W. J. Lucas (then an old man). At that time the record of G. vulgatissimus 'seemed highly unlikely'.
Since then Pinniger's experience of the liability of this species to wander far from its river of origin
has led him to consider that 'perhaps Doubleday was right after all. alas we shall never know' (pers.
comm.. 2.9.1985). C. tenellum and L. dubia are species of acid-bog and wet heathland for which,
again, we have no Essex records subsequent to Doubledays. However, they do occur on earlier lists
E. Doubleday (1835) in the ease of the former species. Evans (1845) in the case of the latter. In view
of this and of the major habitat changes which have occurred in the Forest (some of them already
remarked upon by Doubleday himself) there seems to be no particular reason to doubt that these
species did formerly occur there. Ischnura pumilio, however, seems to be a very doubtful record.
Further information on these, and other early records is given in Appendix A. One final error in
Doubleday's list seems to have escaped the attention of commentators until it was pointed out by
the Campion brothers (1905a). This is his report of Aeshna mixta as rare, being found on North
Weald Common in June. Apart from Stephens (1835-7) there appear to be no reliable Essex records
for this species until close to the end of the 19th century, since the early date of Doubleday's record
rules out his own identification. A. mixta is rarely on the wing before the beginning of August.
Towards the First County-List
After Doubleday's list, there is a gap in our knowledge of Essex dragonflies of some twenty years.
During this time Epping Forest was saved from illegal enclosures by local landowners, and secured
for the public. However, as we shall see, this was not sufficient to ensure adequate preservation of
the wildlife including the dragonflies of the Forest.
In the early 1890s there was a renewal of interest in dragonflies and numerous local lists were
published. It seems probable that this was stimulated by the publication, in 1890. of W, F. Kirby's
Synonymie Catalogue of Neuroptera - Odonata, or Dragonflies (Kirby. 1890a). Kirby built on the work
of Selys-Longchamps but incorporated his own earlier revision of the sub-family Libellulinae
(Kirby. 1890b). Whilst of less scientific value, W. Harcourt Bath's Illustrated Handbook of British
Dragonflies (Harcourt Bath, 1890) was probably more effective in popularising the study of
dragonflies. Harcourt Bath also intervened in the pages of the Entomologist (Harcourt Bath. 1893)
in response to a local list of dragonflies of the Chester district, bemoaning the lack of entomologists
interested in dragonflies, and calling for more local lists to provide material for a forthcoming
publication on the distribution of dragonflies. Indeed, the relative lack of popular interest in such
eye-catching and fascinating insects as dragonflies, compared with, for example, butterflies and
moths, is rather surprising. One clue to the answer to this puzzle is the frequent discussion in the
19th century literature of techniques for preserving the colours of set specimens. The tendency for
the magnificent colours of many of our dragonflies to fade after death made them comparatively
poor subjects for the collecting mania which gripped the Victorian gentleman-naturalists
(Elliston-Allen. 1978). This fact was undoubtedly very beneficial to dragonflies, but probably
delayed the growth of our knowledge of them.
Harcourt Bath's popularising enthusiasm for the dragonflies further expressed itself in an article
on 'Some Famous Collecting Grounds for Dragonflies' which extended over two issues of Science
Gossip (Harcourt Bath. 1892). Here he extolled 'the delightful domain of Epping Forest' which
ranked 'second to none in England for the richness of its Dragonfly fauna'. As well as listing
several of Doubleday's specialities, Harcourt Bath also mentioned the occurrence of Agrion
(= Coenagrion) mercuriale, supposedly taken by a Mr. W. H. Nunney. I can find no other reference
to this discovery in the literature, and in view of what is now known of the habitat requirements of
C. mercuriale, it seems unlikely that the species ever did occur in the Epping area (see Appendix A).
However, it is significant that Harcourt Bath's article is extensively quoted in the Essex Naturalist
(vol. vi. 1892, pp.44-45). since it is from about this date that entomologists in other parts of Essex
seem to have taken a greater interest in dragonfly recording.
In 1894. possibly under the influence of Harcourt Bath's appeal in the previous year, the
Entomologist published the first of what was to be a series of annual reports on dragonflies written
by W. J. Lucas. The reports are a mixture of collated communications from observers in various
parts of the country, together with first-hand accounts of Lucas's own observations, including
99