Dipterists Forum Autumn Field Meeting 2015

This last week was the final Dipterists Forum field meeting of the year (10-17 October): a combined visit to Dorset and Hampshire. These meetings focus on craneflies and fungus gnats, with the additional hope of Platypezids and Heliomyzids.

The first 4 days were based at Dorchester and concentrated on the Isle of Purbeck. The main localities visited were Studland NNR and Arne Heath. The second half of the week we transferred to Ringwood and focussed on the New Forest.

As in many recent years, we had nice sunny weather but this year was a little cooler. The temperature meant that we did not get started until 11 am each day, and by 3.30 there was very little moving. It also meant that we generally only managed to visit 3 localities each day.

The numbers of flies seen were remarkably low and it is difficult to be sure why. It was certainly cool, and although there was sunshine it was difficult to find warm places where flies gather. Perhaps numbers were genuinely low? If so, why might this have been?  Fly larvae need damp conditions: periods of drought and high temperatures can kill delicate larvae. We can be fairly sure that long periods of drought have played a part in declining fly numbers over the past 40 years. Many wetland species took a long time to recover after the droughts in the mid-1970s and were hit again in the early 1990s and early 2000s.

The low catch of craneflies seems to reflect an ongoing trend in which the numbers and diversity are declining year-on-year. My own hauls of fungus gnats were equally pathetic – I rarely managed to assemble a sample of more than 20 specimens in an hour’s sweeping and we rarely exceeded a site list of 20 species all week. When you bear in mind that we had a trip to Sussex a few years back, in which we recorded the better part of 200 species and assembled several site lists exceeding 90 species, this year has not been a good one despite visiting one of the most important saproxylic sites in the country. Numbers of Platypezids were a little better, with seven or eight species recorded. With these I did a little better than in previous years but still only managed two species and a handful of specimens.

Data for the hoverfly Rhingia campestris show how this species is substantially knocked out by periods of drought, with the summer generation failing to materialise after intense hot spells in July. One possible explanation for the lack of flies this autumn is therefore that the intense hot spell in July was responsible for the death of many fly larvae. That cannot be the whole story, however, because we saw good numbers of Helemyzidae (not many species) at several sites in The Forest. Another possibility is that gnat numbers were depressed because there were relatively few fungal fruiting bodies. But, then again, there were patches of honey fungus, Armillaria sp., but very few gnats in attendance. So, perhaps it was just too cold?

When I sought permission to visit the New Forest I was aware that there was concern about my mention of fungi – until I clarified that we were interested in fungus-feeding flies. There are big problems with commercial mushrooming, with many areas stripped of all fruiting bodies. So, unsurprisingly, any mention of fungi will inevitably raise concern. In the event, our visit was not a problem in this respect and we hope that the data produced will be helpful. In many places fungi were notable by their absence, but then again we did not see large numbers of fungi anywhere on our travels this autumn (the best meeting I can remember was in Radnorshire about ten years ago).

The reasons for low fly numbers must remain unresolved. There are a number of possible factors but none can completely explain our experience, which goes to show how much more there is to learn about the factors that influence invertebrate abundance.

Despite low numbers of flies there were a few high points. One of the most noteworthy records was that of Scathophaga scybillaria – a highly localised species of Scathophagidae with long dusky wings that might be mistaken for a big S. stercoraria. Prior to last year I had never seen this species but we found it fairly abundantly on bogs on the Lleyn Peninsula during the summer field meeting based at Bangor. It was great to see further examples in the New Forest (caught by Alan Stubbs). Malcolm Smart caught a specimen of the Keroplatid Keroplates testacea – a very large fungus gnat that at one time was very noteworthy but in recent years has proven to be far commoner and widespread than previously thought. Alan Stubbs also recorded the Mycetophilid Greenomyia mongolica which is a recent addition to the GB list. One further interesting observation was that a few of the ponies were heavily covered in eggs of the bot fly Gasterophilus equinus - illustrated.

Gasterophilus equinus eggs attached to hairs on the upper foreleg of a New Forest pony. The ponies lick these off and ingest them where the larvae develop in their gut before passing out in the dung.

Observations on the New Forest

We visited a wide range of localities around the New Forest, giving a helpful overview of its composition and management. On the few previous occasions that I have visited The Forest, I have been struck by the level of grazing pressure. Much of The Forest is so heavily grazed that the turf would make a fine bowling green (making allowances for pony dung!). Even so, I don’t think I have ever previously seen Devil’s Bit Scabious 3 cm high and in flower! This management might maintain the plant composition, but from a Dipterist’s perspective it makes much of The Forest very uninteresting. Nice flushes with 2cm high turf is of precious little interest, so huge areas of The Forest have been effectively sterilised from that perspective.

In several places we noted the same grazing pressure within inclosures and wooded areas. Heather and bilberry a few centimetres high do not provide cover for flies and, if they do survive, they are extremely difficult to sample. It was darned hard work securing a reasonable sample in localities that are reputedly rich in wildlife. In the end I got to the point where I ran out of enthusiasm for sweeping over-grazed habitat and ceased sampling.

Pony lawn as Shepherds Gutter. This turf has some very nice wet flushed areas with Devil's-bit scabious but spot the flowers.

Miniature Devil's-bit scabious!

 A few years ago, Dipterists Forum visited The Forest in May and similar concerns about grazing pressure were expressed. The issue generated a certain amount of debate but we found ourselves out on a limb, with other specialist groups arguing that there had been no change in recent decades and that all the speciality species were still present. I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps grazing pressure has remained constant; in which case I suspect that the species of interest that may once have occurred have long-since disappeared, or are confined to very small parts of The Forest. I don’t think that this factor can be attributed to the loss of Eristalis cryptarum but we just don’t know what else once occurred and has since been lost!

It is worth bearing in mind, however, that assessing the condition of the New Forest is highly subjective. Whilst at Denny Wood, Keith Alexander commented that he thought it was in excellent condition as an example of wood pasture. That might be true for Coleoptera associated with ancient trees, but even then there are indications of a problem with grazing.

Veteran beech and oak at Denny wood.

Beech in various states of development at Rufus Stone

At the moment there are a good number of veteran beech trees within The Forest  but I was surprised, even shocked, to note how many had been blown over in the last two to three years. I suspect this period will have resulted in quite serious depletion of veteran beeches. The loss of a significant component of this one tree species in a short time-frame is arguably very serious, especially when one bears in mind that it is very important for a wide range of saproxylic Diptera. I therefore suggest that the debate about grazing pressure is not over. There is a need for action to address the rapid loss of beech, and to think about the wider implications of current grazing pressure.

These beech trees are often tall and straight-stemmed, indicating that they grew in high forest situations. They are much the same age and must have germinated within a matter of years of each other. Surely, if large numbers of beech trees survived around the same time that is indicative that the prevailing conditions suited their survival? Currently, one sees good numbers of young (1-2 year old) saplings but no older ones: they are grazed away pretty rapidly. So, I suggest that there must have been periods of lower grazing pressure that have allowed recruitment of new trees. In which case, grazing pressure has not been constant. Looking at the age structure in many of the wooded areas, one gets the impression that there has been little recruitment for between 30 and 50 years (possibly less severe at Mark Ash and really quite good at Pondhead Inclosure), which means that at some time in the future there will be a significant gap in the availability of veteran beeches and the saproxylic resources they provide.

Doubtless, some of the Inclosures and wetter bogs remain rich for Diptera and other insects, but The Forest is a huge area. If the majority is grazed to within an inch of its life, the ratio of rich wildlife to surface area rapidly diminishes to levels that one sees in a wider landscape context. Instead of a patchwork of nice habitat amongst an agricultural setting, there is a patchwork of interesting locations amongst a sea of short turf. Neither is particularly ideal and the same issues of island biogeography are likely to apply. Isolated populations are more at risk than populations that are connected by good habitat. Unfortunately, the data on distribution and composition of Diptera in The Forest are fragmentary and lack continuity of effort.

It is therefore neigh-on impossible to place the current situation into a historical context. Yes, the honeypot sites remain, and yes the charismatic species are still regularly seen (although data available to the HRS suggests that this is not the case because we rarely get records from The Forest). But, does this really mean that The Forest is actually being managed in a way that maintains its biological diversity? From a dipterological perspective, I suspect that most emphasis is placed on charismatic woodland species, whilst those animals that are associated with open flushed systems are largely overlooked or ignored (with the honourable exception of Steve Falk’s interest in The Forest).

In theory one might effect change by lifting grazing pressure; after all, if the soils are undamaged (in terms of herbicide, pesticide and nutrient application) then there is a far better chance of restoring the broad range of animals that might previously have occurred. It would be very informative to see trial exclosures from some of the heavily grazed flush systems. Will this ever happen? I doubt that this is likely or perhaps even possible given limitations on the ability of managers to exclude grazing animals.

It seems to me that there is an urgent need to draw together all of the historic data on the invertebrate fauna of The Forest in order to establish what is really known about species that are more cryptic or do not attract the attention of those general natural historians that visit. I understand that this has been done for the Coleoptera but apparently not for the Diptera. It is a huge task as there must be many records from the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries lodged as museum specimens.

If it is unrewarding to visit anywhere but known honeypot sites, then there is little chance that the grazed lawns will receive any attention and the myth of The Forest will be maintained by reports from the historic ‘hot spots’. For me, that is not attractive – I favour visits to less well known areas in order to improve overall knowledge of our fauna. So, return visits to The Forest are not frightfully appealing. That will doubtless be the case for many other Dipterists, so the problem of data weaknesses will be compounded in years to come.

A reflection on field meetings

So, as another field season draws to a close it is interesting to reflect on the successes. We have held three field meetings (Norfolk in May, Nottingham in July and the Isle of Purbeck and the New Forest in October). The numbers attending the Norfolk meeting were very encouraging, with nearly 30 Dipterists attending for all or part of the weekend. Nottingham attracted far fewer participants than previous summer field meetings but was successful because we managed to visit a range of sites in an area that has not been heavily worked for some of the less popular families. And, this autumn? Well of course it was a success – we had a similar-sized group to previous years (8) and gathered important data for a range of sites. Perhaps what is even more important is our having maintained the tradition of autumn field meetings and extended the run to more than 40 consecutive years.

Dipterists Forum members at Studland NNR. L-R: Chris Spilling, Peter Chandler, Malcolm Smart, Andrew Halstead, Alan Stubbs and Tony Davis

Dipterists Forum members at Pondhead Inclosure. L-R: Slan Stubbs (photographing an uncooperative spider), Tony Davis, Malcolm Smart, Andrew Halstead, Keith Alexander and Peter Chandler.

 This was the last year that I will run a summer field meeting. I have been running them since 2005 and have run out of steam. We have nobody that is willing to take the job on, although there will be a meeting in 2016 thanks to a combined effort by Howard Bentley and Amanda Morgan. I shall probably continue to organise spring and autumn meetings but I am finding it increasingly difficult to maintain impetus. As yet I have not fixed on venues for these meetings, although it is likely that one will be in Scotland in late August/early September. The spring meeting may well be in Somerset as I think I can find suitable accommodation there. Unfortunately, as accommodation costs spiral, it is increasingly difficult to find affordable venues and as one of those with very limited income I am acutely aware of the cost implications for members who wish to participate!

A catastrophic decline in taxonomists?

A recent thread amongst Diptera recording scheme organisers prompted me to develop a few thoughts on the 'decline in taxonomy'. Has there been a catastrophic decline in taxonomists and is that linked to a decline in taxonomic teaching in Universities? Well, at one level we can say that there has certainly been a decline in the teaching of taxonomy; or, perhaps more specifically, anatomy and comparative morphology. I'm not convinced that there was a huge emphasis on systematics in the 1970s when I started, although doubtless it may have been a generation or two previously.

I would argue that embedded anatomical and morphological skills are still the critical foundation for good taxonomic skills, so perhaps the decline in teaching of comparative anatomy and morphology is more crucial because this embeds real transferable skill. When we run courses we find that very few students have much idea of the morphology of Diptera. By comparison, my early years at A-Level (Zoology/Botany) focussed very heavily on plant and animal anatomy and morphology together with a basic understanding of the animal and plant kingdoms. So too did the first and second years of my degree. Through choice I progressed towards entomology/parasitology because there were still such courses and there appeared to be a prospective career. I have a feeling that this sort of foundation knowledge is now much weaker amongst recent graduates and the obvious careers in such disciplines have disappeared. For many would-be zoologists and botanists the careers seem to be more in 'ecology' and conservation rather than in strongly taxonomy-based disciplines.

Why were there such courses? Well, at that time there were still institutes where basic taxonomic skills were needed – at the very last gasps of Empire! The decline in entomologists at CABI is illustrative of the change. There are now virtually no jobs in these areas in the UK so QED we don't need to train people to fill these non-jobs. The money has gone from basic plant and animal taxonomy, biology and ecology because many of the fundamental questions have been answered (or have they?). Those are the questions relating to improved agriculture, animal and human medecine and forestry. The low-hanging fruits have been gathered and now the questions are now more complex. Furthermore, many of the questions have moved into physiology, cellular and molecular levels – primarily in search of solutions to human problems – still within the fields of agriculture, forestry and veterinary and medicinal problem-solving. In biodiversity research DNA plays a much bigger role, with anatomy/morphology-based taxonomy and systematics subservient to its powerful applications. This is the cutting edge so inevitably it is where the money goes.

Traditional taxonomy, meanwhile, attracts little funding in Europe but it is a new and exciting science in the Developing World. Rightly so – if they don't get excited by their own plants and animals then there is no hope for the natural World. So, when one hears howls about the absence of taxonomic training in the UK one really needs to start from the question 'what drives the trends'? Are the Universities missing commercial opportunities because there are no UK centres of excellence to attract overseas students of taxonomy? We might be missing a trick there, especially when one realises just how much of a role UK taxonomists have played in developing current understanding of the plant and animal kingdoms and in stratigraphy. Somebody has certainly missed a trick when it comes to the loss of micro-paleontologists and stratigraphers but does the same apply elsewhere?

Pure or applied science?

The question that then arises is whether taxonomy is just about the classification of plants and animals as a pure science? Are taxonomists a league apart from the wider population – those specialists who beaver away describing new plants, animals and other micro-organisms for their own sakes. Maybe they were in the 18th and 19th Centuries – because in northern Europe and North America there was widespread public curiosity about what there was in the natural World and annoucements of new finds generated considerable public interest. Those low-hanging fruits have been gathered and as time goes by the description of obscure flies, beetles or amphipods has less and less relevance to the man in the street. Inevitably there will be less public and therefore political interest in taxonomy as a strictly descriptive science. Taxonomy has to be an applied science if it is to continue.

Fortunately, there are still many applications for taxonomy. Most of those applications remain within traditional drivers (agriculture, forestry, oil and gas exploration, veterinary and medicinal problem-solving). So, concern about the lack of training to generate taxonomic skills gains traction (as in the House of Lords Select Committee report, 2008). But weaknesses in taxonomic capacity vary in both their importance and economic and social relevance.

A real decline?

We must therefore return to the question of whether there has been a decline in taxonomy? On the one hand we can say yes in terms of pure science – both at the taught level and in jobs. On the other hand, if one argues that taxonomy is a much wider discipline than cataloguing plant and animal life then perhaps not. I strongly believe that there is as much, if not greater interest in identification of plants and animals than at any time hitherto in the UK. The numbers of accessible of guide books are much greater than in past decades, facilitated by cheap colour printing and incredible digital photography. What is possible today dwarfs past achievements. The internet has revolutionised access to traditional taxonomy and its full application but in many ways it has outrun the ability of taxonomy to meet its potential.

From a personal perspective, the big taxonomic challenges within the UK are about improving our knowledge of the biogeography and ecology of lesser known or more obscure taxa. That is substantially a question of access to well illustrated keys that can be used by people who do not necessarily use microscopes. Impossible! Well yes that it true if anybody expects all of the plant and animal kingdom in the UK to be identified by people with limited taxonomic skills. There is no escaping the need for a sound understanding of animal and plant anatomy/morphology and applying this to the careful analysis of preserved specimens. But, for the most part I don't believe that there was once an army of non-vocational specialists recording difficult taxa – that has always been the case as noted by Boxshall & Self (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/taxonomy/uk-review/) (2010) .

Relevance to biological recording

For biological recording it is worth reflecting that this is largely a non-vocational discipline that includes amongst its members many whose professional engagement includes relevant transferable skills. A micro-paleontologist, for example, will have the comparative morphological skills that are directly applicable to entomolgy even if they did not start off as an entomologist!

Biological recording can still act as a driver for improving taxonomic investigation; but, as an applied science, we need to think about the sorts of things that are needed by practitioners. A paper in an obscure journal that will only ever be read by other students of obscure journals will never attract public acclaim even if it does attract admiration from a small group of assocaiated specialists. To my mind this is what reinforces the dichotomy between pure and applied science.

In the UK, the big question is perhaps about the range of taxa that can be reliably identified and recorded to a level sufficient to understand how they are responding to envirnmental change. That is why biological recording has gained so much traction amongst certain groups of policy makers. Funding for systems to improve data accumulation is a reflection of this shift from pure to applied taxonomy.

Clearly one part of what is needed is a more comprehesive array of guide books - either web or paper based. My instincts still go to paper because one can flick through a book much more quickly (I think).

Applied taxonomy is arguably where the jobs are and where the skills shortage is. But the real skill shortage is amongst the people that can help taxonomy become applied. It is all very well looking towards web-based tools but somebody has to develop them, and if the majority of competence lies in the non-vocational sector then the chances are that those tools will not be developed very quickly – if at all. They are big jobs that draw heavily upon people's time and perhaps lie way off their interests – after all, a very small minority of non-vocational taxonomists are interested in developing web-based keys. Many are still committed to the printed form and most have limited time to commit to such projects.

So, what about the decline?

It seems to me that the issue of decline is relative – there has arguably been a substantial increase in molecular taxonomy but it is clear from Boxshall & Self (2010) that there are fundamental weaknesses in some aspects of taxonomy and the equipping of students with the necessary skills to apply taxonomy to real-life situations. I fear that in the 5 years since this report the situation has weakened still further with the loss of many regional museum jobs and a contraction in the potential career paths that might develop the leaders of the future. To my mind this is the real problem – short-term economic fixes may well lead to a serious decline in capacity to support and mentor future generations of applied taxonomists.

And so what can be done?

If the issue of declining taxonomic competence is to be resolved, it is essential to address the status and career path of people acquiring taxonomic competence. In many disciplines, taxonomic roles are extremely junior. Through grading is now relatively rare (at least in public service) and salaries are generally poor. People stay in taxonomy only if that is their passion. And Boxshall and Self show that people in taxonomy-related roles are simply passing through, doubtless gaining better salaries by moving on to managerial or other roles. From my perception the real test is demand for courses and research funding. There is very little research funding in UK or northern Europe, and courses are being axed because they fail to make the necessary income to maintain the teaching complement.

The problems faced by the former Birmingham University's MSc in Biological Recording provides a telling story – basic taxonomic skills do not attract the kudos and brownie points required to maintain the top universty's rankings. So, taxonomy is seen as an also-ran where one buys in skills from somewhere else if they are needed. The analogy is the electrical engineering firm that proudly proclaims that it has improved efficiency by axing its apprenticeship system, only to find that ten years later it cannot recruit electrical engineers. One wonders why? Taxonomy is in the same position – skills take time to acquire and the loss of training and succession plans are only felt when it is almost too late.

This is one of the underpinning reasons why Stuart and I have made so much effort to run training courses in both hoverfly and Diptera identification. There is a long lag time between initial training/ enthusing and the development of individuals who are ready to pick up the reins previously held by us and our cohort. Interest in hoverflies will hopefully cascade into wider interest in flies, and perhaps a few new entrants will feel inclined to develop the keen interest needed not only to do the fieldwork, but also to take up the mentoring and succession planning that is essential to maintain non-vocational taxonomy.

Is biological recording a modern phenomenon?

Paul Seligman makes an interesting point in response to my post yesterday – that non-professional biological recording is in its infancy. I wonder if that is true?

There are two aspects to biological recording:

1. Data development – i.e. actually going out to collect the data; and
2. Data management.

Data colletion

If one looks at the major datasets, I think we can say with some confidence that the vast bulk of terrestrial wildlife data has been assembled by what I refer to as 'non-vocational' recorders. We must look back to the vast effort made in producing the first edition of the Atlas of the British Flora (Perring & Walters 1962) to see how this amazing body of work was almost entirely achieved by voluntary effort. It demonstrated the depth of botanical skills across the country, and the commitment of those recorders to biological recording.

This first plant atlas was only the start of the process – it showed that it was possible to look at the biogeography of the British Isles using volunteers. Let it not be said that these were 'amateurs' – many were the leading local taxonomists of their day and would give the professionals a run for their money.

The same holds for our modern understanding of bird populations. True, the network of observatories set up at various stages has employed professional ringers. BUT, the vast bulk of ringing data come from volunteers – people who in their daytime jobs might be postmen or university lecturers. They all posess huge skills and have to pass demanding examinations before being allowed to operate independently.

The Wetland Bird Survey data that are used to monitor the health of many of our most important wetlands and underpin designations as Special Protection Areas have similar non-vocational origins. This vast network of local organisers and counters do so on a pretty much voluntary basis and include all walks of life amongst their ranks. This dataset is of course centrally organised and funded, so the data analysis and dissemination is by professionals.

So, let us move on to entomology. A good example of local recording is the Surrey Atlas series, in which I have had some small measure of involvement (see http://www.bacoastal.co.uk/Entomology/2002-Surrey-Atlas.pdf). This project now boasts an amazing range of titles, from bees, wasps and ants to hoverflies, shield bugs and both macro-and micro-moths. The authors are almost entirely non-vocational entomologists. Only one had a professional career in entomolgy (as a lecturer). This series was ground-breaking when it was launched and is now the standard to which others aspire.

We finally arrive at the Hoverfly Recording Scheme. When Stuart Ball and I took the scheme on in 1991 it was moribund. The previous organiser had been professionally engaged and ran the scheme perhaps in some of his paid time. Similarly, in the NCC when we were there, Alan Stubbs had within his remit the time to run field meetings where non-vocational specialists visited different parts of the country at their own expense to investigate the Diptera fauna of that area.

This professional organisational capacity was in decline by 1991 – Alan retired when NCC was split up and the focus on engaging with the non-vocational community ceased. Field meetings would have to be run by volunteers if they were to continue. They struggled on for a few years where enlightened line managers allowed some of us to do this as part of the job for a single year, but it was an ongoing struggle to find somebody to take on the massive task of organising accommodation, underwriting the costs and drawing together the data. Various people took the job on for one or two years, but each realised that it was too big a job for a volunteer. I did the job from 2004 to 2015 but have now resigned from it – it is far too big a job for me to carry on with. So, this traditional data collection process is under threat.

The same holds for running a recording scheme. In 1991 when Stuart and I took on the job of running the HRS there were insufficient funds to digitise the data – so we did it in our evenings and weekends. Over 5 years I transformed 2 cubic metres of record cards into machine-readable data. Stuart, meanwhile turned his attention to other sources of machine-readable data. The result was an atlas in 2000 that actually set a new standard. To the best of my knowledge it was the first of its type within the BRC atlas series – with a combination of both maps and phenology historgrams. Our 2011 atlas also broke new ground by including trend analysis although clearly Butterfly Conservation's Millennium Atlas did the same but was professionally produced using volunteer data.

For the most part, biological recording schemes are run by volunteers some of whom, but by no means all, have primary employment in natural sciences. The contributors come from many walks of life. In the case of the HRS we find that very little data come from professional sources and our most oustanding recorders come from a very wide range of backgrounds. One of the best of whom was until recently a dustman.

This very limited suite of examples I hope illustrates the rich and varied postwar tradition of non-vocational biological recording. It is based on a long-standing local network of clubs and societies such as the Yorkshire Naturalists Union, the London Natural History Society and Kent Field Club that have a long tradition of publishing papers and local atlases. Articles in their journals from the 19th Century often provide important modern context. Their authors were not professionals. Indeed, in Dipterology there are several notable names such as GH Verrall and JE Collin who it is reported looked down on the professional community (Collin was Verrall, nephew). Verrall's main occupation was as an official of the Newmarket race course.

We have a long and envied tradition of non-vocational biological recording that is probably only matched by a number of northern European countries such as The Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavian countries. These days, the vast bulk of our taxonomic expertise is vested in this non-vocational pool.

Data management

Whilst biological recording is substantially the territory of the unpaid non-vocational devotee, data management is the preserve of a professional community. This comprises the staff of Local Records Centres, the Biological Records Centre at Wallingford and the National Biodiversity Network, together with employees of such bodies as the British Trust for Ornithology, Butterfly Conservation and the Country Agencies (Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural Resources Wales).

Modern data input facilities such as iRecord are most certainly the preserve of the professionals and to a large extent are dependent upon software specialists.

I shall not dwell heavily on this aspect of recording because it is outside my real knowledge. Suffice it to say that the professional community is almost entirely relient upon the voluntary community for data, whilst the voluntary community to a greater or lesser extent depends upon professional services to provide data dissemination through websites, atlases and other products. There are exceptions such as the HRS, which does a very large amount of its own data management and report production, but we too could not function without BRC for publication of atlases. There is also a developing need for us to seek support in other ways such as software development to support data extraction from the UK Hoverflies Facebook page.

A new paradigm

The big difference between traditional biological recording and today's World is the advent of digital photography and its use in biological recording. In this respect it is an entirely new World Order. Relatively few recording schemes have embraced digital photography in the way the HRS has. In fairness we see considerable engagement from the Tachinidae Scheme – Matt Smith and I cross paths all across the digital highways as we pick up records from soures such as Flickr.

The really big issue is that as digital recording becomes more popular it places a great deal of emphasis on the support services that are required to ensure reliable determinations. In the case of the UK Hoverflies Facebook page there are three members of the Resident Team (Ian Andrews, Joan Childs and Yours Truly). This combined effort almost certainly adds up to 2,000 hours a year – I know my own commitment runs close to 1500 hours a year and I doubt Ian and Joan do any less than 250 hours a year each (and probably a lot more). This is the real difference in biological recording – at one time Ian, Joan and I would be happily doing our field work, peering down the microscope and assembling species lists for recording schemes. Ian and Joan still manage this, but my time as an entomologist is now virtually nil, so the yearly stream of 2,000 hover records and maybe a further 3-5,000 records of other taxa has dwindled to a trickle of perhaps 1,000 records all told!

The paradigm shift that has to be effected is one in which we have developed a new cohort of capable taxonomists and data extracters who can absorb some of this load.

A bigger picture

UK biological records form part of the Global Biological Information Facility (GBIF). If you examine GBIF it is clear that the bulk of the data for Diptera and several other Orders of invertebrates emanate from Northern Europe. Part of that is probably because we are better equipped to capture and disseminate the data. But, the other part is that in most countries biological recording is confined to Universities and techical Institutes. It is highly professionalised with no natural tradition of non-vocational activity.

Our system works and provides an amazing amount of data. These data inform all aspects of wildlife conservation and legislation in the UK. It is a highly under-valued resource. Bearing in mind the incalculable value of the many tens of thousands of contributors, investment in the professional arena is lamentable. In this time of austerity it is demonstrated still further by the shedding of many of the limited number of professional posts. For example all of the Natural History curators in museums in the West Midlands were lost a couple of years back. In doing so, this one act removed the support hierachy for many local non-vocational taxonomists.

For me, the big challenge is how to maintain non-vocational taxonomy in the face of diminishing budgets and increasing expectations that the non-vocational community will fill in the gaps created when paid posts are lost. Would a young Roger Morris now settle on working all hours of his spare time developing skills in the hope of getting a job? – answer – No – why bother when it is clear from the past 30 years that everybody thinks that this can be gained as a free service?

So, rather than looking at non-professional biological recording as being in its infancy, I think we might argue that it is at its zenith. If we are to maintain that position there must be investment in professional development to ensure that there are stimuli for young people who now have far less free time and many more demands made upon them to deliver greater efficiency (i.e unpaid overtime) in their professional lives.

A rationale for caution in photographic identification

There are several schools of thought about the use of photography as a means of biological recording:

1. Those who believe that a record can only be believed if it is supported by a preserved specimen identified by a competent taxonomist.

2. Those who believe that photography can replace traditional methods (identifications produced from preserved specimens, following keys based on museum specimens).

3. Those who believe that photography can be used to improve levels of recording, within definable limits.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer, just a variety of views that reflect a combination of philosophical approaches and practical experience.

On balance it is difficult to see how the strictly taxonomic approach (Group 1) can be followed to ensure coverage of even a small country such as the UK. Professional taxonomists are rare and nobody is going to fund an increase in their numbers; if anything the emphasis is on reducing numbers still further. In the World of Syrphidae in the UK, there is nobody that I can think of that is now paid solely to work on hoverflies, although several University pollinator teams do employ people to identify specimens that are often checked by volunteer taxonomic specialists (I have done a lot of this sort of thing over the years). It is important to stress, however, that hoverflies are unusual: in the UK at least, they include significant numbers that are highly characteristic and that can be identified from one or more angles if the photograph is sharp, of good resolution and without colour bias. The same cannot be said for many taxa where microscopic characters and dissection are critical to a firm identification of possibly already tiny animals.

Conversely, those who think that photography is the answer will find that their views are not supported by experience. Some erect new characters based soley on photographs that are untested against firmly identified specimens (i.e. checked against the original type material or deseignated lectotypes or paratypes). In these cases they will find that they disagree with specialists used to examining specimens. A few move towards a half-way house where they use both photography and take specimens. On several occasions people who have done this have commented how much they subsequently realised that many species could not be done from photographs (and that once they used a microscope they found a much wider range of species).

There is then the issue of a growing demand for data by Government and its agencies. The ongoing theme has been 'how to increase volumes of data', and 'how to increase the numbers of people actively involved in biological recording'. That means that there have to be compromises. One compromise is to accept that the Group 1 (taxonomic approach) cannot be relied upon because it is too costly and socially exclusive. A second compromise is to establish mechanisms where existing Group 1 recorders put their effort into assisting group 2 recorders (with a corresponding reduction in the numbers of full datasets generated). This approach relies upon a cohort of recorders who are prepared to engage and to provide assistance within definable limits. It is the approach that has been embraced by the Hoverfly Recording Scheme.

There are also various groupings of biological recorders:

1. Those for whom an encounter with a particular animal or plant is strictly a personal issue with no real interest in what such records might be used for in a broader societal context. It may include the development of a personal list or even a competitive list amongst peer groups (some 'pan listers'). In these cases, the recorder sets their own confidence limits for the reliability of an identification.

2. Those for whom pleasure is gained from seeing a particular animal or plant, who want to be sure that the identification is as reliable as possible. This may include people who subsequently submit data to local or national recording schemes, but the principal driver is a personal apprreciation of the natural World.

3. People with a firm interest in a particular taxonomic group, who include the production of valid records as part of their fundamental interests.

4. Specialists whose interest lies in the development of datasets that can be used to establish a better understanding of the ecology of a particular group of plants or animals. At the simplest end this may be to improve understanding of biogeography, but there are many other applications for such data, including trend analysis that may be influential in wildlife policy promoted by NGOs or by various tiers of Government.

5. Taxonomists whose primary interest lies in refining the catalogue of plant and animal life. Taxonomic interests may not exclude a parallel interest in species' ecology, but there is usually a strong emphasis on refining identifications to the finest level of resolution.

Each view has its merits and disadvantages but it is perhaps worth teasing out the critical issues from the viewpoint of one person running a national recording scheme.

I have spent the majority of my life working in one (several) of the bodies responsible for delivering UK wildlife policy and governance. This has included a substantial time as a policy-adviser and as the front face of engagement with promoters of major development projects. I still bear some of the scars and am acutely aware of the ways in which data can be undermined to lessen the confidence in the science underpinning conservation policy and delivery. One need only reflect on the ways in which climate change sceptics represent (or perhaps misrepresent) data in order to weaken confidence in scientific predictions. The same situation obtains for outputs generated from biological recording. If there are weaknesses in the data then these can be magnified to undermine the veracity of any political messages that can be derived from trends.

At the moment, the trend data indicate that there have been dramatic declines in the abundance and richness of wildlife in some parts of Britain, and that there have been important shifts in species distribution. For me, these trends largely correspond to what I have seen in terms of hoverfly abundance over the past 30 years. I may be recalling past times with rose-tinted spectacles, but I simply cannot believe that I am remembering a mirage when I now find great stands of hogweed (mainly in SE Engalnd) with barely a hoverfly in attendance! Something has definitely happened and it is really a question of trying to work out the factors responsible for this change. If it has happened to hoverflies then the chances are it has also happened to organisms further up the food chain such as birds. The numbers of birds on red or amber on alert lists tell the story very clearly, but to understand what is happening we need to understand what is happening lower down the food chain – so the fate of predaceous, phytophagous and saprophagous invertebrates is of considerable importance.

A significant part of my interest in running the Hoverfly Recording Scheme lies in developing data that are robust enough to provide a reliable picture of what is happeneing to hoverflies (and by extension other wildlife). The robustness of the data has a very important bearing on the veracity of the messages imparted. If it can be shown that there has been rigour in the data collection process then the outputs of trend analysis are much more likely to be believed. If, on the other hand, it is clear that unreliable characters have been relied upon and determinations can be readily challenged, then the outputs will be weakened.

These are some of the problems that all recording schemes grapple with. One  wants to improve coverage and it is always good to see an increase in incoming records and interest in the taxonomic group. The question is whether this can be achieved without significantly reducing the robustness of the dataset. Setting practical limits on what can and cannot be identified is part of that process. Developing new analysis tools is a further component. Arguably, there is a developing need to be able to split datasets into those elements derived from photographs and those from traditional field work and retention of specimens for microscopic identification. Both have the potential to tell an important story.

For me, the important point about photographs is that they largely involve those species that are most visible to relative novices and can be used to generate much bigger datasets. Yes, there may be identication problems for a few, but the volume of data means that outputs are reliable within defined limits - possible at the level of particular guilds, possibly at generic level or perhaps to species in some cases. The big issue is to define the levels of robustness and to establish the analytical processes needed to achieve this. Within this dataset there are potentially useful indicators and it is really a matter of defining what these are and how best to generate useable data.

It is also clear that interactive forums that encourage photographic recording can substantially increase the numbers of major contribtors to a recording scheme. In the case of hoverflies, over the period from 1976 to 2009/10 a pool of 21 people supplied nearly 50% of the data (out of an average of about 22,000 records per year). In the following 6 years, that proportion has changed - several recorders have reduced their activity or have ceased to be active at all (a very aging group who have often been contributing for 35+ years).

Meanwhile, a significant group of photographic recorders has evolved. So far, just over 13,500 photographic records (to species) have been generated in 2015. Around 40% of these were provided by 24 people and 55% by around 70 people. This new paradigm suggests that there is considerable scope for growth in the dataset and in the constituency of contributors. Unlike other components of the dataset, we do know that these data have been supported by photographic voucher specimens and as such this starts to form a very robust sub-set of the database. It has its limitations, but so too do those data submitted by people who retain specimens.

The supplementary issue is how to establish a long-term philosophical approach that is robust enough to move with the times and yet retain the confidence of those who use the outputs (NGOs and policy makers). In line with this, there is the issue of succession management - it is all very well having a recording scheme, but what happens when the scheme organiser decides that they have run their course? I am firmly of the view that one should hand over the reins in good time to allow new blood to take a lead.

My intention is to start to pull away over the coming two to three years and to generate a new team to take over those parts of the scheme that I lead on. That means recruiting new people to extract data, and possibly additional technical identification skills. I have my eyes open for potential recruits!

Cheilosia caerulescens

I have watched my mother's patch of house leeks for several years now, hoping to detect Cheilosia caerulescens. on one occasion I found a single mine, but no real evidence that the fly was here. Today there was a big change. The patch looked very sorry for itself as can be seen in the accompanying photos.

This is a species that was introduced by the horticultural trade, probably about ten years ago. It is now on the march, probably augmented by additional imports. We know it from the London area (quite common) and from south-east England into Bedfordshire and as far east as Norwich. It seems to be recorded more frequently by photographers than specialist Dipterists and is therefore highly suited to recording by 'citizen science'. If you have a patch of house leeks then take a look, photograph them if there are signs of damage, and put these on iSpot or the Hoverfly Recording Scheme site (or UK Hoverflies Facebook page).

I tried providing links to two very nice shots of the hoverfly on Flickr but unfortunately Blogger could not locate them (they work for me).

Is the biological recording community ageing?

When I started in entomology some 40 years ago I attended the meetings of the entomology section of the Croydon Natural History Society. The section was chaired by Ken Evans who was a great inspiration and very kindly provided transport to several of us younger entomologists to moth trapping venues. At that time there were respectable numbers of young members of the section – apart from 'yours truly' there was Graham Collins, Mike and James Halsey, David Lees, with a slightly older generation comprising the likes of Jim Porter and Roger Hawkins. Several of that group have gone on to be quite influential in today's entomological World. I am told that the section is still running but that there are no new recruits – it is getting older and its numbers are diminishing.

Similar declines in attendance and membership are reported by other societies and there is a perception at least that the numbers of up-and-coming entomologists are declining. Is this really the case? Somehow I doubt it.

A common view is that as Universities no longer teach taxonomy, these skills are being lost. But is this really true either? I look back to my taxonomy-dominated undergraduate days – both at A-level and in my first and second years at Uni and wonder whether my interest/involvement in invertebrates was strictly generated by that experience? I certainly moved towards an interest in moths as a result of one field course, but I don't think the teaching element necessarily prepared me for any work involving insect taxonomy and in particularly Diptera.

It would be fair to say that the course was responsible for basic analytical skills and probably the 'confidence' to try keys. After that I was on my own and dependent upon interactions with others more skilled than me. For that I relied upon membership of various societies and meeting and discussing with both my peers and the then luminaries of those bodies. To my mind, the opportunity to engage with people with more experience than me was of particular importance.

Fast forward to 2015. Relatively few young people attend society meetings and the general view is that the next generation just is not out there. I think this is a misconception because those such as me are long in the tooth and still rely on personal contact. We even enjoy meeting people and attending field meetings, AGMs and other events that bring together like-minded individuals. Our successors work in a different paradigm – that of the electronic media. Various Facebook forums are populated by a wide range of age classes and although one gets the feeling that a substantial proportion of contributors to the UK Hoverflies page are not in the first phase of youth there iare numerous of young entomologists.

The big question that follows is whether that new generation will be willing to take on the sorts of roles that have traditionally maintained a community of special interests such as hoverflies etc? My guess is that they will, but that depends upon the ways in which the older generation recognises and adapts to a changing World. It is we that must think in new ways, otherwise the structures that we cherish will fade away. BUT, I think there remains a place for the traditional society and for the contributions that they make to field biology.

If one simply looks at interactive media as a way of immediately satisfying needs for assistance with identification or sharing the excitement of a recent find, then the traditional society will become redundant. That is only part of the story, however.

Many of the most important initiatives and activities have resulted from these societies. For example, there would be no Hoverfly Recording Scheme as we know it today without the BENHS, who sought out the grant that allowed the first edition of Stubbs and Falk to be published (for that matter, there would not be the Wildguide either because we would not have taken up the HRS). Major taxonomic works at affordable prices is something that societies can make possible. The alternative is the Fauna Ent. Scand. series, where the publications are so expensive they can only be afforded by a few specialists. Yes there will be popular books such as Britain's Hoverflies but the chances of another Stubbs & Falk would be very remote because sales are not high and profits will be marginal.

Of course one could argue that the future of publication lies in electronic media. That may be true – I am too long in the tooth to envisage a World without books but it may be on its way (sadly). Even so, books don't just happen – they need the authors but they also need peer-review, editing, formatting and publishing – tasks that demand a range of skills. So, there remains the need to create a forum that is capable of bringing together those disparate skills. Such a forum is analagous to a Society, so in all respects there remains a need for Societies. There is therefore a place for young people to join societies and to get involved.

The question then must be 'why is society membership ageing?' Perhaps part of the problem is that electronic media have left the traditional society behind and it is time for societies to re-invent themselves in an electronic age. On-line resources are an obvious way forward, but providing those resources is actually not without costs. Hosting websites is not expensive but it does require funds and it also requires continuity – not just altruism on the part of a benevolant individual. There will be other costs if communally beneficial projects are to be initiated and maintained. If the communty relies on individual altruism the situation will arise when a major supporter dies and the society dies with them. So, it might be argued that there remains a need for formal societies to provide the necessary platform for interaction.

Thus, it seems to me that there is a two-way process to be pursued. On the one hand the old guard must embrace new technology and the communication medium that it provides. Meanwhile, the next generation must engage and join societies to make sure that the platforms for engagement are maintained. Those of us who currently deliver particular roles are simply the custodians of an ongoing legacy. We must support and enthuse a further generation, whilst they in turn must rise to the challenge and take on the mantle as the old guard gives ground and makes way for new blood.

This paradigm is one that all recording scheme organisers need to consider too. They (we) do not own the schemes; rather we are custodians and guardians who need to foster a new generation and make sure that our successors are well established before we have to give up. This seems to me to be the next big challenge for the Hoverfly Recording Scheme. Stuart and I have run it for nearly 25 years. We have plenty of energy to go on, but there is a danger that we will kill the scheme by staying in place for too long and not giving space for a new generation to become established. It is a dilemma that we are starting to consider.

Our training programme was the first step in that direction – growing the constituency and the capacity. The Facebook page is arguably a second stage in which a wider constituency has been built and potential replacements have started to show themselves. The next stage must be to expand the team, spread the load and make sure there is a new cohort of 'names and faces'; after which we must subside into the background and let others run the scheme along the lines that they see fit.

So maybe the critical slogan is: The society is dead. Long live the society!

Developing a network of parataxonomists

The concept of parataxonomy is not new – in his work in Costa Rica Dan Janzen became a major exponent of the idea, which has caught on in many ways. Current crowd-sourced identification systems such as iSpot are arguably one form of parataxonomy. I like to think that the UK Hoverflies Facebook page has parallels with parataxonomy – especially where there is a fusion between people whose primary interest is photography and those with interests in biological recording.

What I find especially encoraging is the way in which this interaction is leading to more active members searching out species that they might hitherto have ignored or not seen. From a first glance, I think the data from 2015 will be rather different when compared to that from 2014. There seem to be many more posts of Cheilosia, pipizines and the 'awkward squad' of small Chrysogastrines and Bacchines.

It is also noticeable that several people whose initial interest in photography has progressed to retaining specimens to pass on to me for identification; thus we will hopefully be able to match photos to firm identifications. In time this may help to refine our understanding of how to identify species from photos and the subtle features of live animals that are lost in museum specimens. There is a long way to go, but this is a great start. Ideally we need to recruit more participants in this approach.

Thinking in broader terms, it strikes me that there are potentially significant numbers of people who want to develop inventories of what occurs on their favoured site or locale – maybe an island, a village or parish. Obviously photography will help, but it can only go so far.

I'm far from clear how many recording schemes actually engage with photographers – probably relatively few to any major degree. Some will doubtless feel that there is no point engaging to find that most species cannot be fully identified (I have head that from several scheme organisers). Others may feel they cannot commit the time, which is a fair point because this sort of engagement is highly time-consuming. Yet, if we really want to develop a strong network of recorders of more difficult taxa we must engage and look for ways to increase interaction between interested and willing local recorders and those with the taxonomic skills needed to create reliable records.

The development of a more comprehensive parataxonomic network therefore seems to me to be an essential next step. We need to find a way of encouraging/recruiting people who will collect specimens and pass them on for identification (or storage for later identification), and to match this commitment to the available taxonomic specialists. Most recording scheme organisers probably do this in an ad-hoc manner when they identify problem specimens sent to them. But, we might do so much more to develop a data flow that really improves coverage. Parts of the country may not be populated by specialists in more difficult taxa, but there is a better chance of finding people who might collect material for dispersal to specialists for identification.

Making such a system happen is a challenge. Inevitably, if one starts to collect specimens there will be a stage when new recruits only see and retain obvious species, but they will (and do) develop skills that yield a wider range of taxa. What is important is to make sure that material submitted gets identified and logged, with feedback to local contributors so they know what they have generated and can start to see a picture of their chosen area unfold.

I would love to get such a system up and running for hoverflies but am mindful that all sorts of other flies will be passed on and will need identification. I therefore think that we might try to make something happen amongst the schemes run under the umbrella of Dipterists Forum. Is there somebody that might take on the organising role if we could make it happen? I'm not sure I have the time, but will happily promote such a concept amongst the developing networks of UK Hoverflies and UK Diptera Facebook pages.

The follow-up question is then whether there is an appetite for such a system developed through the NBN and local records centres? My vision would be the development of a national network that would generate records from widely dispersed and otherwise under-recorded places. If successful it might help to resolve the problem of some areas of the UK being substantially under-recorded.

Now, this all sounds fine, but the follow-up question is whether there is the technical capacity to identify the inflow of specimens? At current levels of activity there probably is. BUT, we have seen with the UK Hoverflies Facebook page that its success means that there is a need for several toxonomically competent people to engage. In the case of UK Hoverflies we now have a team of five running the site. I could not have coped without the help of Ian, Joan, Judy & Stephen. I am eternally grateful to them all for their help, and also to Gerard Pennards upon whom we call for expert advice fairly regularly.

That experience clearly illustrates the need to think in advance about the scale of uptake that might be involved and what it means in terms of organisational and technical support. Running a recording scheme today is very different to the concept developed in the 1960s and 70s. We need to embrace the new technology but also to pay attention to the technical capacity needed to make such systems work.

This seems to me to be the next stage in the biological recording journey and one that should be considered by those who have an interest in promoting biological recording.