No interactions present.
I'm guessing you don't regard Remm's Rustic as a good species then.
I'd love it to be a Remm's Rustic! What's the story on that?
Just read WTL on it. I have no personal opinion on its validity whatsoever, what is the current expert analysis? WTL says one report suggested 3 individuals out of a sample of 600 Mesapamea while other surveys failed to find any.
Also that it might be a just a naturally occuring hybrid or variant.
If my scientific ID is inadequate feel free to revise it. I didnt realise it had to be inclusive of Remms.
as very sceptical about the validity of the species and I don't thnk Skinner includes it at all.
Most people I have spoken to seem to regard it as just a minor genitalic variation within one of the other two species.
I guess if I ever got one that was referable to Remm's (and I would need to learn to do gen det to do this myself) I would record it as such as it is always easier to merge the records if it proves not to be a real species.
Waring & Townsend, as you have seen, note the dubious nature of Remm's Rustic, but include a description for compatibility with the British checklist. So the agg. includes secalis and didyma, and remmi if that is a valid species. iSpot will accept "Mesapamea secalis agg". so you don't need to get into any controversy.
Thanks for your response. So Mesapamea secalis agg. is the right option then. That will cover all eventualities?
I had a look at the NI list there and the Rep. of Ireland list also and neither as yet take remmi into account but this may change in time if verified remmi are recorded, maybe they just havent been detected yet.
Lat/Lng: 54.4113, -6.7109
OS grid ref: NV944119