demonstrated in the islands, showing how a knowledge of the biological behaviour of the adults, could be 

 put to practice in tracing and collecting material (for details, see under list of records for aristella). An 

 equally exemplary example of field work, this time in Guernsey, was demonstrated in the short note by R.J. 

 Heckford (1993: 93, see also R.A. Austin, 1994: 428) dealing with previously unrecorded foodplants of three 

 species of moths. The author contributed a short list of Alderney records made during three earlier visits 

 (Shaffer, 1993: 29-31). At the time the note was submitted, not all of the early Alderney material had been 

 fully prepared or identified. These extra specimens are listed here in the records. With new species being 

 added to the Channel Islands listing every year, the year 1994 itself became something of a milestone. A 

 moth capture on Sark by I.C. Beavis, an entomologist from Kent, was recognised as representing an 

 additional species for the Channel Islands; however, inexplicably, only the name of the collector was given 

 and no other data was provided, not even who verified the identification. Though it was noted as 

 representing a new family for the islands, it was simply listed by name in the 1995 Annual Report (Austin, 

 1995: 658 & 659). The species was Micropterix aruncella (Scopoli) and its presence added the additional 

 superfamily Micropterigoidea to the island's fauna and incidentally, was, among the microlepidoptera, the 

 500th species to be officially recorded in the Channel Islands. Ironically, the species was first taken by 

 Beavis in Sark in 1993, but this record was not picked up for publication. On the two visits that Beavis made 

 in 1993 and 1994, he succeeded in adding several additional species to the Guernsey Bailiwick, apart from 

 just the Sark list. Beavis also provided the author with unpublished lists from collecting trips in 1997 and 

 1998. A comprehensive listing of species with their full data provided by Beavis for the years mentioned is 

 given in the records section below. 



Publications in 1996 and 1997 demonstrated active years for lepidopterists 



The two years stand out for the sheer number of articles published, which included, to a greater or 

 lesser degree, information concerning the Channel Islands Lepidoptera. It included one book in 1996 by 

 R.L.H. Dennis & T.G. Shreeve, Butterflies on British and Irish offshore islands. By other entomologists 

 there are thirteen articles involving records of captures, seven articles on annual reports for Alderney, 

 Guernsey and Jersey, and two short notes concerning the position of Channel Islands fauna as inclusions on 

 the British fauna. 



The work of Dennis & Schreeve also included the Channel Islands and associated subspecific 

 classification to the island's fauna. In nearly every case the islands butterflies are classified with subspecies 

 names known to exist in the British fauna (an exception being the nominate subspecies Anthocharis 

 cardamines cardamines, though current authors differ on this classification). Little evidence is offered to 

 indicate that French or other continental subspecies have also been taken into account when classifying the 

 fauna of the islands. [Once systematic studies are undertaken on European Rhopalocera, which includes a 

 more critical examination of extensive Channel Islands material, these subspecific placements may 

 eventually prove to be incorrect]. This work follows the subspecific classification of Dennis & Shreeve, 

 1996, not out of agreement with the classification, but simply because no other work in the British literature 

 touches on this aspect of classification for the fauna of these islands. Dennis & Schreeve stated incorrectly 

 that there are no butterfly records for Brecqhou and Lihou [a small number do exist as published records], 

 their statement as far as most of the smaller islets are concerned is still quite accurate. 



R.V.M. Burrow's two very useful short papers, dealing with notable additions for Jersey and 

 Guernsey, covered a number of little-known moths, (1996: 133-136 & 1996a: 136-137) and included a fine 

 colour plate. A useful compilation of notes was provided on known British and Channel Islands records, but 

 again, the inaccurate assumption is given that the faunal list is adding to the British checklist. The paper is 

 somewhat marred by several inaccuracies in the data listed, one misspelling and odd inaccuracies in the 

 references quoted. 



An excellent review of the British Microlepidoptera for the year 1994 was published in 1996 by 

 D.J.L. Agassiz, R.J. Heckford & J.R. Langmaid, (1996: 177-193), who chose to exclude Channel Islands 

 fauna from this survey. However, in three large papers dealing with the immigration of Lepidoptera to the 

 British Isles in 1991, 1992 and again in 1993, the authors B. Skinner & M. Parsons (1996: 151-167, also: 

 233-256 and 1997: 217-226) assimilated records from the Channel Islands. Though these papers display a 

 differing approach to the Channel Islands fauna, within the contexts of their works the decisions are readily 

 understandable. Certainly not for the first time in British entomological literature, the argument concerning 

 the inclusion or exclusion of the Channel Islands fauna, was amply demonstrated again in the short note by 

 C. Simpson, (1996: 310). It raised an editorial reply from C.W. Plant, (1996: 310-311) who made the 

 observation that the fauna is included in a number of current key works on the British Lepidoptera. 

 Emphatic support for the view provided by Simpson was also given by A. A. Allen (1997: 88). The treatment 

 of the Channel Islands fauna, though not exactly falling into two factions, does however fall within a grey 

 area of misunderstanding, for which the literature in the past has not offered a sufficiently clarifying 

 explanation. 



29 



