Freddie
Posts: 371
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 28 2012,03:13) | Freddie, if you're concerned that some of your other pictures aren't very good, don't worry, I won't denigrate them. Even a blurry, badly lit (or worse) picture can often be helpful when it comes to identifying a critter or plant. And I know how hard it can be to get good pictures of some things, especially when they don't sit still.
Regarding the checkerspots, I'd say that the second picture is a chalcedon checkerspot (Euphydryas chalcedona) which is also also called 'variable' checkerspot, etc., etc., and some people consider the chalcedon to be the same as the colon checkerspot and maybe even the same as the anicia checkerspot. Yeah, it's a bunch of lumping or splitting and just plain confusion. The same thing goes for some lycaenids and many other butterflies. Taxonomists like to throw a lot of names at things before they know what they actually are.
Edith's checkerspots are easy to identify if you have a ventral view. They have a thin dark line running through one of the orange/red bands on the hind wings. The chaos with Edith's starts when it comes to "sub" species, "forms", etc.
The butterflies know what they are. :)
The white spots on the abdomen of the second checkerspot above are also an indicator that it's a chalcedon although the white spots aren't always there. I think that the first one is also a chalcedon ('variable', etc.) but I wish I had a ventral view to be sure. |
Not at all - I just had to dig into my archive to find the RAWs and pull them out (i'm a bit anal about keeping everything, too many times I have deleted something only to find I needed it the next day!)
Thanks very much for your help. In the UK there are some different species of birds that are really quite difficult to tell apart, I hadn't really considered that butterfly's would be in the same camp even more so!
--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.
|
