Is there a change ???

[Silverstreak]

Is there a change ?

Striped Albatross (Appias libythea olferna) to (Appias olferna olferna) ?

Please enlighten and quote paper if any.

:cheers:

[Psyche]

The two taxa were separated as they overlap in eastern India.

Appias libythea.
http://mail.butterfliesofindia.net/ifoundbutterflies/63-pierini/appias-libythea

Appias olferna.
http://mail.butterfliesofindia.net/ifoundbutterflies/65-appias/appias-olferna

Yutaka also treat the local forms as A. olferna.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/pie/20220001.html

TL Seow:cheers:

[Silverstreak]

Seow , Thiam Peng , Leslie and Khew,

From what I have come to understand is , Butterflies of India saw Yutaka site listing it as a separate species and also a few papers citing it as Appias olferna , and they followed . I also noticed that Leslie has named it as Appias olferna on his site as well.

There was supposed to be a paper that proposed the elevation of Appias libythea olferna to species level as Appias olferna . I am just wondering if any of you have seen it .There were also later papers still using Appias libythea olferna , so apparently the proposal of this paper is yet to be fully accepted by the scientific community.

According to Adrian Hoskins site at http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/India%20-%20Appias%20olferna.htm


Appias olferna was formerly considered to be a subspecies of libythea and is virtually identical on the underside. On the upperside however the black apex and margin of olferna is almost solid, but in libythea it is broken into a series of narrow bars.

But the above description of libythea jell well with our Appias libythea olferna

How does one tell these two apart , So is ours Appias libythea olferna or Appias olferna olferna .: :) :hmmm:

http://www.butterflycircle.com/checklist%20V2/CI/mugshots/Appias%20libythea%20olferna/SA----SUNNY-CHIR.jpg



Thanks!

[Psyche]

The taxon libythea only occurs in India & Sri Lanka.

Here is Moore's drawing of A. libythea from Sri Lanka.
Male & female 3 & 3a.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/MooreThe_Lepidoptera_of_CeylonPlate52.jpg

The taxon olferna occur in eastern India eg Bengal,Assam (where it overlaps with taxon libythea) and the rest of mainland Asia & Sundaland.

Fabricius' original females 'Papilio libythea'.
http://www.huntsearch.gla.ac.uk/zooimages//Thumbs/126545-7t.jpg

TL Seow:cheers:
PS. There are wet & dry season forms. I don't know if all the images in the post 2 links are correct.
Hoskins had unintentionally transposed the description of the two taxa.
Other species affecting Singapore are.
Hasora taminatus to Hasora malayana. The two taxa are said to co-exist in a wide area in the Indochinese region.
Cethosia penthesilea methypsea to C. methypsea methypsea. C. penthesilea being the Papuan/Australian form.

[Painted Jezebel]

I wonder if Adrian's comment was based on the dry season form of the female, as the apex can be 'solid', otherwise, it appears to be a bit misleading, in my humble opinion. This is something I think we do not appear to need to bother about in the Peninsular downwards (at least, I have never seen a d.s.f!).

Thank you, Seow, for reminding me I need to change my site with regards to the Hasora and Cethosia.

[Commander]

No, I haven't come across any papers to that effect yet. There are quite a number of changes in taxonomic naming, and frankly speaking, a lot depends on the momentum of usage that the scientific community accepts it.

Another example is where the NHM considers Pathysa to be a junior synonym of Graphium and that our FiveBar Swordtail should actually be Graphium antiphates. But I haven't come across the actual paper that describes this, and whether the scientific community has started to accept and using this naming.

Currently, my point of reference is still C&P4 & Fleming, and the latest update to C&P4 in the Malayan Nature Journal by the late Col Eliot and Dr Kirton. There are also a couple of papers in MNJ revising the Zela spp that I also take reference to.

[Commander]

The taxon libythea only occurs in India & Sri Lanka.


Not according to NHM's records if I interpret it correctly. As described by Fabricius in 1775, taxon libythea was recorded with a distribution from Ceylon, S. India, Bengal, Punjab, Hainan and Siam.

As it has occurred as far south in Thailand, and reading the text in C&P4 about how A. libythea became more common in Malaysia only in the past 50 years, could it be possible that A. libythea is a valid taxon here in Malaysia and Singapore?

See NHM's LepsIndex in taxon libythea (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?TaxonNo=173491.0&UserID=&UserName=&&listPageURL=list%2edsml%3fsort%3dSCIENTIFIC%255fNA ME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC%5fNAME%5fon%5fcard qtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26SCIENTIFIC%5fNAME%5fon%5fc ard%3dlibythea%26recLimit%3d30&searchPageURL=index%2edsml%3fSCIENTIFIC%5fNAME%5fo n%5fcardqtype%3dstarts%2bwith%26sort%3dSCIENTIFIC% 255fNAME%255fon%255fcard%26SCIENTIFIC%5fNAME%5fon% 5fcard%3dlibythea%26recLimit%3d30)

[Psyche]

There are numerous errors in Lepindex' records.
They are simply transferred from old index cards in the museum into the records without referring to newer revisions by taxonomists.
For instance, even the valid taxon olferna is missing.
This would imply olferna can not be used as a species or subspecies name. It is not even a synonym.

TL Seow:cheers:
PS. Fabricius' specimens of libythea probably came from Sri Lanka or Bombay.
Swihoe's type specimen of olferna came from Maldah district of West Bengal beside Bengladesh.

[Commander]

There are numerous errors in Lepindex' records.
They are simply transferred from old index cards in the museum into the records without referring to newer revisions by taxonomists.
For instance, even the valid taxon olferna is missing.
This would imply olferna can not be used as a species or subspecies name. It is not even a synonym.

TL Seow:cheers:

Rather unfortunate for credibility of the NHM then. But won't you consider the distribution described by Fabricius in that old index card (if it was recorded accurately) still valid, irrespective of other omissions in the missing taxa?

[Psyche]

Rather unfortunate for credibility of the NHM then. But won't you consider the distribution described by Fabricius in that old index card (if it was recorded accurately) still valid, irrespective of other omissions in the missing taxa?

At the time when the index card was created, many of the taxa, olferna, rouxii, irvinii, peducaea, zelmira, were considered to be subspecies of libythea.
It was only several years back, & probably because of the wide overlap in the distributions without intermediates, that the two were separated.

The taxon olferna being the oldest name of the eastern forms have priority as the species or specific name. Most taxa, zelmira, irvinii are dropped as synonyms. The Phillipine taxon peducaea should be valid as A. olferna peducaea.

Of the western forms, taxon rouxii from the Punjab is dropped as a synonym of libythea.
The species is probably too variable to have valid subspecific names.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Silverstreak]

No, I haven't come across any papers to that effect yet. There are quite a number of changes in taxonomic naming, and frankly speaking, a lot depends on the momentum of usage that the scientific community accepts it.

Another example is where the NHM considers Pathysa to be a junior synonym of Graphium and that our FiveBar Swordtail should actually be Graphium antiphates. But I haven't come across the actual paper that describes this, and whether the scientific community has started to accept and using this naming.

Momentum of usage : That is where I reckon the problem is and will be , everyone following changes of "reputable " site without having any idea of the rationale behind it or quote the relevant reference.

When query: Oh ! such and such a "reputable" site(s) is/are using it , so I follow loh!!!:bsmile:

This is somewhat similar to the Wingspan fiasco they are having in India now . All the the butterfly reference books published after "Butterflies of Peninsular India" by Krushnamegh Kunte in 2000 have Wrong Windspan data , they thought it should be correct and just followed it. ;P

Cheers!

[teotp]

In Kimura's "The Butterflies of Thailand, 2011", he use Appias olferna olferna with the following remarks: This butterfly has been treated as one the subspecies of Appias libythea but we regard it as one of the species, olferna, following the treatment of Prof. Osuma Yata (1986).

In Yata's "Butterflies of the South East Asian Islands, volume 2, 1985", he pointed out that libythea is known for the name of this butterfly, but the typical libythea from India is reasonably different in appearance* and male genitalia. He raised olferna from east of Indo-China to the specific status.

"Butterflies of Loas, 1989" by Motono et al. -- Appias olferna olferna.

*Please refer to Isaac's "The Book of Indian Butterflies, 2008": Plate 5, 34a UP and 34d UP for A. libythea form libythea and A. libythea form olferna respectively.

Teo T P

[teotp]

The Phillipine taxon peducaea should be valid as A. olferna peducaea.

TL Seow:cheers:

Prof. O. Yata treats the Philippine specimens as Appias olferna peducaea. It's apical marking in the male is much more developed and the white streaks become slender or vestigial (Yata et al, 1985).

Teo T P

[Silverstreak]

Thiam Peng,

Thank you very much !!:)