-
Now I am really confused for these 2 are the Botum Sakor specimens mentioned in the mimetica site.
Yutaka considered both to be Penthema darlisa mimetica.
Now I am wondering how does Penthema darlisa melema f- binghami looks like?
TL Seow:cheers:
PS. Your area is smack in mimetica territory.
I would suggest you can either leave it as P. d. mimetica or P. binghami mimetica.
It doesn't make sense when 2 distinct subspecies exist in the same area, of course.
(It makes a lot of sense if they are 2 forms of one subspecies.)
-
I can find no ssp. mimetica shots with stripes nor any ssp. melema shots without stripes. I can find no reference to ssp. melema having two forms, except on Yutaka's site, which unfortunately has no images. nor any references to ssp. mimetica having two forms.
It is tempting to treat them as separate species and label the first shot (without stripes) as P. binghami mimetica and the other as P. darlisa melema.
However, the following site (after some fairly dodgy Google translation) says that P. binghami used to be considered a separate species but has now become a subspecies of P. darlisa:
http://naturingthailand.blog89.fc2.c...egory20-5.html
Also, Yutaka's site indicates that P. darlisa melema is found only further north than here. It also treats P. binghami godfreyi as a synonym for P. darlisa melema.
-
I was referring to pic 1 all these while.
Pic 2 is clearly P. darlisa melema (form -darlisa).
The lepindex site at the BMNH still list Penthema binghami as a valid species.However the site is prone to errors as the entries are dependent on the data available and the interpretation of it.
In the Yutaka site, of the records taken from literatures, some are not properly verified.
At the mimetica site he had examined the holotype(original) in BMNH as well as the types for taxa annamitica & telearchides which are usually ssp of P. binghami.
It is telling that of the specimens of mimetica examined there are only two.
1 from Mukdarhan by a local catcher in 1985.
The other in Hup Bom by Godfrey in 1914 lodged in BMNH.
This means ssp mimetica is very rare in Thailand.
At the melema site, he had examined the holotype as well as paratypes(additional specimens lodged for reference.)
He had examined 20 specimens of both what he considered as f-binghami and f- darlisa from the Chiang Rai area taken by a local catcher.
I am quite confident that according to Yutaka pic 1 is f-binghami & pic is f-darlisa of Penthema darlisa melema.
As for P. darlisa mimetica Yutaka have only seen 2 specimens taken long ago.
The Cambodian records are not verified properly.
TL Seow:cheers:
-
Thank you Seow! I will follow your advice and change my site accordingly.
-
Sorry to resurrect this but I saw the following butt earlier and cannot see how this differs from the shots in Woodfield & Murton,2006 that Yutaka considered to be Penthema darlisa mimetica.
http://www.rainbowlodgecambodia.com/..._09_000858.jpg
http://www.rainbowlodgecambodia.com/..._09_000862.jpg
-
Yutaka merely quote from literatures. He may not have read the articles in some cases, but assumed it have been verified by others earlier.
For example, all the correction in Pisuth's 1st edition were not done by him.
In all cases he of course have no specimens to examine.
TL Seow:cheers:
