Commander
31-May-2007, 03:32 PM
Take a look at two recent shots of Arhopala which have been labeled as "major." Whilst I do not claim to be an expert in Arhopala species, there is a lot of confusion and misconception with the lookalike species and it is not easy to ID the many species in the genus.
Just a quick comparison already shows that these two species are definitely different -irrespective of whether one or the other is A. major or not. Another one labeled here as "A. major" (http://b-pals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5172) is also quite different in markings.
ID'ing any Arhopala is a complex process of eliminating the characteristics of the spots, tails, upperside borders, colour of the wings and other secondary features. That's why C&P4 has a special section depicting these species in black-and-white to better isolate the markings for comparison. No other genus has this special process to help ID them.
Hence I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusion from a field shot that any of the shots depicted here as A. major, A. amphimuta, A. pseudomuta and so on.
So if you shoot Arhopalas, particularly those lookalikes without very distinctive features, please do not label them A. major or any other species names. Field shots are not reliable to ID them and even actual specimens can be challenging to ID. Frankly speaking, I can't tell either. :embrass: So it may be better not to confuse everyone by calling these species Arhopala major - which they are probably not. ;P
Just to add this this post is not meant to prove anyone right or wrong. As for the ID of what these Arhopalas are, I am equally confused as any of you. :hmmm:
Just a quick comparison already shows that these two species are definitely different -irrespective of whether one or the other is A. major or not. Another one labeled here as "A. major" (http://b-pals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5172) is also quite different in markings.
ID'ing any Arhopala is a complex process of eliminating the characteristics of the spots, tails, upperside borders, colour of the wings and other secondary features. That's why C&P4 has a special section depicting these species in black-and-white to better isolate the markings for comparison. No other genus has this special process to help ID them.
Hence I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusion from a field shot that any of the shots depicted here as A. major, A. amphimuta, A. pseudomuta and so on.
So if you shoot Arhopalas, particularly those lookalikes without very distinctive features, please do not label them A. major or any other species names. Field shots are not reliable to ID them and even actual specimens can be challenging to ID. Frankly speaking, I can't tell either. :embrass: So it may be better not to confuse everyone by calling these species Arhopala major - which they are probably not. ;P
Just to add this this post is not meant to prove anyone right or wrong. As for the ID of what these Arhopalas are, I am equally confused as any of you. :hmmm: