InsectNet forum

semire is an odd one within the genus because it doesn't seem to mimic anything.
lucretia at least seems to be trying to mimic Amauris species.

Cabintom wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:56 pm semire is an odd one within the genus because it doesn't seem to mimic anything.
lucretia at least seems to be trying to mimic Amauris species.

may be that it looks different with a non human vision ?

A few forms of Pseudacraea eurytus eurytus (Linnaeus, 1758).

14/IX/2015 Mbau, Nord Kivu


14/I/2017 Near Mbogi, Ituri (1°41'55"N, 30°07'35"E) 1250m






14/I/2017 Mamove, Beni Territory, Nord Kivu 1050m


13/IX/2015 Mbau, Nord Kivu

Pseudacraea dolomena dolomena (Hewitson, [1865])

(female)



Pseudacraea dolomena congoensis Jackson, 1951

(males)


8/IV/2017 Near Mbogi, Ituri (1°41'55"N, 30°07'35"E) 1250-1300m
(This one is close to the nominate form)




These males obviously have their preferred perches. Within minutes of catching one, another would come perch on the very same plant.

This Pseudacraea is not living up to its name since it is mimicking a Danaidae species -- Danaus chrysippus. These specimens were collected by a friend in the area around Mufulira which is in the copperbelt area of Zambia. The two on the left are males and the two right side ones are females. The species name is Pseudacraea poggei Dewitz, 1879.

Pseudacraea warburgi Aurivillius, 1892

(male)
5/VII/2014 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°27'N, 27°37'E) 790m


(female)
2/VII/2014 Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°27'N, 27°37'E) 790m


The only two I've netted. I recall the male being pure luck, as it was swirling around at high speeds with another male. It's a rather small species, and at those speeds, a desperation swing managed to net one of the two.

Pseudacraea lucretia gamae Joicey & Talbot, 1927. Two males from Principe Island. This island is off the coast of western Africa.
I have seen this listed as a species (Pseudacraea gamae), rather than a subspecies. This is in “Butterflies of the World” Part 16. Nymphalidae VII, Pseudacraea. By Jacques Hecq, Dated 2003. Anyone have any thoughts as to which is correct?

mcheki wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:11 pm I have seen this listed as a species (Pseudacraea gamae), rather than a subspecies. This is in “Butterflies of the World” Part 16. Nymphalidae VII, Pseudacraea. By Jacques Hecq, Dated 2003. Anyone have any thoughts as to which is correct?

D'Abrera in 2004 reverted Hecq's change & returned it to being a subspecies of lucretia. Many of Hecq's taxonomic treatments in that work were informal and invalid, and I haven't come across any authors who've subsequently adopted his taxonomic stances pertaining to the species in the genus.

Thank you Cabintom. You have confirmed my thoughts that Hecq’s work was not valid.

mcheki wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 8:58 am Thank you Cabintom. You have confirmed my thoughts that Hecq’s work was not valid.

I wouldn't phrase the reply quite that way. It implies that the whole book is taxonomically invalid. Presumably you actually mean that you regard the d'Abrera (2004) opinion that gamae is a subspecies of Pseudacraea lucretia rather than a separate species as correct.

I have not seen Hecq's work and know little about Pseudacraea, so I appreciate all opinions posted here.

Adam.

mcheki wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:11 pm Pseudacraea lucretia gamae Joicey & Talbot, 1927. Two males from Principe Island. This island is off the coast of western Africa.
I have seen this listed as a species (Pseudacraea gamae), rather than a subspecies. This is in “Butterflies of the World” Part 16. Nymphalidae VII, Pseudacraea. By Jacques Hecq, Dated 2003. Anyone have any thoughts as to which is correct?

DSC00491.JPG

two diffrent things in this question.
gamae is so different from nominate one + the fact that many of the Principe / Sao tomé population deserved often specific level (at high point), that it seems logical to consider it as a good species.
The doubts about Hecq's work concerns more the rules he didn't respect with the Code and the treatment he done of the orange forest 'species ' (except Amiet's work, quite nobody really worked on the question by doing breedings).
may be the barcode can help to bring something to answer this question ? Some short results proove that the genus can be studied with the help of the barcode.

It is inappropriate to derail this wonderful thread on Pseudacraea

I apologize for my part in doing so. I suggest any further discussion on dbrera be taken to a new thread.

As requested I have moved the posts about d'Abrera to a new topic in the Books, Publications and Media Reviews section
here:
viewtopic.php?p=3109#p3109

Adam.

I'm all out of Pseuadacraea to share for the time being (unless someone wants to see some P. rubrobasalis rags).

Does anyone have P. annakae or P. acholica? P. imerina from Madagascar is another strange one.

In response to the above post by Cabintom here is Pseudacraea imerina imerina (Hewitson, 1865), from La Mandraka, Madagascar. These two are males.

Also, there are two male P acholica in the box of mixed, unsorted Pseudacraea that I posted earlier in this thread. The two slightly isolated specimens in the lower right corner are two malees from eastern DRC. They have slightly elongated hindwings.

see some P. rubrobasalis rags)


Might as well, this is a great resource might as well make it as comprehensive as possible. I’m not afraid of ragged butterflies.

Chuck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 12:54 am see some P. rubrobasalis rags)


Might as well, this is a great resource might as well make it as comprehensive as possible. I’m not afraid of ragged butterflies.

Well, if you insist!

Pseudacraea rubrobasalis Aurivillius, 1903

(male)
8/IV/2017 Near Mbogi, Ituri (1°41'55"N, 30°07'35"E) 1250-1300m


(female)
3/XII/2016 Near Mbogi, Ituri (1°41'55"N, 30°07'35"E) 1250m

Without detracting from the genus Pseudacraea I thought it may be of interest to show a drawer of a very similar genus. This genus is Mimacraea in the family Lycaenidae. It shows that many species of Mimacraea are quite similar to the Pseudacraea and they follow a similar range of mimicry.
They are, of course, considerably smaller.