself a break to start with.

Anyway. Spiders. So many people seem to want to do them this year (but curiously no-one last year). This is to warn you - they're not going to be particularly easy. But they are interesting and if you can invest a bit of time and effort I think it will pay off.

Spider encouragment update.
Student S came in this week, and she was able to identify several of her spiders in a few hours' determined studying. This was good. We did use the approach above, and once a likely family had been narrowed down, we turned to Collins. Then it was a matter of choosing between the species in that family - some are rare and some are not British, which is helpful, but then you can be left with several likely candidates. Luckily, Collins has excellent illustrations of the reproductive bits of male and female spiders, and the distinctive shape of these make you feel quite confident about picking one species over another. That's where the lovely microscopes make zooming in so easy (even if getting an angle without a leg in the way can be difficult).

Spider identification course

A peasant woman looking at some ballooning spider silk (for reasons currently lost on me, but probably to do with the fragility of life and impending death, that's art for you) in Chelmonski's painting 'Indian Summer'.

 If I ran a course I'd call it 'Sp- I.D.' But no-one would know what I was going on about, fair enough. I attended one this week in Shropshire, arranged by Manchester Metropolitan University. It was fundamentally about improving your identification of preserved specimens by using keys. So ideal to help me help you with your collections.

I discovered my pronunciation of some spider-bits had been a bit ropey (apparently it's cephalothorax with a hard c, and cry-bellum for cribellum). And I learnt a lot of interesting spider facts about their evolution, various types of silk, and strange habits. The tutors were both enthusiastic and knowledgeable.

I do think that I and the spider-students did very well earlier this year ourselves with the Collins key. We learnt a lot together. It was a steep learning curve.
 
But the good thing about this course was that I could finally ask someone experienced whether certain features were actually present or not - like the silk back-combing 'calamistrum'. When you don't really know what you're looking for you can start imagining things. It is the bane of the lone key-user.

A calamistrum - a cute row of neat bristles for fluffing up silk, sported by some spiders.

And it was good to get to the end of the key and be able to compare my identification with a confirmed name. It gives you a lot of confidence that you really are able to get somewhere. So I feel happier in my ability to help you now.


We were also shown the following:

The Arachnologist's Handbook by Tony Russell-Smith, Geoff Oxford and Helen Smith - it's £10 (free if you join the BAS) and includes lots of information about collecting, preserving and identifying. It also has an improved version of the Collins Spiders family key.

The Spider Bible is this one: Roberts' "Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland". It's very expensive and a bit over the top for your beginner. But the colour plates in volume 2 look amazing. Maybe we'll get a set one day.

This website: Araneae - Spiders of Europe is one I was unaware of before, and it's full of lovely clear close-up photographs. Probably best used once you've got some idea from the Collins key.

And this one: Les Araignees de Belgique et France has excellent photos and diagrams of the reproductive bits that you need to look closely at to to distinguish many species. I think this will be very useful to future spider-collectors.

Also I've just noticed a link to this, the Provisional Atlas of British Spiders v1, by Harvey, Nellist and Telfer. It has a map for each species and a bit of detail about each. There's also a good introduction which might come in handy for your monograph.

The spider figure of the mysterious Nasca Lines, Peru. CC image by Diego Delso.

Spider drawings

With one week to go before handing in, I realise this is a bit late for most arachnid fans. But perhaps it will be useful for the future.

I've found an online British spider key written by L Watson and M J Dallwitz. There's a conventional dichotomous version that looks similar to ones in the books, but also an 'interactive' key that allows you to pick out various characteristics you do know, and ignore the ones you don't. The interactive key requires you to download a little bit of software and has much information (it also prioritises the most important characteristics). I've not used it yet with a spider but I think it looks quite hopeful (even in my beginner's stage).

Blackwall's drawing of Dysdera crocata, borrowed from here.

What caught my attention this morning are the drawings of species, which you can see without going through the key by clicking the different family names on this page. They're by John Blackwall, who was an arachnologist working in the 1860s (they come from his books on "A history of the spiders of Great Britain and Ireland"). The taxonomy has changed since his time, but the authors of the key have done their best to associate the drawings with contemporary names.

Of course not every spider you might like to see will be there. But at the moment it's useful for me to see different illustrations of the species, to try and build up a mental picture of them. The colour illustrations in the Collins guide are nice, but with their splayed stance and crazily overlapping legs you don't get a very good idea of how the spiders look in real life. Blackwall's illustrations are rather jaunty.

But for more conventional 21st century illustrations, you can see photographs of reliably identified spiders on the Spider and Harvestman Recording Scheme website (scroll down on the species page as there may be many photos at the bottom).

Spider eyes and ID

I've recently returned from the expedition to Cuba. And guess what I did there... I held a tarantula. I'm very proud of this. I feel that spiders and I are now better friends. It wasn't ENORMOUS but it was a good handful. I liked it so much that I insisted on holding it three times. In the end it relaxed quietly in my palm while I casually spoke to people. So this new familiarity helped me the other day when Student A arrived to identify his specimens (any spider looks like tarantula under a microscope so it's best to be prepared).

Wolf spider by Thomas Shahan

We found the main dichotomous keys difficult. It would have been better if we could have turned to an expert arachnologist to explain what was being got at. But as lone neophytes we found the lateral key in the Aidgap spider families key the best place to start. To avoid tears you may want to do the same. After finding a likely family we then went to the Collins Guide.

I learned three important things. Firstly, that a pickled spider may be helpful because it's still, but otherwise it's an alive spider that can tell you many more useful things, and you should have written those things down when you found it. Identification will be greatly more likely if you can authoritatively say something about a spider's habitat, behaviour and web or lack thereof - all these things feature in the keys.

Secondly, that the arrangement of a spider's eyes is very useful in its identification, -  this would be a critical thing to observe and draw in your notebook.. The wolf spider above has two big headlight-style eyes at the front, two offset towards the back, and a curious row of four small eyes below - just like the wolf spider Student A found. Doubtless the big front eyes are an adaptation for seeking out prey. But what's going on with those four small eyes? I feel like i want to know more about spider eyes. I'm not sure that's something you hear every day. But do most people even know that most spiders have eight eyes?

Thirdly, it's very likely that you're only going to be able to get so far with the keys - distinguishing species usually comes down to very careful observation of the reproductive bits of adult spiders. That feels like pretty advanced stuff and on small specimens such things might be too difficult to see at all. I felt we could discount some options on grounds of habitat / geography / rareness instead. But often we were still left with a choice and it would have been dishonest to pick one over another. I think you need to make clear in your notebook your decision making process for either stopping at the Genus, or pressing on to a particular Species. Spiders just are difficult. I think the person marking your collection will have to acknowledge this.

Image by Hans Hillewaert

This is Dysdera crocata, the woodlouse-eating spider, one of A's finds. We were able to name it to species level because of its size - ours was female with a body of 15mm, so could only be the species crocata. This was a satisfying moment after all the previous pain. Dysdera has (apparently) only six eyes - they look like this:

Image by Patrick Moran.

We were also caught up in looking for cribellums and calamistrums - the lovely words of the new terminology amused me even if we had difficulty finding the things. I'm quite sure though that the more spiders I look at, the clearer all these things will become. It just takes effort and time. (Which is why you shouldn't leave things until late. This is very late in case you were wondering.)

If you want spider-related reading, I've just found  Rod Crawford's Spider Myths -  much for the new spider fan to enjoy, and much of it touches on the difficulties of identification. You can see all his arachnologist gear and read about his collecting exploits here, too. Or you may prefer the blog of the Spiderlord, who is based in the UK. He's pretty annoyed about our eight-legged friends being misrepresented in the media.

Some more spider resources

I was looking at the British Arachnological Society webpages today. They've got some friendly short leaflets about common spiders which you can download here. I thought they'd make useful reading for when you're just starting out on your arachnological journey.

They are producing a  WILDguide for British Spiders  which should be out relatively soon. I've got the equivalent book on British hoverflies and that's very good. Having been using the AIDGAP family key and the Collins guide,  I can see there's a gap for something else, so I'm looking forward to it.

I'm surprised that nobody's come in to use the microscopes yet to identify their spiders... perhaps you all have superhuman eyesight. Please do arrange to come in... the field centre is always open.

Spider webs on gorse. CC image by John Comloquoy.

Collecting invertebrates - some more reassurance

Volucella zonaria. CC image by Martin Cooper.

Last night at home we were looking at some photos, and one of them was of the strange creature above. It was in August and we'd found it sunning itself on a trellis. At first sight it looked like a massive wasp or hornet, but closer inspection proved it had two wings (not four) and no thin waspy waist - it was actually a type of fly.

I've got an excellent book on hoverflies (these wasp mimics are often hoverflies, i.e. in the Syrphidae family) - it's by Stuart Ball and Roger Morris and called 'Britain's Hoverflies'. And because this animal is so distinctive I was able to identify it with the time-honoured practice of page-flicking. But the book is excellent and the keys are easy to use - you'd probably not have too much problem with less obvious species. However, hoverfly season's doubtless pretty much over, so maybe save your money for next year.

However, I read some very useful advice which applies to other invertebrates too. It's reassuring if you're experiencing squeamishness about killing specimens for your collection. If you take what you're doing seriously, your collecting can be for the greater good.

Ball and Morris say: "Many naturalists frown upon the collection of specimens. The prevailing ethos is 'leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photographs.' [But] this approach does not work for a large proportion of Diptera, or indeed for many other invertebrates. It is often necessary to examine a dead specimen rather closely in order to ensure an accurate identification.

"So is there a potential conflict between collection and conservation? The authors of the book have both spent most of their working lives employed by conservation organisations and do not consider there to be a conflict. Whilst we recognise that a few rare species have such restricted breeding sites that collecting could be damaging, we believe that insect faunas are at far greater risk through not knowing which sites are important and how they should be managed.

"The collection of a few voucher specimens is extremely unlikely to be damaging to hoverfly populations and, in our view, responsible collecting that adds to our knowledge of the distribution and biology of hoverflies, should be encouraged. However, we would stress that if an animal has died to generate an identification then use should be made of the resulting record! It should be lodged with the Recording Scheme and subsequently made available to conservation organisations and researchers. Although not a good reason to condone collecting, it is worth bearing in mind that you will kill many more hoverflies on the front of your car driving to and from a site than you are ever likely to collect."

Another use for dead flies. CC image by James F Carter

At the risk of quoting half their book, they also offer these thoughts on 'Why keep a collection?"

"Vouchers: You can prove to yourself and others that you got the identification correct. This is especially important when you are starting off. The best way to learn is to try naming some specimens and then to get them checked by an expert. Nevertheless, however expert you may become, it remains important to keep vouchers for difficult and uncertain identifications.

Comparison: The identification process often involves comparative judgements (e.g. bigger than...; eye hairs darker than...). In these cases, it is very useful to have material you have previously identified to hand so that you can remind yourself what the various options look like."

They also link to an updated version of the Code of Conduct for Collecting Insects and Other Invertebrates (2002).

You might also like the discussion on why collecting specimens is still relevant and useful (and will remain so) here on ResearchGate.

A useful spider website (ignore the pun)

I'm trying to warm to spiders. I'm feeling more sympathetic to them now Tegenaria season seems to be over (quote from a student: I thought it was a mouse running across the floor).

I was thinking about one I saw the other day as I sat on a wall in the sun - the much friendlier Salticus scenicus or Zebra Spider. They have big eyes and you can see them moving their head about to get a good view.

Zebra spider CC image by Fotonfanger

The species is also called a Jumping Spider - it's got a very distinctive jerky way of moving and it can leap surprisingly big distances. There are some videos on Wildscreen Arkive.

Whilst trying to find some information I chanced upon this page, part of Ed Neuwenheuy's 'Spiders of North-West Europe' site.

It's a 'spider location chart' which can help you recognise the family from the environment you find the spider in.

Under the chart, there is a panel of all the different spider families, from which you can find photos and an overview of the variety found in this part of the world. (He also has a thumbnail chart of these).

I think it looks very good - it should help you develop a feel for the characteristics of the different families. But you still can't avoid using the books with the keys of course :)

It strikes me how colourful spiders seem to be and how important it will be to record their colours and patterns before these potentially disappear (after death and in the preservation fluid) - or you'll be making the process of identifying them that much more difficult. Time to get your paintbox out perhaps. Or the camera on your phone I suppose.

16th October
This morning as I stumbled around the house in my early morning daze, it struck me that there are a lot of Pholcus phalangioides spiders around (we have low doorways and I came face to face with one).

CC image by Sven Siegmund

They're quite large but delicate looking. I was struck by its knees. They have a rather distinctive long pale body. If you actually get round to some housework to dislodge them they do a mad shaking manoevre (which you can see on this youtube video). However they're pretty hard and I've even heard tell that they despatch a Tegenaria. If this is true then they're welcome lodgers.

It's possible they're not native to this country, but they can survive its cold winters by living in nice warm houses - and they've made their way all over the world.

Resin as a preservation technique

I can't find any copyright-free resin pictures! so here's a fossilised spider preserved in natural resin -i.e. amber. CC image by Elisabeth.

Several people have asked me recently about preserving their specimens in resin. It's not the traditional thing for taxonomic collections. But if it does what it needs to do - i.e. preserve the specimen while still enabling you to examine all its important and distinguishing features - then it's probably hard to argue with.

I can only imagine attempting small things like beetles and spiders. Little floaty seaweeds in resin look great in my imagination but the technique wouldn't be very practical for anything much bigger. (and you probably want your entire collection to match aesthetically). I can see resin's appeal because spiders do tend to get all scrunched up in alcohol - perhaps it's easier to spread all their legs out in resin(?).

The main issue seems to be - does it still allow you to see the fine detail that allows you to show you've identified it correctly? If you can get this to work, then that's excellent. But it might take a bit of frustrating experimentation. Followed, hopefully, by success and general elation. But perhaps by you getting cross because you've ruined your specimen. So perhaps don't try things out on something you've only got one of.

I've got a tiny bit of experience with resin, but not with setting creatures in it (it's Art, innit). So I do know that you'll probably want 'crystal resin' because that's completely colourless. The stuff I used was cheaper but practically opaque. You have to buy a tin of resin and also a tiny bottle of stuff which reacts with it to make it set (the catalyst / hardener).

You'll also have to think about molds.  I bought a few for my artwork but they weren't cheap, and most of the commercial shapes were far too cutesy. In the end I improvised something I could get for free, but they sometimes got hopelessly stuck, which wasn't ideal.

I also know that resin heats up a bit when it cures, and that can lead to problems with specimens. The only student I can remember that used resin found his spiders went a bit shrivelly. But perhaps this was because they contained moisture, perhaps they could be freeze-dried first? And I believe you can get a problem with 'silvering' which might be related to the shrivelling, when a gap appears between your creature and the resin. I don't know how it will affect the colours of your creature - perhaps that depends what it is.

I also know that resin really stinks and you'll have to find a well-aired place to deal with it (I would suggest the labs but we've not got a fume hood - other people's labs do, but you'll have to fit round the classes).

I found this video on youtube which is interesting because they essentially make their own mold, based on a cut bit of perspex. But they do have an awful lot of bubbles in there (despite their insistence otherwise). And I'm not totally convinced by the opaque edges. And the insects are all curled round. "Oh" I thought, "perhaps you could pin them first." But then if you're going to pin them... why not just pin them, not resin them (not that that would apply to a spider). Don't forget you've got to attach a label somewhere too.

I spotted this guide by Rhys Brigida who loves encasing spiders in resin. He's American, so everything's dollars and ounces, but it should give you some inside information from someone who's tried it with spiders (albeit mostly large ones).

So. This could be worth some experimentation, and much reading around on the internet will probably help. But only if you're feeling super keen, because traditional methods do work and might be less aggravating. I think it might drive me a bit mad. A big question will be - do you have the extra time to get good at it, and will it be worth the possible extra marks if you can do it well? Remember the important part of this assignment is the identification, not just the presentation.

But I do wish you the best of luck if you want to try.

General thoughts on collecting

Finnish entomologist Johan Sahlberg and his botanist wife Mimmi, just before they left on their honeymoon field-trip in 1873. Photograph by Antero Saalas.

 The Legal bit: Technically, you should only collect where you've been given permission by the landowner. Realistically, if you collect a sprig of grass from a roadside, no-one is likely to demand you are thrown in jail. But bear it in mind that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, it is illegal to uproot any wild plant without permission from the landowner. 'Plant' includes algae, lichens, mosses, fungi and vascular plants. You don't need to uproot anything of course, just take parts of it. If you haven't got permission to be on someone land, you shoud confine yourself to public land and footpaths, or else you could get in trouble for trespassing, and that's before you've picked a thing. It doesn't hurt to be following the Countryside Code in general.

It is quite complicated in law, because there's no single law that covers such things. You do have some rights as a 'forager' which have built up around collecting plants for food. The British Mycological Society have some sensible advice regarding picking fungi but you'll find there's increasing worries about people collecting large amounts of mushrooms and then selling them to fancy restaurants (selling things on is not really in the spirit of traditional foraging).

Also, it is very tempting to want to go to a nature reserve to collect - after all, that's surely where all the nature is? Actually, you'll find you can collect a remarkable number of species from uncontroversial places. If you really do want to collect at a nature reserve, you should ask first. In my experience they may give permission - just contact the relevant Wildlife Trust (etc.) and explain you are doing a taxonomic collection for university and only want a specimen or two of common species. Reassure them that you will not be digging anything up, least of all their rare species. Always take the minimum amount of material necessary wherever you are.  

 There's more advice in the Wildflower Society code of conduct. You might also want to read the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland's code of conduct. It encouragingly says "Collecting small amounts of plant material for identification purposes, for private herbaria, for research or as voucher specimens is usually acceptable, except in the case of protected or Red List species. Indeed, collecting is often necessary if botanical expertise is to be developed."

 The Amateur Entomologists Society has similar advice concerning invertebrates. Although I feel pangs of guilt killing them, the main threat to species in this country is habitat loss. The code points out that "collecting should always be limited to the minimum necessary for the purpose intended, as well as by full compliance with legal requirements relating to particular sites and species."   

It is rather unlikely you'll come across rare species (the clue being in the name). Surprisingly, very few are specifically protected by law. Obviously, if you're in a reserve where one exists, you should make yourself aware of its appearance and avoid collecting any.

In short, use common sense and all will be well. Stick to public places and no-one will threaten you with a shotgun. Develop a casual demeanour and learn to shrug off the strange looks the public will doubtless throw you. Never be without a plastic bag or collecting pot. The latter is the best bit of advice I can give you :)

 

The Health and Safety bit: 

If you look at the course guidance on Blackboard, you will see that before going out collecting it requires you to send a risk assessment to Katy. This is not so onerous, as there is a generic version on Blackboard - you just need to go through it and remove anything irrelevant to your own situation, and perhaps add in anything extra. 

For example, you can delete any of the chemicals you won't be using for preservation. You've survived this long so presumably you are good at common sense - but here's a recap anyway-

Take someone with you (it's more fun, besides).
 Let someone know where you're going and when you ought to be back (a map and a phone are useful too).
Especially if you're like me, take a snack and something to drink so you don't pass out in a ditch.
Take your medicine with you if you suffer from some life-threatening illness (now I feel like I'm talking to my mother).
Take some sensible clothing and footwear with you (and now I am turning into my mother).

Fill in your details on the form - send a copy to Katy and keep a copy for yourself.
Then you can go forth and start collecting.