|♂, Tak, Thailand.||♀, 1994.03.16. Tak, Thailand.|
|♂, Tak, Thailand.|
Euthalia eriphylae Nicéville, 1891
OD : J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 6(3):353-354, Pl.F, fig.7,♂.
TL : Tenasserim. (♂, NZC)
Distribution : C. to S.Myanmar, W.Thailand.
Type ♂, Tenasserim. (NZC) ; Sheela et al.,2019 : 208, figs.♂,♂(Un).
[ THAILAND ]
Euthalia eriphyle [sic] eriphyle [sic] ; Godfrey,1930 : 293. (Me Wong)
Euthalia eriphylae eriphylae ; Pinratana,1979 : 75, not fig. (Nakhon Sawan)
Euthalia eriphylae chula ; Ek-Amnuay, : pl.193, figs.N145a♂(left). (Umphang) (in part)
Euthalia eriphylae chula ; Ek-Amnuay,2012 : pl.197, fig.N311a♂(Umphang). (Umphang) (in part)
Euthalia mahadeva binghamii ; Ek-Amnuay,2012 : 450, pl.198, figs.N312a♀(Un). (Umphang) (in part)
Euthalia eriphylae chula ; Kimura et al.,2016 : 105, not fit. (Thun Yai) (in part)
[ THAILAND ]
Tak : 2♂ 1♀.
Umphang dist., 1♀, 1994.03.16. LC (YI).
The butterfly is rare in montane forest at moderate elevations.
The classification of the three species, including eriphylae, mahadeva and merta, has been confusing from the past to the present. The reason is the markings of each species are very similar, there is no difference in the male genitalia, and they are all so rare that it was difficult to collect specimens to compare them.
Nicéville,1891 described Euthalia eriphylae based on a single male from Tenasserim. And the female was unknown. Tytler,1940 described a specimen of dsf which seems to be the only female in the NHML. The specimen was collected at Pattechaung [Patchichoung], S.Tenasserim on Mar.1926, however I have also examined this specimen (BMNH #985620), and it is definitely a female of Euthalia merta, not Euthalia eriphylae. Other specimens identified as Euthalia eriphylae in NHML include a female from Naga Hill (#985474), a male from Assam (#985647) and a male from [Assam?] (#985502), are all definitely Euthalia merta. After Tytler, there is no information on the female of eriphylae. D'Abrera,1983 showed a female of Euthalia eriphylae eriphylae, However, as noted in the section on Euthalia mahadeva binghamii, it is a female of Euthalia mahadeva binghamii.
I believe the specimen shown above is the true female of Euthalia eriphylae. The species is very similar to female of the continental Euthalia merta, but can be distinguished by the V-shaped submarginal markings on the UpH, instead of the black dots of female of Euthalia merta. The white markings on the UpF closely resembles that of continental merta.
I suspect that taxa with these small, underdeveloped white markings on the UpF are Euthalia eriphylae, and that taxa with large white markings (for instance chula and lioneli) are Euthalia mahadeva. The populations that I consider to be eriphylae occur very locally in the Malay Peninsula (ssp.elioti), Langkawi-Tarutao Islands (ssp.raja), W.Thailand to C.Myanmar (ssp.eriphylae), and N.Vietnam (undescribed ssp.). The record of Euthalia eriphylae chula from Thun Yai, Kanchanaburi is considered to be this taxon. The species is rare or extremely rare in all regions and occurs sympatrically with Euthalia mahadeva. The distribution map of eriphylae excludes some taxa such as chula and lioneli etc., which could be Euthalia mahadeva. As for the eriphylae-mahadeva complex, further field research and DNA analysis are needed.
Nicéville, L. de.,1891 : On new and little-known Butterflies from the Indo-Malayan region.
J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 6(3):341-398.
Moore, F.,1898 : Lepidoptera Indica. Rhopalocera. Family Nymphalidae. Sub-family Nymphalinae (continued), Groups Potamina, Euthalina, Limenitina Lepidoptera Indica 3
(30):113-128, pl.231-238 ; (31):129-144, pl.239-246.
London, L.Reeve and Co.
Bingham, C.T.,1905 : The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Butterflies 1.
London. xxii+511pp, pls.1-10.
Tytler, H.,1940 : Notes on Some New and Interesting Butterflies chiefly from Burma. Part.2.
J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 42:109-123.
D'Abrera, B.,1983 : Butterflies of the Oriental Region Part 2. Nymphalidae, Satyridae & Amathusidae
Hill House. Melbourne.
|2007.02.10 - 2021.09.30.|