On the identification of Indian butterflies in the book on Butterflies
of the Garo Hills
Monsoon Jyoti Gogoi
Bokakhat EastDagaon, Dist.Golaghat,
Assam 785612, India
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3855.5016-8 | ZooBank:urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:2D49B36B-5B22-4069-8A97-F3A29DDAD3EE
Date of publication: 26 November 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms #
o3855 | Received 21 November 2013
Citation: Gogoi,
M.J. (2013).On the identification of Indian
butterflies in the book on Butterflies of the GaroHills.Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 5016–5018; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3855.5016-8
Copyright: © Gogoi 2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 UnportedLicense. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate
credit to the authors and the source of publication.
I was requested to review the book
‘Butterflies of the Garo Hills’ (Sondiet al. 2013a), which I duly did, pointing out some errors as was my duty (Gogoi 2013). In
the rebuttal (Kunte et al. 2013b), the authors
questioned my competence to distinguish concerned species (Clearly, Gogoi’s observations on the seasonal variation in these two
species are limited….). So, I
present here photographic clarification and notes primarily for the benefit of
users of the book as well as for the authors.
In the book, the authors have used image
of Jamides pura which is clearly J.celeno. However, in the rebuttal (Kunte et al. 2013b),
they have used a separate image for J. pura. I produce here the images of both wet
season form (WSF) and dry season form (DSF) of J. pura (Images 1 & 2). Both
photographs show the thread like black border to the upper side forewing not
dilated at apex (Evans 1932), which is a dependable distinguishing character
for this species. The cilia is
dilated at apex in the museum specimen cross checked which shows that this
cannot be J. pura but should be J. celeno.
Regarding the Melanitis,
in my review (Gogoi 2013), I have already mentioned
the underside key to M. zitenius and M. phedima. Kunte et al. (2013b) have provided the upper side images ofM. phedima and M. zitenius but the upper side markings have a high degree of seasonal variation. In Evans (1932) it is clearly mentioned
for M. phedima bela,
DSF forms are larger and darker and DSF male costal bar present, absent in WSF
and for M. zitenius zitenius,WSF white spots usually absent and in DSF black and white spots prominent.
Kunte et al. (2013b) claimed my image of Tarucus theophrastus indica marked as ‘male’ is actually female and image
marked as ‘female’ is male. However, I have personally observed males and females from the
Brahmaputra Valley. My confirmation
of female is on the basis of egg laying individuals. I am adding photograph of the egg laying
female for further clarification (Images 3 & 4).
In my review (Gogoi2013), I mentioned that cilia chequered with white in the hindwingfor N. namba but not in N. ananta (Inayoshi 2012). My competence was questioned by the
authors (….distinguishing between N. ananta and N. namba is
more complex than suggested by Gogoi). Neptis namba Tytler, 1915 has
more darker yellow bands and flies in low elevation, whereas N. ananta flies in higher elevation (Tytler1915a). The image in the book has
dark yellow bands and Garo Hills itself is low
elevation. I have used photographs
of N. ananta and N. namba for further clarification (Images 5 & 6).
In my review (Gogoi2013), I have already mentioned the distinguishing characters of Seseria dohertyiand S. sambara. The base of hind wing is clearly bluish
in GaroHills book and hence cannot be sambara. I have used photographs along with
identification keys of both the species for further clarification. Again, the image of Matapa cresta in the book is actually M. druna as the photograph is clearly pale ferruginous on
the underside. M. cresta lacks the
ferruginous tinge (Evans 1949). M.druna male is
ferruginous dark than female (Jong de 1983) and hence it is a female M. druna. I
have added photographs of both the species for further clarification (Images 9
& 10). The image of Matapa sasivarna used in the book is purple below. However, M. sasivarna is fuliginous (Evans 1949) and hence, should be M.purpurescens. I have used both upper and underside
image of M. sasivarna for further
clarification (Images 11 & 12).
Hence, Garo Hills book, in its
present form, contains misidentified specimens of some complex species of
butterflies.
REFERENCES
Evans,
W.H. (1932). The Identification
of Indian Butterflies—2nd Edition. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay, x+454pp+32pl.
Evans, W.H. (1949). A Catalogue of the Hesperiidae from Europe, Asia and Australia in the British
Museum (Natural History). British Museum (Natural History), London, 502pp.
Gogoi, M.J. (2013). Book
Review: Butterflies of the Garo Hills. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(10): 4527–4528.
Inayoshi, Y. (2012). A
Check List of Butterflies in Indo-China (chiefly from Thailand, Laos and
Vietnam). http://yutaka.it-n.jp/lim1/720360001.html (accessed 31.7.2013).
Jong de, R. (1983). Revision
of the Oriental genus Matapa moore (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae)
with discussion of its phylogeny and geographic History. Zoologische Mededelingen 57(21): 243–270.
Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay
Natural History Society and Oxford University Press, New Delhi, xvi+497pp.
Kunte, K., G. Agavekar,
S. Sondhi, R. Lovalekar& K. Tokekar (2013b). On
the identification and misidentification of butterflies of the Garo Hills. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(11):
4616–4620; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3710.4616-20
Sondhi, S., K. Kunte,
G. Agavekar, R. Lovalekar& K. Tokekar (2013a). Butterflies of the GaroHills. Samrakshan Trust (New Delhi), Titli Trust
(Dehradun) and Indian Foundation for Butterflies (Bengaluru), 200pp.
Tytler, H.C. (1915a). Notes on
some new and interesting butterflies from Manipur and the Naga Hills. Part II. Journal
of the Bombay Natural History Society 23: 502–515.