French Skippers

[kevling]

Hello All,

Perhaps some kind soul could help me ID some more skippers seen in South of France (Gorge Du Loup area).

Many Thanks in advance

Kind Regards Kev

[Reverdin]

For the Pyrgus, suspect Carline GS as most likely

[Roger Gibbons]

The first Pyrgus is very difficult without more detail, but it could be:
serratulae: the discal s4/5 mark and the basal s7 look about right, as does the colour, but the discal s1 and marginal s2 do not look right, so probably not.
carlinae: the marginal v5 mark does not look classic carlinae, so would tend to discount this. Also carlinae is not often seen below 1500m and I suspect not below 1000m so maybe the Gorges du Loup is too low.
armoricanus: the marginal s1/s2 marks do not look right (armoricanus is usually more sagittate and not “filled”), and the external edge of discal s4/5 does not look sufficiently cleft for armoricanus.
alveus: often the default position when all others can be discounted, as this species has no real clear characteristic marks, but the leaning bump in discal s1 and other minor clues tend to indicate alveus as the most likely candidate. It is known from that area, so that helps.

The second Pyrgus, also hard to say from what I can see, but the reddish hue and the strongly leaning discal s1 bump point quite strongly to cirsii, not uncommon in this region from late July/August onward. If you say you saw it in May, I would hastily revise.

If these references to the markings are unclear, this may help
http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/Pyrg ... iagram.htm
there are three bands, marginal is at the wing edge, basal is at the body end and discal is in the middle.

The Carcharodus photos are more intriguing. It is a worn specimen and not completely clear but I would be inclined to rule out alceae on the grounds of the strong white uph discal band of spots; alceae can have white markings here (this has been fiercely debated) but my feeling is that they could not be this complete or strong. Flocciferus equally ruled out for the same reason, although flocciferus has clear but much smaller white marks here. So this leaves baeticus, the rare one of the three. The uph discal marks look right for this and there is a suggestion of a submarginal wavy line, albeit almost obliterated by wear. There are no previous records from the Gorges du Loup area, but this is I suspect a very under-recorded species because of its similarity to alceae. I found it last year in a location with no previous records within 30km.

Guy may have limited experience of baeticus but may have views on whether this could be alceae or flocciferus.

As has been said many times on this forum, an additional underside shot would be definitive, especially in the case of the Carcharodus species.

[Padfield]

I suspect the first two Pyrgus are the same species, and I veer strongly towards cirsii. I would rule out serratulae, for the unconvincing reason that I know this species very well and it doesn't look like this! They are not carlinae, for the reasons Roger gives, and just don't have the feel of alveus. My first thought for both had been armoricanus, but Roger's arguments against that are strong. So I'm left with cirsii - which they both resemble perfectly to my mind. HOWEVER, this is a rare or extinct butterfly in Switzerland and my experiences of it are limited.

The Carcharodus is easier! It is (in my opinion) alceae. Roger has always had the idea that alceae is not strongly marked on the upperside hindwing but I frequently find them with very prominent spotting:



That was from last year. Here's another from 2008:



Prominent white on the hindwing is really not uncommon in alceae in Switzerland.

What I do find distinctive is that alceae alone has entirely narrow, linear markings in the discal area of the forewing. All the others have thicker, often rectangular markings. There are other differences, in colour and pattern, but that one is constant and reliable in my experience.

Guy

[Roger Gibbons]

Guy, you could possibly be right that the two Pyrgus are the same species. The colouring of the first one looks completely wrong for cirsii, but this could be an effect of the camera angle. The discal s4/5 mark is very uniformly rectangular and every photo I have of cirsii undersides (of 15 individuals) show an external edge which is significantly concave or cleft. But the marginal mark on v5 looks rather washed over which is usually the case for cirsii. There are factors for and against. At some point I would be interested to have your elucidation of the “feel of alveus” as this would be very valuable to the Pyrgus study.

I fully accept that alceae can have white uph discal marks, as my original comment stated, but I checked my photos of alceae uppersides (of 15 individuals) and none have marked white spots such as on yours. This is, I am happy to accept, maybe a feature of Swiss alceae, but is not the case for southern Provence which is where Kev took his photos and where all of mine were taken.

In any event, the white marks on yours are strong in the s5 region and less well-developed alongside this mark. Kev’s specimens clearly show a complete discal band broken only by the veins, which is very different. This is very similar to the one baeticus I have seen for sure:
http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/html ... eticus.htm
The underside shot was key, and without this view I would still have severe doubts.

[Padfield]

Hi Roger. I'm increasingly convinced there is a lot of variation between regions with some of these sedentary species, so complete familiarity with a species in one part of Europe might not serve so well in another. I was only joking, of course, about your insistence on the white spots on Carcharodus! We've been there before...

Your baeticus is definitely that - and the upperside forewing markings independently confirm it can't be alceae. Now, so far as I'm concerned, the upperside markings on Kev's butterfly confirm it cannot be baeticus, or indeed any species other than alceae or tripolinus. So far as the hindwing markings are concerned, those on your baeticus are very similar indeed to those on my second alceae and also different from the band on Kev's butterfly.

I may of course be barking up quite the wrong tree, but in the three common Swiss Carcharodus species (alceae, lavatherae and flocciferus) I have never found any exception to the rule about the discal markings of the forewing. Is this a purely Swiss phenomenon? It holds true in the Pyrenees, where all three are also common too, but that doesn't mean it holds true everywhere. We live and learn and I am quite happy to be proven wrong (as I too often am).

Back to the Pyrgus sp. - I think you have studied these more than pretty well anyone else, so I think you should get the last word. I don't see what's wrong with the colour of the first one though - it looks perfect to me - deep red with brighter veins. I agree the shape of the discal mark is unusual.

What a pity there's not an upperside of the Pyrgus or an underside of the Carcharodus! Or is there... ?

Guy

[Padfield]

At some point I would be interested to have your elucidation of the “feel of alveus” as this would be very valuable to the Pyrgus study.

I'm not sure I can pin it down Roger , nor that it would be that useful, as it may well be that the mountain alveus here in CH are different from those in the South. It might be something to do with the ground colour and the venation (in CH it is never russet like cirsii and the veins are never bright like that either, though they may be paler than the ground). The outer portion of the hindwing lacks that pointy series you see in cirsii and the carline rectangle is large and blocky, as in carlinae.

Studying your page of cirsii has made me more convinced Kev's are that! You have some great pictures there!

Guy