Swiss ID's Part 4

[Paul Wetton]

Here's the last photos that are playing on my mind.

This first Pyrgus was pretty small and I think was malvae.

1.

malvae?

This next photo is poor but was taken at a site you visited with UKButs folks near a vineyard and I suspected an old female deione or rather hoped. This is the only photo but I have some video.

2.

deione

This white appeared not to have a fork in vein 7 but didn't have much grey scaling on the uns hindwing and much of the scaling was below the cell so not sure here.

3.

mannii?

Back to the ringlets near Guys house. I thought this was Arran Brown but it may have been Large Ringlet.

4.

ligea?

After my Part 3 photos I hope these fellas may be eriphyle or at least one of them.

5.

eriphyle

6.

eriphyle

7.

eriphyle

The next 2 photos are of one of those anomalies the weirdo heath or flase heath. I think the jury is still out on these but I reckon (my humble opinion) this is a female (Weirdo) False Heath going by the submarginal black lines that sort of wave inwards as on a normal diamina.

8.

diamina?

9.

diamina?

The next is the mystery ringlet seen by UKButs also. I still think it's a female Mnestra's with abnormally large spots but I'm probably wrong. It does look like some I filmed though.

10.

hhmmmmm?

These next shots were taken on our last day and I think the first 4 are all Marbled Ringlet. These were all at over 2200 metres. One very light and one quite dark. Ups and uns of both. Here's the light version

11.

montana?

12.

montana?

...and here's the dark version.

13.

montana?

14.

montana?

Finally we only have an ups of this one and I hope it could be a Sooty Ringlet and I do remember the uns being pretty dark when it flew away up the hillside never to be seen again.
I wondered if it was form oreas but I've not seen a picture of this in the books with wings akimbo like this one. (please please please) Probably not.

15.

pluto? f. oreas

Thanks for looking and helping out with these ID's.

[Paul Wetton]

Any thoughts anyone?

[Padfield]

Any thoughts anyone?

Just seen these. I'll kick in with the easy, quick ones, as I've got a lot of work to do, and do any harder ones later.

1 I suspect malvae too.

2 Pass for the moment - the key features are obscured here.

3 Strangely, I'll pass on that one too - I'd like to compare it with my photos of mannii female. It doesn't look right for several reasons but might be one.

4 That probably is Arran brown - we have some with very underdeveloped pupils around my part of Switzerland. An uns would be definitive.

5, 6, 7 I'd agree - eriphyle!!

8, 9 I actually think that is athalia.

10 It doesn't look like it, I agree, but that is montana. If you remember, I photographed the upperside and was baffled by how small it was for montana and how the underside didn't fit. But after a lot of umming and ahhing I tentatively came down for montana anyway. I sent the pictures to Matt and Tim, who agreed.


(upperside of same butterfly)


(uns of same butterfly)

11 tyndarus

12 montana(female)

13 montana

14 montana

15 mnestra (I think)

Guy

[Roger Gibbons]

Some thoughts offered for consideration:

1. agree malvae, with confidence.

3. the apical mark looks about right for mannii in terms of thickness of the shoulder and extent down the margin. I can’t see a fork, but then I didn’t last time. I usually shoot in RAW so can blow up and see the detail level at 3500 pixel width so I can always see this (or not) on my own photos. Maybe Paul could provide a blow up of the apex as before.

4. agree ligea. The chequered fringes limit it to ligea or euryale and while the latter is extremely variable across the Alpes, I have never seen one with ocelli this well developed.

8 and 9. agree athalia.

10. weird! I would never have said montana from the underside alone (aethiops perhaps) but the upperside precludes this. I have to say I have never seen any montana that looks anything like this. I have seen small montana in the Alpes Maritimes.

11. this looks like a female montana to me.

15. this looks like a female tyndarus to me. It has no ocelli but the brassy sheen, wing shape and the characteristic shape of the red post-discal band strongly suggest tyndarus to me. I have seen tyndarus with minute ocelli – here is a photo of one with very reduced ocelli.

But bear in mind I don’t live in Switzerland and local knowledge is usually the key to accurate ID.

[Padfield]

Thanks Roger.

I'll play the Swiss card to trump you with 11 - that is absolutely classic female tyndarus and montana lacks the inner (basal) band.

On the other hand, I agree I might have been hasty with mnestra for the last one. It does indeed have the feel of tyndarus, despite having no spots, and the chequered fringe is also relevant.

This is a local mnestra for comparison:



Guy

[Paul Wetton]

Thanks once again for some quick and thoughtful answers gents.

11. and 12. are the same butterfly. I thought montana but it was very pale like tyndarus.

15. looks nothing like anything else I saw on the whole holiday but with the amount of variation I would suspect it could be a female tyndarus or mnestra's. Most or all of the female mnestra's I saw had spots on the ups forewing and I seem to remember this butterfly having a dark underside but without a photo I can't be sure.

Here's a blow up of the white vein as before. It's not very sharp but looks un-forked to me.

Vein on white

Guy I'll post some video of the Fritillary and you may be able to get a better look at it from that but it was fairly tatty.

Thanks

[Padfield]

Mmm... If 11 and 12 are really uns and ups of the same butterfly, then obviously I'm wrong and Roger is right. Are you sure about that, Paul?

Guy

[Paul Wetton]

These are photos of the typical females we were seeing all over the place.

Swiss Brassy tyndarus were mainly like this one:

tyndarus female I think

and the female mnestra's were like this:

mnestra female I think

On saying this I'm still not dounting either of your suggestions for no. 15.

[Paul Wetton]

Hello Guy

This is the only shot we have that shows ups with a tiny bit of uns but it was definitely the same beast. As you can imagine I initially thought I'd found something different.

montana?

[Roger Gibbons]

I was fairly sure these were montana (both sexes in the same shot helped) but the female looks very close to Paul's #11.

Maybe I just assumed too quickly. I am wondering if I need to look again at these.

Photo at Arolla July 2011.

[Paul Wetton]

I think they are probably montana and that matches what we're saying both the light and dark being the same species. My photos were from the Heremence Valley just over the hill from Arolla so unless there's something odd lurking around up there I think they're most likely to be montana.

I have some video of the two in question plus another which I think was the same species at the same site. I'll post them up next.

Thanks again for the input Roger.

[Paul Wetton]

Here's the video of the suspected montana. The pale and dark butterflies were at around 2400 metres whilst the third was at around 2100 metres.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1fHXz-O9Q[/video]

Let me know what you think.

Thanks

[Padfield]

But are you absolutely sure the first two butterflies, ups then uns, are the same insect? If so, it has to be marbled. But the uns are not good for marbled... I assumed they were different insects and you show no transition.

Guy

[Paul Wetton]

Here's some video footage that just shows both ups and uns of the beauty in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4ZCR_g8IX4[/video]

I've posted a separate thread with the video of that Fritillary for you to have a look at Guy, if you get chance.

Many thanks.