Marbled or Southern Marbled?

[David Tipping]

Can anybody confirm the identity of this skipper, seen in the Spanish Pyrenees in July?

[Roger Gibbons]

Very hard to say as the angle makes the markings rather lost in the lighting. I don't think it is Marbled as this would appear very white and unmarked, so I think the choice is between Mallow and Southern Marbled. The markings just don't look right for Mallow, but I would expect to see a more reticulated pattern for Southern Marbled. Maybe this has just become less distinct through ageing and the lighting angle, so I suggest Southern Marbled is the least improbable. From what can be seen of thr upperside (no view available?) it seems consistent with Southern Marbled.

Unless of course there's some local species or subspecies that has markings different from what I would expect from French specimens (standard backside-covering caveat).

Roger

[David Tipping]

Thanks Roger. Unfortunately there is no upperside view available - I was surrounded by lots of butterflies at the time and was photographing everything with a view to establishing identifications later!

[Padfield]

My first thought was tufted marbled. The tone of the underside is perhaps more brown than you might expect but otherwise it is quite compatible - and what can be seen of the upperside is good too.

I can't see this as marbled or southern marbled. I can't rule out mallow - it would be nice to see more pictures. A well lit underside hindwing is usually decisive for mallow/tufted marbled - and any upperside shot would do with a reasonably fresh insect.

Marbled, tufted marbled and mallow are all common in the Pyrenees in July. I only ever visit the Val d'Aran, so my experience is limited, but I've yet to find southern marbled there.

Guy

[John Vergo]

If I must put in a remark on this one, I would say that it is (for me) a clear flocciferus, in the underwing submarginal aera s4, the white mark are too prominent to be anything else than a flocciferus.

John

[Roger Gibbons]

I'm now back in the UK and can view UKB on a big screen (compared to my travelling laptop) and - for what it's worth - I agree flocciferus and I can now see the marginal marks and it's clear that the reticulated marks of baeticus aren't there.

I agree with Guy that it is very pale, but flocciferus can be very variable from brown to almost charcoal black on the upperside, reflected on the underside.

Also, if it was seen in the Spanish Pyrenees (presumably at altitude), it is highly unlikely to be baeticus which seems to have an upper altitude limit of around 1000m.

Roger

[David Tipping]

Thanks to you all - that seems conclusive.