Two grizzled skippers for ID

[traplican]

Today I have done a trip with the enthomological net. It is necessary for taking photos of rare skippers Pyrgus sp. (P.armoricanus/ P. alveus / P. trebevicensis / P. serratulae / P. carthami), usable for identification.

The enthomological net grid can serve as the size scale (but I have regrettably caused worning of two butterflies).

I have taken two specimens of Pyrgus sp. and preliminarily identified as:

1st Pyrgus : http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 03_037.jpg - 11603_070.jpg - P. armoricanus

2nd Pyrgus : http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 03_075.jpg - 11603_114.jpg - P. serratulae

Can you help me with the identification, please?

[Padfield]

The second individual is entirely consistent with serratulae, I think. Here is a very similar serratulae I photographed in April this year:



I would be reluctant to confirm the identity from just the upperside, though.

The first individual is very difficult to see. From what I can see of the hindwing I would suspect malvae. The white looks too pure for armoricanus. But if it's not malvae then I would go for armoricanus.

You might consider getting a dark green/brown net (you only have to replace the material, not the net). My present net comes from a Czech supplier and is the same colour as the dark ones on the right here:

http://www.kabourek.cz/entoolslist.php? ... 78f64b3d9a

The material is very fine and seemingly transparent when a butterfly is inside.

In fact, with difficult species or species I need to ensure I get a record shot of I always transfer the butterfly immediately to a transparent receptacle and place the receptacle in my camera bag, which I place in the shade. The butterfly becomes calm very quickly, doing itself no damage. For it, it is as if a dark cloud suddenly came across the sky. After a few minutes, I examine and photograph the butterfly in its receptacle, but in the shade (under a tree, for example). Then I take it back to a suitable place in the sun and release it again.

Butterflies show no signs of distress when handled like this. It is quick, non-invasive to the habitat and doesn't damage the butterfly.

I use the clear boxes they sell rubber bands or paper clips in at the supermarket. These are big enough for most butterflies to feel comfortable:


(a black hairstreak posing in the shade for a site record earlier this year)

Guy

[traplican]

Thank you Guy, I shall attemp to buy similar clear boxes like you.

Here are videos of these two skippers:

P. armoricanus : http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 03_072.jpg

P. serratulae : http://traplican.rajce.idnes.cz/Motyli_ ... 03_109.jpg

[Padfield]

Do you get onopordi in your region, Traplican? One feature of the upperside of your serratulae made me think of that immediately, but I rejected the idea because I thought it was too late in the year. The underside does have several features of onopordi about it. It doesn't look perfect for serratulae but it's difficult to tell from the video.

Here's what I could get of the underside from the video:



The oval spot looks too big and not oval enough, while the colour looks too reddish. There is a 'signe de Blachier' in s1 and the central spot looks anvil-shaped.

Guy

No - I've looked in the books and you don't get onopordi. Mmm... It's difficult to see serratulae in that underside. Every time I feel comfortable with Pyrgus you challenge me all over again, Traplican!!!

[Padfield]

Well, I've looked through my serratulae pictures and some of them do have a larger oval spot. I'm settling on that now... Pyrgus are difficult!!


(All those are serratulae)

Guy

[Roger Gibbons]

I am in the UK briefly, so have time to look at UKB, so here are a couple of comments.

Traplican’s underside, from what little can be seen (and a very clear underside shot would make it rather easier) could be either serratulae or armoricanus. Although the s4/5 discal spot is slightly anvil shaped, I don’t think it is enough for onopordi, and the s1 discal does not look quite “split” (i.e. the top half is usually shifted inwardly) enough for onopordi. The s4/5 discal mark is quite wide, often an indicator of serratulae, but it can be true of armoricanus as well and I feel that the fact that it extends a little at the external top edge just swings it toward armoricanus.

The s1 discal mark is quite clearly leaning in a banana-shaped fashion, often seen on cirsii (which I am sure we can exclude here, can we not – even though as Guy notes that the colour is rather reddish), whereas I have found that the serratulae bump is often non-leaning (see Guy’s photo below), so I think this maybe suggests armoricanus.

The s1/s2 marginal marks are quite thin and highly sagittate which to me strongly suggests armoricanus, although it is not always like this, but I do not find other species are this thin/sagittate. Serratulae marks are usually rather more rounded and arc-shaped and rather more solid, at least at the pointed end, and I feel that the fact that they are not suggest not serratulae.

On Traplican’s two videos, both look rather like armoricanus to me, from what I can see from shots taken in a high wind. Those uph marks on the second video look rather too strong for serratulae (at least on the serratulae I can be confident about), especially if it is a female.

Guy, on your serratulae photo (latest post), are you 100% sure the one in the middle ground is not carthami? The tooth-shaped double peak of the s4/5 marginal mark looks very indicative of carthami to my eyes, and there are other features such as the rather mottled appearance, the s1/s2 marginal marks and the clear round discal s2 and s3 spots, all suggest carthami perhaps? The s4/5 discal mark at the external end looks too concave for serratulae. Granted, there is not clear white marginal border, although there are slight suggestions of one; but I saw a very similar one earlier this year which just had to be carthami (or sidae) from the upperside and size etc, but was very much like yours on the underside.

These are just observations, so please don’t think I am speaking from a position of knowledge or authority. I am just trying to make sense of the often contradictory evidence that Pyrgus often presents.

Roger

[Padfield]

From photographs, carthami and serratulae are remarkably similar, aren't they, for butterflies that are so different in the field!! Traplican recently posted an ambiguous individual that had me getting all confused!

I wouldn't swear that middle one in my picture is not carthami, Roger (but I don't think it is), because both species fly commonly at that site and I have photographed them together more than once. But the white margin is normally visible even in worn specimens, like this one I photographed today:



And serratulae does show a hint of the white margin - only a hint - in fresh specimens. This is one I prepared earlier:



I certainly agree the first of Traplican's skippers is most likely armoricanus, though it is so different from the lovely, bright specimens in France and Switzerland I don't have any confidence there either (pity the video doesn't show the upperside hindwing). I'm less convinced by the second one, though I'm prepared to believe it. The very sparse postdiscal band in ss1b and 2 is unusual for armoricanus.

In short, I wish I'd been there!! I've come to the conclusion (I came to this conclusion long ago) that field identification is far easier than identification from pictures and videos!!

Guy

[traplican]

Today I have bought a clear soap box in Interspar supermarket, size 10 x 6 x 4 cm and tested it on butterflies:

- Heath Fritillary
- Pyrgus armoricanus
- Mazarine Blue (though it is easily determinable species so it appears needless to capture one if it is possible take it to the photo without).

It seems to me that the damage of the butterflies is remarkably less than by attemting to take photos through the entomological net and size of the box can be use for butterfly size measurement. Thank you, Guy!

[traplican]

My wife advise me not to publish photos of butterfly in the clear box because it isn't so romantic like butterfly on the flower. She says that my photos may be popular and may propagate butterflies conservation only if the butterlies on the published photos will be free.

On the other hand, there is an argument, that identification of butterflies is the way for their conservation. "Recognize and protect" is well-known motto of our conservatorist and I thing it hasn't lost relevance yet.

What you thing about this matter?

[Padfield]

I think you're both right!

Your wife is surely right that photos for public consumption should, wherever possible, record living, free specimens. The photo freezes time. A butterfly frozen on a flower is good. A butterfly frozen in a box is bad. I agree with her.

HOWEVER, for scientific purposes, stalking and photographing is EXCEPTIONALLY invasive compared to netting, as well as being highly inefficient. For scientific purposes, where you a) need to identify everything present in a transect or b) need to distinguish between difficult species, I believe a net is essential. It avoids you trampling the vegetation. It avoids the need to chase a butterfly for a long time, interrupting its natural behaviour. It avoids missing some butterfly that is just passing through.

I would never use a net in England, because there are no British species I can't identify in flight at some distance, with the possible exceptions of small skipper/Essex skipper (which are relatively sedentary species) and pale clouded yellow/Berger's pale clouded yellow (neither of which I have ever been lucky enough to encounter in England). I also, like your wife, perhaps, consider nets ugly (but not as ugly as hordes of photographers trampling over meadows to get that perfect shot!). NEVERTHELESS, I carry two nets everywhere on the continent - one discreet pocket net, for emergencies, and one full-sized, professional net which I get out for serious work.

Last week I received my permit to use a net in Spain, incidentally (it is illegal to net butterflies in Spain without licence)! I applied in March and needed the backing of a professional scientific organisation before they would grant it (I was supported very kindly by the Centre Suisse de la Cartographie de la Faune). When I applied I noted specifically that I needed the net for Pyrgus and Erebia and this is specified on the licence! Technically, I will be breaking the law if I wield my net in Spain this summer on any other species. It is also specified in the licence that I will not kill any specimens, but I would never do that anyway, not even for science.

In short, I believe it is in the short- and long-term interests of butterflies that competent specialists use nets judiciously. I would regret it very much if the net became a standard tool for the amateur naturalist and replaced the joy of seeing butterflies free in their natural habitats.

Guy

[traplican]

Well, I am licensed by the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic. It was poited to me that I don't use net although I was equiped by one and that it is impossible rely on the readiness of difficultly determinable butterflies to pose in appropriate positions.

So I have used net for taking photos of two rare skippers but I was very sorrry I caused damage of ones. Using of clear box is good idea, it permit to take photos appropriate for identification, nonetheless publishing of such photos may cause displeasure.

I should rather to provide still published photos by explaining text and in future to publish only free butterlies.