Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2022 | 14(1): 20346–20370
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7711.14.1.20346-20370
#7711 | Received 17
October 2021 | Final received 27 November 2021 | Finally accepted 05 January
2022
Associations of butterflies
across different forest types in Uttarakhand, western Himalaya, India:
implications for conservation planning
Arun Pratap Singh
Entomology Branch, Forest
Research Institute, Chakarata Road, P.O. New Forest, Dehradun, Uttarakhand
248006, India.
Editor: Sanjay
Sondhi, Titli Trust, Dehradun, India. Date
of publication: 26 January 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Singh, A.P. (2022). Associations of butterflies
across different forest types in Uttarakhand, western Himalaya, India:
implications for conservation planning. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(1): 20346–20370. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7711.14.1.20346-20370
Copyright: © Singh 2022. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium
by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Indian Council of Forestry Research
& Education (ICFRE), Dehradun.
Competing interests: The author declares no competing
interests.
Author details: Arun Pratap Singh is currently working as a
scientist with the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. His experience pertains
to the conservation and ecology of butterflies and birds across the Himalayan
region over the last three decades.
Acknowledgements:
The data used in the present study was is part of the ICFRE funded
projects carried out by the author entitled “Butterflies associated with major
forest types/sub-types in Uttarakhand” (No: FRI-627/FED-44; 2017-2021 and “Butterfly
diversity in moist temperate Ban oak forests of Garhwal” (No.FRI-348/FED-23;
2006-2009) along with a 10 day self funded survey conducted in Kedarnath
Wildlife Sanctuary during June2012. The author is thankful to the, Director
General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, (ICFRE), Dehradun
for providing necessary funding for the projects. Thanks are due to the
Director, Forest Research Institute (FRI) and Head, Forest Entomology, Forest
Protection Division, for providing the necessary facilities. I would like to
thank Tribhuwan Singh (JPF) and Rohit Kumar (FA),Forest Protection
Division,FRI, for assisting the PI in collection and compilation of data and
generating GIS maps. Help of Praveen Verma and H.B.Naithani, plant taxonomists,
Botany Division, FRI is also duly acknowledged in identification of plant
specimens associated different forest sub-types. Lastly, I would also like to
thank the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand Forest Department and various
Divisional Forest Officers of the state and their field staff for providing
logistical support during field surveys, from time to time.
Abstract: Champion & Seth
classified Indian forests into different ‘forest types and sub-types’, based on
similarity of dominant vegetation and structural arrangement of species in
each. However, it is not known if the species composition and community
structure of butterflies is also different in each forest sub-type. If this is
the case then each forest sub-type harbouring unique species can be taken as
units of conservation on a sub-regional scale. The present study assesses for
the first time the species composition and community structure of butterflies
across 20 different and prominent ‘forest sub-types’ found across the state of
Uttarakhand, western Himalaya. Data collected over eight years (2006–2009; June
2012; 2017–2020) using random seasonal sampling covering 307 transects revealed
370 butterfly taxa. Hierarchical clustering of butterfly abundances revealed
seven different butterfly communities spread over 19 forest subtypes. Of these
four forest sub-types (3C/C2a moist Shiwalik sal forest; 12/C2c moist temperate
deciduous forest; 12/C1a ban oak forest; & 3C/C2c moist Terai sal forest)
were identified as most important as they hold most of the butterfly diversity
of the state including 58 rare taxa identified according to ‘rarity’ out of the
total. GIS based mapping of these 58 priority species over laid on the
protected area network and forest cover distribution in the state revealed many
forested sites outside the PA network supporting these rare taxa. These sites
along a physio-geographical gradient with important forest sub-types and rare
taxa can be recommended and listed as new sites for conservation in the state.
Keywords: Ban Oak, butterfly, protected
area network, physiogeography, rarity, tropical moist deciduous forest,
vegetation.
Introduction
Butterflies,
amongst invertebrates, are suitable indicators for ecological studies (Lomov et
al. 2006), as the taxonomy, geographical distribution and status of many
species are relatively well known (Pollard 1977; Thomas 1983; Thomas &
Mallorie 1985; Murphy & Wilcox 1986). They are phytophagous, primary
herbivores, good pollinators and surrogates plant diversity living close by
their food plants (Ehrlich & Raven 1964; Gilbert & Smiley 1978; Pyle
1980). The precise and restricted environmental requirements of particular
butterflies make them of considerable value as a group of indicator taxa that
indicate the broader effects of environmental changes or reflects a particular
suite of ecological conditions or habitat heterogeneity (Pyle 1980; Gilbert
1980, 1984; Brown 1982; Rosenberg et al. 1986; Murphy et al. 1990; New 1991;
Kermen 1992; Pearman et al. 1995). Strong association with vegetation structure
and composition makes Lepidoptera a particularly useful bioindicator for
monitoring eco-restoration programs (Kremen et al. 1993; New et al. 1995).
Habitat is an
important requisite for the proliferation and conservation of a butterfly
species (Gilbert & Singer 1975), as species prefer particular habitats,
closely related to their life history, breeding, larval and adult food
resources and destruction of forest severely affects species habitats (Wells et
al. 1983) and many species which were once common become rare. Thus,
identification and conservation of priority landscapes, is very important.
Champion & Seth (1968) classified Indian forests into different ‘forest
types’ their sub units as ‘forest sub-types’, based on the similarity of
dominant vegetation and structural arrangement of species within each of them,
i.e., ‘IV montane temperate forest’ is one of VI major ‘forest types” found
across India (other 5 categories being “I. moist tropical forests, II. dry
tropical forests; III montane subtropical forests; V sub-alpine forests, and VI
alpine forests” classified by Champion & Seth (1968)), while its lowest
unit in the hierarchy is a ‘sub-type’, e.g., “12C1/1a Ban oak
forest” (Here, ‘12’ signifies “12 Himalayan moist temperate forest” in a group
of three [the other two being 11 Montane wet temperate forests & 13
Himalayan dry temperate forests). Then further sub-division of this sub-group
“12” into three groups: C1–C3 , where “C1”
signifies “C1 lower western Himalayan temperate
forest” (other 2 being “C2 upper west Himalayan temperate
forest” and “C3 east Himalayan temperate forest”) and
lastly its last sub-division which is depicted as “1a”, i.e., “1a Ban oak
forest (Q. incana)” (Quercus incana = Q. leucotrichophora)
amongst the set of two (the other being
“1b Moru oak forest (Q. dialata)” (Quercus dilatata = Q.
floribunda) (Champion & Seth 1968)]. In this way, different ‘forest
subtypes’ have been classified and labelled in India.
However, it is not known if the
species composition and community structure of lower groups of animals such as
butterflies are also different within each ‘forest-sub-type’ or each have a
unique community of butterflies. If this is the case then each forest sub-type
harbouring unique and rare species can be taken as a unit of conservation on a
sub-regional scale (western Himalaya) or state level (Uttarakhand). In this
study we tried to evaluate and examine potential ‘forest sub-types’ or ‘a group
of forest sub-types’ that have unique butterfly diversity which can be taken up
as units of conservation of biodiversity at the state level. Besides, this can
also be helpful in identification of new conservation areas with forest
habitats outside the PA network and thus fill gaps in their connectivity, in
the state. The rationale behind this is that many butterfly species are
restricted to forested habitats in the state, have geographical distribution
spread across the Himalayan region, i.e., western, central, and eastern
Himalaya along a wide altitudinal gradient, e.g., Pale Green Sailer Neptis
zaida zaida Doubleday, [1848] or Broad-banded Sailer, N. sankara sankara
(Kollar, [1844]) (Nymphalidae) both occur in the state between 800–2,500 m, as
observed in the present study. Fragmentation of their forested habitats on a
larger spatial and temporal scale, may lead to isolated populations, local
extinctions that can significantly affect their distribution, as they do not
migrate. Thus, gaps and connectivity of the protected areas needs to be
maintained for long term conservation.
Study Area
The study was carried out in
Uttarakhand state of India which covers an area of 53,483 km2, which
is 1.63% of the geographical area of the country, and lies between
28.716–31.466 N latitude & 77.566–81.05 E longitude. This predominantly
mountainous state, shares its borders with Himachal Pradesh to the west and
Uttar Pradesh to the south. It also shares international borders with Nepal in
the east and China (Tibet) to the north. The state is mainly representative of
the western Himalaya, the climate and vegetation vary greatly with altitude,
from glaciers at the highest elevations, and temperate to subtropical at the
lower elevations. Nanda Devi peak is the highest point at 7,816 m in the state
while the lowest areas at ~100m lie in
the Terai grasslands. The average annual rainfall is 1,500 mm and the annual
temperature varies from below 0o C to 43o C. Major
rivers, Ganga, Yamuna, Ramganga, & Sharda, drain the state along with their
tributaries. The Himalayan range in Uttarakhand is divided into the distinct
non-montane and montane physiographic zones. The lower zone comprises the
‘Bhabhar’ region in non-montane lowland woodlands having Gangetic moist
deciduous forests and the Terai region (below 500 m) running parallel to it,
which comprises mainly the marshes and grasslands (Botanical Survey of India
2021). The montane region is divided into sub-Himalaya, which consists of the
Shiwalik ranges, the lower Himalayan ranges, and the Doon (flat long valleys)
lying north of the Shiwaliks (~ 500–1,000 m). Above this region are the lesser
Himalaya (~ 1,000–3,000 m) followed mid Himalaya (~ 3,000–4,000 m) and then
greater Himalaya (~ 4,000–6,000 m) (Khanduri et al. 2013) and the
trans-Himalaya (above 5,000 m), also known as the Tethys Himalayas and the
Indo-Tibet plateau, the region is in the rain shadow area that transforms into
the cold desert.
Forests cover an area of
24,303.04 km2 in the state, which constitutes 45.44% of the state’s
geographical area (FSI 2019). The state is represented by biogeographic zone 2B
western Himalaya and 7B Shiwaliks of India (Rodgers & Pawar 1988). The
state is rich in biodiversity having about 102 species of mammals, 692 birds
(https://ebird.org/region/IN-UL), 13 amphibians & 53 reptiles (Vasudevan
& Sondhi 2010), and 124 fishes
(https://forest.uk.gov.in/wildlife-management). Some of the globally endangered
fauna like the Asiatic Elephant Elephas maximus, Snow Leopard Panthera
uncia, Tiger Panthera tigris, Leopard Panthera pardus, Musk
Deer Moschus chrysogaster, Swamp Deer Rucervus duvaucelii, Cheer
Pheasant Catreus wallichii, and the King Cobra Ophiophagus hannah
are found in the state. Uttarakhand shelters around 4,000 species of plants,
belonging to 1,198 genera, under 192 families, of which ~34 species have been
listed as threatened (Nayar & Sastry 1987, 1988, 1990;
https://indiabiodiversity.org/). The PA network cover 12 percent of the total
geographical area of the state, which includes six national parks, seven
wildlife sanctuaries, four conservation reserves, and one biosphere reserve
(Appendix 1).
Previous studies on butterflies
in Uttarakhand
Studies on natural history and
checklists of different areas in Uttarakhand state have been carried out as
early as 1886 (Doherty 1886; Mackinnon & de Nicéville 1899; Hannyngton 1910–11;
Ollenbach 1930; Shull 1958, 1962; Baindur 1993; Smetacek 2002, 2004, 2012;
Bhardwaj et al. 2012; Bhardwaj & Uniyal 2013; Singh & Bhandari 2003, 2006; Singh & Sondhi 2016;
Verma & Arya 2018; Sondhi & Kunte 2018; Singh & Singh 2021) and the
total number of butterfly species recorded in the state so far is ~ 500
species, based on these records. However, none of these studies give an account
on the association of butterfly species with different forest sub-types as
classified by Champion & Seth (1968), found across the state of
Uttarakhand. The author had earlier studied
butterfly-forest type associations in 11 major “forest sub-types” in the
state of Arunachal Pradesh (eastern Himalaya), India (Singh 2017) and identified
four forest sub-types: 2B/1S1 sub-Himalayan light alluvial plains
semi-evergreen forests; 2B/C1a Assam alluvial plains semi-evergreen forests;
2B/2S2 eastern alluvial secondary semi-evergreen forests, and 3/1S2 b
Terminalia-Duabanga as major forest sub-types supporting 415 butterfly taxa
along with many rare and endemic species in the northeastern region and eastern
Himalaya, but the forest sub-types occurring in these two Himalayan states are
totally different from each other.
Methods
Random
sampling surveys were carried out for eight years under two different projects
(2006–2009 and 2017–2020, respectively) across 11 districts of Uttarakhand
state covering all the six butterfly seasons (spring, summer, pre-monsoon,
monsoon, post-monsoon, autumn, and winter; Smith 1989) of the year. Surveys
were carried out using ‘Pollard Walk’ on the line transects (Pollard &
Yates 1993). Sampling on each transect (ca. 1 km) was done and butterflies were
observed up to 20 m on both the sides of the trail for 1 h in a stretch between
1000 h and 1600 h to collect data on individual butterfly species abundance.
Each sampling survey was carried out by the author, while 1–2 helpers were also
used for recording data, collection of insect and plant material from time to
time. Coordinates of all the locations for 307 samplings carried out were
recorded using a GPS (Etrex Garmin Vista) (Figure 1) covering 20 major forest
sub-types (FSI 2011; Figure 2 & Appendix ii) existing across the state of
Uttarakhand.
Identification and distribution
range of each taxa was assessed based on published literature (Moore 1874,
1890–1992, 1893–1896, 1896–1899, 1899–1900, 1901–1903, 1903–1905; Swinhoe
1905–1910, 1910–1911, 1911–1912 & 1912–1913; Bingham 1905; Talbot 1939,
1947; Evans 1932; Wynter-Blyth 1957; D’Abrera 1982, 1985, 1986; Haribal 1992;
Smith 1989, 2006; Kehimkar 2008, 2016; Singh 2011; Smetacek 2015; Gasse 2017;
Sondhi & Kunte 2018) and websites (http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/ and
http://flutters.org/). Comparison of a few specimens was also done with
specimens at the National Forest Insect Collection (NFIC) at Forest Research
Institute, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, for identification.
Dominant vegetation (mainly trees
& shrubs) in the respective forest sub-types were also identified and
confirmed by ground truthing by laying down 10 x 10 m quadrates, collected
plant material and preparing herbariums. Photographs and herbarium specimens
were identified in the field and many were identified and confirmed from plant
taxonomists based at Systematic Botany Branch, Botany Division, FRI, Dehradun
and literature (Brandis 1906; Rai et al. 2017; http://www.gbif.org).
Evaluating species of
conservation priority: rarity analysis of butterflies
The degree of “rarity’
characterizing a species is usually an indicator of extinction risk (Rabnowitz
et al. 1986; Pimm et al. 1988; Arita et al. 1990; Primarck 1993; Gaston 1994;
Brown 1995; Gaston & Blackburn 1995) and provides a basis to identify
threatened species (Rabinowitz 1981; Arita et al. 1990; Daniels et al. 1991;
Berg & Tjernberg 1996). In general, species characterized by small
geographic range, habitat specialization, and low abundance, are at higher risk
of extinction than a widely distributed, habitat generalist and with high
abundance. Rabinowitz et al. (1986) have examined types of rarity, and in what
important ways rare species differ from one another. They first distinguish
three traits, characteristic of all taxa recorded: (i) Geographical range -
whether a species occurs over a broad area or whether it is endemic to a particular
area; (ii) Habitat specificity - the degree to which a species occurs in a
variety of biotopes’ or ‘habitats’ is restricted to one or a few specialized
sites versus generalists; and (iii) Local population size - whether a species
occurs in large populations somewhere within range or has small populations
whenever it is found.
In the present study, Rabinowitz
et al. (1986) classification of rarity based on the three above traits was
used. Only those species were filtered out the total as rare which had: (i)
narrow geographical range, i.e., those species which had narrow distribution
restricted only to western and central Himalaya as against those with wide
distribution, i.e., Himalaya, northeastern India, & Peninsular India; (ii)
restricted to two or less forest sub-types as against more than two forest
sub-types; and (iii) having small local population size across their
distribution range, i.e., those taxa which were classified as ‘very rare’,
‘rare’, and ‘not rare’ by Evans (1932) and Kehimkar (2008), as against ‘fairly
common’, ‘common’, and ‘very common’.
Hierarchical clustering of
different forest sub-types based on butterfly species distribution and relative
abundance.
The data of
relative abundance of all the species of butterflies sampled against 20
different forest sub-types was pooled and averaged to relative abundance per
sampling in each of the forest sub-type to remove varied sampling bias and was
done using statistical software “NCSS Data Analysis 2021, v21.0.2”, to know the
dissimilarly of forest sub-types in terms of butterfly species composition.
Results
and Discussion
The field surveys revealed 370
butterfly taxa (Papilionidae (31); Pieridae (32); Nymphalidae(138); Lycaenidae
(97); Hesperiidae (62) and Riodinidae (7); see appendix.iii), which accounted
to ca 75% of the species recorded from the state so far. If we exclude ~ 40
historic records (Singh & Sondhi 2016; Sondhi & Kunte 2018), then it
totals to 80% of the total species found in the state. The study also reported
new range extensions from central and eastern Himalaya, i.e., Dark Sapphire
(Singh & Seal 2019); Scarce Lilacfork Lethe dura gammiei (Moore,
[1892]) (Singh & Singh 2019), Dubious Five ring Ypthima parasakra
parasakra Eliot, 1987 (Singh & Singh 2022) and records like
White-ringed Meadowbrown, Hyponephele davendra davendra (Moore, 1865)
(Singh & Singh 2021), Pale Jezebel Delias sanaca sanaca (Moore,
[1858]) (Singh 2016); Mountain Tortoiseshell Aglais rizana (Moore, 1872)
(Singh & Singh 2019); White-wedged Woodbrown Lethe dakwania Tytler,
1939 (Singh & Singh 2021), to the state. Some rare records like Garhwal
Swordtail Graphium garhwalica (Katayama, 1988), Highbrown Silverspot,
Argynnis jainadeva jainadeva Moore, 1864; Regal Apollo, Parnassius
charltonius Gray, [1853] and new range extensions (Red-tailed Forester,
Lethe sinorix sinorix (Hewitson, [1863]) and Nepal Comma Polygonia
c-album cognata Moore, [1899]) are reported in this paper.
The relative abundance of species
ranged 1–1,596 individuals. These species were then ranked into four abundance
classes based on their quartile division, i.e., Q1= 1–7 Uncommon (1= rare);
8–21= Fairly Common; 22–69 = Common; 70–1,596 = Very Common Median= 21 (Table 4
and an “Appendix iii” with an account of 370 taxa). Sixty-seven species sampled
are listed under various schedules of the Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
(appendix: Schedule I—8 species; Schedule II—51 & Schedule IV—8). The
seasonality of butterflies suggests that most of the species are in flight
during ‘post-monsoon’ and ‘pre-monsoon’ seasons followed by ‘monsoon’ season,
respectively when more than 270 species are in flight (Figure 3) in the
state.
The pattern of seasonality in
Uttarakhand is very similar to the trend found in western and central Himalaya
(Wynter-Blyth 1957) where two peaks are known to occur in a year, the bigger
one during the ‘post-monsoon’ season and a slightly smaller one during the
‘pre-monsoon’ season.
Preference for Forest Sub-types
The highest number of species
were recorded in 12/c1a Ban Oak Forest (292 species; Fig.4) followed by 3C/C2a
Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest (220) and 12/C2c Moist Temperate Deciduous Forest
(165), respectively which suggests that these forest sub-types hold the major
diversity of butterflies found in the state. The number of species sampled were
the least in 13/C2b Dry Deodar Forest (14), 15/C1 Birch Rhododendron Scrub (6)
and 15/E1 Dwarf Rhododendron Scrub (2), respectively (Figure 4) suggesting them
to be poor butterfly habitats, while the other 14 forest sub-types lay between
them.
The percentage of butterfly
species in each forest sub-type in relation to the proportional area covered by
each in the state (Figure 5), suggests that forest sub-types: 9/C1b Upper or
Himalayan Chir Pine Forest; 12/C2b West Himalayan Upper Oak/Fir Forest and
14/C1 B Western Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/Fir Forest, support a relatively
lower number of butterfly species per unit area as compared to the rest of the
other forest sub-types (Figure 4). On the other hand forest sub-types: 3C/C2 Moist
Shiwalik Sal Forest; 12/C1a Ban Oak Forest; 12/C2C Moist Temperate Deciduous
Forest and 12/C1d Western Mixed Coniferous Forest have a relatively higher
density of butterfly species per unit area amongst all the forest sub-types
covered (Figure 5). The primary reason for this is that pure conifer forest
stands support less diversity of butterflies as compared to the pure broad
leaved or mixed conifer-broad leaved forests, as the diversity of nectar and
larval food plants available are more diverse in the latter two than in the
former.
Hierarchical clustering of forest
sub-types
It was found
that 7 forest-types butterfly clusters, 5 independent forest-subtypes and 2
clusters of 2 and 11 forest sub-types, respectively exist in the state (Fig.6).
These are
3C/C2a Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest.
12/C2c Moist Temperate Deciduous
Forest
12/C1a Ban Oak Forest.
3C/C2c Moist Terai Sal Forest
9/C1b Upper or Himalayan Chir
Pine
5B/C2 Northern Dry Mixed
Deciduous Forest & 5B/C1a Dry Shiwalik Sal Forest.
12/C1b Moru Oak; 12/C2b Western
Himalayan Upper Oak Forest/Fir; 12/C1d Western Mixed Coniferous; 12/2S1 Low
Level Blue Pine; 12/C2a Kharsu Oak Forest; 14/C1a West Himalayan Sub-alpine
Fir; 14/C1 Best Himalayan Sub-alpine Birch/Fir/ 14/1S2 Deciduous Sub-alpine
Scrub & 15/C1 Birch/Rhododendron Scrub.
The
dendrogram (Figure 6) suggests that the butterfly community of 3C/C2a Moist
Shiwalik Sal Forest is totally distinct from that of 12/C2c Moist Temperate
Deciduous Forest and 12/C1a Ban Oak forest.
While 12/C1a Ban Oak Forest and 12/C2c Moist Temperate Deciduous Forest
show greatest similarity. While diversity of 5B/C2 Northern Dry Mixed Deciduous
Forest and 5B/C1a Dry Siwalik Sal is different from that of 3C/C2c Moist Terai
Sal Forest or 3C/C2a Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest. Eleven forest sub-types show
another cluster being distinct from other groups (Figure 6). Four forest
sub-types that are most important in the state in terms of number of both
butterfly species and with distinct dissimilarity of butterflies are 3C/C2a
Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest; 12/C2c Moist Temperate Deciduous Forest; 12/C1a Ban
Oak Forest and 3C/C2c Moist Terai Sal Forest.
Species preference of forest
sub-types
Scatter plot (Figure 7) of
individual butterfly species (n= 370) suggests that only one generalist species (Painted Lady Vanessa
cardui) had preference for all 14 forest sub-types. While the number of
species showing preference for more than five or more forest sub-types were
fewer as compared to species showing preference for less than four forest sub-types
(Figure 7 Horizontal bars) in the state. The maximum number of species showed
preference for two forest sub-types (n= 90 species) followed by preference for
only one forest sub-type (n= 60 species). This suggests that a large number of
habitat specialist species exist in the state.
Rarity in butterflies sampled in
Uttarakhand: taxa of conservation priority
Out of the 370 taxa sampled in
Uttarakhand, 58 were evaluated as rare species of conservation priority
/concern based on rarity analysis (Rabinowitz 1981; Rabinowitz et al. 1986)
(Appendix IV).
The 58 taxa of conservation
concern evaluated based on rarity are scattered all across the state in at
least 12 forest sub-types (Figure 8). It was also determined that most of the
butterfly taxa of conservation priority occur in 12/C1a Ban Oak Forest followed
by 12/C2c Moist Temperate Deciduous forest, 3C/C2 Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest and
a few taxa in 12/C2b Western Himlayan Upper Oak/Fir Forest; 12/C1d Western
Mixed Coniferous Forest, repectively (Figures 8–15).
The present study proved that
individual ‘forest sub-types’(Champion & Seth 1968) or a group of ‘forest
sub-types’ having high species richness, unique and rare butterfly taxa can be
taken up as units of conservation at the state level in the Himalayan region as
representatives of lower groups of animals, i.e., butterflies. Three most
important forest sub-types: 12/C1a Ban Oak Forest followed by 12/C2c Moist
Temperate Deciduous Forest and 3C/C2 Moist Shiwalik Sal Forest, respectively,
hold the maximum number of butterflies, including many rare and protected taxa,
in the state amongst the 20 forest sub-types evaluated, thus they form priority
over the rest.
The 58 butterfly taxa
conservation priority in the state lies both within and outside the PA network,
but mainly in forested areas (Figure 16). Concentrations of 58 species of
conservation priority are marked in 17 circles (Figure 16) and at least 12 of
these occur outside the PA network based on the findings of the present study.
Important forest sub-types identified falling in these clusters having species
of conservation concern can thus be recommended for conservation or future PAs.
Seventeen concentrations/clusters that are located in different physiographic
zones represented in the state are, three in Trans Himalaya; three in Greater
Himalaya; eight in Lesser Himalaya; one in Shiwalik/Dun; one in Bhabar; and one
in Tarai area along an elevation gradient, rather than a few as currently
represented in the PA network of the state (Figure 17 & Appendix V).
Also, new conservation sites can
be identified from these 17 clusters/concentrations of rare buttefly taxa
especially in the ‘Lesser Himalaya’ where the number of PAs are almost
negligible. This type of approach in identifying areas of conservation priority
is more inclusive and suitable at a sub-regional or state level in restoring
linkages and corridors in the PA network, rather than solely based on a broader
geographic scale, i.e., zoogeographic zones. Many of these sites with high
butterfly richenss that lie outside the PAs and close to the villages and towns
with suitable logistical support for boarding, lodging and travel can be
promoted for suitainable and inclusive butterfly ecotourism activities in the
state.
References
Anonymous
(2006). The
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun,
235 pp.
Arita, H.T.,
J.G. Robinson & K.H. Redford (1990). Rarity in Neotropical forest
mammals and its ecological correlates. Conservation Biology 4(2):
181–192.
Baindur, A.
(1993). The
butterflies of Nanda Devi. In: Scientific and Ecological Expedition Nanda
Devi, 2nd May to 22nd July 1993. (Army Corps of Engineers; W.I.I.; Salim Ali
Centre for Ornithology & Natural History, WWF-India, G.B. Pant Institute of
Himalayan Environment & Development, Botanical Survey of India) Army
Headquarters, New Delhi, 35–43 pp.
Bhardwaj, M.,
V.P. Uniyal, A.K. Sanyal & A.P. Singh (2012). Butterfly communities along an
elevation gradient in the Tons valley, Western Himalayas: Implications of rapid
assessment of insect conservation. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 15(1):
207–217.
Bhardwaj, M.
& V.P. Uniyal (2013). High-altitude butterfly fauna of
Gangotri National Park, Uttarakhand: Patterns in species abundance, composition
and similarity,pp38-48. ENVIS Bulletin on Wildlife and Protected Areas-
Arthropods and their Conservation in India (Insects & Spiders),
232 pp.
Berg, A.
& M. Tjernberg (1996). Common and rare Swedish vertebrates distribution and habitat
preferences. Biodiversity and Conservation 5(1): 101–128.
Bingham, C.T.
(1905). Fauna of
British India. Butterflies Vol. I. Taylor and Francis, London, 511 pp.
Botanical
Survey of India (2021). Bibliography and Abstracts of Papers on Flora of Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand. ENVIS, Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change. Botanical Survey of India, Howrah, West Bengal, 616 pp.
Brandis, D.
(1906). Indian Trees : An Account of Trees, Shrubs,
Woody Climbers, Bamboos, and Palms Indigenous or Commonly Cultivated in the
British Indian Empire. Archibald Constable and Co., Ltd. London, 767 pp.
Brown, J.H.
(1995). Macroecology.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 284 pp.
Brown, K.S.
(1982). Paleoecology
and regional patterns of evolution in neotropical forest butterflies, pp.
255–308. In: Prance, G.T. (ed). Biological Diversification in the Tropics.
Columbia University Press, New York, 714 pp.
Champion,
H.G. & S.K. Seth (1968). A Revised Survey of The Forest Type of India. Govt. of India
Press. New Delhi, 404 pp.
D’abrera, B.
(1982). Butterflies
of the Oriental Region - Part I. Papilionidae, Pieridae & Danaidae. Hill House, Victoria,
Australia, 244 pp.
D’abrera, B.
(1985). Butterflies
of the Oriental Region - Part II. Nymphalidae, Satyridae & Amathusiidae.
Hill House, Victoria, Australia, 534 pp.
D’abrera, B.
(1986). Butterflies
of the Oriental Region - Part III. Lycaenidae & Riodinidae. Hill House,
Victoria, Australia, 672 pp.
Daniels,
R.J.R., M. Hegde, N.V. Joshi & M. Gadgil (1991). Assigning conservation value: a
case study from India. Conservation Biology 5(4): 464–475.
Doherty, W.
(1886). A list of
butterflies in Kumaun. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 55(2): 103–140.
Ehrlich, P.R.
& P.H. Raven (1964). Butterflies and plants: a study in co-evolution. Evolution 18:
586–608.
Evans, W.H.
(1932). The
Identification of Indian Butterflies. 2nd Edition. Bombay Natural
History Society, Bombay, x+454 pp+32 pl.
Forest Survey
of India (2011). Atlas-Forest
Types of India. Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Govt. of India, Dehradun, 210 pp.
Gaston, K.J.
(1994). Rarity.
Chapman and Hall, London, 201 pp.
Gaston, K.J.
& T.M. Blackburn (1995). Rarity and body size: some cautionary remarks. Conservation Biology
9(1): 210–213.
Gilbert, L.E.
& M.C. Singer (1975). Butterfly Ecology. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 6(1): 365–397.
Gilbert, L.E.
& J.T. Smiley (1978). Determinants of local diversity in phytophagous insects: host
specialists in tropical environments, pp. 89–104. In: Mound, L.A. & N.
Waloff (eds.). Diversity of Insect Faunas. Blackwell
Scientific, 204 pp.
Gilbert, L.E.
(1980). Food web
organization and the conservation of neotropical diversity, pp. 11–34. In:
Soule, M.E. & B.A. Wilcox (eds.). Conservation Biology: An
Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Massachusetts, USA, 395 pp.
Gilbert, L.E.
(1984). The biology
of butterfly communities, pp 41–54. In: Vane-Wright, R.I. & P.R. Ackery
(eds.). The Biology of Butterflies. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 429 pp.
Gasse, P.V.
(2017). Annotated
checklist of Butterflies of the Indo-Burmese region.
http://flutters.org/home/docs/Butterflies_of_ India_Paul_Van_Gasse.pdf
Hannyngton,
F. (1910–11). The
butterflies of Kumaon. Parts I & Part II. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 20 (1): 130–142; (2): 361–372; (3): 871–872.
Haribal, M.
(1992). Butterflies
of Sikkim Himalaya and their Natural History. Sikkim Nature Conservation
Foundation, Gangtok, Sikkim, India, 217 pp.
Khanduri, K.,
A. Singh, D. Singh, Kursotam & P. Garg (2013). Uttarakhand Himalayas: Hydropower
Developments and its Impact on Environmental System. Journal of Environment.
Volume 02. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264673061.
Kehimkar, I.
(2008). The Book
of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University,
Delhi Press, 497 pp.
Kehimkar, I.
(2016). Butterflies
of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, 505 pp.
Kremen, C.
(1992). Assessing
the Indicator Properties of Species Assemblages for Natural Areas Monitoring. Ecological
Applications 2(2): 203–217.
Kremen, C.,
R.K. Colwell, T.L. Erwin, D.D. Murphy, R.F. Noss & M.A. Sanjayan (1993). Terrestrial arthropod
assemblages: Their use in conservation planning. Conservation Biology
7(4): 796–808.
Lomov, B.,
D.A. Keith, D.R. Britton & D.F. Hochuli (2006). Are butterflies and moths useful
indicators for restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney’s Cumberland
Plain Woodland 7(3):
204–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00310.x
Mackinnon,
P.W. & L. DeNicéville (1899). List of butterflies of Mussoorie in the Western Himalayas
and neighbouring region. Journal Bombay Natural History Society 11(1):
205–221; (2): 368–389, 585–605.
Moore, F. (1890–1897). Lepidoptera indica. Parts
I-VII. Lovell Reeve Co.Ltd. London. Murphy,
D.D. & B.A. Wilcox (1986). Butterfly diversity in natural habitat
fragments: a test of the validity of vertebrate-based management, pp. 287–292 .
In: Verner, J., M.L. Morrison & C.J. Ralph (eds.). Wildlife 2000,
Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 699 pp.
Murphy, D.D.,
K.E. Freas & S.B. Weiss (1990). An environment-metapopulation
approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conservation
Biology 4(1): 41–51.
Nayar, M.P. & A.R.K. Sastry (1987, 1988, 1990). Red Data Book of Indian
Plants Vols. I, II, III. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta.
New, T.R.
(1991). Butterfly
Conservation. Oxford University Press, 224 pp.
New, T.R.,
R.M. Pyle, J. A. Thomas, C.D. Thomas & P.C. Hammond (1995). Butterfly conservation management.
Annual Review of Entomology 40 (1): 57–83.
Ollenbach,
O.C. (1930). Butterfly
collection grounds at Mussoorie. Journal of the Bombay Natural History
Society 34(3): 836–840.
Pearman,
P.B., M. Guerreiro, T.D. Sisk & D. Murphy (1995).Correlation patterns among groups
proposed as biological indicators :what do they indicate. Bulletin of the
Ecological Society of America 76: 375.
Pimm, S.L.,
L.H. Jones & J. Diamond (1988). On the risk of extintion. American
Naturalist 132(6): 757–785.\
Pollard, E.
(1977). A method for
assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation
12(2): 115–124.
Pollard, E.
& T.J. Yates (1993). Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation. Chapman and
Hall, London, 287 pp.
Pyle, R.M.
(1980). Butterfly eco-geography
and biological conservation in Washington. Atala 8(1): 1–26.
Primack, R.
(1993). Essentials
of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 585 pp.
Rabinowitz,
D.S., S. Cairns & T. Dillon (1986). Seven forms of rarity and their
frequency in flora of British Isles, pp. 182–204. In: Soule, M.E.(ed.). Conservation
Biology: the Science of scarcity and Diversity. Sinuer, Sunderland, M.A,
584 pp.
Rabinowitz,
D.S. (1981). Seven forms
of rarity, pp. 205–217. In: Synge, H. (ed.). The Biological Aspects of Rare
Plant Conservation. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.,558 pp.
Rai, I.D., G.
Singh & G.S. Rawat (2017). Plants
of Kedarnath Wildlife
Sanctuary, Western Himalaya: A Field Guide. Bishen Singh Mahendra
Pal Singh, Dehadun, 393 pp.
Rodgers, W.A.
& H.S Panwar (1988). Planning a Wildlife Protected
Area Network in India. 2 vol. Project FO: IND/82/003, FAO, Dehradun 339, 267
pp.
Rosenberg,
D.M., H.V. Danks & D.M. Lehmkuhl(1986). Importance of insects in
environmental impact assessment. Environment impact assessment. Environment
Management 10(6): 773–783.
Samways, M.J.
(1994). Individual
insect species and their conservation, pp. 169–193. In: Insect Conservation
Biology. Chapman and Hall, London, 450 pp.
Shull, E.M.
(1958). My highest
catch of butterfly species in a single day (4th June, 1957) Mussoorie, India. Journal
of the Lepidopterists’ Society 11(4–5): 167–168.
Shull, E.M.
(1962). Over one
hundred butterfly species caught in a single day (3rd June, 1961) at Mussoorie,
India. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 16: 143–145.
Singh, A.P.
(2017). Butterflies
associated with major forest types in Arunachal Pradesh (Eastern Himalaya),
India: Implications for eco-tourism and in conservation planning. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 9(4): 10047–10075. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2765.9.4.10047-10075
Singh, A.P.
& R.S. Bhandari (2003). Butterfly diversity in tropical moist deciduous sal (Shorea robusta)
forests of Dehradun valley: the lower western Himalayas. Indian Forester
129(10): 1257–1269.
Singh, A.P.
& R.S. Bhandari (2006). New Additions to the Butterflies of Dehradun valley, the lower Western
Himalayas. Indian Forester 132(6): 767–769.
Singh, A.P.
& S. Sondhi (2016). Butterflies of Garhwal, Uttarakhand, western Himalaya, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 8(4): 8666–8697. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2254.8.4.8666-8697
Singh, A.P.
(2016). Recent
records of the Pale Jezebel Delias sanaca sanaca (Moore, 1857)
(Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from Mussoorie hills, western Himalaya, India.
Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(12): 9473–9478. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2834.8.12.9473–9478
Singh, A.P.
& S. Seal (2019). Occurrence of Dark Sapphire Heliophorus indicus Fruhstorfer,
1908 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Bugs R
All #175, In: Zoo’s Print 34 (7): 33–34.
Singh, A.P.
& T. Singh (2019). Recent records of the rare Mountain Tortoiseshell Aglais rizana
(Moore, 1872) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the upper Garhwal, western
Himalaya, India, after 100 years. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(15):
15068–15071. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5276.11.15.15068-15071
Si gh, A.P.
& T. Singh (2020). Occurrence and association of the Scarce Lilacfork Lethe dura
gammiei (Moore, [1892]) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) with
Woolly-leaved Oak Quercus lanata Smith, 1819 (Fabaceae) forest in the
Kumaon region of the Indian Himalaya. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(3):
15387–15390. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.5467.12.3.15387-15390
Singh, A.P.
& T. Singh (2021). Habitat association and hybridization in woodbrowns (Lethe nicetas,
L. sidonis & L. dakwania)
(Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) in Kedarnath Musk
Deer Reserve, western Himalaya. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(3): 18045–18049. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6517.13.3.18045-18049
Singh, A.P.
& T. Singh (2021). First record of White-ringed Meadowbrown, Hyponephele davendra
davendra (Moore, 1865) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) from inner valleys of
Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 118(2):
1–5. https://doi.org/10.17087/jbnhs/2021/v118/152490
Singh, A.P. &
T. Singh (2022). Occurrence of Dubious Five-Ring, Ypthima parasakra Eliot in
Garhwal Himalaya. Indian Journal of Entomology 84(1): 1–3.
Smetacek, P.
(2002). The genus Pontia
Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in the Kumaon Himalaya. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society 99(2): 224–231.
Smetacek, P.
(2004). Descriptions
of new Lepidoptera from the Kumaon Himalaya. Journal of the Bombay Natural
History Society 101(2): 269–276.
Smetacek, P.
(2011). Four new
Lycaenid records from the Kumaon Himalaya. Journal of Threatened Taxa
3(2): 1555–1558. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2224.1555-8
Smetacek, P.
(2012). A new
sub-species of Mycalesis suaveolens Wood-Mason & de Niceville 1883
from the western Himalaya, India (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae, Satyrinae).
Nachrichten Entomolgischen Vereins Apollo 32: 105–108.
Smetacek, P.
(2012). Butterflies
(Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperoidea) and other protected fauna of Jones
Estate, a dying watershed in the Kumaon Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 4(9): 2857–2874. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3020.2857-74
Smith, C. (1989). Butterflies of Nepal (Central Himalaya). Tecpress Service L.P.,
Bangkok, 352 pp.
Smith, C. (2006). Illustrated Checklist of Nepal Butterflies. Craftman Press,
Bangkok, 129 pp.
Sondhi, S.
(2017). First
records of butterflies Anthene emolus emolus (Godart, [1924])
(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Polyommatinae) and Gandaca harina assamica Moore, [1906]
(Lepidoptera: Pieridae: Coliadinae) from Kumaon, Uttarakhand, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 9(6): 10355–10357. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3233.9.6.10355-10357
Sondhi, S.
& K. Kunte (2018). Butterflies of Uttarakhand- A Field Guide. Bishen Singh Mahendra
Pal Singh (Dehradun), Titli Trust (Dehradun) National Centre for Biological
Sciences (Bengaluru).
Swinhoe, C.
(1905–1910). Lepidoptera
Indica.Part VII. Rhopalocera–Papilionidae & Lycaenidae. Lovell, Reeve
& Co. Ltd, London, 286 pp +pls.551–639.
Swinhoe, C.
(1910–1911). Lepidoptera
Indica. Part VIII. Rhopalocera - Lycaenidae. Lovell, Reeve & Co. Ltd.,
London, 293 pp + pls. 640–705.
Swinhoe, C.
(1911–1912). Lepidoptera
Indica Part IX. Rhopalocera–Lycaenidae & Hesperiidae. Lovell, Reeve
& Co. Ltd., London, 278 pp +pls. 706–756.
Swinhoe, C.
(1912–1913). Lepidoptera
Indica. Part X. Rhopalocera - Hesperiidae. Lovell, Reeve & Co. Ltd.,
London, 364 pp + pls. 757–835.
Talbot, G.
(1939). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Butterflies. 2nd edition. Vol.
I . Taylor & Francis, London, 600 pp.
Talbot, G.
(1947). The Fauna
of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Butterflies. 2nd edition. Vol.
II. Taylor & Francis, London, 506 pp.
Thomas, J.A.
(1983). A quick
method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biological
Conservation 27(3): 195–211.
Thomas, C.D.
& H.C. Mallorie (1985). Rarity, species richness and conservation: butterflies of the Atlas
mountains in Morocco. Biological Conservation 33(2): 95–117.
Vasudevan, K.
& S. Sondhi (2010). Amphibians and Reptiles of Uttarakhand, India. Wildlife
Institute of India, 53 pp.
Verma, A.
& M.K. Arya (2018). A preliminary study on the status and distribution of Butterfly Fauna
in and around the valley of Reetha Sahib, Champawat, Kumaun Himalaya, India. Biological
Forum- An International Journal 10(1): 43–51.
Wells, S.M.,
M.R. Pyle & M. Collins (1983).The IUCN invertebrate Red Data
Book. IUCN,
Switzerland, 623 pp.
Wynter-Blyth,
M.A. (1957). Butterflies
of the Indian Region. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, xx+523 pp+72
pls.
Appendix I. List of protected
areas in Uttarakhand state, India
|
|
Name |
Area (km2) |
|
1 |
Corbett National
Park |
520.82 |
|
2 |
Gangotri National
Park |
2390 |
|
3 |
Govind National
Park |
558.88 |
|
4 |
Nanda Devi National
Park |
624.6 |
|
5 |
Rajaji National
Park |
819.54 |
|
6 |
Valley of Flowers
National Park |
87.50 |
|
7 |
Askot Wildlife
Sanctuary |
600 |
|
8 |
Asan Conservation
Reserve |
4.44 |
|
9 |
Binsar Wildlife
Sanctuary |
45.59 |
|
10 |
Govind Wildlife
Sanctuary |
481.05 |
|
11 |
Jhilmil
Conservation Reserve |
37.84 |
|
12 |
Kedarnath Wildlife
Sanctuary |
975.20 |
|
13 |
Benog/Mussoorie
Wildlife Sanctuary |
10.82 |
|
14 |
Nandhaur Wildlife
Sanctuary |
269.96 |
|
15 |
Pawalgarh
Conservation Reserve |
58.25 |
|
16 |
Sonanadi Wildlife
Sanctuary |
301.18 |
|
17 |
Naina Devi Bird
Conservation Reserve |
111.90 |
Appendix II. Vegetation
compostion of forest sub-types sampled in the state taken up for study.
|
|
Forest sub-type |
Area (km2) |
Percent of state cover |
Dominant trees |
|
1 |
3C/C2a Moist Shiwalik Sal
Forest |
3158 |
12.97 |
Shorea robusta, Anogeissus
latifolia, Terminalia tomentosa,T.bellerica, Adina cordifolia, Lannea
coromandelica, Mallotus philippensis |
|
2 |
3C/C2c Moist Terai Sal Forest |
542 |
2.19 |
Shorea robusta, Adina
cordifolia, T.alata, Terwia
nudiflora, Syzygium cumini, Litsea glutinosa, Lagerstroemia parviflora,
Cordia dichotoma, Putranjiva roxburghii,Litsea monopetla, Pogostemon
benghalensis. |
|
3 |
5B/C1a Dry Shiwalik Sal Forest |
236 |
1.5 |
Shorea robusta, Anogeissus latifolia,
Buchanania lanzan, Terminalia tomentosa, Bauhinia variegata, Emblica
officinalis, Acacia catechu, Pinus roxburghii, Schleichera oleosa, Cassia
fistula, Zizyphus xylopyrus(B. vahlii-shrub) |
|
4 |
5B/C2 Northern Dry Mixed
Deciduous Forest |
678 |
2.82 |
Anogeissus latifolia, Boswellia
serrata, Acacia catechu, Shorea robusta, Bauhinia spp.,Bauchanania
lanzan, Diospyros tomentosa, Teminalian bellerica, Kydiacalycina, Sterculia
lappeus, Miytragyna parvifolia, Aegle marmelos, Butea monsperma, Flacourtia
indica, Zizyphus mauratina |
|
5 |
5/1S2 Khair-Sissu Forest |
236 |
0.98 |
Dalbergia sissoo, Acacia
catechu, Zyzyphus mauratiana, Ehretia laevis, Holoptelea integrifolia. |
|
6 |
9/C1b Upper or Himalayan Chir
Pine Forest |
6278 |
26.07 |
Pinus roxburghii, Quercus
leucotrichophora; Lyonia ovalifolia, Rhododendron arboreum, Pyrus pashia,
Myrica esculanta, Pyracantha crenulata, Symplocos crataegoides. |
|
7 |
12/C1a Ban Oak Forest |
4798 |
20.23 |
Quercus leucotrichophora,
Rhododendron arboreum, Lyonia ovalifolia, Rhus semialata, Symplocos
crataegoides, Benthamidia capitata, Carpinus viminea,Betula alnoides |
|
8 |
12/C1b Moru Oak Forest |
9317 |
3.95 |
Quercus floribunda,
Q.leucotrichophora, Pinus wallichiana, Betula alnoides, Carpinus viminea,
Acer caesium, Michilus duthei, Aesculus indica, Abies pindrow, Picea smithiana, Juglans regia. |
|
9 |
12/C1c Moist Deodar Forest |
485 |
1.96 |
Cedrus deodara, Pinus
wallichiana, Quercus leucotrichophora |
|
10 |
12/C1d Western Mixed Coniferous
Forest- Spruce, Blue Pine, Silver Fir |
513 |
2.19 |
Picea smithiana, Cedrus
deodara, Abies pindrow, Pinus wallichiana Quercus floribunda,
Q.semecarpifolia, Q.leucotrichophora, Acer caesium, A.pictum, A. acuminatum,
Euonymus lacerus, Taxus baccata, Betula alnoides. |
|
11 |
12/C1e Moist Temperate
Deciduous Forest |
246 |
1.07 |
Alnus nepalensis, Aesculus
indica, Acer caesium, A.pictum, Carpinus viminea, Ulmus wallichiana, Betula
alnoides, Juglans regia, Fraxinus micrantha, Quercus leucotrichophora,
Q.floribunda, Q.semecarpifolia. Prunus cornuta, Rhododendron arboreum. |
|
12 |
12/C2a Kharsu Oak Forest (Q.
semecarpifolia) |
227 |
0.99 |
Quercus semecarpifolia,
Abiespindrow, Betula alnoides, Q. floribunda, Acer caesium, Ilex dipyrena,
Taxus baccata. |
|
13 |
12/C2b West Himalayan Upper
Oak/Fir Forest |
1087 |
4.57 |
Abiespindrow, Piceasmithiana, Quercus
semecarpifolia, Q.floribunda, Pyrus lanata, Acer caesium, Meliosma
dilleniaefolia, Eunonymus lacerus, Ilex diprena, Sorbussoliosa, Rhododendron arboreum, R. barbatum, Ulmus
wallichiana, Aesc ulus indica, Corylus colurna |
|
14 |
12/2S1 Low Level Blue Pine
Forest |
384 |
1.54 |
Pinus wallichiana, Quercus
leucotrichophora |
|
15 |
13/C2b Dry Deodar Forest |
363 |
1.46 |
Cedrus deodara, Pinus
wallichiana, Picea smithiana, Corylus colurna |
|
16 |
14/C1a West Himalayan
Sub-Alpine High Level Fir Forest |
195 |
0.78 |
Abies spectalilis, Pinus
wallichiana, Piceasmithiana, Rhododendron companulatum, Taxus baccata, Prunus
padus |
|
17 |
14/C1b West Himalayan
Sub-Alpine Birch/Fir Forest |
583 |
2.47 |
Abies spectabilis, Acer
cappadociccum, Betula utilis, Quercus semecarpifolia, Rhododendron
campanulatum, R. anthopogon, Lyonia ovalifolia, Sorbusfoliolosa |
|
18 |
14/1S2 Deciduous Sub-Alpine
Scrub |
200 |
0.86 |
Betula utilis |
|
19 |
15/C1 Birch/Rhododendron Scrub
Forest |
136 |
0.56 |
Betula utilis, Rhododendron
companulatum, Sorbus foliolosa, Quercus semecarpifolia |
|
20 |
15/E1 Dwarf Rhododendron Scrub |
32 |
0.13 |
Rhododendron anthopogon, R.
lepidotum, R. companulatum, Ilex diprena |
Source: Champion & Seth
(1968).
Appendix III. Complete list of
butterflies sampled in 20 different forest types of Uttarakhand ranked
according to their relative abundances (2006–2009 & 2017–2020).
|
|
Butterfly species |
|
A. |
Very Common |
|
1 |
Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
2 |
Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
3 |
Ypthima sakra sakra Moore, [1858] |
|
4 |
Pieris canidia indica Evans, 1926 |
|
5 |
Celastrina huegeli huegeli (Moore, 1882) |
|
6 |
Aporia agathon (Gray, 1831) |
|
7 |
Junonia iphita iphita (Cramer, [1779]) |
|
8 |
Callerebia nirmala (Moore, 1865) |
|
9 |
Aglais caschmirensis aesis (Fruhstorfer,
1912) |
|
10 |
Papilio polytes romulus Cramer, [1775] |
|
11 |
Pseudozizeeria maha maha (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
12 |
Acytolepis puspa (Horsfield, [1828]) |
|
13 |
Aulocera swaha swaha (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
14 |
Dodona durga durga (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
15 |
Leptosia nina (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
16 |
Neptis hylas varmona Moore, 1872 |
|
17 |
Vanessa indica indica (Herbst, 1794) |
|
18 |
Euploea core core (Cramer, [1780]) |
|
19 |
Arhopala amantes apella (Swinhoe, 1886) |
|
20 |
Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
21 |
Neptis mahendra mahendra Moore, 1872 |
|
22 |
Gonepteryx rhamni nepalensis Doubleday, 1847 |
|
23 |
Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
24 |
Celastrina lavendularis
limbatus (Moore,
1879) |
|
25 |
Ypthima huebneri Kirby, 1871 |
|
26 |
Junonia lemonias lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
27 |
Lethe sidonis (Hewitson, 1863) |
|
28 |
Ariadne merione tapestrina (Moore,
1884) |
|
29 |
Lasiommata schakra schakra (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
30 |
Symbrenthia lilaea khasiana Moore, [1875] |
|
31 |
Phalanta phalantha phalantha (Drury, [1773]) |
|
32 |
Callerebia hybrida Butler, 1880 |
|
33 |
Arhopala atrax (Hewitson, 1862) |
|
34 |
Callerebia scanda scanda (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
35 |
Parantica aglea melanoides Moore, 1883 |
|
36 |
Athyma opalina opalina Kollar, 1844 |
|
37 |
Heliophorus sena (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
38 |
Prosotas nora ardates (Moore, [1875]) |
|
39 |
Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
40 |
Colias fieldii Ménétriés, 1855 |
|
41 |
Ypthima nikaea Moore, [1875] |
|
42 |
Cepora nerissa phryne (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
43 |
Danaus chrysippus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
44 |
Lethe verma verma (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
45 |
Ypthima inica Hewitson, [1865] |
|
46 |
Ypthima baldus baldus (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
47 |
Pareronia hippia (Fabricius, 1787) |
|
48 |
Castalius rosimon rosimon (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
49 |
Heliophorus tamu tamu (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
50 |
Acraea issoria issoria (Hübner, [1819]) |
|
51 |
Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus, 1767) |
|
52 |
Cyrestis thyodamas ganescha Kollar, 1848 |
|
53 |
Jamides celeno celeno (Cramer, [1775]) |
|
54 |
Delias belladonna horsfieldi (Gray, 1831) |
|
55 |
Neopithecops zalmora zalmora (Butler, [1870]) |
|
56 |
Euploea mulciber mulciber (Cramer, [1777]) |
|
57 |
Euaspa milionia milionia (Hewitson, [1869]) |
|
58 |
Sephisa dichroa (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
59 |
Issoria issaea (Doherty, 1886) |
|
60 |
Prosotas dubiosa indica (Evans, [1925]) |
|
61 |
Junonia atlites atlites (Linnaeus, 1763) |
|
62 |
Callerebia annada caeca (Watkins, 1925) |
|
63 |
Ypthima nareda (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
64 |
Danaus genutia genutia (Cramer, [1779]) |
|
65 |
Papilio demoleus demoleus Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
66 |
Mycalesis perseus blasius Fabricius, 1798 |
|
67 |
Arhopala ganesa ganesa (Moore, [1858]) |
|
68 |
Colias erate (Esper, 1805) |
|
69 |
Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) |
|
70 |
Junonia hierta hierta (Fabricius, 1798) |
|
71 |
Parantica sita sita (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
72 |
Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865) |
|
73 |
Cupha erymanthis lotis (Sulzer, 1776) |
|
74 |
Athyma perius perius (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
75 |
Kaniska canace canace (Linnaeus, 1763) |
|
76 |
Ixias pyrene (Linnaeus, 1764) |
|
77 |
Zizina otis otis (Fabricius, 1787) |
|
78 |
Hypolimnas bolina jacintha (Drury, 1773) |
|
79 |
Chrysozephyrus birupa Moore, 1877 |
|
80 |
Acraea terpsicore (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
81 |
Lycaena phlaeas baralacha (Moore, 1884) |
|
82 |
Delias eucharis (Drury, 1773) |
|
83 |
Celaenorrhinus leucocera (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
84 |
Junonia almana almana (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
85 |
Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
86 |
Pelopidas mathias mathias (Fabricius, 1798) |
|
87 |
Melanitis leda leda (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
88 |
Charaxes bharata C. & R. Felder,
[1867] |
|
89 |
Argynnis childreni sakontala Kollar, [1848] |
|
90 |
Esakiozephyrus icana icana (Moore, [1875]) |
|
91 |
Libythea lepita lepita Moore, [1858] |
|
B. |
Common |
|
92 |
Euthalia patala patala (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
93 |
Pantoporia hordonia hordonia (Stoll, [1790]) |
|
94 |
Orinoma damaris damaris Gray, 1846 |
|
95 |
Tanaecia lepidea lepidea (Butler, 1868) |
|
96 |
Chilades pandava pandava (Horsfield, [1829] |
|
97 |
Papilio protenor protenor Cramer, [1775] |
|
98 |
Lycaena panava (Westwood, 1852) |
|
99 |
Talicada nyseus nyseus (Guérin-Méneville,
1843) |
|
100 |
Oriens gola pseudolus (Mabille, 1883) |
|
101 |
Dodona dipoea nostia Fruhstorfer, 1912 |
|
102 |
Moduza procris (Cramer, [1777]) |
|
103 |
Rapala manea schistacea (Moore, 1879) |
|
104 |
Pseudocoladenia fatih (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
105 |
Byasa polyeuctes letincius (Fruhstorfer, 1908) |
|
106 |
Elymnias hypermnestra undularis (Drury, 1773) |
|
107 |
Euthalia lubentina lubentina (Cramer, [1777]) |
|
108 |
Zemeros flegyas flegyas (Cramer, [1780] |
|
109 |
Rhaphicera moorei moorei (Butler, 1867) |
|
110 |
Callerebia hyagriva hyagriva (Moore, [1858]) |
|
111 |
Hypolycaena othona othona Hewitson, [1865] |
|
112 |
Dodona eugenes Bates, [1868] |
|
113 |
Sarangesa dasahara (Moore, [1866]) |
|
114 |
Eurema brigitta rubella (Wallace, 1867) |
|
115 |
Mycalesis mineus mineus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
116 |
Abisara bifasciata suffusa Moore, 1882 |
|
117 |
Euthalia aconthea garuda (Moore, [1858]) |
|
118 |
Rapala varuna orseis (Hewitson, [1863]) |
|
119 |
Graphium cloanthus cloanthus (Westwood, 1841) |
|
120 |
Curetis acuta dentata Moore, 1879 |
|
121 |
Heliophorus moorei coruscans (Moore, 1882) |
|
122 |
Notocrypta curvifascia
curvifascia (C. &
R. Felder, 1862) |
|
123 |
Eurema laeta laeta (Boisduval, 1836) |
|
124 |
Celatoxia marginata marginata (de Nicéville,
[1884]) |
|
125 |
Papilio bianor polyctor Boisduval, 1836 |
|
126 |
Lethe confusa confusa Aurivillius, [1898] |
|
127 |
Lethe dura gammiei (Moore, [1892]) |
|
128 |
Kallima inachus inachus (Doyère, [1840]) |
|
129 |
Catochrysops strabo strabo (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
130 |
Aporia leucodice (Eversmann, 1843) |
|
131 |
Polytremis eltola eltola (Hewitson, 1869) |
|
132 |
Symbrenthia hypselis cotanda Moore, [1875] |
|
133 |
Megisba malaya sikkima Moore, 1884 |
|
134 |
Neptis ananta ananta Moore, [1858] |
|
135 |
Graphium nomius nomius (Esper, 1799) |
|
136 |
Belenois aurota aurota (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
137 |
Pseudergolis wedah wedah (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
138 |
Arhopala dodonaea (Moore, [1858]) |
|
139 |
Chilades lajus lajus (Stoll, [1780]) |
|
140 |
Poritia hewitsoni hewitsoni Moore, [1866] |
|
141 |
Pieris melete ajaka Moore, 1865 |
|
142 |
Lethe isana isana (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
143 |
Leptotes plinius plinius (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
144 |
Neptis sankara sankara (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
145 |
Rapala nissa nissa (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
146 |
Byasa latreillei latreillei (Donovan, 1826) |
|
147 |
Lethe nicetas (Hewitson, 1863) |
|
148 |
Tirumala septentrionis
septentrionis (Butler,
1874) |
|
149 |
Parnara guttatus mangala (Moore, [1866]) |
|
150 |
Eurema andersonii jordani Corbet &
Pendlebury, 1932 |
|
151 |
Stibochiona nicea nicea (Gray, 1846) |
|
152 |
Auzakia danava danava (Moore, [1858]) |
|
153 |
Celaenorrhinus patula de Nicéville, 1889 |
|
154 |
Pelopidas assamensis (de Nicéville,
1882) |
|
155 |
Symphaedra nais (Forster, 1771) |
|
156 |
Abisara fylla (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
157 |
Graphium sarpedon sarpedon (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
158 |
Troides aeacus (C. & R.
Felder, 1860) |
|
159 |
Hestinalis nama nama (Doubleday, 1844) |
|
160 |
Neptis nata yerburii Butler, 1886 |
|
161 |
Vagrans egista sinha (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
162 |
Heliophorus oda (Hewitson, 1865) |
|
163 |
Oriens goloides (Moore, [1881]) |
|
164 |
Argynnis hyperbius hyperbius (Linnaeus, 1763) |
|
165 |
Tirumala limniace exoticus (Gmélin, 1790) |
|
166 |
Udara albocaeruleus
albocaeruleus (Moore,
1879) |
|
167 |
Zizula hylax hylax (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
168 |
Matapa aria (Moore, [1866]) |
|
169 |
Pachliopta aristolochiae
aristolochiae (Fabricius,
1775) |
|
170 |
Athyma selenophora selenophora (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
171 |
Lethe europa niladana Fruhstorfer, 1911 |
|
172 |
Libythea myrrha sanguinalis Fruhstorfer, 1898 |
|
173 |
Ypthima asterope mahratta Moore, 1884 |
|
174 |
Tarucus indica Evans, 1932 |
|
175 |
Udara dilectus dilectus (Moore, 1879) |
|
176 |
Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) |
|
177 |
Pelopidas subochracea (Moore, 1878) |
|
178 |
Ixias marianne (Cramer, [1779]) |
|
179 |
Argynnis kamala Moore, [1858] |
|
180 |
Telinga heri (Moore, [1858]) |
|
181 |
Taractrocera danna (Moore, 1865) |
|
182 |
Telicota bambusae bambusae (Moore, 1878) |
|
183 |
Chrysozephyrus syla Kollar, 1848 |
|
184 |
Lobocla liliana ignatius (Plötz, 1882) |
|
185 |
Pelopidas sinensis (Mabille, 1877) |
|
C. |
Fairly Common (Median) |
|
186 |
Delias sanaca sanaca(Moore, [1858]) |
|
187 |
Pontia daplidice moorei (Röber, [1907]) |
|
188 |
Lethe rohria rohria (Fabricius, 1787) |
|
189 |
Tagiades litigiosa litigiosa Möschler, 1878 |
|
190 |
Aulocera saraswati saraswati (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
191 |
Mycalesis visala visala Moore, [1858] |
|
192 |
Neptis melba melba Evans, 1912 |
|
193 |
Symbrenthia brabira brabira Moore, 1872 |
|
194 |
Everes argiades diporides Chapman, 1908 |
|
195 |
Jamides bochus bochus (Stoll, [1782]) |
|
196 |
Tarucus nara (Kollar, 1848) |
|
197 |
Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
198 |
Hypolimnas misippus (Linnaeus, 1764) |
|
199 |
Spialia galba galba (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
200 |
Papilio clytia clytia Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
201 |
Melanitis phedima bela Moore, [1858] |
|
202 |
Tarucus venosus Moore, 1882 |
|
203 |
Athyma cama cama Moore, [1858] |
|
204 |
Celastrina gigas (Hemming, 1928) |
|
205 |
Byasa dasarada ravana (Moore, [1858]) |
|
206 |
Neptis sappho astola Moore, 1872 |
|
207 |
Loxura atymnus continentalis Fruhstorfer,
[1912] |
|
208 |
Oreolyce vardhana vardhana (Moore, [1875]) |
|
209 |
Shizuyaozephyrus ziha (Hewitson, [1865]) |
|
210 |
Surendra quercetorum
quercetorum (Moore,
[1858]) |
|
211 |
Graphium agamemnon agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
212 |
Neope yama buckleyi Talbot, 1947 |
|
213 |
Neptis clinia praedicta Smetacek, 2011 |
|
214 |
Phaedyma columella ophiana (Moore, 1872) |
|
215 |
Everes lacturnus assamica Tytler, 1915 |
|
216 |
Horaga onyx onyx (Moore, [1858]) |
|
217 |
Atrophaneura varuna astorion (Westwood, 1842) |
|
218 |
Euripus consimilis consimilis (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
219 |
Neope pulaha pandyia (Talbot, 1947) |
|
220 |
Telinga lepcha lepcha (Moore, 1880) |
|
221 |
Arhopala rama rama (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
222 |
Euchrysops cnejus cnejus (Fabricius, 1798) |
|
223 |
Spindasis vulcanus vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
224 |
Notocrypta feisthamelii alysos (Moore, [1866]) |
|
225 |
Telicota colon colon (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
226 |
Parnassius hardwickei Gray, 1831 |
|
227 |
Neptis cartica cartica Moore, 1872 |
|
228 |
Rapala iarbus sorya (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
229 |
Papilio paris paris Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
230 |
Athyma asura asura Moore, [1858] |
|
231 |
Aricia agestis nazira (Moore, [1866]) |
|
232 |
Deudorix epijarbas epijarbas (Moore, [1858]) |
|
233 |
Rapala selira (Moore, 1874) |
|
234 |
Burara jaina jaina (Moore, [1866]) |
|
235 |
Iambrix salsala salsala (Moore, [1866]) |
|
236 |
Meandrusa lachinus lachinus (Fruhstorfer, 1902) |
|
237 |
Papilio agestor govindra Moore, 1864 |
|
238 |
Charaxes bernardus hierax C. & R. Felder,
[1867] |
|
239 |
Mycalesis francisca sanatana Moore, [1858] |
|
240 |
Neptis soma butleri Eliot, 1969 |
|
241 |
Neptis zaida zaida Doubleday, [1848] |
|
242 |
Hypolycaena kina kina Hewitson, [1869] |
|
243 |
Borbo bevani (Moore, 1878) |
|
244 |
Sarangesa purendra purendra Moore, 1882 |
|
245 |
Graphium eurous caschmirensis (Rothschild, 1895) |
|
246 |
Hestina persimilis zella Butler, 1869 |
|
247 |
Paralasa kalinda kalinda Moore, 1865 |
|
248 |
Polygonia c-album cognata Moore, [1899] |
|
249 |
Telinga nicotia (Westwood, [1850]) |
|
250 |
Freyeria trochylus orientalis Forster, 1980 |
|
251 |
Pratapa icetas icetas (Hewitson, [1865]) |
|
252 |
Caprona agama agama (Moore, [1858]) |
|
253 |
Celaenorrhinus munda (Moore, 1884) |
|
254 |
Celaenorrhinus pulomaya
pulomaya (Moore,
[1866]) |
|
255 |
Suastus gremius gremius (Fabricius, 1798) |
|
256 |
Udaspes folus (Cramer, [1775]) |
|
257 |
Ypthima kedarnathensis Singh, 2007 |
|
258 |
Heliophorus brahma brahma (Moore, [1858]) |
|
259 |
Ampittia dioscorides
dioscorides (Fabricius,
1793) |
|
260 |
Burara oedipodea belesis (Mabille, 1876) |
|
261 |
Sovia lucasii (Mabille, 1876) |
|
262 |
Polytremis discreta discreta (Elwes &
Edwards, 1897) |
|
263 |
Papilio arcturus arius Rothschild, 1908 |
|
264 |
Dilipa morgiana (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
265 |
Nymphalis xanthomelas fervescens (Stichel, [1908]) |
|
266 |
Celastrina argiolus kollari (Westwood, [1852]) |
|
267 |
Spindasis ictis ictis (Hewitson, 1865) |
|
268 |
Zesius chrysomallus Hübner, [1819] |
|
269 |
Caprona ransonnettii potiphera (Hewitson, 1873) |
|
270 |
Potanthus dara (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
271 |
Tagiades menaka menaka (Moore, [1866]) |
|
272 |
Tarucus callinara (Butler, 1886) |
|
273 |
Anthene emolus emolus (Godart, [1824]) |
|
D. |
Uncommon |
|
274 |
Aulocera brahminus (Blanchard, 1853) |
|
275 |
Symbrenthia niphanda hysudra Moore, 1874 |
|
276 |
Freyeria putli (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
277 |
Iraota timoleon timoleon (Stoll, [1790]) |
|
278 |
Tajuria cippus cippus (Fabricius, 1798) |
|
279 |
Tajuria diaeus diaeus (Hewitson, [1865]) |
|
280 |
Choaspes benjaminii japonica (Murray, 1875) |
|
281 |
Hyarotis adrastus praba (Moore, [1866]) |
|
282 |
Pelopidas conjuncta conjuncta (Herrich-Schäffer,
1869) |
|
283 |
Graphium doson axionides (Page &
Treadaway, 2014) |
|
284 |
Aporia agathon phryxe (Boisduval, 1836) |
|
285 |
Charaxes dolon dolon Westwood, [1848] |
|
286 |
Mimathyma ambica ambica (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
287 |
Ypthima indecora Moore, 1882 |
|
288 |
Ancema ctesia ctesia (Hewitson, [1865]) |
|
289 |
Chaetoprocta odata peilei Forster, 1980 |
|
290 |
Curetis bulis bulis (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
291 |
Thermozephyrus ataxus ataxus (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
292 |
Virachola perse perse (Hewitson, [1863]) |
|
293 |
Aeromachus stigmata stigmata (Moore, 1878) |
|
294 |
Celaenorrhinus dhanada (Moore, [1866]) |
|
295 |
Tagiades japetus ravi (Moore, [1866]) |
|
296 |
Gandaca harina assamica Moore, 1906 |
|
297 |
Neptis narayana Moore, 1858 |
|
298 |
Ypthima hannyngtoni hannyngtoniEliot, 1967 |
|
299 |
Arhopala paraganesa paraganesa (de Nicéville,
1882) |
|
300 |
Azanus ubaldus (Stoll, [1782]) |
|
301 |
Aeromachus dubius Elwes &
Edwards, 1897 |
|
302 |
Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
303 |
Argynnis jainadeva jainadeva Moore, 1864 |
|
304 |
Aulocera padma padma (Kollar, [1844]) |
|
305 |
Lethe baladeva aisa Fruhstorfer, 1911 |
|
306 |
Lethe sinorix sinorix (Hewitson, [1863]) |
|
307 |
Spindasis nipalicus (Moore, 1884) |
|
308 |
Baoris farri (Moore, 1878) |
|
309 |
Bibasis sena sena (Moore, [1866]) |
|
310 |
Atrophaneura aidoneus (Doubleday, 1845) |
|
311 |
Graphium garhwalica (Katayama, 1988) |
|
312 |
Aporia agathon caphusa (Moore, 1872) |
|
313 |
Gonepteryx mahaguru mahaguru Gistel, 1857 |
|
314 |
Ariadne ariadne pallidior (Fruhstorfer,
1899) |
|
315 |
Charaxes solon solon (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
316 |
Pantoporia sandaka davidsoni Eliot, 1969 |
|
317 |
Tanaecia julii appiades (Ménétriés,
1857) |
|
318 |
Ypthima avanta Moore, [1875] |
|
319 |
Flos asoka (de Nicéville,
[1884]) |
|
320 |
Petrelaea dana (de Nicéville,
[1884]) |
|
321 |
Rapala pheretima petosiris (Hewitson, [1863]) |
|
322 |
Sinthusa chandrana chandrana (Moore, 1882) |
|
323 |
Spalgis epius epius (Westwood, [1851]) |
|
324 |
Virachola isocrates (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
325 |
Dodona ouida phlegra Fruhstorfer, 1914 |
|
326 |
Celaenorrhinus pero pero de Nicéville, 1889 |
|
327 |
Coladenia indrani indrani (Moore, [1866]) |
|
328 |
Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878) |
|
329 |
Odontoptilum angulata angulata (C. Felder, 1862) |
|
330 |
Seseria dohertyi dohertyi (Watson, 1893) |
|
331 |
Taractrocera maevius (Fabricius, 1793) |
|
332 |
Papilio alcmenor alcmenor C. & R. Felder,
[1864] |
|
333 |
Papilio memnon agenor Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
334 |
Parnassius epaphus Oberthür, 1879 |
|
335 |
Appias lalage (Doubleday, 1842) |
|
336 |
Appias libythea (Fabricius, 1775) |
|
337 |
Aglais rizana (Moore, 1872) |
|
338 |
Athyma inara inara Westwood, 1850 |
|
339 |
Euploea midamus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
|
340 |
Hyponephele pulchella (C. & R.
Felder, [1867]) |
|
341 |
Lethe dakwania Tytler, 1939 |
|
342 |
Mycalesis suaveolens ranotei Smetacek, 2012 |
|
343 |
Everes hugelii hugelii (Gistel, 1857) |
|
344 |
Heliophorus indicus (Fruhstorfer, 1908) |
|
345 |
Horaga viola Moore, 1882 |
|
346 |
Pratapa deva lila Moore, [1884] |
|
347 |
Spindasis elima uniformis (Moore, 1882) |
|
348 |
Tajuria jehana jehana Moore, [1884] |
|
349 |
Baoris pagana (de Nicéville,
1887) |
|
350 |
Caltoris kumara (Moore, 1878) |
|
351 |
Erionota torus Evans, 1941 |
|
352 |
Pedesta masuriensis masuriensis
(Moore,
1878) |
|
353 |
Sovia grahami grahami (Evans, 1926) |
|
354 |
Papilio bootes janaka Moore, 1857 |
|
355 |
Papilio helenus helenus Linnaeus, 1758 |
|
356 |
Parnassius charltonius Gray, [1853] |
|
357 |
Colotis etrida (Boisduval, 1836) |
|
358 |
Delias acalis pyramus (Wallace, 1867) |
|
359 |
Charaxes agrarius Swinhoe, [1887] |
|
360 |
Hyponephele davendra davendra (Moore, 1865) |
|
361 |
Lethe goalpara goalpara (Moore, [1866]) |
|
362 |
Polygonia c-album agnicula (Moore, 1872) |
|
363 |
Ypthima parasakra Eliot, 1987 |
|
364 |
Heliophorus epicles latilimbata
(Fruhstorfer,
1908) |
|
365 |
Miletus chinensis assamensis (Doherty, 1891) |
|
366 |
Spindasis lohita himalayanus (Moore, 1884) |
|
367 |
Hasora chromus (Cramer, [1780]) |
|
368 |
Thoressa aina (de Nicéville,
1889) |
|
369 |
Maneca bhotea bhotea (Moore, 1884) |
|
370 |
Celaenorrhinus pyrrha de Nicéville, 1889 |
|
The relative abundance of
butterfly taxa ranging from 1–1,596 individuals. The taxa are ranked into
four abundance classes based on their quartile divisions, i.e., Q1= 1–7
Uncommon; Q2= 8–21= Fairly Common; Q3= 22–69= Common; Q4=
70–1,596= Very Common; Median value= 21. |
|
Appendix IV. Butterfly taxa of
conservation priority in Uttarakhand.
|
|
Family/Scientific name |
Common name |
Distribution |
Associated forest sub-type* |
Abundance status |
WPA status |
Altitudinal distribution (m) |
|
A |
Papillionidae |
||||||
|
1 |
Byasa dasara daravana (Moore, [1858]) |
Great Windmill |
WH; CH |
12C1a; 12/C1b |
NR |
NA |
150–2750 |
|
2 |
Graphium eurous caschmirensis (Rothschild, 1895) |
Six-bar Swordtail |
WH; CH |
12C1a |
NR |
NA |
1000–2800 |
|
3 |
Graphium garhwalica (Katayama, 1988) |
Garhwal Swordtail |
WH |
12C1a |
R |
NA |
1600–2300 |
|
4 |
Parnassius charltonius Gray, [1853] |
Regal Apollo |
WH; PA |
12C1a |
R |
NA |
3600–4400 |
|
B |
PIERIDAE |
||||||
|
5 |
Aporia agathon caphusa (Moore, 1872) |
Garhwal Great Blackvein |
WH; CH |
14/C1a |
NR |
NA |
1200–3050 |
|
6 |
Aporia agathon phryxe (Boisduval, 1836) |
Kashmir Great Blackvein |
WH |
12C1a |
NR |
NA |
Up to 2100 |
|
7 |
Delias acalis pyramus (Wallace, 1867) |
Redbreast Jezebel |
WH; CH |
3C/C2a |
NR |
NA |
Up to 1500 |
|
8 |
Delias sanaca sanaca (Moore, [1858]) |
Pale Jezebel |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C1b |
NR |
Sch- I |
1200–3000 |
|
9 |
Gonepteryx mahaguru mahaguru Gistel, 1857 |
Lesser Brimstone |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
Above 2100 |
|
C |
NYMPHALIDAE |
||||||
|
10 |
Aglais rizana (Moore, 1872) |
Mountain Tortoiseshell |
WH; EH |
14/1S2 |
R |
Sch-II |
2400–4500 |
|
11 |
Lethe dura gammiei (Moore, [1892]) |
Scarce Lilacfork |
WH; EH |
12/C1a; 12/C2b |
VR |
Sch -I |
1800–2200 |
|
12 |
Polygonia c-album agnicula (Moore, 1872) |
Nepalese Comma |
WH; CH; EH |
14/C1a |
R |
Sch-II |
2200–4500 |
|
13 |
Ypthima parasakra parasakra Eliot, 1987 |
Dubious Five-ring |
WH; CH; EH |
12/2S1 |
R |
NA |
2000–2700 |
|
14 |
Argynnis jainadeva jainadeva Moore, 1864 |
HighbrownSilverspot |
WH; CH |
14/C1a |
NR |
NA |
2400–4700 |
|
15 |
Callerebia hyagriva hyagriva (Moore, [1858]) |
Brown Argus |
WH |
9/C1b |
R |
Sch-II |
1500–2400 |
|
16 |
Callerebia scanda scanda (Kollar, [1844]) |
Pallid Argus |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C1b; 12/C1d |
NR |
NA |
1200–2800 |
|
17 |
Charaxes dolon dolon Westwood, [1848] |
Stately Nawab |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 9/C1b |
R |
Sch -II |
1430–1900 |
|
18 |
Euthalia patala patala (Kollar, [1844]) |
Grand Duchess |
WH |
12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
400–2500 |
|
19 |
Hestina persimilis zellaButler, 1869 |
Siren |
WH |
12/C1a; 3C/C2a |
R |
Sch -II |
750–1460 |
|
20 |
Hyponephele davendra davendra (Moore, 1865) |
White-ringed Meadowbrown |
WH; PA |
12/C1c |
R |
Sch -II |
900–2400 |
|
21 |
Hyponephe lepulchella (C. & R.
Felder, [1867]) |
Tawny Meadowbrown |
WH; PA |
12/C2b |
NR |
NA |
3000–3600 |
|
22 |
Lethe baladeva aisa Fruhstorfer, 1911 |
Treble Silverstripe |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
Sch -II |
1800–2200 |
|
23 |
Lethe dakwania Tytler, 1939 |
White-wedged Woodbrown |
WH |
12/C2c |
R |
NA |
2300–3900 |
|
24 |
Lethe goalpara goalpara (Moore, [1866]) |
Large Goldenfork |
WH; CH |
12/C2c |
R |
Sch-II |
1800–3000 |
|
25 |
Lethe isana isana (Kollar, [1844]) |
Common Forester |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C1d; 9/C1b |
R |
NA |
1500–2700 |
|
26 |
Mycalesis suaveolens ranotei Smetacek, 2012 |
Wood-Mason's Bushbrown |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
R |
Sch-II |
1700–2133 |
|
27 |
Neope pulaha pandyia (Talbot, 1947) |
Veined Labyrinth |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c; 12/2S1 |
R |
Sch-II |
1500–3050 |
|
28 |
Neope yama buckleyi Talbot, 1947 |
Dusky Labyrinth |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
Sch-II |
1200–2370 |
|
29 |
Neptis anantaananta Moore, [1858] |
Yellow Sailer |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
NA |
400–2300 |
|
30 |
Neptis clinia praedicta Smetacek, 2011 |
Sullied Sailer |
WH |
3C/C2a; 3C/C2c; 12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
Low |
|
31 |
Neptis sankara sankara (Kollar, [1844]) |
Broad-banded Sailer |
WH |
3C/C2a; 5B/C2; 12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
800–2500 |
|
32 |
Neptis Zaida Zaida Doubleday, [1848] |
Pale Green Sailer |
WH; CH |
3C/C2a; 12/C1a |
R |
Sch-II |
900–2500 |
|
33 |
Nymphalis xanthomelas
fervescens (Stichel,
[1908]) |
Large Tortoiseshell |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2b; 14/C1a |
NR |
NA |
900–3200 |
|
34 |
Paralasa kalinda kalinda Moore, 1865 |
Scarce Mountain Argus |
WH |
3C/C2a; 3C/C2c; 12/C1a |
R |
NA |
2700–3900 |
|
35 |
Polygonia c-album cognataMoore, [1899] |
Kumaon Comma |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
2100–4800 |
|
36 |
Sephisa dichroa(Kollar, [1844]) |
Western Courtier |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C1b; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
1500–2740 |
|
37 |
Symbrenthia niphanda hysudraMoore, 1874 |
Bluetail Jester |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
Sch-II |
1000–2600 |
|
38 |
Telinga Lepcha lepcha (Moore, 1880) |
West Himalayan LepchaBushbrown |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c; 3C/C2a |
NR |
NA |
1100–2400 |
|
39 |
Ypthima avanta Moore, [1875] |
Jewel Five-ring |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
600–1800 |
|
40 |
Ypthima hannyngtoni hannyngtoni
Eliot, 1967 |
Garhwal Large Branded Five-ring |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C1b |
NR |
NA |
2100–2300 |
|
41 |
Ypthima indecora Moore, 1882 |
Western Five-ring |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
1300–1700 |
|
42 |
Ypthima kedarnathensis Singh, 2007 |
Garhwal Six-ring |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
NA |
1600–2200 |
|
D. |
LYCAENIDAE |
||||||
|
43 |
Aricia agestis nazira (Moore, [1866]) |
Orange-bordered Argus |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
1800–2980 |
|
44 |
Chrysozephyrus birupa Moore, 1877 |
Fawn Hairstreak |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
above 1400 |
|
45 |
Esakiozephyrus icana icana (Moore, [1875]) |
Dull-green Hairstreak |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C1d |
R |
Sch-II |
2000–3300 |
|
46 |
Euaspa milionia milionia (Hewitson, [1869]) |
Water Hairstreak |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
NR |
NA |
1200–2000 |
|
47 |
Heliophorus moorei coruscans (Moore, 1882) |
Azure Sapphire |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
NA |
1300–3000 |
|
48 |
Pratapa icetas icetas (Hewitson, [1865]) |
Dark Blue Royal |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2b; 12/C2c |
R |
Sch-II |
1500–2700 |
|
49 |
Shizuyaozephyrus ziha (Hewitson, [1865]) |
White-spotted Hairstreak |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
R |
Sch-II |
1200–2000 |
|
50 |
Sinthusa chandrana chandrana (Moore, 1882) |
Broad Spark |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C1d; 3C/C2a |
R |
Sch-II |
Up to 1820 |
|
51 |
Spindasis elimauni formi s (Moore, 1882) |
Scarce Shot Silverline |
WH; CH |
3C/C2a |
NR |
Sch-II |
Up to 2700 |
|
52 |
Thermozephyrus ataxus ataxus (Westwood, [1851]) |
Wonderful Hairstreak |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
NA |
1800–2400 |
|
E |
RIODINIDAE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
Dodona dipoea nostia Fruhstorfer, 1912 |
Lesser Punch |
WH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
R |
Sch-II |
1800–3000 |
|
54 |
Dodona ouida phlegra Fruhstorfer, 1914 |
Mixed Punch |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 12/C2c |
NR |
NA |
1200–2400 |
|
F |
HESPERIIDAE |
||||||
|
55 |
Celaenorrhinus peropero deNicéville, 1889 |
Mussoorie Spotted Flat |
WH |
12/C1a |
R |
NA |
1500–2000 |
|
56 |
Potanthus dara (Kollar, [1844]) |
Himalayan Dart |
WH; CH |
12/C1a; 3C/C2a |
NR |
NA |
1830–2590 |
|
57 |
Sovia lucasii (Mabille, 1876) |
Lucas’s Ace |
WH; EH |
9/C1b |
R |
NA |
1800–2000 |
|
58 |
Thoressa aina (de Nicéville,
1889) |
Garhwal Ace |
WH; CH |
12/C1a |
R |
NA |
1370–2800 |
WH–Western Himlaya | CH–Central
Himalaya |* Forest Sub-type refence Table 2 | Abundance Status (Evans 1932):
VR–Very Rare | R–Rare | NR–Not Rare | WPA–Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972
(Anonymous 2006) | Sch–Schedule listed in WPA1972 (Anon 2006).
Appendix V. Locations of Western
Himalayan forest sub-types identified holding butterfly species of conservation
priority in the state of Uttarakhand spread over different physiographic zones
along the elevation gradient.
|
|
Physiographic zone |
Forest Sub-type |
District |
Site/village/Reserve Forest |
|
A. |
Trans Himalaya (Above 3600m) |
14/C1a WestHimalayan Sub-alpine
Fir Forest |
Chamoli |
Ghamsali-Niti Pass |
|
14/1S2 Deciduous Sub-alpine
Scrub |
Chamoli |
Mana-Badrinath & Valley of
Flowers NP. |
||
|
B. |
Greater Himalaya (2400–3600m) |
12/C1a Ban Oak Forest |
Chamoli & Rudraprayag |
Mandal-Chopta-Duggalbitta-Makkumath-Kedarnath
WS |
|
Uttarkashi dist |
Naitwar-Sankri-Taluka-Osla
(Govind WS) |
|||
|
Tehri Garhwal |
Buddha Kedar-Jhala |
|||
|
12/C2c Moist Temperate
Deciduous Forest |
Chamoli & Rudra prayag |
Mandal-Chopta/Makkumath-Duggalbitta |
||
|
C. |
Lesser Himalaya (1200-2400m) |
12/C1a Ban Oak Forest |
Dehradun & Tehri Garhwal |
BenogWS-Mussoorie-Kotikimoi-Rotu-ki-beli |
|
Dehradun |
Chakrata Cantt-Deoban-Mundali
(Chakrata Forest Division) |
|||
|
Pauri |
Pauri-Talisain-Dudatoli ridge |
|||
|
Pithoragarh |
Didihat-Thal |
|||
|
Nainital |
Naina Devi Conservation
reserve-Kilbury-Pangot-Vinayak Khal |
|||
|
Almora |
Ranikhet |
|||
|
Binsar WS |
||||
|
D. |
Shiwalik-Dun/Bhabar (Below 1200m) |
3C/C2a Moist Shiwalik Sal
Forest |
Dehradun |
Timli RF-Karvapani RF |
|
Jhajra RF, Chowki
Dhaulas-Rikhouli RF |
||||
|
Pauri |
Rahuthua dhab-Mundipani-Nauri |
|||
|
E. |
Tarai (100–350m) |
3C/C2c Moist Terai Sal Forest |
Nainital |
Chorgalia-Jolasal-Senapani
(Nandhaur WS) |