Printable View
In the last few days I have two sightings of Penthema darlisa:
http://www.rainbowlodgecambodia.com/...aiser)%202.jpg
http://www.rainbowlodgecambodia.com/...aiser)%201.jpg
The first looks like ssp. mimetica, which is the expected ssp. here, but the second looks like ssp. melema.
Please can someone explain?
According to some authors they should be two separate species, more so if they occur sympatrically without intermediates.
http://www.dnp.go.th/foremic/entomol...b/penthema.htm
BTW there is a writeup on the Suada albolineata.
http://www.malaeng.com/blog/
TL Seow:cheers:
Thanks Seow!
So, do you think I should add both species to my list? A previous study of butterflies in the South Cardamoms [Woodfield & Murton,2006] (sorry, I cannot find this online) lists both P. darlisa and P. binghami mimetica but Yutaka's site references both specimens under P. darlia mimetica. The common names are also confusing. P. darlia mimetica is called the Blue Kaiser but P. binghami mimetica is called the Black Kaiser. My first shot clearly shows blue.
I followed the Suada albolineata link. I couldn't quite work out what it was saying (possible a translation issue). Is it in or out of the 2nd Edition? Is its common name, which I have never been able to find before, the Streaky Grass Bob?
This can get a bit sticky.
Pisuth had follow Yutaka in regarding mimetica as a ssp. of P. darlisa.
He has called it the Black Kaiser.
From the website I deduced Yutaka have considered the taxon binghami as a ssp. of P. darlisa.
Here is P. binghami from Lepidoptera Indica by Federic Moore.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...hami_335_1.jpg
You can leave it as 2 sympatrically occuring subspecies until they sort this out.
TL Seow:cheers:
Thank you, Seow. This is precisely what I had been thinking since Gee showed me these two photos a couple of days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
I saw the second photo first, and I said that it looked typically P. darlisa melema, the other, first photo here, was a typical P .d. mimetica (Synonym P. binghami) . I have a gut feeling that these are two separate species.
I still wonder about the third ssp. found in Thailand, P .d. merguia(Synonym P .d .cooperi), I am sure it should be a separate species as well.
As for Suada albolineata what Pisuth said was it will be mentioned but not included in the list for the 2nd edition, because of some uncertainties.
He mentioned the pic taken resembles the males of S. swerga as supplied by Kimura, but there are no pic of female to compare the female underside of S. swerga as shown in C&P4 (pl54/46).
Two flaws in the statement here.
The undersides of both sexes of S. swerga are similar.(C&P4)
In the Thai pic shown the abdominal tip is clearly that of a female.
TL Seow:cheers:
PS Here are pics of Indian S. swerga..
The male does look more streaky.
http://ifoundbutterflies.org/3-lepidoptera/suada-swerga
This raise the question as to whether S. albolineata is best treated as a subspecies of S. swerga.
It was me who pointed out the identification of the photo of this species on the Thai forum too late for it to be included in the second edition, so, no, it will not be in there. I hope I have not messed things up!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGee
Where the 'English' name came from, I have no idea.
A very good and valid, question, it is a matter of sympatry, again! This is, again, something that has crossed my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
They do look like good species to me, but I guess the male genitalia is identical in all three taxa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Painted Jezebel
This brings me to a burning question. How sure are they the forms of Papilio paradoxa (should be paradoxus -male gender) are not two different species.
After all, the males of Appias nero, paulina & albina have identical male genintalia but nobody in his right mind would consider them the same species.
TL Seow:cheers:
I suppose we have to wait for DNA analysis to be completed. However, do we know for sure that DNA is the be all and end all for species identification?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyche
DNA analysis is certainly a big help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Painted Jezebel
A certain percentage difference in DNA/genetic material is set for diferentiation of species in mammal.
This have results in 2 species of Orang-utans, 2 of Gorillas, 3 of giraffes, 2 of Clouded Leopards, etc.
They can be differentiated superficially but are fully inter-fertile.
In the case of lesser animals like butterflies, different limits will need to be set, and I suspect the infertility barrier will be even more porous between sibling species.
A good species for DNA analysis is Papilio clytia.
In Malaya all forms occur until the halfway mark & roughly from Selangor southwards to Singapore only form dissimilis is known.
This suggest that f-dissimilis is acting on its own ie. as a good separate species.
I don't whether anyone has done any breeding experiments to show all the forms can arise from a batch of eggs.
TL Seow:cheers:
Seow and Les, thanks for all the info, confusing as it might be!
Re Penthema darlisa: I have just realised that the forewing spots on the first shot (sorry for switching the order, Les) much more resemble those of ssp. melema than ssp. mimetica (in pattern, if not colour), even though the hindwing is clearly not ssp. melema. This is based on the few shots of spp. mimetica that I can find. Just to confuse matters further, could the first specimen be a hybrid, or are the blue spots normal on ssp. mimetica.
Re Suada sp.: Great shots of S. swerga. Thanks for the link. It's a shame there aren't similar available somewhere for S. albolineata. If there are, I cannot find them. I think for now I should leave mine as S. albolineata (with no common English name).
With mimetic species, there is always a variable amount of spots. I suspect the blue spots will not show up on the topside.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGee
Here are other forms of mimetica though, from neighbouring Laos.
http://www.neutron.phys.ethz.ch/Lepi...a/Laos2011.htm
The English name of S. albolineatus is likely a product of Pisuth' team, but I think it is good & appropriate.
TL Seeow:cheers:
Thanks for the link, Seow. Clears up the blue spot issue! Interestingly, they also show Penthema darlisa melema and Penthema darlisa/binghami mimetica co-existing.
I am still unsure whether the mimetica should be P. darlisa mimetica or P. binghami mimetica.
This is far more complicated than I expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGee
In going through Yutaka's records there are 2 forms of P. darlisa melema.
f-darlisa and f-binghami.
I think you are right about the blue spots & blue sheen upperside.
Taxon mimetica whether as P. darlisa or binghami have no blue on the forewing.
I think pic 1 is P. darlisa melema f - binghami (it resembles P. binghami.)
Pic. 2 is P. darlisa melema f - darlisa.
Here you can see a form of P. darlisa melema in which the hindwing stripes are disappearing.
http://www.malaeng.com/blog/?p=8678
TL Seow:cheers:
Thanks Seow but the link you sent in the previous post (http://www.neutron.phys.ethz.ch/Lepi...a/Laos2011.htm) shows blue on thee forewing of ssp. mimetica.
I guess there is a general misunderstanding and probably some misidentification of these species.
There is a fair bit of mis-ID in that site, but the pics are excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGee
Yutaka's site indicates some memitica in past records should be melema.
TL Seow:cheers:
So are you happy that the best option is to identify both as P. darlisa melema and label each with the appropriate form?
If we follow Yutaka it should be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGee
Possibly some examples of mimetica may have some dark blue gloss but if it have the same irridescent blue as melema it could not possibly be called a Black Kaiser.
Here at the melema site you can see most records from Laos are misID'ed as mimetica.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/sat/40580020.html
At the mimetica site there are 2(actually 1) records from Botum Sakor NP.Cambodia.
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/sat/40580010.html
Is your place near to this or to the Laos border?:cheers:
Images from net are rather confusing. It seems the forms quoted by Yutaka may be erected by them.
TL Seow:cheers:
Here is the entry from the Butterfly Field Guide: Southwest Cambodia [Woodfield & Murton,2006] (copyright Frontier)
http://www.rainbowlodgecambodia.com/...maFrontier.jpg
I am much nearer to Botum Sakor National Park (approx 70km) than I am to Laos (about 400km to the Laos border).
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: