|
|
Post by xxgabixxsk on Jun 13, 2013 13:16:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by xxgabixxsk on Jun 13, 2013 13:21:44 GMT -8
13. Marpesia?
22. Chetone histrio?
26. Papilio torquatus?
30. Rhetus dysonii?
59. Dione juno?
Thank you for your answers.
Kind regards,
Gábor
|
|
|
|
Post by prillbug4 on Jun 13, 2013 20:43:42 GMT -8
#32 and 70 are Geometridae. You need to open the wings.
Jeff Prill
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Jun 13, 2013 23:15:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Jun 14, 2013 9:09:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 14, 2013 10:04:16 GMT -8
Awseome stuff, Lepido.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by lepidofrance on Jun 14, 2013 13:46:15 GMT -8
"Awseome stuff, Lepido."
What do you mean ?
In fact, I am responding to the massive demand for identification by a French proverb: "Help yourself, Heaven will help you" ...
|
|
|
|
Post by xxgabixxsk on Jul 8, 2013 3:17:03 GMT -8
Hello, I think No 34 is not Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus, but No.35 is Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus Kind regards, Gábor |
|
|
|
Post by xxgabixxsk on Jul 8, 2013 3:18:53 GMT -8
Hello, I tried to id butterflies from my list. I have found some. 1Anteos menippe 6Anartia jatrophae 8Adelpha??? 9,50Narope syllabus 10Perisama dorbignyi jurinei 14Perisama philinus 15Pereute callinira 16Memphis polyxo 19Papilio thoas 20Perisama humboldtii 22.Chetone histrio??? 24Perisama canoma 25Tigridia acesta 26.Papilio torquatus 28Memphis offa 30Ancyluris endaemon 31Pereute telthusa 34Protesilaus glaucolaus 35Neographium agesilaus 39Callicore texa maimuna 41Chloreuptychia herseis 44Eurema xantochlora 55Dynamine  56Adelpha epione 59.Dione juno but not sure 67Archonias brassolis 68Epiphile imperator 4,36 Doxocopa Can anyone tell me whether I have determined well? Kind regards Gábor |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 8, 2013 8:07:59 GMT -8
I think No 34 is not Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus, but No.35 is Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus Kind regards, Gábor You are correct, but it is not possible to conclusively identify number 34 without opening the wings first. It is probably Eurytides glaucolaus leucas, as that is the commonest species of the protesilaus group in Tingo Maria, but it is necessary to see both sides of the forewings to be sure. Note that E. agesilaus is not a member of the protesilaus group at all, even though it looks very similar. E. agesilaus has the red stripe on the inside of the black one across the middle of the hindwing, whereas all members of the protesilaus group have the red stripe on the outside, as in number 34. |
|
|
|
Post by xxgabixxsk on Jul 8, 2013 22:21:56 GMT -8
I think No 34 is not Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus, but No.35 is Eurytides agesilaus autosilaus Kind regards, Gábor You are correct, but it is not possible to conclusively identify number 34 without opening the wings first. It is probably Eurytides glaucolaus leucas, as that is the commonest species of the protesilaus group in Tingo Maria, but it is necessary to see both sides of the forewings to be sure. Note that E. agesilaus is not a member of the protesilaus group at all, even though it looks very similar. E. agesilaus has the red stripe on the inside of the black one across the middle of the hindwing, whereas all members of the protesilaus group have the red stripe on the outside, as in number 34. I thought that Protesilaus glaucolaus is same with Eurytides glaucolaus. Can you tell me if I have determined other species well? Kind regards, Gábor |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 9, 2013 8:01:14 GMT -8
I thought that Protesilaus glaucolaus is same with Eurytides glaucolaus. Can you tell me if I have determined other species well? Kind regards, Gábor Gabor, Yes, Protesilaus glaucolaus is the same as Eurytides glaucolaus, just as Neographium agesilaus is the same as Eurytides agesilaus. It all depends on personal opinion on classification, are Protesilaus and Neographium worthy of generic status or just subgenera of Eurytides. I happen to believe that unnecessary splitting of genera only serves to hide the innate relationships between species. Someone who is not familiar with classification of Papilionidae will have no idea that Protesilaus glaucolaus and Eurytides glaucolaus are actually closely related. Certainly if you treat thoas as a species of Papilio rather than Heraclides it would be consistant to treat glaucolaus and agesilaus as species of Eurytides. Adam. PS. I would not like to comment on your identifications of non-Papilionidae, as they are not my field. |
|
|
|
Post by timmsyrj on Jul 9, 2013 11:44:46 GMT -8
No 19 is not Papilio thoas but is Papilio Paeon, No 17 Papilio hyppason and No 58 possibly Mimoides ariarathes gayi
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jul 9, 2013 13:56:14 GMT -8
No 19 is not Papilio thoas but is Papilio Paeon, No 17 Papilio hyppason and No 58 possibly Mimoides ariarathes gayi Rich, I agree with you, and must admit that I didn't actually look at the pics other than the 2 Eurytides Gabor asked about. Number 12 also appears to be Eurytides ariarathes gayi, and number 7 should be Parides erithalion xanthias. Adam. |
|
