|
Post by cabintom on Dec 26, 2018 4:16:09 GMT
Here's an update to the nireus group plate. Once again I've left off ID labels. I'm close to finished with the specimens I have. - photo removed, see next post -
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Jan 1, 2019 7:40:12 GMT
Well, here's the final plate:
NOTES
*Unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the male specimens.
Papilio sosia ssp. The subspecies is either pulchra or debilis, I would need to know what characteristics separate the two. It's also not out of the realm of possibility that the specimens from Ituri belong to one ssp. (debilis ?), while those from Haut-Uele belong to the other (pulchra ?) - The top specimen features the even-width FW band mentioned by Adam, the other three widen towards the trailing edge of the wing.
- The specimens were separated from chrapkowskii & chrapkowskoides based on the lack of the post-discal white band on the underside of the FW.
Papilio chrapkowskii
- Apparently the range of this species does not extend as far west as DRC.
- I've read that the key distinguishing feature between chrapkowskii & chrapkowskoides is that chrapkowskii's ventral surface has much bolder satiny markings. This is certainly true of the two top-left-most specimens.
- Most of the remaining specimens show hints of these satiny markings, though quite variable and entirely missing in a few. The width and shape of the FW green band is also quite variable in these specimens.
- Underside FW features the post-discal white banding.
Papilio chrapkowskoides ssp.
- Either the nominate subspecies or nurettini, the descriptions of their ranges overlap in the Kivu/Ituri region.
- Green bands are noticeably wider than in chrapkowskii. The white post-discal band on the ventral FW also seems to be wider than in chrapkowskii.
- Based on so few specimens, I don't know if these characteristics would hold true across a larger series.
- The 3rd specimen may actually belong with chrapkowskii.
Lone female
- Likely belong to one of the 3 species above. I'm leaning towards sosia or chrapkowskii.
Papilio charopus juventus
- Nomenclature following Adam's earlier suggestion.
Papilio nireus nireus
- Males are easily distinguished from the previous 3 species by the much narrower green bands, and their noticeably pointed claspers.
- FW underside lacks the white post-discal markings.
Papilio nireus lyaeus
- Males are noticeably smaller than the nominate, also the green bands are thinner.
- The dorsal HW green band does not extend beyond the dorsal white spot, in the nominate the green band tends to extend well beyond this spot.
- Towrds the dorsal FW apex of 3 of the 4 specimens, the base colour lightens towards brown.
- Ventral surface of the wings seems to be lighter/more brown than the nominate.
- In the females, the FW green band noticeably widens in space 1a; a characteristic not evident in nominate females.
Lone nireus male
- Likely also belonging to lyaeus, but larger in size and width of the green bands matching that of some of the nominate specimens.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on these IDs & observations.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jan 6, 2019 4:07:39 GMT
I think that's a really cool final plate that you cobbled up cabintom. Bravo! Your photo's are always great and it certainly takes a reasonable amount of computer savy to bring it altogether in a conscientious manner.
I don't recall anyone on the forum producing anything like it. Wow!
I don't know much about this complex but, it certainly impresses me to see what you have so far gleamed of the group in your 3 years or so being there. Keep up with the fascinating articles and observations you make while there.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Jan 6, 2019 5:14:33 GMT
I think that's a really cool final plate that you cobbled up cabintom. Thank you! Now if only we could get some discussion going again on these.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 14, 2019 4:43:01 GMT
Ok, so I am a bit disappointed no one engaged any further. At least, since no one reacted to my plate, I think I'm safe to assume I'm on the right track with my identifications.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Feb 14, 2019 6:18:32 GMT
Ok, so I am a bit disappointed no one engaged any further. At least, since no one reacted to my plate, I think I'm safe to assume I'm on the right track with my identifications. one must take the lead .... otherwise nothing will happen.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Feb 14, 2019 10:28:15 GMT
Ok, so I am a bit disappointed no one engaged any further. At least, since no one reacted to my plate, I think I'm safe to assume I'm on the right track with my identifications. I think they’re great! I haven’t really tried making any plates but am interested to hear about the process of creating these plates.... that is if you’re willing to share how you do it. I do know there was a previous discussion regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 14, 2019 18:47:19 GMT
I think they’re great! I haven’t really tried making any plates but am interested to hear about the process of creating these plates.... that is if you’re willing to share how you do it. I do know there was a previous discussion regarding this. First, see this post for my photographic set-up: collector-secret.proboards.com/post/21077 Once I've taken the specimen photo, I edit it in photoshop. First, I try to correct the colour balance (if needed). Then I add in a scale bar using as reference the fishing line which supports the specimen and is 2 cm apart. From there I cut out the background, leaving just the specimen and label. I do this for both the recto and verso of the specimen and make a composite from them, saving it as a .png which maintains transparency. The composite .png files of several specimens then can be made into a larger composite, using the scale bars to adjust sizes, ensuring all specimens are at the same scale. That's the brief explanation. Anyone with basic photoshop knowledge can do this without much difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 14, 2019 18:54:05 GMT
one must take the lead .... otherwise nothing will happen. So then, what were your thoughts on my notes/observations? Am I on the right track?
|
|
mac
New Aurelian
Posts: 27
|
Post by mac on Feb 14, 2019 22:24:59 GMT
I think your plates are great, I was waiting for others to reply but in the interests of continuing the debate here are some thoughts. cabintom I have pmd you as well
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Feb 15, 2019 5:08:59 GMT
The full res. version of my plate (or you can right-click -> view image, on what I had posted.) in the interests of continuing the debate here are some thoughts. Regarding chrapkowskii/chrapkowskoidesI'm definitely willing to accept the idea that there are 3 species/subspecies represented here. I would argue that what you're suggesting is "chrapkowskoides" is closer to the 2 chrapkowskii specimens than the "nurettini". (Which is why I have them grouped together.) I've also captured all 3 of these at the same location... which, if the suggestion is correct, likely means these would be 3 different species.
Interestingly while Koçak replaced Papilio bromius with the name Papilio nurettini, it's Larsen who then placed nurettini as a subspecies of chrapkowskoides. Does anyone know why Larsen did this?
Under "chrapkowskii", the 2nd specimen-middle column, why the question mark? I'm also not certain what you're circling on the FW apex of the top and bottom specimens of that column. Regarding sosia
Here's the full ventral side of the 2nd specimen:
|
|
|
Post by mothylator on Mar 3, 2019 16:45:43 GMT
Larsen 2005 p75:
Papilio bromius (Doubleday, 1845) was a junior primary homonym i.e. already described as Papilio bromius (Stoll, 1787). Type loc (bromius bromius) is Ashanti, Ghana.
P. bromius ssp. chrapkowskoides (Storace, 1952) TL is in Uganda.
Problem that Koçak (1983) and Larsen identified was that bromius was already still in use as Papilio (now Niconiades) bromius, a neotropical skipper, so application to ICZN to revert to bromius (Stoll, 1787) would fail because of already occupied name (nom. preocc.) at time of nom. rev. application.
Larsen realised that sadly the name bromius couldn’t be saved. So bromius (Doubleday) is invalid, and reversion to bromius (Stoll) is impossible, so bromius bromius cannot stand. Bizarre but there it is.
Therefore the description of bromius chrapkowskoides (Storace, 1952) in Uganda separating it from Nominate bromius, and P. chrapkowskii, gives the distinctive type chrapkowskoides TL Uganda, which must now be elevated to species.
Formerly bromius bromius must now be P. chrapkowskoides ssp..... whatname?
Koçak (1983) offered a replacement subspecies name nurettini, TL remains Ashanti, Ghana. Name accepted.
Papilio bromius RIP. Long live the chrap but fair name replacement.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Mar 4, 2019 4:59:58 GMT
Koçak (1983) offered a replacement subspecies name nurettini, TL remains Ashanti, Ghana. Name accepted. According to Williams, in Afrotropical Butterflies and Skippers, Kocak, 1983 placed nurettini at species level, directly replacing bromius. Larsen, 2005 then placed it as a subspecies of chrapkowskoides.
So, if I'm understanding the timeline correctly, we had:
Papilio bromius Doubleday, 1845 ---> Papilio nurettini Kocak, 1983 ---> Papilio chrapkowskoides nurettini Larsen, 2005 Papilio bromius chrapkowskoides Storace, [1952] ---> Papilio chrapkowskoides Larsen, 2005
Was Kocak intending to separate nurettini & chrapkowskoides? Or did he mishandle the change in nomenclature?
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Mar 4, 2019 9:21:33 GMT
Koçak (1983) treated Papilio bromius Doubleday, 1845 as conspecific with chrapkowskii Suffert, 1904, not chrapkowskoides Storace, 1952. Recognising that the name chrapkowskii was the oldest available name for the species as he understood it, he replaced the junior homonym Papilio bromius Doubleday, 1845 with nurettini Koçak (1983) as a subspecies of Papilio chrapkowskii and called it P. chrapkowskii nurettini. At the same time he replaced furvus Joicey & Talbot, 1926 from Sao Thomé with nerminae Koçak, 1983, also as a subspecies of Papilio chrapkowskii.
Hancock (1984 - Arnoldia Zimbabwe 9(12): 181-215) recognised Papilio chrapkowskii as a separate species from the one he still called Papilio bromius and treated chrapkowskoides as a subspecies of bromius. Presumably he was not aware of the actions of Koçak, since he did not list the name nurettini in his work.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Mar 4, 2019 9:31:07 GMT
all these energy before knowing if nurettini and chrapkowskoides are really conspecific ... ? may be yes, may be not ... That's why the real systematic work needs to be done before nomenclature action.
|
|