chilasa paradoxa ID please

[Deleted]

can you please help me with this paradoxa, i thought first that it was paradoxa aenigma, but its lakking the 2 white spots in the forewing.

thanks in advance

Attachments:

[thanos]

I'd say it's the form eucyana of paradoxa aenigma,which has the forewings blue and unmarked(lacks the big white area in the edge of the cell,as well the additional smaller white spot exactly out of the cell,that the white form aegialus for example has),also lacks the big white hindwing area close to the base(which f.aegialus has),and mimics the Danaid Euploea mulciber.
Also it looks similar to paradoxa melanostoma from Palawan,but I think it's not,as in melanostoma the white submarginal spots are more 'V' shaped and larger.Also melanostoma,as far I know is hard to get.
The collecting data of the specimen would be very useful.

Thanos

[Deleted]

I love this group, and would not consider myself an expert, but what I see looks much like C. paradoxa telearchus. Where is it from? My C. p. telearchus looks just like that and is from Laos.

[thanos]

telearchus has a quite clear row of postdiscal spots on the forewings..To me,it doesn't fit.
Where is the specimen from? Malaysia..?Borneo..?Or not ?

Hmm,it also looks very similar to the ssp.telesicles from Borneo. So,I am between telesicles(if it is from Borneo) and the form eucyana of aenigma(if it is from Malaysia or Sumatra). With my final better proposition,after comparing pictured specimens of all subspecies(judging clearly morphologically in lack of coll.data) and also as the blue f.eucyana of aenigma is rare, to be the ssp.telesicles.This ssp.(I mean the blue form of this ssp.,as there are also rare white forms like the f.mendex) has forewing postdiscal light-blue fainted marks which fit to the above specimen and which are not well-defined(quite clear) light-blue spots like those of the ssp.telearchus.
If it's from Thailand or Laos.. is telearchus(again the classic,blue telearchus form,as there are also rare white forms),but as I told above this ssp. has quite well-defined postdiscal spots. But this species is highly variable,and exist many forms inside the different subspecies,so we need the collecting data to confirm the ssp.
Adam's advice is needed here,and Kurt's provision of the collecting data(if available).Also,and if the data is not available,a photo without flash would be helpful,as the flash somehow cancels the light-blue forewing postdiscal marks.

Thanos

[Adam Cotton]

It looks like either aenigma or telesicles from the wingshape, telearchus has a more elongate forewing. Indeed aenigma is variable, rarely even without any white spots on the forewings at all. The location data would confirm which subspecies it is, and some indication of size would help.

I would also tend to think it is aenigma rather than telesicles from the hindwing submarginal spots.

By the way Thanos, ssp. telearchus occurs as far west as Assam, not only Thailand and Laos.

Adam.

[Deleted]

thanks for the reply's
the paradoxa is from Tapah hills , Malaysia.
my fist thought was also Paradoxa aenigma, but becouse of the diffrences with my other male aenigma , i was not shure.

[thanos]

So,yeap,it's aenigma f.eucyana - my first thought,too. Adam,for ssp.aenigma, male f.eucyana=f.aenigma ? I have seen both names for the blue form(Kurt's specimen) with only submarginal white spots(lacking the big white area in the forewing cell and on hindwing basal area), which mimics the Danaid Euploea mulciber.

Btw,in Greek, 'aenigma' means mystery.. - which is solved now

Thanos

[Adam Cotton]

Thanos,

No, it is NOT form eucyana. Male form eucyana was described by Jordan (1909, in Seitz 9:44) "from South-East and North Borneo", and is thus a form of ssp. telesicles.
Jordan states that in eucyana "... the light blue stripes are entirely absent, and the submarginal spots of the forewing above are wanting, or only the anterior ones are present", so you can see that this specimen does not even match Jordan's description.

Kurt, your specimen is just a variant of form aenigma, but rather nice as well!

Adam.

[thanos]

Thank you Adam ! So the ID's 'paradoxa aenigma f.eucyana' that I've seen for blue males from Malaysia are obviously wrong, and only the form aenigma exist for the blue males of paradoxa aenigma.(And the f.aegialus for the white ones).

Thanos

[Deleted]

thanks a lot for the help Adam and Thanos

[hewi]

As form names do not have any nomenclatural validity everybody can use such names as one likes. You can link it with every subspecies you want. E.g. the name "eucyana" you can use it as "nomen collectivum" for all blue forms with reduced white.

Manfred

[Adam Cotton]

Manfred,

You are right that form names have no nomenclatorial validity, if (as in the case of eucyana) the name was originally proposed as an infrasubspecific entity.

However, I don't agree that it is a good idea to use a name as a "nomen collectivum", as that can cause more confusion than before. The corresponding form for each subspecies often already has its own name.

Personally I don't use form names, but when asked I am happy to help out as best as I can here.

Adam.

[thanos]

I had also the same thought with Manfred that f.eucyana could be used for every blue male of any subspecies of paradoxa,as 'eucyana' comes from 'eu'+'cyana' and 'cyano' in Greek means blue. So,actually 'eucyana' means 'the one who has good blue'.. But I agree with Adam that this should be avoided so to avoid confusions,as already this form was described by Jordan only for the ssp.telesicles .

Thanos