Delicious flower

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:28 pm

... at least for this butterfly.

He stayed on this flower for more than a half minute with his antennae in downward position. Smelling?

Camera model Olympus SP-320
Date/time 21.08.2006/11:05:45
Exposure time 1/640 s
F-number f/3.5
ISO 64
Focal length 8 mm

Camera model Olympus SP-320
Date/time 21.08.2006/11:05:55
Exposure time 1/640 s
F-number f/4
ISO 64
Focal length 8 mm

Camera model Olympus SP-320
Date/time 21.08.2006/11:06:06
Exposure time 1/640 s
F-number f/4
ISO 64
Focal length 8 mm

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:17 pm

[Entry removed - Bruce

]
.............

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:24 pm

Nikola, this is very interesting behavior with the antennae. I can't recall ever seeing this go on for very long.

Bruce, are you sure about that ID? All the pictures I see of Inachis have a strongly scalloped front wing with a prominent point just back of the (dorsal) eyespot. Also no prominent eyespots on the ventral. This beast looks more like one of the satyrs (Satyridae). Where I live (northwestern US) it would be a Cercyonis, but I don't know European butterflies well enough to say. Both groups have the reduced front legs, of course.

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:36 am

Thanks Rik and Bruce,
I know very well how Inachis io's open wings looks like and if this is the Peacock butterfly than strange thing is how I did never see its open wings colors in my life on my little vacation isle. (from wich photo was taken)

I'll pay more attention on this antennae behavior next time. Maybe it is a species dependant or I get some new idea.

P.S.
If I think better, seems those little blue BTF shows similar behavior.
See Very small butterfly and Funny zebra style socks from old forum.

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:15 am

Hi Nikola and Rik,

I find myself embarrassed

My apologies I should have been less definite in my ID. I was kinda expecting a challenge too as I was unhappy with the prominent ventral eyespot and justified it as backlight through slightly open wings

.

I have now compared it more closely with a (not very good) shot that I took last year. The scolloped outer margin of the forewing is pretty conclusive and I have to concede my over-hasty ID was wrong

I offer as explanation (lame excuse really) the fact that Britain only has c. 60 species of breeding butterfly and a lot of those are regional or scarce. It's easy to forget that many places in Europe enjoy so many more species (you lucky people!).

To avoid confusing other forum readers I'll edit my original posting but leave this one in.

Bruce

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:52 am

It's OK Bruce.

I make those hastily ID claims very often.

Fortunately we have Rik here.

Without him it would possibly pass without reaction but it is better this way to make things clear in my opinion. Thanks Rik!

Bruce Williams · Post by **Bruce Williams** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:39 am

Thanks Nikola

Not a species I know, but how about the Tree Grayling as a possible ID (particularly the seventh image from the top)? See:

http://www.guypadfield.com/treegrayling.html

Bruce

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:09 am

Yesssss! Neohipparchia statilinus definitely! I saw a bunch of its on my last summer vacation!
Thanks a lot Bruce!

beetleman · Post by **beetleman** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:09 pm

Great looking pictures Nikola.

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:40 am

More excellent shots !!!. Sharp and clear and I like the perspective. Fine details

Danny.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:18 am

Bruce Williams wrote:Not a species I know, but how about the Tree Grayling as a possible ID (particularly the seventh image from the top)? See:

http://www.guypadfield.com/treegrayling.html

Bruce, thanks for tracking this down. That picture sure looks like a good match to me.

It's interesting that another source lists the Tree Grayling as Hipparchia statilinus (versus Neohipparchia statilinus), and it shows a picture whose underside appearance is quite different. (Neither source associates statilinus with anything else.)

Apparently the Satyridae are as confusing in Europe as they are in North America.

Describing our Cercyonis, Erlich (1961, How to Know the Butterflies) wrote that "These widespread and common butterflies present an extremely complex variational picture in the western United States. Just what are or are not species will probably not be settled without extensive breeding or cytogenetic studies. The three segregates given below may not represent genetic species."

45 years later, the picture is pretty much the same!

--Rik

MacroLuv · Post by **MacroLuv** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:11 pm

I found Neohipparchia statilinus (S A T Y R I D A E #82) between references (entomological collections and book sources) of 117 daily butterfly species from Velebit (Croatian coastal mountain range).