www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

...for my own pages. I'm not much of a web designer, but at least the subject fits here. Any corrections for IDs is most welcome.

One warning, though: The pages are a bit long, so loading each could take time.

JKT wrote:...for my own pages. I'm not much of a web designer, but at least the subject fits here. Any corrections for IDs is most welcome.

One warning, though: The pages are a bit long, so loading each could take time.

Spent some time looking at this site. A fine effort with much to admire ~ well done.

P.S.

Thanks for the 'plug' ~ shameless or otherwise...

The female Apatura ilia appears to have a 'dead' eye. Female Apaturinae are far less likely to be seen feeding on the ground so this may explain the subject in that particular picture...

Here she is :

http://www.jkt.1g.fi/Butterflies/Nympha ... Ailia7.jpg

Compare that to the 'living' eye and probosis of the male specimen in this picture:

http://www.jkt.1g.fi/Butterflies/Nympha ... Ailia9.jpg

Keep up the "A barely started, neverending project" good work ...

Cotswold Cockney wrote:Spent some time looking at this site. A fine effort with much to admire ~ well done.

Thanks!

Cotswold Cockney wrote:The female Apatura ilia appears to have a 'dead' eye. Female Apaturinae are far less likely to be seen feeding on the ground so this may explain the subject in that particular picture...

You are right. It appears Sami has done a bit of cheating. I'll have to add a note for now and replace the picture when I have a better one. Thank You for bringing this to my attention!

And a note for others who may be interested: The links in the left column reguire that scripts are enabled. Without that you won't get anywhere.

The pages have moved. They are now at http://www.tyllinen.eu/Butterflies/Butterflies.htm.

Hi Juha,

This certainly is a big project!

Some of the photos didn’t enlarge for me when I clicked them, but maybe I hadn’t enabled something.

I note your coenonympha darwiniana from Bernard Fransen states “ID uncertain”. I’ve struggled with this species and put some of this year’s photos up on this site (Overseas: Not quite mazarine, 29 July) and got a very illuminating response from Guy which explained why they (or three of them) seemed to me to meet the defining characteristics of darwiniana about 80% but definitely (I thought) were not arcania or gardetta. Guy is the expert on this species and has some nice photos of the real thing.

Matt Rowlings has photos of the more obscure species e.g. callophrys avis, and would be a good source, if he’s prepared to allow external use of his photos.

Please let me know, which ones did not work and I'll try to find out what is wrong.

Guy, if you are reading this, maybe you could take a look at the darwiniana...

I have a couple potential sources for new pictures, both live and set specimen, but first I have to edit my own pictures from last summer and add two years worth of additions from Olli Vesikko. You seemed to have some nice additions as well.

Hi JKT,

I'm certainly not an expert on Coenonympha but I have spent a lot of time looking at individuals of the three closely related species, darwiniana, gardetta and arcania. All three are known to hybridise and Cuneo is a region where an arcania/darwiniana hybrid would seem possible (when I put it into Google Earth I get to Coni, which seems lowland but with high mountains to the west).

Your insect shows no features of gardetta but it does have some characters of darwiniana and arcania. On the whole, I think it looks most like arcania but with some caveats. The spot in s6 doesn't seem to be within the band at all - and in all my own pictures of darwiniana it is unambiguously there, so that feature points to arcania. I have noticed a difference in the shape of the arc of the hindwing spots too. In arcania the spots in ss2 and 3 are noticeably bigger than the others (actually not something particularly apparent in your picture, so suggesting darwiniana!) and give the impression of forming an arc that is concave out. In darwiniana the arc is concave in. These two pictures, taken this year, show what I mean:


(arcania)


(darwiniana)

OK - so I've cheated a little there by including the spot in s5 in the darwiniana arc - but I think you can see what I mean!

Yours is missing the spot in s1 so it is not at all clear but I do have the impression of a slight outwardly concave shape. I could be wrong.

Here is another darwiniana, though with a slight possibility that there is some gardetta in here too, as it is in a region where these hybridise rampantly:



The thickness of the white band can be helpful. In arcania it nearly always reaches to the cell on the hindwing, at least in a spur, while in darwiniana it doesn't do this. Yours barely - just barely - reaches the cell.

In short, I would consider this a prime candidate for an arcania/darwiniana hybrid. If I had to push for just one of those I would probably sneak out for a beer when no one was looking, leaving a hidden note with arcania written in small letters on the back.

Not very helpful, perhaps!

Check out Matt's pictures at http://www.eurobutterflies.com/species_ ... iniana.htm and http://www.eurobutterflies.com/species_ ... rcania.htm, but bear in mind that some of his pictures come from a known gardetta/darwiniana hybrid region!

For arcania (we haven't shown him darwiniana yet!!) see Tim's pictures at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/felixthecat ... _heath.htm.

And of course look at Roger's piccies!!

Guy

EDIT: I forgot to say, thanks for your pages, which are an excellent resource. I can't remember if I've got in on my lamentable page of links yet, but I shall rectify this if I haven't!!

I’ll also add a link – can you drop me an email with the link address you want me to use, please.

Regarding darwiniana, it illustrates one of the aspects of butterflying that I find intriguing: there are specimens that us humans cannot identify for certain, with all the experience, information and tools available to us. Luckily the butterflies themselves don’t have to check whether the ocellus in s5 is within the post-discal band in order to decide whether to mate with it. They’d have died out centuries ago.

Still on this tack, how did certain species (especially in the UK) manage before us humans were knowledgeable and motivated enough to undertake site “management”? They seemed to do alright on their own. OK, I guess we know the answers to these questions. We are just privileged observers.

I’m about to leave first thing tomorrow and won’t have internet access (except the occasional internet cafe) for two months, so I’ll get back to you on the points we discussed earlier.

Roger

Guy,
I can see what you mean. But it all adds up to what it says right now. Maybe I should specify the situation more closely. BTW, Matt's fourth darwiniana seemed like an exact copy except for the one missing spot.

You have the link, but to the old address. Doesn't matter yet as there's still a link to new one.


Roger,
The address I gave above is fine. "European Butterflies and Skippers by Juha Tyllinen" is fine for a name ... or you could just use JKT for author in it.

Roger Gibbons wrote:Luckily the butterflies themselves don’t have to check whether the ocellus in s5 is within the post-discal band in order to decide whether to mate with it.

Given the amount of kinky interspecific hanky-panky that obviously goes on in this group I don't think they care two hoots about getting an ID before charging in there! My books don't mention the viability of the hybrids - I'd be interested to know.

JKT - yes, your current caption sums it up perfectly! It would be good if all websites were as candid. I often do a web search to compare pictures of certain species and find very dodgy identifications as well as ones where I'm sure the site owner really doesn't know which species it is even though he or she sounds confident. It makes identifying specific characteristics harder.

Guy