The continuing saga of what one lepidopterist described to me as one of the poorest years he could remember for moths continued through until the end of the year. The only records of note being a run of migratory Dark Sword-grass, Agrotis ipsilon, -ten specimens between 4 October and 23 November. Another immigrant, the Pearly Underwing, Peridroma saucia, was recorded on 5 occasions between 21 and 31 October. Juniper Carpet, Thera juniperata, put in an appearance with 4 specimens between 13 and 18 October. This moth has been recorded at this site each year since 1995. In 1995 an entry in my diary shows that I took this moth 'in good numbers'. In 1996 only one specimen was recorded. 1997 produced a total of 17 moths, whilst 1998 was again poor with only a single specimen. 1999 gave a total of 6 moths, but this dropped slightly in 2000 to 5 specimens. Two records of The Streak, Chesias legatella, in October was pleasing. This is not a particularly common moth at Sicklesmere.
The year 2001 started reasonably well with Mottled Umber, Erannis defoliaria, The Satellite, Eupsilia transversa, and Winter Moth, Operophtera brumata, all recorded on 1 January. There followed a run of the usual winter moths with The Chestnut, Conistra vaccinii, Dark Chestnut, Conistra ligula, and Pale Brindled Beauty, Apocheima pilosaria, all appearing on or about the expected date. Spring Usher, Agriopis leucophaearia, put in an early appearance with two specimens on 24 January followed by another on 26 January. These dates are not unusually early. They are, however, the earliest records for Sicklesmere, the previous earliest being 28 January 1999. Most of my records for this species are in February.
The total number of moths and species for the months October to January between the years 1996- 2001 are given below.
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | |||||||
| A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | A | B | |
| October | 490 | 39 | 363 | 35 | 393 | 37 | 710 | 46 | 289 | 37 | ||
| November | 35 | 13 | 88 | 19 | 87 | 17 | 163 | 37 | 63 | 16 | ||
| December | 17 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 22 | 5 | ||
| January | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 20 | 7 | 32 | 7 |
Column A shows the total number of moths recorded and column B shows the number of species.
The yearly totals shown below give some idea of how poor the year 2000 has been for moths:
| Moths | Species | Nights | Percentage | |
| Total | Total | Trapping | Increase / decrease | |
| 1996 | 17478 | 249 | No Record | |
| 1997 | 18367 | 280 | 254 | + 5.08% |
| 1998 | 11577 | 288 | 284 | - 36.96% |
| 1999 | 12494 | 306 | 313 | + 7.92% |
| 2000 | 10126 | 331 | 366 | - 18.95% |
To further highlight the decrease in moth totals, I have calculated the decrease between 1997 and 2000 as -44.86%. The calculation starts with the 1997 data because it is the first year when I have a record of the number of nights the trap was used.
The increase in species totals since 1996 includes the increased recording of micro moths started in 1999.
In reply to the letter 'Not so unexpected' (White Admiral No.46), I do not intend to enter into any discussion other than to make the following remarks.
I knew that one day I would upset someone with my woeful inadequacies. Jon Nicholls, one of the Society's erudite Moth Recorders, finds fault with the fact that I was visited by a most unexpected moth, Ypsolopha mucronella, and the fact that the only records I could find for it were in Morley's Final Catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Suffolk (1937). He goes on to make mention of my being unaware of the existence of records held by the Suffolk Biological Records Centre. A Sicklesmere Garden only purports to be a series of ramblings by a very inexperienced moth recorder and, as the the title indicates, only relates to the recordings in my home garden; any comments relate to Sicklesmere and to nowhere else. I still maintain that Ypsolopha mucronel1a was a most unexpected moth for this site. I have never previously recorded it at this location, and on this point alone I feel vindicated. The Suffolk Moth Group issued 'A Checklist of the Moths of Suffolk', Issue 2, in March 2000. In that publication, Ypsolopha mucronella is shown as being a local moth only recorded in 1 tetrad square in Suffolk. As there are 1088 tetrads in the County I fail to see how anyone can take exception to my remarks about this moth being an unexpected record. My remarks relating to Morley's Final Catalogue and the only records I could find should have been more explicit and included records from my collection of Suffolk Transactions. I am eternally grateful to Jon for informing me of the existence of the SBRC, I often wondered what became of my records! I conclude this part of my ramblings with the fact that 'A Sicklesmere Garden' is not meant to be a scientific treatise on moths, but simply a series of notes showing the records from this site. If I had meant it to be a scientific discourse it would, of course, have been submitted it to the Transacations. I do not profess a detailed knowledge of moths and I am sorry if I have offended our learned lepidopterist.
So beware reader if in future you wish to take up the pen, remember this is a Sicklesmere Garden and any comments relate to Sicklesmere and to nowhere else in Suffolk.
Stan Dumican
Anglezarke, Sicklesmere, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP3O 0TJ England