You're certainly not stupid, Sandy!
Yes, female monarchs have thicker veins, but it's hard to tell the difference unless you see a male and female side by side. Your method is still the easiest and the best.

By the way, I'm MissSherry/Sherry. I haven't been able to log in consistently to the Insects Forum, so I re-registered as MissButterfly, but still can't consistently log in. But now I'm MissButterfly on the Butterfly Forum, too.
So who knows who I'll be, MissSherry or MissButterfly?
MissButterfly is probably more appropriate.
Sherry

Perhaps you are developing multiple personalities, like Sybil!

MissSherry - perhaps you are morphing into a butterfly? LOL

I really feel stupid sometimes too with these butterflies, especially because most of the mortality during rearing them is because of my dumb mistakes and fumble fingers - so far! But one of the most exciting things is learning about these fascinating creatures, which involves a little trial and error, and hopefully I will always keep that curiosity alive.

I just noticed this year that the male Monarchs appear to have a different anatomy at the end of the their abdomen!

Whenever I go to the Butterfly Forum page to post, I'm ID'd as MissButterfly, so I guess that's who I am.

I don't think I'm developing multiple personalities, Larry, I'm just having an identity crisis! :-0

Sherry

Have you ever tried SMELLING them? A Male tiger swallowtail smells like Froot Loops cereal for some reason. I have not tried scent ID for other species.

Even well expereienced observers miss things Sandy. Besides, like many other species, the population dynamics of Danaus plexippus varies some by colony, brood, habitat and in my opinion by the preferred LFP used by a brood as well. IOW, veination scaling is not "always" a 100% clue if the bug is not in hand or close enough to make a positive ID. More reliable for me on distant lep species was flight characteristics to form a first impression from.

I took a picture to try to show some minor differences in degrees of scale veination and other typical characteristics simply based on brood habitat (elevation, temperature, humidity and some preferred LFP's often used in those habitats). These specimens are from livestock collected in those habitats during peak season (IOW, resident broods and not from early or late season migrant females).

If you can't handle a picture of scientific mounts, stop here!
. .
. .
.

From top left to bottom left:

Typical pair from moderately high pinyon-juniper-sagebrush habitats common in the west where some of the preferred LFP's are Asclipias speciosa, ruthiae, asperula, incarnata, etc.

Typical pair from high elevation mountain meadows on the western slopes of the Rockies (where they are often stunted naturally by colder environment) and use Asclipiasa halli, latifolia, rusbyi, etc.

Typical pair from the hot desert scrub habitat where they commonly use Asclipias erosa, subverticllata, macrosperma, etc.

Right side top to bottom:,

Typical pair dorsally then ventrally from Oahu, HI where they use Calotropis gigantea almost exclusively. "Almost" because a few species of Asclipias do now grow on some islands, probably escapees from home gardens.

Typical pair of form nivosus (Kona morph) from Maui, HI that also use Calotropis gigantea exclusively. Of interest maybe this form is in serious decline since the years I did my rearing studies on them there. Some are even calling them rare in HI now. Apparently the Bulbuls have learned to target the larva more so than the adults. It was thought they didn't see the Kona morph on the Calotropis as readily as the nominate form, so many nivosus adults escaped predation before. Calotropis doesn't have the strong alkaloids and toxins most of our Asclipias on the mainland has, making D. plexippus larva an easy target for them. Sorry for the wander to left field, but the white form (found on all the islands in HI despite some articles) and rarer brown form on Kauai (now thought extinct by some) in HI have long been an interest, so I try to keep up on them.

Smaller picture posted here, larger one to see details clearer included as a link below.

Larry

{{gwi:543864}}

Here is a link that might be useful: {{gwi:543863}}

Wow the desert scrub pair have very thick veination.

What does the brown form from Kona look like?

-Elisabeth

Thanks for posting, Larry. It's interesting to see the variations. So butterflies are "what they eat", and products of their environments. Kind of like people, lol. I didn't realize that Calotropis gigantea did not have the same levels of alkaloids and toxins as the native asclepias. Thanks for taking the time to share something that gives us an opportunity to learn. Whereas the local population of Danaus plexippus may allow me to ID from the veination pattern, this wouldn't work in some locations. And I can see that from looking at the pinned specimens.

Sandy

Typically the desert colonies out here are not as thick or as dark overall as those from HI are Elisabeth. The Kona morph is nivosus (white), and is pictured. The brown form that at least used to be on Kauia looked more or less like a brown plexippus. I've only had one pair of them as even back then they were rare, plus I always released all but 2 pair on average of all the leps I reared. I gave my brown form pair from Kauia to the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, and my ex has all the pictures I took. I do however have 4 pair of nivosus, each pair from a different island. They too can vary from grayish to almost stark white to a very, very pale orange, but their veination scaling is pretty consistent. I've never seen abberants from HI that had traits of both nominate and white forms, nor any gynandromorphs there.

One thing that interests me is the coloration of the females that appear here. Some are very brown. The males are much brighter and more orange.

The white form is beautiful.

As I am raising about 50 larvae currently, I will definitely pay attention to the butterflies that eclose. Next year, it would be interesting to feed the larvae different milkweeds to see if there are visual differences in the butterflies.

Now I am really curious!

sandy

Sandy,

I learned a lot about plant toxicity through crafting 100's of species of bative and exotic woods from around the world for over 50 years into calls, so it was a natural to also investigate by applying that knowledge to larval food plants in some of my rearing studies.

Plants 101: Basically, all plants are not created equal toxicity wise even within a specific species in the same general area. Individual plants are a product of their own specific environment, so toxins can vary widely even between same species plants within a stones throw of each other. Whats in their particular growing medium naturally, whats in it unnaturally, what growth habits they are forced into by the physical chacteristics and location of their medium, etc can effect their toxicity. In general plants that are naturally stunted by the medium they grow in, by lack of nutrients, unnatural chemicals, by the wind, the lack of or excess moisture, temperture swings, etc are commonly far more toxic than those growing in a more favorable environment.

Some of my favorite woods for years were the Dalbergia's, especially from Costa Rica and Brazil. They grow in several habitats there, and which one alone has a lot to do with their toxicity... along with the above mentioned influences. Some were so toxic they were unusalble for my purposes. While Dalbergia is a LFP for many lep species in the Palearctic/Indo-Malayan regions, I only know of Morpho achilles and Aphrissa statira using it in CR/Brazil, but there could be others.

Anyway...
Environmental factors up to a point can alter which genes become dominate and which recessive if they are induced at specific times during a leps metamorphosis. The most commonly seen aberrations in adults are temperature induced that occured within a specific time frame while in their pupal stage. But how well larvae handle and process plant toxins, oils, etc can also induce dominate characteristics that can become typical in all the current broods from a specific area.

I chose these for the picture because I did them from several locations in each of these specific habitats many different years and this is what was typically dominate at each location. What triggered there differences would be speculative as I never proved them out.

I have seen female plexippus especially that were so brown they looked more like Danaus eresimus montezuma or D. gilippus in basic color, but never a plexippus colony where that trait was donimate.

Larry

I hope I don't sound too totally ignorant but I wanted to clear up my own confusion.

I always thought you could differentiate between the male and female monarchs by the dots on the wings of the male. Dots - Male, no dots - Female. Are you all saying it is not so simple?

Also, I feed my monarchs two different types of milkweed as I use the giant milkweed to augment. Is that okay?

I'm a layman here folks - hoping for a little clarity.

This thread was started about "other" ways to distinguish males from females of this species. The males do in fact have an androconium pocket on the dorsal hindwing on cubitus vein 2 that is commonly referred to as the scent patch, or the scent scales (in error). But the scales covering the pocket can be rubbed off easily in a males day to day life, as well as the pocket itself and the smaller androcoia scent scales inside of it. Not uncommon in worn or tattered males. So the other typical characteristic differences between the sexes are good to know.

If your larva accept what you offer them in volume (regardless of plant species), don't worry about it. Just let them munch away, they'll only eat what is acceptable to them and ignore the rest.

OK, now I do know how truly ignorant I am. I looked up Androconium pocket which led to quite a search including the text of a butterfly book from 1898. And finally, to a Wikipedia article which gave all sorts of terms for parts of butterflies--and there are quite a few. Then to the word "brand" which refers to the marking on males. So, Monarch/Danaus plexippus males have a brand or as Larry put it, an Androconium pocket, which consists of androconia or "scent scales" to attract females.

As to all the anatomical terms for parts of a butterfly, it's too late in my life to learn them. Oh, woe is me!

Back to the original premise of my thread, I see quite a few females with brown "smeary looking" wings and heavy dark veins. I wished I had my camera yesterday to get a photo. I will try again today. Two females eclosed this morning, so I will inspect them before I release them. These fed mostly on the wild viridis. I have more that have fed on curassavica and incarnata.

I had an especially large roost last night. There were 50-70 Monarchs in the yard yesterday. I love to watch them swirl up into the air as I walk by where they are nectaring.

This morning, the north wind is blowing here, and the butterflies are "catching the currents", as they fly out of the yard in a southwesterly direction. Don't know what the day will bring, more Monarchs, or "evacuation".

I do know that when we have an outbreak of OE, the adults look very brown as opposed to bright orange. They can fly just fine, maybe not to Mexico, but well enough to be seen in the field. That may be a factor in some locations. However, not the genetic variations Larry was discussing.
-Elisabeth

Oh Sandy I would love to see that many monarchs in one location! I feel happy when I have four in the yard at one time! :-) I have noticed the brownish females too... one out in the yard laying eggs this morning - very very large and brownish compared to the others. Yesterday I saw a very small bright orange female. Probably the smallest Monarch I've ever seen - I didn't even recognize it at first.

~Laura

Laura, it's strange--you are getting eggs and I'm getting none. The butterflies here are intent on nectaring. I have seen a few couplings, but for the most part, the males are ignoring the females.

Elisabeth, I took a photo of one of the darker females. Her abdomen looked good--crisp white lines. The two females I released today were absolutely beautiful. The coloring was good and the abdomens were well marked. They were larger than some of the females coming through. They wouldn't stay still for photos, so off they went.

Not knowing entomlogical terminology does not mean someone is being ignorant, especially not at the "level" of most of the good folks here. I use them from habit and because of doing so with the level of the crowds I ran with for so many years. Besides, you all know how I refrain from common names, and why. ;)

Larry