Part 2: Nematocera and Aschiza not dealt with by Falk (1991) - JNCC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Invertebrate Site Register (ISR) has supplied some records, including some from sources that were not otherwise available. The ISR was set up by the former Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) in 1980. It is a computerised inventory of sites of significance to invertebrate conservation and contains records of local, scarce and threatened species of all invertebrates. Information from the literature, professional and amateur entomologists, regional and national museums, biological records centres and various recording schemes were incorporated within the ISR. Because of the diversity of these sources, the quality of the data is highly variable and it was necessary to scrutinise carefully the origin and reliability of these records. In particular it should be mentioned that some older literature records (e.g. those in Wingate 1906 and Carr 1935) do not relate to the species presently known by the same names where species groups of closely related species are involved; for example, Wingate’s records of Mycetophila signata Meigen could refer to any of the 4 species of the group, signata itself being the least frequent of the four and the only one accorded Nationally Scarce status. Carr’s record of Mycomya ornata (Meigen) will refer to one of the commoner species of the group then confused under this name. Specialists in each of the families, other than my own areas of special interest (Platypezidae and Mycetophilidae sensu lato), were consulted, both for advice on the evaluation of existing data and for any additional information they were able to provide. Furthermore, some other dipterists have contributed records, mostly recent, which were not available through any of the above sources. Table 1 Number of species allocated to RDB and Notable status in Shirt (1987) (RDB only), Falk (1991), and this review using the IUCN (1994) criteria. Note: the status categories in this review are not equivalent to those on the same line for Shirt (1987) and Falk (1991), with the exception of the Extinct line and the Notable/Nationally Scarce line in this table. Status Shirt (1987) Falk (1991) Status in this Review This Review Extinct - 2 Extinct 1 Critically Endangered - RDB 1 41 57 Endangered - RDB 2 41 57 Vulnerable 16 RDB 3 64 51 Lower Risk (Near Threatened) 45 RDB K - 17 Data Deficient 95 Notable - 125 Lower Risk (Nationally Scarce) 127 TOTAL 146 309 284 5. Criteria for including species in the review 5.1 The revised IUCN threat categories and selection criteria The previously published review of scarce and threatened Diptera (Falk 1991) employed the Red Data Book criteria used in the British Insect Red Data Book (Shirt 1987) with the addition of the category RDBK (Insufficiently Known) after Wells, Pyle & Collins (1983); in addition the status category Nationally Notable (now termed Lower Risk (Nationally Scarce)) was used by Falk (1991) as defined by Eversham (1983). The original IUCN 1 criteria for assigning threat status used in these publications had the categories Endangered, Vulnerable, and Rare, which were defined rather loosely and without quantitative qualifiers. The application of these categories was largely a matter of subjective judgement, and it was not easy to apply them consistently within a taxonomic group or to make comparisons between groups of different organisms. The deficiencies of the old system were recognised internationally, and in the mid-1980s proposals were made to replace it with a new approach which could 1 Now the World Conservation Union (WCU) 8
e more objectively and consistently applied. In 1989, the IUCN’s Species Survival Commission Steering Committee requested that a new set of criteria be developed to provide an objective framework for the classification of species according to their extinction risk. The first, provisional, outline of the new system was published in Mace & Lande (1991). This was followed by a series of revisions, and the final version adopted as the global standard by the IUCN Council in December 1994. The guidelines were recommended for use also at the national level. In 1995, JNCC endorsed their use as the new national standard for Great Britain, and subsequent British Red Data Books (Church et al. 1996; Wigginton 1999; Church et al. 2001) have used these revised IUCN criteria. A brief outline of the revised IUCN criteria and their application is given below (after Wigginton 1999), but it is important that users of the new system refer to the published document (IUCN 1994) which gives a full explanation, and contains many qualifying remarks. The definitions of the categories are given in Figure 1 and the hierarchical relationship of the categories in Figure 2 (after Wigginton 1999). Figure 1. Definitions of IUCN threat categories (IUCN 1994) EXTINCT (EX). A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW). A taxon is Extinct in the wild when it is known to survive only in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalised population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed extinct in the wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual) throughout its range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form. CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR). A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as detailed by any of the criteria A to E. * ENDANGERED (EN). A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria A to E. * VULNERABLE (VU). A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium term future, as defined by any of the criteria A to D. * LOWER RISK (LR). A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated but does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three sub-categories: • Conservation Dependent (cd). Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above within a period of five years. • Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Lower Risk (conservation dependent), but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable. • Least Concern (lc). Taxa which do not qualify for Lower Risk (conservation dependent) or Lower Risk (near threatened). DATA DEFICIENT (DD). A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct or indirect assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat or Lower Risk. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that a threatened category is appropriate. NOT EVALUATED (NE). A taxon is Not Evaluated when it has not been assessed against the criteria. Newly established categories are Extinct in the wild (EW), and Critically Endangered (CR). Whilst the names Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU) have been maintained, they are now differently defined, and species in one of these threat categories in the old system will not necessarily be in the same category in the new. Most species deemed to be ‘Rare’ in the old system have been assigned to the 9
Page 1 and 2: Species Status No. 2 A review of th
Page 3: Clastobasis alternans (Winnertz) se
Page 7 and 8: 1. Introduction The first account o
Page 9 and 10: NNR), which are now in Oxfordshire,
Page 11: species must, therefore, be extrapo
Page 15 and 16: Species have been assigned to a thr
Page 17 and 18: 5.3. The IUCN criteria for Critical
Page 19 and 20: 2. A continuing decline, observed,
Page 21 and 22: Wiltshire, Buckingham Thick Copse i
Page 23 and 24: Anatella dampfi Landrock. This was
Page 25 and 26: Exechiopsis dumitrescae Burghele-Ba
Page 27 and 28: Rymosia signatipes (van der Wulp).
Page 29 and 30: Suffolk). These records show that L
Page 31 and 32: said overall is that these 22 are t
Page 33 and 34: not considered likely to merit cons
Page 35 and 36: Chalarus argenteus Coe. Berkshire (
Page 37 and 38: 7. Taxonomic list of species previo
Page 39 and 40: Scientific name Shirt 1987 Falk 199
Page 41 and 42: 10. Species listed by status catego
Page 43 and 44: Anatella pseudogibba Plassmann Bole
Page 45 and 46: Macrocera maculata Meigen Macrocera
Page 47 and 48: Platypezidae Lonchopteridae Pipuncu
Page 57: 12. Criteria used for assigning spe
Page 60 and 61: ecently recognised in Britain and i
Page 62 and 63:
Distribution Records widely dispers
Page 64 and 65:
Retain any dead wood and old or dis
Page 66 and 67:
Management and conservation Retain
Page 68 and 69:
Cambridgeshire; Thorne Moors NNR, Y
Page 70 and 71:
Habitat Appears to mainly favour Pi
Page 72 and 73:
ALLODIA WESTERHOLTI A fungus gnat D
Page 74 and 75:
Habitat Woodland and dunes. As well
Page 76 and 77:
BOLETINA SILVATICA A fungus gnat Or
Page 78 and 79:
Fen, Taynton Fen, Weston Green) (19
Page 80 and 81:
Distribution Scattered across south
Page 82 and 83:
Skye, North Ebudes (1991); Braelang
Page 84 and 85:
Published sources Chandler (1998b,
Page 86 and 87:
or damage to leaf litter or soil st
Page 88 and 89:
Habitat Montane tundra. The species
Page 90 and 91:
(1982), Dulsie (1989), Glen Affric,
Page 92 and 93:
Management and conservation Maintai
Page 94 and 95:
Published sources Chandler (1977a).
Page 96 and 97:
Status Until recently a poorly know
Page 98 and 99:
Threats Clearance of woodland for i
Page 100 and 101:
MYCOMYA OCCULTANS A fungus gnat LOW
Page 102 and 103:
(Edwards 1941; Hutson, Ackland & Ki
Page 104 and 105:
that there is a succession of trees
Page 106 and 107:
wood. Adults recorded from June to
Page 108 and 109:
Status First recognised as British
Page 110 and 111:
Scotland. Currently there is inadeq
Page 112 and 113:
Ecology Biology unknown. The larvae
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
SCIOPHILA ANTIQUA A fungus gnat LOW
Page 118 and 119:
Quoich, Mar Lodge Estate, Braemar,
Page 120 and 121:
Published sources Chandler (1992b,
Page 122 and 123:
TARNANIA TARNANII A fungus gnat LOW
Page 124 and 125:
TRICHONTA ICENICA A fungus gnat LOW
Page 126 and 127:
Encourage future survival of sites
Page 128 and 129:
Ecology The larvae are aquatic filt
Page 130 and 131:
temporary water bodies are known to
Page 132 and 133:
or falling in strong winds. Some of
Page 134 and 135:
throughout Britain, tending to conf
Page 136 and 137:
Wood, Herefordshire (1912); Porthca
Page 138 and 139:
to September 1914, H.St J.K. Donist
Page 140 and 141:
Status A poorly known species, whic
Page 142 and 143:
TRIPHLEBA FLEXIPALPIS A scuttle fly
Page 144 and 145:
Threats The clearance of valley woo
Page 146 and 147:
CEPHALOSPHAERA GERMANICA A big-head
Page 148 and 149:
DORYLOMORPHA ALBITARSIS A big-heade
Page 150 and 151:
EUDORYLAS FUSCULUS A big-headed fly
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Threats Habitat loss to agriculture
Page 156 and 157:
Bowdrey, J. 2003. The flat-footed f
Page 158 and 159:
Chandler, P.J. 1990. Notes on Macro
Page 160 and 161:
Clemons, L. 1994b. Lonchoptera niti
Page 162 and 163:
Disney, R.H.L. & Chapman, J.W. 2001
Page 164 and 165:
Falk, S.J. & Gibbs, D. 2004. Dorylo
Page 166 and 167:
Holmes, P.R., Boyce, D.C. & Reed, D
Page 168 and 169:
Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1976. A
Page 170 and 171:
Morgan, M.J. 1987. Reappearance of
Page 172 and 173:
Ševčík, J. 2001b. A new species
Page 174 and 175:
Verrall, G.H. 1901b. List of Britis
Page 176 and 177:
172
Page 178 and 179:
Auchenbowie, 91 Auchmore Woods, 116
Page 180 and 181:
Cawthorne, 58, 71 Cefn Cennarth, 57
Page 182 and 183:
Dowlings Wood, 21, 60 Downderry, 11
Page 184 and 185:
Gunnerside, 107, 118 Gwaun Gartheno
Page 186 and 187:
Llyn Fawnog, 65 Llyn Hafodol, 69, 8
Page 188 and 189:
nonnisilva, Sciophila, 23, 34, 49 N
Page 190 and 191:
River Luineag, 99 River Monnow, 139
Page 192 and 193:
Thaumalea, 25, 42, 50, 128 The Coom
show all

Part 2: Nematocera and Aschiza not dealt with by Falk (1991) - JNCC

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?