What's the current status of Charaxes etheocles evansi?
Dec 13, 2018 15:53:35 GMT
cabintom and mcheki like this
Post by mothylator on Dec 13, 2018 15:53:35 GMT
Hello clever and knowledgeable people.
I'm trying to rearrange my Charaxes clades and spp/ssp arrays since the Turlin revision booklets came out (The Afrotropical Species of Charaxes: Parts I to VI, 2005-2013).
Problem I have as usual is the etheocles group in Part V (2011 ISBN 978-3-937783-53-6).
I was previously convinced that Charaxes etheocles F. f. evansi (van Somereon & Rogers, 1932) and later, Ch. etheocles ssp. evansi (van Someren & Jackson, 1957), was a good subspecies (or may actually be a good species) after reading van Someren's Revisional Notes Part V, 1969, 112-5.
I've revisited that reference and looked at my own series from Kakamega Forest where it flies sympatrically with berkeleyi and baileyi. Externally it looks perhaps closer to carpenteri than any other etheocles, but the adeagus preps in print seem closer to nominate.
I can't find anything in print with arguments supporting or refuting the male form of the taxon after van Someren, 1969.
Both S. Henning (1989) & Larsen (1992) accept van Someren, 1969.
However, Turlin (2011, Charaxes of Afrotropical Fauna Part V, p.9) questions the validity of the female form of Charaxes [etheocles?] evansi [sic] (van Somereon & Rogers, 1932) and thereby proposes synonymy with:
Charaxes berkeleyi ssp. masaba (van Someren, 1969).
Regarding the male forms, firstly, in Turlin's opinion, berkeleyi berkeleyi and berkeleyi masaba males are identical, which agrees with van Someren (1969).
However, van Someren (1969, p82) writes: "It is of interest to note that the genitalia of berkeleyi differs markedly from that of Ch. etheocles evansi van Someren though the general facies of the upper sides [sic] are very similar."
Drawings supporting this statement seen on p. 161 figs 5&6 evansi; p 162 figs 10&11 berkeleyi, pretty convincing to me.
There is an online pic here at Charaxes.be which shows a Turlin specimen of "evansi" male, which *looks* very different from the other specimens depicted, differs from his own plate of berkeleyi berkeleyi (2011, Part V, Plate 23 #10,#13), berkeleyi masaba (2011, Part V, Plate 23, #12, no underside view) and differs from van Someren's plates (1969, Part V, Plate 9 #79, #80) and the Type photos on Charaxes.be.
In summary,
van Someren separates berkleyi from evansi based on convincing male genitalia difference, females with subjectively broader bands; with species sympatry in some areas of Western Kenya. Although the male uppersides show similarity, the undersides show subjective differences; and larvae I'm told seem different [ref?].
Bernard Turlin proposes synonymy based apparently solely on female external similarities perhaps a cline, and upperside male similiarities.
However Turlin's argument seems incomplete: surely one should not propose synonomy of two species taxons based only on the external inseparability of the supposed taxons' females, whilst the males seem good independent taxons based on a number of criteria (larvae, and genitalia)? Turlin suggests more work needs doing in this location....
Does anyone have anything more on this?
Any DNA Studies looking at evansi vs etheocles vs berkleyi?
Andrew.
I'm trying to rearrange my Charaxes clades and spp/ssp arrays since the Turlin revision booklets came out (The Afrotropical Species of Charaxes: Parts I to VI, 2005-2013).
Problem I have as usual is the etheocles group in Part V (2011 ISBN 978-3-937783-53-6).
I was previously convinced that Charaxes etheocles F. f. evansi (van Somereon & Rogers, 1932) and later, Ch. etheocles ssp. evansi (van Someren & Jackson, 1957), was a good subspecies (or may actually be a good species) after reading van Someren's Revisional Notes Part V, 1969, 112-5.
I've revisited that reference and looked at my own series from Kakamega Forest where it flies sympatrically with berkeleyi and baileyi. Externally it looks perhaps closer to carpenteri than any other etheocles, but the adeagus preps in print seem closer to nominate.
I can't find anything in print with arguments supporting or refuting the male form of the taxon after van Someren, 1969.
Both S. Henning (1989) & Larsen (1992) accept van Someren, 1969.
However, Turlin (2011, Charaxes of Afrotropical Fauna Part V, p.9) questions the validity of the female form of Charaxes [etheocles?] evansi [sic] (van Somereon & Rogers, 1932) and thereby proposes synonymy with:
Charaxes berkeleyi ssp. masaba (van Someren, 1969).
Regarding the male forms, firstly, in Turlin's opinion, berkeleyi berkeleyi and berkeleyi masaba males are identical, which agrees with van Someren (1969).
However, van Someren (1969, p82) writes: "It is of interest to note that the genitalia of berkeleyi differs markedly from that of Ch. etheocles evansi van Someren though the general facies of the upper sides [sic] are very similar."
Drawings supporting this statement seen on p. 161 figs 5&6 evansi; p 162 figs 10&11 berkeleyi, pretty convincing to me.
There is an online pic here at Charaxes.be which shows a Turlin specimen of "evansi" male, which *looks* very different from the other specimens depicted, differs from his own plate of berkeleyi berkeleyi (2011, Part V, Plate 23 #10,#13), berkeleyi masaba (2011, Part V, Plate 23, #12, no underside view) and differs from van Someren's plates (1969, Part V, Plate 9 #79, #80) and the Type photos on Charaxes.be.
In summary,
van Someren separates berkleyi from evansi based on convincing male genitalia difference, females with subjectively broader bands; with species sympatry in some areas of Western Kenya. Although the male uppersides show similarity, the undersides show subjective differences; and larvae I'm told seem different [ref?].
Bernard Turlin proposes synonymy based apparently solely on female external similarities perhaps a cline, and upperside male similiarities.
However Turlin's argument seems incomplete: surely one should not propose synonomy of two species taxons based only on the external inseparability of the supposed taxons' females, whilst the males seem good independent taxons based on a number of criteria (larvae, and genitalia)? Turlin suggests more work needs doing in this location....
Does anyone have anything more on this?
Any DNA Studies looking at evansi vs etheocles vs berkleyi?
Andrew.
