Two butterfly questions

I came across this aging fellow on the edge of a wood today. I was surprised when looking at the images back home at how reflective the wings seem to be. It didn't seem so in situ. I know insects in general can be reflective and I'm aware of using a polarizer to reduce reflections on foliage and bugs, etc, but this fellow was in deep shade. Would a polarizer still have helped here? Are there other tricks I don't know for dealing with this situation? I don't usually encounter this problem with butterfly shots. (I'd go back and try again but he doesn't look like he's going to be around much longer.)

Question number 2 is probably asking a bit much. Are there any knowledgeable lepidopterists out there who might be able to identify him. Using Klassen's "Butterflies of Manitoba" as a reference I think he's a lesser fritillary of genus Borona, but I can't do any better. His condition doesn't help. This is in Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada - on the edge of a wooded area by the Red River at a local park.

Thanks for your help.
Chris

It appears to be an angle wing, possibly a Question Mark. (Angle wings are butterflies such as the Question Mark, Commas, Tortoiseshells, etc.) There is a great deal of wear and tear on this butterflies wings. The reflective areas appear to be spots where the scales have been worn off.

I am no expert or Lepidopterist but from my own readings and watching different photos, I'd guess this butterfly resembles the Question Mark.

Wow....Alan and I cross posted

Ram,

At least we had the same answer!

Alan
Minnesota

Thanks for your responses, Alan and Ram. On reflection I think I agree with you. The markings seem a better fit. I initially dismissed this subfamily of butterflies because they all have forewing tips that are squared off, a bit like the right forewing tip of the individual in the photo. It's left wingtip however, seems to be rounded so I assumed it could not be a question mark or similar, and that the right tip was simply damaged. Everything else seems to fit the Question Mark description better, including location and size - I didn't measure, but my initial impression was that it was larger than a typical lesser fritillary.

Alan's comment about the reflective areas being places where scales have rubbed off made me go back and look over my butterfly images. The very few that display this same problem are all pictures of old, tattered individuals. You've given me something new to think about and to pay attention to next time I'm butterfly hunting.

Thanks, again.
Chris

To your second question, would a polarizer have helped?

Probably. Organic surfaces tend to polarize light on reflection. I'm assuming that the scaleless areas of the wings would do that as well. I've never tried it, though, because of the loss of light that the polarizer would entail and because it would slow things down a lot.

But that aside, would I have used it? I'm not sure about that. The butterfly is in pretty rough shape and the small highlights where the wings have broken and scale worn off emphasize the beat up appearance of the insect. It is a nice contrast to the perfect leaf (where there are some lighter areas that would have benefited from the polarizer) and how we normally think of butterflies. It is a toss up of what you want the image to be about.

Thanks, Dan. I've used a polarizer for bugs and foliage before but I always thought it would have no effect in the shade. That's something new to experiment with. Your comment about the highlights emphasizing the beat up appearance has made me rethink how I view the image. Perhaps, for this fellow at least, the highlights do add rather than take away. I appreciate your commments.

Chris