www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Here are some photos that I am not 100% certain of the ID's from my recent holiday in Switzerland. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Day 1 Site at mid altitude in Val d'Herens visited with Guy on 26th June.

I thought this first shot was Chapman's Blue being similar in size to Common Blue but having no cell spot.
I initially though this one to be High Brown Fritillary having a concave edge to the wing.
Day 2 Site alongside the river near Visp visited with Guy on 27th June.

This first butterfly is one I think Guy mentioned was an unusual form of Heath Fritillary. Please confirm Guy.
I suspect the following is a Marbled Skipper.
I think these are just Small Whites although I know we saw Southern Small White at this site.
Following the walk at low altitude we headed towards Mattmark for some higher altitude species.

Is this an Eros Blue?
This rather battered specimen I suspect may be Alpine Grizzled Skipper as I know you mentioned they were there Guy but coming to the end of their flight season.
For the next photos we were allowed out on our own. Well actually Guy was busy so we had to make do without him.

Day 4 Arolla 29th June.

I'm pretty certain this is a male Amanda's Blue but would like confirmation please.
Looking at the thickness of the markings and the way the spots on the forewing come together, plus I think it's an orange female, I had this down as a female Shepherd's Fritillary.
The next two are Erebia species with which I struggled almost as much as Pyrgus.

The first I think could be Blind Ringlet. I initially suspected Eriphyle but all spots on the hindwing appear to be of a similar size. I think the upperside was pretty similar.
The next was a butterfly Helen photographed and didn't mention to me. I have only seen this photo of it but suspect it may be Piedmont Ringlet. Any thoughts please as didn't see it's upperside.
I'll leave it at that for the time being as there are more to come.

Hi Paul - a first quick answer from the field (sitting on a rock with a beer watching short-tailed blues bounce around the trefoil...).

At the time I thought that Mellicta/Melitaea was a weird false heath, diamina, and I still do think that. Matt agreed, but Tim said he couldn't rule out weirdo heath either.

Your Chapman's has a ring of escheri about it to me - but it is definitely not icarus. The marginal spotting (black marks in clean white settings) rule that out. Icarus is grainier too. It's difficult to judge on the phone pic, in the sun, but certainly either thersites or escheri.

I'm not convinced by the alpine grizzly but I'll come back to that later. The hindwing is wrong.

Yes for high brown, Amanda's and Piedmont, from what I can see of that in the sun here.

G

I just took the phone into the shade under a tree because I couln't see any detail on the Erebia. It actually looks far more like oeme when I see it clearly - bright-eyed ringlet. In Switzerland thus is a very variable species, but always quite unlike the oeme I posted yesterday from Spain.

Guy

Thanks Guy for your initial thoughts on these. I know some are difficult as they are only upper or under wing shots and not both. I may have video of some of these but will post that later.

Enjoy the sun, the beer and the butterflies whilst I'm sat at home under a cloudy sky having my first sicky off work for the year. Wish I was back there.

I've looked at the weirdo fritillary again and it is similar to one that I filmed along the Simplon and the marginal (or sub marginal) black line is wavey like on diamina so I would agree with you there.
I thought thersites rather than escheri based on wing shape from looking at other photos and most photos I've looked at of escheri seem to have larger bolder spotting but I guess there is always much variation.
I'll await your further thoughts when you get chance to have a look at home.

1. Escher's Blue (Polyommatus escheri)
2. High Brown Fritillary (Argynnis adippe)
3 and 4. Assuming these to be the same butterfly, I might have guessed False Heath Fritillary (Melitaea diamina) on the basis of the black filled submarginal lunules, but the upperside looks far more like Heath Fritillary (Mellicta athalia) and I would be fairly certain is not diamina. Athalia is very variable, but this is looks to be quite a severe aberration. Just goes to show how important a view of both surfaces is! On the basis of the underside alone this could have been mis-identified.
5. Marbled Skipper (Carcharodus lavatherae)
6, 7, 8. Not sure. Obviously either Small White (Pieris rapae) or Southern Small White (Pieris mannii). The forewing apical mark on #6 looks to extend down the margin sufficiently far for mannii, but maybe not broad enough for mannii. I would not like to call it without a clear upperside view. There are other ID clues but none seem clear enough to be conclusive here. The definitive way is to tell is by the end of unf vein 7, forked in rapae, not in mannii (http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/html ... mannii.htm). So just blow the photo(s) up until you can see this.
9. Eros Blue (Polyommatus eros) almost certainly. The underside on the left is very likely eros too, as the cold clean grey ground colour is usually indicative. The one on the right may be eros as well, as they look like they could be mating but probably too far apart.
10. Pyrgus ID from the upperside alone is notoriously difficult, from worn specimens much more so. But here are my thoughts: Alpine Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus andromedae) is possible but the uph markings look too strong for this. Unless it was clearly too large, Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus malvae) is a likely option because the uph marks are a good match although the wing shape doesn’t look quite right (but may be a camera angle effect). Guy has the local knowledge and I would not argue with that.
11. male Amanda's Blue (Polyommatus amandus), absolutely correct.
12. looks like a female Shepherds Fritillary (Boloria pales) to me.
13. ….

I got this far and then noticed other replies had been posted, so will post this anyway.

Hi Roger

Please continue. It's always good to hear what everyone has to say and yourself and Guy are the most experienced and qualified to give opinions. I very much appreciate all input.

Thanks

Is this the vein in question as I was never sure.
There appears to be a fork at the end of this one but it's very small.

Thanks

I don't see a fork there (it would be fairly clear from that degree of blow-up), so I think you have mannii there.

Roger

I take it I am looking at the correct vein then.

There is the minutest of forks at the end but if I blow it up any more the photo becomes pixellated and it's difficult to see.

I'll have a look at some other photos of definite Small Whites to get my eye in.

Thanks Roger

I'm afraid I just agree with you, Paul - that is the right vein and it does seem to show a fork. There were mannii there, but I don't think those pictures show any. I'm not 100% on that, though - mannii can show a kink there, and in your picture I'm not sure I can tell a fork from a kink...

This is mannii:



The last Erebia is oeme, I think. Here's a picture of some male oeme from near me:



I agree with Roger's analysis of the Mellicta/Melitaea but my intuition goes against his conclusion of athalia. It simply looks much more like diamina to me. In the Pyrenees and elsewhere diamina is known to have forms with much less dark on the upperside. But I can't really challenge Roger on any solid grounds - it is a very strange butterfly!

I think the first Erebia probably is pharte (blind ringlet). The only other possibility is manto. Usually, the hindwing markings are a little different in manto, and quite characteristic, but this individual is not outside the normal variation for the species.

The skipper's a funny little chap. Size matters here - do you remember how big it was?

Guy

Hi Guy

I'm afraid Helen took this photo of the Skipper and can't remember its size so we'll probably have to put it down as unknown. I have some video of a very faded skipper up as high as we walked that day and it was definitely larger than malvae. I'll post it later when I've sorted through all the photos.

It's looks like we have ID's for all these bar the Grizzled Skipper then.

Thanks Guy.

Here's some more to be going on with

This skipper was near Leukerbad and I think is Carline.
These two were taken mid altitude in Val d'Herens

I suspect this blue to be escheri following comments on ID's part 1 and it was slightly bigger than a nearby Common Blue.
At the same location I finally found a Wood White with curvature and suspect it may be reali (hope)
Next stop Val d'Anniviers on 2nd July for these two.

This I think is eros following on from the previous ID's
This I suspect to be Lesser Mountain Ringlet which I think were very common if my ID's are correct. They also seemed to be extremely variable.
These appeared to have spots matching on upperside and underside.

Another of what I think is melampus this time at the Simplon Pass
I suspect the next three to be Grison's Fritillary which to me on a typical specimen has a mark resembling a fish having been eaten leaving only the head spine and tail.
Finally some boloria. I keep changing my mind with these but Shepherd's do seem to prefer the higher ground.

I plumped for Mountain Fritillary napea for the first two pictures based on the thin black lines on the upperwing but the two rows of spots do seem to come together rather well indicating Shepherd's (pales) so I'm not sure.
I'm also fairly unsure of the undersides. The first is paler and less smudged so I went for Mountain.
The second is more colourful but shows less defined marking (more smudged) so I went for Shepherd's.
Thats it for now. I should have started a new thread I think. The next lot will be on a new thread.

Quite right, Paul - if you're going to call the thread 'Part 1' you really ought to have a Part 2!

I'll leave the skipper for now - I really can't see it being carlinae with those ups, but it doesn't look like anything else either! Alveus is the only real alternative. Let's see what Roger thinks!

The first blue is good for escheri and the wood white perfect for reali (but don't forget there's a third sibling in the mix now - juvernica). The next blue is quite the wrong colour for eros but from the pattern of dark and the general appearance I have to agree with you. The colour of blues, particularly on film, can be misleading because of angle effects. Then melampus - yes - and yes, it's very common. But the next one looks very like eriphyle. I wasn't aware of eriphyle there but it is an under-recognised butterfly and probably more widespread than generally known. The only alternative is again manto, which is noticeably bigger than eriphyle and, as I mentioned, usually has quite characteristic markings on the underside. I can't rule out manto on that view alone. Grisons, yes, then napaea (with debilis, I think), then another napaea, and then a third (that first underside). The second underside could be either, but I incline towards napaea again. I'll come back to that one after re-reading what it says about the underside in Butterflies of the Palaearctic.

Guy

It amazes me the difficulty of identifying with certainty so many butterfly species in well-visited parts of Europe. Roughly speaking, there are some 450 butterfly species in Europe, very substantially less than the number of bird species occuring in the same area (plus there are a heck of a lot of vagrant bird species into the area, some from as far away as the North Pacific basin, eastern Siberia and sub-Saharan Africa). But there really aren't too many birds out there that remain stubbornly unidentifiable from decent images.

So, my question is - why should this be so with certain groups of butterflies? Is there a dearth of really good literature/illustrations readily available? Is this improving via internet sites? Or are the species too darn variable in patterning/size? Or is it that the criteria for splitting individuals into full species is centred on features which can only be seen/measured/discerned in the hand (or on a pin/under a microscope slide)? And are folks generally "happy" to leave the identification at genus level?

Apologies for this unprovoked question it's just that seeing the acknowledged UKB experts swaying from one ID to another made me wonder what kind of proportion of butterflies are just too damn difficult to ID. And these chaps live amongst the species in question. What hope have the rest of us got? Personally speaking I think I'd be inclined to flee screaming at the sight of a skipper or grayling in the mountains, straight over the top of a cliff. It's got to be easier Either that or I'd concentrate on the much easier (=better worked and understood?) birds

All the very best,

Gibster.

Often it's easier in the field, Gibster, especially when you know a particular area and its butterflies well. But the harsh reality is that in many groups the critical features lie in the genitalia, or even more obscurely, in chromosome count and biochemistry. Visible features on the wings of butterflies may reliably vary in tandem with the invisible structures and quantities, but they may not. There is considerable ecological influence on wing markings, such that different species may visibly converge when they fly in similar habitats but the same species elsewhere might be quite different. Across Europe, the same species can look quite, quite different. In the Alps, male Boloria napaea is large and bright, with pale undersides. Boloria pales is smaller, with more colourful undersides. In the Pyrenees, Boloria pales is large and bright, with pale undersides!! I found some this summer that smashed all my Swiss theories, though from the books I know they're pales. I haven't processed them, but when I do I'll post some.

To do the job properly, you have to conduct post-mortems. That is not something I want to do, so I have to accept that for some groups there will always be doubt. I'm a naturalist and I take pleasure in living creatures, rather than a scientist. There's a place in the world for (compassionate) scientists, but I opted out of that path a long time ago.

A little time ago I took the Swiss recorder to an eriphyle site that he didn't know about. We both netted individuals and examined them in the hand. But he wouldn't accept this as proof and insisted on taking a specimen back to the laboratory. Unfortunately, I thought the one he chose might well be manto, so he asked me to pick what I thought was a definite. With great reluctance, so a life wouldn't be completely wasted by choosing the wrong butterfly, I did that - and still feel bad about it. He confirmed later that it was indeed eriphyle and agreed to take my word on it in future!

Guy

Thanks again Guy for your input on these photos. Much appreciated and apologies for not strting a new thread it would have been easier.

Hi Seth

You've got to bear in mind that these photos are a few of the several thousand taken over three weeks and I should have spent more time identifying them on site and making notes. Helen and I were too busy photographing and filming these butterflies to be bothered to make notes as there was so much to see. I'm sure Guy and Roger would be able to ID these critters if they were watching them rather than looking at our partial pictures of one side or another.

There are many variations on a theme with many of these species and I'm sure some may well be split after genetic studies after a time due to clinal variation and the like as populations become isolated, unfortunately due to man exploiting the countryside and causing these isolations.

It's great fun though and some birds can be difficult especially some distant peeps on a muddy foreshore from a digiscoped picture.

Thanks for comments from everyone.

The specimen you refer to as eriphyle was definitely not any larger therefore ruling out manto. I guess it was most likely eriphyle. It was close to where we parked along the tarmac track the lorries were taling around the corner beyond the first hill in front of the car park if that helps any.

Any more thoughts on that Skipper so I can put this lot to bed and myself as well. It's really hot up here now.

The Pyrgus:

Because we have an upperside and an underside, and the uph is virtually unmarked, we can limit the options to (in no particular order) Large Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus alveus), Carline Skipper (Pyrgus carlinae), and Olive Skipper (Pyrgus serratulae).

Alveus would probably be easiest to ID in the field (as per Guy’s comment) as it would probably be noticeably larger. But of course large is relative and you have to have seen many in the field to know what constitutes large.

The uph cell spot is just too large for the alveus nominate form (there is the form centralhispaniae which looks completely different, but there are reasons why it isn’t that). For much the same reason, it isn’t serratulae. And the cell spot is not noticeably C shaped so it cannot be carlinae. Also I would expect some degree of uph pale markings for carlinae, but not for alveus or serratulae. Which explains why you haven’t had a response on this one. It does not fit any Pyrgus species. There quite a few that don’t.

However, we do have an underside shot and that looks to me to be good for carlinae (especially the colouring, and the length of the s4/5 marginal mark). I don’t think it is serratulae, so only alveus remains as an option, and alveus tends to have no clear characteristic features on the underside. Again, this is the advantage of seeing both surfaces. The upf cell spot has a very vague suggestion on external concavity (C shapedness) and this specimen is on the very limits of what you would expect for carlinae, probably even just outside it. Guy and I have debated the range of variation of the carlinae cell spot. But I think it is most likely to be carlinae. I has to be something!

Gibster, it is extremely difficult to ID some species from photos alone. There are 14 Pyrgus species in France, many start by looking very similar and quite often more than one will fly at a given location. And then they have a range of natural variation exacerbated by the fact that most are mountain dwellers and the variation from one mountain range to another is often quite marked, even sometimes from one mountain to another.

This year I saw (what I am fairly certain is) the rare Warren's Skipper (Pyrgus warrenensis) in the Alpes for the first time. The only way I know is that it was extremely small when I saw it in the field. From a photo there would have been serious doubts. It is still not 100%, as very small alveus and serratulae can occur.

The internet does not help too much as there are many misidentifications. I studied the NHM Pyrgus archives on the grounds that they would be correctly identified, but was informed by a curator that I could not assume this with certainty. Also the collectors of olden times were preoccupied with uppersides, so there are few undersides to work from. A book by Paul Sterry has photos of selected Pyrgus that are nearly all wrong.

I have started to look deeper into Pyrgus ID:
http://www.butterfliesoffrance.com/Pyrg ... cation.htm

I have taken many photos this year of both surfaces of Pyrgus so hope to develop this page when I am back in the UK in the winter.

Hi Roger

Many thanks for an excellent informative answer to a difficult question. I suspect that the angle of the sun and post processing may have caused the ups to look slightly darker than they should which may have removed some of the paler colouration expected for carlinae. I'm pleased to say I had this one down as carlinae myself. I have some video footage of this exact specimen which I intend to post once uploaded onto YouTube. It may or may not confirm your original thoughts. I hope it does.