www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Hi Is it possible to tell from this image whether this is a Small or Essex. Many Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/lindabuckell/image/100357743

It's a female, which makes things more difficult, and the crucial bits of the antennae are not visible. Nevertheless, I incline towards Essex because of the general appearance, the very weakly contrasted underside forewing apex (small skipper is usually better contrasted) and what can be seen of the antennae. The dark rings along the length of the antennae are relatively common in female Essex and small skippers so that is not an indicator either way, in my experience.

Guy

Thanks Guy,
I thought it might be unidentifiable from the pic, or maybe Essex as I could not see any brown near the underside tip although the angle of the pic might not let that be visable. I didnt know about the very weakly contrasted underside forewing. Good information Thanks again
Best Regards.
Edit I of course agree with all you have said but If it was unidentifyable how would you list it in your records?
Would "Skipper agg." be correct?

The dark band along the leading edge of the upper rear wing is more often patchy, as this is, in essex than in small.

cjs wrote:If it was unidentifyable how would you list it in your records?
Would "Skipper agg." be correct?

It's entirely up to you how you record it, but I write 'Thymelicus sp.' Technically, that leaves Lulworth as an option but the context usually makes it clear.

The most frequent ambiguity around me is pale clouded yellow/Berger's clouded yellow, for which normally write 'hyalensis' (= hyale + alfacariensis).

Despite the fact Eccles and I agree, I think you are right to record this as unidentified.

Guy

Hi
I originally thought that this Butterfly may not be able to give a definate identification and wondered how others might record it. Thanks Guy for the help.
I was and still am confident in your expertise/knowledge to accept this as an Essex and am grateful for your help.
Thanks also to Eccles.