The text below is grayed out because it is not intended to be read. It is a necessarily imperfect OCR of the original and is only used by a search engine.
|
|
||||
|
1964
|
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
|
73
|
||
|
|
||||
|
The pupa of P. indra minori is nearly identical to the pupa of P. indra fordi (illustrated in Comstoek & Martin, 1955). The ground color is a grayish tan, with short light and dark streaks giving all surfaces except the wing cases a lightly mottled appearance. The wing cases are predominantly olive-tan. The surface is rough with a profusion of tiny raised points and small wart-like nodules. There are two longitudinal rows of papillae extending posteriorly from the thoracic region: one row on each side of the dorsal area, and a second row placed suprastigmatally. These papillae are not lightly colored and conspicuous, as opposed to those on the pupa of P. indra fordi.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Acknowledgements
The present paper is part of a continuing study of species of the Papilio machaon complex in western North America. The aid of the Gordon F. Ferris Memorial Scholarship (to J. F. E.) from Stanford University is gratefully acknowledged.
Mr. Will C. Minor of Fruita, Colorado, was exceedingly helpful during our visit to the Black Ridge area. Superintendent F. G. Bussey and Naturalist Clarence J. McCoy of the National Park Service were most helpful in granting us a collecting permit to collect within Colorado National Monument and in answering our many questions about the area and its butterfly fauna. Mr. Donald Eff of Boulder, Colorado, very kindly supplied us with a living female of P. indra minori and detailed information on the type locality. Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich, Division of Systematic Biology, Stanford University, reviewed the manuscript and offered helpful assistance at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Literature Cited Comstoek, John A., & Lloyd M. Martin, 1955. A new Papilio from California.
Bull. so. Calif, acad. soc. 54: 142-148. Eff, Donald, 1962. A little about the little-known Papilio indra minori. Journ.
lepid. soc. 16: 137-142. Emmel, Thomas C, & John F. Emmel, 1962. Ecological studies of Rhopaloccra in a
High Sierran community — Donner Pass, California. I. Butterfly associations and
distributional factors. Journ. lepid. soc. 16: 23-44. ..................................................., 1963 Larval food-plant records for six
western Papilios. Journ. res. lepid. 1: 191-193. Harrington, H. D., 1954. Manual of the plants of Colorado. 666 pp. Sage
Books, Denver. Mathias, Mildred E., 1938. A revision of the genus Lomatium. Ann. Missouri hot.
garden 25: 225-297.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
ATTRACTION OF BUTTERFLIES TO LIGHT
by D. G. Sevastopulo
P. O. Box 5026, Mombasa, KENYA
With reference to Mr. Donohue's note (Journ. lepid. soc. 16: 131-132; 1962), the paucity of Indian records of butterflies attracted to light can, I think, be explained partly by the fact that the older generation of entomologists saw nothing remarkable in the occasional visit of a
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
74 Emmel and Emmel: Papilio biology Vol.18: no.2
butterfly to light; after all many other day-flying, sun-loving insects are so attracted, for example dragonflies, cicadas, grasshoppers, both long and short horned, plant bugs, bees, wasps, day-flying moths, etc., and partly because it is only comparatively recently that electric light has been extended to cover the smaller places.
I have published no records of butterflies attracted to light in India, but the crepuscular Melanitis leda L. and Gangara thyrsis F. were both fairly frequent visitors. In Calcutta, the satyrid Elymnias hypermnestra undularis Drury and the hesperiid Suastus gremius F., both of whose larvae feed on palms growing in verandahs, also appeared not infrequently.
In 1948, near Pantellaria Island in the Mediterranean, my ship passed through a migration of Vanessa cardui L., and a number of them were attracted to the ship's lights that evening (Entomologist 81: 186; 1948).
Working a mercury vapour lamp in East Africa has provided a very large number of records, some of which have been published in 1955 and 1958 (Entomologist 88: 37; 91: 86), and I give below a full list of the species that have been attracted. Some of these have been published previously and some have not. For the sake of completeness I have added the names of some day-flying moths that have also been attracted.
Papilionidae: Papilio demodocus Esp. Pieridae: Glycesthes creona severina Stol; G, c. infida Btlr.; Catop-
silia florella F. Danaidae: Danaus chrysippus L. Acraeidae: Acraea encedon L.; A. eponina Cr. Nymphalidae: Charaxes candiope Godt.; Hypolimnas misippus L.;
Precis sophia F.; P. clelia Cr; P. lintingensis cebrene Trim.; P.
orithya madagascariensis Guer.; Vanessa cardui L.; Crenis trimeni
Auriv. Satyridae: Melanitis leda africana Fruhs.; Gnophodes parmeno
diversa Btlr.; Mycalesis safitza Hew. Libytheidae: Libythea lahdaca Westw. Lycaenidae: Lachnocnema durhani Trim.; Hypolycaena pacha-
lica Btlr.; Siyntarucus telicanus Lang; Zizula hylax F. (—TAzeeria
gaika Trim.) Hesperiidae: Coeliades sejuncta Vuill.; C. anchises Gerst.; Chond-
rolepis niveicornis Plotz; Zophopetes eery mica Hew.; Pelopidas
borbonica Bsd. Sphingidae: Cephonodes hylas virescens Wllgr.; Leucostrophus
hirundo Gerst. Noctuidae (Catocalinae): Egybolis vaillantina Stoll.
|
||
|
|
||