APPENDIX B
A HISTORY OF DRAGONFLY RECORDING IN ESSEX
Comparison of our present-day dragonfly fauna with that of earlier periods of history must
inevitably rely to a considerable extent on guesswork. However, thanks to the dedicated and often
innovative fieldwork of previous generations of naturalists in Essex our conjectures can at least
claim to be informed guesswork. The development of the reliable recording of the distribution of
any group of organisms is dependent on two important conditions. The first is the achievement of
an accepted and stable nomenclature, and connected with this, the availability of reliable literature
for use by field naturalists. The second condition is the growth of organised communication
amongst naturalists themselves: the emergence of local and national societies concerned with
natural history, the establishment of regular communication between widely separated
individuals and groups, and the existence of a periodical literature to stimulate, debate, adjudicate
and give permanency to the results of field-recording.
Early Studies of Dragonflies
In the case of dragonflies, the first of these conditions was partially achieved by about the middle
of the 19th Century, but it was not until the turn of the present century that an adequate and reliable
identification guide was available (W. J. Lucas 1900b). W. E. Leach was responsible for the first
systematic classification of the British dragonflies (Leach. 1815). separating out three families, the
Libellulida. the Aeschnides and the Agrionida. The three genera Gomphus, Cordulia and Cordulegaster
were also separated out from the hitherto very miscellaneous Libellulida. J. F. Stephens helped W.
E. Leach in his work on the British Museum entomological collections and produced a list of
British species of dragonflies. His Systematic Catalogue of British Insects (1X29) did not contain
descriptions, but his Illustrations of British Entomology, published from 1X28 to 1846. included
illustrations, some descriptions, and notes on the distribution of dragonflies in vol. 6 (1835-7).
Unfortunately, many of the names used by Stephens were misapplied, and he included a number
of species now known not to occur in Britain. However. Essex localises figure among those given
for several species, and these arc among the earliest records we have for the county. Five species
were given as occurring at Epping, significantly including Aeshna mixta and Brachytron pratense
(under the name Aeshna teretiuscula). Epping was also given as a locality for Cordulia aenea.
together with Woodford. Lestes dryas was said to be abundant in some of the 'marshy districts in the
vicinity of the Thames', especially near Plaistow. This appears to be the earliest reference to L. dryas
in Essex.
The study of dragonflies on the continent of Europe was far in advance of that in Britain.
Charpentier (1825 and 1840) and Vander Linden (Linden. 1825) were great pioneers, but the
Belgian Baron E. de Selys-Longchamps was referred to by Tillyard (1917) as the 'father of
Odonatology'. It was he who classified the dragonflies systematically on the basis of wing-
venation, and wrote monographs on all the sub-families of the Odonata (except the Libellulinae)
between 1840 and his death in 1890. De Selys-Longchamps is particularly important for our story
in that he visited Britain in 1845 to examine local collections and establish synonyms with
continental nomenclature. The results of his findings were published in the Annuls and Magazine of
Natural History in 1846. and an abstract of this paper also appeared in the Zoologist (Selys-
Longchamps. 1846a and 1846b). Longchamps acknowledged the help of L. Newman and L.
Doubleday, and also mentioned the collections of Stephens. Leach and Curtis.
It was during this period, too. that national societies of entomologists were established, and with
them a periodical literature which made possible a permanent record and wider dissemination of
knowledge about orders of insects such as the dragonflies. These societies tended to be rather elite
associations of learned gentleman-naturalists, quite unlike the more popular local clubs and
societies that became more widespread later on in the century. They were nevertheless very
important in providing the scientific groundwork and stimulus from which the later societies