Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: I know I have these wrong!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Koh Samui, Thailand
    Posts
    4,446

    Default I know I have these wrong!

    I had thought that my Lycaenidae were all sorted, so I have started publishing individual species pages for that family on my site.

    As the files are in alphabetical order, needless to say, I soon came across the Arhopala species, and I have found three specimens in my A. lurida file that I am positive are wrong (hindwing spots in 5,6 & 7 not in echelon).

    1&2) Same specimen. It appears to be a female Alitaeus group, but unlike any I have seen before, the hindwing margin is too thin. Could this be a female A. ariana, as I have no photos in my books for this sex?
    3) ?
    4) ?

    The fourth photo may be same species as the first, but the third has the postdiscal spots in 4 & 5 in line, whereas they are not in line in the other 3.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default

    I don't know whether these 3 could be extra-Malaysian or not.

    There is a costal spot in space 10, but none in space 11. Spot 4 is dislocated and out of line with 5 & 6 above.
    It does not match the 1st part of line 101= Underside with a costal spot in mid-space 11; spot 4 shifted distad.
    Nor does it match the alternative line 120.
    Compare with your previous thread of A. ariana.
    http://www.butterflycircle.com/forum...ad.php?t=12116
    http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...naMUpUnAC1.jpg

    The hindwing postdiscal spot 4 & 5 have a variable relationship in many species.

    If we ignore the fact that space 11 have no spot, but the spot in space 4 is shifted out of line. then it will lead to line 104 & so to elopura, ariana & aida.
    ( A. havilandi & also N. pendleburyi have been removed from the Thai Checklist )
    The upperside resembles the female ariana closely and female Arhopalas are notorious for their variable border width. However, it does not make sense as the female invariably have similar or wider brown border than the male, not narrower.
    In this respect it resembles the female elopura more, C&P4 pl. 41/6.

    The problem is that the spot in space 11 seems to be a very constant feature.

    TL Seow
    Last edited by Psyche; 15-Nov-2011 at 08:17 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Koh Samui, Thailand
    Posts
    4,446

    Default

    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyche View Post
    It does not match the 1st part of line 101= Underside with a costal spot in mid-space 11; spot 4 shifted distad.
    Nor does it match the alternative line 120.
    I seem to come across this problem quite often. It gets me very confused!

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyche View Post
    The hindwing postdiscal spot 4 & 5 have a variable relationship in many species.
    I did not realise this. Thank you for this info.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyche View Post
    The problem is that the spot in space 11 seems to be a very constant feature.
    Again, this was worrying me. I think it best if I move these photos to my UFO file, which, fortunately, is now quite small thanks to your hard work, (about 8 Hesperids and the pesky Mycalesis species).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    6,219

    Default

    I tried going thru line 153 by assuming the pstdical band on the hindwing is partially dislocated (although it is completely dislocated).
    This leads to the eumolphus group.
    While the forewing now matched, the hindwing spotting, upperside and thicker tail do not.

    This looks too much like ariana and it is probably a local variant.

    TL Seow

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us