Padfield

[David M]

At risk of making an idiot of myself in front of you two heavyweights, I don't think this is HBF.

This is one of the few larvae I've seen in the UK and it's dorsal stripe is nothing like as bright white as this; more a dull cream/grey colour.

Given the differences between the adult stages however, I may well be wrong about the larval stage.

[Padfield]

Thanks Pete. I'm rubbish on caterpillar identification and these fritillaries seem to be very variable! Interestingly, this one is pretty well identical to the lathonia cat illustrated in Lafranchis (Les Papillons de jour de France, Belgique et Luxembourg et leurs chenilles). But at least I'm confident it is not pandora...

EDIT: Just seen your post David. Thanks for the input. I agree - but from pictures alone - that the stripe is different, but again, it does seem to be very variable.

Guy

[Mikhail]

I had at first doubted that the larva was QoS, but on referring to the excellent German lepiforum site I am convinced that it is. See:http://www.lepiforum.de/lepiwiki.pl?Issoria_Lathonia. Just scroll down to the larvae.

M

[Pete Eeles]

Ah - thanks all! I stand corrected. I've just never realised that the larva was so variable!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Thank you Misha. Coupled with the circumstantial and ecological evidence I think this is definitive. Thanks too for the input, Pete and David - I really wasn't at all sure before.

Guy

[MikeOxon]

I knew it wasn't Nickerl's from the flight pattern - Nickerl's is a pathetic flier

Interesting observation on a couple of counts - firstly, as your method of i.d and, secondly, what is the evolutionary advantage of being a 'pathetic flyer'? Presumably, the poor flight is a side-effect of some trait that is advantageous.

Mike

[Padfield]

Flight pattern is too often glossed over in this age of instant digital photos, Mike, but it is very useful for ID. Silver-studded blues, for example, flap like mad and get nowhere. In contrast, long-tailed blues, as everyone now knows, twist and jerk across meadows as if they had chilli in their eyes! I can only speculate as to the reason for the Nickerl frit's 'pathetic' flight, as compared with, say, that of the very similar heath frit. Nickerl's is much easier to net than heath but not necessarily easier for a bird to catch - at the level of beak and butterfly body small details of trajectory and manoeuvrability are doubtless more significant than they are to the gaping maw of a butterfly net (not that I am recommending netting)! There may also be issues of energy expenditure, thermoregulation and all sorts of invisible factors that make a difference in terms of survival but are not evident to the observer. Alternatively, this might be why Nickerl's frit is so much scarcer than heath frit!!

Guy

[Lee Hurrell]

Flight pattern is too often glossed over in this age of instant digital photos, Mike, but it is very useful for ID. Silver-studded blues, for example, flap like mad and get nowhere. In contrast, long-tailed blues, as everyone now knows, twist and jerk across meadows as if they had chilli in their eyes!

A very good point, Guy and one that was obvious to me today, watching Wood Whites. Lovely comparisons with the flight patterns

Best wishes,

Lee

[Padfield]

Hi Lee. My friend Tim Cowles (http://felixthecatalog.tim.pagesperso-orange.fr/) describes wood whites as being like little old ladies looking for their glasses! Anyone who has ever watched a wood white endlessly dithering and never actually doing anything will recognise this description! Apologies to any little old ladies reading this post - no disrespect intended!

Most of my local brown hairstreak eggs have hatched. Some have not, but some never do.


(hatched)


(one hatched, one unhatched)

Most of the leaves are still tightly furled, though, and it wasn't possible to locate any caterpillars. They are probably tucked away out of sight. It's still all about flowers here - even if the petals have mostly fallen. There are two eggs in this picture:



Another pair of empty eggs here:



It has amazed me how advanced some of the cats in the UK are - notably Pauline's! The ones here are doubtless still first instar. I hope to have some photos of later instars in a couple of weeks' time.

Guy

[Padfield]

Nipped into Italy in the morning to see how my new patch there was developing. Where large tortoiseshells were flying in their dozens a month ago I saw not a single one. I did see a handful of nettle tree butterflies (at least three) but these too were common a month ago. Instead, chequered blues, baton blues, small coppers and sooty coppers were the common species, with a few green-underside blues and green hairstreaks thrown in. For the hibernators, only brimstones were common, though I did see a couple of commas. On the way back to Domodossola I stopped at some rough ground where I saw my only new species for the year - short-tailed blue. By then the sun had gone behind permacloud but they refused to go to roost or even settle more than a second or two and I got just a couple of distant proof shots before racing for the train:





Also highly active in the gloom were sooty coppers, which were very common just here:




(still some blue sky in the distance)


(female)


(female)

Backtracking in time a bit, to the first site and to the sun, here is a baton blue, dwarfed in a broom flower:



And one of several chequered skippers getting seriously stuck into long-necked flowers:



Back in Switzerland I thought I would try for some Camberwell beauty shots as these often spread their wings nicely in warm, overcast weather. I was in luck:





Funny weather - with some rain as I cycled home - but it didn't stop the butterflies flying. It seems to be a productive spring.

Guy

[David M]

Lovely shots, Guy. That Camberwell Beauty looks to have had a close shave given the adjacent spider's web.

[Roger Gibbons]

Regarding Tim’s description of Wood White’s flight, considering that we spent several days last year searching Var (without success) for its elusive cousin, the Eastern Wood White, and examining dozens of Wood Whites, I would say the joke’s on us.

[Padfield]

She flew soon after I had finished, David, so I know she managed to avoid the spider's web.

I can imagine waiting for a wood white to stop so you can check for eastern wood white must be very frustrating, Roger! As you know, that's why I carry a net when I am looking for things that need close or even hand ID.

In case any eagle-eyed person should spot it, I've warmed up the Camberwell beauty pictures a little. I think it makes a difference, because they did look very cold.

Before:


After:


I think the warmed-up pictures are closer to how it felt.

Guy

[Jack Harrison]

long-tailed blues, as everyone (my emphasis) now knows, twist and jerk across meadows

I don't doubt that is how they behave, but I am sadly, not an "everyone", who has made a personal observation

Jack

[kevling]

Guy,

I love your second shot of the Sooty Copper (with the glint of blue sky in the background) and also the Camberwell Beauty. I am still refining my photography skills, but would you be so kind as to let me in to your secret of getting such a sharp picture of the subject in addition to a clear background too. Is it down to selecting the right aperture?

Many Thanks
Kev Ling

[Lee Hurrell]

I have to say...the second Sooty Cooper picture is another typical (i.e. stunning) "Padfield Picture" and is my new favourite...I think it's something to do with mountains.

Lee

[Padfield]

Sorry Jack! But 2013 did create quite a lot of long-tailed blue experts! For what it's worth, I didn't see any LTB in the UK last year either.

I'm not at all a photography expert, Kev. I use a Canon Compact, because it is light and convenient, and for the most part I just point and click. But I am a mathematician and physicist, and basically, what Lee kindly calls 'Padfield pictures' are simply a matter of geometry. The only way to get a reasonable picture of a butterfly against a recognisable background is to be very close to the butterfly - typically about 5cm. If your camera can focus that close you will be able to make out the mountains and trees behind the butterfly, pretty much regardless of lens or aperture. It is geometrically impossible to get a 'Padfield picture' from much further away than this, because the degree of arc represented by the butterfly will be too small. If you are, say 2m away, either the butterfly will be tiny or, if you zoom or crop, the background will be blown up, blurred and impossible to make out.

Here is a speckled wood I took yesterday:



The lens was probably about 6cm from the butterfly. I took quite a long time getting the distance and angle right for that picture, to have a sufficiently interesting, full background and for the butterfly to be detailed enough.

This is probably an even better ilustration - I'm almost on top of the butterfly so it looms really large in the picture:



I acquired a new companion today - a Jack Russell called Minnie. She's two years old and will need butterfly training but she seems to be settling in, even though I've only known her a few hours:



She's small enough to travel on the trains for free (dogs normally pay a standard demi-tarif fare on public transport in Switzerland) and I've ordered a dog-carrying backpack so I can cycle with her and carry her on the longer mountain treks. I can't expect legs that short to accompany me to 2800m in search of Erebia nivalis!

Guy

[Lee Hurrell]

What Lee kindly calls 'Padfield pictures' are simply a matter of geometry. The only way to get a reasonable picture of a butterfly against a recognisable background is to be very close to the butterfly - typically about 5cm. If your camera can focus that close you will be able to make out the mountains and trees behind the butterfly, pretty much regardless of lens or aperture.

That explains a lot, Guy. You may remember my DSLR camera died over the winter and so far this year I have been using my mobile phone for photographs. I am pretty happy with the results so far, even if I say so myself! There are differences obviously, but I am able (or have to) get as close to the butterfly as you mention, around 5cm. But what I end up with are similar to your beautiful "Padfield Pictures", just with less mountains. I am nearly there catching up on other bits and will be posting some soon.

PS - congratulations on your new butterfly companion and welcome to the forums to Minnie

Best wishes,

Lee

[David M]

Irrespective of the science behind it, you post images that nobody else does.

Whilst it may not be award winning, it is extremely 'natural' and that is what makes your photos so attractive.

It's like shooting images of real life people going about their real life business, without an airbrush in sight.

LS Lowry would be proud.

[kevling]

Thanks for explanation Guy. With my camera, I don't seem to be able to get the subject in focus from 5cm or less, unless I use my macro lens. However I am determined to try some different techniques to prove myself wrong. As I keep telling my kids "If you keep doing the same things, you'll get the same results.
I love the Speckeld Wood shot too. If I can grab myself a 'Padfield Picture' in the near future, I'll be very happy.

Kind Regards
Kev