www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

So, did anyone see Autumnwatch on Friday when they showed the film with the almost pure white meadow brown? During the discussion afterwards they said that this was due to a parasite during the pupal stage which interrupted the flow of pigment in the wings. I've never heard of that before. Can anyone explain futher?

Susie wrote:So, did anyone see Autumnwatch on Friday when they showed the film with the almost pure white meadow brown? During the discussion afterwards they said that this was due to a parasite during the pupal stage which interrupted the flow of pigment in the wings. I've never heard of that before. Can anyone explain futher?

Yes I saw that too, never heard of that before either, only knew that temperature differences when in pupal form can sometimes decide how the wing colours/markings are formed.

I'm puzzled by the explanation too, especially as I've just had another look on the iPlayer. The body and antennae are white, as well as the wings, so it is clearly not just a scale defect.

I saw an unusual MB with white patches earlier in the year on Sliding Hill near Swyncombe in Oxfordshire. I was very puzzled when I first saw it in flight but managed a few photos when it settled - very battered, especially on the whiter wing. In this case the body and antennae are normally coloured.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Intriguing photos. I wish I knew what caused that!!

I'm wondered if it could be more of a "bug" than a parasite? Bug meaning an illness. Perhaps bacteria, a virus or a fungal infections could affect the pigmentation process.

I agree, Susie. My copy of the revised South (by Haworth) shows many sickly-looking butterflies labelled path, meaning diseased!

Mike

This aberration is caused by a pathological condition resulting in the wing scales on the butterfly's left forewing failing to pigment as one would ordinarily expect, giving the effected area a strange bleached appearance.

Historically this type of aberration has not been bestowed with a name; in literature conditions such as this are referred to simply as 'pathological'. The only exception to this are truly leucistic specimens where the entire butterfly is white, including even the legs and antennae, however the cause of such an extreme aberration is almost certainly more complex than a simple failure in the pigmentation of the wing scales caused by disease or pathogen.

Specific names are more usually reserved for aberrations inherited in the butterflies genetic make-up, or those produced by environmental influences such as extremes of temperature or some other naturally occurring 'shock' which cause a predictable disruption of the pigmentation process concurrent with the degree and nature of shock to which the early stages of the insect are exposed to.

These pathological oddities such as Mike's meadow brown occur not infrequently and are often asymmetric, with perhaps only one wing being effected. At some sites they crop up regularly and in some number. This could suggest a virus at work or other pathogen endemic within the colony, however I am not aware of any work having been carried out to substantiate this theory.

Piers.

Thank you, Piers.

I was hoping that you might be able to answer my question and am very grateful for your reply.

Definitely seems like the answer given on Autumnwatch was b*ll*cks.

Again, yet another highly informative explanation from Piers, which just goes to prove that there are a few people on this site who are more 'expert' than the experts.

Piers wrote:This aberration is caused by a pathological condition

Many thanks, Piers, for confirming my suspicions.

Mike

Susie wrote:Definitely seems like the answer given on Autumnwatch was b*ll*cks.

Well, the odd thing is that BBC Autumn Watch sent a query to Butterfly Conservation together with a photograph of a meadow brown with white hind wings, asking if anyone was able to shed any light on the anomalous insect. The query wound it's way to me and my response was a slightly expanded version of the above.

Somehow, something was lost in translation somewhere...

It does make you question the factual accuracy of other elements of the programme.

Piers.

I guess it was a case of chinese whispers.

You're not the first expert I know of who has provided information to spring/autumn watch and that information has been mis-portrayed on telly.

It's the same if you have ever been involved in something that becomes a news story. You know precisely what the facts are and exactly what happened - but what you read in the papers is rather different. You would never believe a word you read or hear in the media ever again.

Dave

Piers wrote: The query wound it's way to me and my response was a slightly expanded version of the above. Somehow, something was lost in translation somewhere... Piers.

Piers,
I think you should demand your licence fee back! Do you think that maybe they had several different theories and chose the one they fancied?

I don't know why anyone is shocked or upset that 'Autumnwatch' experts might have given an answer that is either wrong or misleading depending on your point of view. Put ten experts in the same room and they'll often come up with different ideas. I mean, sometimes folks here have argued over an ID picture of a Small White, so if there can be different opinions on even a simple thing...let alone quite a complicated one!

At least I've learnt from Chris Packham about why Grey Squirrels have been successful when they hide their nuts. That's got to be worth something...

Michael

Michaeljf wrote:I don't know why anyone is shocked or upset.

Who was shocked or upset?

Michaeljf wrote:I think you should demand your licence fee back!

What on earth are you talking about.

Susie wrote:

Mark Colvin wrote:Michaela Strachan is the new presenter

Michaela 'cameltoe' strachan as she now known in our household after her wardrobe misfunction last night!

Damn, must have missed that, did watch the show though. May have to check iPlayer . Love Spring/Autumnwatch.

However, if they were going to stick a new female presenter in, I'd vote for Ellie Harrison

I'd second that, that WOULD be worth watching. Now if I could choose my top line up of presenters, I'd probably have Nick Baker as a male presenter. Always liked him, especially his "Weird Creatures" series. Maybe replace Chris with him. Have Chris as a guest now and then or at least have Nick as a guest at times. I don't mind Chris, but now and then, feel a change is needed. Keep Martin, defiantly have Elle as a female presenter though. Also would want Kate back and the rest that are on it at present (forget the name of the guy who does the deer rut stuff).

Piers wrote:

Michaeljf wrote:I think you should demand your licence fee back!

What on earth are you talking about.

Only joking Piers. never mind...

Dave McCormick wrote:stick a new female presenter in

As a result of many postings on this thread, I suggest that Pete starts a new gallery on this site for Natural History Presenters (female), preferably inappropriately dressed and/or in provocative poses. That should increase the hit-rate on the site no end - in fact, you could probably lose the butterfly stuff altogether!

Mike

Why the caveat, Mike, just natural history presenters will do!

Unfortunately there really aren't any fit male UK natural history presenters.

Sadly not in the UK, but possibly worth moving to Canada to watch ...

OK, Susie - the caveat was only in response to the fact that most of the previous posts only referred to females!

Mike