Species in which there is a definite UnF red border/band plus no dark lines, can be eliminated.
They include, H. epicles, ida, kohimensis, indicus & sena (very distinct).
The remaining have no red UnF border or only narrowly shaded red , & prominent dark postdiscal lines/bands.
They are very similar on the underside & it is near impossible to separate them.
PS 2.
There seem a confusion in the taxa being placed as subspecies.
I am folowing Van Gasse ' s Anotated Checklist.
Taxon tytleri is placed as a ssp of H. moorei.
The FW blue is smaller & as Riley clearly states the orange lunules only occur in space 1 & 2.
Eaglesnest, Arunanchal Pradesh. https://d29tlldvxtis6c.cloudfront.ne...phire-3064.jpg
7a. Shirui, Manipur DSC_1007.JPG
7b. DSC_1008.JPG
7a and 7b same specimen, H. androcles rubida? underside red margins regular, upperside blue, red lunules extending up to vein 6. Luckily did not delete them in spite of being bad quality images.
Can H. brahma & hybrida be differentiated from each other visually?
I would agreed this is Heliophorus tamu.
However, caution is needed in identifying from underside alone.
The features in each species are not absolute.
Riley state of H. hybrida.
Intermediate in markings & colour between Assamese H. androcles & brahma.the metallic colouring being bronze but decidedly greenish.
The red marginal band of the UpH is half the width of thst of brahma.
In the single male genitalia he examined he found exactly intermediate between androcles & brahma.
Yutaka found males in Thailand that exactly match H. hybrida but the genitalia matches that of H. brahma.
See note in webpage below & lowest figure male from Chiang Mai. http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lyc4b/8b001010.html
Perhaps H. hybrida is not a valid species.
7a & b.
Interstingly you have the underside of H. androcles rubida (=red marked).
It looks identical to typical androcles.