I would welcome any suggestions for the IDs of these butterflies, taken last July in the Swiss alps.
Rigi, ~1800m
![Image](http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pyssc/butterflies/u1.jpg)
![Image](http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pyssc/butterflies/u2.jpg)
Melchsee Frutt, ~1900m [Marsh Fritillary?]
![Image](http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pyssc/butterflies/u3.jpg)
![Image](http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pyssc/butterflies/u4.jpg)
Melchsee Frutt
![Image](http://www.bath.ac.uk/~pyssc/butterflies/u6.jpg)
Thanks.
Simon C
Yes it is. One of the advances from release to release is the compression technology used, so the reduction in file size wouldn't surprise me at all.Matsukaze wrote:Hi Pete,
I have noticed that when I edit the jpegs the edited pictures take up far less space on the new version than they used to - is this to be expected?
Hi Roger,Regarding, the long-ago UK distribution of the mazarine blue, being less (but not much less) than 150 years old, I’ve never seen it in the UK, but it’s fascinating to read the old books from the 1800s. I have a copy of the 1893 work “British Butterflies” by W S Coleman, and it says of the mazarine blue “…was frequently met with some years ago, it has lately become one of our rarest species…”. Strange to think that even in 1893 they were looking back on the good old days.
There is another species this could usefully be done with. I expect property developers get annoyed enough to find they have a rare butterfly on the brownfield sites they intend on developing, but I can't imagine that finding out the beast in question is called Dingy Skipper helps matters...The marsh fritillary was then called the greasy fritillary, so maybe renaming it was not such a bad move…
Hi Pete,One of the advances from release to release is the compression technology used, so the reduction in file size wouldn't surprise me at all.