A review of the solitary bees (Hymenoptera) of Suffolk

Page 1

1

SUFFOLK SOLITARY BEES

A REVIEW OF THE SOLITARY BEES (HYMENOPTERA) OF SUFFOLK ADRIAN KNOWLES Introduction It is now over 80 years since Claude Morley published a systematic review of his knowledge of the county’s bee fauna (Morley, 1936). Inevitably, there has been a great deal of change since then. Some species have, beyond reasonable doubt, become extinct, either in Suffolk or the UK as a whole, a few species have colonised the county, perhaps fuelled by climate change, and a few mistakes have been made along the way. With the recent publication of a new “field guide” to the bees of Great Britain (Falk, 2015), this group is now becoming more accessible to the curious general naturalist. It therefore seems appropriate to review the change in status of the bees of Suffolk, in the hope that it might assist those beginning to study these fascinating insects. In doing so, it should be remembered that this is a hugely underrecorded group still, so that just because an account below says a species does not occur in the north of the county, for example, it does not mean that this holds true, so a specimen should not be dismissed just because it does not fit the perceived pattern. As Recorder for the Suffolk Naturalists’ Society, I am always happy to check the identity of specimens, to confirm suspicions of an important discovery. This review does not cover the bumblebees, for which see Knowles (2011). It is inevitable that some significant records will have been overlooked during the process of compiling this report. The author welcomes any corrections and additions for scarce species for inclusion within a future update. Data on national distributions and further ecological notes for most species can be seen on the website of the Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society (BWARS) (www.bwars.com). Taxonomy Claude Morley’s first attempt at reviewing the Suffolk bee fauna was “The Hymenoptera of Suffolk” (Morley, 1899). In the introduction he comments on the challenge of compiling such a catalogue and states that, “the only difficulty that might have arisen is in synonymy; this, however, has already been worked out by my predecessors, and there is now a-days no confusion possible upon that score”. One would hope that Morley was pragmatic enough to assume that, over one hundred years on from when those words were written, time would have marched on and revisions to nomenclature would have taken place, but even he might have been bewildered by the changes to aculeate taxonomy in the intervening period. Even within Morley’s time many species underwent taxonomic revision and nomenclature change and these are occasionally reflected in the synonymy of his main later work (Morley, 1936). Since 1936, all possible events have probably occurred: one species has been split into two new species (and possibly back again); senior synonyms have replaced their juniors; nomenclature changes have been made erroneously and later reverted back again and every now and then the great man just got it wrong! For one or two species, Morley’s printed nomenclature still remains uncertain and, in the absence of museum specimens, will have to remain so for the time being. Those of you who wish to view Morley’s 1936 paper can view it via the website issuu.com/suffolknaturalistssociety/docs/tsns3_2_e. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 53 (2017)


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
A review of the solitary bees (Hymenoptera) of Suffolk by Suffolk Naturalists' Society - Issuu