|
Post by indowings on Aug 30, 2012 14:41:10 GMT -8
I'm curious: how long would a specimen need to be placed under a UV light source (like a lamp) before this blue colour change became noticeable? Does anyone have experience with this?
|
|
|
Post by indowings on May 5, 2012 15:20:32 GMT -8
Well if it is a matter of enforcing the ESA, then yes, what CITES says is of little consequence. Makes me glad I'm in Australia : )
|
|
|
Post by indowings on May 3, 2012 16:25:37 GMT -8
I decided to get things really clear with CITES in Geneva, so sent another email and got a fairly swift reply (copy below).
For me, this response clearly states that Papilio chikae hermeli, or whatever you want to call it, is not subject to CITES I. This may change, as indicated in the response, but not necessarily. Here is the response from CITES:
Dear Sir
Thank you for your further enquiry.
As stated in our previous email, although the listing took place quite some time ago, the Secretariat is not aware of any information which would suggest that it was the intention of Parties to include butterflies now known as Papilio (chikae) hermeli in the CITES Appendix I listing for Papilio chikae. In such circumstances, extension of the Appendix I listing to cover specimens existing on Mindoro island (whatever they may be called), could only be achieved by a further decision of the Conference of the Parties.
Separately, the Conference of the Parties may decide to adopt a standard nomenclatural reference covering these taxa which has the effect of formally recognizing Papilio hermeli as a subspecies of Papilio chikae. Such a proposal would normally be made by the CITES Animals Committee (http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/index.php) on the basis of a suggestion from its Nomenclature Specialist (currently Dr Ute Grimm). Such an adoption would not mean that Papilio chikae hermeli was therefore automatically included in Appendix I - that would need to be the subject of a separate decision (see above)
We trust that this is helpful.
Sincerely
DM David H.W. Morgan Chief, Scientific Services Team/Jefe del Equipo de Servicios Cientificos/Chef d'Equipe des Services scientifiques, CITES Secretariat/Secretaria CITES/Secretariat CITES, Maison internationale de l'environnement, Chemin des Anemones CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva Switzerland
|
|
|
Post by indowings on Apr 29, 2012 21:28:39 GMT -8
I wrote to CITES to clarify their position on hermeli and chickae, and this is the response I got:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Unlike many other taxa, the Conference of the Parties to CITES has not adopted a standard nomenclatural reference for the family Papilionidae (other than for Ornithoptera spp., Trogonoptera spp. and Troides spp.) and so there is no guide to what specimens are covered by a particular species name for the butterflies in this family listed in the CITES Appendices.
The Conference decided to include the species Papilio chikae in Appendix I in 1987, that is to say before Papilio hermeli was described in the scientific literature.
The supporting statement for the proposal which was agreed upon in 1987 states that the species that was the subject of the proposal was endemic to Luzon.
In summary, the Secretariat is not aware of any information which would suggest that it was the intention of Parties to include butterflies now known as Papilio hermeli in the CITES Appendix I listing for Papilio chikae.
We trust that this is of assistance.
Sincerely
DM David H.W. Morgan Chief, Scientific Services Team/Jefe del Equipo de Servicios Cientificos/Chef d'Equipe des Services scientifiques, CITES Secretariat/Secretaria CITES/Secretariat CITES, Maison internationale de l'environnement, Chemin des Anemones CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva Switzerland
--------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note the mention of endemicity to Luzon in the supporting statement for chikae being put on CITES I.
Of course, there is still some ambiguity here, but I though people would be interested in this response from the very source of the convention.
David.
|
|
|
Post by indowings on Feb 24, 2012 0:17:59 GMT -8
Hi nusferatus,
do you have any images of Idea agamarschana agamarschana and I. a. arakana? I have never seen these and cannot find many references for them.
David.
|
|
|
Post by indowings on Aug 19, 2011 16:25:18 GMT -8
Looks like Catapaecilma evansi.
David.
|
|