Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 94. (Budapest 2002)

Bálint, Zs.: Miscellaneous notes on Arcas Swainson, 1832 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae, Eumaeini)

Bogotá), No. 1009 (male, HNHM, Colombia, Bogotá), No. 1010 (male, NMW, Peru, Pucallpa), No. 1011 (male, HNHM, Brazil, Mato Grosso). Remarks - Papilio imperialis was described on the basis of an unknown number of male specimens from Surinam (Fig. 1). I could not find any imperialis type material in the BMNH collections. As this species is difficult to confuse with any other butterfly (NlCOLAY 1971: 95) and the figures of CRAMER are a good artistic reproduction of the species (Fig. 1), the application of the name is straightforward. NlCOLAY thoroughly discussed the species and according to his account, A. imperialis is distributed from Mexico (Vera Cruz) to Bolivia, and from French Guiana via the Amazon Basin to southeastern Brazil (Santa Catarina). He mentioned (NlCOLAY 1971: 107) that imperialis was not recorded from Ecuador. In the HNHM there is a recently collected voucher specimen (Figs 2-3) that confirms its occurrence in Ecuador. NlCOLAY properly placed Thecla oakesii in synonymy, considering it to be an individual variation of Areas imperialis. He noted that the coppery or rosy wash on the disc of the hindwing ventrum, which characterizes Thecla oakesii, is highly variable and present practically in every region from where he could examine Areas imperialis specimens. The origin of this peculiar "character" is now understood: during the relaxation of dry specimens, the goldish green scales lose their shine and become pink or rusty if humidity precipitates on the surface of the wings. This artificial colour does not disappear when the specimen dries. Subsequently a closely related taxon, Areas magnifica was described by AUSTIN and JOHNSON (1995: 32) from Rondônia (Brazil), on the basis of the holotype male and two male paratypes (also from the type locality). The describers of the taxon mentioned that superficially Areas magnifica is very close to A. imperialis. The diagnosis was based on quantitative androconial characters of the three specimens and genital characters of the short series. I examined the androconial cluster of more than thirty specimens of Areas imperialis (see Material examined) and, in my view, the distal element varies individually in shape and extension. Accordingly, I do not consider it diagnostic (Figs 4—6). I also dissected four male specimens (see Material examined), and my results included ranges of variation consistent with the diagnosis of Areas magnificia. The shape and extension of the genital structures varies; accordingly, a broader, more angulate vinculum and a broad, blunt vincular spur cannot be diagnostic. In addition, in my view, a longer saccus is not a diagnostic character, either. I consider Areas imperialis and A. magnifica to be synonyms, consequently Papilio imperialis CRAMER, 1775 = Areas magnifica AUSTIN et JOHNSON, 1995.