|
Post by cabintom on Aug 11, 2016 10:37:47 GMT
These came of the setting board a couple days ago and I haven't had any luck with identifying them... hopefully someone here will have an idea. The Euphaedra are some of the most spectacular specimens I've collected, so it would be nice to be able to put a name to them.
1) Euphaedra sp. Caught 23/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 2) Euphaedra sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 3) Euphaedra sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 4) Bebearia sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m
|
|
|
Post by mcheki on Aug 13, 2016 19:08:48 GMT
At this stage all I can do is agree that they are a very difficult group. No one reference seems available to assist determinations.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 13, 2016 22:12:20 GMT
At this stage all I can do is agree that they are a very difficult group. No one reference seems available to assist determinations. Hecq's revisions seem fairly good, but haven't been helpful for these. For the Euphaedra, the yellow sub-apical bands are especially throwing me off. Would you know if that's a variable feature? I understand that the shape of the sub-apical band is often key... but what about colour?
|
|
|
Post by mcheki on Aug 15, 2016 19:40:34 GMT
I have checked my collection and Hecq and d'Abrera and Bergers "Les Papillions de Zaire" and still not able to give a definite ID, Few of these show undersides for each species. The yellow probably does not vary so I think helps the diagnosis. The shape and width of the band seems to be relevant in some species but not all. The Bebearia could be one of the more recently described species but not had time to check.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 15, 2016 19:42:51 GMT
there is only a handfull guys able to identify 80 % of Euphaedra the remaining 20 % are difficult to identify Hecq's work is very intuitive, not so easy to understand
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 16, 2016 3:50:05 GMT
I have checked my collection and Hecq and d'Abrera and Bergers "Les Papillions de Zaire" and still not able to give a definite ID Thanks for checking in such depth! Hopefully I'll be able to get out to ABRI soon. There's likely to be comparable specimens in that collection.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Aug 16, 2016 6:56:11 GMT
2 and 3 may be the same sp (male nd female), Something nr preusssi 1 seems Something of the ravola group
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Aug 16, 2016 12:04:07 GMT
2 and 3 may be the same sp (male nd female), Something nr preusssi I've contemplated that too. They seem like they could be a pair. The biggest thing that makes me doubt that they're the same species is that 3 lacks the thoracic markings of 2, and I've noticed this is a feature Hecq sometimes used to distinguish species.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Nov 9, 2016 21:49:59 GMT
1) Euphaedra sp. Caught 23/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 2) Euphaedra sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 3) Euphaedra sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m 4) Bebearia sp. Caught 25/vii/2016 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m So, ABRI's collection of Euphaedra isn't fully identified & sorted. I found a couple of specimens that were almost perfect matches for #1, but it was clear that they were mixed in with at least 2 other species, so I can't get any nearer to an ID than africaone 's suggestion of it belonging to the " ravola" group. #2 might be Euphaedra fascinata... though it's not a great fit. The versos I saw today were generally marked more heavily and a bit differently (black markings within the white streak near the base of the HW)... also none have a yellow sub-apical band (though the shape is right)... fascinata is apparently quite variable though. #3 I haven't spotted anything quite like it. Maybe... E. procera? But, once again, the yellow sub-apical band throws me off. The Bebearia is Bebearia maximiana maximiana, though this specimen is a bit darker than normal.
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Nov 9, 2016 21:54:54 GMT
don't you believed 2 and 3 male and female of the same sp ?
|
|
|
Post by mcheki on Nov 10, 2016 19:39:11 GMT
don't you believed 2 and 3 male and female of the same sp ? I think they are both males?
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Nov 10, 2016 22:11:34 GMT
don't you believed 2 and 3 male and female of the same sp ? I think they are both males? Tom can you check the sexes ? the second seems to have more elongated forelegs like female and wingshapes seems to be of the two sexes. what can be useful for determination are the white markings on the body (well different in the two specimens)
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Nov 11, 2016 4:35:23 GMT
mcheki africaoneI've been operating under the assumption that they are both females from 2 different (but similar) species. Admittedly, I'm not great at judging the sex of a species if I haven't caught both. Here's a close up of the legs: I'm assuming they're different species because of a few features: 1) Wing shape and size (3 is slightly smaller) 2) Differences in the recto HW marginal area 3) Thoracic spotting 4) A number of other minor differences (which could be attributed to individual variability) The biggest reason I've assumed these are females is due to wing shape (and robustness of the abdomen), males are usually quite a bit smaller than females in this particular Euphaedra group and are shaped in a similar fashion to this preussi:
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Nov 11, 2016 7:29:01 GMT
So, I've been puzzling over this for a bit this morning, and even though Steve Collins agrees with Thierry here, I'm still not convinced... that #2 just doesn't haven't the characteristics of a male (in my opinion)! But, then again, who am I to argue with 2 of the top experts on African species?
|
|
|
Post by africaone on Nov 11, 2016 14:15:56 GMT
mcheki africaone I've been operating under the assumption that they are both females from 2 different (but similar) species. Admittedly, I'm not great at judging the sex of a species if I haven't caught both. Here's a close up of the legs: I'm assuming they're different species because of a few features: 1) Wing shape and size (3 is slightly smaller) 2) Differences in the recto HW marginal area 3) Thoracic spotting 4) A number of other minor differences (which could be attributed to individual variability) The biggest reason I've assumed these are females is due to wing shape (and robustness of the abdomen), males are usually quite a bit smaller than females in this particular Euphaedra group and are shaped in a similar fashion to this preussi: sorry to insist but there seems to be of different sexes (2 and 3) and the differences you listed can be put under this sexual dimorphism. Because these are pictures, I can,'t be sure 100 % and let 0.01 % to this.
That there are of the same sp is another question as Euphaedrea is probably one of the most difficult group to understand. There is a handfull specialists able to work on them and I am far to be one of them. you are right that usually male are smaller than female. Experience of local material is sometimes more helpful than any other help.
|
|