For the moment, they are still on the spreading board and I don't see much differences, but this abdomen without any clasper.
Satyridae often have nearly no sexual dimorphism so it is not so easy.
I guess a DNA test or a genitalia preparation will be needed to be 100% sure.

I have no idea about Satyrinae genitalia, but it is worth comparing your specimen with males to see if there is presence/absence of secondary sexual wing characters such as male androconial scales/patches/tufts. If males of the same species have these but your specimen does not then it is likely to be a female.

Adam.

Yes, we have a lot of error 500 and error 508...
It can work if you refresh the pages.

Our team is on it, but the software producer (Ilance) seems to have disappeared... so not easy...

"Coleopterists I'm pretty sure all dream about great big things with big horns or pincers, no matter what their micro-focus is."

Funny, I usually dream of small black or brown beetles when I dream of beetles. Interestingly, I recently dreamed of an immaculate specimen of an extremely rare butterfly stray to my area after coming across some in a museum. Unfortunately, in my dream I didn't have a net and it got scared off.

Anyone inspired ?

Your friend's female is almost certainly the nominate subspecies, from Ceram or Ambon.

Adam.

Here is my synonymy of Papilio deiphobus:

Papilio deiphobus Linnaeus, 1758
ssp. rumanzovia Eschscholtz, 1821 (TL.: Manilla)
= krusensternia Eschscholtz, 1821 (TL.: Manilla)
= floridor Godart, 1824 (TL.: Philippines)
= emalthion (Hübner, [1824]) (TL.: not stated)
= descombii Roger, 1826 (TL.: Philippines) [Unavailable name]
= descombesi Boisduval, 1836 (TL.: Manilles)
= rumanzowius Fruhstorfer, 1900 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]
= ciris Fruhstorfer, 1909 (TL.: Bazilan; Mindoro)
= spinturnix Fruhstorfer, 1909 (TL.: Talaud)
= honorius Fruhstorfer, 1911 (TL.: Sangir) [Junior Homonym]
♀ var. semperinus Haase, 1891 (TL.: Philippinen)
♀-f. eubalia Jordan, 1909 (Siao)
f. ♀ paya Fruhstorfer, 1911 (Sangir)
f. ♀ risena Fruhstorfer, 1911 (Sangir)
f. ♀ carnia Fruhstorfer, 1911 (Sangir)
f. tekichanus Matsumura, 1931 (Formosa)
f. moscai Sala, 1992 (Cebu, Philippinas)
ssp. tarawakana (Page & Treadaway, 1996) (TL.: Tarawakan, Tawitawi)
ssp. deiphontes C. Felder & R. Felder, 1864 (TL.: Ternate, Halmaheira, Batjan)
= deiphontes Wallace, 1865 (TL.: Batchian, Gilolo, Ternate, Morty Isl.) [Junior Homonym]
var. flava Oberthür, 1879 (Ternate)
ssp. deipylus C. Felder & R. Felder, 1865 (TL.: Nova Guinea [loc. err. = Waigeo])
= deipylus C & R Felder, 1864 (Nova Guinea) [Nomen Nudum]
ssp. aristartus Fruhstorfer, 1916 (TL.: Holländisch Neu-Guinea)
ssp. efbensis Talbot, 1932 (TL.: Misol. foothills, 100-500 feet)
ssp. obideiphobus Hachitani, 1989 (TL.: Obi Is.)
ssp. deiphobus Linnaeus, 1758 (TL.: Asia [= Ambon])
= alcandor Cramer, 1776 (TL.: Isle d’Amboine)
ab. hypoxanthos Röber, 1891 (Key Islands)
hypoxanthus Rothschild, 1895 [Incorrect Subsequent Spelling]

Some subspecies have tails, others do not. There are not normally tailed and tailless forms of the same subspecies, unlike P. memnon, although it is possible that occasional specimens may vary. Ssp. deiphobus often has yellow spots instead of red, these were named 'form flava'.

Adam.

eurytides wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2023 10:32 pm When Pavulaan and Wright described Papilio appalachiensis in 2002, they actually designated a neotype for Papilio turnus. Is this still valid?

No, a neotype designation is invalid if there is extant original type material. Pavulaan & Wright obviously did not see Honey & Scoble (2001).

Adam.

A pin almost half way along each forewing costa and either side of the abdomen as well as base of forewings would be better.

Adam.

Can i have some advice on bestcway to fly overseas with 3 set specimens, rare, .
Is pinned on foam on abdomen sises and 1 pin each side of base of forewings the wayvto go,
?

A specimen of female Papilio deiphobus from my friend, and I supposed that it might be nominated subspecies compared with the specimen from the museum （figure 3A）. However I have some doubts herein.
1. How many subspecies based on recent research？
2. I have seen several pictures of female specimens from different website and some of them are tailless (figure 3B) which is much different with this specimen. Are they different ssp.? or different form just like those of Papilio memnon?
3. I saw some male specimens with or without tails which signed as same ssp. (such as ssp.deiphontes from Sulawesi, figure 3C and 3D). So the male also has different form, or those should be different ssp. or just individual differences?
4. Most specimens have red patch on the ventral surface of hindwings, but someone has yellow patch (figure 3E-3H). Are they different form, or just individual differences due to the synthesis of pigments?
5. Due to ssp.rumanzovia is treated as one subspecies of P.deiphobus, what about its ssp.? Are they also treated as different ssp. of P.deiphobus equally?

Thanks Adam. I was not aware of this lectotype. When Pavulaan and Wright described Papilio appalachiensis in 2002, they actually designated a neotype for Papilio turnus. Is this still valid?

wollastoni wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2023 8:49 am
I will give you an example from my country :
- a stupid law has been voted with a ban to collect more than 100 insects per year per person in French Guiana
- the French Lepidopterist Association and other important association made some meetings and wrote to FG authorities
- this law has been changed to 1000 specimens.
Without that move, all entomological lodges in FG would have disappeared and nobody would ever study FG butterflies anymore in the field.

A little off topic. But an entomologist can catch 1000 insects quite easily in 1 single night catching!!! 1000 insects in a whole year is a huge loss for entomologists (not only in France). Fortunately, it is possible to increase this amount many times over. But it requires a bit of bureaucracy.

Papilio turnus was described by Linnaeus on 17 October 1771, Mantissa Plantarum Edition 2, p. 536, and is a junior subjective synonym of Papilio glaucus Linnaeus, 1758. Honey & Scoble (2001) designated the lectotype in the collection of the Linnean Society of London. A photo of this specimen is available on the Society website at https://linnean-online.org/14343/#?s=0&cv=0.

Adam.

Hi all,

“Turnus” is an old name associated with Papilio glaucus. When I look this up, I see references to Papilio turnus, Papilio glaucus turnus, and Papilio glaucus form turnus.

Does anyone know more about the usage of “turnus” or can provide the original description?

Again back: "Error 500 - Internal Server Error", "An error was encountered while processing your request. Typically this is a temporary condition. Please contact the web site owner for further assistance."

Hello,

Can anyone confidently determine whether this Papuan Satyridae is male or female?
I have the feeling it's a female and if so... that would be new to science for this species.
I am not so used to work on small Satyridae so I'd prefer a confirmation.

Cheers
Olivier

I think my second paragraph and the suggestion to Mendeley helps you best with your problem. Mendeley creates the citation information from a PDF or can find it by a paper's DOI (all the popular papers come with a DOI, a digital object identifier). When it finds nothing you have a form field where you can enter publication journal, date, pages, etc. yourself.

Hello Chuck. People don't format these by hand. You create an intermediate file in BibTex format. After this you configure your text editor to use the BibTex file to reference the citation and you set your citation format there. Check for "How to insert a citation in Microsoft Word using BibTeX" if you use MS Word for example.

I used to store my research papers in Mendeley to create the BibTex files. I would write my research papers using LaTex and Evernote. Personally, I find MS Word horrible, nevertheless it was the more popular choice in our biology department. Which program to use is a matter of personal taste.

Of course a handful can be formatted by hand, but my research papers would usually have more than 50 references. Reviews even up to 150.

I have received a series of photos kindly provided by Naturalis, Leiden which are very helpful.

Adam.