2014 UK Orchids (2 Viewers)

[J Jones]

About 40 Creeping Lady's Tresses in Norfolk at the weekend, mostly just opening up but a few already looking nice.

Cheers,
Josh

 

[Bodhyfryd]

Pale-flowered Northern Marsh

Whilst on Holy island recently we found among Northern Marsh and Early Marsh this unpatterned specimen which puzzled us.

Martin

 

[Harrap's Wild Flowers]

This has been discussed in previous years... and by discussed I mean argued, with much flouncing on both sides

I find it simpler to keep the peace by not posting locations. As you say, a few minutes of Googling can you usually get you the location anyway.

To be honest, I don't think it's the orchid enthusiasts that are likely to be the problem; it's the folks that come in by random internet searching.

I imagine that most orchid enthusiasts will know that uprooted plants are unlikely to survive... and also that they have a copy of your excellent book listing the sites anyway!

Adrian,

I'll try not to flounce too much (though I'm not sure quite what literary flouncing is!).

If this forum is about communicating, then the clearer the communication the better. I prefer not to play guessing games as to what is being discussed. I think that there should be a good reason not to name a site - and if there is a good reason not to name it, then you have to ask yourself why you are mentioning it on this forum, even indirectly, at all?

Conservationists are fighting an uphill battle (especially under the current government) and we are not likely to make new friends if we keep on acting like a Gentleman's Club for those 'in the know'!

The Burnt Orchids at Ladle Hill are a good case. Now that the site has been named (and shamed?) Natural England will get some e-mails from forum members asking what is going on. I don't think Natural England would have paid much attention to a complaint about 'somewhere in Hampshire...', and I don't think anyone not directly involved would have e-mailed them.

The speculation that 'most orchid enthusiasts will know that uprooted plants are unlikely to survive...' is wrong. Many orchids will survive if dug up (we have just re-potted some Common Spotted Orchids that had seeded themselves into some plant pots in the garden!) and for some of those interested in the cultivation of wild orchids, the fact that it is difficult for some species may make it all the more attractive....

Thankfully, however, I think that nowadays wild orchids are seldom stolen from the wild. Indeed, I'll issue a challenge:

Please PM me with details of any instance where a rare orchid has been dug up (and I need good, direct evidence, e.g. plant there one day, gone the next with obvious hole...). And I already know about the Silverdale Lady's-slipper. I know of very few other instances (and I also know that in some case where it has been claimed that a rare orchid was 'stolen', the claim was groundless).

On the other hand, If someone is undertaking 'random internet searches', either they have no real interest and are hardly likely travel any distance to look at a wild orchid, or they are genuine enthusiasts (like you and me) that have not yet cottoned-on to the fact that a lot of interesting info and discussions can be found on ... birdforum.net! They should be welcome - we all started somewhere.

That's my case for being open ... about almost everything. Now my argument for some secrecy!

Orchid enthusiasts ARE a problem. We have just seen a photograph of trampling around an orchid site, and this is not at all uncommon at some sites. I have seen Fen Orchids badly damaged by trampling, and Lesser Butterfly Orchid has now probably gone from one of the last two sites in Norfolk, most likely because year after year the few square metres where they grew were trampled by people looking for them. And am I wrong, but is it now thought that the Chiltern Red Helleborines were not vandalised, but merely trashed by deer after someone forgot to put their cages back on?

I really think that for some of the rarest species (e.g. Red Helleborine), and for some small populations of a few of the scarcer species, innocent but clumsy orchid enthusiasts are potentially a problem. Photographers are on average the worst (and I say that as a plant photographer - but I use a tripod and don't generally lie prone all over the habitat). There are a few (very few) species which I would be extremely reluctant to see details published (or even passed around without knowing something about who they are going to).

But, in the days of the internet, I think that it is too late to worry about that - the horse has bolted - and time to start planning how to manage the situation.

I often wonder, if a Ghost Orchid is found, just how would the site be handled if dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of well-intentioned orchid enthusiasts turned up?

Simon

 

[LizandDave]

Well said Simon. I recently found a new site for Musk and Fly Orchids on the North Kent Downs for which the Kent Recorder confirmed it as not a previously known site. Now if I were in the hush hush camp I would have kept it quiet and most likely the Musk Orchids would be safe from photographers, but not from the landowner or tenant farmer! They could have been ploughed up or sprayed!
I contacted Kent Wildlife Trust and as a direct result of me disclosing this site to them they met with the landowner to manage and protect this site. Who knows, it may become a reserve in time. The feedback given so far is that the landowner is very amenable to protect them.
I think there are far more positives to the future of our wild orchids in being open than there is in being a closed shop. I have met only two very secretive secret squirrel types and I found out later why that was, they both ran their own pay to go orchid tours, so had a financial interest in sites being kept quiet (which is understandable but not a reason for anyone else to follow suit).
Anyway, as you say Simon, the horse bolted several years ago. I researched the net and found most of the sites I needed to visit as anyone now can.
Finally and most importantly, if Joe Public are made to feel involved/interested/educated about wild orchids and their habitats, they may feel more likely to sign the next petition that will arise with the inevitable new housing estate or rail link planned for your area soon!
Dave

 

[LizandDave]

I forgot to say that it's not always people. I witnessed 2 large dogs flatten some Late Spider Orchids in Kent this Summer. Unfortunately they were growing close to a path and these dogs ran all over them and even laid on them. The tattooed shirtless owner and his rather large mate put me off saying anything! I've lost count of Pyramidals that are flattened by dogs and their walkers.
Anyway, enough said, off to bed!
Dave

 

[blue4you]

Keen to see creeping lady`s-tresses at Holkham this month, i know it`s a vast area, but has anybody any precise directions. Thanks PM me if you can, or if possible details of where to find Lesser Butterfly at Beeston Bog.

 

[gpg]

Pewsey Downs

Coincidentally I was at another late-flowering Burnt site on Wednesday, also on an ancient hill fort, but this time in Wiltshire (also managed by NE), this one currently has a herd of bulls/bullocks trampling around on it... :C

The stock are on Pewsey downs throughout the year as part of the management plan which maintains the quality of this exceptional chalk downland site & created the conditions which enabled orchids to thrive here in the first place.

The site is both large & robust & without this grazing regime there would be a rapid reduction in species diversity & one of the first plants to disappear would be Neotinea ustulata.

There have been other comments about stock being present at the same time as orchids are flowering, but it needs to be borne in mind that the management of these sites is not directed towards a single species, but towards the maintenance of the whole & overgrazing is not in itself damaging in the long term; quite the opposite.

 

[toby]

Keen to see creeping lady`s-tresses at Holkham this month, i know it`s a vast area, but has anybody any precise directions. Thanks PM me if you can, or if possible details of where to find Lesser Butterfly at Beeston Bog.

I would be keen to be PM'd on this also. Thx. - Toby

 

[James Emerson]

I think there was only one flowering spike of Lesser Butterfly Orchid at Beeston this year and it has since been eaten!

I can't help with Creeping Lady's Tresses at Holkham, I used to see them at Holt CP, but they are no longer present in the areas I knew of.

Keen to see creeping lady`s-tresses at Holkham this month, i know it`s a vast area, but has anybody any precise directions. Thanks PM me if you can, or if possible details of where to find Lesser Butterfly at Beeston Bog.

 

[maslyni]

Whilst at a conference on the outskirts of Bolton this week I was pleasantly surprised to find a good stand of Broad-leaved Helleborines growing along the side of the main road at the edge of the retail park! Unfortunately only had my phone with me.

These are E. dunensis. Do you have more pics and site details?

Mark

 

[rmielcarek]

If this forum is about communicating, then the clearer the communication the better. I prefer not to play guessing games as to what is being discussed. I think that there should be a good reason not to name a site - and if there is a good reason not to name it, then you have to ask yourself why you are mentioning it on this forum, even indirectly, at all?

The Burnt Orchids at Ladle Hill are a good case. Now that the site has been named (and shamed?) Natural England will get some e-mails from forum members asking what is going on. I don't think Natural England would have paid much attention to a complaint about 'somewhere in Hampshire...', and I don't think anyone not directly involved would have e-mailed them.

Simon

Are we sure the sheep are actually the cause of the problem at Ladle Hill? I've heard, second hand, that some of the locals feel it is rabbits that have nibbled the plants. People will look silly if they start complaining about something, without having even visited, and then discover it is the normal management regime at the site.

Rich M

 

[rmielcarek]

Well said Simon. I recently found a new site for Musk and Fly Orchids on the North Kent Downs for which the Kent Recorder confirmed it as not a previously known site. Now if I were in the hush hush camp I would have kept it quiet and most likely the Musk Orchids would be safe from photographers, but not from the landowner or tenant farmer! They could have been ploughed up or sprayed!
I contacted Kent Wildlife Trust and as a direct result of me disclosing this site to them they met with the landowner to manage and protect this site. Who knows, it may become a reserve in time. The feedback given so far is that the landowner is very amenable to protect them.
I think there are far more positives to the future of our wild orchids in being open than there is in being a closed shop. I have met only two very secretive secret squirrel types and I found out later why that was, they both ran their own pay to go orchid tours, so had a financial interest in sites being kept quiet (which is understandable but not a reason for anyone else to follow suit).
Anyway, as you say Simon, the horse bolted several years ago. I researched the net and found most of the sites I needed to visit as anyone now can.
Finally and most importantly, if Joe Public are made to feel involved/interested/educated about wild orchids and their habitats, they may feel more likely to sign the next petition that will arise with the inevitable new housing estate or rail link planned for your area soon!
Dave

Maybe I'm naive but I'd assumed that just about everyone who posts on here automatically passes all their orchid records to the local plant recorder?

Clearly trampling by orchid enthusiasts is a real problem. Some tips for twitching rare orchids;

1. look for the heavily trampled area
2. just because you've found 'the' plant don't assume it's the only one. You'll often find another close by, that is if someone hasn't sat on it first.

Rich M

 

[blue4you]

I think there was only one flowering spike of Lesser Butterfly Orchid at Beeston this year and it has since been eaten!

I can't help with Creeping Lady's Tresses at Holkham, I used to see them at Holt CP, but they are no longer present in the areas I knew of.

Thanks for your info regarding beeston, it`s little wonder i couldn`t find any yesterday

 

[Chris Hind]

On the Lindisfarne Helleborines most of the buds are now open on the spikes I saw today.

I found only a single spike of Tyne Hell. at Beltingham, just coming into flower - never seen more than a handful at this site.
The THs at Alston station numbered 24+ spikes.
Good numbers of these at Williamston - 50+ well scattered and in nice condition.
Chris

 

[rmielcarek]

Broad-leaved Helleborines

Local BLH are just starting to come into flower; the pale plant was growing out in the open, the darker flowered one under a few isolated bushes.

Rich M

 

[Bodhyfryd]

Last year I posted about finding some helleborines unexpectedly, and though they were going over the young hunter pointed out that they looked like Dune Helleborines.
They are just starting to flower now, and do show all the signs of being Dune Helleborines - crumbling pollinia, absent viscidium, untwisted ovary with pedicle violet at the base, and leaves in two rows. They are growing in the scrub and other vegetation either side of a wide footpath that runs between a mere (reclaimed in last 30 years) and pine woods (over-run with bracken). This is a previously unknown location for this species.

We went to see this small colony today and (without pretending to be experts) are of the same opinion as Muba. We examined the plants quite closely and the factors which led us to conclude that they were E.dunensis were (based largely on Harrap's key) :

1. The leaves were alternately positioned up the stem, broadly in two ranks.
2. The leaves were in the main held in a stiffish 45-ish degree angle.
3. The flowers were smaller than BLH and consistently of the same colouration.
4. The ovaries were NOT twisted.
5. The lip was recurved in the flowers which had already opened well.
6. There was some evidence of crumbling pollinia.

In addition we saw no indication of any BLH in the vicinity.
Our conclusion was strengthened by comparison with the Alyn Waters population which we had visited yesterday; so we were reasonably well-placed to make a comparison.

I have attached photos from today and one from yesterday - interested to see if anyone can spot the difference!

If this conclusion, which Mike has already tentatively supported, proves correct then it is a very nice find by Muba - a new record for a still not very common species. If it is not, then I think they should be called E.helleborine mubensis , as they do not seem to "key down" very well to the typical BLH characteristics. I suppose that to be really confident one would welcome the opinion of a Prof Richards or a Prof Bateman. Simon (Harrap)'s view would also be appreciated.

Martin and Elaine

PS Since posting this, Rich's BLH posting has just appeared, and makes an interesting comparison.

 

[Gravyboy]

I visited Noar Hill on Sunday. Still plenty of musks and pyramidals, a few frogs and several knapweed broomrape. The common twayblades are looking a bit tired, the common spotted even more so and the common fragrant virtually asleep with just a few washed-out florets on the top of the spikes.

 

[maslyni]

We went to see this small colony today and (without pretending to be experts) are of the same opinion as Muba. We examined the plants quite closely and the factors which led us to conclude that they were E.dunensis were (based largely on Harrap's key) :

1. The leaves were alternately positioned up the stem, broadly in two ranks.
2. The leaves were in the main held in a stiffish 45-ish degree angle.
3. The flowers were smaller than BLH and consistently of the same colouration.
4. The ovaries were NOT twisted.
5. The lip was recurved in the flowers which had already opened well.
6. There was some evidence of crumbling pollinia.

In addition we saw no indication of any BLH in the vicinity.
Our conclusion was strengthened by comparison with the Alyn Waters population which we had visited yesterday; so we were reasonably well-placed to make a comparison.

I have attached photos from today and one from yesterday - interested to see if anyone can spot the difference!

If this conclusion, which Mike has already tentatively supported, proves correct then it is a very nice find by Muba - a new record for a still not very common species. If it is not, then I think they should be called E.helleborine mubensis , as they do not seem to "key down" very well to the typical BLH characteristics. I suppose that to be really confident one would welcome the opinion of a Prof Richards or a Prof Bateman. Simon (Harrap)'s view would also be appreciated.

Martin and Elaine

PS Since posting this, Rich's BLH posting has just appeared, and makes an interesting comparison.

Clearly E. dunensis. This taxon appears to be extending it's range of late with new sites being discovered all the time and not only in the west of the country where it certainly seems to be on the move. Often confused with E. hellebore it really is not a difficult species

Up until last year I had seen, measured, photographed and generally scrutinised with great scrute all known English & Welsh populations as part of a long term study of the species. Now I can't keep up!

Where are these plants please? Pm if necessary

Thanks

Mark

 

[IJS]

Simon I value your openess and love your books but I hold the opposite view regarding how open we should be on forums such as this. You have only just joined this group but are already trying to alter how it runs. Its been very successful in helping its users in discovering like minded people, helped them to find orchids they are seeking and fulfilling their love for these fabulous plants, all without overly compromising a sites name. As you rightly state its easy to find sites by a bit of google (although not always!) but that is not the same as talking directly with someone who cares, can give you detailed instructions and share the fun of finding something you've been seeking from a day to a lifetime. That's communication. I feel that everyone on here shares the same values and thats worth a lot more that just glibly saying a site name just for the hell of it in the name of 'openness'.

I'm not surprised by your desire to be open with sites. There is justification for this, but only if this information gets to people who are able to help protect the site. That does mean we should be informing our local wildlife trust, local councils, and the local plant recorders. This is very valuable information for them to know. That's where site location should be fully revealed and documented, not on an open forum.

If you care to look back through this and other forums around the net, you will find site names. Even Ladle Hill has been named on here before you announced you've 'found it via Google'. I personally won't give site names on the forum as I prefer caution. Once location information is revealed on the net it will never be deleted. If users really want to know where I've been they can ask via a PM. Not a big deal in my opinion. I have frequently asked others and received positive replies which I have been very appreciative for. This personal communication all helps to generate a community feel to this forum.

As you rightly state photographers cause lots of damage to and around plants, especially to any seedling that maybe trying to grow. Those who are simply there for the image probably scour sites such as this one to get site names. By reducing the prevalence of such information we are all playing a small part in plant protection which, hopefully, will help the plants survive for the enjoyment of future generations.

There is no right nor wrong in this debate, some will think you are right and others will support me. Either way this forum has provided me with great enjoyment from both seeing what others have found, friends made and information received. Long may it continue.

Regards
Ian

Adrian,


If this forum is about communicating, then the clearer the communication the better. I prefer not to play guessing games as to what is being discussed. I think that there should be a good reason not to name a site - and if there is a good reason not to name it, then you have to ask yourself why you are mentioning it on this forum, even indirectly, at all?

Conservationists are fighting an uphill battle (especially under the current government) and we are not likely to make new friends if we keep on acting like a Gentleman's Club for those 'in the know'!

The Burnt Orchids at Ladle Hill are a good case. Now that the site has been named (and shamed?) Natural England will get some e-mails from forum members asking what is going on. I don't think Natural England would have paid much attention to a complaint about 'somewhere in Hampshire...', and I don't think anyone not directly involved would have e-mailed them.

The speculation that 'most orchid enthusiasts will know that uprooted plants are unlikely to survive...' is wrong. Many orchids will survive if dug up (we have just re-potted some Common Spotted Orchids that had seeded themselves into some plant pots in the garden!) and for some of those interested in the cultivation of wild orchids, the fact that it is difficult for some species may make it all the more attractive....

Thankfully, however, I think that nowadays wild orchids are seldom stolen from the wild. Indeed, I'll issue a challenge:

Please PM me with details of any instance where a rare orchid has been dug up (and I need good, direct evidence, e.g. plant there one day, gone the next with obvious hole...). And I already know about the Silverdale Lady's-slipper. I know of very few other instances (and I also know that in some case where it has been claimed that a rare orchid was 'stolen', the claim was groundless).

On the other hand, If someone is undertaking 'random internet searches', either they have no real interest and are hardly likely travel any distance to look at a wild orchid, or they are genuine enthusiasts (like you and me) that have not yet cottoned-on to the fact that a lot of interesting info and discussions can be found on ... birdforum.net! They should be welcome - we all started somewhere.

That's my case for being open ... about almost everything. Now my argument for some secrecy!

Orchid enthusiasts ARE a problem. We have just seen a photograph of trampling around an orchid site, and this is not at all uncommon at some sites. I have seen Fen Orchids badly damaged by trampling, and Lesser Butterfly Orchid has now probably gone from one of the last two sites in Norfolk, most likely because year after year the few square metres where they grew were trampled by people looking for them. And am I wrong, but is it now thought that the Chiltern Red Helleborines were not vandalised, but merely trashed by deer after someone forgot to put their cages back on?

I really think that for some of the rarest species (e.g. Red Helleborine), and for some small populations of a few of the scarcer species, innocent but clumsy orchid enthusiasts are potentially a problem. Photographers are on average the worst (and I say that as a plant photographer - but I use a tripod and don't generally lie prone all over the habitat). There are a few (very few) species which I would be extremely reluctant to see details published (or even passed around without knowing something about who they are going to).

But, in the days of the internet, I think that it is too late to worry about that - the horse has bolted - and time to start planning how to manage the situation.

I often wonder, if a Ghost Orchid is found, just how would the site be handled if dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of well-intentioned orchid enthusiasts turned up?

Simon

 

[Bodhyfryd]

Clearly E. dunensis. This taxon appears to be extending it's range of late with new sites being discovered all the time and not only in the west of the country where it certainly seems to be on the move. Often confused with E. hellebore it really is not a difficult species

Up until last year I had seen, measured, photographed and generally scrutinised with great scrute all known English & Welsh populations as part of a long term study of the species. Now I can't keep up!

Where are these plants please? Pm if necessary

Thanks

Mark

Thanks for your comments, Mark. There seems to be a growing consensus that this is a new location, which is good news especially as the rest of the site is largely given over to bracken, fern and bramble, as I discovered to my cost when I went searching for possible other plants and got hopelessly lost for a time!

I have PMd you with more specific details of the location.

Martin