Notes on the genus Neope Moore, [1866] from India (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae)

Notas sobre el género Neope Moore, [1866] de India (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae)

The genus Neope Moore, [1866] was erected for inclusion of two species: Neope bhadra (Moore, [1858]) from Darjeeling, and N. pulaha (Moore, [1858]) from Bhutan and India. Later on, BUTLER (1868) designated Lasiommata bhadra Moore, [1858] as its type species. KIRBY (1877) proposed Blanaida as replacement name for Neope Moore, due to Neopus Hodgson, 1844 as the already existing name in Aves. This assignment was subsequently used by the authors like MOORE (1892) and DE NICÉVILLE (1894). Simultaneously, LEECH (1892) treated Neope as a valid generic name. BINGHAM (1905) synonymised Neope with Lethe Hübner, [1819] along with 11 other genera i.e. Zophoessa Doubleday [1849]; Blanaida Kirby 1877; Hanipha Moore, [1880]; Rangbia Moore, [1892]; Nemetis Moore, [1892]; Tansima Moore, 1881; Dionana Moore, [1892]; Sinchula Moore, [1892]; KerrataMoore, [1892]; Putlia Moore, [1892]; Patala Moore, [1892], based on their sex marks and split the genus Lethe into three groups. However, FRUHSTORFER (1911) again considered Neope as a distinct genus due to the wing venation distinct from typical Lethe. EVANS (1932) treated Neope as a synonym of Lethe, and he divided the genus into three groups namely Sura, Europa and Bhadra. TALBOT ([1949]) followed the same nomenclature, but changed two group names i.e. Europa to Minerva and Bhadra to Yama. In 1957, DE LESSE revised the genus Lethe by including the genital characters of all the members of the genus and raised the Talbot’s three groups to three distinct genera as Blanaida (= Neope), Zophoessa and Lethe. Later on, MILLER (1968), synonymised Blanaida under Neope in his revisionary work. Following this, D’ABRERA (1985) documented the genus Neope from Oriental region by including most of the recorded Indian species. Subsequently, he also recognized 11 species under this genus from Holarctic region (D’ABRERA, 1990). Furthermore, BOZANO (1999) documented Palaearctic butterfly fauna, and included 13 Chinese species of Neope along with their identification key. Recently, LANG (2017) listed a total of 19 species from the China. So far, the genus Neope is known by 21 species from the world (LEECH, 1892; LANG, 2017). Among which, only six species of Neope are distributed in India with two subspecies (VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG, 2017).

In this paper, we briefly reviewed the history of the genus Neope, particularly with regard to taxonomy. All taxa of the genus Neope from India are briefly described below, with their diagnostic characters and illustrated along with adults and male genitalia of related taxa. The male genitalia as well as external characters of Neope armandii khasiana Moore, 1881 is described from India for the first time. We studied the structure of sex brands on forewing as well as morphological characteristics of androconia scales, which are described in this study for the first time for Indian species, with their taxonomic importance.

Materials and methods

Studied specimens were collected by sweeping net from various localities of India Himalayan states. Collected specimens were processed as per standard techniques in lepidopterology. Adults were photographed using a Nikon 7000D digital SLR camera. The detailed microscopic photography was performed under Leica M205 C stereomicroscope with a Leica Application Suite, after removing extraneous abdominal tissue with 20% KOH. The sex scales (androconia) were removed from the upperside of the forewings in males and observed under Nikon microscope at 400x magnifications, and for measurement follows the work of WAKEHAM-DAWSON & KUDRNA (2000).

Taxonomic accounts

Family Nymphalidae Rafinesque, 1815

Subfamily Satyrinae Boisduval, 1833

Tribe Satyrini Boisduval, 1833

Subtribe Lethina Reuter, 1896

Genus Neope Moore, [1866]

NeopeMoore, [1866].Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1865(3): 770.

Type Species: Lasiommata bhadra Moore, [1858].

Diagnosis: The genus Neope can be distinguished from its close relatives Lethe due to presence of an ocellus in space 7 on underside of the hindwing, which is absence in Lethe. In Neope the vein 8 is nearly as long as vein 7, whereas in Lethe it is half of vein 7.

Neope bhadra (Moore, [1858]) (Figures 1, 2, 13, 19, 25, 31, 34a)

Lasiommata? bhadra Moore, [1858], in Horsfield & Moore. Catal. Lep. Mus. E. I. C., (1): 227 (Type Locality: Darjeeling); Butler, 1867. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 19(3): 166.

Neope bhadra: Moore, 1865. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1865: 770; de Nicéville, 1882. J. Asiatic Soc.

Bengal, 51(2): 56; Marshall & de Nicéville, 1883. Butt. Ind., 1: 171; Staudinger, 1888. Exot. Schmett.:222; Elwes, 1891. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1891: 265; Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325; D’Abrera, 1985. Butt. Orient., 2: 432; Smith, 1989. Butt. Nepal, 1989: 266; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 27.

Blanaida bhadra: Moore, 1892. Lep. Ind.1: 300; de Nicéville, 1894. Sikk. Gaz., 1894: 126.

Lethe bhadra: Bingham, 1905. Fauna Br. Ind., Butt., 1: 101; Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 109; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt., 2: 236; Mani, 1986. Butt. Himalaya 1986: 88.

Lethe b[h]adra: Wynter-Blyth, 1957. Butt. Ind. Region, 1957: 102.

Neope bhadra subflava Zhou, 1994, in Chou. Monograph. Rhop. Sin.: 756 (Type Locality: Mt. Dayaoshan, Guangxi, China)

Neope bhadra endohi Funahashi, 2003. Wallace, 8: 11 (Type Locality: Sa Pa, Lao Cai, N Vietnam).

Materials examined: INDIA, Arunachal Pradesh, Changlang, Namdapha, 27^th mile, 370 m, 1 ♂, 27- X-2016, Coll. J. Saini & Party; Arunachal Pradesh, Changlang, Namdapha, Hornbill, 457 m, 1 ♂, 05- XI-2016, Coll. J. Saini & Party.

Diagnosis (Figs. 1-2): Neope bhadra is closely similar to N. armandii (Oberthür 1876) but it can be distinguished by the presence of large caudate at vein 4 of hindwing. Neope bhadra having two prominent bars in the cell on the upperside of forewing (in N. armandii a single bar before end of cell is present) and have a small ocellus in space 1a on underside of hindwing (absent in N. armandii).

Male genitalia (Fig. 13): Tegumen broad and stout; uncus long (1.75 mm), smoothly curved with gradually narrowed tip; gnathos long and slender; valva long and broader at base with an apical spine (Fig. 19); saccus moderately long (1.45 mm); aedeagus typically straight and about 2.86 mm long with smooth surface (Fig. 25).

Androconia (Fig. 31): Common in shape like other Satyrini, comparatively long and slender lamina average 233.8 µm long and gradually narrowed towards apex with an apical plume and the base is bulbous with average values of 18.8 µm.

Distribution: E Nepal, Bhutan, India (Sikkim to NE India), S China, N Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam (SMITH, 1989; VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG, 2017; INAYOSHI, 2020).

Comments: According to WAKEHAM-DAWSON & KUDRNA (2000) “Androconia appear to be relatively consistent in overall size and shape within species”. This attribute is also used as a key character for the differentiation of species and subspecies in butterflies. Interestingly, in the studied sample, androconia length varied from 216 to 264 µm within the single specimen. So, further studies on the androconia will definitely help in solving this ambiguity

Neope armandii (Oberthür, 1876)

Satyrus armandii Oberthür, 1876. Étud. ént., 2: 26 (Type Locality: “Mou-pin”).

Neope armandii khasiana Moore, 1881 (Figures 3, 4, 14, 20, 26, 32, 34b)

Neope khasiana Moore, 1881. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond., 1881(3): 306 (Type Locality: “Khasia Hills”); Marshall & de Nicéville, 1883. Butt. Ind., 1: 172.

Blanaida khasiana: Moore, 1892. Lep. Ind., 1: 302; Tytler, 1914. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 23(2): 222.

Lethe bhadra f. khasiana: Bingham, 1905. Fauna Br. Ind., Butt., 1: 102.

Lethe khasiana: Tytler, 1911. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 21(1): 53.

Neope bhadra khasiana: Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325.

Lethe armandii khasiana: Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 109; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt., 2: 235.

Lethe armandii: Wynter-Blyth, 1957. Butt. Ind. Region, 1957: 102.

Neope armandii: D’Abrera, 1985. Butt. Orient., 2: 432; D’Abrera, 1990. Butt. Holarc., 1: 134; Bozano, 1999. Guide Butt. Pal. Reg., Satyridae, 1: 29.

Neope armandii khasiana: Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr., 55: 96; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 27; Lang & Tshikolovets, 2020. Entomol. Z., 130(2): 95.

Material examined: INDIA, Arunachal Pradesh, Dibang Valley, Etabe, Embronamu, 1700 m, 1 ♂, 17-V-2018, Coll. Gayen & Party.

Diagnosis (Figs. 3-4): Neope armandii is closely similar to N. bhadra, and the diagnostic characters have been discussed under N. bhadra. Among four subspecies of N. armandii, N. a. khasiana is distinct due to a yellowish bar before end of cell, which is pale yellow in N. a. koikei Funahashi, 2003 (Vietnam, Laos and N Thailand), whitish in N. a. huanghaoiLang & Tshikolovets, 2020 (S China) and obsolete in nominate subspecies. Apical half of upperside of the forewing is having pure white spots in N. a. khasiana, N. a. koikei and N. a. huanghaoi, whereas all spots are yellowish in nominate subspecies. On underside, the distal half of hindwing is yellowish in N. a. khasiana as in N. a. armandii and N. a. koikei whereas in N. a. huanghaoi it is white.

Male genitalia (Fig. 14): Tegumen broad and stout; uncus broad and long (1.93 mm), with suddenly narrowed apex; gnathos straight and half long of uncus, with swelling base; valva long with a short apical spine (Fig. 20); saccus moderately long (1.36 mm); aedeagus slightly curved, 2.81 mm long and without any dentation (Fig. 26).

Androconia (Fig. 32): Normal in shape, elongated lamina average 233.4 µm long with plume like apex and more bulbous base than previous one with average values of 25.2 µm.

Distribution: NE India and N Myanmar (VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG & TSHIKOLOVETS, 2020).

Comments: According to LANG & TSHIKOLOVETS (2020) the subspecies classification of N. armandii is still uncertain due to crypticism, and considered that the Indo-Chinese subspecies N. a. koikei is possibly a junior synonym of N. a. khasiana. The current study also shows that N. a. koikei has no obvious difference from N. a. khasiana, except some minor differences. But, as in the previous species, the androconia length varied from 192 to 274 µm in the studied sample. Thus, further study on populations is needed to clarify its status.

Neope pulaha (Moore, [1858]) (Figures 5, 6, 15, 21, 27, 33, 34c)

Lasiommata? pulaha Moore, [1858], in Horsfield & Moore. Catal. Lep. Mus., E. I. C., (1): 227 (Type Locality: “Bootan”); Butler, 1867. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., 19(3): 166.

Enope pulaha: Moore, 1865. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1865(3): 499.

Neope pulaha: Moore, 1865. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1865(3): 770; Marshall & de Nicéville, 1883, Butt. Ind., 1: 170.

Blanaida pulaha: Moore,1892. Lep. Ind., 1: 303; de Nicéville, 1894. Sikk. Gaz., 1894: 126.

Lethe pulaha: Bingham, 1905. Fauna Br. Ind., Butt.1: 102; Wynter-Blyth, 1957. Butt. Ind. Region, 1957: 101.

Neope pulaha pulaha: Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325; D’Abrera, 1985. Butt. Orient., 2: 434; Smith, 1989. Butt. Nepal, 1989: 210; Huang, 2002. Atalanta, 33(3/4): 362; Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr., 55: 96; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 35; Sondhi & Kunte, 2018. Butt. Uttarakhand: 217.

Neope pulata f. stigmata Mell, 1923. Dt. ent. Z., 1923: 156 (Type Locality: N. Kwangtung).

Lethe pulaha pulaha: Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 109; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India Butt., 2: 232; Mani, 1986. Butt. Himalaya, 1986: 88.

Nepoe [Neope] pulaha pulaha: Fujioka, 1970. Spec. Bull. Lepidopt. Soc. Japan, 4: 48.

Neope pulahoides xizangana Wang, 1994, in Chou. Monogr. Rhop. Sin.: 756 (Type Locality: Linzhi, Xizang).

Neope pulaha pulahoides: Masui & Uehara, 1999. Gekkan-Mushi, 338: 19; Osada, Uémura & Uehara, 1999. Ill. Checklist Butt. Laos P. D. R.: 210; Uémura, 2004. Bull. Toyosato Mus. Ent., (13): 1; Nakamura & Wakahara, 2012. Evol. Sci., 17: 48.

Materials examined: INDIA, Arunachal Pradesh, Dibang Valley, Kahi Nalah, 1768 m, 1♂, 07-IV2017, Coll. Gayen & Das; Arunachal Pradesh, Dibang Valley, Anini-Mippi road, 1667 m, 1♂, 13-IV2017, Coll. Gayen & Das; Arunachal Pradesh, Dibang Valley, Basam, 1714 m, 2 ♂♂, 17-18-IV-2018, Coll. Ranjan & Das.

Diagnosis (Figs. 5-6): Neope pulaha is closely similar to N. pulahoides, but is distinct due to two weakly separated transvers male brands at space 1b on the upperside of forewing (absent in N. pulahoides) and on the underside of forewing, ocelli present in space 2 and 3 are blind, whereas in N. pulahoides ocelli are with a tiny white pupil. The nominate subspecies N. pulaha pulaha is closely similar to N. pulaha pandyia, but can be distinguished from N. pulaha pandyia by having a distinct end cell bar across the cell in both the seasonal forms. Furthermore, N. pulaha pulaha is distinct from other two subspecies N. pulaha emeinsis Li, 1995 (S China) and N. pulaha didia Fruhstorfer, 1909 (Taiwan) in having yellowish marking on both the surfaces of forewing which is whitish in N. pulaha emeinsis and in N. pulaha didia with much more reduced yellow spots on upper surface.

Male genitalia (Fig. 15): Closely similar to N. pulahoides. Tegumen relatively broad with strong vinculum; uncus broad and long (1.1 mm) with suddenly narrowed apex; gnathos gently curved and long; valva long with a needle like apical spine (Fig. 21); saccus about length of uncus (0.93 mm); aedeagus slightly curved, 1.83 mm long with a patch of small teeth near the laterocaudal end on both sides (Fig. 27).

Androconia (Fig. 33): Normal in shape and relatively shorter than previous two species, lamina average 202.2 µm long with stocky plume at apex and bulbous base with average values of 20.9 µm.

Distribution: C Nepal to NE India, N Myanmar, SE Tibet, W Yunnan, Laos and Vietnam (SMITH, 1989; VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG, 2017; INAYOSHI, 2020).

Neope pulaha pandyia (Talbot, [1949]) (Figure 34d)

Lethe pulaha pandyia Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India Butt., 2: 232 (Type Locality: “North-Western Himalayas”); Mani, 1986. Butt. Himalaya, 1986: 88.

Blanaida pulaha: MacKinnon & de Nicéville, 1897. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 11: 216.

Lethe (Neope) pulaha: Doherty, 1886. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 55(2): 117; Hannyngton, 1910. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 20(1): 135.

Lethe pulaha pulaha: Wynter-Blyth, 1940. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 41(4): 724.

Neope pulaha pandyia: Huang, 2002. Atalanta, 33(3/4): 362; Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr., 55: 96; Singh & Sondhi, 2016. JoTT 8(4): 8689; Sondhi & Kunte, 2018. Butt. Uttarakhand: 217.

Materials examined: Not examined.

Diagnosis: Neope pulaha pandyia is closely similar to the nominate subspecies, but can be distinguished from N. p. pulaha by smaller in size. In wet seasonal form, the distinct end cell bar is absent in N. p. pandyia whereas, it is present in both the seasonal forms of N. p. pulaha. In dry seasonal form, N. p. pandyia is more ochraceous, especially the females, in compare to nominate subspecies.

Distribution: W Nepal and N India (Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand) (SMITH, 1989; SONDHI & KUNTE, 2018).

Neope pulahoides Moore, 1892 (Figures 7, 8, 16, 22, 28, 34e)

Blanaida pulahoides Moore,1892. Lep. Ind., 1: 304 (Type Locality: “Naga Hills; E. Pegu”).

Lethe pulaha race. pulahoides: Bingham, 1905. Fauna Br. Ind., Butt., 1: 102.

Neope pulaha pulahoides: Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325; Sondhi & Kunte, 2018. Butt. Uttarakhand: 217.

Lethe pulaha: Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 109; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt., 2: 233.

Neope pulahoides pulahoides: Huang, 2001. Neue Ent. Nachr., 51: 107; Huang, 2002. Atalanta, 33(3/4): 362; Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr., 55: 96; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 37.

Neope chayuensis Huang, 2002. Atalanta 33(3/4): 363 (Type Locality: “Tiyu, Chayu, S.E. Tibet”); Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr. 55: 96.

Material examined: INDIA, Arunachal Pradesh, Dibang Valley, Anini-Mippi road, 1667 m, 1 ♂, 03- V-2017, Coll. Gayen & Das.

Diagnosis (Figs. 7-8): Neope pulahoides is diagnosed due to absence of male brands on upperside of forewing, which are present in N. pulaha and other similar species. On the underside of forewing, ocelli in space 2 and 3 are with tiny white pupil whereas, in N. pulaha it is blind. On the upperside of forewing, the nominate subspecies has a broader bar before end of cell in compare to other subspecies: N. pulahoides leechi Okano & Okano, 1984 (S China), N. pulahoides tamur Fujioka, 1970 (E Nepal) and N. pulahoides chuni Mell, 1942 (Fujian).

Male genitalia (Fig. 16): Closely similar to N. pulaha. Tegumen normal shaped with strong vinculum; uncus broader and long (1.27 mm), with suddenly narrowed apex; gnathos gently curved and almost length of uncus; valva moderately long with a very short apical spine (Fig. 22); saccus 2/3 to length of uncus (0.92 mm); aedeagus slightly curved, about 1.94 mm long with smooth surface (Fig. 28).

Androconia: No sex brand present.

Distribution: NE India, SE Tibet, NW Yunnan, Myanmar and Thailand (VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG, 2017; INAYOSHI, 2020).

Neope pulahina (Evans, 1923) (Figures 9, 10, 17, 23, 29, 34f)

Lethe pulahina Evans, 1923. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 29 (2): 536 (Type locality: “Sikkim to Manipur”); Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 109; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt., 2: 234; Wynte rBlyth, 1957. Butt. Ind. Region, 1957: 101; Mani, 1986. Butt. Himalaya, 1986: 88.

Neope pulahina: Fujioka, 1970. Spec. Bull. Lep. Soc. Jap., 4: 48; D’Abrera, 1985. Butt. Orient., 2: 434; Smith, 1989. Butt. Nepal, 1989: 210; Huang, 2003. Neue Ent. Nachr., 55: 96; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 37.

Material examined: CHINA, Yunnan, Gongshan, 2500 m, 1 ♂, 14-VI-2014, leg. Hao Huang.

Diagnosis (Figs. 9-10): Neope pulahina is distinct from its close relatives, N. pulaha, N. pulahoides, N. ramosa Leech, 1890 (S China) in having more reddish brown ground colour on the upper surface, and the under surface of hindwing is strongly irrorated with purple scales. Neope pulahina is having two weakly separated male brands at space 1b as in N. pulaha, but in N. pulahina all spots are reddish yellow on the upper surface (more yellowish in N. pulaha). On underside of forewing, N. pulahina is having white pupiled ocelli in space 2 and 3 as in N. pulahoides, but it is distinct from latter due to reddish yellow spots present on the distal half of forewing (whitish in N. pulahoides).

Male genitalia (Fig. 17): Closely similar to N. pulaha. Tegumen broad; uncus slender and long (1.42 mm), with suddenly narrowed and more pointed apex; gnathos are gently curved and almost half length of uncus; valva comparatively long with an elongated, sharply pointed apical spine (Fig. 23); saccus rather short (0.84 mm); aedeagus straight (1.75 mm) and surface smooth (Fig. 29).

Androconia: Not examined.

Distribution: C Nepal to NE India, N Myanmar, SE Tibet and NW Yunnan (SMITH, 1989; VARSHNEY & SMETACHEK, 2015; LANG, 2017).

Neope yama (Moore, [1858]) (Figures 11, 12, 18, 24, 30, 34g)

Zophoessa yama Moore, [1858], in Horsfield & Moore. Catal. Lep. Mus., E. I. C., (1): 221 (Type Locality: “Bootan, N. India”); Marshall & de Nicéville, 1883. Butt. Ind., 1: 169.

Patala yama: Moore,1892. Lep. Ind., 1: 306; Smith, 1989. Butt. Nepal, 1989: 211.

Patala yamoides: Moore,1892. Lep. Ind. ,1: 307; de Nicéville, 1894. Sikk. Gaz., 1894: 126.

Lethe yama: Bingham, 1905. Fauna Br. Ind., Butt., 1: 103; Wynter-Blyth, 1957. Butt. Ind. Region, 1957: 102; Mani, 1986. Butt. Himalaya, 1986: 88.

Neope yama yama: Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325; Fujioka, 1970. Spec. Bull

Lep. Soc. Jap., 4: 48; D’Abrera, 1985. Butt. Orient., 2: 432; Lang, 2017. Nymphalidae of China, II: 38; Sondhi & Kunte, 2018. Butt. Uttarakhand: 218.

Neope yama yamoides: Fruhstorfer, 1911, in Seitz. Macrolepid. World, 9: 325.

Lethe yama yama: Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 110; Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt. 2: 232.

Lethe yama yamoides: Evans, 1932. Iden. Ind. Butt.: 110.

Neope yama: Monastyrskii, 2005. Atalanta, 36(1/2): 147.

Material examined: CHINA, Yunnan, Gongshan, East slope of Mts. Gao-li-gong, 1 ♂, 20-VI-2015, leg. Song-yun Lang.

Diagnosis (Figs. 11-12): Neope yama is morphologically similar to N. sericaLeech, 1892 (SE China), but N. yama have dark brown ground colour on upperside whereas, in N. serica it is more blackish. In N. yama, the post discal band on underside of forewing is almost straight which is distorted in N. serica. The nominate subspecies N. yama yama, can be distinguished from its close relatives N. y. buckleyi in having dark brown on both the surface of both wings and a broad prominent post discal band on upperside of forewing, whereas in N. yama buckleyi, ground colour is paler and post discal band is narrower and posteriorly diffused. Its other two subspecies, N. yama uemurai Sugiyama, 1994 (C China) and N. yama kinpingensis Lee, 1962 (S China, N Vietnam and Laos) are darker in ground colour on both surface (even darker than N. yama yama).

Male genitalia (Fig. 18): Tegumen broad; uncus long (1.53 mm), slender, and apically blunt in dorsal view; gnathos gently curved and almost 2/3 length of uncus; valva moderately long with an elongated, sharply pointed apical spine (Fig. 24); saccus rather short (0.98 mm); aedeagus short (1.57 mm) and strongly bent (Fig. 30).

Androconia: Not examined.

Distribution: E Nepal to NE India, SE Tibet, N Myanmar and N Thailand (SMITH, 1989; LANG, 2017; SONDHI & KUNTE, 2018; INAYOSHI, 2020).

Neope yama buckleyi Talbot, [1949] (Figure 34h)

Lethe yama buckleyi Talbot, [1949]. Fauna Br. India, Butt., 2: 239 (Type Locality: “Kulu to Nepal”).

Patala yama: MacKinnon & de Nicéville, 1897. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 11: 216.

Lethe (Zophoessa) yama: Hannyngton, 1910. J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., 20(1): 135.

Neope yama buckleyi: Singh & Sondhi, 2016. JoTT, 8(4): 8689; Sondhi & Kunte, 2018. Butt. Uttarakhand: 218.

Material examined: Not examined.

Diagnosis: Neope yama buckleyi can be distinguished from the nominate subspecies by smaller in size and paler in colour. On the underside of forewing, N. y. buckleyi is having a narrower and posteriorly diffused post discal band in compare to other three subspecies: N. y. yama, N. y. kinpingensis and N. y. uemurai. On the underside of hindwing, N. y. buckleyi is without any dark shading towards tornus which is presents in other subspecies.

Distribution: W Nepal and N India (Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand); (SMITH, 1989; SONDHI & KUNTE, 2018).

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Dr. Gerardo Lamas (Lima, Peru) for his valuable suggestion and advice to Dr. Song-yun Lang (Chongqing, China) and Mr. Hao Huang (Qingdao, China) for providing important photographs and literature GND grateful to Mr. Isaac Kehimkar for his various help; GND indebted to fellow researchers of the project Mr. Arajush Payra, Mr. Deepak CK, Mr. Subrata Gayen, Mr. Kaushik Mallick, Mr. Rahul Ranjan; to Mr. Jongo Tacho, Mr. Jidu Tacho, and Mr. Junti Mikhu for providing necessary facilities at Anini (Arunachal Pradesh); to Mr. Narinder Suriyabanshi (Himachal Pradesh), Mr. Ajvir Rawat (Himachal Pradesh), Mr. Jaygeer Singh (Uttarakhand), Mr. Suriya Lal (Uttarakhand), Kanki Miri (Arunachal Pradesh), Eco Miri (Arunachal Pradesh), Alicho (Arunachal Pradesh), and Aliha (Arunachal Pradesh) for their valuable assistance in field. This study was financially supported by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, New Delhi and Govind Ballabh Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment & Sustainable Development (GBPIHED), under National Mission on Himalayan Studies (NMHS) program, at Zoological Survey of India for the project “Lepidoptera (Insecta) as potential indicator taxa for tracking climate change in Indian Himalayan Landscape”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BINGHAM, C. T., 1905.– The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma Butterflies, 1: 511 pp. Taylor and Francis Ltd., London.

BOZANO, G. C., 1999.– Guide to the Butterflies of the Palearctic Region, Satyridae. Vol. 1. Subfamily Elymniinae, Tribe Lethini, Lasiommata, Pararge, Lopinga, Kirinia, Chonala, Tatinga, Rhaphicera, Ninguta, Neope, Lethe, Neorina: 58 pp. Omnes Artes, Milano.

BUTLER, A. G., 1868.– Catalogue of the diurnal Lepidoptera of the family Satyridae in the collection of the British Museum: vi + 211 pp. Trustees of the British Museum, London.

D’ABRERA, B., 1985.– Butterflies of the Oriental Region. II. Nymphalidae, Satyridae & Amathusidae: 245-533 pp. Hill House Publishers, Melbourne.

D’ABRERA, B., 1990.– Butterflies of the Holarctic Region. I. Papilionidae, Pieridae, Danaidae & Satyridae (Partim): 185 pp. Hill House Publishers, Melbourne.

DE LESSE, H., 1957.– Révision du genre Lethe (S. L.) (Lep. Nymphalidae, Satyrinae).– Annales de la Société entomologique de France, 125: 75-94.

DE NICÉVILLE, L., 1894.– A List of the Butterflies of Sikhim.– In H. H. RISLEY (ed). The Gazetteer of Sikhim: 116-187. The Bengal Secretariat Press, Calcutta.

EVANS, W. H., 1932.– The Identification of Indian Butterflies: 454 pp. Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay.

FRUHSTORFER, H., 1911.– 30. Genus: Neope Btlr.– In A. SEITZ (ed). The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 9: 324- 326 pp. Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart.

INAYOSHI, Y., 2020.– A Check List of Butterflies in Indo-China, chiefly from Thailand, Laos & Vietnam. Available from http://yutaka.it-n.jp/ (accessed September 2020).

KIRBY, W. F., 1877.– A synonymic catalogue of diurnal Lepidoptera, Supplement: i-vii + 691-883 pp. J. Van Voorst, London.

LANG, S. Y., 2017.– The Nymphalidae of China (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera). Part II. Satyrinae (partim): Tribe Satyrini (partim): Subtribes Eritina, Ragadiina, Lethina, Parargina: 200 pp., 16 + 9 + 15 pls. Tshikolovets Publications, Pardubice.

LANG, S. Y. & TSHIKOLOVETS, V. V., 2020.– A new subspecies of Neope armandii (Oberthür, 1876) from W. Yunnan China (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae).– Entomologische Zeitschrift, 130(2): 95-98.

LEECH, J. H., 1892.– Butterflies of China. Japan and Corea, I. Nymphalidae and Lemoniidae: lv + 286 pp. R. H. Porter, London.

MILLER, L. D., 1968.– The higher classification, phylogeny and zoogeography of the Satyridae (Lepidoptera).– Memoirs of the American Entomological Society, 24: [6] + iii + 174 pp.

MOORE, F., [1866].– 12. On the lepidopterous insects of Bengal.– Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1865(3): 755–823.

MOORE, F., 1890-1892.– Lepidoptera Indica, 1: 317 pp., 94 pls. Lovell Reeve & Co., Ltd., London.

SMITH, C., 1989.– Butterflies of Nepal (Central Himalaya): 352 pp. Craftsman Press, Bangkok (Thailand).

SONDHI, S. & KUNTE, K., 2018.– Butterflies of Uttarakhand - A Field Guide: 310 pp. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh (Dehradun), Titli Trust (Dehradun), National Centre for Biological Sciences (Bengaluru), and Indian Foundation for Butterflies (Bengaluru).

TALBOT, G., [1949].– The Fauna of British India, Ceylon and Burma, Butterflies, 2: 486 pp. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London.

VARSHNEY, R. K. & SMETACEK, P., 2015.– A Synoptic Catalogue of the Butterflies of India: ii + 261 pp., 8 pl. Butterfly Research Centre, Bhimtal and Indinov Publishing, New Delhi.

WAKEHAM-DAWSON, A. & KUDRNA, O., 2000.– A quantitative description of androconia from Staudinger’s Pseudochazara de Lesse, 1951 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Satyrinae) type specimens in the Zoological Museum of the Humboldt University of Berlin.– Entomologist’s Gazette, 51: 75-81.

Notas de autor

*Autor para la correspondencia / Corresponding author gaurab68nandidas@gmail.com