USR 3jul2011

Some shots for today.
Malayan Five Ring
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG17652.jpg

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG17702.jpg
Long Brand Bush Brown
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG17852.jpg
Common Four Ring
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG17882.jpg
Yellow Vein Lancer
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG18182.jpg
Common Faun
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG18742.jpg
Chestnut Bob
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG18852.jpg

:cheers:

One more...
Hoary Palmer
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/.../RIMG18912.jpg

:cheers:

As long as you can see the spots in the second pair of rings are separated and not touching, it is the Malayan Five-ring (Y. horsfieldi ). It is probably more common than the Common Five-ring ( Y. baldus ) in Singapore.

TL Seow:cheers:

Well done on nailing the hoary pamler! :cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyche

As long as you can see the spots in the second pair of rings are separated and not touching, it is the Malayan Five-ring (Y. horsfieldi ). It is probably more common than the Common Five-ring ( Y. baldus ) in Singapore.

---

Actually, I was proven wrong on that that characteristic for separating the two, Seow. A check with Dr Kirton back in 2006 confirmed that the more reliable ID key to separate the two species still remains that "the ocellus in space 5 always larger than that in space 6 (for Y. baldus)" and "the ocellus in spaces 5 & 6 subequal, that in space 5 sometimes smaller (for Y. horsfieldi)"

It was at that time when I came across this pair, and sent it to Dr Kirton for his views on C&P4's key about the separated rings that distinguish between Y. baldus and Y. horsfiedi. The conclusion at that time, was that the separation (or contiguity) of the rings in spaces 2 & 3 and 5 & 6, is not a reliable ID characteristic to distinguish between the two. The pair shown below was ID'ed as Y. baldus.

Did you come across any recent literature on the separation of these two species?

However, given that the ocelli in spaces 5 & 6 of the pair that Brian shot are roughly subequal (which I was given to understand that subequal means "nearly equal"), I would concur with you that the pair is Y. horsfieldi.

Thanks Khew, for the info.

I have to be careful in IDing these two based on the upperside.

The underside is not a problem since the spots in Y. horsfieldi are always rather small & separate , and spot 5 is always larger than 6 in baldus .

I have thought the difference between this pair of spots (2 &3 ) are consistent enough to help to ID these two species easily for those new to it.

TL Seow:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banded Yeoman

Well done on nailing the hoary pamler! :cheers:

---

Hi Jonathan, thanks for the kind comment.:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyche

Thanks Khew, for the info.

I have to be careful in IDing these two based on the upperside.

The underside is not a problem since the spots in Y. horsfieldi are always rather small & separate , and spot 5 is always larger than 6 in baldus .

I have thought the difference between this pair of spots (2 &3 ) are consistent enough to help to ID these two species easily for those new to it.

---

Thanks, Seow. Still quite a bit of research and observations needed with this genus of butterflies.

I had recorded an article in our blog earlier, that compares the similarities between the arrangements and degree of contiguity in the ocelli of the related Y. huebneri. In the samples shown, the phenomenon of the ocelli's separation, size and contiguity is also discussed.

http://butterflycircle.blogspot.com/...bility-of.html

I have not come across any detailed dissection and comparative research for this species yet. Perhaps some Japanese lepidopterist may have done some recent work on it, particularly the early stages. I suppose the species' "unattractiveness" may have been one of the reasons that they are not more extensively studied.

You certainly have a very interesting writeup on Y. hubneri in your blog, Khew.

The difference in the spots , big/conjoined/contiguous and smaller/separate parallel that between baldus & horsfieldi.

In the past baldus & horsfieldi were considered conspecific, since they could not be separated by genitalia dissection.

You could be right that a new species may lurks within hubneri.

Still one wonders if the butts themselves care two hoots if they are 1 or 2 species. They could just be freely mating among themselves, while we humans sought to separate them according to the size of their spots.

Always is a word to be used with caution in nature. Almost invariably an individual arise that bucks the trend and ruins the limits set for the species.

I am waiting for aY. baldus with postdiscal in space 5 smaller than in 6 to turn up.

TL Seow:cheers:

Look like a malayan mating common(five Ring)