Using "set" specimens on the species pages

[Padfield]

I've posted the pictures below before (I'm quite pleased with them), showing Berger's clouded yellow uppersides. But I do it again to make the point that when courting, the females of all three clouded yellow species expose their uppersides for sometimes quite long periods of time, and the males, hanging around the females, show some of their features too. Perhaps this is less pertinent in the UK, where mating couples are extremely rare; but who knows - this may become a commoner sight in the future.




I also have this fairly rubbish picture of a female clouded yellow upperside.



I think pictures like these (you are welcome to use them, Pete) might be useful, as it is not uncommon to watch butterflies fluttering around one's feet, and since videos of such events might reveal the uppersides too.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Guy - I still have these in my "to be processed" folder. I was never quite sure what to do with them. I guess I know now

So - I think opportunistic shots like these are great - but I'd consider them additions to the "must have" list that we need too!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

Had a thought. Maybe we don't need set specimins. If you do it the way "Butterflies of Europe" book as been made, then we don't need them, its better that case, especially for skippers which don't rest like other butterflies.

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Dave - yes, photos of living butterflies seems best. The alternative would be something like this (Berger's Clouded Yellow):

Cheers,

- Pete

[Bryan H]

...and please retain (or even expand?) the "similar species" feature which has comparitive photos with helpful arrows pointing to the relevant features

In the guides I use there are references in the text to some of these distinguishing features, but I find myself turning pages back and forth and, looking at the photos provided, I'm often pushed to see what the text is talking about

Thanks, Pete.

Bryan

[Padfield]

OK - then I'll kick off with the Pieridae!! These are the minimum requirements for ID purposes, as I see it, already met in most cases on these pages. No harm in more than the minimum, though!

Large white: M ups, F ups, uns. Earlier and later broods not a major issue.
Small white: All 4 x 2 (for spring brood and summer brood).
Green-veined white: All 4 x 2 (ditto).
Orange tip: All 4.
Bath white: M ups, F ups, uns.
Black-veined white: Ups and uns.
Brimstone: M uns, F uns, but an ups (not so hard to extract from a video, or taken by chance) of male at least would be good as that is where the brilliant colour is.
Wood white: Essentially, you only need the uns but one does get glimpses of the ups in that pathetic flight, so something like this would be good:

Clouded yellow: M uns, F uns, helice uns. Ups shots would be a bonus, especially as it is the ups in flight which make clouded yellow so easy to identify. I notice you've got one of your own flight pics of a male clouded yellow on these pages, Pete. Nice!
I took this helice today - there doesn't seem to be one on the site:

You're welcome to the original.
Pale clouded yellow: M uns, F uns, but again, any ups shots would be welcome.
Berger's pale clouded yellow: As pale clouded.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks for starting this off Guy. Although I think you need upperside of both male and female Black-veined White, since they are different (the female losing her scales).

Also - I suggest we deal with forms and subspecies once we've got the basics in place!

On that note - I've created a spreadsheet to allow things to be more-easily modified while we're working things out.

My "default" is to include "all 4" - male and female upperside and underside. Of course, some of these would be very very difficult to obtain - but I'm happy to leave a placeholder in case someone "gets lucky" This then means that the only items are not included are where the male and female are pretty much indistinguishable. The result is shown below - so which items should we *not* include? And thanks!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

...and please retain (or even expand?) the "similar species" feature which has comparitive photos with helpful arrows pointing to the relevant features

Definitely. Still lots to do on that one too!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

Whats up Pete? None of your images you post work for me unless I copy and paste location to my browser.

[Padfield]

It mght just be me, or Switzerland, but I can't see your attached image, Pete. I'll try again tomorrow.

And sorry - I didn't see that you did have helice pictures under 'forms'.

Agreed about BVW.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

...and please retain (or even expand?) the "similar species" feature which has comparitive photos with helpful arrows pointing to the relevant features

Definitely. Still lots to do on that one too!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Pete Eeles]

Sorry folks - should be all fixed now.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

Thanks for fixing. Anyway, here is a couple of pics I used on my website to show species. One is the Small Tortoiseshell one:



Not the best analigy of what you want, but here is another one:



Here is the "Orange Sulphur" I scanned in from a book and added ID. Maybe somthing like this for clouded yellows?

[Pete Eeles]

Aren't you infringing the book copyright doing this Dave?

That's why I don't use text or images from existing sources - it's illegal unless you get permission!!!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I was just going to say what Pete said, but he beat me to it!!

Be careful, Dave - some publishers would come down heavily on you for this sort of thing, even if you acknowledege your sources.

In addition, I like to think this site is a collaborative effort of its contributors (with Pete doing by far the greatest amount of work, of course!!) and that we can produce all that is needed between us, as an original exercise. I think we complement the text books and shouldn't draw on them for illustrations.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

I like to think this site is a collaborative effort of its contributors and that we can produce all that is needed between us, as an original exercise. I think we complement the text books and shouldn't draw on them for illustrations.

Couldn't agree more - the community aspect of the UK Butterflies website is what really makes it special, in my opinion!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Dave McCormick]

I will keep that in mind. Don't want to do anything illegal. Wanted to show "natural" alive shots in identification anyway. OK, here is a small heath. If you know if its a subspecies, let me know. If you want to use it, its fine:



I took this myself a couple of weeks ago. Does this help?

[Pete Eeles]

Just when you thought this thread was dead

OK - I've added another enhancement to provide ID of male upperside, male underside, female upperside and female underside. Not sure I like the "look" at the moment, but take a look at:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species. ... Hairstreak

Just below the species "header" you'll see the 4 items. In some cases, a missing image! I'm currently looking at how I can show a larger image when you mouse over the thumbnail, rather than having to "click through".

To see a summary, visit:

http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species_ ... tage=imago

Not a dead specimen in sight Now ... for all you contributors out there ... I need 2 things:

1. Photos that "fill the gaps" in terms of missing images. I have some of my own I can add - but please send me anything that might help (pete@ukbutterflies.co.uk).

2. Any corrections that need to be made (I had to guess at some of the photos!).

Feel free to reply to this post to help complete the set! Also - I realise that the thumbnails have no copyright against them. I hope this is OK with you contributors out there! I intend to retrospectively fix this at some point.

Right - onto the next enhancement ...

Cheers,

- Pete

[JKT]

Shouldn't you also show the autumn form of Map?

I also have some of your missing ones on my pages, but do you require pictures taken in England? If not, is 960x640 enough?

[Pete Eeles]

Hi JKT,

I've been pondering seasonal variations. Although the Map is the only UK species to be declared as an official "form", I think the same logic applies to different broods of Holly Blue, Small White, Green-veined White etc. too. Let me think about this - and thanks for the comment!

Yes - anything above 750 (max) x 750 (max) is fine, since this is what they get compressed to on this website. Pictures not from the UK are fine.

For everyone else - please take a look at JKT's website at:

http://www.jkt.1g.fi/Butterflies/Butterflies.htm

... now on the main links pages. An oversight on my part - shame on me Now fixed.

Cheers,

- Pete