www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Blimey... quite the response! Does this additional image help? and would it help to know it was taken 3rd July 2005 at Otmoor!!!



Large Skipper?


Kind Regards, Chris

This looks like a Small Skipper to me - certainly not Large.

Cheers,

- Pete

I agree with Pete about it not being a Large Skipper, but this photo does throw up a question of "how much" black there is on an Essex Skipper's antennae? This still confuses me slightly. Is your identification based on knowing the answer to that Pete, or is it the location and timing which makes you say "Small"? I believe Essex Skippers are spreading North anyway? Maybe you and the other skipper experts on this site can help

Cheers,

Trev

I think the best description I've heard is that "it looks like the tips have been dipped in black ink". Once you've seen a few it's a lot easier.



Martin.

Trev Sawyer wrote:I agree with Pete about it not being a Large Skipper, but this photo does throw up a question of "how much" black there is on an Essex Skipper's antennae? This still confuses me slightly. Is your identification based on knowing the answer to that Pete, or is it the location and timing which makes you say "Small"? I believe Essex Skippers are spreading North anyway? Maybe you and the other skipper experts on this site can help

Cheers,

Trev

I'm primarily going by the angle of the sex brand on the forewing, which you can just make out given the back lighting. This is parallel with the leading edge of the forewing in Essex, and at an angle in Small.

Cheers,

- Pete

So Martin,
Looking at the top photo... doesn't that look like it has black tipped antennae?

Trev

Trev Sawyer wrote:So Martin,
Looking at the top photo... doesn't that look like it has black tipped antennae?

Trev

I'll stick my neck out here - but the antenna closest to the camera doesn't look as if it's been "dipped" There's clearly a very faint brown patch running almost to the end of the tip.

Cheers,

- Pete

Hi Pete,
Just for once I'm going to disagree with you! I think that the antenna nearest the lens is being held in a slightly twisted position, so that the pale topside looks like it's the underside. If you look at the far antenna, this is being held in a more easily interpreted manner - the underside is clearly a glossy black. The 'giveaway' is the angle at which the black area meets with the stem colour. If you 'rotate' the near antenna very slightly clockwise, you end up with what looks to me like a classic Essex Skipper. The Small Skipper has quite dark, dusky brown antennae topsides, but I've never seen one with topsides quite as dark as this.
Neil

Sussex Kipper wrote:... so that the pale topside looks like it's the underside ...

My experience is that the topsides are also black to some extent - which is why the look like they've been dipped in paint I'm sure Guy will help us out here

Cheers,

- Pete

Hi Pete/all,
The description that I've always gone by is 'looking rather as if the tips have been pressed into a black ink pad to take their prints', rather than 'being dipped in black ink' - hence the glossy black is restricted to the undersides. Interested to know what Guy or others think. Maybe we could run a poll, but we will probably end up with 50/50!
Neil

The underside of a Small Skipper's antennae are usually quite obviously orange, and those of an Essex equally obviously black. To my eye this little chap has antennae undersides that are as black as pitch, no question.

Martin, I don't suppose you have an equally good photo of a Small Skipper from a similar angle for comparison?

Felix.

Small skipper males have orange antennae tips. My vote is for essex.

Similar anyway...

Chris has now edited his original post to include another shot and said where and when the photos were taken (not as recently or as far North as some of us might have thought). That probably takes a bit of the guesswork out of the equation and makes me even more certain it's an Essex.


Trev

I think that Martin's excellent pics clinch it. I'm with Trev; Essex it is...

Felix.

This won't be the last small/Essex debate on these pages this summer! Without any claim to special authority, I should say I had no doubt at all about this butterfly from the first - it is Essex. I agree with Pete that when the upperside is visible this is conclusive in males, because the sex brand is quite different , crossing the vein near the base in small and being parallel (and short) in Essex. But I don't think that shadow is the sex brand.

A fresh male small skipper shows obvious buff. This wears off with age and is less bright in females. Also, the antennae of some small skippers can be melanic (not uncommon) - when that is the case the darkness usually extends further down the antenna and is not neatly delineated as in Essex.

My theory, which I've mentioned before, is that if in doubt you should observe carefully first without photographing and take field notes! The living butterfly offers far more different angles and views than a handful of pictures and very rarely leaves any possibility of confusion. For some reason photos can be far harder to identify than the creature in the flesh.

Guy

Here's an example of melanic Essex skipper antennae (I've logged this as Essex but I can't remember if I had any independent proof) - totally different from the neat antennae in all the above pictures! Sometimes small skippers can look very similar, but I can't find a photo to prove it.



Guy

padfield wrote:This won't be the last small/Essex debate on these pages this summer! Without any claim to special authority, I should say I had no doubt at all about this butterfly from the first - it is Essex. I agree with Pete that when the upperside is visible this is conclusive in males, because the sex brand is quite different , crossing the vein near the base in small and being parallel (and short) in Essex. But I don't think that shadow is the sex brand.

A fresh male small skipper shows obvious buff. This wears off with age and is less bright in females. Also, the antennae of some small skippers can be melanic (not uncommon) - when that is the case the darkness usually extends further down the antenna and is not neatly delineated as in Essex.

My theory, which I've mentioned before, is that if in doubt you should observe carefully first without photographing and take field notes! The living butterfly offers far more different angles and views than a handful of pictures and very rarely leaves any possibility of confusion. For some reason photos can be far harder to identify than the creature in the flesh.

Guy

Thanks for that Guy (and others). I stand corrected

In my defence, I have to say that my comments are based on several of my photos being rejected (by a well-known figure) as being Essex for similar reasons to those given above. I'll go back and take a closer look

Cheers,

- Pete

padfield wrote:My theory, which I've mentioned before, is that if in doubt you should observe carefully first without photographing and take field notes! The living butterfly offers far more different angles and views than a handful of pictures and very rarely leaves any possibility of confusion. For some reason photos can be far harder to identify than the creature in the flesh.

Very true Guy, nothing can replace field craft - a skill that collectors the of old were on the whole very skilled in. it is very important that us latter-day collectors (of photographs) don't loose the ability to simply watch and observe butterflies in, and interacting with, their environment (and of course record our observations). That is what will separate the true enthusiast/lepidopterist from the mere twitcher.

Interestingly, taking the time to view collections of British butterflies in museums can reveal a lot, including for example the great variety in the colouration of Small and Essex Skipper antennae that Guy mentions. These collections are held in museums for our use...

Felix.

HA! I was merely sorting out some photos of old and I'd filed this as large skipper... it didn't look right so I thought I'd ask you chaps... little did I know the chaos this would have caused! Thanks guys... especially as I can now create an "Essex Skipper" folder!!