Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 13, 2007, 10:16 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

These are really small - the first one was probably about as big as my thumbnail, I think. To get an idea of size, the first one is on the ground, clinging to a pine needle, at around 8,000 feet elevation near the top to Mt. Pinos. Does that help with identification?

Roy - your butterfly is certainly a pretty one - much more colorful than our blues.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2007, 11:57 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Quote:
These are really small - the first one was probably about as big as my thumbnail, I think. To get an idea of size, the first one is on the ground, clinging to a pine needle, at around 8,000 feet elevation near the top to Mt. Pinos. Does that help with identification?

Sounds like it is in the right size range. The field guide gives the wing spread as 22-33 mm (about 1 1/2 in at most, <1 in at the least); the height of with wings folded would beroughly half that -- 22.5 mm = 1 in). What is thought to be this onespecies is continent-wide in distribution, and thus would be expected to vary locally -- the guide says there might be at least three species included under this name in the West (DNA analysis would be required to sort them out, and that is not likely to happen any time soon). You probably couldn't tell them apart by looking at them anyway, so it is all academic until someone figures out which one occurs where. Most species of these are more local (which means they are easier to tell apart). At least the butterflies usuallyknow which is which, even if we don't!

It is human nature to want to want to put a name on everything, but in some cases we just have to look and enjoy! Your pictures are as good or better than any in the newer photographic field guides, so keep up the good work, Harriet.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2007, 1:07 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
WackyRoger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chama, New Mexico
Posts: 6,206
Default

Nice photos, you done did gooood again.


TOTALLY WACKY roger

WackyRoger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2007, 8:24 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Rodney9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Yeronga, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,518
Default

Well done indeed, butterflies are as hard to shoot as they are beautiful.
Rodney9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 1:45 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

So this is the end of "I never get a decent shot of butterflies", Harriet?

No#2 is very far ahead of "decent", it's an awesome picture!

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 6:32 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Thanks everyone for the compliments - I thought they came out rather well. Yes, Kjell, I can't say that I've never taken a good butterfly photo any more - for anyone who's relatively new, I couldn't take a decent picture of a butterfly last year at all and everyone else was posting incredible ones - I was very envious. Getting several good shots of tiny blue butterflies gives me a great feeling of satisfaction.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:54 AM.