Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 August 2024 | 16(8): 25675–25688

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8761.16.8.25675-25688

#8761 | Received 03 October 2023 | Final received 23 May 2024 | Finally accepted 11 July 2024

An updated checklist of the skippers (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) of Bhutan

Karma Wangdi ¹ , Piet van der Poel ² & K.C. Sajan ³

¹ Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Forest Research and Training, Lamaigoempa, Bumthang, Bhutan.

² Without fixed abode, from Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands.

³ Eastern New Mexico University, Station 33, 1500 S Ave K, Portales, New Mexico 88130, USA.

¹ kwangdi@uwice.gov.bt, ² pipoel@yahoo.com (corresponding author), ³ sajankc143@gmail.com

Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam, Centrum ALGATECH, Třeboň, Česká Republika. Date of publication: 26 August 2024 (online & print)

Citation: Wangdi, K., P. van der Poel & K.C. Sajan (2024). An updated checklist of the skippers (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) of Bhutan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(8): 25675–25688. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8761.16.8.25675-25688

Copyright: © Wangdi et al. 2024. 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: Langur Eco Travels, Thimphu, Bhutan <www.bhutanbirdingtours.com>.

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Author details: Karma Wangdi is forest ranger and trainer at the Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Forest Research and Training in Bumthang Dzongkhag, Bhutan. He conducts butterfly and biodiversity surveys and training for the Institute. Piet van der Poel worked for eight years in Bhutan on nature conservation, participatory rural appraisals, river basin management, farming systems and eco-tourism. He has studied Himalayan butterflies since 2001, when he was working as advisor for the Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary in Trashiyangtse, east Bhutan. Sajan K.C. is a biologist specialising in butterfly ecology and systematics. Holding an MS degree in Biology from Eastern New Mexico University (2023), USA, K.C. studies butterflies from around the world, shedding light on their evolution, behaviour and conservation.

Author contributions: Karma initiated the checklist project and provided all information on records from Bhutan for the species concerned. Piet carried out the literature research for these species, did a first check of the identifications, wrote the text and prepared the table. Sajan checked the identifications, commented on the text, edited some parts and wrote the abstract and conclusions.

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank all people who contributed to establishing this checklist by providing information or participating in discussions on the identification of some difficult-to-identify species: Paul van Gasse, Monsoon Jyoti Gogoi, Hao Huang, Isaac Kehimkar, Motoki Saito, Peter Smetacek, and Tshuthrim Drukpa Wangyel.

Abstract: The authors conducted a comprehensive review of Hesperiidae species in Bhutan, scrutinizing three existing checklists and 25 new records presented by Van der Poel et al. (2023). A thorough examination of all available documents and evidence confirmed 145 Hesperiidae species in Bhutan, with four additional species listed as tentative and one as “cf.” (requiring further research). The updated checklist excludes 14 species that were listed in one or more of the three existing checklists and provides justifications for not including these species. Additionally, 11 unverifiable or wrongly identified species presented by non-peer-reviewed sources were not included in the checklist. Sixteen species with no verifiable records in the last 70 years were also identified. This review provides a comprehensive and authoritative checklist of Hesperiidae species in Bhutan.

Keywords: Butterflies, Himalaya, insect fauna, Papilionoidea, review, Rhopalocera, species.

Introduction

Butterflies of Bhutan did not receive much attention until the beginning of this century. Evans (1932) noted that lists of butterfly species for Nepal, Garhwal, and Bhutan would be interesting. Evans (1949) documented 43 species collected in Bhutan, with specimens held in the British Museum. Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985) reported on butterflies of western Bhutan and presented a list of 265 butterfly species for the whole country; the list included 25 Hesperiidae. Harada (1987a,b) listed 124 species with pictures, including six Hesperiidae, for western Bhutan, based on specimens collected in April–May of 1983. Van der Poel & Wangchuk (2007) published the first guidebook featuring pictures of 136 butterfly species of Bhutan, including eight Hesperiidae. Several other survey reports, guidebooks, and local checklists were published between 2012 and 2014, mostly relying on photographic evidence, although the pictures were often not included in the documents. Wangdi et al. (2012) reported 70 butterfly species, including 16 Hesperiidae, from Trashiyangtse, based on voucher specimens collected in 2011 during a joint Bhutanese-Japanese survey in northeastern Bhutan. Wangdi & Sherub (2014) published a guidebook on the Hesperiidae of Bhutan, listing and illustrating 92 species.

In 2012, Yazaki published a 268-page book on the butterflies of Bhutan in Japanese, which included 26 Hesperiidae but the authors were unable to consult the document as it was only distributed in Japan. Around 2013, Van Gasse posted an online PDF document on the butterflies of the Indian subcontinent. His Bhutan listings were primarily based on original descriptions, Evans (1932, 1949), and subsequent publications. An updated version of his annotated checklist of butterflies of the Indian subcontinent was published online five years later (Van Gasse 2018). It is presumed that Van Gasse (2018) considered species reported in recent documents as valid records if they were likely to occur in Bhutan. The first checklist of butterflies of Bhutan was compiled by Singh & Chib (2015), who listed 670 species based on all available documents on Bhutanese butterflies, generally assuming the correctness of species identifications in these documents but omitting some unlikely or misidentified species. In contrast, Sbordoni et al. (2015) reported 533 species, primarily relying on photographs with verified identifications. The main disparity between these lists was the number of Hesperiidae species: 73 in Sbordoni et al. (2015) versus 139 in Singh & Chib (2015).

Since 2015, local butterfly photographers and surveyors have added species to the known hesperiid fauna of Bhutan. We considered some of their identifications as doubtful if the pictures did not show the necessary distinguishing characteristics. Van der Poel et al. (2023) reviewed the evidence for these reported species; they checked published documents, grey literature, their own pictures, and pictures sent to them or found posted on the internet. For first records of a species and confirmation of a tentative species, they accepted records whose identifications they were 98–100% certain of. For recent records of species already reliably reported from Bhutan, they accepted records whose identifications they were 90% or more certain of. They officially reported 25 first records of Hesperiidae for Bhutan. This included species reported before in grey literature and on the internet, which are generally considered as not “officially” published. This also included species that were reported before, based on wrong or doubtful identifications, for which they found clear evidence. Furthermore, Van der Poel et al. (2023) provided pictorial evidence of another 25 species that were not reported with verifiable evidence in the last 70 years.

Some records from “Bhutan” in old documents from the time of the British Empire were reported from areas that are not within the present-day boundaries of Bhutan. For example:

Celaenorrhinus flavocincta was described by De Nicéville (1887) based on three specimens from the collections of Messrs. Knyvett and Möller, all obtained near “Buxa, Bhutan”. However, Buxa is now located in Alipurduar District of West Bengal, India. Evans (1949) reported Celaenorrhinus flavocincta from “Bhutan”, without specifying “Buxa”. Subsequently, Singh & Chib (2015) and Van Gasse (2018) included the species in their checklists for Bhutan.

Celaenorrhinus plagifera was listed by De Nicéville (1889) with habitat: Sikkim, Bhutan. However, from the rest of the text of De Nicéville (1889), it appears that the Bhutan specimens came from the collection of Mr. Knyvett, known to have mainly collected near “Buxa Bhutan”.

The Treaty of Sinchula in 1865 determined more or less the location of the present boundary between Bhutan and India. Many authors in the late 19^th and early 20^th century continued to refer to the area around Buxa in Alipurduar District of West Bengal as “Buxa, Bhutan”. Some publications indicated as collection area “British Bhutan”, which referred to the Kalimpong area of West Bengal, India.

Methods

The authors first prepared a preliminary list of the Hesperiidae of Bhutan based on the checklists of Sbordoni et al. (2015), Singh & Chib (2015), and Van Gasse (2018). Singh & Chib (2015) listed the source documents for each species on which its listing was based. Other potential species were added to the preliminary list based on photographic evidence reported for Bhutan in recent documents, pictures posted on the internet, such as the Bhutan Biodiversity Portal (BBP) website, and pictures taken by or sent to the authors.

Species that were reported for Bhutan by Evans (1949) or Kehimkar (2008) were generally accepted as correct records. Evan’s records for Bhutan were based on specimens in the British Museum (Natural History Museum, London). Isaac Kehimkar (pers. comm. 2023) reported that his 2008 listings for Bhutan were generally based on Evans (1932, 1949) or old documents in the library of the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS). Thus, these species, which were based on old reports, were included in our checklist, unless the area from which the specimens were collected is certainly or most likely outside the present-day boundaries of Bhutan, e.g., in Buxa. Recent records for these species were accepted if the authors were at least 90% certain of their identification. This percentage is an estimate by the authors and is based on how well the characteristics of the photographed individual fit the characteristics of the species. It is especially useful for similar species with overlapping characteristics, such as Potanthus species. Websites such as observation.org give for automatically identified butterfly photographs the percentage chance that it is a particular species.

For all hesperiid species reported after 1949, the authors sought verifiable evidence in the form of pictures showing distinguishing characteristics of the species. Some of the species listed in the three checklists were based on only one or two source documents. Many source documents presented species without verifiable evidence. We considered some of the presented pictorial evidence insufficient for correct identification, e.g., when only the upperside or underside were shown and both sides were needed for identification. Several source documents listed misidentified species as the accompanying pictures were of different species. Thus, there was no guarantee that even species listed in all three checklists were reliably reported from Bhutan. Therefore, we checked for each species the reported sources to find the first record with correctly identified pictures or specimens for Bhutan. We also checked for the first correctly identified recent (since 2000) record. The pictorial evidence was verified by checking the identification with butterfly guidebooks, websites for SE Asia, original descriptions, and available recent literature. The consulted guidebooks included Evans (1949), Smith (1994, 2006, 2011, 2015), Kehimkar (2008, 2016), and Smetacek (2017). The websites included yutaka.it-n.jp, iNaturalist.org, and ifoundbutterflies.org. The authors discussed the identification of a number of individuals with several lepidopterists and naturalists. The consulted recent literature is mentioned in this document under the concerned species.

Species for which no verifiable evidence could be found and species for which the listing in the three checklists was entirely based on misidentifications in the source documents were not included in our Hesperiidae checklist for Bhutan. The reasons for not including these species are given later in this article for each of the species. Possible first records of species for which we considered the identification most probably (90-98% chance) correct were listed as tentative. This included species for which no study of the genitalia or DNA analysis was carried out, while this is required for confirmation of the identification. The authors assigned “cf.” to records of individuals that differ from a known species and could potentially be a new species for Bhutan or a new form, subspecies, or species new to science. Tentative and “cf.” species were listed, but not counted as species present in Bhutan. The updated checklist is arranged according to Zhang et al. (2023) for Hesperiinae and follows the same principles for other subfamilies. For the placement of Apostictopterus fuliginosus Leech, [1893] we followed Zhu et al. (2023).

RESULTS

1. Checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan (Table 1.): The updated checklist of the Hesperiidae of Bhutan lists 145 species and four tentative species. Tentative species are likely to occur in Bhutan, but the evidence presented until now was considered insufficient (i.e., the identification was considered to be 90–98% certain). One possible species, which requires additional research, is listed as “Pedesta cf. gupta”, and is also not counted as a species of Bhutan. The updated checklist comprises more hesperiid species than the earlier lists (73 in Sbordoni et al. (2015), 139 in Singh & Chib (2015), and 142 in Van Gasse (2018)). Verification of the species’ identification was given much more importance by the authors than in the three checklists cited above.

In addition, the checklist gives the first record from Bhutan, that the authors could find, for each species and the first recent record in this century. It also reports if species were first recorded or confirmed by Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985) or Harada (1987a). This allows any researcher, who may doubt the validity of a particular record, to check the reliability of the evidence presented for the species in the checklist.

To make it clear to other researchers which species were considered but not included in our checklist, we present these species in two lists. We also give reasons why these species were not included:

- Eleven species that were not listed in the three checklists but were reported in grey literature or online based on wrong or doubtful (less than 90% certain) identifications;

- Fourteen species that were listed in at least one of the three checklists but of which the identifications in the source documents were wrong or doubtful.

2. Species that were reported from Bhutan: In general publications, non-published reports, or on the internet, but were not included in any of the three mentioned checklists. We consider their identifications to be wrong or doubtful, or could not find any pictorial evidence. These include (with re-identification, using guidebooks and websites indicated in the methodology):

Abaratha alida (de Nicéville, 1891) Alida Angle (no pictorial evidence);

Celaenorrhinus patula de Nicéville, 1889 Large Spotted Flat (picture was C. putra);

Celaenorrhinus pero de Nicéville, 1889 Mussoorie Spotted Flat (picture was C. putra);

Celaenorrhinus sumitra (Moore, [1866]) Moore’s Spotted Flat (de Nicéville (1889) reported it from “Rikisum, British Bhutan”, which is now in Kalimpong, West Bengal);

Pedesta (Thoressa) baileyi (South, 1914) reported on the Bhutan Biodiversity Portal (BBP) website. The picture was of P. pandita. The undersides of these two species can be quite similar. Fig. S1-32 of “P. baileyi” upperside in Li et al. (2019) was also of P. pandita;

Satarupa gopala Moore, [1866] Large White Flat (picture was of S. zulla);

Potanthus tibetana Huang, 2002 (picture ID uncertain, possibly P. nesta or P. mara. It has several characteristics different from the description of P. tibetana in Huang (2002);

Idmon distanti (Shepard, 1937) Spotless Bob (picture was of Baoris spp.);

Baoris pagana (de Nicéville, 1887) Figure of Eight Swift (picture was Caltoris sp.);

Caltoris cormasa (Hewitson, 1876) Full-stop Swift (no pictorial evidence);

Caltoris plebeia (de Nicéville, 1887) Tufted Swift (no pictorial evidence).

3. Species listed in the previous checklists, but not in the new Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan: These species were listed in one or more of the three reviewed checklists. For these species, we judged the identifications to be certainly wrong or doubtful. We called an identification doubtful if we considered the chance that the original identification was correct between 0 and 89%.

Subfamily Tagiadinae, Tribe Celaenorrhini

Celaenorrhinus aurivittata (Moore, [1879]) Dark Yellow-banded Flat was reported for Bhutan by Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.39) as C. aurivittatus [sic] from Punakha Dzongkhag. Based on Wangdi & Sherub (2014), C. aurivittata was listed in the checklists of Singh & Chib (2015) and Van Gasse (2018), but Shing & Chib (2014) also listed C. aurivittatus. Van der Poel et al. (2023) re-identified the picture of Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.39) as C. dhanada affinis and indicated that affinis and dhanada are probably separate species, as their distribution areas overlap in Chiang Mai, Thailand (yutaka.it-n.jp website). These two “species” are probably also sympatric in Bhutan, where both have been reported from adjoining valleys in Mongar Dzongkhag.

Celaenorrhinus flavocincta (de Nicéville, 1887) Bhutan Flat was listed for Bhutan by Singh & Chib (2015) and Van Gasse (2018), because “Bhutan” was the type locality of the species or because it was mentioned by Evans (1949). De Nicéville (1887) described it from specimens obtained near Buxa, Bhutan, which is now in Alipurduar District of West Bengal. Thus, these specimens were most likely not collected from within Bhutan’s present-day boundaries. Consequently, it was not included in our Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan. It probably should be renamed “Buxa Flat”, especially since even at the time of its description by De Nicéville (1887), Buxa was already part of British India.

Tribe Tagiadini

Capila lidderdali (Elwes, 1888) Lidderdale’s Dawnfly. Elwes (1888) described it as “Chaeticneme? lidderdali”. He inspected a single specimen in the British Museum of which he stated: “and though it may possibly have come from Buxa, is more probably a Sikkim insect”. Elwes & Edwards (1897) indicated that it came from the collection of Dr. Lidderdale, who collected near Buxa and Darjeeling”. Thus, with Buxa now being in West Bengal, it was not described from present-day Bhutan. Although Evans (1932) indicated only Bhutan as the collection area, in Evans (1949) this was changed to Sikkim or Bhutan, more in line with Elwes & Edwards (1897), although Darjeeling is not in Sikkim. Thus, the species was not included.

Coladenia hoenei Evans, 1939 was reported for Bhutan by Harada (1987a). It is now considered to be Coladenia pinsbukana (Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976). The two species are very similar. Huang (2021) stated that C. hoenei is restricted to the Chinese provinces of Shaanxi, Gansu, and Henan, and he reports C. pinsbukana occidentalis from Yunnan, Laos, Thailand, and Sikkim (India). Hence, C. hoenei was not included in our Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan. For more detail on this rather confusing name change, see Van der Poel et al. (2023).

Seseria dohertyi (Watson, 1893) Himalayan White Flat was reported for Bhutan by Singh & Chib (2015) referring to Singh (2012) and Wangdi & Sherub (2014). Seseria dohertyi was also reported by Van Gasse (2018), very probably based on the same two reports. However, the picture in Singh (2012, image 52) is of Gerosis phisara and the picture in Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.43) is of Seseria sambara, as it has a narrow spot in space 1b of the upper forewing which is notched outwardly; also, the white part of the upper hindwing and abdomen is sullied and not clear in the wet season form (Evans, 1949). Thus, S. dohertyi was not included in our checklist of Hesperiidae species of Bhutan.

Subfamily Heteropterinae

Carterocephalus silvicola (Meigen, 1829) Chequered Skipper was reported for Bhutan by Wangdi & Sherub (2014) from Thimphu, Paro, and Haa Dzongkhags and listed for western Bhutan by Van Gasse (2018), most probably based on Wangdi & Sherub (2014). The picture in Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.79) was re-identified as C. avanti (de Nicéville, 1886). As there are no other reports of C. silvicola, it was not included in our checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan.

Subfamily Hesperiinae, Tribe Taractrocerini

Potanthus Scudder, 1872 spp. Many Potanthus species are very hard to identify and often analysis of the genitalia is the main way to identify them with certainty. The authors have accepted the five Potanthus species listed by Evans (1949) as correct. The other five species, listed by Singh & Chib (2015) and mostly also by Van Gasse (2018), have been scrutinized. Potanthus dara and P. juno were not included in our checklist and is explained later. Van der Poel et al. (2023) reported P. pseudomaesa as a species for Bhutan, P. ganga as a tentative species, and confirmed P. trachala as a species present in Bhutan. Thus, we have included seven Potanthus species in our checklist and one tentative Potanthus species.

Potanthus juno (Evans, 1932) Burmese Dart. Potanthus juno was listed by Van Gasse (2018) from Tsirang. Yazaki & Kanmuri (1986), A. Singh (2012), J. I. Singh (2014), and Singh & Chib (2014, 2016) reported on butterflies of Tsirang, but P. juno was not listed by any of them. Thus, the source of the listing by Van Gasse (2018) is not clear. The authors asked him about the source but did not receive a reply. Since there is no proof of the occurrence of P. juno in Bhutan, it was not included in our checklist, although it was reported as occurring in Assam by Varshney & Smetacek (2015).

Potanthus dara (Kollar, [1844]) Himalayan Dart was listed without a picture in Sbordoni et al. (2015) and in Singh & Chib (2015), the latter based it on the following three publications;

- Singh (2014), only listed the name, but did not present a picture;

- Nidup (2015), also only listed the name, P. dara;

- Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.58) presented pictures 1 and 2. These do not show the conspicuous spot in space 6 of the hindwing of P. dara, while also the forewing spots in spaces 4 and 5 are not separate from the spots in 3 and 6; thus, these are congeners. Most likely, image 1 is P. mara, but it could also be P. nesta, and image 2 may be P. pseudomaesa.

Another picture reported to be of P. dara, possibly the picture on which the listing in Sbordoni et al. (2015) was based, also was not P. dara, since it had a conspicuous upper hindwing spot in space 7 rather than in 6. It was a typical example of P. trachala (see Van der Poel et al. 2023). Moreover, the authors are not aware of any reliable report confirming the presence of P. dara east of Central Nepal. Potanthus dara may well have been listed for Bhutan in other publications and on the internet, but the authors think that it is highly unlikely to occur in Bhutan. Hence, P. dara is not included in our Hesperiidae checklist.

Tribe Erionotini

Erionota thrax (Linnaeus, 1767), Palm Redeye, was listed for Bhutan by Singh & Chib (2015), apparently only based on Wangdi & Sherub (2014). However, we determined that the picture in Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.69) was of E. torus, since the upper forewing termen and apex were rounded. It was not listed for Bhutan by Van Gasse (2018), who probably also realised that the picture was of E. torus. Consequently, E. thrax was not included in our checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan.

Matapa purpurascens Elwes & Edwards, 1897, Purple Redeye, was reported for Bhutan by Wangdi & Sherub (2014) from Zhemgang Dzongkhags and listed for Bhutan by Van Gasse (2018), most probably based on Wangdi & Sherub (2014). The picture in Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.70) was re-identified as Matapa druna, and was listed as a first record for Bhutan in Van der Poel et al. (2023). As there appeared to be no other records of the species, M. purpurascens was not included in our checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan.

Pudicitia pholus (de Nicéville, 1889), Spotted Redeye, was described by De Nicéville (1889) as Parnara pholus. At least one and probably both of the two specimens were collected “near Buxa, Bhutan” in August. De Nicéville (1995) placed it in a new genus Pudicitia. Evans (1932) gave the distribution area for P. pholus as Bhutan to Naga Hills. This was probably the source of Van Gasse’s (2018) listing. “Buxa, Bhutan” is presently in Alipurduar District of West Bengal, India. Evans (1949) did not list P. pholus for Bhutan, possibly because Buxa was no longer in Bhutan. Thus, there appears to be no proof of this species having been reported from within the present-day boundaries of Bhutan. Consequently, the species was not included in our Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan.

Suastus minutus (Moore, 1877), Small Palm Bob, was listed by Singh & Chib (2015) and, probably based on that, by Van Gasse (2018). Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985) was listed as a source by Singh & Chib (2015), however, Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985) did not list S. minutus (and also not S. gremius). Thus, it is not clear on which document the listing of S. minutus was based. Consequently, this species was not included in our Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan.

Tribe Baorini

Caltoris brunnea (Snellen, 1876), Dark-branded Swift, was reported for Bhutan by Wangdi & Sherub (2014) from Mongar Dzongkhags and listed for Bhutan by Van Gasse (2018), most probably based on the aforementioned publication. The picture in Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.73) is almost certainly of Pelopidas sinensis. Thus, C. brunnea will be removed from the species checklist of butterflies of Bhutan. Image 3, taken by Karma Wangdi, was identified as possibly C. brunnea and not C. tulsi, C. kumara or C. cahira. The chance of it being C. brunnea was considered too low (<90%) to justify listing it as a tentative species.

Parnara ganga Evans, 1937, Continental Swift, was only reported for Bhutan by Wangdi & Sherub (2014) from Samdrup Jongkhar Dzongkhags and listed for W. Bhutan by Van Gasse (2018), most probably based on Wangdi & Sherub (2014). Parnara bada (Moore, 1878) was reported from Bhutan in several publications, including Wangdi et al. (2012). The individual in Image 4, copied from Wangdi & Sherub (2014, p.72), does not show the characteristics of P. ganga as indicated by Evans (1949): upperside forewing may have a lower cell spot. It also does not have the characteristics indicated by Evans (1949) for P. bada: the upper side forewing may have an upper cell spot and the underside hindwing may have a spot in 6. However, the hindwing spots of P. bada are generally smaller than those of P. ganga. Thus, the individual in image 4 is more likely to be P. bada, and its identification as P. ganga is doubtful, not warranting reporting it as a first record or tentative record for Bhutan. As there appeared to be no other records, Parnara ganga was not included in our checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan.

Pelopidas thrax (Hübner, [1821]), Desert Branded Swift, was reported for Bhutan by Sbordoni et al. (2015) and Van Gasse (2018). The picture on which Sbordoni et al. (2015) based their listing has not been found. The source of Van Gasse’s (2018) listing of spp. masta may have been Sbordoni et al. (2015). Although it is likely to occur in Bhutan, no evidence for P. thrax has been found, and consequently, it was not included in our Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan.

4. Species not recorded in the last 70 years (one species not since 1985):

Choaspes furcata Evans, 1932, Hooked Awlking, listed by Evans (1949, possibly based on Evans (1932)), no recent reports; often (FUNET, Varshney & Smetacek 2015, Van Gasse 2018) listed as Choaspes furcatus. The original description was C. plateni furcata and GBIF lists is as Choaspes furcata;

Hasora taminatus (Hübner, 1818), White-banded Awl, was reported in old BNHM documents (Kehimkar 2008) and reported by Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985), no recent reports;

Celaenorrhinus badia (Hewitson, 1877), Scarce Banded Flat, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), no recent reports;

Celaenorrhinus pyrrha de Nicéville, 1889, Double-spotted Flat, was described from Bhutan by De Nicéville (1889) and listed by Evans (1949), no recent reports;

Capila zennara (Moore, 1866]), Pale Striped Dawnfly, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), no recent reports;

Gerosis bhagava (Moore, [1866]), Common Yellow-breast Flat, listed by Kehimkar (2008), based on old BNHM documents, recent listings had no evidence;

Pyrgus cashmirensis Moore, 1874, Kashmir Skipper, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), no recent reports.

Baracus vittatus (Felder, 1862), Hedge Hopper, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), no recent reports;

Creteus cyrina (Hewitson, 1876), Nonsuch Palmer, listed by Evans (1949) possibly based on De Nicéville (1895), no recent reports;

Potanthus confucius (C. & R. Felder, 1862), Chinese Dart, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown). Recent listings and postings on BBP were wrongly identified or had no or insufficient evidence. One BBP posting was likely to be P. confucius, but some characteristics for a reliable confirmation were not visible;

Potanthus nesta (Evans, 1934), Brandless Dart, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), recent listings had no or insufficient evidence;

Potanthus palnia (Evans, 1914), Palni Dart, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), recent listings had no or insufficient evidence;

Potanthus rectifasciata (Elwes & Edwards, 1897), Branded Dart, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown). It was described by Elwes & Edwards (1897) from Sikkim. No recent reports;

Koruthaialos butleri (de Nicéville, [1884]), Dark Velvet Bob, described from Bhutan, recent listings had no evidence or were not identifiable (too dark);

Caltoris tulsi (de Nicéville, [1884]), Purple Swift, listed by Evans (1949, source of listing unknown), recent listings had no evidence or were wrongly identified;

Pelopidas subochracea (Moore, 1878), Moore’s Swift, listed by Kehimkar (2008), based on old BNHM documents, recent listings were wrongly identified or were listed without verifiable evidence.

DISCUSSION

The main difference between the present and the three previous checklists is that the previous ones seldom checked the reliability of the identifications in their source documents. It appeared that Singh & Chib (2015) often accepted the reported identifications in their source documents as correct if the species was reported by several sources regardless of the accuracy. They appeared more critical if a species was only reported by one source. Van Gasse (2018) generally accepted reported records of species that were likely to occur in Bhutan, apparently without critically checking the presented evidence. Sbordoni et al. (2015) looked more critically at the presented pictorial evidence but still accepted certain identifications that Van der Poel et al. (2023) considered to be misidentifications.

Sixteen of the species in the updated checklist have not been reported with verifiable evidence in the last 70 years. Many other species reported from nearby areas such as Sikkim and western Arunachal Pradesh are likely to be present in Bhutan. To increase the chance of finding these species regular, systematic butterfly surveys in a wide range of habitats across Bhutan are recommended.

Misidentification is not just a problem for beginning butterfly photographers. Earlier, the authors indicated that most probably all identifications of P. dara in Bhutan were wrong. This is what Evans (1949) wrote on misidentifications of P. dara:

“[dara is given in] Fig Lep Ind, pl. 816/3 ♂ as nala. Of the figures marked dara: Leech, pl. 40/14 is pava; Elwes & Edwards, pl. 25/69 genitalia are flava; Kershaw 1905, pl. 14/22 is pseudomaesa clio; Lep Ind, pl. 814/2 ♂ is palnia and ♀ trachala tytleri; Rhop Java, pl. 9/65 is trachala.”

The authors urge all butterfly researchers and surveyors to double-check their identifications and have them verified by experts before publishing them, and to publish their findings only in peer-reviewed journals.

A persistent problem, especially on the Indian subcontinent, is the use of different scientific and common names of species by different organisations. In theory, there is only one correct scientific name for a species. However, scientists do not always agree on newly proposed names or on raising subspecies to species level. Moreover, with increased DNA sequencing, the placement and names of many species will change. Zhang et al. (2022) presented significant recent taxonomic changes based on genomic analysis. Hou et al. (2023) added additional taxonomic changes. Beginning butterfly surveyors often use the names as indicated in the books they use to identify the species, but usually, these books have several outdated scientific names, which is inevitable. The situation has become more confusing on the Indian subcontinent since the website of the Indian Foundation of Butterflies (IFB) not only changed common names when considering the standard names “colonial leftovers”, but also gave common names to subspecies. For the Hesperiidae checklist of Bhutan, the authors based their scientific and common names on scientific and historical evidence. Researchers and butterfly photographers in Bhutan are encouraged to use these names. Standardization of the common butterfly names across the Indian subcontinent is recommended. Moreover, to reduce confusion, common names should only be used for species and not for subspecies. Due to progress in DNA sequencing of the butterflies, there will be many taxonomic changes in the future. These changes are more likely to affect subspecies than species and thus this is an extra reason to not give common names to subspecies.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present a comprehensive checklist of Hesperiidae in Bhutan, resulting from a thorough review of all available records. The updated checklist (Table 1) comprises 145 confirmed species, four tentative species, and one unidentified species, subspecies, or form (listed as “cf.”). This revised checklist supersedes previous versions, offering enhanced accuracy and reliability. To ensure transparency, the authors also provide supplementary lists of excluded species, detailing the rationale for their omission. This rigorous approach ensures a trustworthy reference for future research and conservation efforts.

Table 1. Checklist of Hesperiidae of Bhutan.

*—Source documents (see References for details): a+b=publication (a) that reported this species and publication (b) that presented the related evidence.

CTS18: Cheku et al. (2018); CBF23: Chiba et al. (2023); dNc**: De Nicéville (18**) ** = 83[84], 85, 86, 89, 90, 95; Drj14: Dorji (2014); Ev49: Evans (1949); Hr87: Harada (1887a); JSW14: JSWNP (2014); K08-old lit: Kehimkar (2008) based on old documents in BNHS library; Nd15: Nidup (2015); P&W07: Van der Poel & Wangchuk (2007); PWK23: Van der Poel et al. (2023); S&C16: Singh & Chib (2016); Sb15: Sbordoni et al. (2015); Si12: Singh (2012); Si14: Singh (2014); vG15: Van Gasse (2015); W&S14: Wangdi & Sherub (2014); Wea12: Wangdi et al. (2012); Wm&dN87: Wood-Mason & de Nicéville (1887); Y&K85: Yazaki & Kanmuri (1985).

	Species name	Authority, year	Subspecies (Authority, year)	Common name	Bht 1st record*	Bht recent record
Subfamily COELIADINAE						(no recent observt.)
1	Badamia exclamationis	(Fabricius, 1775)		Brown Awl	K08-old lit	W&S14
2	Bibasis sena	(Moore, [1866])	sena (Moore, [1866])	Orange-tailed Awlet	K08-old lit	W&S14
3	Burara amara	(Moore, [1866])		Small Green Awlet	Si12	← see 1^st record
4	Burara anadi	(de Nicéville, [1884])	anadi (de Nicéville, [1884])	Plain Orange Awlet	PWK23	←
5	Burara gomata	(Moore, [1866])	gomata (Moore, [1866])	Pale Green Awlet	Sb15+ PWK23	←
6	Burara harisa	(Moore, [1866])	harisa (Moore, [1866])	Orange-striped Awlet	W&S14	←
7	Burara jaina	(Moore, [1866])	jaina (Moore, [1866])	Orange Awlet	K08-old lit	Si12
8	Burara oedipodea	(Swainson, 1820)	belesis (Mabille, 1876)	Branded Orange Awlet	Ev49	W&S14
9	Burara vasutana	(Moore, [1866])		Green Awlet	W&S14	←
10	Choaspes benjaminii	(Guérin-Méneville, 1843)	japonica (Murray, 1875)	Indian Awlking	Wea12	←
11	Choaspes furcata	Evans, 1932		Hooked Awlking	Ev49
12	Choaspes xanthopogon	(Kollar, [1844])		Similar Awlking	PWK23	←
13	Hasora anura	de Nicéville, 1889	anura de Nicéville, 1889	Slate Awl	K08-old lit	PWK23
14	Hasora badra	(Moore, [1858])	badra (Moore, [1858])	Common Awl	W&S14	←
15	Hasora chromus	(Cramer, [1780])	chromus (Cramer, [1780])	Common Banded Awl	K08-old lit	W&S14
16	Hasora taminatus	(Hübner, 1818)	bhavara Fruhstorfer, 1911	White-banded Awl	K08-old lit	Y&K85/
17	Hasora vitta	(Butler, 1870)	indica Evans, 1932	Plain Banded Awl	W&S14	←
Subfamily EUDAMINAE
18	Lobocla liliana	(Atkinson, 1871)	liliana (Atkinson, 1871)	Marbled Flat	K08-old lit	PWK23
Subfamily TAGIADINAE
Tribe Celaenorrhini
19	Celaenorrhinus badia	(Hewitson, 1877)		Scarce Banded Flat	Ev49
20	Celaenorrhinus dhanada	(Moore, [1866])	dhanada (Moore, 1865)	Himalayan Yellow-banded Flat	Ev49	W&S14 + PWK23
			affinis (Elwes & Edwards, 1897)		PWK23	←
21	Celaenorrhinus leucocera	(Kollar, [1844])		Common Spotted Flat	dNc89	Wea12
22	Celaenorrhinus munda	(Moore, 1884)	munda (Moore, 1884)	Himalayan Spotted Flat	Y&K85	W&S14
			maculicornis (Elwes & Edwards, 1897)		W&S14	←
23	Celaenorrhinus nigricans	(de Nicéville, 1885)	nigricans (de Nicéville, 1885)	Small-banded Flat	Ev49 (mb outside Bht)	Sb15+ PWK23
Tentv	Celaenorrhinus plagifera	de Nicéville, 1889		De Nicéville's Spotted Flat	dNc89 (Knyvett collection)
24	Celaenorrhinus pulomaya	(Moore, [1866])	pulomaya (Moore, [1866])	Multi-spotted Flat	dNc89	PWK23
25	Celaenorrhinus putra	(Moore, [1866])	putra (Moore, [1866])	Bengal Spotted Flat	Ev49	W&S14
26	Celaenorrhinus pyrrha	de Nicéville, 1889		Double-spotted Flat	dNc89
27	Celaenorrhinus ratna	Fruhstorfer, 1909	tytleri Evans, 1926	Tytler’s Multi-spotted Flat	Wea12	←
28	Pseudocoladenia fabia	(Evans, 1949)		Dented Pied Flat	Ev49	PWK23
29	Pseudocoladenia fatua	(Evans, 1949)		Sikkim Pied Flat	Ev49	PWK23
30	Pseudocoladenia festa	(Evans, 1949)		Naga Pied Flat	Ev49	Wea12
31	Sarangesa dasahara	(Moore, [1866])	dasahara (Moore, [1866])	Common Small Flat	Ev49	Y&K85/W&S14
Tribe Tagiadini
32	Abaratha agama	(Moore, [1858])	agama (Moore, [1858])	Spotted Angle	Ev49	W&S14
33	Abaratha angulata	(C. Felder, 1862)	angulata (C. Felder, 1862)	Chestnut Angle	Ev49	W&S14
34	Capila jayadeva	Moore, [1866]		Striped Dawnfly	K08-old lit	JSW14+ PWK23
35	Capila pennicillatum	(de Nicéville, [1893])	pennicillatum (de Nicéville, [1893])	Fringed Dawnfly	PWK23	←
36	Capila zennara	(Moore, [1866])		Pale Striped Dawnfly	Ev49
37	Coladenia agni	(de Nicéville, [1884])	agni (de Nicéville, [1884])	Brown Pied Flat	PWK23	←
38	Coladenia indrani	(Moore, [1866])	indrani (Moore, [1866])	Tricolour Pied Flat	Ev49	Drj14
39	Coladenia pinsbukana	(Shimonoya & Murayama, 1976)	occidentalis Huang, 2021	Large-spot Pied Flat	Hr87	PWK23
40	Darpa hanria	Moore, [1866]		Hairy Angle	W&S14	←
41	Gerosis bhagava	(Moore, [1866])	lebadea (Hewitson, 1886)	Common Yellow-breast Flat	K08-old lit
42	Gerosis phisara	(Moore, 1884)	phisara (Moore, 1884)	Dusky Yellow-breast Flat	K08-old lit	P&W07
43	Gerosis sinica	(C. & R. Felder, 1862)	narada (Moore, 1884)	White Yellow-breast Flat	Wea12	←
44	Pintara tabrica	(Hewitson, 1873)	tabrica (Hewitson, 1873)	Crenulate Orange Flat	CTS18	←
45	Satarupa zulla	Tytler, 1915	zulla Tytler, 1915	Tytler’s White Flat	W&S14	←
46	Seseria sambara	(Moore, [1866])	sambara (Moore, [1866])	Sikkim White Flat	Ev49	PWK23
47	Tagiades gana	(Moore, [1866])	athos Plötz, 1884	Suffused Snow Flat	K08-old lit	W&S14
48	Tagiades ravi	(Moore, [1866])	ravi (Moore, [1866])	Common Snow Flat	K08-old lit	W&S14
49	Tagiades litigiosa	Möschler, 1878	litigiosa Möschler, 1878	Water Snow Flat	K08-old lit	W&S14
50	Tagiades menaka	(Moore, [1866])	menaka (Moore, [1866])	Spotted Snow Flat	Ev49	W&S14
51	Tagiades parra	Fruhstorfer, 1910	gala Evans, 1949	Large Snow Flat	Si12	←
52	Mooreana trichoneura	(C. & R. Felder, 1860)	pralaya (Moore, [1866])	Yellow Flat	W&S14	←
53	Tapena vasava	(Moore, [1866])	vasava (Moore, [1866])	Tawny Angle	W&S14	←
Subfamily PYRGINAE
Tribe Carcharodini
54	Spialia galba	(Fabricius, 1793)	galba (Fabricius, 1793)	Indian Skipper	W&S14	←
Tribe Pyrgini
55	Pyrgus cashmirensis	Moore, 1874	cashmirensis Moore, 1874	Kashmir Skipper	Ev49
Subfamily CHAMUNDINAE
56	Chamunda chamunda	(Moore, [1866])		Olive Flat	S&C16	←
Subfamily HETEROPTERINAE
57	Carterocephalus avanti	(de Nicéville, 1886)		Orange and Silver Hopper	Ev49	PWK23
58	Carterocephalus houangty	Oberthür, 1886	bootia Evans, 1949	Bhutan Mountain Hopper	Ev49	Hr87/PWK23
Subfamily TRAPEZITINAE
Tribe Barcini
59	Apostictopterus fuliginosus	Leech, [1893]	curiosa (Swinhoe, 1917)	Giant Hopper	Wea12	←
Subfamily HESPERIINAE
Tribe Aeromachini
60	Aeromachus kali	(de Nicéville, 1885)		Blue-spotted Scrub Hopper	Y&K85	W&S14
61	Aeromachus pygmaeus	(Fabricius, 1775)		Pigmy Scrub Hopper	PWK23	←
62	Aeromachus stigmata	(Moore, 1878)	stigmata (Moore, 1878)	Veined Scrub Hopper	dNc90	Wea12
63	Ampittia dioscorides	(Fabricius, 1793)	dioscorides (Fabricius, 1793)	Bush Hopper	S&C16+PWK23	←
64	Ampittia subvittatus	(Moore, 1878)	subradiatus (Moore, 1878)	Tiger Hopper	Wdm& dNc87	PWK23
65	Arnetta atkinsoni	(Moore, 1878)		Atkinson’s Bob	Si12	←
66	Baracus vittatus	(C. Felder, 1862)	septentrionum Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, [1887]	Hedge Hopper	Ev49
67	Creteus cyrina	(Hewitson, 1876)	cyrina (Hewitson, 1876)	Nonsuch Palmer	dNc95
68	Halpe arcuata	Evans, 1937		Overlapped Ace	W&S14	←
69	Halpe aucma	Swinhoe, 1893		Gold-spotted Ace	PWK23	←
70	Halpe filda	Evans, 1949		Elwes' Ace	Si14	←
71	Halpe kumara	de Nicéville, 1885		Plain Ace	deNcv85	Wea12
72	Halpe molta	Evans, 1949		Molta Ace	vG18 (listed as ssp.) + PWK23	←
73	Halpe porus	(Mabille, [1877])		Moore’s Ace	K08-old lit	PWK23
74	Halpe sikkima	Moore, 1882		Sikkim Ace	W&S14	←
75	Halpe zema	(Hewitson, 1877)	zema (Hewitson, 1877)	Banded Ace	W&S14	←
76	Pedesta aina	(de Nicéville, 1889)		Garhwal Ace	W&S14	←
Tentv	Pedesta fusca	(Elwes, [1893])	fusca (Elwes, [1893])	Fuscous Ace	PWK23	←
77	Pedesta gupta	(de Nicéville, 1886)	gupta (de Nicéville, 1886)	Olive Ace	PWK23	←
cf.	Pedesta cf. gupta			(Yellow-spotted Olive Ace)	(PWK23)	←
78	Pedesta hyrie	(de Nicéville, 1891)	hyrie (de Nicéville, 1891)	Large-spot Plain Ace	Ev49	W&S14
79	Pedesta masuriensis	(Moore, 1878)	masuriensis (Moore, 1878)	Mussoorie Bush Bob	Y&K85	W&S14
80	Pedesta pandita	(de Nicéville, 1885)		Brown Bush Bob	Y&K85	Wea12
81	Pedesta serena	(Evans, 1937)		Serena Ace	P&KC23	←
82	Pithauria murdava	(Moore, [1866])		Dark Straw Ace	Wm&dNc87	PWK23
83	Pithauria stramineipennis	Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, [1887]	stramineipennis Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, [1887]	Light Straw Ace	Wm&dNc87	Si12
84	Sebastonyma dolopia	(Hewitson, 1868)		Tufted Ace	K08-old lit	PWK23
85	Sovia grahami	(Evans, 1926)	grahami (Evans, 1926)	Graham's Ace	PWK23	←
86	Sovia lucasii	(Mabille, 1876)	magna (Evans, 1932)	Lucas' Ace	W&S14	←
87	Sovia separata	(Moore, 1882)	separata (Moore, 1882)	Chequered Ace	Ev49	Wea12
88	Thoressa cerata	(Hewitson, 1876)		Northern Spotted Ace	W&S14	←
Tribe Astictopterini
89	Astictopterus jama	C. & R. Felder, 1860	olivascens Moore, 1878	Forest Hopper	PWK23	←
90	Cupitha purreea	(Moore, 1877)		Wax Dart	Ev49 (dNc84 is probably Buxa)	PWK23
Tentv	Zographetus ogygia	(Hewitson, [1866])	ogygia (Hewitson, [1866])	Purple-spotted Flitter	PWK23	Tentative
91	Zographetus satwa	(de Nicéville, [1884])		Purple and Gold Flitter	W&S14	←
Tribe Taractrocerini
92	Cephrenes acalle	(Hopffer, 1874)	oceanica (Mabille, 1904)	Plain Palm Dart	PWK23	←
93	Oriens gola	(Moore, 1877)	pseudolus (Mabille, 1883)	Common Dartlet	PWK23	←
94	Oriens goloides	(Moore, [1881])		Ceylon Dartlet	Ev49	H87/W&S14
95	Potanthus confucius	(C. & R. Felder, 1862)	dushta (Fruhstorfer, 1911)	Chinese Dart	Ev49
Tentv	Potanthus ganda	(Fruhstorfer, 1911)	ganda (Fruhstorfer, 1911)	Sumatran Dart	Wea12	←
96	Potanthus nesta	(Evans, 1934)	nesta (Evans, 1934)	Brandless Dart	Ev49
97	Potanthus pallida	(Evans, 1932)		Pale Dart	Ev49	W&S14
98	Potanthus palnia	(Evans, 1914)	palnia (Evans, 1914)	Palni Dart	Ev49
99	Potanthus pseudomaesa	(Moore, [1881])	clio (Evans, 1932)	Indian Dart	PWK23	←
100	Potanthus rectifasciata	(Elwes & Edwards, 1897)		Branded Dart	Ev49
101	Potanthus trachala	(Mabille, 1878)	tytleri (Evans, 1914)	Broad Bi-dent Dart	W&S14: Tentv	PWK23
102	Taractrocera danna	(Moore, 1865)		Himalayan Grass Dart	Ev49	Y&K85/P&W07
103	Taractrocera maevius	(Fabricius, 1793)	sagara (Moore, [1866]	Common Grass Dart	K08-old lit	W&S14
104	Telicota bambusae	(Moore, 1878)	bambusae (Moore, 1878)	Dark Palm Dart	W&S14	←
105	Telicota colon	(Fabricius, 1775)	colon (Fabricius, 1775)	Common Palm Dart	K08-old lit	PWK23
Tribe Erionotini
106	Erionota torus	Evans, 1941		Banana Skipper	vG18 (? re-ID of spp. in W&S’14) + PWK23	←
107	Gangara lebadea	(Hewitson, 1868)	lebadea (Hewitson, 1886)	Banded Redeye	PWK23	←
108	Gangara thyrsis	(Fabricius, 1775)	thyrsis (Fabricius, 1775)	Giant Redeye	PWK23	←
109	Hyarotis adrastus	(Stoll, [1780])	praba (Moore, [1866])	Tree Flitter	K08-old lit	W&S14
110	Matapa aria	(Moore, [1866])		Common Redeye	K08-old lit	PWK23
111	Matapa cresta	Evans, 1949		Fringed Redeye	PWK23	←
112	Matapa druna	(Moore, [1866])		Grey-brand Redeye	PWK23	←
113	Matapa sasivarna	(Moore, [1866])		Black-veined Redeye	Si12	←
114	Pirdana hyela	(Hewitson, 1867)	major Evans, 1932	Green-striped Palmer	PWK23	←
115	Salanoemia noemi	(de Nicéville, 1885)		Spotted Yellow Lancer	PWK23	←
116	Scobura isota	(Swinhoe, 1893)		Swinhoe’s Forest Bob	PWK23	←
117	Suastus gremius	(Fabricius, 1798)	gremius (Fabricius, 1798)	Indian Palm Bob	K08-old lit	PWK23
118	Unkana ambasa	(Moore, [1858])	attina (Hewitson, [1866])	Hoary Palmer	PWK23	←
Tribe Notocryptini
119	Ancistroides nigrita	(Latreille, [1824])	diocles (Moore, [1866])	Chocolate Demon	Ev49	W&S14
120	Ancistroides curvifascia	(C. & R. Felder, 1862)	curvifascia (C. & R. Felder, 1862)	Restricted Demon	dNc89	Y&K85/P&W07
121	Ancistroides feisthamelii	(Boisduval, 1832)	alysos (Moore, [1866])	Spotted Demon	K08-old lit	(Y&K85)/Wea12
122	Ancistroides paralysos	(Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881)	asawa Fruhstorfer, 1911	Common Banded Demon	K08-old lit	W&S14
123	Ancistroides folus	(Cramer, [1775])		Grass Demon	Ev49	Y&K85/W&S14
Tribe Ismini
124	Iambrix salsala	(Moore, [1866])	salsala (Moore, [1866])	Chestnut Bob	W&S14	←
Tribe Psolosini
125	Koruthaialos butleri	(de Nicéville, [1884])		Dark Velvet Bob	dNc86
126	Psolos fuligo	(Mabille, 1876)	subfasciatus (Moore, 1878)	Coon	Nd15	←
Tribe Baorini
127	Baoris farri	(Moore, 1878)	farri (Moore, 1878)	Paintbrush Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14 (1st pic)
128	Borbo cinnara	(Wallace, 1866)		Rice Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14
129	Caltoris aurociliata	(Elwes & Edwards, 1897)		Yellow-fringed Swift	PWK23	←
130	Caltoris cahira	(Moore, 1877)	austeni (Moore, [1884])	Colon Swift	(vG18-source?) PWK23	←
131	Caltoris kumara	(Moore, 1878)	moorei (Evans, 1926)	Blank Swift	PWK23	←
132	Caltoris tulsi	(de Nicéville, [1884])	tulsi (de Nicéville, [1884])	Purple Swift	Ev49
133	Iton semamora	(Moore, [1866])	semamora (Moore, [1866])	Common Wight	PWK23	←
134	Parnara bada	(Moore, 1878)	bada (Moore, 1878)	Ceylon Swift	Wea12	←
135	Parnara guttata	(Bremer & Grey, [1852])	guttata (Bremer & Grey, [1852])	Straight Swift	K08-old lit	Y&K85/ W&S14 (pic1)
136	Pelopidas agna	(Moore, [1866])	agna (Moore, [1866])	Obscure-branded Swift	W&S14	←
137	Pelopidas assamensis	(de Nicéville, 1882)		Great Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14
138	Pelopidas conjuncta	(Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)	conjuncta (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)	Conjoined Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14
139	Pelopidas mathias	(Fabricius, 1798)	mathias (Fabricius, 1798)	Small-branded Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14
140	Pelopidas sinensis	(Mabille, 1877)		Large-branded Swift	Wea12	←
141	Pelopidas subochracea	(Moore, 1878)	subochracea (Moore, 1878)	Moore's Swift	K08-old lit
142	Polytremis lubricans	(Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)	lubricans (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)	Contiguous Swift	K08-old lit	W&S14
143	Pseudoborbo bevani	(Moore, 1878)		Bevan's Swift	K08-old lit	P&W07
144	Zenonoida eltola	(Hewitson, 1869)	eltola (Hewitson, 1869)	Yellow-spot Swift	K08-old lit	Y&K85/Wea12
Tribe Hesperiini
145	Ochlodes brahma	(Moore, 1878)		Himalayan Darter	Y&K85	P&W07

For images - - click here for full PDF

REFERENCES

Cheku, L., T.Q. Le & P. Smetacek (2018). Confirmation of the type locality of Pintara tabrica (Hewitson, 1873) (Hesperiidae) on the Indian subcontinent and its distribution in Vietnam. Nachrichten des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo 39(2): 107–108.

Chiba, H., G.C. Bozano & X. Fan (2023). Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region - Hesperiidae Part I. Omnes Artes, Italy, 71 pp.

De Nicéville, L. (1883). On new and little known Rhopalocera from the Indian region. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 52 Pt. II (2/4): 65–91, pl. 1, 9–10.

De Nicéville, L. (1885). Descriptions of some new Indian Rhopalocera. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 54 Pt. II (2): 117–124, pl. 2.

De Nicéville, L. (1886). On some new Indian butterflies. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 55 Pt. II (3): 249–256, pl. 11.

De Nicéville, L. (1887). Descriptions of some new or little-known butterflies from India, with some notes on the seasonal dimorphism obtaining in the genus Melanitis. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1887(3): 448–467, pl. 39–40.

De Nicéville, L. (1889). On new and little-known butterflies from the Indian region, with revision of the genus Plesioneura of Felder and of authors. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 4(3): 163–194, pl. A–B.

De Nicéville, L. (1890). On new and little-known butterflies from the Indian region, with descriptions of three new genera of Hesperidae. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 5(3): 199–225, pl. D–E.

De Nicéville, L. (1895). On new and little-known butterflies from the Indo-Malayan region. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 9(3): 259–321, pl. N–Q; 9(4): 366–410.

Dorji, S. (2014). Butterflies in and around Phobjikha Valley. Royal Society for Protection of Nature. Thimphu, Bhutan, 163 pp.

Elwes H.J. & J. Edwards (1897). A Revision of the Oriental Hesperiidae. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 14(4): 101–324, pl. 18–27.

Elwes, H.J. (1888). A catalogue of the Lepidoptera of Sikkim, with additions, corrections, and notes on seasonal and local distribution by Otto Möller. Transactions Entomological Society of London 36(3): 269–465, pl. 8–11.

Evans, W.H. (1932). The Identification of Indian Butterflies. (Second Edition Revised). Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay. x + 454 pp., 32 pls.

Evans, W.H. (1949). A Catalogue of the Hesperiidae from Europe, Asia and Australia in the British Museum (Natural History). Trustees of British Museum, London. xx + 502 pp., 53 pls.

Harada, M. (1987a). Butterflies of Bhutan (I). The Lepidopterological Society of Japan, Yadoriga 131: 4–22.

Harada, M. (1987b). Butterflies of Bhutan (II). The Lepidopterological Society of Japan, Yadoriga 131: 23–26.

Hou, Y., C. Cao, H. Chiba, Z. Chang, S. Huang, L. Zhu, K. Kunte, Z. Huang, M. Wang & X. Fan (2023). Molecular phylogeny, historical biogeography, and classification of Pseudocoladenia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 186: 107865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107865

Huang, H. (2002). Some new butterflies from China – 2 (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Atalanta 33(1/2): 109–122, pl. II, IIIa.

Huang, H. (2021). Taxonomy and morphology of Chinese butterflies – 1 Hesperiidae: Pyrginae: Genera Coladenia Moore, [1881] and Pseudocoladenia Shirôzu & Saigusa, 1962. Atalanta 52(4): 569–620.

JSWNP (Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park) (2014). Biodiversity Checklist for Jigme Singye Wangchuk National Park. JSWNP, Department of Forest and Park Services, Tshangkha, Trongsa, Bhutan. (http://biodiversity.bt/document/show/32)

Kehimkar, I. (2008). The Book of Indian Butterflies. Bombay Natural History Society. Oxford University Press, Mumbai, 497 pp.

Kehimkar, I. (2016). Butterflies of India - BNHS Field Guides. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India, 510 pp.

Li, Y., J. Zhu, C. Ge, Y. Wang, Z. Zhao, S. Ma, A. Hoffmann, N. Endersby, Q. Liu, W. Yu & W. Jiang (2019). Molecular phylogeny and historical biogeography of the butterfly tribe Aeromachini Tutt (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) from China. Cells 8(4): 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8040294. With supplementary materials (plates): https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/8/4/294/s1.

Moore, F. (1857). In: Horsfield, T. & F. Moore. A Catalogue of the Lepidopterous Insects in the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company Vol. I. WH Allen and Company: 1–278.

Moore, F. (1878). Descriptions of new Asiatic Hesperidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1878(3): 686–695, pl. 45.

Nidup, T. (2015). An annotated checklist of butterflies from Royal Manas National Park, Gelephu, Bhutan. Spring 5: 1–9.

Sbordoni, V., G.C. Bozano, K. Wangdi, Sherub, S. Marta, S. de Felici & D. Cesaroni (2015). Towards a georeferenced checklist of the butterflies of Bhutan: a preliminary account (Insecta: Lepidoptera), 523–546. In: Hartmann, M. & J. Weipert (eds.). Biodiversity and Natural Heritage of the Himalaya. Naturkundemuseum Erfurt, Germany, 580 pp.

Singh, A.P. (2012). Lowland forest butterflies of the Sunkosh River catchment, Bhutan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(12): 3085–3102. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2625.3085-102

Singh, I.J. (2014). Butterfly diversity of Dzamling Norzoed Community Forest, Tsirang, Bhutan. A Preliminary study. SAARC Forestry III: 38–46.

Singh, I.J., & M. Chib (2014). A preliminary checklist of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhophalocera) of Mendrelgang, Tsirang District, Bhutan. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(5): 5755–5768. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3675.5755-68

Singh, I.J. & M. Chib (2015). Checklist of butterflies of Bhutan. Proceedings of Bhutan Ecological Society 2: 22–58.

Singh, I.J. & M. Chib (2016). Study of Butterfly Diversity and its Conservation in Tsirang District, Bhutan. Final report, The Rufford Small Grant Foundation, UK, 33 pp.

Smetacek, P. (2017). A Naturalist’s Guide to the Butterflies of India. John Beaufoy Publishing, Oxford, 176 pp.

Smith, C.P. (1994). Butterflies of Nepal – A Colour Field Guide. Revised edition of 1989. Tecpress Service L. P. Bangkok, Thailand, 368 pp.

Smith, C.P. (2006). Illustrated Checklist of Nepal’s Butterflies, revised 2^nd edition. Walden Bookhouse, Kathmandu, ii + 129 pp.

Smith, C.P. (2011). Illustrated Checklist of Nepal’s Butterflies, 3^rd edition. Lashkar, Kathmandu. ii + 129 pp.

Smith, C.P. (2015). A Photographic Pocket Guide to Butterflies of Nepal. Himalayan MapHouse, Kathmandu, Nepal, 144 pp.

Van der Poel, P. & T. Wangchuk (2007). Butterflies of Bhutan - Mountains, Hills and Valleys between 800 and 3000 m. Royal Society for Protection of Nature. Thimphu, Bhutan, 71 pp.

Van der Poel, P. & P. Smetacek (eds.) (2022). An Annotated Catalogue of the Butterflies of Nepal. Bionotes: Occasional Paper 1, vii+241 pp.

Van der Poel, P., K. Wangdi & K.C. Sajan (2023). First records of 25 skippers (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) for Bhutan and confirmation or recent evidence of 25 seldom reported skippers. Bionotes 25(1&2): 83–124.

Van Gasse, P. (2018). Butterflies of the Indian Subcontinent – Annotated Checklist. PDF version from the internet, 207 pp. http://www.biodiversityofindia.org/index.php?title=Butterflies_of_the_Indian_sub-continent. Downloaded on April 2019.

Varshney, R.K. & P. Smetacek (eds.) (2015). A Synoptic Catalogue of Butterflies of India. Butterfly Research Centre, Bhimtal, & Indinov Publishing, New Delhi, ii + 261 pp., 8 pls.

Wangdi, K. & Sherub (2014). Field Guide to Hesperiidae (Skippers) of Bhutan. UWICE Nature Guide Series. Ugyen Wangchuk Institute of Conservation and Environment, Bumthang, Bhutan, 91 pp.

Wangdi, S., K. Wangdi, Sherub, R. Wangdi, S. Drukpa, M. Harada, T. Aoki, S. Yamaguchi, M. Saito, Y. Igarashi, Y. Watanabe & M. Yago (2012). Butterflies of Trashiyangtse Valley, eastern Bhutan (Part 1). The Butterfly Society of Japan. Teinopalpus 62: 16–29.

Wood-Mason, J. & L. de Nicéville (1886). List of the lepidopterous insects collected in Cachar by Mr. J. Wood-Mason, part ii. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 55 Pt. II(4): 343–393.

Yazaki, Y. & S. Kanmuri (1985). Butterflies of western Bhutan (218 species). The Rhopalocerists’ Magazine, Japan 8(7): 260–267.

Yazaki, Y. (2012). Butterflies of Bhutan. Kitami, Hokkaido, 268 pp.

Zhang, J., Q. Cong, J. Shen & N.V. Grishin (2022). Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Insecta Mundi 2022(921): 1409.

Zhang, J., Q. Cong, J. Shen, L. Song & N.V. Grishin (2023). A taxonomic list of the Old World genera in the subfamily Hesperiinae (Hesperiidae) arranged into tribes. The Taxonomic Report of the international lepidoptera Survey 11(2): 1–7.

Zhu, L., Y. Han, Y, Hou, Z. Huang, M. Wang, H. Chiba, L. Chen & X. Fan (2023). Taxonomic problems of several hesperiid taxa (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae). Scientific Reports 13: 7901. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34608-8

Internet sources:

BBP (Bhutan Biodiversity Portal): https://biodiversity.bt/

FUNET: https://www.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/hesperioidea/hesperiidae/

GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Foundation): https://www.gbif.org/

IFB (Indian Foundation of Butterflies): https://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/hesperiidae

iNaturalist.org: https://www.inaturalist.org/guide_taxa/236579

Observation.org: https://observation.org/taxa/16229/

Yutaka (Inayoshi, Y.): A Check List of Butterflies in Indo-China - Chiefly from Thailand, Laos & Vietnam (including pictures of specimens): https://yutaka.it-n.jp/hespi.html.