Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Butterfly (or moth?) Identification, Please

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

8 Aug 2012 - 10:19 PM

can anybody identify this little butterfly (I don't think it's a moth)? There's nothing like it in my book so I'm not sure where to start.
Very small, photo shows it on some clover:


many thanks for any help / pointers,
the V-shaped marking on the body may be a clue as perhaps are the slightly curved antenae - a bit like a Dingy Skipper, perhaps, but....


Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
8 Aug 2012 - 10:19 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

9 Aug 2012 - 12:03 AM

Clubbed antennae, butterfly.
Doesn't look like any of the skippers in my book, not like any of the female blues either.

gary_d e2 Member 6539 forum postsgary_d vcard Wales13 Constructive Critique Points
9 Aug 2012 - 12:24 AM

Ade Osman is your man.

franken e2 Member 123143 forum postsfranken vcard Wales4 Constructive Critique Points
9 Aug 2012 - 8:18 AM

This may come in useful.



Think it's a Grizzled Skipper

9 Aug 2012 - 10:52 AM

Many thanks for responses. They promted me (because the idea of it being a skipper seemed to be OK) to go and search and I've just spent an enjoyable half-hour comparing pictures - I think perhaps it is a Mallow Skipper (or a False Mallow Skipper....):

Mallow Skipper

False Mallow Skipper

not sure about colours

Using Franken's link (thank-you) I've found my 'blues' - two of which hung around for a while yesterday (common blue, of course, nothing exotic!) Why they look so blue in the viewfinder, LCD, to the naked eye etc. and then come out nothing like in the photo I don't really know, but I guess that can be changed.


Last Modified By petebfrance at 9 Aug 2012 - 10:55 AM
Heretic  8 United Kingdom
9 Aug 2012 - 1:10 PM

Hi Pete, "Why they look so blue in the viewfinder, LCD, to the naked eye etc. and then come out nothing like in the photo" we have the same problem over here with the flower bluebell. Look wonderful to the eye but purple in the picture. I understand that it's to do with the effect of ultraviolet and can be corrected.


cambirder  107202 forum posts England
9 Aug 2012 - 1:52 PM

As you are in France it is highly unlikely to be a False Mallow Skipper as they are found in North Africa and the most southerly parts of the Iberian peninsula. Mallow Skipper on the other hand would seen to be fit the bill perfectly.

9 Aug 2012 - 2:11 PM

thanks - I think I'll settle for that, then. I hadn't noticed the range difference, just that they were difficult to tell apart.

thanks - it's not the same problem but, well, there just isn't much blue of any kind there. Incidentally, we do have 'proper' bluebells here too - there are some growing at the back of the garden and we have also bought in some seeds from the UK and they're coming along nicely.
A good example of the difference is:
where the first is what the camera sees (and a lot of the photos on the internet show just that) and the second is, well, perhaps a bit over-blued - the daisy does look a bit cold.....


Last Modified By petebfrance at 9 Aug 2012 - 2:13 PM
tomcat e2 Member 95919 forum poststomcat vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
9 Aug 2012 - 5:18 PM

Shoot permanently in RAW with WB set to cloudy
Slight adjustments afterwards if required, but seldom needed

9 Aug 2012 - 5:34 PM

thanks - but oh dear. When I first got this camera (Fuji S5600 - not exactly a high-end camera, but it will do RAW) I intended to use RAW as it was one of the things that interested me. However, as the included software wouldn't work through a USB hub and I needed to use one at the time I never got round to trying it, particularly as it is fairly easy to manipulate the jpegs. Software is now years out of date and not on current machine. I think updates are available, and the old version will probably load on the machine (needs to be for the updates last time I looked....). Goes away to think......


11 Aug 2012 - 11:34 PM

Hi, I guess I'm pushing my luck asking again, but here goes. This one is probably less than 2cms across - hence the rather naff photos (I usually only post them at half resolution because otherwise they're too noisy)


brian1208 e2 Member 1110307 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
12 Aug 2012 - 6:30 AM

I think that's one of the little "Micro Moths" that are fairly common but rarely seen as they are so small.

There are so many of them (I think it runs towards hundreds in the UK) that I wouldn't like to even make a stab at a specific ID. (I have shot them in the past and never got a proper ID for them)

There are a few of them here you may spot one that looks similar

KarenFB Junior Gallery Team 84292 forum posts England163 Constructive Critique Points
12 Aug 2012 - 7:57 AM

I think this is rather an old and tatty Mint Moth (Pyrausta purpuralis). Smile

12 Aug 2012 - 9:18 AM

Brian / Karen
many thanks.
It doesy look like the Mint Moth. This time it was my wife who watched it land and was intrigued - I'm not sure if the tattiness is due to the moth, the camera (getting close to the limit, really) or my camera shake (i.e. due to me).


Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.