|
|
Post by bjrond on Dec 7, 2019 11:45:00 GMT
Does anyone know reliable criteria to distinguish those two species? Comstock writes that they are not difficult to distinguish in facies, but his pictures are not convincing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 16:12:43 GMT
Comstock wrote his texts in a teaching or textbook approach,thus he sometimes simplified id's.Best find the original articles on Memphis spp. See The Butterflies of north America as a reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by jshuey on Dec 9, 2019 17:03:15 GMT
Without looking to see if this is actually true or not, I'd suggest that you look at the figures of genitalia Comstock provided. He had a pretty conservative view of species - typically support by genitalia.
john
|
|
|
|
Post by bjrond on Dec 12, 2019 11:15:45 GMT
Thank you to you both, but pictures on the website Butterflies of America are of bad quality and not sufficient for reliable identification.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmg on Jan 19, 2020 10:51:40 GMT
Two Memphis : these two butterflies pose well for the photo because they are attracted to rotten fish juice sprayed on the leaves. And a third photo, just for the beauty ! 1. Memphis moruus phila (H. Druce, 1877) or M. acidalia memphis (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867) ? Centro Experimental Amazonico, 675 m asl, between Mocoa et Villagarzón (Putumayo, Colombia), October 21, 2019. Photo : J.-M. Gayman Memphis acidalia ?  2. Second picture: Memphis mora montana (Röber, 1916) ?. Centro Experimental Amazonico, 675 m asl, between Mocoa et Villagarzón (Putumayo, Colombia), October 21, 2019. Photo : J.-M. Gayman According BOA, Memphis mora flies in Peru, not given from Colombia.  3. Asterope batesii (Hewitson, 1850). Centro Experimental Amazonico, 675 m asl, between Mocoa et Villagarzón (Putumayo, Colombia), October 21, 2019. Photo : J.-M. Gayman  |
|
