Uknown caterpillar and pupa - help with ID please

[traplican]

I just have found a caterpillar and pupa between my photos now. Can anybody help me with identification, please? These photos were snapped on Jnune 21, 2001. The caterpillar eated the wild hop as foodplant.


Pict. 1 - the pupa


Pict. 2 - the caterpillar

[Mikhail]

Possibly Viminia (Acronicta) auricoma, known to us Brits as the Scarce Dagger. Not certain though.

Misha

[traplican]

Thank you, Misha, it looks so. There is another photo of catepilar of some undetermined species (probably some burnet - Zygaena sp., most probably Zygaena filipendulae). Is it posible to determine it to the species? Here is the checklist of the Czech republic:

[Padfield]

Here is the checklist of the Czech republic...

That would be a Czechlist, presumably.

It's a very useful site - thanks for the link.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

That would be a Czechlist, presumably.

Very good - definitely put a smile on my face

Cheers,

- Pete

[traplican]

Another usable site is here. Zygaena filipendulae is here and a photo of its larva here:


But in this site the English names mismatched: Six-spot Burnet is named "Six-spot Blue" and the names of both Zygaena loti and Zygaena angelicae are assigned as "Slender Scotch Burnet". How is it correctly?

In addition, Holly Blue is named as Lorquins Blue.

[Padfield]

Hi Traplican,

I don't know the status of Z. angelicae, as it's not listed in my British sources (or on UK Moths). But Z. loti is given as the slender Scotch burnet. The idea of a 'correct' English name is strained, and I don't like it when authors try to standardise them and force the same names on all of us. Nevertheless, it is useful to know which names are used for which species and it doesn't help when they get all mixed up!

'Lorquin's blue' normally refers to Cupido lorquinii and I've never heard the name applied to Celastrina argiolus . Since this latter species was named by Linnaeus, I suspect this is simply an error.

Guy

[traplican]

I have another photo of an undetermined lycenid from the same trip:

Can anybody accomplish the determination based on this picture?

traplican

[Pete Eeles]

I'll stick my neck out and suggest a female Mazarine Blue (semiargus).

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I agree - that is by far the most likely. The wing shape and texture are perfect, and the weak discoidal spot is common in semiargus.

There are no suitable anomalous blues in the region (they have a slightly different wing shape anyway) and it doesn't look like Cupido, so semiargus is definitely the percentage option for me!

Guy

[traplican]

Thanks, Pete and Guy!

I have initially pondered on the female of Aricia eumedon (Geranium Argus) or Aricia artaxerxes (Mountain Argus). I have given thought to Polyommatus admetus (Anomalous Blue), too, but it would be a rarity.

Cupido is excluded with regards to its size.

Do you exclude Aricia (eumedon and artaxerxes)?

[Padfield]

I would argue against eumedon and artaxerxes, though I wouldn't formally exclude them.

Even when worn, eumedon typically has a 'burnished' look about it. This is a very worn female - you can see what I mean:



Here is another female deterring an amorous male:



Your butterfly entirely lacks this texture and has the matt feel of a worn semiargus.

My main objection to artaxerxes is also the jizz (colour, texture, wing shape), though I also think you would see something of the chequered fringe (and a stronger discoidal spot) in that species. Normally eumedon also has a semi-chequered fringe, but it is not always evident in worn specicmens.

Guy

[traplican]

Thanks, I shell specify it as Cyaniris semiargus in my evidence.

BTW, I had found a male of Cyaniris semiargus on the same place before (on May 23 2009)


traplican

[Padfield]

That last female eumedon I showed was obviously being hassled while she was laying and has a tummyfull of eggs. I dug out the original to see if it showed them more closely but unfortunately that was already a heavy crop so there's not that much more detail.



The eggs are bright green when laid:




Guy

[traplican]

Thanks Guy. I already have some shots of Geranium Argus, but all with the backside of wings:
1.
Aricia eumedon, July 07 2008, the Meadow Geranium grow in the side ditch

2.
3.
4.
Aricia eumedon, female, July 16 2009, the Meadow Geranium grow in the side ditch

5.
6.
Aricia eumedon, male, July 21 2009, the Meadow Geranium grow on the humid humous soil


I have another uncertainly determined butterfly:
7.
8.
9.
Is it the Lycaena hippothoe or L. aciphron? I preliminary consider it to be Lycaena hippothoe .

[traplican]

The last L. hippothoe or alciphron snapped on August 13th, 2009, on the meadow together with lots of Aricia agestis.

[Padfield]

I would say without hesitation that's hippothoe. If so, you will have seen bistort in the meadow. The only reservation I have is that I've only ever seen alciphron gordius myself, and so haven't acquired the jizz for the nominate subspecies yet. The gordius female shows a much more staggered line of pd spots on the forewing upperside, and the marginal area of the forewing underside is different (with dark branding). She is also a different shape - something I believe she shares with the nominate subspecices.

Guy

[traplican]

Guy, can you confirm, that the butterfly on the pictures 5. and 6. above ("Aricia eumedon, male, July 21 2009, the Meadow Geranium grow on the humid humous soil") is really Eumedonia eumedon?

Here are all photos of this specimen:
http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 721008.jpg
http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 721009.jpg
http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 721009.jpg
http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 721028.jpg
http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 721032.jpg

and here is a video of one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08hCrKg7zI

Thanks,

traplican

[Padfield]

I can see why you hesitate, but yes, I'm pretty sure that's eumedon. The video is most conclusive - from some angles the white streak is clearly visible and has just the right shape and extent. All the other markings are perfect.

Guy

[traplican]

Thank you very much!