Butterflies from Kaeng Krachan

[guldsmed]

I do not have as many pics from here as from Khao Soi Dao, as I was with my family, while at KSD I was on permitted leave ;P

There were quite a few butterflies, though, as can be seen from the first two pics

I think, I see:

Appias albina (several)

Ixias pyrene verna (several)

Prioneris philonome (few)

Cepora iudith (some but sitting badly for viewing)

at least two ( I think 3) Graphium, maybe

G. sarpedon and G. bathycles and ?

The pics are almost uncropped

[Psyche]

Appias olferna. some females in pic 1; males in pic 2.(Correction: probably all males.)

The G. bathycles is G. chironides. Extra white band on hindwing.(Correction: You are right, it is G. bathycles. The vein is not darkened in the big window on the hindwing to form an extra small triangular window.)
G. chironides.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Veined_Jay_-_Yuwaraj_Gurjar.jpg/260px-Veined_Jay_-_Yuwaraj_Gurjar.jpg

Graphium mecareus burmensis. Almost identical to G. xenocles lindos, but thicker brown bands across forewing cell.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10690030.html
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10700020.html


TL Seow:cheers:

[WillFolsom]

That's a tightly packed group of puddlers! William

[Painted Jezebel]

The subspecies of the Graphium macareus could be difficult to ascertain here. Yutaka gives the ssp. from Kaeng Krachan as G. m. indochinensis, as cited by Kimura et al, 2011.

He quotes that the other two ssp. found in Thailand, ssp. G. m. burmensis is to be found in the North-West of the country, around Chang Mai, and G. m. perakensis, which can be found south at Chumphon, not too far south of the Park.

[guldsmed]

Thx a lot, and yes they were tightly packed, making it more difficult to get the pics here was that my daughter of 1½ year was playing in the stream at the same time. It was only 30 cm at the deepest spots, but still I could not take my eyes off her for long at a time :bsmile:

The Appias olferna are these ones right? They do not look totally identical, so maybe there are both sexes, or is it two species?

The cropping show also a Eurema sp. that i did not notice at first

Looking at the pics again, I noticed one more species, there is a Hebomola glaucippe to the right in pic 2 of first post.

[guldsmed]

Here is a crop of the part with Graphium cf. macareus.

[Psyche]

These new set of cropped pics are much clearer.
I did noticed the H. glaucippe earlier.

The upperside of the 'Appias' shows that it is not A. olferna.
It is actually Cepora nerissa dapha whose underside is very variable.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pie/20170010.html

It is G. chironides after all. The vein is darkened and the extra white long window parallel to the inner margin(dorsum) clearer.

It is definitely G. macareus. (G. xenocles has a yellow orange tornal patch which is not seen in the upper individual.)
Where is Kaeng Krachan? I am just guessing at the subspecies.

The Eurema should be E. andersonii.
Single cell spot. (E. sari have a large brown patch; E. lacteola is pale greenish yellow.)

TL Seow:cheers:

[Painted Jezebel]

It is definitely G. macareus. (G. xenocles has a yellow orange tornal patch which is not seen in the upper individual.)
Where is Kaeng Krachan? I am just guessing at the subspecies.


TL Seow:cheers:

Kaeng Krachan is in the north of peninsular Thailand, south-west of Bangkok, and on the Thai/Myanmar border. Its northern part is inland of Petchaburi, and the southern end is inland of Hua Hin.

[teotp]

The subspecies of the Graphium macareus could be difficult to ascertain here. Yutaka gives the ssp. from Kaeng Krachan as G. m. indochinensis, as cited by Kimura et al, 2011.

Hi Les,

Kimura et al (2011) indicated ssp Graphium macareus dawna from Kaeng Krachan and ssp Graphium macareus indochinensis from Me Song forest, Me Huat forest, Thung Saleng Luang, Phu Khiewo, Nakohn Nayork....and Khao Khiewo.

May I know where you got the information ssp G. macareus indochinensis from Kaeng Krachan and cited by Kimura and co-authors (2011)?

Cheers!

Teo T P

[Painted Jezebel]

It came from Yutaka's website (http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10690020.html). My bad, it is true that Kimura calls it G. m. dawna, but I had never heard of G. m. dawna before and it is not mentioned in either Pinratana or Ek-Amnuay. Is this yet another newly described 'subspecies' by the Japanese? Yutaka has synonymised the two!

[teotp]

I read through the Yutaka website before I put up my earlier post reply, Les. Under the heading - Records taken from literatures [Thailand]: Graphium macareus indochinensis the specimens were from Thung Saleng Leueng. Phu Khiewo, Nakohn Nayork, Wan Nam Khiewo, Kao Soi Dao and Khao Khiewo(cited reference Kimura et al, 2011), and the following column Graphium macareus dawna were from Thung Yai, Sai York Noi and Kaeng Krachan (Kimura et al, 2011).

I also refered to Kimura's book (The butterflies of Thailand based on Kimura's collection vol.1, 2011). The same records of both subspecies(ssp) like Yutaka website. My question is why the Yutaka website showed two photographed (by K. Saito*) specimens under the heading: Graphium macareus indochinensis and recorded as "male 1993 March 20 and female 1993 March 19, both from Kaeng Kra Chan Phetchaburi Thailand." but not listed in Kimura's book.

Kimura et al (2011) also stated in his book under the heading Graphium macareus (Godart, 1819): listed four ssp: burmensis, indochinensis, dawna & perakensis. They described that the species generally divided to three subspecies, burmensis, indochinensis and perakensis, but they have the delicate scheme of respective transfer, so it should be expected the exact classification of these subspecies for future study. The individual produced in western Thailand is similar to ssp indochinensis, but the white streaks are slenderer than that, so it is appropriated temperarily that the individual is corresponds to ssp dawna which is produced originally from Taok in Mynmar neighbouring west Thailand. The subspecies burmensis and perakensis are well similar to each other, and the distribution of both subspecies are seperated by dawna to 'North' and to 'South' in Thailand.

Teo T P

*Is K. Saito = T. Saito (co-author of Kimura's book).

[guldsmed]

Thx to everyone for enlightening me (or in the case of Graphium macareus making me confused in a more informed way :bsmile: )

Here are two of the participants in the group pictures as well as some guys hanging out on the edge of the big group.

What is the Euploea, that is not E. radamanthus?

[Psyche]

Thx to everyone for enlightening me (or in the case of Graphium macareus making me confused in a more informed way :bsmile: )

Here are two of the participants in the group pictures as well as some guys hanging out on the edge of the big group.

What is the Euploea, that is not E. radamanthus?

Here it clearly shows a male Appias olferna.
It means there are 2 species present in pic 1 & 2.(post 1)
The ones resembling the female A. olferna on the underside are C. nerissa.
The Graphium is G. chironides. Note double long windows at lower end.
As stated in post 7 , there are no G. bathycles.

The Euploea on the left is E. eunice.
The one on the right is Chilasa (or Papilio) paradoxa.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Painted Jezebel]

They described that the species generally divided to three subspecies, burmensis, indochinensis and perakensis, but they have the delicate scheme of respective transfer, so it should be expected the exact classification of these subspecies for future study. The individual produced in western Thailand is similar to ssp indochinensis, but the white streaks are slenderer than that, so it is appropriated temperarily that the individual is corresponds to ssp dawna which is produced originally from Taok in Mynmar neighbouring west Thailand.

Teo T P


Thank you for this further info. I hope that someone, somewhere, will sort this out. I must admit that without the to references to Kanchanaburi and Petchaburi, there would be a large hole in cited references on Yutaka's site for the area, which could, in theory, be filled by G. m. dawna.

It will be interesting to see if Kimura et al's resurrection of G. m. dawna is accepted elsewhere.

I also need to apologise to them, as I had thought that it was a new ssp., whereas I missed that it was first named by Tytler in 1939.:embrass:

[Psyche]

In the Yutaka website under Type Material Information, Yutaka had examined the original or type specimen (male) of the taxon dawna described by Tytler & lodged in BMNH and had obviously concluded it falls as a variant of indochinensis.
Thus he placed G. macareus dawna as a synonym of G. macareus indochinensis under the heading Synonym.
That is his personal opinion of course.

The images are all from the heading 'Specimens Examined'.
Those taken in Kaeng Krachan are by a collector named P. Sukkit.
At the bottom (Vietnam) are specimens collected by T. Saito, indicating that K. Saito is a typo error. (Correction: In all other entries on specimens examined, K. Saito is the collector in Vietnam, so T. Saito is the typo error.)

TL Seow:cheers:

[guldsmed]

<sigh> so I managed to get it wrong again... Thx for your patience :-)

[teotp]

In the Yutaka website under Type Material Information, Yutaka had examined the original or type specimen (male) of the taxon dawna described by Tytler & lodged in BMNH and had obviously concluded it falls as a variant of indochinensis.
Thus he placed G. macareus dawna as a synonym of G. macareus indochinensis under the heading Synonym.
That is his personal opinion of course.

The images are all from the heading 'Specimens Examined'.
Those taken in Kaeng Krachan are by a collector named P. Sukkit.
At the bottom (Vietnam) are specimens collected by T. Saito, indicating that K. Saito is a typo error. (Correction: In all other entries on specimens examined, K. Saito is the collector in Vietnam, so T. Saito is the typo error.)
TL Seow:cheers:

I also think that is his personal opinion, the names of ssp dawna or indochinensis have to be finalized by taxonomists who study these specimens and propose to ICZN, after ICZN approval than it will be officially accept as ssp dawna. This is why Kimura et al (2011) stated temporarily corresponds to ssp dawna.

Thank you Seow for pointed out, now I know why specimens collected on 19.3.1993 and 20.3.1993 not listed in Kimura's book. Actually P. Sukkit is the collector.

Teo T P

[teotp]

Thank you for this further info. I hope that someone, somewhere, will sort this out. I must admit that without the to references to Kanchanaburi and Petchaburi, there would be a large hole in cited references on Yutaka's site for the area, which could, in theory, be filled by G. m. dawna.

It will be interesting to see if Kimura et al's resurrection of G. m. dawna is accepted elsewhere.

I also need to apologise to them, as I had thought that it was a new ssp., whereas I missed that it was first named by Tytler in 1939.:embrass:

You are welcome Les. I really enjoyed the discussion with you and Seow, and realized the power of join force to solve a taxonomic problem.

Teo T P

[guldsmed]

The Lycaenid is from outside the park (the grounds of Ban Maka where we stayed), the other are from inside.

[Painted Jezebel]

You are welcome Les. I really enjoyed the discussion with you and Seow, and realized the power of join force to solve a taxonomic problem.

Teo T P

I have learnt a lot, and thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, too. It is good that we can discuss these matters.

[Psyche]

The Lycaenid is from outside the park (the grounds of Ban Maka where we stayed), the other are from inside.

1. Female Poritia erycinoides phraatica.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lyc1/80030010.html

2. Mycalesis anaxias
3. Tagiades japetus

4. Psolos fuligo .Note arched forewing margin; obscure spots.

TL Seow:cheers:

[guldsmed]

Thx again Seow!

Here comes the last from KK, so after I just have get names on a few butterflies from Nam Nao and Wannakorn Beach plus some Odos (mainly KSD (Leslie already helped with some of those), KK and Wannakorn and hopefully at least some of the moths (have more of those than butterflies)...

[Psyche]

1. Euploea sylvester. Now readily identifiable by blue upper & reduced spotting on the underside.
2. Euploea radamanthus.
3. should be Pantoporia sandaka. Often confused with P. hordonia. Wing shape distorted.
Cell bar single upper notch; neck of big 'spot' in space 2 only shallowly constricted; orange extend long on dorsal (lower) margin of forewing.
4. Parantica melaneus.
5. Mycalesis perseoides dry season form.
hindwing sub-basal line forms a tooth at vein 1b; forewing cell dark lines.

TL Seow:cheers:

[guldsmed]

Thx again.

What is it that reveal # 12 as Chilasa paradoxa and not Euploea rhadamanthus?

[Psyche]

Thx again.

What is it that reveal # 12 as Chilasa paradoxa and not Euploea radamanthus?

I think you are right. An oopsie here.
I had ruled out E. radamanthus because the hindwing stripes are large & extensive, and the head & neck appeared to be white with a black stripe.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/dan/30380001.html

However, the tips of the white stripe in paradoxa are incised or truncate, and there is a single row of submarginal white spots on both wings.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pap/10240020.html.

It looks like a variant of E. radamanthus.

TL Seow:cheers:
PS. Actually it is good match here.
http://www.flutters.org/home/photogallery/index.php?level=picture&id=191

[guldsmed]

Thx again Seow, I do not know whether to be sad because of having one species less in my pics, or happy because at least I got it right :grin2:

I guess it was mostly luck, as I did not consider Chilasa paradoxa, next time i will count the legs on any Euploea radamanthus I get close enough to do so, just hope I do not see any Chilasa paradoxa missing to legs from injury then :-)

So... The rest of my KK pics are not butterflies but somewhat larger organisms, so no more question (in this thread), though here are few of the larger ones in this last post (one of the pics have some connection to Lepidoptera)

[Psyche]

Thx again Seow, I do not know whether to be sad because of having one species less in my pics, or happy because at least I got it right :grin2:

I guess it was mostly luck, as I did not consider Chilasa paradoxa, next time i will count the legs on any Euploea radamanthus I get close enough to do so, just hope I do not see any Chilasa paradoxa missing to legs from injury then :-)


The ID of Papilio paradoxa (I am using Papilio since all taxonormists appeared to be reverting back to this.) is not a problem if the pic is sharp or the wingshape is not distorted.
The head of a Papilio, large eyes & upturned antennae is also characteristic.

The 3rd pic a ?cuckoo have a spiny caterpillar in its mouth.
Looks something like that of the Atlas Moth.

TL Seow:cheers:




.

[Painted Jezebel]

Interesting collection you have there.

1) Orange-Brested Trogon (Herpactes oreskios)
2) The Gaur (Bos gaurus). Nice to see that they are still around there. Numbers are much reduced by poaching, etc.
3) Drongo Cuckoo (Surniculus lugubris).
4) Blue-Bearded Bee-Eater (Nyctyornis athertoni)? It certainly looks like this, but it is about as far south as it goes.

[guldsmed]

Thx for your comments both, the last ones were not meant for ID, but it seems Leslie and I are not in agreement regarding the cuckoo. I had put it down as a female Violet Cuckoo, and after looking at it again, I still think so, but I have the benefit of shots from somewhat different angles :-)

And yes it is Blue-bearded Bee-eater the last one, well known from the area, but as you say near its southern limit.

The cuckoo was calmly plucking one after one of these caterpillars from a rolled/spun leaf. So you beleive it to be a saturniid, Seow? interesting :-)

[Painted Jezebel]

Thx for your comments both, the last ones were not meant for ID, but it seems Leslie and I are not in agreement regarding the cuckoo. I had put it down as a female Violet Cuckoo, and after looking at it again, I still think so, but I have the benefit of shots from somewhat different angles :-)


Sorry, my error! I was looking at the right picture in my book, and then transposed the wrong name.:embrass: You are quite right, it is the Violet Cuckoo.

[Psyche]

The cuckoo was calmly plucking one after one of these caterpillars from a rolled/spun leaf. So you beleive it to be a saturniid, Seow? interesting :-)

This is certainly something new. I don't know of any spiny caterpillar that lives in rolled leaves. I always presumed they are smooth.

TL Seow:cheers:
PS. A thought just cross my mind. Don't Saturnids make a cocoon among the leaves. The bird could be pulling the cat. from one. I can see the cat. is rather big.

[guldsmed]

I could not see any silk, but the the leaf was folded on it self, so I guessed it was spun, but maybe wrongly. Anyway, I saw it eat maybe 8-10 of those cats taken from inside or possibly behind the folded leaf (almost but not quite certain it was inside).

[atronox]

I could not see any silk, but the the leaf was folded on it self, so I guessed it was spun, but maybe wrongly. Anyway, I saw it eat maybe 8-10 of those cats taken from inside or possibly behind the folded leaf (almost but not quite certain it was inside).
Could they be a Delias sp.? Ur description seems to fit most Delias cats.

[guldsmed]

I do not know, what it is, we are talking about the caterpillar eaten by a violet cuckoo in #26.

When in the field, I thought it could be one of the larger "micromoths", possibly Pyralidae, but it was just an idea/feeling without any supporting evidence :grin2: