Old photos needing confirmation/ID

[Painted Jezebel]

It has been very cloudy and windy the last couple of days, so I have been going through old photos looking to delete as many as possible to free up some extra space.

I came across these, and woud be grateful for identifications.

1 & 2) Two spotless Eurema spp. from Samui. One, a poor, blurred, shot, is, I am sure, E. sari, but the other could be anything.
3) A female Poritia sp. taken at Shah Alam in 2009. I saw the upperside briefly, and it was sky blue, which, to me rules out P. sumatrae. At the time, I guessed at P. promula, but that is very rare, and I have never seen an underside, so I have severe doubts.

Thanks.

[Psyche]

1 is correct. E. sari varies little in Malaya.
2. The forewing border orientation & the squarish hindwing ID'ed this as E. hecabe.

3. This matches with P. sumatrae well on the underside.
P. phama & hewitsoni have a whitish discal forewing band.
Fleming described the underside of P. promula as pale & greyish.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Painted Jezebel]

Thank you. It is a shame I can not get hold of Fleming, and it is out of print. It would resolve many identification queries I keep on posting.

I still have some concerns about the upperside colouration I saw of the Poritia. However, I know memory can be wrong, but I mentioned the colour at the time, and I recall the event very well, as it was the first time I had ever seen a member of this genus. Possibly the angle of light misled me.

[Psyche]

Here is a bit of luck. P. promula from Malaya.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Poritia_promula_elegansMFUpUnAC1.jpg

TL Seow::cheers:

[Painted Jezebel]

The blue upperside is right in colour, but I think I have to put it down to my memory playing tricks with me, as the underside is wrong. P. sumatrae does seem to fit the underside so much better. Shame.

[Commander]

Thank you. It is a shame I can not get hold of Fleming, and it is out of print. It would resolve many identification queries I keep on posting.

Actually, the 2nd edition of Fleming is a disappointment. The printing quality is bad, and some pages even show a slight "double image" due to the poor colour separation. His first edition (which has the book in two volumes) is much better, but unfortunately, the Latin names are outdated.

Even so, you will find in C&P4, a section that has some comments regarding the plates in Fleming (e.g. too dark, too light, etc)

[Painted Jezebel]

Even so, you will find in C&P4, a section that has some comments regarding the plates in Fleming (e.g. too dark, too light, etc)

Thanks. However, I have read my C&P4 to death and beyond, and it is now in about 50 pieces (as is my Pisuth book), and I can not remember seeing that. I need a new copy!!! What numbered pages is that in?

[Commander]

Thanks. However, I have read my C&P4 to death and beyond, and it is now in about 50 pieces (as is my Pisuth book), and I can not remember seeing that. I need a new copy!!! What numbered pages is that in?

Haha... at least your books are well-studied!

If you look at pages 394 to 434, the rightmost column indicate the corresponding figures in Fleming. Not all suffer from bad comments, but for example, on page 398 for D. verhuelli you will see the comments (whole plate too red). Flip thru' the pages and you will see more on pages 402, 403, 407, 413 and so on. Not many, but it tells you what Col Eliot thinks about the figures in Fleming.

In the Curetis spp. on page 413, you have C. regula as (too small) and C. saronis as (too dark). We also see Jamides celeno as (too blue). Pages 416 and 417 show quite a lot of "defects" in Fleming's book.

I'll leave you to find the rest and form your conclusions. :)