Doubtful IDs from Nepal

[Nawab]

Thank you so much, sir. I think I have two different Choaspes here. Could you check? C. benjaminii and C. furcata?

1. 1.jpg

2. 2.jpg

[Psyche]

Post 11.

You got them right.

1. C. furcztz.
The black area in space 1a is large & comes close to the margin
The large spot in space 1b is angled inwards.

2. C. bejaminii japonica.
The black area in space 1a is small & does not come near the margin.
The spot in space 1b is not angled in.
The tail is particularly short.

Evans state of C. benjaminii & furcata, the two black spots in space 2 (which is partially orange) are placed centrally ie roughly equal distance from vein 2 below & vein 3 above.
In C. stigmata the two spots are nearer vein 3 above & in C. xanthopogon they are nearer vein 2 below.
Can be hard to judge.

Upperside male C. benjaminii mostly green; C. stigmata & furcata, basally green;C. xanthopogon mostly brown.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[Psyche]

In response to Post 89.
The confusion grows. I found another individual but without HW spots, same place and same date and time. But I had apparently IDed this as Pedesta pandita, so was in a different folder. This leads me to think that Post 89 was same species with HW spots. Angle distortion seems weird since I have many pics of these individuals with same morphology. Could you share your thoughts, sir?
Attachment 26918

I have just read through Evans' description of Pedesta & realised there are some confusion between P. panda & pandita.


Pedesta panda; FW spot in space 3 (spot 3) small & well-separated from the cellspot. Spot 2 is close to the cellspot.
Spots yellow.
Note FW subapical spots large & in line. Antennal tip orange without a white dot.

https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...5919ed5f-2.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...5919ed5f-1.jpg

https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...98ae8596-1.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...98ae8596-2.jpg

MisIDed.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...2bd23ca2-1.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...2bd23ca2-2.jpg




Pedesta pandita. FW spot 2 well-separated from the cellspot. Likewise so would spot 3.
Darker brown above & spots pale yellowish.
Note FW subapical spots smaller & tapering. Antennal tip orange with a white dot.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...00375cb7-1.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...00375cb7-2.jpg

Variant with spot 2 & 3 not overlapping.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...53f557fe-2.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...53f557fe-1.jpg

Correction: Both examples of P. pandita are actually Thoressa hyrie.

The large subapical spots & antennal tip orange , without a white dot ID'ed this as Pandita panda. Correction: Conclusion in error.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[Nawab]

Many thanks for looking into it, sir. So, Pedesta pandita, both male and female, have white dot on antennae? This means most of the IDs on ifoundbutterflies are incorrect and P. panda possibly extends further west from Nagaland, up to Nepal.

[Psyche]

Many thanks for looking into it, sir. So, Pedesta pandita, both male and female, have white dot on antennae? This means most of the IDs on ifoundbutterflies are incorrect and P. panda possibly extends further west from Nagaland, up to Nepal.

It seems P. panda is the commoner species & P. pandita is the much rarer.

The correct images of both species are based on the UpF spots arrangement & there is no ambiguity between the two species , ie. the spot arrangement is distinct for each species.
The spots are also distinctly yellow in P. panda.

All correct images are male & the antennal colour of the female can only be inferred at.

Pedesta is very closely related to Halpe which also show similar antennal tip colour.

Species like Halpe zema, zola & ormenes have the antennal tip orange with a white dot in both sexes.
H. zema.
Male.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...8ff2a400ad.jpg
Female.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...19d92fff-3.jpg

Halpe ormenes female on the right. Singapore.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...Bene%20Tay.jpg

Most species without the white dot.
H. hindu male.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...110aeaa5-1.jpg
Female.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...Saji_ad984.jpg


TL Seow: Cheers.

PS. Need to check out possible confusion of P. pandita & Thoressa hyrie.

[Psyche]

Correction.
All examples of P. pandita in which the antenna tip have a white dot at the base are Thoressa hyrie.


These are Thoressa hyrie.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...00375cb7-1.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...00375cb7-2.jpg

https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...53f557fe-2.jpg
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...53f557fe-1.jpg


Pedesta pandita ;FW spot 2 & 3 broadly overlapping & well separated from the cellspot. Subapical spots large & in line.
Antennal tip orange without a white dot.
Correct image of Pedesta pandita.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...ekar_aa653.jpg

[Psyche]

http://www.butterflycircle.com/attac...chmentid=26918

Based on its overall brownish shading it is likely to be P. pandita.
https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/me...unte_an485.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedesta_pandita

The main doubt is the more gradual antennal club.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[Nawab]

That's a great digging, sir! That's why I was wondering why Pedesta pandita had a male brand. I do agree that my species is P. pandita. Thank you so much again!

[Psyche]

That's a great digging, sir! That's why I was wondering why Pedesta pandita had a male brand. I do agree that my species is P. pandita. Thank you so much again!

You are right about the male brand.
All Pedesta species have none.

Everybody make errors.
Even many museum lodged specimens are misidentified.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[Nawab]

Sir, could you look at this Erionota please?

1.jpg