So this is what I've put together thus far (to view the labels, right click > view image):
It seems though that this thread has basically died, so now I'm wondering if it's worth my time to continue.
the first 3 of the 4th column are females of the 3rd comumn ... and the 4th of 4th column looks like female of the 2nd column
We have a similar situation in Katanga with lyaeus and nireus (probably 2 distinct sp), in Haut Katanga, only lyaeus and in Lualaba nireus (also with sometimes black spots in discal green bar of HW). lyaeus is in more dry part than nireus occuring in wet region and wet forest.
I am sure that a barcode campain will be of great help to understand exactly what happens in this group and where to put the cursor.
Hi Cabintom, certainly good to get a response on this and I don’t believe the thread is dead, just waiting for input
For me without having access to DNA I suppose I am having to rely on visual data, which in large part is why I have so many specimens. I was hoping to identify strong enough characteristics through looking at large series to be able to define subtle differences When looking at specimens from the west of the continent, the problem appears to be clearer cut. When you put these together on a large board you feel you can define things more clearly. It is when you hit DRC And Uganda that it seems to become much more of a melting pot What can be defined as sosia in the west becomes very difficult to determine in the Uganda, to a point at tines where I question its existence, potentially when viewed in large numbers what could be classed as the sosia ssp seems to have slightly narrower hind wing bands to chrapkowskoides Because of this I would really like to get hold of images of type material as for me a picture paints a thousand words
It’s incredibly frustrating that this information is not out there to be shared, as I believe it would help us all.
Re the specimens from your images I will have another look now and post my thoughts for what they are worth
Can you give us your opinion of the identity of each specimen ... or did you want us to tell you what we think?
I have thoughts on the identities, but I wanted to avoid making any concrete declarations since I'm basically guessing when it comes to the subspecies (with regards to the males). For the females I'm definitely guessing, even at the species level.
I'll give my thoughts, but with the hope that it starts some discussion.
P. charopus juventus (since that seems to be the correct ssp. designation, as opposed to montuosus)
P. chrapkowskoides chrapkowskoides (could be ssp. nurettini, their ranges overlap in the region)
P. sosia pulchra (ssp. debilis is not out of the realm of possibility as that subspecies is said to be found in Ugandan forests along the border with DRC)
P. nireus nireus
P. nireus ? (seems close to the nominate but caught at the same locality as one from the 3rd column)
P. nireus lyaeus (all 4)
P. nireus ?? (maybe? I expect the 4th specimen is separate from the others.)
In the end having, at the very least, the original descriptions of these various subspecies would help (I assume).
Not sure I did that right, but looking at your photos, I would tend to agree on 1st column, albeit that the last specimen may be questionable as Sosia, as per me previous thoughts Column two looks good to me Column 3 I would place as nireus but the 3rd one more than the 4th may well be lyaeus
As to the females, it may well be prudent to get all the information together 1st prior to making more guess work
If anyone can shed any light on some of the described forms of these beasts, and or show images it may well help us all a lot?
That a good point Adam, for determining nireus from Sosia and appears to work well Are we also saying that to differentiate between chrapkowskoides nurettini and sosia that not only are the bands on the hindwings slightly narrower, but also the blue banding on the fore wings is also not tapered on the sosia specimens
I think the specimen Tom ID'd as sosia looks right as the forewing band is uniform in width, rather than broadening down the wing.
Other than the P. nireus nominate, the P. sosia specimen is the one I'm most confident about the identity (at species level). I don't have a picture of the valve, as it's difficult to get with a set specimen, but as Adam stated it's not pointed as in nireus. Secondly, the ventral FW lacks the white submarginal banding found in P. chrapkowskoides and P. chrapkowskii.
Actually, it seems that in NE DRC it's fairly easy to distinguish P. nireus and P. sosia based on the width of the blue bands alone.
The main question I have is the subspecies designation.
Here's the original description for Papilio sosia sosia Rothschild & Jordan, 1903. Novitates Zoologicae 10: 488 (488-490).:
The descriptions for the subspecies do not seem to be available online.
Would someone have "map" for Papilio wings? It would help in future discussions to ensure we are talking about the same things. (ie. in my previous post I mentioned submarginal banding, but perhaps "post-discal" is more accurate? I'm not sure.)
Tom - offhand I don't think I have a copy of the "map" that wouldn't be copyrighted, but "submarginal" is only a short distance within the edge of the wing (but not touching the edge, which would be "marginal"), whereas "post-discal" is more central, i.e. just beyond the discal area.
For me without having access to DNA I suppose I am having to rely on visual data, which in large part is why I have so many specimens….
The main aim of barcode is not to identify all specimens in collection, it is to help to know where to put the cursor : same sp, forms, ssp or sp, between different kinds of habitus that everybody distinct. It has been used in many groups with success and nireus group seems to respond positively to Barcode. Also add making some genitalia and biogeography, etc.
I think that actually everyone is going around in circles.
Trying to put absolutely a name on any specimens is too quick until we don't know what exist really. Making a stamp collection is not the same as revising and studying.
Differenciating sosia from nireus is a kid game with specimens in hands, differenciate different kinds of "nireus" and establish their taxonomic level is another thing.
s'il n'y pas de solution c'est qu'il n'y a pas de problème ! akuna matata ....
Africaone, you make some good comments, and appear to have a strong opinion on the direction we need to travel I do believe you are right about us moving in circles, but I would like to know how we can change this direction within the confines of this forum? There is obviously some enthusiasm for understanding more about this group, however if images, descriptions and specimens are not going to cut it I am a little unclear as to how the majority of us without access to the correct resources can contribute ? Enlightenment would be greatly appreciated