First one is Arhopala silhetensis adorea from the shape of the spot in space 6
Second is an alea subgroup species, probably A. phaenops sandakani
First one is Arhopala silhetensis adorea from the shape of the spot in space 6
Second is an alea subgroup species, probably A. phaenops sandakani
Aaron Soh
Post 27. sizes in error.
1. Arhopala silhetensis is right.
2, should be Arhopala selta.Male ;short palpi & truncated abdominal end.
This pic is in perfect profile & the FW termen is very rounded.
Only two species in the alea subgroup have the termen rounded, the other being A. aroa which have the submarginal & postdiscal band well-spaced out.
In addition A. selta have HW spot 6 widely or distinctly overlapping the cellend bar.
The FW postdiscal band also tends to be wide.
https://www.thaibutterflies.com/wp-c...a-1080x675.jpg
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhopa...e:Arhopala.jpg
In A. phaenops, FW termen is straigth in the middle part. HW spot 6 do not or just overlap cellend bar.
FW shape is distorted here .Upperside narrow border indicate it is A. phaenops. Correction :Upperside shot is not the same individual.
https://www.thaibutterflies.com/wp-c...s-1080x675.jpg
http://www.samuibutterflies.com/02_i...phaenops.r.jpg
TL Seow: Cheers.
Last edited by Psyche; 12-Sep-2017 at 06:02 PM. Reason: correction
A partial upperside of the second could be of some help?
Post 30.
If this is the upperside of the individual in post 27 ,then it is a female.
This make it very confusing.
The upperside of the male.
http://www.samuibutterflies.com/02_i.../upperside.jpg
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhopa...9_1_Knight.png
Male A. phaenops with narrow FW border.
https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/A...96MUpUnAC1.jpg
It could be either A. selta or phaenops.
TL Seow: Cheers.
Based on the dorsal, it's female and best matches A. phanda phanda but the shape of spot 6 is inconsistent with what's stated in C&P4 for this species
Aaron Soh
Thank you for the hard research. BTW the specimen photographed by Les and ID as Arhopala phaenops come from the very same place of mine.
It is definitely not A. phanda.
I have seen several set specimens of A. phanda from Liew of Raub.
The HW spot 6 & 7 are quadrate & nearly equal & they form a vertical column: FW band broad & costal spot 10 absent.
The alea subgroup is particularly confusing.
For example what have been ID'ed as A. phaenops also look very similar to A. sublustris.
Numerous misID'ed occur on the net.
http://ojiimushi.web.fc2.com/langkaw...s/photo017.htm
http://ojiimushi.web.fc2.com/langkaw...s/photo018.htm
The upperside unfortunatelly shows a female.However the FW border is parallel to the termen so possible are selta, phaenops, phanda, & normani.
Shape of HW spot 6 & 7 exclude selta & phaenops.
It is close to phanda but spot 7 is a bit small.
It resembles A. normani in Fleming's L212 image.
http://ojiimushi.web.fc2.com/langkaw...s/photo039.htm
http://ojiimushi.web.fc2.com/langkaw...s/photo040.htm
Upperside FW with narrow border; HW space 7 purple to the termen, thus excluding selta & phaenops (mostly brown to termen)
HW spot 6 is somewhat quadrate suggesting A. normani, but could also be a variant of sublustris / milleri.
The upperside appear to be indigo blue, suggesting milleri, but the colouration on the website are all too dark.
Even ID'ing set specimens present great difficulties.
Lastly there is a possibility that the individual in post 27 & post 30 are not the same as the palpi are of different lenght.
TL Seow : Cheers.
Nevermind that because i just realised most of the females have similar dorsals so that's not reliable.
I'm having difficulty interpreting spots 6 and 7 for many spp. because there are many inconsistencies in different specimens of what are supposedly the same species. Maybe they're naturally variable or hybridise often so that makes them impossible to ID solely on external features
Aaron Soh
Post 36.
It is a female (long palpi) A. atosia with the tail broken.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check..._atosia_01.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TQqlnu16fF...0/DSC_0136.JPG
TL Seow: Cheers.