Large Copper?

[doggie]

I'm happy for someone to tell me this was something different, but I'm fairly convinced this was a large copper, despite it's status.

Anyway, to describe it - the open wings were entirely orange with no obvious pattern, with span of 4-5cm. I managed to approach it when resting, finally, and the closed underside were pale and had spots.

It first attracted me because of it's brilliance and extraordinary speed and agility in flight. I saw it on Sutton Heath in Suffolk in late afternoon sunshine mid September. It was trying to land but the skippers wouldn't let it.

I know all my species but have never seen anything like this since I lived in Africa.

[Susie]

Perhaps it was captive bred and someone released it.

[Padfield]

I always keep an open mind, but obviously a wild large copper is highly improbable on Sutton heath, amongst the graylings and brown arguses, so you'll have to forgive a healthy scepticism!! Your butterfly sounds big for a male large copper, too - and it must have been a male if it had no markings to speak of on the upperside.

Was the ground colour fiery, metallic and gleaming (if you got a chance to see the upperside)? Large coppers keep traces of this brilliance even when they get old and worn:



If it was matt then we'd have to think about a different group, or perhaps a moth.

Guy

[doggie]

Well, the thing about this creature was how it attracted my attention.

From some 20-30 metres away I remarked at it's bright yellowy-orange colour to my wife, who was wholly disinterested I immediately knew it was something I had never seen before however and chased after it for 5 minutes before it landed.

It was the size of a peacock and had a powerful flight like a red admiral.

When it did land, the rounded wings folded together in an upright position, the underside was a silvery greenish blue with round markings. It opened it's wings briefly and there were no markings that I could see on the solid bright orange.

The skippers kept hassling it when it flew off, and I noted they were a very similar colour.

[Padfield]

It sounds most like a clouded yellow. I should check the picture of that species on this site and see if that fits the bill.

Guy

[doggie]

Sorry, I should have posted this in 'identification' rather than sightings.

I guess the odds of seeing a clouded yellow are much higher, but I have seen those before, this was a far more zingy orange and didn't fly like one of those.

I got a good look at the underside or groundside, and it wasn't like a clouded yellow at all, more like the silvery metallic of a chalk hill blue.

[Dave McCormick]

Hi, have you seen a Painted Lady, could it have been one of those? They are about red admiral sized and are onrage on upperside and have a grayish underside.

[doggie]

Seen lots and lots of Painted Ladies this year, it's been wonderful

Not one of those - not a Comma either.

In, oooo, thirty five years of chasing butterflies I have never seen this one.

[Padfield]

Size seems to rule out large copper, which is nowhere near as big as a Vanessid, nor flies anything like one. If it's not a clouded yellow, then I can't think it's a native British butterfly or natural migrant. Perhaps we will never know what you saw - but I'm much happier with that result than knowing what it was because you caught it and killed it, like in the bad old days!!

Guy

[Dave McCormick]

Would it by any chance be a large tortoiseshell? I know some have been spotted this year in UK, but if its not that either, then idk. Also agree with Guy:

Perhaps we will never know what you saw - but I'm much happier with that result than knowing what it was because you caught it and killed it, like in the bad old days!!

[Piers]

This is where entomology and butterfly twitching part company; for the majority of insect orders a positive identification can only be made from a voucher specimen. Most micro's (and even some of the macro moths) can only be confidently identified through microscopic examination of the genitalia.

Felix.

[Padfield]

Half agreed, Felix!! With European butterflies, however, real professionals rarely need to take specimens, at least for the purposes of identification. And genetic studies are increasingly done on legs, which can be taken from a butterfly without killing it. A friend of mine, who is the Swiss recorder (paid by the state for hunting butterflies in the summer and processing data in the winter ), has only once taken anything while I've been with him - a specimen of Erebia eriphyle at a colony I showed him in my local region. The record (and my records for previous years) couldn't be confirmed without the proof, though he has indicated he will accept any future records of eriphyle from me. I know he has also taken Pyrgus armoricanus this year, for the same reason, and he has collected about a dozen Leptidea as part of research into the distribution of reali. He rejected a record of armoricanus Matt and I submitted, with photos, as this species cannot with absolute certainty be distinguished from alveus without dissection.

This year, apart from reali/sinapis, there are probably not more than two or three insects I might have needed to take for certain ID (but I didn't), and one was a potential Hipparchia fagi, which can in principle be identified (in this case, separated from genava) by careful manipulation in the hand.

My point being, that amateurs (who are not all twitchers!), who maybe just don't know their butterflies well enough, shouldn't catch and kill things simply to identify them. As you perhaps implied, that sort of activity should be left to professionals, who know what it is useful to take and what not, and who in my experience actually take very few things.

Guy

[Dave McCormick]

This is where entomology and butterfly twitching part company; for the majority of insect orders a positive identification can only be made from a voucher specimen. Most micro's (and even some of the macro moths) can only be confidently identified through microscopic examination of the genitalia.

Felix.

True, but good that most species in UK, you don't have to do that to work out what they are, especially with butterflies where a photo just suffices.

Sometimes I find if you really know what your doing, if you can, with some of the harder species, find a male and female that both look the same species and try and breed them, this would let you know the species without killing any wild species. If there is still more needed, like genetalia, with breeding, you can just take one captive bred one, not disturbing wild populations.

[doggie]

Would it by any chance be a large tortoiseshell? I know some have been spotted this year in UK, but if its not that either, then idk. Also agree with Guy:

Perhaps we will never know what you saw - but I'm much happier with that result than knowing what it was because you caught it and killed it, like in the bad old days!!

No, the underside wasn't that dark.

Sigh

Well, I feel fortunate that I saw the thing, given that it was a unique experience, for me.

As it happens I used to pin moths and butterflies when I lived in Kenya as a boy. This butterfly reminds of something from back then, I just can't put my finger on it.

I would of course be more inclined to photograph now - although this zippy blighter would have been a challenge

[Piers]

Sometimes I find if you really know what your doing, if you can, with some of the harder species, find a male and female that both look the same species and try and breed them, this would let you know the species without killing any wild species. If there is still more needed, like genetalia, with breeding, you can just take one captive bred one, not disturbing wild populations.

Hi Dave,

That's all well and good, but say you were employed to conduct an ecological assessment of a site ear-marked for development, and you had a four month window in which to do this. As part of a survey of the macro leps you run a moth trap and one morning discover four very worn specimens of what look like 'pugs', possibly of the genus eupithecia. How do you determine the species? That's right, you kill them, prepare a genitalia slide and proceed from there. And that's just a hand full of marco's. When your trap has twenty or more dusty worn moths from one of the more primitive micro groups you're really up against it. And once you proceed into the coleoptera, diptera, hymenoptera and the smaller insect orders the preparation of voucher specimens is a scientific essential.

Felix.

[Dave]

Could the development be affected by positively identifying said worn pugs?

[Dave]

I'll take that as a no then....

'nuff said.

[Dave McCormick]

Well, thus may be a little useful. Its a PDF on photographing voucher specimins of moths with compact cameras and it gives useful ways of doing so: http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gBTVSlOOyI ... 0Moths.pdf without killing them.

If it is really necessary to find out what a species is in an area and all other attempts have failed, e.g. photographs don't help or habitat is same as other similar species, consolt your BC branch first, and I was told if you really have to do this, try and make sure if possible you don't take a female. Females are more needed to carry one the species line and one male from the area may not stop this, but taking a female from the area could aid in the lowering numbers the population of that species in the area you take the specimin from.

[Piers]

Yes Dave, as I said; for the majority of insect orders a positive identification can only be made from a voucher specimen.

Even with the lepidoptera, most micro's (and even some of the macro moths) can only be confidently identified through microscopic examination of a genitalia preparation.

You can not submit an ecological survey full of phrases such as "I think it might be a..." or "it looked a lot like a..."

For the professional entomologist the microscopic examination of a specimen is often essential.

Felix.

[Padfield]

I guess I'm responsible for the change of direction of this thread, by indicating a preference for blood-free doubt over blood-stained certainty!

Felix is absolutely right - I would make a lousy professional entomologist, and that's probably why I'm not one! I don't even kill mosquitoes or horseflies. But even among the professionals I do see different approaches. There are those who see curiosity as an end in itself, and as justification for any means, and there are others who manage to maintain respect and wonder for the insects themselves, even though their job might involve killing them, directly or indirectly. I am happy to know several entomologists who fit into this latter category.

I have to say, I was pretty torn up inside when I agreed to the specimen of eriphyle being taken. There's nothing rational about this - it just upset me to see a free, living creature taken out of a meadow and off to its doom (my friend's method is to take specimens alive, keep them in the dark and cool so they don't bash around, and then put them in the freezer when he gets home). I wouldn't have let it happen if it had just been a case of curiosity, or scientific knowledge. But the fact is, the Alps are being ploughed up and developed for luxury chalets at an alarming rate (I've seen a colony of violet coppers and another of Osiris blues go extinct in the last two or three years alone) and we need all the ammo we can get to stem this process. Is that sufficient justification? I don't know. I still remember that butterfly: I chose it personally to make sure he didn't take the wrong one and have to come back for another, as he had less experience of eriphyle than I had. Yup, Felix, I'd make a lousy entomologist.

Guy