remained completely unrecorded. The full complement of the 'basic five' species had
been recorded from thirty-two squares, and ten species or more had been recorded from
each of twenty-two squares. Despite considerable progress, there remained significant
areas of the county - particularly the north, west and extreme north-east which appeared
to be under-recorded on the basis of our two measures.
In 1985 recording activity was again concentrated on 10 km. squares with less than ten
species recorded, but by now suspicion was growing that some areas of the county,
especially the north-west, were showing relatively few records not because of under-
recording, but because of paucity of suitable habitats. It was then decided to attempt
coverage of the whole county on a 5 km. square basis (this would ensure investigation of
at least four sites in each 10 km. square, and so further aid the evenness of coverage). By
the end of the 1985 season thirty-three 10 km. squares had records for ten or more
species each (nine with fifteen or more), and the 'basic five' had been recorded from
thirty-eight squares. The 10 km. squares which were designated under-recorded by the
end of 1985 were mostly only partial squares. Some were in coastal areas, whilst others
were on the boundaries between Essex and other counties. Only three 10 km. squares
wholly within Essex were lacking the full complement of the 'basic five' species, and
these three were, predictably enough, in the north-west. All the evidence gathered on the
survey seemed to point strongly to a significantly impoverished dragonfly fauna in the
north-west of the county. During 1986-87 records continued to be collected, and at the
time of going to press one hundred and eighty-four (out of a possible total of one
Fig 1.2 Summary of Dragonfly Recording in Essex. 1980-7. showing number of
species recorded in each 10 km. square
7