Common Blue Damselfy white legs

[JRsbugs]

Thanks for the links Roy, I wonder if the mating pair were released from the spider's web! I do that if the spider doesn't get there first!

I did notice the female on the Dragonfly Society, it's a different colour and the pic is a bit too distant to see the legs well but they look white.

That's a snappy looking White-legged male there, I have yet to see one.

ps, take a look at the top pic of Ischnura elegans on the dragonflysoc site and tell me what you notice.

[wint]

I noticed in Dijkstra that the extent of black markings - both abdomen and legs - in White-legged Damselflies varies depending on whether they emerge in dry or wet weather. Dry weather leads to smaller black markings.

Good thread this one in that it shows you should always look for a combination of identifying features rather just one when looking at odonata.

[wint]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

ps, take a look at the top pic of Ischnura elegans on the dragonflysoc site and tell me what you notice.

I can see Copyright George Mahoney ! Is there something else there?

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

I did notice the female on the Dragonfly Society, it's a different colour and the pic is a bit too distant to see the legs well but they look white.

I would expect the legs to have a black line (possibly a broken line) along the upper side, which is typical for Common Blue Damselflies. Females seem to have a tendancy to have less black than males - with the individual you found
probably near the palest end.

Originally Posted by wint

Good thread this one in that it shows you should always look for a combination of identifying features rather just one when looking at odonata.

Also true for other wildlife. There are some species that can be conclusively identified by a single feature (although I would recommend that other characters are still checked), but for most things the potential for individual variation means that several characters should always be used if possible.
For example - in identifying White-legged Damselflies I would never look at the leg colour, or the overall paleness of the damselfly. The shape of the males hind tibia is useful, but the pattern of the markings on the abdomen and thorax + the brown pterostigma, which is maintained in mature specimens, are more useful field characters (as well as flight behaviour once you know the species!).

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

ps, take a look at the top pic of Ischnura elegans on the dragonflysoc site and tell me what you notice.

I notice that you seem to have very sharp eyes and don't overlook much!
The first pic is labelled as a male, but appears to be an androchrome female.
It all seems to balance out though because, if you scroll down the page, the green 'typica' female at the bottom left looks suspiciously like an immature male!
At least the species is named correctly!


Roy.

[JRsbugs]

I notice that you seem to have very sharp eyes and don't overlook much!
The first pic is labelled as a male, but appears to be an androchrome female.
It all seems to balance out though because, if you scroll down the page, the green 'typica' female at the bottom left looks suspiciously like an immature male!
At least the species is named correctly!

Correct! The way I tell between the female and male of Ischnura elegans is the pattern on the tail end, past the blue section. The female has a 'C' shape into the black, where the male has a swerve.

I emailed someone on the list of contacts to tell them what I thought, as it bugged me every time I saw it, I'm surprised no-one else had noticed or perhaps they did and didn't bother to tell anyone. The reply I got was that he thought it was a male as for a female an ovipositor would be visible! Not the best of pics to tell that! To go on one factor which can't really be seen I was amazed as I would have thought anyone having a position with the Dragonfly Soc. would know better! He was however going to pass my email on to the photographer of the pic, who he mentioned was also the site web-master! As I had already mentioned why I thought it was a female, and the tail end couldn't be seen very well, I could not argue so I'm glad I'm not going potty!

As a matter of interest, I found an article on androchrome females which I didn't know about anyway.

50

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

The way I tell between the female and male of Ischnura elegans is the pattern on the tail end, past the blue section. The female has a 'C' shape into the black, where the male has a swerve.

A very interesting observation - something that I don't remember seeing in print anywhere, and can't say that I'd noticed myself. After a quick review of a number of photos it certainly seems to hold true (although the shape on the males is variable). My determination of the sex of the first pic on the BDS site was based on the lack of any secondary genitalia visible below segment 2, and because the ovipositor can just about be made out below segment 9 (as well as the 'spine' below the rear end of segment 8).

Roy.

[JRsbugs]

Originally Posted by RoyW

A very interesting observation - something that I don't remember seeing in print anywhere, and can't say that I'd noticed myself. After a quick review of a number of photos it certainly seems to hold true (although the shape on the males is variable). My determination of the sex of the first pic on the BDS site was based on the lack of any secondary genitalia visible below segment 2, and because the ovipositor can just about be made out below segment 9 (as well as the 'spine' below the rear end of segment 8).

Roy.

It's a point I noticed when first trying to learn how to identify these, and yes it does hold true. I do check the other features as you state as well if visible, but photos don't always show the necessary details or they can be iffy.

You can however see the lack of male genitalia below segment 2 in the pic on BDS, and just about make out the ovipositor.

Now you have a new pointer to ID these! It's the first thing I check when viewing through the lens, and more easily seen.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JRsbugs

but photos don't always show the necessary details or they can be iffy.

Certainly true for the BDS pic in question - your feature is a lot clearer than the presence/ absence of male/ female parts!

Always something new to learn!

[JRsbugs]

Originally Posted by RoyW

Certainly true for the BDS pic in question - your feature is a lot clearer than the presence/ absence of male/ female parts!

Always something new to learn!

And I'm a relative newcomer to these too, but seen with 'fresh' eyes! No books, nothing to lead me on a different trail other than my own observations.

All the same, I wonder how many other people have noticed that??