InsectNet forum

Annarobertson1947 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:55 pm Adam, I'm asking if you know of a Polyura dehaani ssp carabus from Mt Dempo in Sumatra, or is this just a dealers name for ssp sulthan ???

Unfortunately I am not an expert on anything other than Papilionidae, but Wikipedia only lists two subspecies at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyura_dehanii

Toussaint published several papers on Polyura about 8 years ago, and he only listed two subspecies too.
Note the correct spelling of the species name is dehanii.

Adam.

It is worth mentioning that Mt. Dempo in southern Sumatra does seem to have some different subspecies of several butterflies compared to other parts of Sumatra. It is possible that someone (Japanese?) described it, but I am not very familiar with Charaxini nomenclature.

Adam.

Polyura dehanii carabus was described by Etsuzo Tsukada in his Butterflies of the South East Asian Islands, Part V, Nymphalidae (II) back in 1991.

Thank you for this information, really appreciated

While on the topic of Charaxes/Polyura - the larvae of these butterflies are known as dragon-headed caterpillars; here are some nice photos of the larva of P. hebe -







Source: https://alphynix.tumblr.com/post/682894 ... -butterfly

Euxanthe spp. (which are also Charaxinae) have larvae with similarly elaborate head capsules -

Euxanthe wakefieldi:





And here is the caterpillar of Charaxes bernardus:


Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/itchydogi ... 0714940952

benihikage92 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:06 am Polyura dehanii carabus was described by Etsuzo Tsukada in his Butterflies of the South East Asian Islands, Part V, Nymphalidae (II) back in 1991.

My thanks for your help, i dont suppose you have access to a photo of the male of this ssp?
I know thee female and really would like to compare with nominate.

Now I know where it was described I was able to make a copy of the photos as I have the book.

Here it is:
Adam.

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions, greatly appreciated.
Now I'm having to ask this next question knowing that it will have two different types of viewers.
So, what I'm querying is we have splitters and lumpers exemplified by Thierry Bouyer in his paper on Charaxini 2023 and Kwaku Aduse-Poku, Vingerhoedt and Walberg 2009.
All eminent in their fields of study.
All highly respected authorities on Nymphalidae.
So, who is correct?
Both views are at opposite ends of discussion on what makes up the seperate genus of charaxini.
Any suggestions???

There are 2 important rules in taxonomy :

#1 : you have to follow the latest publication. So in this case Bouyer 2023. (We now have scientific techniques like DNA analysis we didn't have in 2009).
#2 : InsectNet members are always right, so once again, you have to follow Bouyer 2023 (@africaone on this forum).

wollastoni wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:05 am There are 2 important rules in taxonomy

I am not sure I agree with these 'rules' exactly , particularly in relation to generic classification.

Separation of two or more groups into two or more genera is basically subjective as long as each genus is monophyletic (all species in the genus are derived from the same common ancestor). This was the problem with Charaxes and Polyura, since the Polyura clade is nested within Charaxes.

There are two ways to solve a problem like this and neither is actually 'right' or 'wrong':
1. Include the whole clade in a single genus
or
2. Separate each sub-clade into a different genus so that each one represents a branch containing species which are all derived from a common ancestor.

So '1.' was the method used when Polyura was included in Charaxes and '2.' was the solution adopted by Bouyer (2023) to maintain Polyura as a separate genus, which at the same time necessitated separation of other species groups into different genera.

Generic classification is somewhat different to that of species in that it uses different criteria. The separation of species can be tested in different ways which hopefully give a 'same/different species' result.

Adam.

wollastoni wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:05 am #1 : you have to follow the latest publication. So in this case Bouyer 2023. (We now have scientific techniques like DNA analysis we didn't have in 2009).

Actually both the 2009 and 2023 classifications are based on DNA analysis to build a tree. Trees have been built from the results of DNA analysis since the 1990s, but sequencing techniques have improved considerably.

Adam.

Thanks for this detailed information.

wollastoni wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 10:05 am There are 2 important rules in taxonomy :

#1 : you have to follow the latest publication. So in this case Bouyer 2023. (We now have scientific techniques like DNA analysis we didn't have in 2009).
#2 : InsectNet members are always right, so once again, you have to follow Bouyer 2023 (@africaone on this forum).

well im afraid I'm not going to follow either of these rules

Now my final question on this subject as i now have a good understanding of this .
Aduse-Poku seems to not recognise C. Lydiae as,a member of Charaxini in his system of classification.
Thierry Bouyer has given Lydiae a separate monospecific genus, stating it as unique in regards to all other Charaxini members.
Can one assume then that Aduse-Poku didn't consider Lydiae as a member of Charaxini or, just missed including it ?????

It is possible he was unable to obtain any samples of lydiae for DNA analysis, or perhaps it was at that time included within a larger species group. It is worth noting that Aduse-Poku et al. (2009) only included two species of Polyura and 3 Oriental Charaxes species, so they did not include all species. They write:

Selection of taxa for the study was based on available taxonomic
information on the Charaxes species-group (Ackery et al.,
1995; Larsen, 2005; Williams, 2008). As ingroups, the exemplar
species were selected such that they represented all known ‘informal’
species-groups of Charaxes in Africa (a total of 125 specimens
of 83 species). We also included as ingroups all known species of
the two Charaxinae genera (Euxanthe and Palla) in Africa, three of
ca. 30 Oriental Charaxes and two exemplar species of Polyura.

Adam.

Chuck, what happens with the genus Amphion? I thought this was still legit?

eurytides wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:21 pm Chuck, what happens with the genus Amphion? I thought this was still legit?

My error- old age. Amphion is valid, the species name was changed from nessus to floridensis. It's still nessus to me. I ain't changing any labels either.

The reason Amphion floridensis is not called nessus is because Sphinx nessus Cramer, 1777 is a junior homonym of the Asian Sphinx nessus Drury, 1773 which is currently known as Theretra nessus (Drury, 1773).

Adam.

About two years ago I managed to get some male specimens of Polyura posidonius from Tibet for the first time. It is a small (for the genus) but beautiful species. Probably not that rare but always considered a bit of a "holy grail". By me at least...
I have not seen a female.