Hi Paul. Sorry not to have replied earlier. I did see the post but thought (correctly!
) that some of the other
Melitaea fans would give an opinion while I was away from my books. I say that because I've never visited the Picos (I almost went there this year but in the end decided on Arragón) so am not familiar with the forms there.
My first impression, before getting back to those books, is that all these are probably
nevadensis - with the possible exception of the first. As you say,
athalia has been split. If my memory serves me correctly, the Picos, like the Pyrenees, are home to
nevadensis. Some authors seem to recognise
athalia,
nevadensis and
celadussa but I don't think that is the latest thinking. Certainly, 2-7 look very good for this (
nevadensis). In the Pyrenees, form
vernetensis (of
diamina) can be confusing because it lacks the usual dark hindwings of that species. In addition, the underside lacks the distinctive pd black dots. I can't remember if any similar form is found in the Picos but should easily be able to check. Between Oorschot & Coutsis and Leraut there are dozens of individuals illustrated from the full range of all
Melitaea species.
As for 1, I agree it has the general appearance of
parthenoides but my instinct says
nevadensis too. I really wouldn't want you to place undue weight on my opinion. I remember, many years ago now, sending a somewhat similar photo (but with a bit of a dumbell) to Matt Rowlings, Tim Cowles and Tristan Lafranchis, trying to string
deione. No one could say with any confidence but Tristan opined it was
celadussa (as it was then) - for no better reason than that his instinct said that!
The internet - and even, I am forced to admit, Lepidapp - is not infallible because most photographers don't kill butterflies or squeeze their bottoms to confirm identities. The illustrations in Oorschot & Coutsis and Leraut should all be of what they say they are.
Lots of words for not much help
but I will take another look as soon as I get back to CH.
Guy
