Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Jamides elpis pseudelpis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upper Changi
    Posts
    2,873

    Default Jamides elpis pseudelpis

    I'm 99% sure of the ID but would like some confirmation. I initially thought this could be virgulatus but the dislocated subbasal striae on the hindwing rules that out.

    *Side note- I knew this was not the typical celeno the moment i saw it because this one has a really dazzling blue dorsal which is quite spectacular when it's in flight and quite unlike the bleached whitish-blue of the more common celeno
    Last edited by atronox; 21-Jul-2018 at 04:10 AM.
    Aaron Soh

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upper Changi
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Here it is!

    Aaron Soh

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    6,852

    Default

    Yes it is J elpis.
    The FW blue to the margin can just be seen.
    The broken FW postdiscal band indicate the elpis subgroup.

    The FW discal striae are thicker in the lower half, so it looks a bit like J. alecto.
    A similar example.
    http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/med...07d62601-1.jpg
    Such forms are frequently mis'IDed as J. alecto.
    http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com...s%20alecto.htm

    J. caeruleus can also look confusingly similar to J. elpis but the striae are dark-shaded.

    TL Seow: Cheers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upper Changi
    Posts
    2,873

    Default

    Thanks Dr Seow.

    Adrian Hoskins' site has many misidentifications. He actually has a very rare sp., Arhopala opalina azata misIDed as eumolphus
    Aaron Soh

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    6,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atronox View Post
    Thanks Dr Seow.

    Adrian Hoskins' site has many misidentifications. He actually has a very rare sp., Arhopala opalina azata misIDed as eumolphus
    Yes, that is a rare Arhopala.
    Field shot misID'eds are quite understandable.
    What is puzzling is that there are several set specimens of common species for museum which are misidentified.
    Probably the IDs were done very long ago when there was little reference sources, & someone post these images without checking the IDs.

    TL Seow: Cheers.

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