|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 11, 2020 18:35:34 GMT
Is anyone can tell what is the difference between Urania leilus leilus and U. leilus brasiliensis?
Thanks in advance
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jan 11, 2020 22:20:31 GMT
Hey Paul, I too find some subspecies designations rather "hairsplitting" or even questionable. As I am sure there are others who feel the same... I do know that some subspecies of some things are certain ones as the females look very different from nominate females; case in point -- females of some Ornithoptera (goliath and victoria) for example. Yet, in looking at the at the males you might think initially there is just a broad amount of variation within the species.
In O.victoria there are presently at least 6 subspecies designations listed; and yet the folks who have really seen the locales and perhaps hundreds of specimens have mentioned that maybe 3 of the 7 are only truely legitimate. In looking at the various subspecies (myself) it seems males of rubianus and epiphanes are clearly unique and different from the nominate, however the other subspecies is where differentiation is much less so obvious.
Of coarse this is but, one species I've used as an example. To look at say the12 subspecies of Papilio indra it's quite a different story in that they ALL look worthy of being subspecies on just plain sight. Of coarse DNA research has truly varified some species but, those are a mere "drop in the bucket" just amongst the 20,000+ butterflies alone.
I hope someone can truely help you here with your general question; I just felt the need to say the topic of subspecies designations can sometimes be perplexing !😛🤔😱
|
|
|
|
Post by jmg on Jan 12, 2020 1:00:13 GMT
I am not a heterocerist and I may say something stupid!  Urania leilus is a large migrant which does not encourage vicariance and the formation of subspecies (which I have not encountered in the ad hoc literature). To my knowledge, two american (not including U. sloanus, moth that is not so easy to encounter !!!)) species of Urania, one especially in Central America ( U. fulgens) and the other in South America ( U. leilus). Very common moths! That said, Roberto Vinciguerra, in his book on the Uraniidae (in Italian, page 37), writes "The status of the Para populations must be reviewed both in relation to U. leilus and U. brasiliensis (Swanson, 1833), because individuals have characteristics that are both compatible and different from the two. "  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 18:50:32 GMT
Bing has a lot of pictures of U.leilus. I remember too it is a well known genus. A good search could be done on Bing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 19, 2020 18:55:24 GMT
Indeed U.leilus is a common and widespread species but the question is how common is subspecies brasiliensis from Brazilian Atlantic Cost and how the nominate and brasiliensis can be told apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 19, 2020 19:05:22 GMT
Bing has a lot of pictures of U.leilus. I remember too it is a well known genus. A good search could be done on Bing. Why do you keep pushing Bing searches? Please stop plugging a commercial site otherwise we may think you are posting spam against the forum rules, thank you. Adam (moderator). |
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Jan 20, 2020 10:57:23 GMT
Bing has a lot of pictures of U.leilus. I remember too it is a well known genus. A good search could be done on Bing. Why do you keep pushing Bing searches? Please stop plugging a commercial site otherwise we may think you are posting spam against the forum rules, thank you. Adam (moderator).
Another aspect as to why image aggregators such as Bing or Google Images shouldn't be suggested is that they're entirely unreliable when it comes to providing accuracy for the purposes of identification. Many mislabeled images show up in those searches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 20, 2020 13:46:02 GMT
Why do you keep pushing Bing searches? Please stop plugging a commercial site otherwise we may think you are posting spam against the forum rules, thank you. Adam (moderator).
Another aspect as to why image aggregators such as Bing or Google Images shouldn't be suggested is that they're entirely unreliable when it comes to providing accuracy for the purposes of identification. Many mislabeled images show up in those searches.
I don’t like Bing, once it infected my MacBook and automatically became my search engine either I liked it or not. Finally I was able to remove it from my computer but had quite hard time and had to search internet to find out how their spam works. I agree with Tom, but having an image of the specimen in question may often have link to the website which might be very helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by borearctia on Jan 20, 2020 14:07:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 20, 2020 14:29:24 GMT
Thank you Andreas, I found also this information but unfortunately it doesn’t provide key to identification. Urania leilus is variable and I want to find the key to separate those two subspecies |
|
|
|
Post by borearctia on Jan 20, 2020 15:32:50 GMT
 This is from Seitz - hope it´s helpfull Andreas |
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Jan 20, 2020 17:15:23 GMT
Thank you
It seems to be a difference in the darker tail in brasiliensis,
Cheers
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Jan 20, 2020 17:35:55 GMT
Excellent referencing borearctia ! Bravo....
|
|
Urania leilus is a large migrant which does not encourage vicariance and the formation of subspecies (which I have not encountered in the ad hoc literature). To my knowledge, two american (not including U. sloanus, moth that is not so easy to encounter !!!)) species of Urania, one especially in Central America (U. fulgens) and the other in South America (U. leilus). Very common moths!
