Skippers ID clarification in Singapore

[Psyche]

Post 76.

1. Female Erionota thrax.

2, & 3. Female Erionota torus.

The two can be quite confusing in fieldshots.

Females with antennal club half-white, males with antennal club 3/4 white.
ERIONOTA.png
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/hes/92330001.html
http://yutaka.it-n.jp/hes/92320001.html

Note in shots 2 & 3 the head is nearer the camera ( it appear larger).
The oblique view render the termen (outer margin ) somewhat straight.

Erionota thrax.
Males.
https://wanderingbutterflyeffect.fil...0f3c25860d.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...6072/large.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...003/large.jpeg

https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...1805/large.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...810/large.jpeg

https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...602/large.jpeg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...601/large.jpeg

Females.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...2012--0060.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...758/large.jpeg


Erionota torus.
Males.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nota_torus.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...8210/large.jpg
https://static.inaturalist.org/photo...322/large.jpeg
Females.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...2012--0882.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...560/large.jpeg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...9518/large.jpg


TL Seow: Cheers.

[sabafish]

Thanks for the diagrams Dr Seow! It made the part on wing margins alot more clearer.

Can I check if the FW spots are diagnostic? I have added additional photos to the photos 2 & 3 for post 76 as the FW spots look kind of different.

Post 76:

2) Added a shot showing FW upperside and a more parallel shot of the underside.

DSC_0984.jpg DSC_0995.jpg

3) Similarly, added a shot of FW upperside and a more parallel shot of the underside.

DSC_1019.jpg DSC_1021.jpg


In addition, adding on another Erionota, could this be E. torus then?

A)

DSC_0008.jpg DSC_0013.jpg

Thank you!!

[Psyche]

Post 78.

The shape of spot 3 was given by Flemings, author of BoWM&S.
It is not absolute. Need to view in the correct perspective.
You can see the difference in the Yutaka website,

2 is certain to be E. torus. Corrected.
3 looks to have the termen a bit straighter, but FW is broad as in E. torus.
Compare typical E. thraxfemale with narrower FW.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...2012--0060.jpg

I would include it as E. torus.

Do note interspecific crosses occur & can be fully fertile with sibling species.

A. is fairly typical E. torus female.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[Psyche]

Correction

Some typo errors.

1 is Erionota thrax.

2 is certain to be E. torus.

3 is likely to be also E. torus.
In a perfectly perpendicular shot the blunt wide angle to the FW is always seen in E. thrax.


TL Seow: Cheers.

[sabafish]

Hi Dr Seow,

Was looking through my older photos and wondered if the following could be Lasippa heliodore?

The FW cellular bar with tongue do not look correct and seemed to point to L. tiga but the submarginal spots resemble closer to L. helidore?

Looking forward to your opinion. Thank you!

DSC_1093.jpg

[Psyche]

This is one of those tricky one.

The two species are closely related & so it may not be uncommon for them to cross & produce intermediates.

Generally I would think this is closer to Lasippa heliodore based on the following.

To reiterate.

Lasippa heliodore.
FW submarginal spots 3 & 4 in male nearly equal width, in female spot 3 about 1.5X width of spot 4.
Tongue spot usually defined in black.
Thin orange submarginal band often faded & obscure in the male.
Lower end of FW subapical crossband well notched by spot 4.
Males.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...le_ups_02X.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dCiPo215I...car-LokePF.jpg
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...le_ups_02X.jpg
Females.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check..._Horace_02.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HoYdClsYu...scar-MarkW.jpg
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...20-%20Loke.jpg


Lasippa tiga.
FW submarginal spots 3 is at least 2X wider than spot 4 in both sexes.
Tongue spot not well defined in black.
Male thin orange submarginal band usually well defined. Correction: Variable, not quite true.
Lower end of subapical crossband not usually notched by spot 4.
Males.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SJ-nAVEso...ascar-KSK2.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rzo8wjfyC...ed_02_male.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...2960/large.jpg
https://inaturalist-open-data.s3.ama...9378/large.jpg
Females.
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...20-%20Khew.jpg
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...hee%20Meng.jpg
http://www.butterflycircle.com/check...20-%20Khew.jpg

The image have the following features.
1, FW submarginal spot 3 is barely 1.5X width of spot 4.
2. Submarginal thin orange band faded & obscure.
3. Tongue spot is poorly defined but not an absolute feature in L. heliodore.
4. FW crossband notched by spot 4.
This have more the features of L. heliodore.


TL Seow; Cheers.

[sabafish]

Dear Dr. Seow,

Merry Christmas! Thank you for the constant assistance in helping us amateurs ID the butterflies that we have trouble with.

Once again, am seeking your help to ID the following butterflies.

1) Pelopidas conjunctus?

Sorry for the photos with high exposure. The FW spots looked to be a different colour than the HW spots which are white. The size is larger than typical P. mathias too.

DSC_0571.jpgDSC_0572.jpgDSC_0576.jpg


The subsequent photos are dealing with Pantoporia hordonia or Pantoporia sandaka again. Appreciate if you could determine if they are all P. sandaka or there is a P. hordonia among them. Thank you!

2)

DSC_0525.jpg

3)

DSC_1052.jpg

4)

DSC_0554.jpgDSC_0557.jpg