Koh Phangan 2013

[Painted Jezebel]

Thanks, Antonio for the info. Perhaps I ought to get there a bit earlier!

Seow, yes, I still have problems regarding my female. That is why I am constantly going there to try for a male. Although I have it listed as D. nolens, I do state the doubts held about its correctness. Perhaps I ought to change it back to Deramas sp. indet.

[Psyche]

Thanks, Antonio for the info. Perhaps I ought to get there a bit earlier!

Seow, yes, I still have problems regarding my female. That is why I am constantly going there to try for a male. Although I have it listed as D. nolens, I do state the doubts held about its correctness. Perhaps I ought to change it back to Deramas sp. indet.

I have seen your website on D. nolens & I think it is fine as it is.
Often as not the obvious & common one ends up being coorect.

My curiosity is the male you put up. Its wingshape also suggest it could be a female . I supposed you have seen the upperside.
http://www.samuibutterflies.com/02_i...nspasteuri.jpg

The underside pattern & colour also matched that of the specimen female so in all likelyhood they are the same species.

If it is male it strongly suggest D. nelvis.
Fleming's description of nelvis is the best match ie. underside greyish buff with slight reddish or purple glaze vs for D. nolens (C&P4) underside buff with faint purple glaze(absent in female) .

TL Seow
PS. If it is female it also strongly suggest D. nelvis as the female nolens should only be buff without any reddish/purple glaze.

[Psyche]

I am just wondering if the ID of Deramas have been a mess in the past.
These two from Si thammarat & Khao Luang were ID'ed as D. livens.
Looking at them now they seem too light-coloured to be the male livens.
http://www.samuibutterflies.com/blog...aslivens.v.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8397/8...42a05af6_c.jpg

TL Seow