♂, Chiang Mai, Thailand.		♀, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
♂, Chiang Mai, Thailand.		♀, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
♂, Chiang Mai, Thailand.		♂ genitalia, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

ON : Rapala rosacea Nicéville, 1889 OD : J. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Part II. 57(4): 285, pl.14, fig.12,♂. TL : Sikkim. Distribution : Nepal, Sikkim, Assam, N.Thailand, Laos, Vietnam.

'Rapala nissa ranta var. bifida Cantlie, 1959 : J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 56(3): 652-653. Loc. Sadon, N. Burma. (IFS)'
Rapala hinomaru Fujioka, 1970 ; Spec. Bull. Lepid. Soc. Japan (4): 29-30, pl.11, figs.5(HT,♀), 6(HT,♀Un). TL. Darapani (1000m)-The Tombol Bridge, Nepal. (CUBM)

hinomaru ; Holotype ♀, 25.vi.1963, Darapani (1000m)-The Tombol Bridge, East Nepal. T.Fujioka leg. (CUBM) ; Sajan et al.,2025 : 45-46, figs.9, ♀,♀(Un).

[ THAILAND ]
Rapala rectivitta ; Pinratana,1981 : pl.28, fig.16,♂(Un). (in part)
Rapala rosacea ; Ek-Amnuay,[2007] : 716, pl.327, figs.L423,♂,♂(Un). (Chiang Mai: Doi Suthep)
Rapala rosacea ; Ek-Amnuay,2012 : 764, pl.351, figs.L444,♂,♂(Un),♀,♀(Un). (Chiang Mai: Doi Suthep)
Rapala rosacea ; Kimura et al.,2014 : 142, figs.♂,♂(Un),♂,♂(Un),♀,♀(Un). (Doi Suthep)

[ LAOS ]
Rapala rosacea ; Miyamoto & Nakamura,2016 : 26-27, figs.20A♂,B♂(Un),C♀,D♀(Un). (Xieng Khouang)
Rapala rosacea ; Onodera,2022 : 97, pl.231, figs.♂,♂(Un). (Xiengkhouang: Tha)

[ VIETNAM ]
Rapala rosacea ; Miyazaki, Saito & Saito,2006d : 68, fig.L-145,♂. (Lam Dong: Dambri)
Rapala rosacea ; Yokochi et al.,2015 : 42. (Khanh Hoa: Hon Ba)
Rapala rosacea ; Monastyrskii & Devyatkin,2015 : 69. (C: Gia Lai)

[ THAILAND ]
Chiang Mai : 7♂ 2♀ (2♂ genitalia dissected).

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

[ VIETNAM ]
Lao Cai : 1♂.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Vinh Phuc : 1♀.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Dac Nong : 5♂.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Lam Dong : 2♂.

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

This is a rather localized species, but is not rare in its habitats. The butterfly is found in montane forests at moderate to high elevations (Alt. 1300 - 1600m).
Sajan et al. (2025) synonymised Rapala hinomaru with Rapala nissa. However, based on the following reasons, I consider it more likely that hinomaru is a female of rosacea rather than nissa.
1) The upperside of both wings is mostly lacking in steel blue scales, whereas nissa never lacks steel blue scales. 2) The wing shape is rounded (especially the hindwing), differing entirely from nissa which is elongated longitudinally. 3) The striae in space 1a on the UnH are significantly broad, whereas it does not become markedly broad in nissa.

Rapala rosacea UpH, androconial patch

An additional characteristic of the males of this species is that the androconial scales on the UpH are covered along the veins down to the base of vein 6. This does not occur in the nissa complex.
Sajan et al. speculate that this species may be univoltine and occur only in the early spring, since individuals with rosy, reddish-vinous-coloured undersides are only observed from February to mid-March. After this period, they change to greyer individuals, suggesting that specimens observed after mid-March belong to the nissa complex. However, this species is known to be multivoltine in Indochina, and Sajan's description of "notably, the rosy, reddish-vinous-coloured undersides individuals in early spring" should be considered an extreme dry-season form.

The name Rapala nissa ranta var. bifida Cantlie, 1959 is an infrasubspecific name and is unavailable. Huang (2001) considered it to be a subspecies of Rapala subpurpurea Leech, 1890, without correctly conferring availability of the name under the ICZN Code. This is presumably inferred from the original description, which stated that "the cleft between the conjoined clasps of the Sadon specimens extends to half way down the clasps". However, this characteristic alone may also be Rapala rosacea. This makes it impossible to definitively diagnose it as subpurpurea. Since its other characteristics were considered to be identical to those of Rapala nissa, it is highly probable that the Cantlie did not recognise it as rosacea because the underside ground colour was not "vinous red". Considering the seasonal variation and distribution of rosacea, it is reasonable to treat this population as belonging to rosacea rather than subpurpurea. Further taxonomic and distributional studies are needed.

Nicéville, L. de,1889 : On new or little-known Butterflies from the Indian Region.
J. asiat. Soc. Bengal, Part II. 57(4): 273-293, pls.13,14.

Leech, J.H.,1890 : New species of Lepidoptera from China.
Entomologist 23: 26-50, 81-83, : 109-114, : 187-192, pl. 1.

Cantlie, K.,1959 : A new variety of the butterfly Rapala nissa ranta Swinhoe.
J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 56(3): 652-653.

Fujioka, T.,1970 : Butterflies collected by the Lepidopterological Research Expedition to Nepal Himalaya, 1963. Part 1 Papilionoidea.
Spec. Bull. Lepid. Soc. Japan (4): 1-125.

Huang, H.,2001 : Report of H. Huang's 2000 Expedition to SE. Tibet for Rhopalocera.
Neue ent. Nachr. 51: 65-152.

Sajan, KC., Van der Poel, P., Pariyar, S., Sunar, A. & Singhlimbu, M.,2025 :
A review of the genus Rapala Moore, 1881 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae: Theclinae) of Nepal with insights on little-known species.
Zootaxa 5692(1): 031-056.

1999.07.21 - 2025.10.31.