From 1988 to 1995 Steve McWilliam (Consult-Eco) voluntarily conducted a comprehensive study of the insects, spiders etc. resident on the Woolston Eyes SSSI. The report of his findings, 64 pages in all, has been edited and is given below.

Note:-Any typographical errors are mine[FGL].

Others, including Mr Eric Rudge and Mr Joe Jackson, have also carried out field work, mainly daytime visits. Their records which do not overlap those of Steve are given in Table 2.

Table 1

TABLE 2

A list of Moths and Butterflies not given in Table 1 but reported by Steve and others, and published in a article by Steve in the 1990 Woolston Eyes Annual Report, is given below together with Steve's comments.

Key (comments column)

M = reported by McWilliam
O = reported by Others
Number - see comments at the end of the table

Note

Comments

A few notes on some of the more interesting records listed are given below. To ease the matching of the note to the species, the note numbers given are the same as those shown in the column labelled 'Comment' in Table 2.

1. Comparison work done by the 'Lancashire and Cheshire Entomological Society' a few years ago shed doubt on the fact that the Five-spot Burnet (Zygaena trifolii Esp.) had ever been reliably recorded in the County of Cheshire. In light of this, and unless specimens are forthcoming to prove the identification, I would be reluctant to accept this species and would be inclined to attribute it to the Narrow-bordered Five-spot Bumet (Zygaena lonicerae Schev.) which has proved to be fairly common in the County.

2. An interesting record of a migratory butterfly, Clouded Yellow (Colias croceus Geoffr.), which we rarely see in the County. I still await the day when I may see one in the wild. It appears that 1983, the year this species put in an appearance on the Eyes, was a particularly abundant year with it being widely spread across the country.

3. An unusual Geometrid, Satin Wave (Idaea subsericeata Haw.), which is usually found in more southern counties and is designated as 'rare' within the Vice County of Cheshire. In light of this, and until further confirmation of the identification is forthcorning, I must treat it as potentially rather doubtful.

4. This recorded specimen of the White-point (Mythimna albipuncta D.&S.) is the only record for Cheshire in the last thirty years and shows the distance which migrants can travel when conditions are right, it is usually taken on the south east coast of Britain. The record was confirmed by C.I. Rutherford of the 'Lancashire & Cheshire Entomological Society' and is included within his forthcoming publication 'The Moths of Cheshire'.

5. There are no voucher specimens or photographs of this species, Striped Wainscot (Mythimna pudorina D.&S.), from the Eyes and despite the site appearing to provide ideal conditions for the moth it must be viewed as doubtful until corroborative evidence can be obtained. This species has not been recorded elsewhere in Cheshire and further work in the reed-beds needs to be carried out. There is also potential for turning up other species of Wainscot in the reed-bed areas as it is obvious that this type of habitat has been neglected by recorders throughout the County.

6. The Wormwood Shark, (Cucullia absinthii L.), is desigtlated as 'rare' within the County and I would like to see further evidence, either corroborative from experienced entomologists who had seen the specimen or an actual voucher specimen, before accepting the record.

7. The Dusky-lemon Sallow, (Xanthia gilvago D.&S.), is not common in the County and despite extensive recording I have never taken it myself. It could reflect my lack of recording at the Eyes in the Autumn period but I would prefer to know that this record had been checked before accepting it on face value, particularly in view of the almost complete lack of its food-plant (Wych Elm) in the County since the start of Dutch Elm disease a few years ago.

8. The Lesser Common Rustic, (Mesapamea didyma Esp. (auct. secalella Remm.)), was only identified as being a separate species within the 'secalis' complex in this country in 1983. So far there has been no reliable method developed for its separation from Mesapamea secalis L. other than by genitalia preparation. I am doubtful that this was actually the case and until genitalia preparations are available which prove the separation I feel I must discard this record from the list.