More from the Pyrenees - Fritillaries

[Robin]

I've finally got round to following Roger's recommendation from last year in checking that I have got all my "Heath" Fritillaries correctly identified.
So for starters I think that these two are Heaths:

5421.jpg (161.69 KiB) Viewed 842 times

5518.jpg (120.03 KiB) Viewed 842 times

After that I'm not so sure now. The next two images are of the same butterfly. The ups looks good for a Heath but the uns doesn't look right. What do you think?

5949.jpg (169.46 KiB) Viewed 842 times

5940.jpg (216.94 KiB) Viewed 842 times

Finally two at possibly the extremes of Heath variation...or are they something else?

5431.jpg (176.47 KiB) Viewed 841 times

5990.jpg (197.39 KiB) Viewed 841 times

Of course, I'll be happy if one or two of these aren't Heaths.

Thanks,

Robin

[Padfield]

For your first four pictures, I'd go for false heath fritillary, Melitaea diamina. This is far more problematic in the Pyrenees than in the Alps because there are several forms that lack the extensive dark on the upperside hindwing. Your second and third pictures are classic vernetensis - the high Pyrenean form of the butterfly. In my experience, this exists in some kind of altitudinal cline with more typical Alpine specimens, but I've seen individuals of both forms coexisting at middle altitudes. The fifth one strikes me as being a male heath fritillary. The last is a strange individual but I'd probably go for false heath again. I'm going to dig out some of my own pictures and compare them now!

Guy

[Padfield]

Here are a few for comparison - though nothing like the quality of your pictures!

Firstly, typical false heath from the Alps:



Clearly quite different from this one from the Pyrenees:



The undersides are different too. This is from the Alps:



And this the Pyrenees (the false heath is the insect on the left, trying to have its way with a marsh fritillary!!):



A clue with the Pyrenean ones is that the postdiscal/submarginal spots on the upperside forewing are predominantly round - almost like pale circles in the dark. In heath fritillaries these spots are not round. These heath fritillaries are from the Pyrenees:



Let's see if others agree with me... It is a difficult group, especially in new areas, because of the huge amount of variation within each species geographically.

Guy

[Paul]

Apart from the fifth one, which I wonder if could be false heath as well, (though Meadow crossed my mind), I think Guy is right... here are some Pyrenean False Heaths from last year.. unless these are wrong of course !!

[Padfield]

For the fifth one I agree diamina is still a possibility. My experience of male parthenoides (meadow fritillary) in the Pyrenees is that they have a much less well-marked upf. Here is a pretty rubbish picture of one from 2008:



I think that is typical.

Guy

[Padfield]

PS - Paul, your pictures remind me of how difficult Mellicta/Melitaea is in the Pyrenees!! I am quite prepared to believe your IDs are right but how different they all are!! They rather spoil my 'round spot' theory, which works well in the Val d'Aran...

Guy

[Paul]

I was just going on Lafranchis' dumbells, which are quite clear, .. yep, Meadow wasn't really a serious offering, and I am really out of my league!!!

[Robin]

Guy & Paul,
Thanks for your expert input and quick response. I think I'm getting it now. Lets see....based on dumbells, this is a False Heath:

False Heath Fritillary (Lac d'Estaing 01-07-08)-5602.jpg (61.96 KiB) Viewed 733 times

and this is a Heath:

Heath Fritillary (Lac d'Estaing 09-07-08)-5946.jpg (71.17 KiB) Viewed 733 times

Having said that, they both seem to have roundish spots on one forewing and squarish (?) spots on the other

Still, I am happy that I was wrong as that adds one to my species count.

Robin

[Paul]

I wish I knew enough to be confident!!! ( for what it's worth, that's how I'd have labelled them..... then I'd ask Guy!!! )

[Padfield]

Don't take my word for it - really! - but I can't see heath fritillary in that second butterfly. I know the reason, but I don't know if my reason is right - more research needed... The thing is, it's a female, and female heath frit has a rather distinctive colour scheme, having some rich tones on the hindwing in particular and generally appearing a little two-tone (but not a lot, in distinction from female Provençal fritillary). It looks like a female vernetensis - and it's bang in the right place for this.

I'll check out Lafranchis and see what he means about the dumbells - for some reason I've missed that point. They talk about dumbells for Provençal, and that is a little dodgy, because Provençal sometimes lacks the dumbell and heath often has it. I hadn't noticed this mentioned for false heath.

The embarrassing thing is that I really should be an expert, living where I do, but Pyrgus and Mellicta still put me to shame...

Guy

[Paul]

Sorry.... "clubs".... it was me that was calling them dumbells!! ... I can't even quote properly!! (hope he doesn't read it)

[Robin]

Oh, I'm really confused now. Lafranchis shows that the Heath has a thickened, prominent lunule in the forewing underside S2 space. He doesn't mention this for False Heath. If that's 100% diagnostic then photos 5490, 5949 and 5518 would all be Heath. This feature is also shown for the Heath in T&L. However; in Lafranchis the lunule is not visible in the False Heath photo. In T&L this feature is not shown for diamina but is shown in vernetensis. In Higgins & Riley the thickened lunule is shown in both diamina and vernetensis.
So on this evidence the thickened lunule is not 100% diagnostic for Heath and I should just shut up and accept what Guy tells me.
Robin

[Padfield]

The thickened lunule is particularly indicated for separating heath from Provençal, though not often useful as this bit of the forewing is frequently hidden from view by the hindwing. Certainly, the lunule is thickened in vernetensis - I've never checked in the nominate form of false heath because this is easy to separate on other grounds.

In practice, I now find the living insects quite characteristic and always have more difficulty being certain from photos. Part of the jizz of vernetensis, I think (because jizz is often hard to pin down), is a certain uniformity in the ground colour and in the shade of the brown overlaying it, giving a different overall impression from the richer colours of heath fritillaries. In the Pyrenees, form celadussa of heath fritillary flies, and this can be very bright, with quite linear markings on the ups - for a long time I had some of them down as Provençal frit in my book, until I got the hang of that butterfly.

I plan to examine the genitals of a few insects this coming summer in the Val - according to Lafranchis (and Matt R, who has tried this in the field) it can be done without any harm to the butterfly. This will confirm (or otherwise) that my present identifications are correct. It is always possible that I have mastered the jizz of the wrong butterflies!! I used to see Provençal frit everywhere until I realised the jizz I had got on it was just for a particular form of celadussa!

Confusion is to be expected - there is so much intraspecific variation in this group that it can be quite baffling when you go to a new area and find completely different forms from the ones you have based your previous field skills on!

Guy

[Robin]

Guy,
Thanks for all your help.
I shouldn't cause you so much trouble this year as we are going on holiday with and expert.
Robin