Arhopala & Tagiades IDs ?

[Glorious Begum]

Is this Arhopala bazalus zalinda ? Shot in Cameron highland.

http://www.pbase.com/lcgoh/image/153905861.jpg

Is this Tagiades cohaerens cinda ?

http://www.pbase.com/lcgoh/image/153905871.jpg

[Psyche]

1. It is A. bazalus. Note HW spot 6 is notched on the outer margin; spot 7 is sinuous.

2. Very difficult to ID.
It is not T cohaerens or menaka which have a big spot in space 1b.(would be visible near the midrib of the leaf.)
T. cohaerens
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3213/2735312000_a98d9081d6_z.jpg?zz=1

T. lavatus has no spot underneath.

T. calligana & waterstradti have the spots in space 7 absent or almost obsolete.
T. waterstradti.
http://www.boldsystems.org/pics/_w300/HSPEC/1971-UN%2B1284909504.JPG

T. vajuna/litigiosa have the submarginal spot 5 blocky or rounded.(corrected)
http://aminus3.s3.amazonaws.com/image/g0029/u00028039/i01652617/225b448d233be1383ed41cad82298e82_large.jpg

T. ultra have the submarginal spot 5 elongate & narrower.
http://www.boldsystems.org/pics/_w300/HSPED/2047-UN%2B1286988138.JPG

This spot matched that in the pic so it is most likely Tagiades ultra.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Psyche]

2 should be Tagiades vajuna/litigiosa.(corrected.)

HW underside space 7 in T. ultra is largely brown & the spots poor or obsolete.
http://www.fobi.web.id/key/Yenti+Kumala+Sari?g2_itemId=91759

TL Seow:cheers:

[Painted Jezebel]

A comment regarding T. vajuna (note spelling!): I asked Yutaka why he had dropped T. litigiosa and he said.. "This used to be known as T. litigiosa, but examination of the type specimen in Berlin has shown it to be T. menaka, so the next valid name must now be used."

[Glorious Begum]

Thanks Dr Seow & Les. :cheers:

[Psyche]

A comment regarding T. vajuna (note spelling!): I asked Yutaka why he had dropped T. litigiosa and he said.. "This used to be known as T. litigiosa, but examination of the type specimen in Berlin has shown it to be T. menaka, so the next valid name must now be used."

I didn't realised I have put the spellng in 'reverse' after checking on it.

I recalled reading somewhere about these two that leaves an element of doubt as to the invalidity of litigiosa.
Certainly worth checking on it later.

TL Seow:cheers:

[Psyche]

Yutaka followed Maruyama 1991 in using vajuna, meaning it was Maruyama who examined the type specimen.

Fruhstorfer in his catalogue listed 3 in what he called the T. menaka group, namely T. menaka menaka. T. menaka litigiosa, & his own T. menaka vajuna.

De Jong & Treadaway mentioned litigiosa in their work on Philippine Hesperiids in 1993, though they would have been aware of Maruyama's name-change in 1991.

Finally, this latest checklist on Indian butterflies (August 2013) still use T. litigiosa with vajuna as a synonym.
http://www.ifoundbutterflies.org/images/PaulVanGasse/Butterflies_of%20_India-Annotated_checklist-1.pdf

Very confusing.

TL Seow:Cheers.