|
Post by deliasfanatic on Jul 25, 2016 17:27:55 GMT
I agree that it's torquatus. The bands of garleppi are considerably broader.
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 25, 2016 18:22:57 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 18:22:57 GMT
Hmm, the banding seemed much more narrow in torquatus to me with regard to the specimen photos on the Butterflies of America site... I appreciate the correction, and will change them to torquatus...
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Jul 25, 2016 18:49:08 GMT
It's rather variable (as is the case in so many species). There is also quite a difference in some torquatus subspecies from one to another. I have a range of nominate specimens from various locations; some look as though they could be different subspecies, but the differences disappear when you see them in a series.
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 25, 2016 23:50:43 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 23:50:43 GMT
Hopefully I have identified these correctly.
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 25, 2016 23:51:11 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 23:51:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 23:51:33 GMT
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 25, 2016 23:51:57 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 23:51:57 GMT
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 25, 2016 23:52:32 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 25, 2016 23:52:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Jul 26, 2016 1:08:31 GMT
Yes, they're correct, with a few provisos The generic names' acceptance varies from one person to another. The person behind the Papilionidae name selection on BOA (which is based on a book) is very much a generic splitter; many, including myself, would consider these as subgenera at best, rather than as valid genera. This has gone back and forth for decades. The names that I'll list below are more traditional in nature, and are more generally accepted by most researchers and collectors. Since a genus is basically a man-made category, it's difficult to say what should be "correct" since much is a matter of opinion. Also, the name "aristeus", while it does refer to the butterfly that you have, is invalid due to homonymy with an Asian papilionid, now known as Graphium aristeus; the correct species name for yours is menatius. (You'll still find it called Papilio aristeus in many books, especially older ones, and dealer lists.) So, adding subspecies names, you have: Papilio menatius eurotas Papilio isidorus isidorus Parides sesostris sesostris Eurytides xynias (E. trapeza is considered by some as a subspecies of xynias; if that course is taken, yours is E. xynias xynias) Eurytides pausanias pausanias All appear to be males.
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 26, 2016 1:27:05 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 26, 2016 1:27:05 GMT
The more I research, the more confused I get with the swallowtail Genera. Each resource has them splintered into various Genera which makes identification that more complicated. What is with the Genus Mimoides? Why do you say these guys are in Eurytides? As a novice to South American Leps, I have been relying on the Butterflies of America website for identification. www.butterfliesofamerica.com/L/Neotropical.htm Is this website accurate, or are the Genera obsolete?
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 26, 2016 1:57:58 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 26, 2016 1:57:58 GMT
Here are a few more swallowtails from Peru!
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 26, 2016 1:58:28 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 26, 2016 1:58:28 GMT
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 26, 2016 1:59:26 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 26, 2016 1:59:26 GMT
Anyone have the identification for this one???
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Jul 26, 2016 2:55:22 GMT
The BOA website is very good, but its Papilionidae taxonomy is based on a book in which the main author is a generic splitter. Genera are many times a matter of opinion, without clear dividing lines as to an "absolutely correct" classification. You'll find that the majority opinion is to use the traditional (fewer) genera, rather than splitting them into so many separate taxa. The traditional grouping for Eurytides includes the so-called genera Mimoides, Protesilaus, and Neographium that are used on BOA.
In your new group of species, #1 is actually Parides neophilus (olivencius, I think; what's the locality?), female; #2 is Eurytides xeniades signatus, male (you'll find it as E. harmodius harmodius in older books); #3 is Papilio anchisiades anchisiades, male.
If the different genus for #1 surprises you, you'll learn with practice to distinguish them; Parides (a member of the Troidini tribe) tends to have wing texture that is rather soft and velvety, compared to the harder, more brittle wings of Eurytides. Also note the red marginal spots on the hindwings; these are characteristic of a group of Parides species and are 100% positive identification as belonging to that genus.
|
|
|
Peru
Jul 26, 2016 3:09:54 GMT
Post by neominois on Jul 26, 2016 3:09:54 GMT
Locality of #1 is Shima Rio, Satipo Peru. Thanks so much for the information!
|
|