Southern migrant hawker

[Ukwildlifeo]

There has been a blog post or two about this and a thread on bird forum about an alert that came up on Rare bird Alert:

Essex Southern Migrant Hawker male till 12.15pm Hadleigh Castle Ctry Park when taken by a collector claiming it was 'for the British Museum'

To start with the british museum doesn't deal with wildlife, thats the natural history museum, so I doubt this person is even remotely connected with either. Which begs the question: why?

There was no need to collect for ID, there are so many photos of the dragonfly/ies, it definative already and a dragonflies colour fades after death so no need for aesthitic reasons. Just some sad loser with victorian ideas!?

[Jason Green]

Afternoon Neil,

First off I have to state my positon - I am a strong enthusiast in amateur entomology, which means you need to collect specimens. But...

In this case, yes - a photo would suffice to prove the sighting (IDs are quite straight-forward with Odonata, compared to tricky groups like Ichneumonidae, Eumeninae, etc!), so can only assume it was collected for it's rarity status (unless an Odonatan expert here knows different - it's not a group I've really taken much notice of) - and I would distance myself from such pursuits.

Still, and unfortunately, people tend to typecast and tarr-all and can't seem to take individual circumstances seperately. I sincerely hope that this instance is publically taken as an isolated incident involving rarity-grabbing, and that the need to collect for genuine recording purposes is kept seperate.

As for colour-fading, it entirely depends on how it's stored.

One last point - the title of the thread is about the Southern Emerald - but the quoted article states Southern Migrant Hawker...

Take care,

Jason

[Ukwildlifeo]

Dont get me wrong, I agree specimen collection is required for definate ID in some cases, especially with things like some moth genera, but in this case it is not only unnecessary (there is no doubt what this species is) but it could hinder or even prevent colonisation of the area by this species.

(PS on the title I had southern emeralds on the brain as I was working on something to do with them today)

[Dogghound]

I saw this on Bird Guides what a shame someone took it so that no one else can enjoy it. I agree it is completely unnecessary to collect specimens like this. What are they achieving? just selfishness nothing to do with conservation. Although you would likely need an influx of several to establish a colony here, it is a species which often migrates here and there are certainally plenty of potential sites to colonize. It is just so finely spread in Europe.

[Ukwildlifeo]

I think there has been a few around the site, at least 1 male and 1 female from the photos I've seen, so hopefully they have laid enough eggs to start a colony - assuming of course they haven't already and the reported 8 from a couple of weeks ago had in fact emerged from the site (there is one photo showing a wing that appears to have not unfurled on emergence properly - eveidence it hadn't flown too far?). Whatever the case, in a colony with adults in only single figures, every one counts, and by taking a 'specimen' this idiot may have dealt them a nasty blow

[RoyW]

This is clearly something that people are strongly against (rightly so in this case IMO ). The British Dragonfly Societies code of practice for collecting ( British Dragonfly Society ) clearly states that there is no need for a voucher specimen to be taken to prove identification "when alternatives such as field notes and/or photographs alone would not suffice." In this case the identification had already been confirmed, and there are numerous photographs available which are more than adequate to document the occurence - easily found online, and I have no doubt that most of the photographers (myself included) would be happy to provide files to anyone who requested them for the purpose of documenting the record.

There is (as far as I can see) nothing that can be gained from the existence of a voucher specimen of this species from Hadleigh - even if it does end up in a genuine scientific collection like that of the Natural History Museum [officially known as the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992 BTW, and originally formed as the Natural History section of the British Museum - the museum on the original site does now deal mainly with antiquities & cultural artifacts].
I believe that there is still a lot which can be gained from the collection of other invertebrate specimens though, including the collection of Odonata from areas where the species are less well known (and occasionally when the identification is hard to prove through other means - photographs are sometimes not good enough). We are fortunate that the dragonflies of Britain and Europe are reasonably well known, they can almost always be identified in the field, and there are good field guides and keys to assist in their identification. This is not always the case with other invertebrate groups (or odonata in other areas), and for these groups collection of specimens can be the only way that accurate identification can be made - and accurate identification is always the first step before a species can be properly studied for any reason, including conservation. Condemnation of the collector seems fully justified in this case, but this does not apply to all cases where invertebrates are collected (even rare invertebrates are generally found in high numbers at sites where they occur, so the collection of a small number of specimens shouldn't impact the population (natural mortality through predation etc is typically likely to have far more of an impact). Taking a few specimens from a population that may consist of nothing more than a few migrants is of course potentially a different story...

PS. apologies if you read this same posting on more than one forum - the issues raised are pretty much the same so I've been lazy and used copy and paste!
Too answer a specific point raised here: I was one of the first people to see these at Hadleigh, and I believe that on that day there were at least 8 mature males, 1 female and an immature (but not teneral) male present. It is also usually true that the number of dragonflies that you see at a site is only a fraction of those present - I would hope that a viable colony exists in the area (but I don't feel that this is justification for the taking of any as specimens).

[Ukwildlifeo]

Theres a photo of the idiot concerned on the thread on Bird forum

Southern Migrant Hawker - Page 4 - BirdForum

[Jason Green]

If any action is deemed necessary, it'll be taken by the Police. How do we know this is the man? I'd want far more proof than a 91-post member's say-so that this is the man in question before having anything to do with near 'naming and shaming'.

Is the dragonfly in the photo the SMH that was collected, could it be a Southern Hawker on another occasion, is the photo from England...?

[Ukwildlifeo]

A fair point we dont know for sure, hence I posted the thread link not just the photo link. That said there were witnesses to this act and no one has said 'thats not him' and it a bloke thats hold a southern migrant hawker in his hand with scenery in the background that no one has said 'thats not the pond' either Can't be too many photos a bloke holding a southern migrant hawker, let alone one with british scenery in the background.

[wint]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

If any action is deemed necessary, it'll be taken by the Police. How do we know this is the man? I'd want far more proof than a 91-post member's say-so that this is the man in question before having anything to do with near 'naming and shaming'.

Is the dragonfly in the photo the SMH that was collected, could it be a Southern Hawker on another occasion, is the photo from England...?

Jason

You are trying too hard to defend an indefensible act. Show some sense and let this thread drop.

Paul