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.
1969
Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society
105
not intersect the cell. I consider the El Carmen specimens, which have slightly wider bands than British Guiana specimens, but in the normal position, to be nominate H. hecale. Heliconius ethillus Godart was collected sympatric with H. hecale at El Carmen. This is significant because while ethillus and hecale are readily separated by pattern they are morphologically indistinguishable. Emsley (1965) states: "It is not known to what degree if any H. hecale is geographically or ecologically isolated from ostensibly sympatric forms of H. ethillus. . ."
During February, 1966, I collected three specimens of Heliconius xanthocles Bates, not previously known from Venezuela, 85 kilometers south of El Dorado on the El Dorado/Santa Elena road, Bolivar, Venezuela. Dr. Michael G. Emsley of the Philadelphia Academy of Science confirmed my determinations. An examination of the Gadou collection revealed several additional examples of H. xanthocles that had been captured at Santa Elena de Uairena, Bolivar, Venezuela during August, 1964. All of the Venezuelan xanthocles lack rays on the hind wings and are best referred to as nominate H. x. xanthocles. Heliconius xanthocles was found sympatric with two similarly marked species: Heliconius burneyi catharinae Staudinger and Heliconius elevatus tumatumari Kaye at Kilometer 85 and H. b. catharinae and H. elevatus roraima at Santa Elena. The Gadous collected about ten examples of H. e. roraima at Santa Elena, the only known specimens outside of the type series from Mt. Roraima.
Literature Cited Emsley, M. G., 1965. Speciation in Heliconius (Lep., Nymphalidae): morphology
and geographic distribution. Zoologica, 50: 191-254. Hall, A., 1939. Catalogue of the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera (butterflies) of British
Guiana. British Guiana Dept. Agr. Ent. Bull, 3: 1-88.
NOCTURNAL COPULATION OF RHOPALOCERA
The article on mating behavior of butterflies by Miller and Clench (1968, /. Lepid. Soc, 22: 125-132) prompts me to report several instances of mating pairs of butterflies collected on a moth sheet using a 15 watt "BL" florescent light. Six pairs have been taken but only two species are involved, Libytheana bachmanii (Kirtland) and Strymon melinus Hubner. Four pairs of L. bachmanii were collected in 1966 in Lake Corpus Christi State Park near Mathis, Texas. Three pairs on the 15th and one pair on the 16th of June. Collection times were 10:35 P.M. (2 pair), 11:15 P.M. and 11:45 P.M. Central Standard Time. It should be pointed out that L. bachmanii was literally swarming all through the park at this time and 27 other individuals were taken from the light sheet during three evenings of collecting. The specimens were probably disturbed from the trees overhead by our activity or by other large insects which were swarming around the light. All four pairs were mated when found and may either have been resting in coition in the trees above or joined after their arrival on the sheet.
In the same park, 17 June, 1968 we collected another mating pair of L. bachmanii and one pair of S. melinus. The L. bachmanii were paired when found at 11:05 P.M.
106
Powell: Book review
Vol. 23, no. 2
(Central Daylight Time). At the same time two S. melinus were noticed sitting near the top of the sheet about four inches apart and about 18 inches from the light. One had a damaged hindwing which proved to be a valuable observation since this damaged specimen (a female) was later found paired with a fresh male, probably the one previously observed. Copulation occurred sometime between 11:10 and 11:45 P.M. when the pair was found and collected. L. bachmanii was a scarce species this visit while S. melinus was only reasonably common. I would like to acknowledge my thanks to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. for making available the necessary park collecting permits.—J. Richard Heitzman, 3112 Harris Ave., Independence, Missouri.1,2
1 Contribution No. 149, Entomology Section, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture, Gainesville.
2 Research Associate, Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture.
BOOK REVIEW
Microlepidoptera of the Philippine Islands, by A. Diakonoff. U. S. National Museum, Bulletin 257, 484 pp., 1967. $2.00 paper cover.
Diakonoff estimates that less than 20% of the existing Microlepidoptera fauna is enumerated in this survey, which is based largely on the C. F. Baker collection at the U. S. National Museum. A total of 291 species is recorded, distributed among 138 genera, of which 19 genera and 146 species are new, and 18 genera and 203 species (70%) are endemic to the islands. The available material, albeit scanty, is said by Diakonoff to have a pronounced Malayan character.
The treatment includes the lower Ditrysia, beginning with the Tortricoidea in the order of most arrangements, that is, it does not encompass the pyraloids and zygae-noids. There are no Monotrysia. The species treated are about equally divided between the tortricoids, the gelechioids, and the yponomeutoid-tineoid families, with the Tortricidae having the highest total, 74 species. The Glyphipterygidae shows a surprising development, with 30 species, or more than 10% of the known fauna.
A table appended to the text gives a list of the species with indications of the individual islands from which they are known. The preliminary state of knowledge is probably best illustrated here, as only about 35 species are recorded from more than one island, only seven species from more than two.
The text is accompanied by some 490 excellent line drawings, done by several artists, and by about 390 photographs of the moths, which are on the whole good for all except the aegeriids. Genitalia of virtually all species, including previously described ones, are figured. Lectotypes are selected for 20 species, including a dozen which were described from areas other than the Philippines. Lectotypes are enumerated in the appendices and are figured and include five Formosan species, two of which do not occur in the Philippines. Keys are based on a mixture of superficial and genital characters and at least in some cases (e.g., Copromorphidae) include all the species of the Asiatic fauna, with indications of their geographical occurrence, although these species are not treated further in the text.
The present work is not intended to be a classification, yet Diakonoff s linear arrangement of families includes some interesting placements. For example, the Orneodidae, a group long under controversy as to its affinities, is placed among the gelechioid families; while the Ethmiidae, a group with undoubted relationships to some of the Gelechi-oidea, especially the Oecophoridae and Stenomidae, is placed with the yponomeutids and plutellids, a retrogression to the practice of a half century ago.
This is a highly valuable contribution to anyone interested in biogeography of Lepidoptera, and it will form the starting point for the development of faunistic studies of the as yet poorly known Microlepidoptera of the Philippine Islands.—J. A. Powell, University of California, Berkeley.