59
Essex and London Ladybird Survey, 1999
PAUL MABBOTT
49 Endowood Road, Sheffield S7 2LY
Introduction
The survey was initiated in early 1999 by the London Natural History Society and the Essex Field
Club. In addition to recording potentially useful data, the societies wished to encourage entomo-
logical recording by their wider memberships and, possibly, the general public. Ladybirds are a
well-known, colourful group of beetles and lend themselves to identification by the non-specialist.
There have been previous successful surveys of ladybirds both nationally (Majerus, 1992; Majerus
et al, 1997) and regionally (Hall, 1968, 1969, 1970). This interim summary deals with the records
from Vice-counties 18 and 19.
The British List
Majerus and Kearns (1989) list twenty-four British species but one of these is presumed extinct and
the other confined to a few western estuaries; all of the others might be expected in south-east
England although at least two arc 'local and scarce'. Other species arc occasionally found cither
migrating from Europe, accidentally imported from further afield or as escapes from greenhouse
biological control programmes. The European species Henosepilancha argus seems to have
established in Surrey. At least twenty-three species might be expected in this survey.
Recording
All E.F.C, and L.N.H.S, members were issued with a simplified key for most British ladybirds but
were advised to use the handbook by Majerus and Kearns (1989) if possible. A sheet of ladybird
silhouettes was also distributed to allow reporting of unusual forms or, for novices, as a simple
means of reporting (this was not used by any of the Essex respondents). Records of non-ladybird
coccincllid species were not sought but any reports have been recorded. 50 people registered altogether
although only six people submitted positive records for Essex while another three reported absence
of sightings. 164 records were received from Essex, mostly VC 18. None were patently unlikely.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of records received which largely reflects the distribution and activity
of the recorders (the empty squares indicate recorders who failed to observe any ladybirds). The
mode of recording was inconsistent insofar as some recorders constantly monitored single sites
whereas others recorded more widely but less frequently.
For the sake of brevity, the 'common' names of species are used. The Linnean names are noted in
Table 1 which summarises the records for 1999. The relatively small numbers of recorders and the
patchincss of their distribution render the data so far unsuitable for analysis of distribution. 14 of the
expected 23 species were reported this year along with three non-ladybird coccinellids. Table 1
shows the number of records for each species (in this context a 'record1 refers to the finding of one
or more specimens at a particular place and date: this is not necessarily a measure of abundance).
Most participants agreed that this was a 'bad' year for ladybirds. The decline in numbers seems to
have affected most species although, of course, there is no numerical baseline for this first year of
the survey. The 16-spot and 24-spot ladybirds were probably under-recorded because of their small
body size and because they are found (in considerable numbers) on semi-natural grassland rather
Essex Naturalist (New Series) 17 (2000)