The 'Scarce Seven Spotted Ladybird' Thread!

[Jason Claxton]

Originally Posted by bonitin

and..in the other thread;





I wonder if anyone can show us an example of a common 7-spot with these white patches behind the legs..
There is no doubt Janets picture has it!

I believe that I can see the white spots of C.magnifica here but some other features
are anomalus.I have not personally seen the extra pair of white spots on a 7-spot though.It is still anomalus enough though to warrant a specimen.And I hope that Janet is able to relocate it.

[Jason Green]

My sign-off from last night...

Originally Posted by Jason Green

Take cake,

Jason

Take cake? Oops, I was tired

Anyway, getting back...

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Now, I have read on a scientific site that C. magnifica is present with the Formica rufa group.

Now take a look at Formica lugubris.... I have pics of one which looks rather like this, and I should add "if that is correct" in case someone jumps on me.

So... apart from C. magnifica most likely relying on F. rufa in the UK (...remember, these studies you're probably linking to are carried out in Europe, and so C. magnifica may well be acting differently and focussing on different races of it ), we have no reason to believe they use any but F. rufa in the UK. Anyway, you've now found a picture of an ant that you've taken that looks like - but may not be identifiable from a photo alone; I have a microscope and specimen of what I think is T. caespitum but gave up keying out - F. lugubris, which has no documented connection to C. magnifica in the UK. Even if this ant is lugubris, have you found the nest? Maybe even if you have, the ladybird you've photographed wasn't found within the vacinity, was it?

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

NOW check on BWARS where these ants should be. I say should because I think Stuart would tell you that some are old records, and apart from that many are under-recorded. Such as in Lincolnshire!

I really think Wood Ants are less likely to be under-recorded due to the invasive nature of them - the way they make their presence known, I'm sure your local Wildlife Trust would know if their were any. They'll most likely be found within the private wood you spoke of if they are in your area, and if they are there it's where the Scarce would be - not some distance away IMO.

I wouldn't mind betting that one day if you happen to travel further South you'll see a Scarce, and when you do you'll just know irrevocably by instinct that it actually is C. magnifica

...

I'll look forward to your findings on lugubris or whichever one it is - good luck!

[charlieb]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Evidence starts with white patches behind all legs

And ends with the fact that all the other features that distinguish C. magnifica from C. septempunctata are not present.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Here's a pic on the Ladybird-survey which looks much different!

Different to yours? That looks like a typical C. magnifica to me...

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

NOW check on BWARS where these ants should be. I say should because I think Stuart would tell you that some are old records, and apart from that many are under-recorded. Such as in Lincolnshire!

Lincolnshire is the wrong habitat for Formica ants.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

As mentioned before, I have many species not mentioned anywhere, including a first for Lincolnshire moth record Ectoedemia quinquella and the rare in Lincolnshire Luffia ferchaultella.

The fact that you have had "rare" species, doesn't make your Coccinella sp. C. magnifica

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Why have I found these when no-one else has been able to?

Because Lincolnshire is a big place with very few people in it.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

What I now need to do is to establish exactly which ants I have, but not just now as it's late.

Not for Formica - you will easily spot there mounds at any time of the year

It may not come across this way, but I am not trying to dismiss the possibility of C. magnifica in Lincolnshire, I am trying to make you aware of the process in which an accurate ID is obtained - by going through all the possible options and for's and against's. Any ID is a weighting for one or another, there is never a definitive answer.

[JRsbugs]

Well, it seems I'm not the only one trying to prove something!

I could spend a lot of time quoting each thing I disagree with, but that wouldn't change anyone's views so I won't be wasting my time.

What I will say is:

A few here have gone full steam ahead assuming that I wanted to submit an official record for this ladybird.

I had no such intentions!

But I will say that I will not be calling this a normal 7-spot. That would be like the poor souls who are interrogated by police and forced to admit to a crime they did not comit.

I will however be sending my pics to the county recorder for moths who also apparently does beetles, as I have just been told by someone who has visited looking for leaf mines.

[JRsbugs]

Oh, by the way Jason, this is not London. I have more than one woods surrounding me, and plenty of Oaks etc lining the roads and more or less joining these woods.

Oh, Charlie, Lincolnshire not the correct habitat for Formica ants? Heathlands I thought were suitable? Lincolnshire has plenty of those, and I believe it was heathlands where GuyF found his C. magnifica...

[Paul mabbott]

Coccinella magnifica is known to be beneficially associated with several Formica species. Most British work has realted to the association with F. rufa because this is the most common wood-ant in southern Britain. Nothing more complicated than that!
C. magnifica is seldom found away from wood-ant colonies and such observations are taken to be transient: it cannot survive competition from C. septempunctata and/or other aphidophagous species.
There is a lot in the scientific literature about this by Mike Majerus' team (especially John Sloggett) and others.

[tristanba]

Sorry Janet, but even if you did not intend to submit the record, your posts could still potentially mislead people in the future who might get the impression that your photos reliably show C. magnifica. There are a lot of mistakes and misleading information on the internet, but the main advantage this medium has over books is that they can be corrected. This is something I feel strongly about and it is why I felt it was important to urge caution.

All the best
Tristan

[Jason Green]

Interesting post, Paul. You say the association with F. rufa is due to abundance - are there other known species that you will find it with? Also, would I be right in thinking that in cases where C. magnifica is associated with other Formica spp., that a nest in woodlands or suitable habitat would still be required to find the Scarce?

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Oh, by the way Jason, this is not London. I have more than one woods surrounding me, and plenty of Oaks etc lining the roads and more or less joining these woods.

No need for the sarcasm or seeming derision of London - there are plenty of woodlands - let's keep this productive As Aeshna5 has said, we even have the Adonis and Bryony Ladybird!

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Oh, Charlie, Lincolnshire not the correct habitat for Formica ants? Heathlands I thought were suitable? Lincolnshire has plenty of those, and I believe it was heathlands where GuyF found his C. magnifica...

As I've said before, the fact there isn't too much known of Lincoln's entomology from what you've told me, makes it sound quite interesting in the sort of discoveries you make, such as the rare moth and M. rufiventris, the Tach. You may well find Formica spp. on Heathland - good luck on searching, but potentially what this has to do with your ladybird I don't know - if if you find a Formica nest, this is more likely to be where you'd find C. magnifica - and separate to your photographed individual.

[JRsbugs]

Originally Posted by tristanba

Sorry Janet, but even if you did not intend to submit the record, your posts could still potentially mislead people in the future who might get the impression that your photos reliably show C. magnifica. There are a lot of mistakes and misleading information on the internet, but the main advantage this medium has over books it that they can be corrected. This is something I feel strongly about and it is why I felt it was important to urge caution.

All the best
Tristan

Yes I agree Tristan, and I would have thought by now anyone on here would know I am not the sort of person to make rash guesses or identifications. I have seen many of the wrongly named pics in the Gallery!

Anyone can say what they like about other features of C. magnifica, but the critical identifying factor is present and very obvious, and in my view that should be enough.

[JRsbugs]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

No need for the sarcasm or seeming derision of London - there are plenty of woodlands . As Aeshna5 has said, we even have the Adonis and Bryony Ladybird!



As I've said before, the fact there isn't too much known of Lincoln's entomology from what you've told me, makes it sound quite interesting in the sort of discoveries you make, such as the rare moth and M. rufiventris, the Tach. You may well find Formica spp. on Heathland - good luck on searching, but potentially what this has to do with your ladybird I don't know - if if you find a Formica nest, this is more likely to be where you'd find C. magnifica - and separate to your photographed individual.

I don't think I was deriding London Jason, but you do come across as southerly biased! And this is from someone who is not a native of this country, well not recently anyway!

Potentially, the fact that I am finding insects here which no-one thought could be here has a lot to do with the ladybird!

You make too many assumptions Jason (Green), sorry to have to point that out but if anyone should be made aware of mis-information it should be pointed in your direction. Sorry, I should have included Charlie in that too!

Obviously you will be offended, but I have also been offended so let's call the score nil:nil.