Talk:Delias descombesi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Butterflies and Moths. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This seems very similiar to Delias sanaca, perhaps they should be merged? JRA WestyQld2 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No, these taxons are valid, at least till now

These are two separately recognised species as per Evans. User:VirenVaz has validated the taxonomy from Lepindex of National Museum of Natural History, London. If you have any material or reference on the reclassification of Family Pieridae or genus Delias, definitely we will examine the case.

If you refer to Marku savela's site (http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/index.html ), you will find there are 198 valid taxons in genus Delias. Here we are talking about well-established taxons, two of the few who have common names, for example :-

• 103. Pale Jezebel - sanaca (Moore, 1857)
• 138. Red-spot Jezebel - descombesi (Boisduval, 1836)
• 107. Red-base Jezebel - pasithoe (Linnaeus, 1767)

So, my submission is no, there is no case at present for their merger. By the way, from your words it appears that you have seen these specimens of these two somewhere or on a web site. We would appreciate your help in illustrating these two stubs. Do let us know.

Regards, AshLin 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The limited information at the time made me think it was the same/very similiar type of butterfly, please for give me for jumping to a conclusion as I now know that more information regarding these articles will be added to make them clearer and show the difference between the two species. I guess there is no need to merge them and good luck adding to these articles in the future! :) JRA WestyQld2 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)