Dear Kishen,
thank you for your views.I would, however, like to point out the following:
I quoted the distinctive features of ruficornis as ennumerated by Evans. So,
the coloration of the antennae is diagnostic.
Similarly, the coloration of the cilia (= fringe) is also distinctive in many
skippers and Neptis: here, it is distinctive for the south Indian subspecies.
Agree with your points 2,3 and 4.
Disagree with 5. Latest issue of J. BNHS has a report of a skipper from S.
India that was overlooked in the past, so one can certainly not state with
cetainty what does not occur there.....
Disagree also with point 6: Dr. Krishna's specimen does not look too badly worn
for id. The cilia are also clearly white: in worn specimens, often the cilia is
worn away, making id difficult.
Guess we'll just have to leave it as a "mystery skipper". Wish we had a
specimen to settle the uncertainty. Anyway, perhaps south Indian members should
keep a special look out for Celaenorrhinus, there might be a yeti out there.....
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:13:01 +0530 wrote
>
I will go with Isaac sir here for the following reasons -
1) There will be variations in the coloration/pattern of antennae and hence it
cannot be used all the time for identification.
2) Tiny spots below the apical series on FW might or might not be present in
both the species. I have seen many specimens of ruficornis and leucocera with
or without those spots in wild.
3) Semi-transparent white spots on the upperside of the forewings are separated
and hence its not leucocera.
4) ambareesa is way too different from these two species to get confused.
5) There is no other "Celaenorrhinus" species present in that region.
6) Large suffused dark spots on UPH are worn out in Dr. Krishna's specimen.
That specimen looks old, has broken right forewing and heavily lacking in
original set of scales.
Kishen
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Peter Smetacek wrote:
Dear Isaac,
to take this matter forward, I checked your link and certainly, your specimen
is C. ruficornis. (Enjoyed the other photos as well). However, Krishna's
specimen is certainly not ruficornis, for the following reasons:
Evans (1949, Catalogue of Hesperidae) says for ruficornis:
antennal shaft chequered, club white in male, white at base in female:
Krishna's specimen has plain white antennae, not chequered;
in Krishna's specimen, there is an extra spot in FW 1b, lacking in your
specimen, as well two tiny ones below the subapical series, lacking in your
specimen;
Evans says for ruficornis ssp. fusca: Uph with large suffused dark spots
(present in your specimen and lacking in Krishna's) and Cilia Hindwing narrowly
white, chequered (correct for yours, Krishna's specimen has plain white cilia).
I also agree that it is not munda, that was just a suggestion. Difficult to say
what it was, now... wish we had the specimen.
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:06:59 +0530 wrote
>
Freinds,
Can you id this flat? It was taken at Kudremukh national park.
regards
Krishna Mohan
--
Dr. Krishna Mohan
Prabhu Hospital
Hospital Cross Road
Moodabidri - 574227
India
Phone: +91 9880744258
+91 8258-237258
Website:
http://www.drkrishi.com
--
Enjoy
