Melitaea aurelia

Nickerl's Fritillary (Melitaea aurelia)

2024 photographs highlighted in yellow. Click on any photograph to go to an enlarged picture, or simply scroll down the page.


42979_male_Côte-d'Or_01Jun17	42997_male_Côte-d'Or_01Jun17	43024_male_Côte-d'Or_01Jun17	49647_male_Hautes-Alpes_7Jul22

49656_female_Hautes-Alpes_7Jul22	49659_female_Hautes-Alpes_7Jul22	34028_female_Côte-d'Or_18Jul13	34100_female_Côte-d'Or_18Jul13

52863_female_Isère_8Jul24	43013_male_Côte-d'Or_01Jun17	49661_male_Hautes-Alpes_7Jul22	37546_female_Côte-d'Or_11Jun15

A rather scarce fritillary with a distribution centred in eastern Europe, extending into eastern France where it is highly local. Its flight period is June-July although in the one (lowland) locality I have seen it, it is usually on the wing from June to early July.

It is characterised by the completeness and regularity of the black markings, in particular on the uph. The male seems to be cleaner and brighter than the female, and those shown here seemed more so than the illustrations in books. The female appeared very much as the book illustrations and more clearly recognisable as aurelia, being more suffused.

Another identifying feature is that the narrow marginal band on the unh is filled yellow and in contrast to the bands adjacent, although this is not entirely convincing in 37546, but much more clearly so in the fresh 43013. Apart from that, the undersides of ex-Mellicta species are generally very similar.

In France, it could perhaps be confused with athalia, the male perhaps more so (on the basis of the individuals shown here), while the female could be confused with the darker form of the female Meadow Fritillary (M. parthenoides). It is perhaps easier to identify in the field as it has a rather weak floppy flight, markedly different from its ex-Mellicta cousins. It is also relatively small, although male athalia can also be quite small.

In 2022 I spent a day in the higher reaches of the Durance valley in the Hautes-Alpes, in a region where aurelia was known to fly and where there had been relatively recent records. Because of the lateness of the season, the males of what I believe to be aurelia were showing distinct signs of wear although the females were relatively fresh. The upperside images on this page which I have labelled as aurelia, have been confirmed (as far as this is possible) by an expert whose identification skills I trust. The only other possible candidate could be Heath Fritillary (M. athalia) and I think there are good reasons to dismiss athalia.

This species was previously known as Mellicta aurelia. In the new European taxonomy, the erstwhile Mellicta group of fritillaries are now included in the Melitaea genus. The undersides of the Mellicta species were very similar so in some circumstances it is convenient to refer to the ex-Mellicta group.

ref	sex	observations	alt. m
42979	M	a fresh male.	430
42997	M	a fresh male, clearly showing the regular pattern of the markings.	430
43024	M	another male, showing that the markings vary very little from individual to individual.	430
49647	M	*I believe this aurelia, a male, as the markings seem to match known specimens, even allowing for the degree of wear.*	1880
49656	F	*I am more confident that this is female aurelia* as it matches closely the regular uph patterning of known aurelia.**	1880
49649	F	*I am almost as confident that this is female aurelia* as its markings are just as regular.**	1880
34028	F	*a rather worn female, but typical of the hindwing markings. The uph post-discal band of reddish marks seem rather rounder than athalia.*	430
34100	F	*another female, very close to typical aurelia, from my very limited experience.*	430
52863	F	a female, slightly aberrant as the upf submarginal marks are quite weak. I am by no means sure that this is aurelia but the regularity of the bands points me in that direction, plus the upf discal s1 mark is more what I would expect of aurelia rather than athalia, which is probably the only plausible alternative. If it is *athalia, it is the most unusual example I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot of athalia. I leave here to invite comment, but with rationale, please.*	1230
43013	M	a male underside, clearly showing the marginal band yellow-filled.	430
37546	F	a female underside, clearly female based on the body shape. My experience of aurelia is very limited, more so of female undersides, but this looks particularly dark in the post-discal region and strongly contrasted to the white discal band. The marginal band is quite narrow and does not appear to be particularly yellow. However, this is an expanded distance shot, so lacking in any clear level of detail.	430
49661	M	*this is a male which I believe is probably aurelia. The unh marginal band looks to be just yellow enough to preclude* athalia although not so clearly yellow as to point conclusively to aurelia. Also, the unf margin is just about visible to s2 and there is no sign of the heavy shading that would point strongly to athalia and, if it not athalia, given that it was seen at the same site as the uppersides above, then it is highly likely to be aurelia. However, the main reason for doubting aurelia is that nearly all aurelia undersides I have seen have been quite boldly marked, and 49661 isn't.	1880