Species from the two faunistic regions do have overlap and naturally the two areas share most of 

 the fauna found within. At suhspecies level however, this percentage may be appreciably lower. Nearly 

 100% of the Channel Islands fauna, or at least the Lepidoptera fauna, is included in the presently defined 

 checklist of France. However, a minute percentage of the species are not yet recorded from France, but they 

 do occur in the British Isles. There exists a larger percentage of species within the islands that have yet to be 

 recorded in the biogeographically defined British region. These species may in the future be entered 

 separately on the British List, under the proviso, that they have been recorded from the Channel Islands and 

 are not strictly speaking part of the British fauna. The information would be for comparison and act as a 

 guide to local entomologists. Continental inclusions in the islands might at some future date naturally extend 

 their range to southern parts of England. 



It is therefore just as logical to exclude the Channel Islands fauna as it is to exclude the French 

 territories of Calais and the Cherbourg Peninsula. Similarly, if a new species of insect was observed or taken 

 on the closest point of the French coast to the islands, it would not be acceptable for the Channel Islands 

 Checklist until the species had eventually been located within the islands. To some, it may seem that this is 

 splitting hairs, but the process of trying to define the fauna of geographical areas needs to follow 

 acknowledged proprieties. Otherwise, it becomes nonsense. The recognition of defining boundaries to an 

 area is not of course a problem unique to the British Isles. In North America, the area is defined as including 

 the United States of America and Canada, with the southern boundary formed by the border with Mexico, 

 and naturally of course excludes the Hawaiian Islands. In Australia only immediate offshore islands and 

 Tasmania are counted as forming the boundaries within the Australian fauna and flora region. In the British 

 Channel Islands we therefore have a clearly definable island group which, without dispute, is geographically 

 associated with Continental Europe, and is the only part of the British Isles that comes into this category. 

 British naturalists are therefore immediately involved in studying firsthand, a fauna and flora that are quite 

 simply French in recent origin. This is a unique position for us. Unfortunately, from the earliest days, there 

 has never been a clearly defined procedure showing how the information could be incorporated into the 

 English literature. Collectors and recorders operating in the islands, from both mainland Britain and the 

 Channel Islands, have over the years allowed the defining procedure of this issue to become all but 

 ambiguous. 



The predominant leaning towards comparisons with the British fauna has no doubt provided 

 accurate identifications for the bulk of the fauna so far examined. However, the obvious follow ups of 

 critically comparing Channel Islands material with the mainland French fauna have not really materialised. 

 In this respect it is very likely that several closely related species, or subspecies, have been overlooked. 

 Indications are that continental reference works are only used when a species is apparently not on the British 

 checklist. In future taxonomic studies of the island's Lepidoptera, accompanied by more detailed 

 examination, might reveal some previously overlooked misidentifications. Sometimes material from the 

 islands is referred to known British subspecies, most notably between the butterflies and larger moths; in 

 such instances there is no indication given that French subspecies have also been examined and if necessary 

 eliminated in the identification process. From research so far earned out among the microlepidoptera, there 

 is evidence that some Channel Islands races are in fact referable to French counterparts that may not be 

 present in the British fauna. 



Motivations and procedures for the present studies 



During a period of 49 years, the author has compiled a large collection of both voucher specimens 

 and records from the islands. The work was, and continues, for the two major purposes of helping to build 

 up information on the Channel Islands fauna and for the provision of more voucher material from the islands 

 (to supplement the Lepidoptera collections of The Natural History Museum, London) as an aid to a fuller 

 understanding of the European fauna. A vast majority of the authors voucher specimens, and their resulting 

 identifications, have never received previous publication. The main object was to gradually build up the 

 information, rather than accounting for each year's stock of identifications for adding to the island's annual 

 reports. Work on the annual collections, e.g. setting, labelling, dissections and identifications, undertaken at 

 home or at the museum when time or opportunity allowed. Studies, curatorial projects and other duties for 

 the museum taking precedence over work on the fauna of the Channel Islands. Often a new collecting and 

 recording trip would be underway even before work had been completed on the previous years catch. During 

 one period from the early 1970s until the mid-80s, work completely ceased on the Channel Islands 

 collections due to other commitments. It was only after the author's final retirement in 1996 that a 

 continuation of Channel Islands studies was possible as a regular work project. 



It was at this time that the writing of this book began. The information involved, supplementing the 

 work already carried out locally within the islands, has always been one aim, but not the major objective. 

 Keeping uptodate with published accounts on the fauna over the years, helped to suggest several facts 

 concerning new records. Information so far accumulated by personal recording, provided, in surprisingly 



