Strange that the person who posted this deleted his membership straight after Danny's reply. I wonder if he only joined in order to post the photo here and start us talking about it.
Whoever did this must be rather good at photo editing, the body looks like Papilio xuthus, and the forewing cell looks like it came from a P. lormieri group species. Of course the tails came from a Graphium, and the hindwing margin looks similar to G. androcles, but there are no Leptocircini with postdiscal eyespots on the hindwing underside. Those probably also originated with a P. lormieri group species or perhaps [demoleus.
That is odd indeed that he/she has already disappeared. Perhaps this was an attempt to fool someone here into becoming excited and think that a new species had been discovered, but it would take a better try than that.
I agree with Adam's comments concerning both the components of this "species", and the Photoshop work. The latter is very well done technically and doesn't show obvious manipulation.
When I first found the photo, I did a "Google image search" and the photo showed up in a couple of locations. I've never seen it previously.
Post by deliasfanatic on Aug 10, 2018 13:21:32 GMT
Yes, as africaone says, it was probably done at high resolution, then when downsized for the web, small flaws are hidden.
My definition of "good Photoshop work" is that it cannot be detected in the finished result. One looks for flaws such as lines or edges that don't quite match, colours that don't match or look otherwise wrong, small joins that are blurred in the area of manipulation, and other artifacts that simply don't look right. Other things to watch include the surrounding parts of the background and not only the main subject, mismatched colour balance between these elements, and shadows whose direction doesn't match.
My guess is that the "artist" found photos of these different species positioned similarly at a flower, chose one as the base photo, then began cloning elements from the other photos onto the base.
Due the authority of Adam in Papilio, everybody believed him .... and now how to believe an authority if he supported or inspired or suggested a fake for something he knew to be real ? or may be the description of the new species is well a fake and / or a monster build by breeders ? Now what to believe ?
I will repeat my apology here but I am sure everyone will understand why my deception was necessary, especially since the rather mysterious euptera joined the ICF just to post the photo and unsubscribed as soon as deliasfanatic replied that it is a photoshop fake. I suspect that whoever he was he knew that was not true. We were worried that someone would publish a description based on this photo alone.
As a matter of fact, when I first received a confidential copy of the photo my immediate reaction was exactly the same as my first reply in this thread, a butterfly that looked like a composite of Papilio xuthus, lormieri and Graphium androcles couldn't possibly be real. Hopefully in the near future we will be able to find out which species groups it really is related to.
Thank you Adam for that reply. So have actual specimens been collected?
Yes, specimens were collected in July as well as one from 2017 which was stored on the Op Wallacea site, and yesterday the description was published as Papilio natewa, hence my ability to admit the truth now.
I can provide private pdf copies of the description for personal use only, but cannot post photos of the holotype here.