nacaduba ID

[MinuteMaid]

Is this Nacaduba berenice?

http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab169/rustysocute123/Screenshot2012-10-08atAM120616.png

http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab169/rustysocute123/Screenshot2012-10-08atAM120605.png

[atronox]

I think they are Nacaduba kurava because of the hindwing markings in space 6.

[Psyche]

1 should be N. calauria male.
The submarginal & marginal spots are rather dark; marginal spots also very large.

2. is probably N. kurava male.
The submarginal spots on the forewing forms a more regular band, with rounded margins;hindwing submarginal spot 6 is proportionately large.

Typical male N. kurava .
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0EK80AsaR7g/TUPvlJiepVI/AAAAAAAAD8I/GmGpw8Bx9Nk/s400/DSC1068-Nacaduba-sp.jpg

Typical males N. berenice.
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1330/1049143234_fb356a3c7e.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3225/2894068742_4a302635c1_z.jpg?zz=1

TL Seow:cheers:

[MinuteMaid]

thanks aaron and Dr. Seow.

i'm always confused with these nacaduba.

what about this one? also shot at the same area. is this also kurava?

http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab169/rustysocute123/Screenshot2012-10-08atAM082924.png

and is this berenice then?

http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab169/rustysocute123/Screenshot2012-10-08atAM082940.png

[Psyche]

Post 4.

The first is the same as no. 2 from Post 1, ie tentative N. kurava male.
The forewing submarginal band/series of spots is narrower than in typical kurava.. From the same colony, so same feature.

The 2nd is Prosotas aluta nanda male.
Note the forewing postdiscal band (next to the submarginal spots) is dislocated at the lower end and the spot in space 3 shifted in.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Commander]

Lemon, with regard to the last one, you may want to read an earlier discussion on P. aluta on the forums here (http://www.butterflycircle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11957). Sunny has also kindly done a photographic key to show the differences.

However, as advised by many experts, we do not record photographic finds as final, particularly of the many lookalike species in the Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae, until we have voucher specimens and seek the opinions of experts like Dr Seow, TeoTP, Dr Kirton and a couple of other overseas lepidopterists before recording them.

Most of the experts have refrained from definitive IDs without having a look at the uppersides/undersides of a voucher specimen before arriving at a firm conclusion. Field shots are good for tentative IDs or to let us know of the possibility of the existence of a particular species.

There are several species pending such validation before being added to the Singapore checklist.

[MinuteMaid]

Lemon, with regard to the last one, you may want to read an earlier discussion on P. aluta on the forums here (http://www.butterflycircle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11957). Sunny has also kindly done a photographic key to show the differences.

However, as advised by many experts, we do not record photographic finds as final, particularly of the many lookalike species in the Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae, until we have voucher specimens and seek the opinions of experts like Dr Seow, TeoTP, Dr Kirton and a couple of other overseas lepidopterists before recording them.

Most of the experts have refrained from definitive IDs without having a look at the uppersides/undersides of a voucher specimen before arriving at a firm conclusion. Field shots are good for tentative IDs or to let us know of the possibility of the existence of a particular species.

There are several species pending such validation before being added to the Singapore checklist.

Thanks Khew.

I shot that one months ago at USR but labelled it as N. Berenice on my Flickr. Today decided to confirm its ID since I was posting a few other UFOs too.

Will read the thread you linked. I think I have many mis-ID on my Flickr page

[Commander]

Thanks Khew.

I shot that one months ago at USR but labelled it as N. Berenice on my Flickr. Today decided to confirm its ID since I was posting a few other UFOs too.

Will read the thread you linked. I think I have many mis-ID on my Flickr page

The Jamides, Nacaduba, Arhopala genera will be fraught with uncertainties. Even with set specimens, there have been difficulty in IDs, what more field shots showing just one view of the species. So don't worry too much about it. If in doubt, just put Nacaduba sp. until you have a higher level of confidence of the ID. We're fortunate over here to have someone like Dr Seow to point out where to look for when examining the diagnostic features of separating the species.

After nailing down the IDs, then we have to deal with taxonomic updates in the scientific world, e.g. the Striped Albatross discussion in another part of this forum. :sweat: