The 'Scarce Seven Spotted Ladybird' Thread!

[Jason Green]

Hi all,

This is a thread for any news or sightings of the Scarce Seven Spotted Ladybird. I've never seen one before, though it is certainly one I'd travel across London to see!

Feel free to add to this thread - it may be a way of collating good information that will enable those of us wanting to see one, find them

Similar threads:
Scarce Seven-spot Ladybird?

Images:


Take cake,

Jason

[JRsbugs]

Thanks Jason, good idea! Now we can get down to business....

You (and others) may rightly have your views on this, but I prefer evidence. Evidence starts with white patches behind all legs 'in my view', give me evidence that the 7-spot has those as well and I may consider that.

You have posted some pics to show what they should look like, but as you have already stated there are variations in all creatures.

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

UK Ladybird Survey - Species Description

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

IngentaConnect Adaptations of Coccinella magnifica Redtenbacher, a Myrmecophilou...

If that is correct, and why it should not be I don't know, then that group includes:

Formica aquilonia
Formica lugubris
Formica pratensis
Formica rufa

as listed on Wikipedia.

Formica rufa group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As mentioned by Jason (Claxton) on page 31 of the other thread:

The Ladybirds of Surrey by Roger D.Hawkins has just one record of C.magnifica away from Formica rufa ,here it was seen with the aphids tended by Formica sanguinea,

So that's another species, Formica sanguinea.

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.

File:Formica cf lugubris 4.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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!

Look at for example Formica rufa, there's a record near the Humber, another south to the Wash. well, um, I'm midway between those two!

Distribution Maps

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.

Why have I found these when no-one else has been able to? Because I spend hours looking at my wall, my tree, my Ivy, my anything! I also have a lens capable of taking good enough pics of them! How many people do that? Very few! OK hate me if you will, but truth is truth.

There is also the shape of the white patch on the pronotum which is supposed to be more rounded in the Scarce, looking at some of my ordinary 7-spots they do have a more square shape or don't have the upward curve towards the middle but they vary a little. I do think my suspect one has an rounded upward curve, but the angle is not the best to view it.

Google Translate

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

Janet

[JRsbugs]

Here's a link to where it all started, you missed it out Jason!

Insect of the Day

[JRsbugs]

I have read the thread you linked to Jason, a couple of interesting points there which are very important!

First, Paul Mabbot has stated:

The critical difference is an underside feature

Meaning of course the white under the legs.

Puddin4brains (Arp) who knows a lot, also stated:

People from France told me that they occasionally find it away from ants, so it's probably not strictly bound to them but obviously has a great advantage over other species when it remains in their vicinity (?)

I would like to know why then these important factors have been so easily dismissed in favour of opinions....

[Jason Claxton]

Here is another award winning shot(cough )of C.magnifica with its "Hatchback rear" profile .Cheers Jason.

[Jenny W]

Sorry to butt in on a thread that I'm not involved in, but I've been reading this on both this thread and the other one and I just thought that it would be worth pointing out that if records (especially potentially important ones like this) are going to be claimed and/or submitted to county recorders/NBN etc. then the recorder really must be prepared to take specimens for ID. As we all know, many many species of insects cannot be given a 100% definite ID on a photo alone. It would save so much argument and frustration as seen on this thread

That's my viewpoint as someone who does a lot of recording of various taxa. I hope I don't stir things up with this, I honestly don't mean to!

[Jason Claxton]

Jenny I also agree that records should only be submitted with 100% certainty,and I have to admit that with Janets photos and probably with most others, that I would not be happy for a record to be submitted solely on a photo I.D.This is when a voucher specimen becomes necessary.And I do admit that from time to time that I have deposited insects for this purpose.

[bonitin]

Originally Posted by Jason Claxton

Jenny I also agree that records should only be submitted with 100% certainty,and I have to admit that with Janets photos and probably with most others, that I would not be happy for a record to be submitted solely on a photo I.D.This is when a voucher specimen becomes necessary.

and..in the other thread;

Originally Posted by Jason Claxton

I do agree that from the pattern of the spots underneath that it is a Scarce 7-spot though,interesting indeed Janet

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!

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

Thanks Jason, good idea! Now we can get down to business....

You (and others) may rightly have your views on this, but I prefer evidence. Evidence starts with white patches behind all legs 'in my view', give me evidence that the 7-spot has those as well and I may consider that.

You have posted some pics to show what they should look like, but as you have already stated there are variations in all creatures.

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

UK Ladybird Survey - Species Description

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

IngentaConnect Adaptations of Coccinella magnifica Redtenbacher, a Myrmecophilou...

If that is correct, and why it should not be I don't know, then that group includes:

Formica aquilonia
Formica lugubris
Formica pratensis
Formica rufa

as listed on Wikipedia.

Formica rufa group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As mentioned by Jason (Claxton) on page 31 of the other thread:



So that's another species, Formica sanguinea.

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.

File:Formica cf lugubris 4.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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!

Look at for example Formica rufa, there's a record near the Humber, another south to the Wash. well, um, I'm midway between those two!

Distribution Maps

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.

Why have I found these when no-one else has been able to? Because I spend hours looking at my wall, my tree, my Ivy, my anything! I also have a lens capable of taking good enough pics of them! How many people do that? Very few! OK hate me if you will, but truth is truth.

There is also the shape of the white patch on the pronotum which is supposed to be more rounded in the Scarce, looking at some of my ordinary 7-spots they do have a more square shape or don't have the upward curve towards the middle but they vary a little. I do think my suspect one has an rounded upward curve, but the angle is not the best to view it.

Google Translate

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

Janet

Janet, as several have pointed out, it is really is futile to continue this discussion without confirming the identification from a voucher. If you actually collected a specimen, you would not need to resort to such absurdly speculative lines of argument and leaps of faith. I know you are against killing insects in the name of science, so you must accept the limitations imposed by this viewpoint. You cannot have your cake and eat it

[tristanba]

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.

Why have I found these when no-one else has been able to? Because I spend hours looking at my wall, my tree, my Ivy, my anything! I also have a lens capable of taking good enough pics of them! How many people do that? Very few! OK hate me if you will, but truth is truth.

While we all find rarities from time to time, it is not really that surprising since many apparently scarce insects are under-recorded and their distributions are poorly known. Even so, in cases such as this, you must accept the most likely explanation unless you can prove otherwise.

[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.

[tristanba]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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.

No - it is manifestly not enough, identification is always a holistic process, particularly when it concerns a record which is out of range and ecologically implausible. This is my last word on the matter

[charlieb]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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!

I am the first to jump to conclusions - but also to accept anothers ID when given the facts.

[charlieb]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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!

I think you were the first (and only) to say you would send it in?

[charlieb]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

and in my view that should be enough.

Which it isn't - simple as that.

[Jason Green]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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!

I really don't know what you're trying to achieve by attempting to instigate a North/South supposed intention, but it couldn't be further from the truth from my end. There are a lot of insects I'd love to see in Northern areas, ones you don't get down here. For the benefit of members reading this, I've said in the past that most - not all, new insects arrive in the UK from the South first, due to average higher temperatures, then if they settle down they'll spread. That as far as I know is science and statistical - nothing to do with 'bias' at all.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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!

No need to apologise , though I've never done so without clearly stating it isn't fact. Naming people and going over old ground will add nothing to this thread. Mistakes happen - it's the willingness of those concerned to concede a mistake that matters.

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

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

It would take far more to offend me than that! If you are, though you'll have to expand on the reason of, then I apologise