USA 2023 - Death Valley - Flowers, Birds and a Coyote

 9-11 April 2023

At first sight, California's Death Valley seems an unlikely place to look for birds. Or any wildlife for that matter. But, as ever, if you look properly there are things to find. While the Mesquite Flat sand dunes (above) provide one of the valley's enduring images, this harsh environment is not typical of the wider area. The alluvial fans a short distance to the south, on the road from Furnace Creek to Stovepipe Wells, were dotted with colour after the recent rainfall. Plants in flower included Desert Gold (or Hairy Desertsunflower) Geraea canescens, Browneyes Chylismia claviformis and the ubiquitous Creosote Bushes Larrea tridentata (all pictured below).

Desert Gold Geraea canescens - Death Valley CA

Browneyes Chylismia claviformis - Death Valley CA

Creosote Bush (detail) Larrea tridentata - Death Valley CA

It's worth mentioning a few useful plant identification websites that came to my assistance here - notably wildflowersearch.org, which allows you to specify the search area (which could be 'Death Valley National Park' or a trail like Mosaic Canyon), southwestdesertflora.com and calscape.org (the Californian Native Plant Society). 

On arrival the previous afternoon, our first stop had been the National Park Visitor Centre at Furnace Creek. This is worth a look, if only to fill up your water bottles, pay the park entrance fee and visit the loo. Outside, a flycatcher was zipping in and out of the centre’s covered area, presumably feeding young in a nest.  It was Say’s Phoebe (below), the key identification feature being the light orange (Sibley says ‘dull cinnamon’) vent and belly, an open country species of the western USA and Mexico. 

Say's Phoebe - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

Our first day's hike was up Mosaic Canyon, with an early start to avoid the full heat of the day (which rose to the mid-30s Celsius or mid-90s Farenheit). It's a great walk; the canyon narrows down to single file sections where you have to scramble over the smoothly polished marble. The steep canyon walls kept it shady and cool in the lower sections, although things got hotter and sunnier as it widened out. 

Mosaic Canyon, Death Valley CA

The birdlife was enjoying the shade as well. Just past the first narrow section I heard a loud chirpy whistle coming from the canyon wall. “Probably a Canyon Wren”, advised a passing hiker. By this point on the trip I had learned to be cautious about other people's identification skills - and with good reason. Although the bird was plainly in a canyon, it was a Rock Wren (below), looking far more like the image of that species in Sibley than the one that I’d seen at Red Rock Canyon, Nevada (see earlier blog post here). For the record, Canyon Wrens have a deeper, rufous colour, with a white throat and breast. 

  

Rock Wren - Mosaic Canyon, Death Valley CA

Further up, where the canyon widened out, a loud chirping led me to a nice family scene: a male House Finch was feeding his young (below). They had bred early here, probably to escape the extreme heat of the summer. House Finches are attractive birds; it's a pity that some people discount common species, no matter how colourful they may be.  

Feeding time! House Finches in Mosaic Canyon, Death Valley CA

Our base in the National Park was The Ranch at Furnace Creek, which I would recommend as a place to stay - although, in fairness, there aren't many other local options. The campsite at Furnace Creek looked almost full, although it can't have been comfortable camping in the heat (and this was only April!). This campsite actually closes in the summer. 

For birdwatching, Furnace Creek is a bit of a magnet - for what I would argue are all of the wrong reasons. Breathtakingly, somebody decided that this would be the ideal place for a golf course. So the desert gives way to a complex of well-watered lawns, clumps of trees and a couple of decent-sized lakes. Naturally, all of this water acts as an avian magnet.

I had an evening walk around part of the golf course - a bit nervously, as I wasn't sure how birders would be received here. As it turned out, there were no problems. It might have helped that nobody was playing. In fact, apart from a few greenkeepers, who paid me no attention, there was no-one out on the course for the two days that we stayed at Furnace Creek. I wondered why they had bothered creating it.

My walk took me to the smaller pond, which contained couple of Cinnamon Teal and three Ruddy Ducks. Five American Coots (one pictured below) were stalking around on the fairway nearby. At first sight, these are very like the UK's Common Coot, but note the dark patch (actually red) at the top of the frontal shield. Clearly, none of these birds would normally be found here.

American Coot - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

An American Robin (below) perched nicely for me on a sawn-off log.  

American Robin - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

And a Turkey Vulture (below) floated over, missing the tips of some of its primaries. At least this was a 'proper' Death Valley resident.

Turkey Vulture - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

The following morning I was out of our room at dawn (just after 6am). My plan was to walk an anticlockwise circuit of Furnace Creek, heading up to the main road, along to the visitor centre and campsite, then down the airstrip road to the larger golf course pond, which I hadn’t found on my previous walk, then returning across the golf course.

There was very little bird activity in the hotel grounds, the first two species being both non-native - House Sparrow and Collared Dove. More movement (both avian and human) was apparent over at the campsite, where a mobile flock of around twenty Brewer’s Blackbirds (female pictured below) and a smaller number of Great-tailed Grackles were poking around the picnic tables. Brewer's Blackbirds (and indeed the grackles) are members of the Icterid (New World Blackbird) family, rather than thrushes. They are common in the western USA. The males are a bit smarter than the females: glossy black, with a white eye. 

Brewer's Blackbird female - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

I made my way across the campsite and joined the road that runs down to the airstrip. Two Canada Geese flew over (I would meet them later on), followed by a Wilson's Snipe. Death Valley is to the south of the snipe's year-round resident range, so this bird had likely either over-wintered here or was on passage to the north. I was very pleased to see it, even if only in flight. Further down the road, a small passerine in a tree turned out to be an Audubon’s Warbler: there were a few about.

The airstrip road took me near to the larger golf course pond. This was equipped with a wooden viewing platform (below), so it appeared that birders were being positively welcomed to this corner of the golf course.

Viewing platform - Furnace Creek gold course CA

The platform boasted a small notice celebrating the property's 'achievements in environmental sustainability'. I can't really comment on this, except to say that the presence of ponds, reed beds and well-watered fairways looked rather out of place in this arid desert landscape.

Audubon environmental sustainability notice

I wasn’t alone: another birder, who was from the east of the USA, so not completely familiar with the local birdlife, had beaten me to it. We had a brief chat and gazed across the pond, which contained a pair of Ruddy Ducks and three American Coots. Two more unusual birds then flew in. Most exciting for me was this beautiful male Yellow-headed Blackbird (below) - another icterid - which sat obligingly at the top of a Tamarisk tree.

Yellow-headed Blackbird (male) - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

This is a wetland species, so Death Valley wouldn’t be a natural place to find it. The same could be said about the Belted Kingfisher (below) which arrived next, looking almost green in the morning light. We’re out of range for Green Kingfisher here in any event, but the shaggy crest is a good identification feature for Belted (Green has a neater pointed crest). Belted Kingfishers are seen as far south as Colombia and Venezuela.  

Belted Kingfisher- Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

Canada Geese (below), are so familiar in the UK as a non-native species that it felt odd taking their photo. But here they are native, setting aside the artificial nature of this particular habitat in this particular location. Death Valley sits right at the southern end of their resident range, so it’s unclear whether these two were going to stay here and breed or fly north.  

Canada Geese - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

Time was moving on, so I walked back to the hotel taking a more direct route across the golf course. Near to the accommodation blocks I encountered the local Coyote (below) walking along the side of a fairway and across a green.

Coyote - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

Coyote (detail) - Furnace Creek, Death Valley CA

We had seen a Coyote crossing the fairway here the previous evening, so I guessed that this was the same individual on its usual round. In appearance, Coyotes sit somewhere between a fox and a wolf to my eyes. While the ones that I’ve come across elsewhere in the USA have looked pretty lean and hungry, this Furnace Creek resident appeared to be in fairly good condition. Although there are no livestock, and very few wild ungulates, in Death Valley, it is likely that the golf course’s substantial Desert Cottontail population is the main prey item. And I doubt that losing a few bunnies would upset the golf course managers.

It was time for our last Death Valley breakfast. By the time that car was packed, the thermometer was already showing a toasty 91 degrees Farenheit (33 degrees Celsius). We were heading back to the coast.

To be continued ...  

Reference:

Sibley, D. (2003) Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America. London: Christopher Helm.

  

On Moths and Butterflies

 

My slightly tongue-in-cheek social media post yesterday (below) provoked an entertaining exchange of views on the differences - or, more exactly, the lack of differences - between moths and butterflies. 

I chose the images deliberately to suggest the similarities between moths and butterflies. But for many people there is a deep and profound divide. "I love butterflies" versus "I hate moths". Butterflies flap colourfully around in the sun, while moths are seen as sinister creatures of the night that eat your carpets. 

This bias appears surprisingly pervasive. Butterfly Conservation does a lot of great work for moths. (I am a member, and I urge you to join too - there's a link here.) It runs the National Moth Recording Scheme, carries out moth research (check out the excellent State of Britain's Larger Moths 2021 report, which can be downloaded free from the website) and undertakes moth conservation projects. Its Atlas of Britain's and Ireland's Larger Moths is an essential resource (I sponsored a moth in it - see whether you can find it!). Through its #MothsMatter campaign, Butterfly Conservation acts as a much needed cheerleader for moths, while its officers appear regularly on the TV to explain why most moths do not actually eat carpets.

However, you only have to look at Butterfly Conservation's members' magazine to understand that moths are secondary to the interest in butterflies. The magazine is called "Butterfly", for a start. In a (very) much smaller font you will find the strapline: "Saving butterflies, moths and our environment". Butterfly Conservation's Twitter (X) handle is @savebutterflies. Several times, I have suggested to BC officers that the charity's name could be changed to include a reference to moths: the response has always been on the lines of "it's just not going to happen". 

Aside from the fact that a lot of BC members simply like butterflies (and there's nothing wrong with that), there is another (largely unstated) reason why moths aren't given equal billing. Namely, the fear that mentioning moths will put people off from joining and donating. I don't know whether this is based upon any hard evidence - it may have been focus-grouped, I suppose - but there's no denying that there is a weird, and largely irrational, dislike of moths out there. A particularly bonkers example is in a Guardian comment piece from 2012, titled "Why I Hate Moths". 

(By the way, if you do open this link, you will see that the main photo, which has appeared all over the place including the Times, Daily Express and Good Housekeeping, is a classic piece of deliberate misinformation: two geometrid moths have been placed next to a hole in a woollen jumper. As most of you will know: (1) these aren't clothes moths, (2) only a tiny number of moth species damage fabric and (3) it's the larvae that do the damage, not the adult moths.)

But if the level of aggression against moths in some quarters seems disproportionate, then it's perhaps also rather odd to focus too strongly on butterflies in preference to moths. Three reasons why:

First - many moths are spectacular and conspicuous. There are at least as many day-flying moth species in Britain and Ireland as there are butterflies. Below are a couple of the more showy ones - Jersey Tiger, a species that has colonised the south of England and is heading north, and Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet - one of a number of burnet moths, all of which are vibrantly coloured.

Jersey Tiger - Dorset

Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet - Northumberland

Second - butterflies only make up a small part of the Lepidoptera (the order containing moths and butterflies). Published numbers vary, partly because new species are being added to the list regularly, but a good estimate of the total count for the Lepidoptera is around 157,000 species (Stork, 2018), of which between 15-20,000 are butterflies - around 10%. In Britain and Ireland, the difference is even more stark: we have around 60 resident butterfly species compared to around 2,500 moths - only about 2.5%. 

Butterflies are the exception; moths are the rule.

This means that, even in our biologically impoverished islands, moths demonstrate significant and interesting species diversity. There is much to learn, and fascinating stories to tell. For example, studies of moths have pointed towards reasons for the general decline of insect numbers (see my blog post on this here). 

Third - and this is the crucial one - there is really no meaningful distinction between moths and butterflies anyway. As we have seen, moths fly during the day as well as at night. Many moths are bright and colourful. The uraniid moth from Ecuador's Yasuni National Park pictured below is perhaps an extreme example, but it makes the point. See also the Cream-spot Tiger photo at the head of this blog post.

Uraniid moth (Urania leilus) - Ecuador

Look harder at the taxonomy and you will struggle to find differences as well. Butterflies are grouped together in a 'superfamily' (the Papilionoidea), that appears to have split-off from the main 'family tree' of the Lepidoptera around 100 million years ago. A recent study has suggested that this split took place in North America (Kawahara et al., 2023). But the butterfly superfamily sits within the rest of the Lepidoptera - and these are all moths. They include families that are more 'primitive' than butterflies (for example that have a single genital opening for mating and egg-laying) as well as families that share the same characteristics as butterflies - for example two genital openings (Lees & Zilli, 2019).  The oft-quoted 'fact' that butterflies have clubbed antennae while those of moths is tapered is confused by the sheer diversity of moth forms. For example, the antennae of Burnet Moths, such as this Six-spot Burnet below, end in a wider section that then tapers. Not unlike that of a Dingy Skipper (also pictured below).

Six-spot Burnet - Dorset

 

Dingy Skipper - Dorset

As such, there is no one characteristic that separates butterflies from moths. Moths can therefore be defined as 'Lepidoptera that aren't butterflies'. But - to cut to the chase - it's far easier to say that butterflies are actually moths!

So, let's hear it for a bit of blurring of boundaries, and leaping out of traditional silos. If you love butterflies, then try dipping a toe into the magical world of moths. You won't regret it!

References

Lees, D.C. and Zilli, A. (2019) Moths: Their biology, diversity and evolution. London: Natural History Museum

Kawahara, A.Y., Storer, C., Carvalho, A.P.S., Plotkin, D.M., Condamine, F.L., Braga, M.P., Ellis, E.A., St Laurent, R.A., Li, X., Barve, V. and Cai, L. (2023). 'A global phylogeny of butterflies reveals their evolutionary history, ancestral hosts and biogeographic origins.' Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(6), pp.903-913.

Stork, N.E. (2018) 'How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth?' Annual Review of Entomology, 63, pp.31-45.

 

USA 2023 - Grand Canyon Birds (and more)

Sunday 9 April 2023

Steller's Jay - Grand Canyon AZ

We had arrived at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon on the previous afternoon, after a five and a half hour drive from Las Vegas across the vast, open landscapes of the Arizona uplands. First impressions of were off-putting: there was a 40 minute traffic queue to get through the National Park entrance, and the car parks on the South Rim were jammed. Our fault for arriving during the Easter weekend; we had been lucky to snatch a late room vacancy.

Grand Canyon AZ - view from South Rim

It wasn't any quieter when we had sorted ourselves out, got checked in at the lodge and walked over to the canyon edge. The view is, of course, sensational and it was great to be back after a 30 year absence. But the crowds had scared away most of the wildlife. A few Violet-green Swallows were flying above the canyon rim, and the only bird on the ground was this sharply-marked Spotted Towhee (below) searching for bits and pieces just over the wall at the edge of the viewing area. This is very much a bird of the western USA, its range extending into south-west Canada and down the spine of Mexico.

Spotted Towhee - Grand Canyon AZ

Also here was a Cliff Chipmunk (record photo below), also looking for scraps left by visitors. We only saw a couple of these: they had been a lot more common on my previous visit, although that had been in high summer. Today there was still snow on the shadier north-facing slopes.

Cliff Chipmunk (record photo) - Grand Canyon AZ

Fortunately, things improved considerably the following morning. As ever, it pays to be up early, and we were out of bed before 0600 to watch the sunrise. The first wildlife reward was a group of four or five Mule Deer nosing around the Thunderbird Lodge building, and looking very much at home. It wasn't a surprise: I had seen Mule Deer at sunrise by the Bright Angel trailhead on my last visit.

Mule Deer - Grand Canyon AZ

Mule Deer group - Grand Canyon AZ 

It was time for the obligatory sunrise photo shoot. The morning light was superb: clear and crisp.  It was fabulous to be out. 

Grand Canyon at sunrise

Once the sun had lifted above the canyon rim, we walked east along the Rim Trail, soon leaving our fellow sunrise gazers behind. There was much more bird activity in the forest than the previous afternoon (there could hardly have been less!), but my first sighting had me leafing through my copy of Sibley. Although looking like something new, the mystery bird turned out to be a Dark-eyed Junco (below).

Dark-eyed Junco (Grey-headed) - Grand Canyon AZ

The reason for my confusion was that Dark-eyed Juncos are variable, with 15 subspecies recognised in the HBW/Birdlife International Checklist. This form is known as a Grey-headed Junco (subspecies caniceps), with a more restricted distribution across the south-western states. Its rufous mantle is just visible.  

For comparison, here (below) is a more 'normal' Dark-eyed Junco from California's Monterey Bay coast. This subspecies is known as the Oregon Junco (ssp. oreganus), and is a common and familiar sight on the West coast of the USA. I took this photo a week before in our hotel car park.  

Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon Junco) - Aptos CA

While I was puzzling over the junco a woodpecker swooped in, perched in a pine and then flew onto a nicely exposed branch (below). It was clearly a Northern Flicker, which I had previously seen on a visit to New England. However, the species has now been split, so this is my first Red-shafted Flicker. It had an impressively long tongue (bottom image); although they can eat fruit and seeds, most of their diet comprises insects, especially ants. They often feed on the ground, like the Green Woodpecker in the UK and Europe.

Red-shafted Flicker - Grand Canyon AZ

Red-shafted Flicker showing tongue - Grand Canyon AZ

The eastern form of Northern Flicker now called the Yellow-shafted Flicker. The new names relate to the shafts of the wing and tail feathers, which are not easily seen - except in the hand, I guess. More obvious differences are that Red-shafted Flicker lacks a red nape (which Yellow-shafted has), but has a red moustachial stripe (compared to a black stripe on Yellow-shafted). The red stripe shows up well in this record photo below.

Red-shafted Flicker (detail) - Grand Canyon AZ

Posing no identification problems, but proving photographically difficult as it was constantly on the move, was this Pygmy Nuthatch (below) climbing down the trunk of a pine.

Pygmy Nuthatch (record photo) - Grand Canyon AZ

A bird that I had been particularly keen to see, the Pygmy Nuthatch is a western species, its range extending from southern Canada (just) down into Mexico. Oddly, we saw neither of the more common North American nuthatches (White and Red-breasted) on this trip; both are found on the Grand Canyon South Rim (says eBird) and elsewhere in California, too. Pygmy Nuthatch is a bird of conifer forests, while the other two species are less fussy.

Next up was the arrival of a pointy-crested Steller’s Jay (see image at the start of this post). Another western species, Steller’s Jay ranges from coastal Alaska to Central America. There are 16 subspecies; this Grand Canyon example was subspecies macrolopha (the inland  form). Note the white marks on the head; these are absent in the coastal nominate subspecies. Steller’s Jays prefer coniferous or mixed woods; I haven't seen it on the coast. Which can’t be said for the final bird that appeared: a Western Scrub-Jay (below).

Western (Woodhouse's) Scrub-Jay - Grand Canyon AZ

This looked so different from the coastal form that I had seen the previous week (see image at the end of this blog post), that I wondered at first whether it was a different species. But in fact it's the inland form of Western Scrub-Jay, known as Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay. (Although possibly not for very much longer if the proposed renaming of American common bird names goes ahead.)

And that was it for our morning Grand Canyon bird walk. We had breakfast at the lodge, packed our bags and started the long drive east ... to the considerably more arid surroundings of Death Valley.

To be continued ...

Reference

Sibley, D. (2003) Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America. London: Christopher Helm.

 
 

Starting to Identify Moths (part 1) - Helpful books, websites and other resources.

 

Moth identification can be a daunting business. With around 2,500 moth species in the UK alone it's hard to know where to start. Fortunately, there is help at hand. This blog post points you in the direction of the best identification resources for moth recording in the UK and Ireland. 

I cover four main information sources:

1. Moth identification books.

2. Useful websites.

3. Online discussion groups and other online advice.

4. Artificial Intelligence-based resources.

All have their own advantages and potential pitfalls. So, read on.

1. Moth Identification Books

This is a personal selection of the books that I have found most helpful. Others are available, and the absence of any publication from this list does not amount to any sort of criticism. It's just that I don't use it.

I have included links to the Atropos shop for most of the books covered (links open in a new window). This is simply for ease of reference: I don't get anything for it and other online bookshops are available, such as NHBS. It's always worth shopping around for deals and special offers.

The two Bloomsbury guides to (macro) moths and micro-moths

One of my key messages is that the more identification resources you use, the better. It always pays to have a few books to hand. However, if I was forced to choose the moth identification book that I have used most of all it would be The Field Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland by Paul Waring and Martin Townsend, with brilliant illustrations by Richard Lewington. This is now into its third edition (published 2017) - Atropos bookshop link here.

One (very) small complaint about Waring and Townsend, as it's usually referred to, is that the title is misleading. Strictly, it only deals with the larger moths - the macro-moths. I will deal with moth classification in another blog, but suffice to say at this stage that Waring and Townsend will cover most of the moths that a beginner will want to identify. And it's pretty comprehensive. Only a handful of recently recorded species aren't covered. This is an important point: many otherwise excellent insect identification books will include only a selection of species, which is understandable given the scale of insect diversity, but which risks misidentification because of the potential to ignore possible confusion species.

Given the success of the first edition of Waring and Townsend, it was always likely that a companion guide would follow covering the micro-moths. Phil Sterling (who is a leading light of our Dorset moth verification team) and Mark Parsons teamed up with Richard Lewington to prepare The Field Guide to the Micro-moths of Britain and Ireland. The second edition (here) came out in 2023. Unlike its macro companion, this doesn't aim to be comprehensive: 1286 species are covered (out of 1576), with 1012 species illustrated. This does mean that it's possible, even likely (given time), that a micro-moth will turn up that isn't in the book. However, such an event is unlikely to trouble anyone who is new to moth recording.

For the sake of completeness, I should add that certain groups of micro-moths (as well as a few macro-moths) cannot be identified from images alone: many species require the dissection of genitalia ("gen. det.") to confirm the species. As such, Phil and Mark set out a clear warning against trying to "shoehorn" every micro-moth into one of the species illustrated in their book.

Both of the Bloomsbury guides are available in hardback, but I have had no problems using paperback versions of them both. Having said that, I have backed them both with what the 1970s TV programme Blue Peter referred to as 'sticky-backed plastic', which has made them considerably more resilient. Without this, both would suffer from spine-cracking, especially the thicker micro book. As well as coffee spillages and the like.

Bloomsbury have also produced a condensed (and cheaper) version of the Waring and Townsend - the Concise Guide to the Moths of Britain and Ireland, now in its second edition. This also contains Richard Lewington's illustrations, but the text entries are reduced in size and (to my mind) usefulness. I bought the first edition of this book but, despite its user-friendly spiral binding, it has remained on the shelf. 

(In the same series as the macro and micro-moth books, Phil Sterling, Barry Henwood and Richard Lewington have also produced a Field Guide to the Caterpillars of Great Britain and Ireland. This is also excellent, but outside the scope of the present blog.)

Chris Manley's Photographic Guide

Excellent though Richard Lewington's illustrations are, I like to have a photographic guide to hand as well. My stand-by here has been Chris Manley's British Moths: A Photographic Guide to the Moths of Britain and Ireland. This is now into a third edition (here), but I'm still using the second edition. The photos in Chris's book are excellent and orientated consistently in order to aid comparison. It is a joy to look at. A huge advantage is that it combines macros and micros into a single volume. It's not fully comprehensive, but it does include an impressive range of species, including a few that don't make it into the two Bloomsbury guides already mentioned. The species accounts in this book are however extremely brief, so look elsewhere for more detailed identification pointers. (The second edition of Chris's book contained a number of errors, although an addendum was made available. It also has a terrible index! Hopefully, these problems have been addressed in the third edition?) 

 

James Lowen's Gateway Guide

A special mention should be given to James Lowen's A Gateway Guide to British Moths (here), the only book in this list that is explicitly aimed at beginners. It's another photographic guide, and the quality of the images is simply stunning. One innovative feature is the presence of numbered pointers on the photographs, which refer to particular identification features in the text - very useful.

In setting the book out, James has departed from the traditional taxonomic approach of the other books described above. Moths are ordered by flight season, and then grouped broadly by visual appearance. This means that moths from different families are often shown on the same page. Personally, I find this confusing, as I never know where to find anything, but then I'm not the target audience. I can see that it might work very well for someone who is new to moths and doesn't know where to start looking to find the species that they are trying to identify. I like the way that James has included some of the more conspicuous micro-moth species, as a "taster" to perhaps encourage further study. 

Obviously, this book doesn't aim to be comprehensive (it focuses on only around 350 species), but James has done a great job in selecting those moths that beginners will want to identify. It's worth having just for the quality of the photographs.     

My 'go-to' list of moth identification books also includes two slim volumes. Both appear at first to have a limited geographical basis, but both have proved invaluable to this Dorset-based moth recorder.

Not only useful in the North West! 

All moth recorders will tell you that pug moths are a menace. I don't find the illustrations in either Waring and Townsend or Manley's book to be as helpful as they should be. While there is a useful preamble to the pugs section of Waring and Townsend, the sheer number of species listed is a bit daunting. (For example, the section headed "Conspicuous dark spot in middle of forewing but no distinct whitish spot in trailing corner" gives you a list of over 25 possibilities.) In this case, the separation between text and images acts against easy usage.

In contrast, Brian Hancock's Pug Moths of North-west England (here) is a model of spaciousness and clarity. Obviously, its distribution maps are of little use outside its stated geographical area (Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria). But the photographic illustrations are excellent, and include (where appropriate) images showing variation both within a species and as a result of wear during the season. In some cases, comparisons are shown side by side. Almost all of the UK's resident pug species are covered, with only six omissions. These include Cypress Pug and Channel Islands Pug, both of which have turned up in my Dorset garden. As long as you bear that limitation in mind, this is a very useful volume. 

Useful outside Berkshire, too!

In a similar vein, the Berkshire Moth Group have prepared a superb guide to the Common Micro-moths of Berkshire. A second edition is now available (here), which I haven't bought yet (note to self: do this!). Although this guide makes no claims to be comprehensive, it has an uncanny focus on the more common species of micro-moth that are likely to turn up in your trap. The first edition, which I'm still using, covers just over 100 species; apparently this number has been doubled in the second edition. This is another photographic guide, with the photos also having numbered annotations to point out key identification features. Photos of similar species are presented side by side, which is particularly helpful, especially in the awkward Eudonia/Scoparia complex of micro-moths (Crambidae). 

Old school identification! (Now out of print)

For the sake of completeness, I should also mention my first ever moth identification book - Bernard Skinner's Colour Identification Guide to the Moths of the British Isles (2nd edition). Before Waring and Townsend arrived, this was a standard reference book for macro-moths. It contains photographs of set specimens, with separate text. I found it difficult to use, for three main reasons. First, the set specimens look unnatural in comparison with the usual resting position of moths. Second, the images have a rather poor resolution, although I understand that this may be a particular problem with the second edition. Finally, the supporting text contains only limited descriptions of key identification features compared to more recent identification books - even the Concise Waring and Townsend. But having said all of that, Skinner has one feature that the other books omit: by showing set specimens, it includes images of the hind wings for all species. 

Skinner now appears to be out of print, but can no doubt be tracked down second hand. I probably wouldn't bother to buy it now, but it remains a useful part of my identification armoury.

Addendum: Since I first published this post, it has been pointed out to me (thanks Paul C) that I missed out Sean Clancy's Moths of Great Britain and Ireland (link here - available at an enticing discount, at the time of writing!). I haven't used the book myself, but other moth recorders speak highly of it. And, as I say, the more identification resources, the better.

2. Useful Websites

There are a lot of moth-related websites out there, so this will necessarily be a selective look at the ones that I find most useful for identification purposes.

Dorset Moths - an example of a county moth group website

If you are lucky, a local moth group will have set up a website describing the moths of your area. This is usually a county, such as our local Dorset Moths website, but it may cover a larger area such as West Midlands Moths. If you are lucky, this website will contain specific identification advice, such as Phil Dean's guide to pug moths on the Devon Moth Group site (here). But even if it doesn't, there should be some information that is useful for identification. One feature that is really helpful for beginners, and found on many county websites, is a page showing the moths that are most likely to be seen at different times of the year in your local area. An example is the Moths By Month feature on the Butterfly Conservation East of Scotland Branch website (here). The local dimension is really important here: as a result of their wider coverage, the identification books listed earlier in this post can only give broad ranges for flight times.

Once you have a tentative identification for your moth, it is always worth checking to see whether

your local moth recording website has information on its status in your area. For example, the Dorset Moths website contains distribution maps, flight times, photographs and summary text for all macro-moths recorded in the county (but only up to 2019 at the moment). If your species looks like an outlier then you have either found something that is interesting and unusual or you've misidentified your moth. Trust me, it's usually the second of these! (But as a rider to that, I should stress that validated observations of species flying at unusual times or unexpected places are some of the most interesting and scientifically useful records.)

Turning to national websites, Ian Kimber's UKMoths contains a great range of images of both macro and micro-moth species. There's a "beginners' top twenty" of his most popular ID requests. However, the website's text doesn't include as much detailed identification information as many of the books listed above.

Chris Lewis's British Lepidoptera website also contains a gallery of images. Although of less relevance to the beginner, these include images of moth dissection and genitalia. Not that I've used it, but Chris offers a moth genital dissection service, for a fee.

Useful though these may be, the website that I use most often myself is actually German - Lepiforum. This is an amazing resource, despite a few drawbacks. First, it includes plenty of species that you won't get in the British Isles. Second, it's in German (which I don't speak); while the advent of automatic translation has eased this particular burden a bit, it's still a bit clunky when it comes down to technical vocabulary. Having said that, the website contains an extraordinary range of images, and is particularly useful for exploring variation within a species. It's also the best place to look in the happy event that you have found something that is new to the British Isles!

Although not aimed at beginners, Phil Sterling (via Butterfly Conservation) recently presented a series of four hour-long moth identification video sessions on YouTube. These give a lot of essential detail to help in separating the more confusing groups of moths - mostly macro-moths but a few micros as well (Phil's speciality). A link to the first of these videos is here.

3. Online discussion groups and other online advice.

Social media has many disadvantages, but it is a useful tool for moth identification. Facebook, in particular, is the home for online discussion groups where members can post images of moths and ask for identification advice. I use two in particular. First is the Dorset Moths Facebook group (here), for which I am one of the administrators. Set up by the late Terry Box, who pioneered the online face of the Dorset Moth Group, this now contains 640 members. It's a private group, but if you have a genuine interest in the moths of Dorset then you are very welcome to join us. We have many out-of-county members. There may well be other similar local groups out there.

Also on Facebook, I dip from time to time into the Pugs In Flight Tonight group (here), another private group but with a larger membership (currently around 1,200 members). As already mentioned, pug identification can be especially tricky, and this is often reflected by the diversity of views expressed within the group about some submitted photographs! However, a consensus is usually reached (but it can be quite entertaining when it isn't.)

(Although a bit of a diversion, I can't resist also mentioning the Moth Trap Intruders Facebook group (here) where the topic of discussion is everything except moths. I can't help being interested in the huge variety of other insects (and other things) that turn up my trap. My most unusual 'intruder' was a juvenile House Martin (below) - not that it needed identifying, of course.)

House Martin - an unexpected moth trap intruder - Dorset

Facebook groups can be really helpful when you're stuck on an identification, but it's worth giving a bit of guidance about their use. Simply posting an image and asking 'what's this?' or 'ID please' is likely to get peoples' backs up quite quickly. It is far better to show that you have at least tried to work out the identification by yourself. Although this risks potential embarassment from being corrected in public, this has happened to most (all?) of us, and is probably a better learning tool in the long term. And here's a plea to those more experienced moth recorders who provide assistance on these forums: when giving out an identification it really helpful to explain why you have reached that view. 

Obviously, it goes without saying that participation in Facebook groups (and other online forums) should be respectful, avoiding unpleasantness. My experience has generally been positive - moth people are nice people! - but unfortunate comments do get through from time time to time, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes not. 

Which neatly brings me on to Twitter (X). This can also be a useful tool for moth identification, particularly thanks to helpful people like Sean Foote who runs the UK Moth Identification Twitter (X) account (@MOTHIDUK). Sean identifies a bewilderingly large number of moth images online: if you use his services then how about giving him an online tip? 

Using the #teammoth hashtag on Twitter (X) will improve the chances of your post geting seen by the right people. 

The same hashtag will also work on BlueSky, where an online community is developing as an alternative to Twitter/X. You can find me there at @mikemoths.bsky.social.

4. Artificial Intelligence-based resources.

By this, I mean image-recognition systems which can analyse your photographs and make suggestions.

I'm covering two of these in this blog post - Google Lens and ObsIdentify. 

Disclosure: until now, I have used neither of these systems for identifying UK moths. However, I have found Google Lens to be useful when going through my moth (and butterfly) pictures from parts of the world where diversity is high and comprehensive field guides are hard to come by - most recently India (see other blogs on this site). The ObsIdentify app sat unused on my phone, but I see from various sources that more and more UK moth recorders are using it, so I have decided to try it out.

Obviously, neither of these systems can identify species that rely on evidence that doesn't appear in your image - such as those that need dissection. It shouldn't need saying, but I have noticed that a minority of recorders appear reluctant to disagree with a computer-generated identification. It is always worth bearing in mind that IT is only as good as the data that goes into it. 

On the face of it, Google Lens is a neat system that works on both laptops and phones. Simply click the square icon at the right of the search box (see above) and upload an image. Google will then present you with a large number of what it 'thinks' are matching images on other web pages.

For the purposes of this blog post, I tried using Google Lens to identify 25 of my own photos, including macro and micro-moths. I used photos of species which seemed to me to be fairly obvious identifications (such as Alabonia geoffrella, Brimstone Moth and Four-spotted Footman), as well as those that might appear more challenging (includiinng Eudonia delunella, Ringed China-mark and Common Lutestring), plus a few species that are rare  the UK (such as Grass Webworm and Blair's Mocha).

The results were ... mixed. Google Lens presents you with a large number of possible 'hits'. In the case of the more easily identfiable species, such as Brimstone Moth (below), the vast majority of these were pointing to the correct species. More of these were macro-moths, but some of the micros that I tried out, such as Green Oak Tortrix Tortrix viridana, also did well, presenting very few incorrect IDs. My non-scientific scoring system showed that six of my 25 species were identified almost unanimously (i.e. almost no incorrect websites came up), while the overwhelming number of hits were correct in a further nine species. 

Brimstone Moth - no problem for Google Lens

However, two particular problems arose even with these more easily identified species.

First, a lot depends upon the quality of your photographs. I tried to use images where the key identification features were easily seen. But what looks straightforward to me may 'appear' quite different to an AI system. Rather alarmingly, one of my Buff-Tip photos generated a blank screen containing the comment: "Warning: this may contain explicit images". I don't even want to speculate.

So, Google Lens health warning no.1 is: use clear and unambiguous photos.

Elder Pearl Anania coronata - not an American moth

My image of Elder Pearl Anania coronata (above) highlighted a further potential problem, in that prompted a number of hits for the similar Anania tertialis. This is a North American species that, in fairness, has previously been considered as a subspecies of A. coronata - so they are quite similar.  Google Lens seems very keen to suggest North American species, which I guess reflects where most of its users are based. So this is my Google Lens health warning no. 2: read the supporting geographical information on the relevant website carefully!

Rusty-dot Pearl Udea ferrugalis - Google Lens struggled

The remaining 10 images were dealt with less satisfactorily by Google Lens. The good news is that in all cases at least one link was shown that included the correct species. However, there were also a similar number, or in some cases (such as this Rusty-dot Pearl photo above) many more, incorrect links. This could lead to misidentification, although by carefully comparing your original photo with the range of images that are offered by Google Lens, it may well be possible to find the correct species.

In doing so, there is however a further possible pitfall. Google Lens appears to trawl through a wide of websites. Even on a short survey like this, it was quickly obvious that not all of them contain accurate moth identifications. (Also, beware links that show the correct image but with an incorrect moth name below it). So, Google Lens health warning no. 3 is: only refer to reputable websites when seeking identifications. The websites discussed earlier in this blog post can be relied upon.

The best thing about Google Lens is, therefore, that it narrows the field - which is very useful for an inexperienced moth recorder. But it does have limitations. Use it as a tool, but not as a definitive identification source.

  

Angle Shades - no problem for ObsIdentify

ObsIdentify is a phone-based app that aims (as it puts it) to "recognize nature in one click" (link here). I tried it out with an (admittedly rather small) selection of 8 species from this morning's trap. (Moth numbers are still low this year, as explained in an earlier post.) The results were impressive.

All eight species were correctly identified with either a 99% or 100% probability. For the record, these were: Angle Shades (above), Clouded Drab, Hebrew Character, Light Brown Apple Moth, Muslin Moth, Pale Tussock, Shuttle-shaped Dart and Waved Umber. All are fairly distinctive, so perhaps this wasn't the toughest test, although I did wonder how it would cope with Clouded Drab, which is quite a variable species. The app coped well with images that wouldn't have made the cut for this blog, including moths perched at various angles on egg boxes. It works best when the subject is in the centre of the image, which can be cropped after you have taken the photo.

So, surprisingly, I must give ObsIdentify the thumbs-up, at least on the basis of this limited test. But the caveats that I outlined at the start of this section remain. While it looks like an extremely effective tool, it cannot be relied upon as the sole means of identification. 

Conclusion

If you have made it this far then many thanks. I would welcome any comments, particularly if you feel that there are any useful identification resources that I have missed. Surely there must be? I can then update the blog post as appropriate.