![Image](http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x298/xopher78/IDLargeSkipper2.jpg)
Large Skipper?
![Image](http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x298/xopher78/IDLargeSkipper.jpg)
Kind Regards, Chris
I'm primarily going by the angle of the sex brand on the forewing, which you can just make out given the back lighting. This is parallel with the leading edge of the forewing in Essex, and at an angle in Small.Trev Sawyer wrote:I agree with Pete about it not being a Large Skipper, but this photo does throw up a question of "how much" black there is on an Essex Skipper's antennae? This still confuses me slightly. Is your identification based on knowing the answer to that Pete, or is it the location and timing which makes you say "Small"? I believe Essex Skippers are spreading North anyway? Maybe you and the other skipper experts on this site can help
Cheers,
Trev
I'll stick my neck out here - but the antenna closest to the camera doesn't look as if it's been "dipped"Trev Sawyer wrote:So Martin,
Looking at the top photo... doesn't that look like it has black tipped antennae?
Trev
My experience is that the topsides are also black to some extent - which is why the look like they've been dipped in paintSussex Kipper wrote:... so that the pale topside looks like it's the underside ...
Thanks for that Guy (and others). I stand correctedpadfield wrote:This won't be the last small/Essex debate on these pages this summer! Without any claim to special authority, I should say I had no doubt at all about this butterfly from the first - it is Essex. I agree with Pete that when the upperside is visible this is conclusive in males, because the sex brand is quite different , crossing the vein near the base in small and being parallel (and short) in Essex. But I don't think that shadow is the sex brand.
A fresh male small skipper shows obvious buff. This wears off with age and is less bright in females. Also, the antennae of some small skippers can be melanic (not uncommon) - when that is the case the darkness usually extends further down the antenna and is not neatly delineated as in Essex.
My theory, which I've mentioned before, is that if in doubt you should observe carefully first without photographing and take field notes! The living butterfly offers far more different angles and views than a handful of pictures and very rarely leaves any possibility of confusion. For some reason photos can be far harder to identify than the creature in the flesh.
Guy
Very true Guy, nothing can replace field craft - a skill that collectors the of old were on the whole very skilled in. it is very important that us latter-day collectors (of photographs) don't loose the ability to simply watch and observe butterflies in, and interacting with, their environment (and of course record our observations). That is what will separate the true enthusiast/lepidopterist from the mere twitcher.padfield wrote:My theory, which I've mentioned before, is that if in doubt you should observe carefully first without photographing and take field notes! The living butterfly offers far more different angles and views than a handful of pictures and very rarely leaves any possibility of confusion. For some reason photos can be far harder to identify than the creature in the flesh.