Pyrgus - all species except Safflower Skipper (Pyrgus carthami) and Yellow-banded Skipper (Pyrgus sidae)

next page           back to list

 

A very confusing family of Grizzled Skippers. I have grouped them all together on one page for comparison. I have excluded malvae, carthami and sidae as they can be identified with some confidence. I am unsure about those that I have marked (?), or even (??) where I really don't have a clue. Comment is actively invited.

 

The Pyrgus on this page include:

I have not seen the other two Pyrgus species that occur in France, Foulquier's Grizzled Skipper (P. foulquieri) or Warren's Skipper (P. warrenensis), both of which are quite rare.

 

I have grouped together first the undersides, then the uppersides, for direct comparison purposes. I have also added the notes on each photo under the enlarged version, as Pyrgus ID is so complex.

2009 photos highlighted in yellow. Click on any photo to go to an enlarged picture, or simply scroll down the page.

2807_male_Var_21Jul06 - alveus (??) 2851_female_Var_21Jul06 - alveus (?) 5389_female_Var_14May07 - armoricanus
3056_male_Alpes Maritimes_25Jul06 - carlinae 12135_male_Hautes Alpes_7Jul08 - carlinae 18312_male_Isere_13Jul09 - carlinae
3471_male_Var_10Aug06 - cirsii 19068_male_Aveyron_26Aug09 - cirsii 3552_male_Var_10Aug06 - onopordi
7661_female_Var_30Jun07 - onopordi 11944_male_Alpes de Haute Provence_5Jul08 - serratulae 18308_male_Isere_13Jul09 - serratulae

 

2807_male_Var_21Jul06 - alveus (??)

2807: the pattern of white marks almost exactly matches the illustration given in T&L for foulquieri for each of the unh basal, discal and submarginal/marginal bands, and is clearly different from the other possibilities (chiefly alveus) in at least one key respect. Also, the unf white marks are visible in the upper area and these are jagged and also match T&L for foulquieri. However, the ID unh illustrations given in the Lafranchis France book are quite different to T&L and show 2807 as matching the illustration for alveus and not for foulquieri. Could the books actually agree with each other please? 2807 has a clear white discal mark in s2, not quite as wide as shown in Lafranchis, but Lafranchis shows this mark to be missing for alveus. H&R says the unh ground colour is yellow-brown (this is rather dark brown) and that it emerges late July (seen 21 July, so this matches). HOWEVER, the key to foulquieri male is the hairtuft at the end of the abdomen extends  under the abdomen, which 2807 doesn't. The only two sites revealed on an image search for Pyrgus foulquieri that have credible images matching this criterion also do not match the Lafranchis illustration in certain respects. So 2807 is not foulquieri, and I guess it must be alveus, even though it was flying in company with 2851 which I believe to be female alveus but looks completely different. Altitude 800m.

 

2851_female_Var_21Jul06 - alveus (?)

2851: this is clearly a female from the body shape and I think it is alveus from the markings, even though they are rather indistinct. Altitude 800m, same location as 2807.

 

5389_female_Var_14May07 - armoricanus

5389: a female armoricanus. The ground colour is quite a light sandy brown with the veins just, but clearly, lighter, with the white marks reasonably clear and some darker edged. The discal mark in s4/5 looks slightly anvil-like suggesting onopordi, but I don't think it is. Both H&R and Lafranchis refer to a large round discal spot in s1c, and Lafranchis gives an illustration; I find this to be a rounded leaning bump with a rather flat bottom edge (it might be rounded below), as shown in T&L, although I would be reasonably confident (as confident as anyone can be about Pyrgus ID) that 5389 is armoricanus. However, there is a small round discal spot in s2.

 

3056_male_Alpes Maritimes_25Jul06 - carlinae

3056: I believe this is a male even though the end of the abdomen is not very clear. This is clearly carlinae - the unh ground colour is pale reddish-brown, the discal markings in s4/s5 are quite narrow and neatly rectangular, those in s2 and s3 are absent, and the s1 mark is a "bump". The white marginal mark on vein 5 is clear and rectangular (not very clear on this photo as a result of shade). The white basal mark in s7 is rounded. Altitude 2000m.

 

12135_male_Hautes Alpes_7Jul08 - carlinae

12135: not quite as clear-cut as 3056, but the square-ish marginal mark on v5 just about confirms carlinae for me. The abdominal hair tuft confirms male. Altitude 1750m.

 

18312_male_Isere_13Jul09 - carlinae

18312: carlinae: very similar to 3056, the reddish-brown ground colour seems to me to be almost confirmation of carlinae on its own. Altitude 1120m.

 

3471_male_Var_10Aug06 - cirsii

3471: this is clearly a male as it is taking salts and the hairtuft at the end of the abdomen is clearly visible. I am reasonably confident that this cirsii as the discal s4/5 white mark is cleft externally and flat internally and quite square-ish, and slightly offset externally with regard to the mark in s7. The margin is largely unmarked, although the marginal mark on v5 is indistinct. The discal mark in s1 is a leaning bump, and the s7 mark in the basal region is rounded. The ground colour is a very yellowish brown. Altitude 800m.

 

19068_male_Aveyron_26Aug09 - cirsii

19068: cirsii: rather darker but this may be because the light is behind the butterfly. It does, however, show up the markings clearly, the rounded basal mark in s7 and the discal leaning bump in s1 in particular, and the strong yellow veins are much in evidence. Altitude 610m.

 

3552_male_Var_10Aug06 - onopordi

3552: I'm guessing it's a male as it appears to be taking salts. I'll stick my neck out and say it's definitely onopordi for several reasons: the discal mark in s4/5 is very clearly anvil-shaped (see illustration below) - the key identifying characteristic for onopordi. The discal marks in s2 and s3 are vestigial. The discal mark in s1, rather a leaning bump (called the "signe de Blachier", presumable by - or after - Blachier who was a famous lepidopterist around the beginning of the 1900s) and the s1 basal mark, are also characteristic. Several of the white marks are black-edged giving a marbled effect. The veins are yellow. A terrific little butterfly. Altitude 800m.

 

7661_female_Var_30Jun07 - onopordi

7661: female onopordi. The ground colour is a very pale, washy, yellow-brown, making the white marks rather indistinct. The "anvil" unh discal mark in s4/5 is rather flat-edged internally although strongly black-edged externally. The unh s1 discal mark is not a typical "signe de Blachier". All in all, not a typical onopordi (c.f. the male 2552 above).

 

11944_male_Alpes de Haute Provence_5Jul08 - serratulae

11944: the circular basal spot in s7 of the unh is strongly indicative of serratulae. Altitude 1800m.

 

18308_male_Isere_13Jul09 - serratulae

18308: serratulae: the markings are indicative of serratulae, especially the s1 and s2 marginal markings, the discal band in s4-s7 and the discal s1 bump. In the upper butterfly, the basal mark in s7 is rounded at the basal edge but quite straight externally which would tend to preclude serratulae, but the butterfly below is almost identical in every respect except that the s7 basal mark is almost perfectly circular, a feature that is strongly (in conjunction with other features) indicative of serratulae. So, if they are both the same species, and I believe they are, is this compelling evidence that the s7 basal mark does not need to be perfectly rounded? Altitude 1120m.

 

Uppersides: return to top of page

9030_male_Hautes Pyrenees_10Aug07 - alveus 12296_male_Hautes Alpes_9Jul08 - alveus 1545_female_Var_4Jun06 - alveus
7282_female_Alpes Maritimes_24Jun07 - andromedae 6544_male_Var_6Jun07 - armoricanus (?) 17950_male_Isere_11Jul09 - armoricanus
14251_female_Var_9Sep08 - armoricanus 8571_female_Var_27Jul07 - armoricanus 12208_male_Hautes Alpes_8Jul08 - cacaliae
13152_male_Valais, Switzerland_18Jul08 - cacaliae 3321_male_Alpes Maritimes_28Jul06 - carlinae 17405_male_Hautes Alpes_07Jul09 - carlinae
17436_pair_Hautes Alpes_08Jul09 - carlinae 3550_male_Var_10Aug06 - cirsii 14218_female_Var_6Sep08 - cirsii
5005_male_Var_27Apr07 - onopordi 5823_female_Var_26May07 - onopordi (?) 10227_female_Var_5May08 - onopordi
18205_male_Isere_12Jul09 - serratulae 17795_male_Hautes Alpes_10Jul09 - serratulae 3742_female_Alpes de Haute Provence_14Aug06 - serratulae

 

9030_male_Hautes Pyrenees_10Aug07 - alveus

9030: alveus: a male. I've rather come to the conclusion that it must/could be alveus by the dubious process of eliminating everything else. The virtually non-existent upf cell spot rules out many species. The uph markings are pale but quite well defined, which would normally tend to rule out alveus, but it is a male and this is probably about the limit of strength of uph markings for this species. The colouring is rather odd, with dark brown marginal areas, lightening to sandy brown in the upf basal area. Altitude 1600m.

 

12296_male_Hautes Alpes_9Jul08 - alveus

12296: alveus: the relatively light markings and horizontal wing position suggest alveus and I noted at the time that it was rather too large for most other options. I'm not sure if this straight-line of the forewings is in any way indicative of alveus, although it has seemed to coincide with other factors. Altitude 1750m.

 

1545_female_Var_4Jun06 - alveus

1545: alveus: a female based on the body shape. The upf markings are quite light and those in the post-discal area rather scruffy, indicative of alveus. The uph markings are pale although quite well developed. It has an alveus feel to me. However, according to Lafranchis, alveus is of uncertain status in Var, with no recent confirmed records. Altitude 230m.

 

7282_female_Alpes Maritimes_24Jun07 - andromedae

7282: andromedae: a female from the body shape. Very tricky. I did not see the underside which would have helped the ID considerably. The options are really alveus or andromedae. The ground colour is a dark grey-brown for both, although 7282 is greyer than many alveus I (think I) have seen. The almost completely unmarked uph is suggestive of andromedae, as are the strong and elongated white marks. As are the two strong dashes above the upf cell spot (thanks to Tim Cowles for this). The only thing against andromedae is that all the books quote the three white discal marks is s1 and s2 as being characteristic of andromedae and 7282 has one and maybe a hint of a second mark, but not three; however, this area looks quite grey, hairy, and generally obscure, and 7282 dies match the photo in Lafranchis (which also doesn't seem to have these three white marks) quite well. On the balance of this evidence, I'd go for andromedae. Altitude 2100m.

 

6544_male_Var_6Jun07 - armoricanus (?)

6544: armoricanus: I think this is a male, based on what I can just see of the body shape. The ground colour is very unusual, ranging from dark brown at the margins to quite sandy in the basal area. The upf white marks are fairly large and quite sharp-edged and the cell spot would normally be a strong clue to carlinae, except that the altitude was 220m and carlinae only occurs at altitudes above 1000m and most usually above 1500m. I think it is too strongly marked for alveus and serratulae, so I'll plump for armoricanus. Altitude 220m.

 

17950_male_Isere_11Jul09 - armoricanus

17950: armoricanus: 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. Comment invited. Altitude 1120m.

 

14251_female_Var_9Sep08 - armoricanus

14251: a female, more lightly marked than the male, and have the pale dusted effect that I associate (rightly or wrongly) with armoricanus. Altitude 920m.

 

8571_female_Var_27Jul07 - armoricanus

8571: armoricanus: a female, the pale sandy dusting across most of the upperside is, I suspect, indicative of armoricanus. I would certainly expect the upf white marks to be stronger for armoricanus but the sandy feel pushes me in the direction of armoricanus. Altitude 780m.

 

12208_male_Hautes Alpes_8Jul08 - cacaliae

12208: I believe this a male cacaliae, even though more heavily marked than typical, because of the two white marks near the base of the upf, characteristic of cacaliae. I have only seen a limited number of this species, and for the first time in 2008, so my observations are based on very limited experience. Cacaliae is a very high altitude species, and this was certainly high enough not to preclude it on those grounds. Altitude 1990m.

 

13152_male_Valais, Switzerland_18Jul08 - cacaliae

13152: a very typical cacaliae, very lightly marked so that it really cannot be anything else. The two white marks near the upf base are further indications. I'm fairly certain that this is cacaliae. If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. Altitude 2380m.

 

3321_male_Alpes Maritimes_28Jul06 - carlinae

3321: carlinae: a male based on the suggestion of a hairtuft at the end of the abdomen, and general shape of the end of the abdomen. A very dark brown ground colour. The upf cell spot is sort of an outward "C" (the carlinae characteristic), not very convincing but not rectangular enough for cirsii. The post-discal white marks in s2/s3 are joined and slightly offset (sometimes looks sinuous). The altitude tends to support carlinae, an altitude species, with a normal minimum range of 1500m. Altitude 1800m.

 

17405_male_Hautes Alpes_07Jul09 - carlinae

17405: carlinae: clearly a male, and 100% carlinae from the "C" shaped upf cell spot. Altitude 2000m.

 

17436_pair_Hautes Alpes_08Jul09 - carlinae

17436: carlinae: a mating pair, the female is above. Very convenient to see both upper surfaces together, illustrating the lighter upf markings of the female and the virtually non-existent uph markings. It also shows how unconvincing the upf "C" shaped cell spot can be. As in many instances of the books' references to identifying features (in this case they say that carlinae can be identified by the upf "C" shaped cell spot), sometimes they are clear and unmistakeable, when ID is almost certain, but all too often they are rather indeterminate, as here. Altitude 2000m.

 

3550_male_Var_10Aug06 - cirsii

3550: cirsii: one of the easier species (and I am almost 100% certain on this one), and a male, based on the clear hairtuft at the end of the abdomen. The upf white marks are large and strong and clearly defined, especially the rectangular cell spot (see illustration below) which is slightly concave internally in the lower half. The white post-discal spots in s2/s3 are joined and slightly offset, slightly "sinuous". Altitude 800m.

 

14218_female_Var_6Sep08 - cirsii

14218: a beautifully marked female cirsii, very fresh, with superb contrasting markings. Who says Pyrgus can't be appealing? The strong upf white markings and pale uph markings are usually characteristic of cirsii, strong even for a female. Altitude 780m.

 

5005_male_Var_27Apr07 - onopordi

5005: onopordi: a male, with a strong dark brown ground colour and well-defined white upf markings, all suggesting onopordi. The early flight season confirms onopordi as the only other Pyrgus that would be on the wing in April is malvae. Altitude 220m.

 

5823_female_Var_26May07 - onopordi (?)

5823: onopordi: a female, but I'm not entirely convinced this is onopordi even though it is the best match for markings. The ground colour is rather mid yellow-brown with a more sandy area, suggestive of armoricanus, where I have always considered onopordi to be darker brown. The uph discal mark is quite rectangular and cleft, evoking what I feel may be characteristic of armoricanus. In the submarginal series of marks, the marks in s4 and s5 are displaced externally - is this indicative or armoricanus or do all Pyrgus show this to a greater or lesser extent? However, the upf white marks are quite weak indicating onopordi, and that just swings it for me. Altitude 220m.

 

10227_female_Var_5May08 - onopordi

10227: onopordi - I believe this is typical onopordi, more lightly marked as it is a female. The strong dark brown colour is in my experience an indication, and the early flight period virtually excludes any other Pyrgus except malvae. In Var, on my patch, the other Pyrgus emerge much later and have had consistent flight periods over the past three years. Altitude 220m.

 

18205_male_Isere_12Jul09 - serratulae

18205: serratulae: from the lightness of the markings, I don't think this could be anything other than serratulae. A male, as indicated by the abdominal hair tuft and its puddling behaviour. Altitude 1120m.

 

17795_male_Hautes Alpes_10Jul09 - serratulae

17795: serratulae: another male, although the upf markings are rather stronger, equally the uph markings are virtually non-existent apart from a vestigial discal mark. Altitude 1890m.

 

3742_female_Alpes de Haute Provence_14Aug06 - serratulae

3742: serratulae: very pale and drab, with very few markings on the upf all of which are concentrated in s5-7, with s1-4 almost completely unmarked. The uph is almost completely unmarked with very pale, almost vestigial, markings. It is almost certainly a female based on body shape. It could be alveus, carlinae, or serratulae, the females of which are all lightly marked; I would plump for serratulae on the grounds that the uph is virtually unmarked (alveus and carlinae have pale but somewhat stronger uph markings), and the absence of any upf markings in s1-4 which matches the book illustrations of serratulae, whereas alveus and carlinae have some weak markings in these areas. The strength of the cell spot does give me some concerns about serratulae, though. All three have an upper altitude range in excess of 2000m, so the altitude would not tend to eliminate any of these three possibilities. Altitude 2000m.