Oberthur's Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus armoricanus)

next page           back to list

2017 photographs highlighted in yellow. Click on any photograph to go to an enlarged picture, or simply scroll down the page.

24703_male_Var_13May11 17950_male_Isère_11Jul09 34961_male_Var_27May14
39161_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15 39162_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15 39184_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15
42020_male_Rhône_21Aug16 43553_male_Var_29Jun17 34906_female_Var_27May14
23787_female_Var_5Sep10 29198_female_Var_12May12 34946_male_Var_27May14
21642_male_Alpes-Maritimes_7Jul10 24816_male_Var_15May11 44133_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_11Jul17
   
44137_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_11Jul17    

A widespread (relative to the others) Pyrgus, although I rarely find it in more than ones and twos. It has a brown upperside ground colour, often with a sandy flush in the upf basal region. The female often seems to be a sandy yellow-brown colour. It has a fairly strongly marked upf and uph, the male being more strongly marked than the female, as is usual for Pyrgus. The male uph discal mark is usually noticeably white and of characteristic shape, similar to an old-fashioned wooden clothes peg, similar to the Grizzled Skipper (Pyrgus malvae) mark at the bottom end, but rather longer.

 

It is of average size for Pyrgus and the female often has a rather rounded wing shape, I find.

 

The unh has rather dark brown ground colour and the veins are yellow and usually prominent. The unh discal mark in s4/5 often straight-edged internally and cleft externally in a shape that seems reasonably constant and characteristic of armoricanus. There is usually (always?) a small-medium round spot in the unh discal s2.

Its distribution is across most of eastern France, particularly in the south and in the Pyrénées. It is generally a lower altitude species than its cousins, not occurring at altitudes above 1700m.

The specimens from the Pyrénées are rather problematical: having visited the location in 2015 and 2017, the "armoricanus" from the particular location at 1600m are somewhat different to those found at lower altitudes, 1600m being near the top end of the altitude range (although that might explain why they appear different). The only feasible alternative is the subspecies of Large Grizzled Skipper (P. alveus accretus). The individuals from 2015 are quite variable and may even not all be armoricanus. On the visit in 2017, 43553 added a further variant; the uph marks looks sufficiently strong for armoricanus but the upf marks are relatively thin and rather jagged, not what I would expect from classical armoricanus, but equally rather weaker than what I would expect for accretus, based on my few confident sightings of this subspecies. Additionally, the weak unh s2 discal mark in both 44133 and 44137 would tend to point away from armoricanus, although both may be within range. The problem is that there is very limited information available on accretus in terms of the strength of markings and the extent of their variability. An internet search on accretus has the first link as the alveus page of this site. Not helpful! The search reveals very little, and virtually no images.

My Dutch friend Peter Groenendijk, with whom I made the 2015 trip, believes they are accretus: http://www.anythingbutcommon.nl/Pyrgus-alveus.html.

In his latest work "La Vie des Papillons" (http://diatheo.weebly.com/la-vie-des-papillons.html), Lafranchis says that accretus flies in the foothills of the Pyrénées; quite where he means by that I do not know, but I would not have described this location as "foothills".

It may be that all of these potential accretus are, in fact, such. But until someone undertakes a genitalia or DNA study, it remains an open question.

ref sex

observations

alt. m
24703 M a typical male armoricanus. The pale markings are quite white, and well contrasted. 140
17950 M

a male, from the visible but rather weak and strange abdominal hair tufts at each side. The markings and the upf sandy appearance of the basal region is strongly indicative of armoricanus, I believe, even though the markings are rather on the light side for this species. Maybe it is a female, which would explain the lighter markings.

1120
34961 M a male, a rather cold dark brown ground colour and particularly strong and white markings, giving good contrast. 220
39161 M from a visit to the Hautes-Pyrénées, where armoricanus seemed to be quite common. This, and the two that follow, were puddling together at the sandy edge of a river. 39161 is perhaps most typical, with a rather cold dark brown ground colour and pale whitish uph discal markings. 39162 is a much warmer dark brown with a distinctly sandy basal area on the upf, but a rather pale uph discal mark. 39184 is similar, perhaps a rather more mid-brown ground colour and a uph discal mark that is slightly better developed than 39162 but still rather weaker than what would be expected for this species. It is assumed that all three are armoricanus, with the possibility that 39184 may be accretus. See also the general comments above. 1600
39162 M see comment on 39161 above. 1600
39184 M see comment on 39161 above. 1600
42020 M a male from the Rhône département, rather lighter in colouring than the specimens seen further south. 600
43553 M a male, the uph markings being about right for armoricanus, but the uph marks are unusually thin and jagged. Another potential accretus. See also the general comments above. 680
34906 F a female, fresh and showing the reflective sandy flush on the basal region of the upf. The uph is quite strongly marked for a female. It was seen at the same location and time as 34961, illustrating the difference between the two sexes. 220
23787 F

a very fresh female, with a beautiful rich dark brown colouring. The markings on the upf and uph look exactly right for female armoricanus, and I am fairly confident this is what it is, despite the absence of a upf sandy basal flush. The only options are Olive Skipper (P. serratulae) or Cinquefoil Skipper (P. cirsii) and there are good reasons why it is neither of these. Rosy Grizzled Skipper (P. onopordi) is an option but the upf cell spot does not seem strong enough for onopordi. The right upf cell spot (which does not appear to be symmetrical with the left one) is in the shape of a question mark, maybe mocking those who try to identify it.

920
34946 M a male underside. It was seen at the same location and time as 34961, but it is not the same individual. 220
29198 F

a female, with the characteristic sandy flush, especially pronounced in the basal region of the forewing. The uph markings are rather diffuse and pale yellow-brown.

220
21642 M

meeting all the criteria for armoricanus. The deep sandy brown unh ground colour and yellow veins are almost sufficient to identify armoricanus alone. All of the markings match the classic armoricanus almost 100%.

1400
24816 M this armoricanus underside was confirmed by a clear view of the upperside. 280
44133 M a male, puddling in company with 44137. Whilst the unh marks do not preclude armoricanus, the discal s2 marks are quite weak (especially in 44137), and the marginal s2 mark does not look as pointed at the apex as I would expect for classical armoricanus, but maybe they are within range for this locality. See also the general comments above. 1600
44137 M see comments on 44133. 1600

 

24703_male_Var_13May11

 

17950_male_Isère_11Jul09

 

34961_male_Var_27May14

 

39161_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15

 

39162_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15

 

39184_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_24Jul15

 

42020_male_Rhône_21Aug16

 

43553_male_Var_29Jun17

 

34906_female_Var_27May14

 

23787_female_Var_5Sep10

 

29198_female_Var_12May12

 

34946_male_Var_27May14

 

21642_male_Alpes-Maritimes_7Jul10

 

24816_male_Var_15May11

 

44133_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_11Jul17

 

44137_male_Hautes-Pyrénées_11Jul17