|
|
Post by Sergey Kovalev on Dec 21, 2012 5:35:17 GMT -8
Hi all. Follow up, please, my doubts. 1. Male and female Papilio bianor bianor of Lushan. But by the photo, I think it Papilio maackii shimogorii. 2. Two males of Papilio bootes Erlang Shan area (Sichuan). Are these both Papilio bootes nigritsans? Why are they so different ? 3. Some vendors have recently started offering Papilio gambrisius colossus from Ceram. What is that a subspecies? And what did they offer before as Papilio gambrisius ? Serg Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergey Kovalev on Dec 21, 2012 5:41:24 GMT -8
Sorry haven't managed with attaching more than one pic Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergey Kovalev on Dec 21, 2012 5:45:07 GMT -8
Papilio bootes Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergey Kovalev on Dec 21, 2012 5:45:52 GMT -8
Papilio bootes 2 Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Dec 21, 2012 8:29:09 GMT -8
Sergey,
The photos of the underside show clearly that they are maackii shimogorii, which is not surprising, as specimens sold as Papilio bianor from Sichuan usually are a mixture of bianor and maackii.
As for Papilio bootes nigricans (note spelling), yes, both specimens are forms (there are intermediates too) of the same butterfly. This species mimics Byasa species (generally polyeuctes or latreillei) in nature, and in W Sichuan there are Byasa with white spots on the hindwings, and all black hindwings. In fact Byasa polyeuctes lama (the local subspecies) also has both white spotted (like polyeuctes elsewhere) and all black forms, which copy the pattern of the common all black Byasa confusus and impediens.
You asked about Papilio gambrisius colossus from Ceram. Hans Fruhstorfer described that name in 1899 as a separate subspecies from gambrisius from the smaller island of Ambon. In reality colossus is just a synonym of gambrisius, and was synonymised in 1909 by Jordan in Seitz.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sergey Kovalev on Dec 24, 2012 1:12:30 GMT -8
Thank you very much for the clarification !
Serg
|
|
