Rita,
As with so much else regarding the
more uncommon (and even some of the more common) 'flies, there is some
confusion out there in guideland about the Mottled Dwing.
The Glassberg BTB East Guide shows
only one overly darkish photo of an unsexed (but probably male)
individual; it doesn't speak to a size or color difference between the
broods or sexes.
The Kaufmann and Brock guide has a
better photo (not sexed but also probably a male) but doesn't discuss
the size or color difference of the broods.
The Cech and Tudor guide offers one
photo (unsexed but probably female); it says the first brood is smaller
and darker than the later brood, which seems at odds with
what is stated about color in the WV guide that you cite (below).
One reason why, perhaps, there are
so few records of this species in TN involves the lack of consensus
about its basic size and color brightness.
Most of the photos of Mottled
females (or at least of darker individuals) show the inner half of the
forewing above to have a well-marked "figure" in the shape of a fat,
somewhat wavy tuning fork with the base of the fork at the back of the
wing and the two tines of the fork ending at the front edge of the
forewing; this is the case for Allan's individual, for the individual
in the Cech and Tudor guide, and the individual in the Mary Anne
Friedman photo at the BAMONA website. Some female Horace's have this
feature in a much more muted form (as in the Cech and Tudor guide),
usually with one of the tines of the fork not quite attached to the
rest of the fork.
Allan is to be congratulated on this
rare find, which may have done more to advance our understanding of
this species' presence in TN and i.d. characters than any other
sighting on record; Julius Basham can probably add a lot to what I have
briefly covered, so I hope he will weigh in on this one in the same
erudite manner with which he weighed in on the Zarucco recently.
Steve Stedman
Cookeville (Putnam County)
[Remember that TN-Butterflies
requests that you give your full name and location at the end of each
message.]
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 9:06 PM
Subject:
[TN-Butterflies] Re: FW: review of duskywing photo
Steve,
Thanks for double-checking on this. I also just read in the
Allen book "Butterflies of West VA and Their Caterpillars" that spring
adults have more white scaling and are smaller than the summer brood.
So the first photo on the BAMONA site is the male and the second (by
Marianne F.) is the female? I wonder why many of the field guides only
show one season and one sex when there are some noticeable differences
in coloration, brightness, etc.?
RV
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Stephen
Stedman
<SStedman@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Although
a near unanimous consensus developed among state butterfliers that
Allan Trently’s Lewis County duskywing was a Mottled, just to be extra
careful I sent the photo to John Burns of the National Museum of
Natural History. John’s reply (below) confirms what many believed to
be the case. Note that Allan’s individual was a female; the more
brightly whitish individuals I have seen or seen photos of previously
have all been males, so it was good to see what a female looks like for
comparative purposes.
John
also attached a PDF of one of his recent papers on a topic—false eyes
on caterpillars--that may interest TN-Butterfliers.
Good
butterflying, Steve Stedman
Cookeville
(Putnam County)
From: Burns, John [mailto:BURNSJ@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Stephen Stedman
Subject: RE: review of duskywing photo
Steve,
that’s a female Erynnis martialis.
For
fun, I’m attaching a pdf of a recent paper that may interest you.
Best,
John
From: Stephen Stedman [mailto:SStedman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:24 PM
To: Burns, John
Subject: review of duskywing photo
Hi John,
Please review this photo and verify species
and please give sex, if possible.
Thanks, Steve
