Saturday, July 28, 2007

List of butterflies of India (Pieridae)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The article is a list of the pierid butterflies of India. It forms part of the full list of butterflies of India.
The family Pieridae, or the Whites and Yellows are a family of butterflies of moderate or small size. The common names refer to the two predominant colours found on the wings of these butterflies along with markings in black.of the 1051 species of pierids occurring in the world, 81 species in 21 genera are found in India.


The Common Jezebel (Delias eucharis), is a brightly coloured pierid found in South Asia.
//
Distinguishing features-Outline of wings usually regular. Hindwings are never tailed.
Forelegs are fully developed in both sexes.
The hindwings are channelled at the abdomen to fit the abdomen.
Classification
The family Pieridae has four subfamilies, of which the Whites and the Yellows are well represented in India.
Pierinae or the Whites.
Coliadinae or the Yellows.
Dismorphiinae. (6 genera of Neotropical butterflies and one genus Leptidea in the Palearctic region but not occurring in India.)
Pseudopontiinae (A single species in tropical West Africa.)
Subfamily Pierinae, The Whites
Genus Aporia, The Blackveins
Tibet Blackvein, Aporia peloria Hewitson, 1853
Himalayan Blackvein, Aporia leucodice (Eversman, 1843)
Dusky Blackvein, Aporia nabellica (Boisduval, 1836)
Bhutan Blackvein, Aporia harrietae (De Nicéville, 1892)
Great Blackvein, Aporia agathon (Gray, 1832)
Genus Baltia, The Dwarfs
Shaw's Dwarf , Baltia shawi (Bates, 1873)
Butler's Dwarf , Baltia butleri Alphéraky, 1889
Genus Pieris, The Whites
Chumbi White , Pieris dubernardi chumbiensis De Nicéville, 1897
Green Banded White , Pieris krueperi devta (De Nicéville, 1884)
Greenvein White , Pieris napi Linnaeus, 1767
Naga White , Pieris naganum Moore, 1884
Kashmir White , Pieris deota (De Nicéville, 1884)
Large Cabbage-White , Pieris brassicae Linnaeus, 1758
Indian Cabbage White , Pieris canidia Linnaeus, 1768
Small Cabbage White , Pieris rapae Linnaeus, 1758
Genus Pontia, The Bath Whites
Lesser Bath White , Pontia chloridice Hübner, 1803/18
Lofty Bath White , Pontia callidice (Moore, 1865)
Bath White , Pontia daplidice Linnaeus 1758
Genus Anaphaeis, The Pioneers
Pioneer(Caper White) , Anaphaeis aurota Fabricius, 1793
Genus Cepora, The Gulls
Common Gull , Cepora nerissa Fabricius, 1775
Lesser Gull , Cepora nadina Lucas, 1852
Genus Ixias, The Indian Orange Tips
White Orange Tip , Ixias marianne Cramer, 1779
Yellow Orange Tip , Ixias pyrene Linnaeus, 1764
Genus Delias, The Jezebels
Yellow Jezebel , Delias agostina Hewitson, 1852
Common Jezebel , Delias eucharis Drury, 1773
Painted Jezebel , Delias hyparete Linnaeus, 1758
Hill Jezebel , Delias belladonna Fabricius, 1793
Hill Jezebel , Delias sanaca (Moore,1857)
Dark Jezebel , Delias berinda (Moore,1872)
Redspot Jezebel , Delias descombesi Boisduval, 1836
Redbase Jezebel , Delias aglaia Linnaeus
Redbreast Jezebel , Delias thysbe Cramer, 1779
Genus Prioneris, The Sawtooths
Spotted Sawtooth , Prioneris thestylis Doubleday, 1842
Painted Sawtooth , Prioneris sita C. Felder, 1865
Redspot Sawtooth , Prioneris clemanthe Doubleday, 1846
Genus Appias, The Puffins and Albatrosses
Spot Puffin , Appias lalage (Doubleday, 1842)
Plain Puffin , Appias indra Moore, 1857
Striped Albatross , Appias libythea Fabricius, 1775
Chocolate Albatross , Appias lyncida Cramer, 1777
Common Albatross, Appias albina Felder
Lesser Albatross , Appias wardii (Moore, 1884)
Orange Albatross, Appias nero galba (Wallace, 1867)
Nicobar Albatross, Appias panda chrysea Fruhstorfer, 1903
Genus Leptosia, The Psyche
Psyche , Leptosia nina Fabricius, 1793
Genus Euchloe, The Little Whites
Lemon White , Euchloe charlonia lucilla Butler, 1886
Pearl White , Euchloe ausonia dephalis Hübner 1803
Genus Hebomoia, The Great Orange Tip
Great Orange-Tip , Hebomoia glaucippe Linnaeus, 1758
Genus Colotis, The Arabs
Small Salmon Arab , Colotis amata Fabricius, 1775
Blue-Spotted Arab , Colotis phisadia (Godart, 1819)
White Arab , Colotis vestalis (Butler, 1876)
Large Salmon Arab , Colotis fausta (Olivier, 1804)
Small Orange-Tip , Colotis etrida Boisduval, 1836
Plain Orange-Tip , Colotis eucharis Fabricius, 1775
Crimson-Tip , Colotis danae (Fabricius, 1775)
Genus Pareronia, The Wanderers
Pale Wanderer , Pareronia avatar (Moore, 1858)
Dark Wanderer , Pareronia ceylanica (C. & R. Felder, 1865)
Common Wanderer , Pareronia valeria (Cramer, 1776)
Subfamily Coliadinae, The Yellows
Genus Catopsilia, The Emigrants
Common Emigrant , Catopsilia pomona Fabricius, 1775
Mottled Emigrant , Catopsilia pyranthe Latreille, 1758
Genus Gonepteryx, The Brimstones
Common Brimstone, Gonepteryx rhamni Latreille, 1758
Lesser Brimstone, Gonepteryx aspasia Ménétriés, 1859
Genus Dercas, The Sulphurs
Tailed Sulphur , Dercas verhuelli (Hoeven, 1839)
Plain Sulphur , Dercas lycorias (DoubleDay, 1842)
Genus Eurema, The Grass Yellows
Small Grass Yellow , Eurema brigitta Cramer, 1780
Spotless Grass Yellow , Eurema laeta Boisduval, 1836
Scarce Grass Yellow , Eurema lacteola Distant, 1886
One-Spot Grass Yellow , Eurema andersonii Moore
Common Grass Yellow , Eurema hecabe Linnaeus, 1758
Three-Spot Grass Yellow , Eurema blanda Boisduval, 1836
Nilgiri Grass Yellow , Eurema nilgiriensis
Genus Gandaca, The Tree Yellow
Tree Yellow , Gandaca harina (Horsfield, 1829)
Genus Colias, The Clouded Yellows
Lemon Clouded Yellow , Colias thrasibulus Fabricius, 1910
Ladakh Clouded Yellow , Colias ladakensis C. Felder, 1865
Everest Clouded Yellow , Colias berylla Fawcett, 1904
Fawcett's Clouded Yellow , Colias nina Fawcett, 1904
Pale Clouded Yellow , Colias hyale Linnaeus, 1758
Fiery Clouded Yellow , Colias eogene C. Felder, 1865
Orange Clouded Yellow , Colias stoliczkana Moore
Dwarf Clouded Yellow , Colias dubia Elwes, 1906
Dark Clouded Yellow , Colias croceus Geoffroy, 1785
Nilgiri Clouded Yellow , Colias nilgiriensis
Life cycle.
Eggs - Tall, bottle-shaped eggs which are ribbed down the sides. They are generally white, eventually changing to yellow or orange, or, they may be blotched with red.
Caterpillars - The caterpillars are cylindrical and smooth usually covered with hairy-ended tubercles. They are generally green and have pale longitudinal stripes. They are all generally similar and difficult to distinguish apart.
Chrysalids - Angular with a pointed head which may be produced into a long snout. Supported by a tail hook and girth, some being suspended head upwards like the Swallowtails and others being fastened horizontally to a leaf or other surface.
Food plants
The foodplants vary considerably, however there is a general trend, in that the Whites mostly use Capers, (family Capparidaceae) while the Yellows usually prefer members of the family Leguminosae, which consist of peas, clover, Cassia and others.
References
Evans, W.H. (1932) The Identification of Indian Butterflies. (2nd Ed), Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India
Gay,Thomas; Kehimkar,Isaac & Punetha,J.C.(1992) Common Butterflies of India. WWF-India and Oxford University Press, Mumbai, India.
Haribal, Meena (1994) Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and their Natural History.
Kunte,Krushnamegh (2005) Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities Press.
Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957) Butterflies of the Indian Region, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India.
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Arthropoda
Class:
Insecta
Order:
Lepidoptera
Family:
Hesperiidae
Subfamily:
Coeliadinae
Genus:
Choaspes
Species:
C. benjaminii
Biodiversity loss due to tropical forest fragmentation: Conservation in a modified landscape
This discussion topic submitted by Beth Krisko ( Bethkrisko@hotmail.com) at 1:34 pm on 4/27/00. Additions were last made on Tuesday, August 13, 2002.
Biodiversity loss due to tropical forest fragmentation: conservation in a modified landscape
Clearing of tropical forests has created a highly modified landscape where remnant patches of native flora are set in a matrix of agricultural lands and urban-residential development (Turner 1996, Williams-Linera et al 1998, Holl 1999). Deforestation of tropical forests has been rapid and extensive; between 1981 and 1990, the total loss of natural tropical forests was 154 ha, cleared at a rate of nearly 1% per year (Whitmore 1997). The vast majority of clearing in Latin America is for agricultural purposes, including both grazing and cultivation (Holl 1999). Local extinction of species in the tropics is directly related to forest clearing, which decreases total habitat area (Dale et al 1994). However, deforestation, consequently changing landscape pattern, also negatively impacts biodiversity. Fragmentation causes remnant vegetation patches to be situated in different positions in the landscape mosaic, varying in size, shape, isolation (Sunders et al. 1990), and time since excision from the continuous forest (Turner 1996). These modifying factors, in turn, indirectly influence the biodiversity of the forest patch, "and in a complex manner, the biodiversity of the collection of fragments that occupies the landscape" (Turner 1996, p. 201).
The physical effects induced by fragmentation that directly influence biodiversity include edge effects (changes in microclimate and wind damage) and isolation (habitat discontinuity and increasing time since isolation) (Godron and Foreman 1986). A better understanding of landscape fragmentation and how these physical effects impact ecological processes may provide insight into the appropriate management regimes that could control for these effects, and in turn promote the protection of tropical biota (Lamb 1997).
Effects of Tropical Forest Fragmentation
One of the most noticeable characteristics of a fragmented landscape is the significant increase in the forest edge to interior. "Edge to interior" refers to the relative amount of forest border interacting with anthropogenic clearing to the amount of forest that composes the fragment (Forman 1995). The edge of a forest patch provides a different environment than the tropical forest interior, typically having greater light availability and higher temperatures (Kapos et al 1997, Saunders et al. 1991, turner 1996, Turton 1997). Therefore, it encourages a different species composition (Kapos et al. 1997). The altered microclimate of the edge has been found to be unsuitable for some species, while promoting an increase abundance of others (Turner 1996). Lovejoy et al (1986) accredits changes in butterfly community composition in tropical forest fragments partially to the increased isolation within small forest patches. The microclimatic difference between the forest's edge and its interior limits their habitat, and resource availability, leading to local extinction of certain butterfly populations (Lovejoy et al.1986). The microclimate of forest edges, however, provides appropriate habitat for disturbance-associated species. Studies in other biomes have found that edges create "windows for invasion" for ecosystem-altering, non-native species (Brothers and Spingarn 1992).
The magnitude of microclimatic edge effects on biodiversity are strongly dependent upon the size and shape of the forest patch (Kopos 1997); "the relative importance of edges increases as fragment size decreases, and edge effects may become highly influential" (Turner 1996, 204). Small or thin fragments may experience microclimatic shifts throughout the entire patch, encouraging the presence of species better adapted to the new environment. Along with the change in microclimate, these newly established species, by altering resource availability, can potentially cause local extinction of other species within the patch.
The elimination of surrounding forest vegetation and the increase in edge causes forest patches to become vulnerable to hot, dry tropical winds. These winds damage the vegetation, creating tree falls on the edge and tree fall gaps in the forest interior (Lovejoy et al 1986). Laurence et al. (1998), in a study examining fragmentation effects on Amazonian tree communities, contend that "a sudden increase in gap-phase vegetation could help drive local extinction of disturbance-sensitive species in fragments." By opening up the forest floor to more light and as a result to higher temperatures, tree fall gaps can prevent the regeneration of shade-tolerant, moisture-adapted species, and instead promote the establishment of shade-intolerant species that do not require moist soils. Species in small or thin fragments, with higher edge to interior ratios, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of wind damage because wind has the potential to penetrate deep into a forest (Laurence 1998). Due to this, small fragments will typically have a higher proportion of their area in gaps (Laurence 1998).
Another physical effect induced by forest fragmentation is isolation of the fragment. Isolation effects on biodiversity can be examined by the degree of connectivity among patches and the time since isolation of an individual forest fragment (Saunders 1991). Many tropical fauna, such as primates, require large territories of native vegetation for their survival, isolation of small forest fragments therefore impact the survival of these species. Depending on the position of the fragment within the landscape mosaic, there can be a reduction and/ or prevention of immigration of fauna between patches, limiting colonization of species in other forest patches (Turner 1996). Studies of tropical forests have shown that many forest species will not cross even relatively small deforested zones (Dale et al. 1994). The persistence of these species in isolated patches strongly depends upon the retention of enough suitable habitat to support the local populations (Saunders 1991). Decreased movement of fauna across a landscape can limit nutrient exchange and transportation of seeds to other forest patches (Saunders 1991). Without the movement of animals from patch to patch and consequent decrease in seed dispersal, both tropical flora and fauna biodiversity are reduced at the patch and landscape level.
Time since forest patch formation is another factor of isolation that decreases the biodiversity of a forest fragment. "Upon isolation, a remnant is likely to have more species than it will be capable of maintaining, and species will be lost as the changes brought about by fragmentation take effect" (Saunders 1991, 22). As edge effects and habitat begins to change with shifts in the microclimate and with increased canopy gaps, species richness will begin to decline (Suanders 1991). An Amazonian rainforest study that examined the relation between changes in fragment avifauna and time since isolation found that four bird species showed significant declines over seven years of isolation (Bierregaard and Stouffer 1997). Extinction proneness of a particular organism also may be an influencing factor in local extinction, as some plants and animals are more resilient to the effects of fragmentation than others. For example, the study by Bierregaard and Stouffer (1997) while showing significant decline in the four bird populations showed no decrease in hummingbird populations over the seven year time period.
Conservation in the Modified Tropical Landscape
In order to protect the biodiversity of the modified tropical landscape, fragmentation effects must be recognized and controlled for. In order to do this, the ecological value of individual forest fragments should be considered and efforts should focus on the protection of flora and fauna within these individual patches. Often this is accomplished through the creation of forest reserves where the fragmentation effects are managed on a continual basis (Wiens 1994). A landscape approach to management, considering the external influences created by the surrounding matrix on the native vegetation, is taken in order to control for these effects (Saunders 1991).
Acquiring a representation of community types or ecosystems through a network of reserved fragments may potentially increase the likelihood of preservation of biodiversity at the landscape level. However, the surrounding matrix lands should not be overlooked as a contributor to this effort (Holl 1999). Restoration and recovery of lands that have been removed form agricultural could connect forest patches, potentially reducing edge effects and isolation, allowing increased habitat for fauna and improved seed dispersal.
A review of the current literature on tropical landscapes suggests that still more research on tropical fragmentation and its impact on ecological processes needs to be implemented in order to create the best conservation strategies that ensure the protection of tropical biota. The accomplishments in research so far, however, provide land managers with the foundation for effective land management plans that control for some of the consequences of fragmentation such as edge effects and isolation.
Bibliography
Bierregaard, R.O., P. C. Strouffer. 1997. Understory birds and dynamic habitat mosaics in Amazonian Rainforests, pp. 138-155. In: In: Laurence W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr., R.O. (Editors), Tropical forest Remnants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Brothers, T.S. and A. Spingarn. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation Biology 6: 91-100
Dale, V.H., S.M. Pearson, H.L. Offerman, and R.V. O'Neill. 1994. Relating patterns of land-use change to faunal biodiversity in the Central Amazon. Conservation Biology 8 (4): 1027-1036
Forman, R.T. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Godron, M. and R.T.T. Forman. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Harrison, S. and Emilio Bruna. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure?. Ecography 22: 225-232
Holl, K.D. 1999. Factors limiting tropical rain forest regeneration in abandoned pasture: seed rain, seed germination, microclimate, and soil. Biotropia 31 (2): 229-242
Kapos, V., E. wandelli, J.L. Camargo, and G. Ganade. 1997. Edge-related changes in Environment and plant responses due to forest fragmentation in central Amazonia. In: Laurence W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr., R.O. (Editors), Tropical forestremnants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lamb, D. J. Parrotta, R. Keenan, and N. Tucker. 1997. Rejoining habitat remnants; restoring degraded rainforest lands. In: Laurence W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr., R.O. (Editors), Tropical forest remnants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Laurence, W.F., L.V. Ferreira, J.M. Rankin-DE Merona, and S.G. Laurance. 1998. Rain forest fragmentation and the dynamics of Amazonian tree communities. Ecology 79 (6): 2032-2042
Lovejoy T.E., R.O. Bierregaard, Jr., A.B. Rylands, J.R. Malcolm, C.E. Quintela, L.H. Harper, K.S. Brown, Jr., A.H. Powell, G.V.N. Powell, H.o.R. Schubart, and M. B. Hays. 1986. Edge and other effects of isolation on Amazon forest fragments, pp. 257-325 In: M.E. Soule (Editor), Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Mass.
Oosterhoorn, M., M. Kappelle. 2000. Vegetation structure and composition along an interior-edge-exterior gradient in a Costa Rican montane cloud forest. Forest Ecology and Management 126: 291-307
Saunders, D.A., H.J. Hobbs, C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5 (1): 18-27
Turner, I.M. 1996. Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of the evidence. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 200-209
Turton, S.M. and H.J. Freiburger. 1997. Edge and aspect effects on the mircroclimate of small tropical forest remnant on the Atherton Tableland, Northeaster Aulstralia, pp.55-70 In: Laurence W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr., R.O. (Editors), Tropical forest remnants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Wiens, J.A. 1994. habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. IBIS 137: 97-104
Whitmore, T.C. 1997. Tropical forest disturbance, disappearance, and species loss, pp. 2-28. In: Laurence W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr., R.O. (Editors), Tropical forest remnants. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Williams-Linera, G., V. Domiguez-Gastelu, and M.E. Garcia-Zurita. 1998. Microenvironment and floristics of different edges in a fragmented tropical rainforest. Conservation Biology 12 (5): 1091-1102



























Scientific classification

For other uses, see Scientific classification (disambiguation).
Scientific classification or biological classification is a method by which biologists group and categorize species of organisms. Scientific classification can also be called scientific taxonomy, but should be distinguished from folk taxonomy, which lacks scientific basis. Modern classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to improve consistency with the Darwinian principle of common descent. Molecular systematics, which uses DNA sequences as data, has driven many recent revisions and is likely to continue to do so. Scientific classification belongs to the science of taxonomy or biological systematics.
//
Early systems
Ancient through mediaeval
Current systems of classifying forms of life descend from the thought presented by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who published in his metaphysical and logical works the first known classification of everything whatsoever, or "being". This is the scheme that gave moderns such words as substance, species and genus and was retained in modified and less general form by Linnaeus.
Aristotle also studied animals and classified them according to method of reproduction, as did Linnaeus later with plants. Aristotle's animal classification was soon made obsolete by additional knowledge and was forgotten.
The philosophical classification is in brief as follows.[1] Primary substance is the individual being; for example, Peter, Paul, etc. Secondary substance is a predicate that can properly or characteristically be said of a class of primary substances; for example, man of Peter, Paul, etc. The characteristic must not be merely in the individual; for example, being skilled in grammar. Grammatical skill leaves most of Peter out and therefore is not characteristic of him. Similarly man (all of mankind) is not in Peter; rather, he is in man.
Species is the secondary substance that is most proper to its individuals. The most characteristic thing that can be said of Peter is Peter is a man. An identity is being postulated: "man" is equal to all its individuals and only those individuals. Members of a species differ only in number but are totally the same type.
Genus is a secondary substance less characteristic of and more general than the species; for example, man is an animal. Not all animals are men. It is clear that a genus contains species. There is no limit to the number of Aristotelian genera that might be found to contain the species. Aristotle does not structure the genera into phylum, class, etc., as does Linnaean classification.
The secondary substance that distinguishes one species from another within a genus is the specific difference. Man can thus be comprehended as the sum of specific differences (the "differentiae" of biology) in less and less general categories. This sum is the definition; for example, man is an animate, sensate, rational substance. The most characteristic definition contains the species and the next most general genus: man is a rational animal. Definition is thus based on the unity problem: the species is one yet has many differentiae.
The very top genera are the categories. There are ten: one of substance and nine of "accidents", universals that must be "in" a substance. Substances exist by themselves; accidents are only in them: quantity, quality, etc. There is no higher category, "being", because of the following problem, which was only solved in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas: a specific difference is not characteristic of its genus. If man is a rational animal, then rationality is not a property of animals. Substance therefore cannot be kind of being because it can have no specific difference, which would have to be non-being.
The problem of being occupied the attention of scholastics during the time of the Middle Ages. The solution of St. Thomas, termed the analogy of being, established the field of ontology, which received the better part of the publicity and also drew the line between philosophy and experimental science. The latter rose in the Renaissance from practical technique. The greatest scientific classifier, Linnaeus, a classical scholar, combined the two on the threshold of that great neo-classicist revival now called the Age of Enlightenment.
Renaissance through age of reason
An important advance was made by the Swiss professor, Conrad von Gesner (1516–1565). Gesner's work was a critical compilation of life known at the time.
The exploration of parts of the New World that produced large numbers of new plants and animals that needed descriptions and classification. The old systems made it difficult to study and locate all these new specimens within a collection and often the same plants or animals were given different names because the number of specimens were too large to memorize. A system was needed that could group these specimens together so they could be found, the binomial system was developed based on morphology with groups having similar appearances. In the latter part of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th, careful study of animals commenced, which, directed first to familiar kinds, was gradually extended until it formed a sufficient body of knowledge to serve as an anatomical basis for classification. Advances in using this knowledge to classify living beings bear a debt to the research of medical anatomists, such as Fabricius (1537–1619), Petrus Severinus (1580–1656), William Harvey (1578–1657), and Edward Tyson (1649–1708). Advances in classification due to the work of entomologists and the first microscopists is due to the research of people like Marcello Malpighi (1628–1694), Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680), and Robert Hooke (1635–1702). Lord Monboddo (1714-1799) was one of the early abstract thinkers whose works illustrate knowledge of species relationships and who foreshadowed the theory of evolution. Successive developments in the history of insect classification may be followed on the website[2] by clicking on succeeding works in chronological order.
Early methodists
Since late in the 15th century, a number of authors had become concerned with what they called methodus, ( method ). By method authors mean an arrangement of minerals, plants, and animals according to the principles of logical division. The term methodists was coined by Carolus Linnaeus in his Bibliotheca Botanica to denote the authors who care about the principles of classification (in contrast to the mere collectors who are concerned primarily with the description of plants paying little or no attention to their arrangement into genera, etc). Important early methodists were an Italian philosopher, physician, and botanist Andrea Caesalpino, an English naturalist John Ray, a German physician and botanist Augustus Quirinus Rivinus, and a French physician, botanist, and traveller Joseph Pitton de Tournefort.
Andrea Caesalpino (15191603) in his De plantis libri XVI (1583) proposed the first methodical arrangement of plants. On the basis of the structure of trunk and fructification he divided plants into fifteen "higher genera".
John Ray (16271705) was an English naturalist who published important works on plants, animals, and natural theology. The approach he took to the classification of plants in his Historia Plantarum was an important step towards modern taxonomy. Ray rejected the system of dichotomous division by which species were classified according to a pre-conceived, either/or type system, and instead classified plants according to similarities and differences that emerged from observation.
Both Caesalpino and Ray used traditional plant names and thus, the name of a plant did not reflect its taxonomic position (e.g. even though the apple and the peach belonged to different "higher genera" of John Ray's methodus, both retained their traditional names Malus and Malus Persica respectively). A further step was taken by Rivinus and Pitton de Tournefort who made genus a distinct rank within taxonomic hierarchy and introduced the practice of naming the plants according to their genera.
Augustus Quirinus Rivinus (16521723), in his classification of plants based on the characters of the flower, introduced the category of order (corresponding to the "higher" genera of John Ray and Andrea Caesalpino). He was the first to abolish the ancient division of plants into herbs and trees and insisted that the true method of division should be based on the parts of the fructification alone. Rivinus extensively used dichotomous keys to define both orders and genera. His method of naming plant species resembled that of Joseph Pitton de Tournefort. The names of all plants belonging to the same genus should begin with the same word (generic name). In the genera containing more than one species the first species was named with generic name only, while the second, etc were named with a combination of the generic name and a modifier (differentia specifica).
Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (16561708) introduced an even more sophisticated hierarchy of class, section, genus, and species. He was the first to use consistently the uniformly composed species names which consisted of a generic name and a many-worded diagnostic phrase differentia specifica. Unlike Rivinus, he used differentiae with all species of polytypic genera.
[edit] Modern systems
[edit] Linnaean
Two years after John Ray's death, Carolus Linnaeus (17071778) was born. His great work, the Systema Naturae, ran through twelve editions during his lifetime (1st ed. 1735). In this work, nature was divided into three kingdoms: mineral, vegetable and animal. Linnaeus used five ranks: class, order, genus, species, and variety.
He abandoned long descriptive names of classes and orders and two-word generic names (e. g. Bursa pastoris) still used by his immediate predecessors (Rivinus and Pitton de Tournefort) and replaced them with single-word names, provided genera with detailed diagnoses (characteres naturales), and reduced numerous varieties to their species, thus saving botany from the chaos of new forms produced by horticulturalists.
Linnaeus is best known for his introduction of the method still used to formulate the scientific name of every species. Before Linnaeus, long many-worded names (composed of a generic name and a differentia specifica) had been used, but as these names gave a description of the species, they were not fixed. In his Philosophia Botanica (1751) Linnaeus took every effort to improve the composition and reduce the length of the many-worded names by abolishing unnecessary rhetorics, introducing new descriptive terms and defining their meaning with an unprecedented precision. In the late 1740s Linnaeus began to use a parallel system of naming species with nomina trivialia. Nomen triviale, a trivial name, was a single- or two-word epithet placed on the margin of the page next to the many-worded "scientific" name. The only rules Linnaeus applied to them was that the trivial names should be short, unique within a given genus, and that they should not be changed. Linnaeus consistently applied nomina trivialia to the species of plants in Species Plantarum (1st edn. 1753) and to the species of animals in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae (1758).
By consistently using these specific epithets, Linnaeus separated nomenclature from taxonomy. Even though the parallel use of nomina trivialia and many-worded descriptive names continued until late in the eighteenth century, it was gradually replaced by the practice of using shorter proper names combined of the generic name and the trivial name of the species. In the nineteenth century, this new practice was codified in the first Rules and Laws of Nomenclature, and the 1st edn. of Species Plantarum and the 10th edn. of Systema Naturae were chosen as starting points for the Botanical and Zoological Nomenclature respectively. This convention for naming species is referred to as binomial nomenclature.
Today, nomenclature is regulated by Nomenclature Codes, which allows names divided into ranks; see rank (botany) and rank (zoology).
Evolutionary
Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, it is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.
Since the 1960s a trend called cladistic taxonomy (or cladistics or cladism) has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary tree. If a taxon includes all the descendants of some ancestral form, it is called monophyletic, as opposed to paraphyletic. Other groups are called polyphyletic.
A new formal code of nomenclature, the PhyloCode, is currently under development, intended to deal with clades rather than taxa. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist.
Domains are a relatively new grouping. The three-domain system was first invented in 1990, but not generally accepted until later. Now, the majority of biologists accept the domain system, but a large minority use the five-kingdom method. One main characteristic of the three-domain method is the separation of Archaea and Bacteria, previously grouped into the single kingdom Bacteria (a kingdom also sometimes called Monera). Consequently, the three domains of life are conceptualized as Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota (comprising the nuclei-bearing eukaryotes). [3] A small minority of scientists add Archaea as a sixth kingdom, but do not accept the domain method.
[edit] Examples
The usual classifications of five species follow: the fruit fly so familiar in genetics laboratories (Drosophila melanogaster), humans (Homo sapiens), the peas used by Gregor Mendel in his discovery of genetics (Pisum sativum), the "fly agaric" mushroom Amanita muscaria, and the bacterium Escherichia coli. The eight major ranks are given in bold; a selection of minor ranks are given as well.
Rank
Fruit fly
Human
Pea
Fly Agaric
E. coli
Domain
Eukarya
Eukarya
Eukarya
Eukarya
Bacteria
Kingdom
Animalia
Animalia
Plantae
Fungi

Phylum or Division
Arthropoda
Chordata
Magnoliophyta
Basidiomycota
Proteobacteria
Subphylum or subdivision
Hexapoda
Vertebrata
Magnoliophytina
Hymenomycotina

Class
Insecta
Mammalia
Magnoliopsida
Homobasidiomycetae
Proteobacteria
Subclass
Pterygota
Eutheria
Magnoliidae
Hymenomycetes
Gammaproteobacteria
Order
Diptera
Primates
Fabales
Agaricales
Enterobacteriales
Suborder
Brachycera
Haplorrhini
Fabineae
Agaricineae

Family
Drosophilidae
Hominidae
Fabaceae
Amanitaceae
Enterobacteriaceae
Subfamily
Drosophilinae
Homininae
Faboideae
Amanitoideae

Genus
Drosophila
Homo
Pisum
Amanita
Escherichia
Species
D. melanogaster
H. sapiens
P. sativum
A. muscaria
E. coli
Table Notes:
Higher taxa and especially intermediate taxa are prone to revision as new information about relationships is discovered. For example, the traditional classification of primates (class Mammalia — subclass Theria — infraclass Eutheria — order Primates) is challenged by new classifications such as McKenna and Bell (class Mammalia — subclass Theriformes — infraclass Holotheria — order Primates). See mammal classification for a discussion. These differences arise because there are only a small number of ranks available and a large number of branching points in the fossil record.
Within species further units may be recognised. Animals may be classified into subspecies (for example, Homo sapiens sapiens, modern humans) or morphs (for example Corvus corax varius morpha leucophaeus, the Pied Raven). Plants may be classified into subspecies (for example, Pisum sativum subsp. sativum, the garden pea) or varieties (for example, Pisum sativum var. macrocarpon, snow pea), with cultivated plants getting a cultivar name (for example, Pisum sativum var. macrocarpon 'Snowbird'). Bacteria may be classified by strains (for example Escherichia coli O157:H7, a strain that can cause food poisoning).
A mnemonic for remembering the order of the taxa is: Do Koalas Prefer Chocolate Or Fruit, Generally Speaking? Other mnemonics are available at [4] and [5].
Terminations of names
Taxa above the genus level are often given names based on the type genus, with a standard termination. The terminations used in forming these names depend on the kingdom, and sometimes the phylum and class, as set out in the table below.
Rank
Plants
Algae
Fungi
Animals
Bacteria[6]
Division/Phylum
-phyta
-mycota


Subdivision/Subphylum
-phytina
-mycotina


Class
-opsida
-phyceae
-mycetes

-ia
Subclass
-idae
-phycidae
-mycetidae

-idae
Superorder
-anae


Order
-ales

-ales
Suborder
-ineae

-ineae
Infraorder
-aria


Superfamily
-acea
-oidea

Epifamily



-oidae

Family
-aceae
-idae
-aceae
Subfamily
-oideae
-inae
-oideae
Infrafamily



-odd

Tribe
-eae
-ini
-eae
Subtribe
-inae
-ina
-inae
Infratribe



-ad

Table notes:
In botany and mycology names at the rank of family and below are based on the name of a genus, sometimes called the type genus of that taxon, with a standard ending. For example, the rose family Rosaceae is named after the genus Rosa, with the standard ending "-aceae" for a family. Names above the rank of family are formed from a family name, or are descriptive (like Gymnospermae or Fungi).
For animals, there are standard suffixes for taxa only up to the rank of superfamily.[7]
Forming a name based on a generic name may be not straightforward. For example, the Latin "homo" has the genitive "hominis", thus the genus "Homo" (human) is in the Hominidae, not "Homidae".
The ranks of epifamily, infrafamily and infratribe (in animals) are used where the complexities of phyletic branching require finer-than-usual distinctions. Although they fall below the rank of superfamily, they are not regulated under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and hence do not have formal standard endings. The suffixes listed here are regular, but informal.[8]
Authorities (author citation)
The name of any taxon may be followed by the "authority" for the name, that is, the name of the author who first published a valid description of it. These names are frequently abbreviated: the abbreviation "L." is universally accepted for Linnaeus, and in botany there is a regulated list of standard abbreviations (see list of botanists by author abbreviation). The system for assigning authorities is slightly different in different branches of biology: see author citation (botany) and author citation (zoology). However, it is standard that if a name or placement has been changed since the original description, the first authority's name is placed in parentheses and the authority for the new name or placement may be placed after it (usually only in botany).
Notes
^ Categories Section 5 and Metaphysics Book 6, but the terms are used in many places throughout the writings of Aristotle.
^ NOMINA CIRCUMSCRIBENTIA INSECTORUM. Retrieved on 2006-09-09.
^ See especially pp. 45, 78 and 555 of Joel Cracraft and Michael J. Donaghue, eds. (2004). Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
^ mnemonic-device.eu
^ thefreedictionary.com.
^ Bacteriologocal Code (1990 Revision)
^ ICZN article 27.2
^ As supplied by Eugene S. Gaffney & Peter A. Meylan (1988), "A phylogeny of turtles", in M.J. Benton (ed.), The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds 157-219 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Bibliography
Atran, S. (1990). Cognitive foundations of natural history: towards an anthropology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, xii+360 pages. ISBN 0521372933, 0521372933.
Larson, J. L. (1971). Reason and experience. The representation of Natural Order in the work of Carl von Linne. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, VII+171 pages.
Stafleau, F. A. (1971). Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1753-1789. Utrecht: Oosthoek, xvi+386 pages.



List of butterflies of India (Hesperiidae)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable.Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked.This article has been tagged since July 2007.
This is a list of the butterflies of India belonging to the family Hesperiidae and an index to the species articles. This forms part of the full list of butterflies of India.
The family Hesperiidae is divided into seven subfamilies of which three are found in India.
Hesperids are often difficult to identify to species level in the field and accurate identification may require dissection and examination of the genitalia.
The larval food plants are mainly grasses, palms and bamboos. Some feed on dicotyledon species. Eggs are smooth, or sometimes ridged and white or red in color. Larvae are cylindrical with a large head. They are usually green or transparent green and sometimes conspicuously marked. The larvae feed within cells made out of rolled leaves and pupation occurs inside the cell. The pupa is generally covered with fine white powder.
Contents
[hide]
1 Coeliadinae
1.1 Badamia - The Awls
1.2 Bibasis - The Awlets
1.3 Choaspes - The Awlkings
1.4 Hasora - The Awl
2 Hesperiinae
2.1 Aeromachus - The Srub-hoppers
2.2 Ampittia - The Bush Hopper
2.3 Ancistroides - The Chocolate Demon
2.4 Arnetta - The Forest Hopper
2.5 Baoris - The Swifts
2.6 Baracus - The Hedge-Hopper
2.7 Pseudoborbo - The Swift
2.8 Borbo - The Swift
2.9 Caltoris - The Swifts
2.10 Cuphita - The Wax Dart
2.11 Cyrina - The Nonsuch Palmer
2.12 Erionota - The Redeyes
2.13 Gangara - The Giant Redeyes
2.14 Gegenes - The Dingy Swift
2.15 Halpe - The Aces
2.16 Hyarotis - The Flitters
2.17 Iambrix - The Chestnut Bob
2.18 Iton -The Common Wight
2.19 Koruthaialos - The Dark Velvet Bob
2.20 Matapa - The Redeyes
2.21 Notocrypta - The Demons
2.22 Ochiodes - The Darters
2.23 Oriens - The Dartlets
2.24 Parnara - The Swifts
2.25 Pelopidas - The Dark Branded Swift
2.26 Pithauria - The Straw Aces
2.27 Polytremis - The Swifts
2.28 Potanthus - The Darts
2.29 Plastingia - The Spotted Yellow Lancer
2.30 Puducitia - The Spotted Redeyes
2.31 Piradana - The Green Striped Palmer
2.32 Psolos - The Coon
2.33 Quedara - The Golden Tree Flitter
2.34 Salanoemia - The Maculate Lancer
2.35 Stimula
2.36 Scobura - The Forest Bob
2.37 Sovia - The Bicolour Ace
2.38 Suastus - The Palm Bobs
2.39 Suada - The Grass Bob
2.40 Taractrocera - The Grass Darts
2.41 Telicota - The Palm Darts
2.42 Cephrenes - The Palm Darts
2.43 Thoressa - The Spotted Aces
2.44 Udaspes - The Grass Demon
2.45 Zographetus - The Flitters
3 Pyrginae
3.1 Caprona - The Angles
3.2 Celaenorrhinus - The Spotted Flats
3.3 Cogia - The Tricolur Flat
3.4 Coladenia - The Pied Flats
3.5 Damio - The Yellowbreasted Flats
3.6 Gomalia - The Marbled Skipper
3.7 Odontoptilum - The Chestnut Angle
3.8 Sarangesa - The Small Flats
3.9 Satarupa - The White Flats
3.10 Seseria - The White Flats
3.11 Chamunda - The Olive Flat
3.12 Spialia-Indian Skipper
3.13 Tagiades - The Snow Flats
3.14 Tapena - The Angled Flat
3.15 Mooreana - The Yellow Flat
3.16 Capila - The Dawnflyies
3.17 Lobocla -The Marbled Flat
3.18 Darpa - The Hairy Angle
3.19 Odina - The Zigzag Flat
3.20 Ctenoptilum - The Tawny Angle
4 Notes
5 References
6 See also
Coeliadinae
Badamia - The Awls
Brown Awl, Badamia exclamationis (Fabricius, 1775)
Bibasis - The Awlets
Pale Green Awlet, Bibasis gomata (Moore, 1865)
Orange-striped Awl/Orange Awlet, Bibasis jaina (Moore, 1865)
Orangetail Awl/Pale Green Awlet, Bibasis sena (Moore, 1865)
Branded Orange Awlet Bibasis oedipodea (Fruhstorfer, 1911)[1]
Plain Orange Awlet Bibasis anadi de Niceville, 1883[1]
Bibasis harisa[1]
Green Awlet Bibasis vasutana Moore, 1865[1]
Small Green Awlet Bibasis amara (Moore, 1865)[1]
Choaspes - The Awlkings
Branded Awlking Choaspes plateni Evans, 1932[1]
Indian Awlking, Choaspes benjaminii (Guérin-Meneville, 1843)
Awlking Choaspes xanthopogon Kollar, 1844[1]
Choaspes furcatus Evans, 1932
Hasora - The Awl
Common Awl, Hasora badra (Moore , 1857)
Hasora anura [1]
Common Banded Awl, Hasora chromus (Cramer , 1780)
White Banded Awl, Hasora taminatus (Hübner, 1818)
Plain Banded Awl, Hasora vitta (Butler , 1870)
Hesperiinae
Aeromachus - The Srub-hoppers
Dingy Scrub-Hopper, Aeromachus dubius (Elwes & Edwards , 1897)
Pygmy Grass/Scrub-Hopper, Aeromachus pygmaeus (Fabricius, 1775)
Ampittia - The Bush Hopper
Bush Hopper, Ampittia dioscorides (Fabricius, 1793)
Ancistroides - The Chocolate Demon
Chocolate Demon, Ancistroides nigrita (Latreille, 1824)
Arnetta - The Forest Hopper
Coorg Forest Hopper, Arnetta mercara (Evans, 1932)
Vindhyan Bob, Arnetta vindhiana (Moore, 1883)
Baoris - The Swifts
Paintbrush Swift, Baoris farri (Moore , 1878)
Swift Baoris pencillata (Moore, 1878)
Figure-of-8 Swift Baoris pagana de Niceville, 1887
Baracus - The Hedge-Hopper
Hampson's Hedge-Hopper, Baracus vittatus (Felder, 1862)
Pseudoborbo - The Swift
Beavan's Swift, Pseudoborbo bevani (Moore, 1878)
Borbo - The Swift
Rice Swift, Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866)
Caltoris - The Swifts
Yellow-fringed Swift Caltoris aurociliata (Elwes and Edwards, 1897)
Austen's Swift Caltoris cahira austeni (Moore, 1883)
Caltoris confusa Evans, 1932
Purple Swift Caltoris tulsi tulsi (de Niceville, 1883)
Tufted Swift Caltoris plebeia (de Niceville, 1887)
Kanara Swift, Caltoris canaraica (Moore , 1883)
Blank Swift, Caltoris kumara (Moore , 1878)
Philippine Swift, Caltoris philippina (Herrich-Schäffer , 1869)
Cuphita - The Wax Dart
Wax Dart, Cupitha purreea (Moore , 1877)
Cyrina - The Nonsuch Palmer
Nonsuch Palmer Cyrina cyrina Hewitson, 1876
Erionota - The Redeyes
Palm Redeye, Erionota thrax (Linnaeus , 1767)
Palm Redeye Erionota torus Evans, 1941
Redeye Erionota acroleucus (Semper, 1892)
Gangara - The Giant Redeyes
Giant Redeye Gangara thyrsis (Fabricius , 1775) Banded Redeye Gangara lebadea (Hewitson, 1886)
Gegenes - The Dingy Swift
Dingy Swift, Gegenes nostradamus (Fabricius, 1793)
Halpe - The Aces
Indian/Ceylon Ace, Halpe homolea (Hewitson, 1868)
Moore's Ace, Halpe porus (Mabille , 1876)
Hyarotis - The Flitters
Tree Flitter, Hyarotis adrastus (Stoll , 1782)
Brush Flitter, Hyarotis microstrictum (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1887)
Iambrix - The Chestnut Bob
Chestnut Bob, Iambrix salsala (Moore, 1865)
Iton -The Common Wight
Common Wight Iton semamora (Moore, 1866)
Koruthaialos - The Dark Velvet Bob
Dark Velvet Bob Koruthaialos butleri Wood-Mason and de Niceville, 1883
Matapa - The Redeyes
Common Redeye Matapa aria (Moore, 1865)
Dark Brand Redeye Matapa druna (Moore, 1865)
Grey Brand Redeye Matapa cresta Evans, 1949
Black-veined Redeye Matapa sasivarna Moore, 1865
Purple Redeye Matapa purpurascens Elwes and Edwards, 1897
Notocrypta - The Demons
Restricted Demon, Notocrypta curvifascia (Felder & Felder, 1862)
Spotted Demon, Notocrypta feisthamelii
Common Banded Demon, Notocrypta paralysos (Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, 1881)
Ochiodes - The Darters
Subhyaline Darter Ochiodes subhyalina Evans, 1949
Assam Darter Ochiodes siva Moore, 1878
Oriens - The Dartlets
Tamil Dartlet, Oriens concinna (Elwes & Edwards, 1897)
Common Dartlet Oriens goloides (Moore, 1881) [2]
Parnara - The Swifts
African Straight/Straight Swift, Parnara naso (Fabricius, 1798)
Parnara naso bada (Moore, 1878)
Continental Swift, Parnara ganga (Evans, 1937)
Parnara guttata mangala (Moore, 1865)
Pelopidas - The Dark Branded Swift
Dark Branded Swift, Pelopidas agna (Moore, 1865)
Great Swift, Pelopidas assamensis (De Nicéville, 1882)
Conjoined Swift, Pelopidas conjuncta (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)
Dark Small-Branded Swift, Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798)
Large Branded Swift, Pelopidas subochracea (Moore, 1878)
Pale Small-Branded Swift, Pelopidas thrax (Hübner, 1821)
Pithauria - The Straw Aces
Pithauria murdava (Moore, 1866)
Banded Straw Ace Pithauria marsena (Hewitson, [1866])
Light Straw Ace Pithauria stramineipennis Wood-Mason & de Nicéville, [1887]
Polytremis - The Swifts
Himalayan Swift, Polytremis discreta (Elwes & Edwards, 1897)
Contiguous Swift, Polytremis lubricans (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)
Yellow Spot Swift Polytremeis eltota (Hewitson, 1869)
Potanthus - The Darts
Confucian/Chinese Dart, Potanthus confucius (Felder & Felder, 1862)
Pallied Dart, Potanthus pallida (Evans, 1932)
Palni Dart, Potanthus palnia (Evans, 1914)
Pava Dart, Potanthus pava (Fruhstorfer, 1911)
Common Dart, Potanthus pseudomaesa (Moore, 1881)
Potanthus pseudomaesa clio Evans, 1932
Potanthus sita Evans, 1932
Potanthus nesta Evans, 1932
Branded Dart Potanthus rectifasciata (Elwes and Edwards, 1897)
Sikkim Dart Potanthus mara Evans, 1932
Plastingia - The Spotted Yellow Lancer
Spotted Yellow Lancer Plastingia noemi de Niceville, 1885
Puducitia - The Spotted Redeyes
Spotted Redeye Pudicitia pholus (de Niceville, 1889)
Piradana - The Green Striped Palmer
Green Striped Palmer Piradana hyela Evans, 1932
Psolos - The Coon
Coon, Psolos fuligo (Mabille, 1876)
Quedara - The Golden Tree Flitter
Yellow-Base/Golden Tree Flitter, Quedara basiflava (De Nicéville, 1888)
Salanoemia - The Maculate Lancer
Maculate Lancer, Salanoemia sala (Hewitson, 1866)
Stimula
Stimula swinhoei Elwes and Edwards, 1897
Scobura - The Forest Bob
Forest Bob Scobura cephala (Hewitson, 1876)
Sovia - The Bicolour Ace
Bicolour Ace, Sovia hyrtacus (De Nicéville, 1897)
Suastus - The Palm Bobs
Indian Palm Bob, Suastus gremius (fabricius, 1798)
Small Palm Bob, Suastus minuta (Moore, 1877)
Suada - The Grass Bob
Grass Bob Suada swerga (de Niceville, 1883)
Taractrocera - The Grass Darts
Tamil Grass Dart, Taractrocera ceramas (Hewitson, 1868)
Common Grass Dart, Taractrocera maevius (Fabricius, 1793)
Himalayan Dark Dart Taractrocera danna (Moore, 1878)
Telicota - The Palm Darts
Dark Palm Dart, Telicota ancilla (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)
Telicota ancilla bambusae (Moore, 1878)
Pale Palm Dart, Telicota colon (Fabricius, 1775)
Telicota linna Evans, 1949
Telicota ohara jix Evans, 1949
Cephrenes - The Palm Darts
Plain Palm Dart, Cephrenes palmarum (Felder, 1862)
Cephrenes chrysozona oceanica Mabille, 1904
Thoressa - The Spotted Aces
Southern Spotted Ace or Unbranded Ace, Thoressa astigmata (Swinhoe, 1890)
Evershed's Ace, Thoressa evershedi (Evans, 1910)
Madras Ace, Thoressa honorei (De Nicéville, 1887)
Tamil Ace or Sitala Ace, Thoressa sitala (De Nicéville, 1885)
Udaspes - The Grass Demon
Grass Demon, Udaspes folus (Cramer, 1775)
Zographetus - The Flitters
Purple and Gold Flitter Zographetus satwa (de Niceville, 1884)
Purple Spotted Flitter Zographetus ogygia (Hewitson, 1866)
Pyrginae
Caprona - The Angles
Golden Angle, Caprona ransonnetti (Felder, 1868)
Spotted Angle, Caprona agama (Moore , 1857 )
Spotted Angle, Caprona alida (De Nicéville , 1891)
Celaenorrhinus - The Spotted Flats
Malabar Spotted Flat, Celaenorrhinus ambareesa (Moore, 1865)
Common Spotted Flat, Celaenorrhinus leucocera (Kollar , 1848)
Multispotted Flat, Celaenorrhinus pulomaya (Moore, 1865)
Tamil Spotted Flat, Celaenorrhinus ruficornis (Mabille , 1878)
Bhutan Flat Celaenorrhinus flavocincta (de Niceville, 1887)
Double Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus pyrrha de Niceville, 1889
Celaenorrhinus ratna Evans 1926
Mussoorie Pied Flat Celaenorrhinus pero Leech, 1894
Pied Flat Celaenorrhinus morena Evans, 1924
de Niceville's Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus sumitra (Moore, 1865)
Large Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus patula de Niceville, 1889
Common Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus putra (Moore, 1865)
Himalayan Spotted Flat Celaenorrhinus munda Moore, 1884
Small Banded Flat Celaenorrhinus nigricans (de Niceville, 1885)
Scarce Banded Flat Celaenorrhinus badia (Hewitson, 1877)
Himalayan Yellow Flat Celaenorrhinus dhanada (Moore, 1865)
Cogia - The Tricolur Flat
Tricolour Flat Cogia indrani (Moore, 1865)
Coladenia - The Pied Flats
Fulvous Pied Flat, Coladenia dan (Fabricius , 1787)
Brown Pied Flat Coladenia agni (de Niceville, 1883)
Damio - The Yellowbreasted Flats
Common Yellowbreasted Flat Daimio bhagava (Moore, 1865)
White Yellow-breast Flat Daimio sinica (Moore, 1884)
Dusky Yellow-breast Flat Daimio phisara (Moore, 1884)
Gomalia - The Marbled Skipper
African Mallow/Marbled Skipper Gomalia elma (Trimen , 1862)
Odontoptilum - The Chestnut Angle
Chestnut/Banded Angle Odontoptilum angulata (Felder, 1862)
Sarangesa - The Small Flats
Common Small Flat Sarangesa dasahara (Moore, 1865)
Spotted Small Flat, Sarangesa purendra (Moore, 1882)
Satarupa - The White Flats
Tytler's White Flat Satarupa zulla Tytler, 1915
Large White Flat Satarupa gopala (Moore, 1865)
Seseria - The White Flats
Himalayan White Flat Seseria dohertyi Watson, 1863
Sikkim White Flat Seseria sambara (Moore, 1865)
Chamunda - The Olive Flat
Olive Flat Chamunda chamunda (Moore, 1865)
Spialia-Indian Skipper
Indian Grizzled/Indian Skipper, Spialia galba (Fabricius, 1793)
Tagiades - The Snow Flats
Immaculate/Large/Suffused Snow Flat, Tagiades gana (Moore, 1865)[3]
Common/Ceylon Snow Flat, Tagiades jepetus (Stoll, 1782)
Water Snow Flat, Tagiades litigiosa (Möschler, 1878)
Spotted Snow Flat Tagiades menaka (Moore, 1865)
Flat Tagiades cohaerens (T. c. cynthia Evans, 1934)
Tapena - The Angled Flat
Angled Flat/Black Angle, Tapena twaithesi (Moore, 1881)
Mooreana - The Yellow Flat
Yellow Flat Mooreana trichoneura (M. t. pralaya, (Moore, 1865))
Capila - The Dawnflyies
Lidderdale's Dawnfly Capila lidderdali (Elwes, 1888)
Pale striped Dawnfly Capila zennara (Moore, 1865)
Striped Dawnfly Capila jayadeva (Moore, 1865)
Lobocla -The Marbled Flat
Marbled Flat Lobocla liliana (Atkinson, 1871)
Darpa - The Hairy Angle
Hairy Angle Darpa hanria (Moore, 1865)
Odina - The Zigzag Flat
Zigzag Flat Odina decoratus Hewitson, 1867
Ctenoptilum - The Tawny Angle
Tawny Angle Ctenoptilum vasava (Moore, 1865)
Notes
^ a b c d e f g h Haribal, Meena (1994) The Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and Their Natural History
^ Haribal, 1994: Mentions O. g. pseudolus (Mabille, 1883)
^ Haribal, 1994:200 Mentions Tagiades parra gala Evans, 1949
[edit] References
Evans, W.H. (1932) The Identification of Indian Butterflies. (2nd Ed), Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India
Gay,Thomas; Kehimkar,Isaac & Punetha,J.C.(1992) Common Butterflies of India. WWF-India and Oxford University Press, Mumbai, India.
Haribal, Meena (1994) Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and their Natural History.
Kunte,Krushnamegh (2005) Butterflies of Peninsular India. Universities Press.
Wynter-Blyth, M.A. (1957) Butterflies of the Indian Region, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India.


Lists of Indian butterflies and moths

[hide]
Indian butterflies subproject Master list Papilionidae Pieridae Lycaenidae Riodinidae Hesperiidae Nymphalidae - Danainae - Limenitidinae - Morphinae - Satyrinae - Nymphalidae (balance)
Indian moths subproject - Master list - Alucitidae - Arctiidae - Bombycidae - Brachodidae - Brahmaeidae - Choreutidae - Cosmopterigidae - Cossidae - Crambidae - Drepanidae - Eupterotidae - Gelechiidae - Geometridae - Glyphipterigidae - Gracillariidae - Hepialidae - Immidae - Lasiocampidae - Lecithoceridae - Limacodidae - Lymantriidae - Noctuidae - Nolidae - Notodontidae - Oecophoridae - Pantheidae - Peleopodidae - Phaudidae - Psychidae - Pterophoridae - Pyralidae - Saturniidae - Sesiidae - Sphingidae - Thyrididae - Tineidae - Tortricidae - Uraniidae - Xyloryctidae - Yponomeutidae - Zygaenidae
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_butterflies_of_India_%28Hesperiidae%29"
Categories: Wikipedia articles needing factual verification since July 2007 Regional butterfly lists Butterflies of India Hesperiidae


Arnetta vindhiana
Vindhyan Bob

Vindhyan Bob

Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Arthropoda
Class:
Insecta
Order:
Lepidoptera
Family:
Hesperiidae
Subfamily:
Hesperiinae
Genus:
Arnetta
Species:
A. vindhiana
Binomial name
Arnetta vindhiana(Moore, 1883)
Synonyms
Isoteinon vindiana Moore, 1883[1]
Arnetta vindhiana, commonly known as the Vindhyan Bob, is a butterfly belonging to the family Hesperiidae. It is native to India.
[edit] Description
See glossary for terms used
Male. Upperside dark olive-brown ; cilia cinereous ; forewing with a small yellow semi-transparent spot at upper end of the cell, three conjoined subapical spots, two discal spots, and a small oval spot above the submedian vein. Underside dusky ochreous : forewing with the posterior area broadly black ; spots as above ; hindwing with a yellow lunule at end of the cell, a small spot above it and five discal spots.
Size : 25-32mm. UNH spots obscure.UPF spot upper edge cell may be absent. Male:with no tuft UNF.
Distribution
This species is reported from Palni Hills, Nilgiri Hills, Meghamalai, Wayanad, Coorg, Konkan, west Khandesh, Mhow, Thana, Surat Dangs and Madhya Pradesh. Apparently being absent from the heavier jungle country between Bombay and Coorg. Presumably also found in the Vindhyan rage. T. R. D. Bell states that it may be said to live in the dry, bamboo-growing hilly country, but Winter-blyth found it not uncommon on the western slopes of the Nilgiris in September and October in the very wettest, thickest jungle and it seems to be found in similar country in Coorg. Bell says that it is common in the Surat Dangs, where it is found sitting on the ground on dry leaves, blades of grass etc. It visits flowers.
Also recorded from the Nilgiris by George Francis Hampson, who considered this, modesta and nilgiriana as a single species with vindhiana being the dry season form, nilgiriana the wet season form, and modesta which was described from a single specimen obtained by Mr. Lindsay, a variety. In collections of Indian Museum and Lionel de Niceville.[2]
References
^ Moore, Frederic (1883) P. Z. S.:533
^ Watson, E. Y. (1891) Hesperiidae Indicae : being a reprint of descriptions of the Hesperiidae of India, Burma, and Ceylon.




Butterfly Diversity Of Pune City Along Human Impact Gradient
Krushnamegh Kunte
4024, Survey No. 14/4, Warje, Pune, 4110 29. Email: krushnamegh@hotmail.com
Introduction
India hosts 1,501 species of butterflies (Gaonkar 1996), of which peninsular India hosts 350, and the Western Ghats, 331. Pune falls in the relatively species-poor, drier region of the northern Western Ghats. Above literature on biogeographic distribution and habitat preference indicates that the Pune district may harbour about 170 species (Kunte, unpubl.), of which 104 are so far reported from Pune urban area within 20 km radius. Remaining species are mostly forest dwellers and may not be found in the urban area. There is hardly any literature specific to Pune butterflies.
Methodology
While observations here are based on seasonal visits to many localities in and around Pune, I explored six sites more intensely, given their contrasting vegetation types and levels of disturbance (Kunte, 1997). The sites include the moist deciduous forests at Sinhgad hills, their extension at drier, forests and grasslands prone to fire and grazing, amidst deserted habitation around NDA, much drier, fire prone scrub and grasslands with little grazing, besides afforestation at Pachgaon, highly grazed but hardly burnt grasslands (so called `barren land’) at Malwadi, well-wooded campus S.P. College of with profusion of old trees, native trees, besides exotics ones, amidst a mosaic of concrete buildings, the marshes and scrub along Mutha riverbank at Dattawadi. Besides noting relative abundance and even seasonal counts (Kunte,1997), I also recorded larval host plants and their Phenology, besides nectar plants, larval host plants, predators, early stages of butterflies.
Results And Discussion
Diversity and distribution: Annexure depicts the distribution patterns of 104 butterfly species recorded so far. Some butterfly species, which perhaps evaded detection or precise field identity, may include Lineblues, other Blues, Swifts and Skippers. Further survey may not record more than 120 species from the study area. Table 1 summerises the annexure on terms of habitatwise species richness and uniqueness. Over two third are found in denser forest habitats such as valleys of Sinhagad and Peacock Bay, 11 of which found nowhere else. Scrub appears to be most species rich habitat frequented by three fourth the species though only two of these were exclusive to it, seldom recorded elsewhere. Forest, on the other hand harboured lower diversity with only 68 species, but highest level of uniqueness, with nearly a dozen species exclusive to it. Plantations also harboured two unique species, though low species richness. Agriculture and grassland harbour high and lowest species richness respectively though without any species being exclusive to them. Together, wilderness areas i.e. forest, scrub and grasslands harbour three fourth of the species, about a fourth of them being exclusive to wilderness zone. The plantations clogging the township, along with the agriculture represent more human impacted zone which harbours about two third of the total species recorded from Pune, but some of them have their larval food plants located in the wilderness zone. The habitat specialists include predominantly forest dwellers like the Bushbrown, few species of Yellows and Flats; while the Tailed Jay is a habitation specialists. The habitat generalists include Common Rose, Lime Butterfly, species of Grass Blues etc. found in variety of habitat types.
Seasonality :
Table 3 presents proportion of total species recorded along transects at four localities (Kunte, 1997) across seasons. This excludes sepcies with unreliably low abundances and the plantation fauna. Kunte (1997) describes in detail the seasonality patterns, technically termed flight periods, of species and groups, including factors affecting it. Butterflies in all habitats have distinct flight periods. Almost all butterflies have very short seasonal peaks, and they are either absent or rare in other seasons (Kunte, 1997). However, their interesting patterns probably reflect phenophases of their host plants. Some species occur throughout the year with a short population peak in a specific season, and some species occur only for a few months, such as the Spotless Grass Yellow and the Common Hedge Blue, respectively (at Sinhagad). A few species have a single, short flight period such as Lineblues (at Sinhagad) whereas some have two short peaks (e.g. Common Five-ring at Sinhagad). Yet others have just one, but fairly long flight period (e.g. Chocolate Pansy at Sinhagad). Although with little fluctuations, a few species (e.g. Common Evening Brown at Sinhagad) have similar abundance throughout the year. Most butterflies, in terms of number of individuals and number of species, fly in Pune during late monsoon and winter. The populations are low in spring and summer, probably due to fires at Peacock Bay and Pachgaon, and scarcity of water and ground flora at Malwadi and Sinhagad. Usually at all the sites, the populations start building from early monsoon and show the first peak in late monsoon, followed by a second peak in winter.
Fire and grazing impacts: Certain hillocks in Pune are grazed by migratory herds of sheep and resident livestock. Some are annually burned in uncontrolled and artificial fires. Intense grazing seriously alters composition of ground flora in grasslands. Cattle uproot grasses while feeding on them, and therefore decrease their density promote unpalatable herbs, at thecost of tall grasses such as at Malwadi. On the other hand, fire-afflicted site of Pachgaon host tall grasses but herbs are rare. Given these difference in larval and adult food resources, the butterfly fauna of Malwadi grasslands differes from the Pachgaon grasslands. For instance, species such as Grass Blues, Grass Jewel, Joker and Blue Pansy are much more common mainly at the fire-free site of Malwadi than Pachgaon, especially seen during winter. Since larval as well as imaginal stages of these butterfly species inhabit extremely disturbed vegetation, it is possible that they have evolved in secondary, naturally or artificially disturbed grasslands. Fires can occur naturally or be initiated by human beings. It plays a very important role since it affects the vegetation directly. However, despite affecting species composition, fire does not seem to affect species richness (Table 2). Butterflies such as common evening brown, plains cupid, spotless grass yellow, blue pansy, lemon pansy, painted lady and leopard were found at fire-free as well as at fire-afflicted sites. These species had more intense peaks at fire-afflicted areas with highly seasonal occurrence. On the other hand, in the fire-free areas their occurrence was less seasonal and spread across more seasons. Control of annual fires will be a singular, and perhaps the most important, effort at conserving butterflies in Pune.
Population changes: In the absence of earlier studies, it is impossible to quantify if certain butterflies have increased or decreased over the last decades. It is obvious that loss of habitat and increased use of inorganic pesticides in recent decades have adversely affected many butterfly species. Yet, no species might have gone locally extinct in Pune, given the long history of modification of the land in this region (Nalavade, this volume). In contrast, populations of at least two butterflies evergreen and semi-evergreen forest dwellers viz. Blue Mormon and the Plain Puffin have increased prominently in last 10 years, thanks to the home gardens that host theri larval host plants viz. Citrus spp. and Drypetes roxburghii respectively. Common Albatross and the Plain Puffin both feed on D. roxburghii and co-occur at the probable source population, Bheemashankar in the Western Ghats. But so far only the Plain Puffin has been successful in establishing in to the drier east aty Pune while only the Common Albatross has established itself in parts of moister, western Mumbai city. Populations of the Tailed Jay and the Common Mormon, species from evergreen and deciduous forests respectively seem increasing, benefiting from avenue and homestead plantation of larval host trees such as Polyalthia longifolia and Citrus spp. The plants apparently helped widen habitat preference of butterflies.
Conclusion :
Nearly half the species are recorded in the township, including various kinds of plantations of trees and shrubs like home gardens, public gardens, avenues etc. However, all of them may not survive if the natural vegetation like forest and grasslands surrounding the city vanish. For, some of the species seen around human habitation have their food plants or source populations in such wilderness zones skirting the township. Together, a fifth of the species are recorded primarily from such wilderness, rarely encountered in the city. These are thus most vulnerable to any further destruction of wilderness areas. This can be minimised by promoting these food plants (Kunte, 2000), whether herbs or climbers, rather than planting exotic trees. Controling hill fires is also a pressing need.
Acknowledgements :
Radhika Godbole helped me during the fieldwork while Dr. Makarand Dabak and Thomay Gay shared their perceptions especially about the past. My teachers such as Dr. Pendse of the S. P. College encouraged this extracurricular interest that cost my college schedule. I thank them all, besides cooperative family and friends.
Bibliography :
Evans, J. H. 1932. Identification of Indian Butterflies. BNHS (repr.). Mumbai.
Gaonkar, H. 1996. Butterflies of the Western Ghats with notes on those of Sri Lanka. A report to Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; Zoological Museum, Copenhagen and Natural History Museum, London.
Kunte, K. J. (unpbl.) Checklist of the Butterflies of the Western Ghats.
Kunte, K. J. 1996. Strange behavior of Mottled Emigrant males. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc., 93(2):307-308.
Kunte, K. J. 1997. Seasonal patterns in butterfly abundance and species diversity in four tropical habitats in northern Western Ghats. J. Biosc., 22(5):593-603.
Kunte, K J. 1998. Common Silverline caterpillar feeding on Cadaba indica. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc., 95(1):139.
Kunte, K. J. 1998. Plain Puffin: Behavior, life history and distribution. J. Bombay Nat. His. Soc., 95(1):137-139.
Kunte, K. J. 2000. Butterflies of Peninsular India. Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore and Universities Press, Hyderabad.
Larsen, T. B. 1987-88. The butterflies of the Nilgiri mountains of southern India (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 84(1) to 85(1).
Nalavade S. B., this volume. Geography of Pune city.
Wynter-Blyth, M. A. 1957. Butterflies of the Indian Region. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai.
Table 1
Habitat type wise species richness

No. of total species
No. of Unique Species
Forest (F)
68
11
Scrub (S)
76
2
Grassland (G)
38
0
Plantations (P)
57
2
Agriculture (A)
69
0
Wild (F,S,G)
80
20
Impacted (P,A)
70
0
Table 2
Seasonal variation in species richness at the four sites

Feb.-Mar.
Apr.-May
Jun.-Jul.
Aug.-Sep.
Oct.-Nov.
Dec.-Jan.
Sinhagad
8
7
17
19
16
14
Peacock Bay
6
6
7
14
19
12
Pachgaon
4
3
14
25
18
21
Malwadi
14
8
10
14
18
12
ANNEXURE: Distribution and abundance of butterflies in Pune urban area
HABITATS: F-forest, S-Scrub, G-Grassland, P-Plantations, A-Agriculture
ABD (Abundance): A-Abundant, C-common, O-Occassional, R-rare, S-Stray
REMARKS: LC- Law College, PU- Pune University
The common names are adopted from Evans (1932) and Winter Blythe (1957). For scientific nomenclature, consult Gaonkar (1996).
Sno
Common Name
Abd
Habitats
Remarks

Family Papilionidae



1
Common Rose
C
FSGPA

2
Crimson Rose
O
FSPGA

3
Tailed Jay
C
P

4
Common Mime
S

source 40 km?
5
Lime
A
FSGPA

7
Common Mormon
C
FP

8
Blue Mormon
O
FP
increasing

Family Pieridae



9
Common Emigrant
A
FSPA

10
Mottled Emigrant
A
SGPA

11
Small Grass Yellow
C
FSGPA

12
Spotless Grass Yellow
A
FSGPA
Seasonal forms
13
Common Grass Yellow
A
FSGPA

14
Three-Spot Grass Yellow
?
F
rare, Sinhagad
15
Common Jezebel
C
FP

16
Psyche
C
FSPA

17
Common Gull
A
FSGPA

18
Pioneer Or Caper White
A
SGPA

19
Plain Puffin
O
P
fresh arrival
20
Striped Albatross
R
SGA
sporadic
21
Small Salmon Arab
S
SA

22
Small Orange Tip
C
SGA

23
Plain Orange Tip
R
SGA

24
Crimson Tip
R
SGA
only PU & LC
25
Large Salmon Arab
R
SGA
LC hill
26
White Orange Tip
O
FSPA

27
Yellow Orange Tip
S
FS

28
Common Wanderer
C
FSPA


Family Nymphalidae



29
Common Evening Brown
A
FSGPA

30
Common Treebrown
R
FS

31
Common Bushbrown
O
F

32
Common Threering
C
FSGA

33
Common Fivering
C
FS

34
Common Nawab
R
FPA
winter
35
Black Rajah
R
FSPA
winter
36
Tawny Coster
C
SGPA

37
Common Leopard
C
FSA

38
Common Sailer
C
FS
source at Sinhgad?
39
Common Baron
C
FPA
winter
40
Baronet Or Red Baron
R
FS
frequents Malwadi
41
Joker
O
SGA
localized
42
Angled Castor
R
SA

43
Common Castor
A
FSPA

44
Yellow Pansy
C
FSGPA

45
Blue Pansy
C
SGPA

46
Lemon Pansy
A
FSGPA

47
Peacock Pansy
C
FSPA
Waterbodies
48
Grey Pansy
C
FSPA
Waterbodies
49
Chocolate Pansy
C
F

50
Painted Lady
O
SGA
highly seasonal
51
Great Eggfly
O
FSPA

52
Danaid Eggfly
O
FSPA

53
South Indian Blue Oakleaf
R
F

54
Glassy Tiger
O
FSPA

55
Blue Tiger
C
FSPA

56
Plain Tiger
A
SGPA

57
Striped Or Common Tiger
O
FSPA

58
Common Indian Crow
A
FSGPA


Family Lycaenidae



59
Plum Judy
O
F
highly seasonal
60
Apefly
S


61
Common Pierrot
C
FSPA

62
Angled Pierrot
O
F
highly seasonal
63
Rounded/Rusty/Striped Pierrot
O
SPA

64
Zebra Blue
C
FSPA

65
Bright Babul Blue
O
FSA

66
Dull Babul Blue
O
FSA

67
African Babul Blue
C
SA

68
Common Hedge Blue
O
F
highly seasonal
69
Pale Grass Blue
C
SGPA

70
Dark Grass Blue
C
SGPA

71
Lesser Grass Blue
C
SGPA

72
Tiny Grass Blue
C
FSGPA

73
Lime Blue
O
PA

74
Small Cupid
S?
SGA

75
Plains Cupid
C
SGPA

76
Grass Jewel
C
SGA
highly seasonal
77
Gram Blue
A
FSGPA

78
Forget-Me-Not
O
F

79
Pea Blue
C
FSGPA

80
Dark Cerulean
O
FA

81
Common Cerulean
A
FPA

82
Common Line Blue
O
FS

83
Red Pierrot
C
SPA
localized
84
Common Silverline
R
FPA

85
Shot Silverline
S?
S

86
Scarce Shot Silverline
S?
S

87
Peacock Royal
O
FA

88
Indian Red Flash
O
FS

89
Slate Flash
O
FS

90
Indian Sunbeam
O
FSPA


Family Hesperiidae



91
Common Banded Awl
A
FSPA

92
Brown Awl
O
F
highly seasonal
93
Common Spotted Flat
R
F

94
Malabar Spotted Flat
R
F

95
Common Small Flat
R
SG

96
Spotted Small Flat
R
SG

97
Indian Grizzled/Indian Skipper
O
SGPA

98
Grass Demon
C
FP

99
Indian Palm Bob
O
PA

100
Pale Palm Dart
O
FS

101
Dark Palm Dart
O
FS

102
Rice Swift
C
FSPA

103
Bevan's Swift
C
FSGPA





Hasora badra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Common Awl (Hasora badra)

Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Arthropoda
Class:
Insecta
Order:
Lepidoptera
Family:
Hesperiidae
Subfamily:
Coeliadinae
Genus:
Hasora
Species:
H.badra
Binomial name
Hasora badra(Moore , 1857)
Hasora badra, commonly known as the Common Awl, is a butterfly belonging to the family Hesperiidae.
Description
See glossary for terms used
Male and female yellowish brown. Male, with a suffused blackish subbasal patch ; forewing with three conjugated very small yellowish semitransparent spots near the costa, one fourth from the apex. Cilia pale greyish brown. Underside brown suffused with purple ; forewing with a blackish costal patch before the apex, posterior margin yellowish ; hindwing with a subbasal and submarginal suffused blackish band, the latter terminating in a black patch on anal lobe ; above the patch is a purple-white streak, and within the cell a small bluish white spot. Palpi and body beneath dull yellow. Legs, pale brown.
Female above brown suffused with vinaceous yellowish brown basally ; forewing with the three small subapical spots (as in male) and three rather large obliquely quadrate spots, two being disposed on the disc, the third above and within the cell. Underside with the spots on forewing as in upperside ; hindwing as in male.[1]
References
^ Watson, E. Y. (1891) Hesperiidae indicae. Vest and Co. Madras.
Sarangesa dasahara
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Common Small Flat (Sarangesa dasahara)

Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Arthropoda
Class:
Insecta
Order:
Lepidoptera
Family:
Hesperiidae
Subfamily:
Pyrginae
Genus:
Sarangesa
Species:
S. dasahara
Binomial name
Sarangesa dasahara(Moore, 1865)
Sarangesa dasahara, commonly known as the Common Small Flat, is a butterfly belonging to the family Hesperiidae.
//
Field Characteristics
The Common Spotted Flat has a wingspan or around 30-35 mm. A dull black or brown butterfly with semi transparent spot on the wings an sometimes with no visible spots. The underside of the wings is grey-brown with diffused dark spots. The male and female are similar in shape and colour and with hardly any differentiation.Both sexes of the flat are similar in appearance, being dull brownish-black above and greyer in colour below. The butterflies have small, semi-transparent discal, cell and apical spots. The dark spots on the underside of the forewing are large, dark and diffused.[1]
Status, distribution & habitat
This species is most commonly visible at the end of the rainy season, but sparsely found in the post-monsoon months. It is common but not abundant in most habitats. The Spotted Small Flat, though, is more common in the arid regions. It occurs in openings and edges in both the evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, deciduous forests, and scrub & short grassland savannahs. It is found in the Deccan plains and also in the hills, but more frequently found at lower elevations. Except for the very dry northtwest India, it occurs commonly throughout the country, in Sri Lanka and in the Indo-Chinese region.[1]
Habits
The buttefly though tiny, flies extraordinarily fast but in an erratic and jerky fashion. Though the flight seems jerky and erratic, the butterfly lands smoothly on the substratum, and that too suddenly. It fight is always close to the ground and has the habit of sometimes returning to the same spot for perching.
It feeds on flowers of herbs and small bushes and also rarely on birds' droppings and wet rocks for minerals. It always keeps its wings spread. It almost always rests on the underside of leaves, but basks on the upper side with its wings fully spread.[1]
Larval Host plants
Its larval host plants are acanthaceous herbs and small shrubs; Asystasia spp. and Blepharis asperrima. These species grow in neglected places around human habitations, in deciduous forests and openings in evergreen forests.[1]
Cited references
^ a b c d Kunte, Krushnamegh. (2000) Butterflies of Peninsular India, entry for Common Small Flat Sarangesa dasahara Moore (ser no 67, pp 202-203).
Avifauna Around Pune
S. Ingalhallikar1, R. Purandare2, S. Nalavade3, S. Dhole4
1 Nishad, 12, Varshanand Society, Anandnagar, Hingne Road, Pune, 411 051. Email: lexon@pn2.vsnl.net.in2 No. 78, Kapila Society, near Patrakar Nagar, Pune, 411 016.Email: rahulpu@mahindrabt.com3 Department Of Geography, Fergusson College, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, 411 005.Email: nalawade123@vsnl.net4 Flat 5, Bldg. 3 Anand Park, Shankarshet Road, Pune 411 037.Email: konitari@hotmail.com
Introduction
Birds are perhaps the most studied amongst animal groups. Incidentally cities are known to be richer in birds than any other taxa. The richness of birds in Indian cities is mainly attributed to abundant food supply through garbage dumps etc., large number of planted trees that provide the nesting sites, shelter etc. and the traditional goodwill of Indians to all living beings (Burton, 1977). Many large cities in India support around 300 or more bird species with Delhi leading with 434 species, followed by Mumbai (350 species, Ali and Abdulali, 1941) and Bangalore (315 species, Karthikeyan, 1999), are some examples. Pune is no exception to this with 332 species annexed here. Besides the checklist, we also review ecological distribution and changes over times as inputs for future management.
Earlier Work
In the fourth quarter of 19th century many workers, mostly British civil and military officers, contributed to the study of the bird fauna of the Deccan plateau of which Pune is a part. The significant works of the period were those of Davidson and Wenden (1878), Butler (1880), Barnes (1888-1890) and Davidson (1895). Wenden (1885) described 55 shore and waterbirds from the lake Fife (Khadakwasla). Betham (1899, 1902) wrote extensively about birds nesting around Pune and neighbourhood. Trevenen (1922) mostly dealt with the game birds found in and around the station. Apte (1950-51, 1957) wrote a series of popular articles about the common birds of the area. Ambedkar’s (1964) landmark study about the breeding biology of the Common Baya Weaverbird was based at Pune. The first ever checklist for the city was given by Gole (1972), which included about 150 species. Goel (1976) came out with a checklist of about 80 bird species for Pune University campus, which is one of the most popular birding spots around the city. A more comprehensive checklist covering larger area was published by Friends of Animals Society (Mundkur and Kelker 1981). This checklist covered areas upto Sinhagad and included about 250 species. Zoological Survey of India (Singh, 1984) provided a short list of birds seen at two waterbodies near the city. Ingalhallikar and Gole (1987) recorded 290 species for a slightly larger area. Bradbeer (1987) published a checklist from London, which covered 295 bird species he observed from around Pune during the previous year. Mahabal and Lamba’s (1987) systematic list of 329 species and subspecies from ‘Pune and vicinity’ was based on bird specimens present in the collections of the Virus Research Station and the Western Regional Station of the Zoological Survey of India, Pune. Gole (1987) described owls around Pune while Ingalhallikar (1988) threw some light on the birds of prey around Pune. Gole (1989) gave a concise account of birds of Pune region. A recent addition to the checklist like literature was by Nalavade (1999) who recorded 90 bird species for the Fergusson college campus.
Besides mere listing, Pune birds have also been variously studied ecologically. Gole (1980) counted the city birds. The bird census covering 120 sq.km of the city area, enumerated about 55,000 birds belonging to 130 species with a density of 1.8 birds per acre. Nalavade (1981) geographically analyzed the city birds on the basis of their distribution. Gole (1985) studied the avifauna of the polluted stretches of the Mula-Mutha river and tried to describe some indicated species. Purandare (1984) did a systematic year-long study of breeding behaviour of Blackwinged Kite from a riverside grove along Mutha river. Mahabal (1989) made a comprehensive census of communally roosting birds and counted about 0.16 million birds for Pune city. His observations about Common Indian Myna are varied and include such aspects as roosting behaviour (1989), population fluctuations (1990), intra and interspecific assemblages (1992), communal display behavior (1993a), flocking behaviour (1993b), activity time budget (1993c) etc. Purandare (1994) conducted another significant study about the breeding biology of Large Pied Wagtail along with a list of 102 birds found in the wagtail habitat.
Many explored the appearances, occurrences, range extensions, first sighting/breeding records etc. of various birds. These include Abdulali (1961), Gole (1971, 1977), Ingalhallikar and Kothari (1978), Ingalhallikar and Dharap (1979), Mundkur (1981, 1983a, 1983b, 1984a, 1984b, 1985, 1986), Bapat (1982), Ara (1987), Ingalhallikar, Mundkur and Gole (1988). Watve’s (1989, 1994) observations about Bonnelli’s Eagle and his path breaking findings about the thinking ability of Small Green Bee-eater (Smitha et al, 1999) need special mention. Enthusiasts like A. Chaoji have been regularly monitoring and maintaining unpublished records of waterbirds under the Asian Waterfowl Census since 1990. Similarly, M. Gupte, S. Pande, S. Tambe have been regularly contributing articles supported with photographs to many Pune newspapers and magazines.
Distribution of birds across habitat types
The city and environs harbour six major habitat types that include Forest (F), Scrub (S), Grassland or ‘maals’ (G), Tree plantation (P) including garden, orchards and avenues, Houses (H), Agriculture (A) and Waterbodies (W). The first three habitat types (F,S,G) comprise the wilderness zones with low human impacts while the next three (P,H,A) comprise the impacted zone on land. Table 1 presents the number of species found across various habitat types. About a third of the species are waterbirds, primarily winter migratory. None of them are exclusive to impacted areas though a few such as Blackwinged stilt are most abundant in polluted water where hardly any other species survive. Even in terrestrial habitats, exclusive species are wanting though few species such as sparrow, crow and common myna are preferential of human habitations, being commensals of humans. Less than a tenth of the total species inhabit human habitations while only a third inhabit impacted zone, hardly any being exclusively so. On the contrary, over 90% of the total species inhabit the wilderness zone, over two thirds of them being exclusively so. This emphasises why hill forests, grasslands and waterbodies are essential to maintain over a third of the urban avifauna.
As a matter of fact, due to the mosaic of habitats the city region supports more bird species than the surrounding countryside. Populationwise also, the city region supports more birds than surrounding countryside. According to a survey made by one of the authors (SN), the average bird density within the city was 2.75 birds per hectare against 0.8 birds per hectare beyond the city’s eastern outskirts. Four species viz. House Sparrow, Crows (both House and Jungle), Common Myna and Blue Rock Pigeon form almost 70% of total bird population in western suburbs (mainly Kothrud). Four habitat types viz. Hill forest and scrub, tree plantations and waterbodies together support most of the urban avifauna. Wellwooded compounds with large, tall trees are popular roosting sites for communal birds like Crows, Mynas, Herons and Egrets, Parakeets and Kites. The five most important roosting areas for the communal birds include Peshwe park-Sarus Baug complex, Vaikuntha crematorium, Police Parade ground-Agriculture college campus, Pune University campus (old garden) and the Bund garden-Koregaon park-Empress garden belt.
Three species- House Sparrow, Common Myna and Blue Rock Pigeon exclusively build nests in human habitations. The number of individuals belonging to the following species increase during the monsoon season- Crows, Common Myna, Common Pariah Kite, Black Drongo, Longbilled and Whitebacked Vultures and Blue Jay. The heavy rainfall from the Ghat country probably forces these birds eastwards! According to Aitken (1905) - “The Common Kites go to Poona with the Government, for the monsoon months”. Almost all kinds of Egrets and Herons disappear from the city with the commencement of the monsoon. They reappear after the rainy season is over. They probably go down to Konkan for breeding (Mahabal, pers. comm.). House Crows, House Sparrows, Common Mynas, Roseringed Parakeets and Cattle Egrets go out of the city in the morning and return by evening. Their daily commuting routes more or less coincide with the river courses and the hill ranges.
Changes in the bird fauna
Remarkable changes in the status of some species and likely environmental factors that may be responsible for these changes are discussed in brief here. Forest dwelling raptors like Crested Serpent Eagle and Crested Hawk Eagle have declined in numbers though they have been observed to be nesting regularly. High rate of mortality may be due to infertile and brittle eggs! The Flycatchers and other forest dwelling insectivorous species have also shown a decline in numbers. Grassland raptors such as Buzzards, Harriers and Kestrels have declined. Laggar Falcon and Redheaded Merlin have also declined in number. Scavengers like Vultures have shown a sudden decline in the last few years. Reduction in number is alarming. They might be victims of epidemic reported all over India. Another possible localized reason is the closure of bone crushing factory at Kondhva, which used to be the main haunting ground of all sorts of Vultures.
Commoner species such as House Sparrows and Crows are showing declining trend particularly in the last five years. The proportion of Jungle Crow to House Crow has increased. The Redwhiskered Bulbul, once considered to be uncommon within the city has now started replacing the Redvented Bulbul as around Bibwewadi and Sinhagad road. Is this due to loss of treecover on the city outskirts? Little Brown Dove also seems to be declining. The removal of age-old Banyan and other fig trees from Pune-Paud road, Pune-Panshet road, Pune-Satara-Bangalore Highway and University road is probably preventing the Common Green Pigeon from visiting the area. Till recently the Green Pigeons were regular visitors to the roadside trees.
The waders along rivers, streams and lakes have declined significantly. However, there may not be much change in the population of Egrets and common Ducks. The rapid colonization of the riverbank and lakeshores could be the possible reason. The Little Cormorant, considered to be an uncommon bird in the past, has now become numerous especially along the rivers Mula-Mutha. The Blackwinged Stilt has also become numerous, especially around those spots, where sewage water enters the river. Pied Kingfisher has also declined in number, particularly along the much polluted stretch of the Mula-Mutha, where turbid water prevents it from fishing. The carpet of water hyacinth in the Mula river has also forced this beautiful Kingfisher to move elsewhere!
Yellow-wattled Lapwing, Indian Courser, Painted Sandgrouse, Brahminy Myna and some Quails are showing a declining trend. Non-insectivorous species of grassland and cultivations have not declined compared to the insectivorous species. Species such as Magpie-Robin, Iora, Sunbirds, Tailorbird, Redvented Bulbul, which are indirectly associated with urban habitats have not been affected. Owls as a whole except the Spotted Owlet are showing a declining trend.
To conclude, urbanisation is having significant impact on bird fauna, in terms of species diversity and composition as well as their populations. We hope that this glimpse will motivate many birdwatchers to carefully monitor these ongoing changes and guard against deleterious ones.
References
Abdulali, H. 1961, Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc., Occurrence of the blacknecked Grebe (Podiceps caspicus Hablizl.), near Poona, Maharashtra. 58: 276-77.
Aitkin, E. H. 1905. Common Birds of Bombay. Thacker and Co., Bombay.
Ali, S. and Abdulali, H. 1941. The birds of Bombay and Salsette. Prince of Walse Museum (Natural history Section). Bombay.
Ambedkar, V. C. 1964. Some Indian Weaver Birds. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Bombay.
Anon 1997. Fauna of Delhi. Zoological Survey of India. Calcutta.
Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Committee 2001. Asia-Pacific migratorywaterbird conservation strategy: 2001-2005. Wetlands International-Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 67pp.www.wetlands.org/publication.aspx?ID=f45b0a90-3ffe-42f8-9b63-c86da73c23e7
ISBN 983 9663 305
Apte, M. V. 1950-1. Indian Birds (Marathi). Srushtigyaan. No.269 Vol.5-No.279 Vol.3.
Apte, M. V. 1957. Pakshinirikshan (Marathi). Extramural Education Board, University of Poona, Pune.
Ara, J. 1987. Birds seen at the Mula-Mutha sanctuary, Poona. Newsl. Birdw. 27:9-10:0-1.
Bapat, A. 1982. Reef Herons in Poona. Newsl. Birdw. 27: 9-10:10-12.
Barnes, H. E. 1988-90. Nesting in Western India (Vo.3-5).
Betham, R. M. 1899. Occassional notes on the Birds nesting in the neighbourhood of Poona. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 12 (4): 778-82.
Betham, R. M. 1902. Miscellaneous notes on the Birds’ nesting around Poona and elsewhere. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 14 (2): 396-400.
Bradbeer, P. 1987. Birds seen in Maharashtra (Mainly around Pune) in 1986-87.
Burton, J. A. 1977. Nature in the city in Worlds Apart (Vol. II). Double day and Co. New York.
Butler E. A. 1880. A tentative catalogue of birds of the Deccan and South Mahratta Country. Stray Feathers 9(5-6): 367-442.
Davidson, C. S. and Wenden, C. E. 1878. A contribution to the avifauna of the Deccan. Stray Feathers 7: 68-95.
Davidson, J. 1895. The Birds of the Bombay Presidensy. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 9 (4): 488-489.
Goel, S. C. 1976. The birds of the campus of Poona University. Jr. Poona Univ. (Sci Tech.) 48: 109-118.
Gole, P. 1971. Turnstone [Arenaria interpres i. (Linn.)] in Poona, Newsl. Birdw. 11(1): 3.
…………1972. Dwijgan awaghe Vrukshi (Marathi).
…………1977. Damoiselle Cranes near Poona. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 73 (2): 391-392.
…………1980. A March Bird Count in Poona. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 77 (1): 49-55.
…………1984. Birds of Pune region. Newsl. Birdw. 24:1-2:7-9.
…………1985. Birds of a polluted river. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 81 (3): 613-25.
Gole T. 1987. Owls around Pune. Jr. Ecol. Soc. 1: 67-69.
Ingalhallikar, S. 1988. Birds of Prey around Pune. Jr. Ecol. Soc. 1: 59-66.
…….and Dharap S. 1979. Nesting of the tree Swift at Sinhgad near Poona. Hornbill Apr. June: 17-18.
…….and Gole T. 1987. Checklist of Birds around Pune.
…….and Kothari, 1978. Purplerumped Sunbird as Foster Parents. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 74(3):530-531.
…….Mundkur, T. and Gole T. 1987. The Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis (Linn.) in Poona, Maharashtra. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 84(2):434-35.
Kartikayan S. 1999. The vertebrate and butterfly fauna of Bangalore: A checklist. WWF -India, Karnataka State Office. Bangalore.
Mahabal, A. 1983. Studies on population ecology and social behavious of Indian Myna Acridotheres trisits (Linn.) in Pune. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Pune, Pune.
…………….1990. Spatial and Temporal Fluctuations in the Population of Indian Myna Acridotheres trisits (Linn.) in Pune. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 87(3): 392-398.
Mahabal, A. 1992. Diurnal Intra- and Interspecific Assemblages of Indian Mynas. Biovigyanam 18(2): 116-118.
……….……1993 a. Communal Display Behavious of Indian Myna Acridotheres trisits (Linn.). Pavo 31 (1-2): 45-54.
……….……1993 b. Seasonal changes in the flocking behavious of Indian Myna Acridotheres trisits (Linn.). Biovigyanam 19(1-2): 55-64.
Mahabal, A. 1993 c. Activity-time budget of Indian Myna Acridotheres trisits (Linn.) during the breeding season. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 90(1): 96-97.
Mahabal A. and Lamba, 1987. On the birds of Poona and vicinity. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper No. 94. Calcutta.
Mundkur, T. 1981. Pashan lake and new addition to the birds of Poona. Newsl. Birdw. 21:7:12-13
Mundkur, T. 1983. Birds in Pune. Newsl.Birdw. 23:7-8:5-11.
Mundkur, T. 1983-89 Yellow Bittern nesting in Pune. Newsl. Birdw. 23:9-10:19.
Mundkur, T. 1984 painted Sandgrouse at Katraj Ghat.Pune. Newsl. Birdw. 24:5-6:17.
Mundkur, T. 1984. Occurrence of lesser Flamingo Pheniconaias minor (Geoffroy) in Poona, Maharashtra. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 81(2): 468.
Mundkur, T. 1985. Observations of the roof nesting habit of the Redwattled Lapwing (Vanellus indicus) in Poona, Maharashtra. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 82 (1): 195-196.
Mundkur, T. 1986. Yellow Bittern nesting, a new record for Poona. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 82 (3): 653-654.
Mundkur, T. and Kelkar, K. 1981. Checklist of Birds in and around Poona. Friends of Animals Soc. Pune. 12.
Naik, S.N. 1988. Demoiselle Cranes appear at Pune. WWf India Quarterly 9 (4): 17.
Nalawade, S.B. 1981. The Geographical Analysis of the Distribution of Avifauna in and around Poona. M. A. Dissertation, Geography Department, University of Poona.
Purandare, K. 1984. ‘Kapshichi diary’ (Marathi, Diary of the Black winged Kite). Nisarga Prakashan, Pune.
Purandare, K. 1994. ‘Muthevarcha Dhobi’ (Marathi, Wagtail along the river Mutha). Utkarsha Book Service, Pune.
Singh, D.F. 1984. The avifauna of two water bodies near Pune. Newsl. Birdw. 24:7-8:9.
Smith B., Thakar, J. and Watve, M. 1999. Do Bee eaters have theory of mind? Current Science Vol. 76 (4): 574-577.
Trevenen. W.B. 1922 Shikar near and around Poona. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 28(4):1075-81.
Watve, M. et al. 1989 Food storage by Bonelli's Hawk Eagle, Hieraaetus fasciatus, Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 86:446-447.
Watve, M. et al. 1994 Why Bonelli's Eagle hunt in pair? An assessment of individual and paired hunting successes. Jr. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc. 91(3): 355-59
Wenden 1885. Birds of the lake Fife, Khadakwasla. Poona District Gazeteer.
Table 1
Species Diversity and Exclusivity Distribution across habitat types
Species
Total
Unique
Agriculture (A)
100
1
Forest (F)
125
40
Scrub (S)
140
10
Grassland (G)
55
2
Habitations (H)
30
2
Plantations (P)
80
-
Waterbodies (W)
105
80
Wilderness (FGSWu)
300
180
Impacted zone (AHPWp)
105
10
Wu- un/less-impacted Waterbodies Wp- polluted waterbodies
ANNEXURE: Birds Of Pune Urban AreaCODES : Seasonality:- R- Resident, L* - Local Migratory, R/L - Resident but some population locally moving, M- Winter Migratory, BM - Breeding Migrant, PM - Passage Migrant.Abundance:- ab- Abundant, c- Common, o- Occasional, u- Uncommon, r-Rare, s-Stray; Changes:- d- decrease, I-increase* L - Moving short distances within the distribution range in search of food, water, breading site etc.
Habitat Code
Habitat type
Typical localities
F
Forest
Sinhagad, Katraj.
S
Scrub
Bhamburda, Chandani Chowk, Pachgao.
G
Grassland
Malwadi,Pune-Solapur,Pune-Nagpur Rd.
P
Plantation, gardens, avenues
University, Prabhat Road etc.
H
Houses
City core
A
Agricultural
Malwadi, Paud, Pashan,Manjari etc.
C
Cliffs
Sinhagad
R
Rocky Scarps
Sinhagad
Wi
Water inside
Pashan lake,Kawdi,Mula-Mutha etc.
Wb
Water bank

Wa
Water aerial

Wv
Waterside Vegetation

Wp
Polluted Waterbody


Hand-book No.
Common Name
Season-ality
Habitats preferred
Abun- dance
Change
5
Little Grebe
R
Wi
c

26
Cormorant
R/L
Wi
o
d
27
Indian Shag
R/L
Wi
o

28
Little Cormorant
R/L
Wip
c
i
29
Darter
R/L
Wi
u?

36
Grey Heron
L
Wb
o
i
37
Purple Heron
L
Wb
o
i
38
Little Green Heron
R/L
Wb
u

42
Pond Heron
R/L
Wbp
c

44
Cattle Egret
R/L
GWb
c

46
Large Egret
R/L
Wb
o

47
Smaller Egret
R/L
Wb
c

49
Little Egret
R/L
Wbp
c

50
Reef Heron
L
Wi,Wb
u

52
Night Heron
R
Wbp
o
i
55
Little Bittern
M
Wb
r
d
56
Chestnut Bittern
R
Wb
o

57
Yellow Bittern
R
Wb
u

60
Painted stork
L
Wb
o

61
Openbill Stork
R/L
Wb
o

62
Whitenecked Stork
R
Wb
c

63
White Stork
M
Wb,Wv
u

65
Black Stork
M
Wb
u

69
White Ibis
L
Wb
o

70
Black Ibis
R
Wb
o

71
Glossy Ibis
R/L/M
Wb
o

72
Spoonbill
L
Wb
o

73
Flamingo
M
Wbi
o

88
Lesser Whistling Teal
R/L
Wbi
o

89
Large Whistling Teal
M
Wi,Wb
u

90
Ruddy Shelduck
M
Wi
o

91
Common Shelduck
M
Wi
u

93
Pintail
M
AWi
c

94
Common Teal
M
Wi
c

97
Spotbill Duck
R
Wi
c

100
Mallard
M
Wi
u

101
Gadwall
M
Wi
u

103
Wigeon
M
GWi
o

104
Garganey
M
Wi
c

105
Shoveller
M
Wi
c

107
Redcrested Pochard
M
Wi
u

108
Common Pochard
M
Wi
o

109
White-eyed Pochard
M
Wi
o

111
Tufted Duck
M
Wi
o

114
Cotton Teal
R
Wi
c

115
Comb Duck
R/L
Wi
o

124
Blackwinged Kite
R
AG
c

130
Honey Buzzard
R/L
F
o

133
Pariah Kite
R
AFGHPSWa
c

135
Brahminy Kite
R
Wa
u

138
Shikra
R
AFGPS
c

148
Sparrow Hawk
M
F
o

153
Longlegged Buzzard
M
AF
u

157
White Eyed Buzzard
R
AFS
o
d
161
Crested Hawk Eagle
R
F
o
d
163
Bonelli's Eagle
R/L
AFS
o
d
164
Booted Hawk Eagle
M
F
o
d
168
Tawny Eagle
R/L
AHS
o

171
Lesser Spotted Eagle
L
AF
u
d
172
Black Eagle
R/L
F
o

182
Longbilled Vulture
R
ACHR
o
d
185
Whitebacked Vulture
R
F
c
d
187
Egyptian Vulture
R
FP
o
d
190
Pale Harrier
M
AGS
o
d
191
Montagu's Harrier
M
AGWa
o
d
193
Marsh Harrier
M
Wa
c

195
Short Toed Eagle
L
AF
c

197
Crested Serpent Eagle
R
F
c

203
Osprey
M
W
u

208
Laggar Falcon
R/L
AFS
o
d
211
Shaheen Falcon
R
AHR
o
d
212
Hobby
M
FS
u

219
Redheaded Merlin
R
AS
o

221
Lesser Kestrel
M
ACGS
u

224
Kestrel
R/M
ACGS
c

241
Painted Partridge
R
GS
c

246
Grey Partridge
R
AFS
c

250
Grey Quail
M
AG
c

252
Rain Quail
R/L
GS
c

253
Bluebreasted Quail
R
GS
o

255
Jungle Bush Quail
R
FS
c

260
Rock Bush Quail
R
S
c

275
Red Spurfowl
R
S
o

278
Painted Spurfowl
R
FS
r

301
Grey Junglefowl
R
FS
u

311
Common Peafowl
R
AFS
o

314
Yellowlegged Button Quail
R
GS
u

318
Common Bustard Quail
R
AFGS
u

326
Demoiselle Cranes
M
AWb
o

340
Ruddy Crake
R
Wv
o

342
Brown Crake
R
Wv
o

343/344
Whitebreasted Waterhen
R
Wvp
c

347
Indian Moorhen
R
Wv
c

349
Purple Moorhen
R
Wv
c

350
Coot
R/M
Wi
c

358
Pheasant Tailed Jacana
R
Wv
c

359
Bronzewinged Jacana
R
Wvp
o

366
Redwattled Lapwing
R
AGSWb
c

370
Yellow-wattled Lapwing
R
AG
o
d
373
Eastern Golden Plover
M
GWbv
o

380
Little Ringed Plover
R/L
Wb
o

381
Kentish Plover
M
Wb
u

388
Curlew
M
Wb
u

389
Blacktailed Godwit
M
Wb
o

391
Bartailed Godwit
M
Wb
u

393/394
Redshank
M
Wb
c

395
Marsh Sandpiper
M
Wb
o

396
Greenshank
M
Wb
c

397
Green Sandpiper
M
Wb
c

398
Spotted Sandpiper
M
Wb
c

401
Common Sandpiper
M
Wb
c

406
Pintail Snipe
M
GWb
o

409
Fantail Snipe
M
Wb
c

410
Jack Snipe
M
Wb
o

414
Sanderling
M
Wb
u

416
Little Stint
M
Wb
c

417
Temminck's Stint
M
Wb
o

420
Dunlin
M
Wb
o

426
Ruff and Reeve
M
Wb
o

429
Painted Snipe
L
Wb
u

430
Blackwinged Stilt
M
Wbp
c

436
Stone Curlew
R
PS
o

437
Great Stone Plover
L
Wb
o

440
Indian Courser
R
AGS
o

444
Small Indian Pratincole
L
Wb
o

454
Brownheaded Gull
M
Wa
o

455
Blackheaded Gull
M
Wa
o

458
Whiskered Tern
L
Wa
c

460
Gullbilled Tern
L
Wa
c

463
Indian River Tern
L
Wa
c

475
Little Tern
M
Wa
o
d
487
Indian Sandgrouse
R
AGS
o

492
Painted Sandgrouse
R
SWb
u

504
Yellowlegged Green Pigeon
R
FP
o
d
517
Blue Rock Pigeon
R
AHP
c

521
Nilgiri Wood Pigeon
R/L
F
o

533
Rufous Turtle Dove
RL
F
o

534
Ring Dove
R/L
AHPS
c

535
Red Turtle Dove
R/L
AHS
o

537
Spotted Dove
R
FS
c

541
Little Brown Dove
R
AHPS
c
d
546
Alexandrine Parakeet
R
AFP
u

550
Roseringed Parakeet
R
AFP
c

558
Blossomheaded Parakeet
R
FS
c

566
Indian Lorikeet
R
F
o

570
Pied Crested Cuckoo
BM
FS
o

573
Common Hawk Cuckoo
R/L
AFPS
c

576
Indian Cuckoo
M
F
o

578
The Cuckoo
M
F
o

582
Indian Baybanded Cuckoo
M
F
u

584
Indian Plaintive Cuckoo
BM
FPS
c

588
Drongo-Cuckoo
BM
F
u

590
Koel
R
AFHPS
c

598
Sirkeer Cuckoo
R
FS
o

602
Crow-Pheasant
R
AFPS
c

606
Barn Owl
R
AHPS
c

615
Peninsular Scops Owl
?
FP
u

622
Collared Scops Owl
R
F
o
d
627
Great Horned Owl
R
FS
c

631
Brown Fish Owl
R
F(Wa)
u

636
Barred Jungle Owlet
R
FS
o

652
Spotted Owlet
R
AHPS
c

657
Mottled Wood Owl
R
AFP
o
d
659
Brown Wood Owl
R
F
o

671
Indian Jungle Nightjar
R
F
o

680
Common Indian Nightjar
R/L
AGHS
c

694
Alpine Swift
R/L
R
o

703
House Swift
R
HC
c

707
Palm Swift
R
AFGPS
o

709
Crested Tree Swift
R
F
o

719
Lesser Pied Kingfisher
R/L
Wau
c

724
Small Blue Kingfisher
R
Wa
c

736
Whitebreasted Kingfisher
R
AFPWa
c

748
Bluetailed Bee-eater
PM
FP
u

750
Small Green Bee-eater
R/L
AGHPS
c

756
Indian Roller
L
AFPS
c

765
Hoopoe
R/L
AFPS
c
d
767
Common Grey Hornbill
R
AFPS
c
d
785
Small Green Barbet
R
F
c

792
Coppersmith
R
FPS
c

796
Wryneck
M
AS
o
d
820
Goldenbacked Woodpecker
R
FPS
o

847
Yellowfronted Pied Woodpecker
R
FPS
c
d
852
Pigmy Woodpecker
R
FPS
r

867
Indian Pitta
PM
FS
u

877
Redwinged Bush Lark
R
GS
c

878
Ashycrowned Finch-Lark
R
AGS
c

882
Rufoustailed Finch-Lark
R
AGS
c

886
Short-toed Lark
M
G
u

901
Malabar Crested Lark
R
AGS
c

902
Sykes's Crested Lark
R
AGS
o

907
Small Indian Skylark
R/L
AGS
o

910
Collared Sand Martin
M
Wa
u

912
Plain Sand Martin
M
AGS
o

913
Crag Martin
M
R
c

914
Dusky Crag Martin
R
AGHPSWa
c

916
Swallow
M
APWa
c

921
Wiretailed Swallow
R
ASWa
c

922
Indian Cliff Swallow
L
GS
c

925/927
Redrumped Swallow
R
AGHPS
c

930
House Martin
M
AGPS
u

933
Grey Shrike
L
APS
o
d
940
Baybacked Shrike
R/L
APS
o

943
Pale Brown Shrike
M
AS
u

946
Rufousbacked Shrike
R
AFPS
c

949
Brown Shrike
M
FSWv
u
d
953
Golden Oriole
R
FPS
c
d
959
Blackheaded Oriole
R
FP
o

963
Black Drongo
R
AFGHPS
c

965
Grey Drongo
M
FS
o

967
Whitebellied Drongo
R/L
F
o

982
Ashy Swallow-Shrike
R/L
FGS
u

987
Greyheaded Myna
R/L
FS
u

994
Brahminy Myna
R
AGHPS
c

996
Rosy Pastor
M
AGS
c

997
Starling
M
APWa
r

1006
Common Myna
R
AGHPS
ab

1008
Bank Myna
R
AHPWb
o

1010
Jungle Myna
R
APS
c
i
1032
Indian Tree Pie
R
FS
c

1049
House Crow
R
AHPWa
ab
d
1057
Jungle Crow
R
AFHPS
ab
i
1070
Common Wood Shrike
R
AFPS
c

1072
Large Cuckoo Shrike
R
AFS
o?

1078
Blackheaded Cuckoo Shrike
R
FS
o

1093
Small Minivet
R
FPS
c

1096
Whitebellied Minivet
R
FS
u
d
1100
Common Iora
R
AFHPS
c

1104
Goldenfronted Chloropsis
R
AFPS
o

1120
Redwhiskered Bulbul
R
AFPS
c
i
1128
Redvented Bulbul
R
AFHPS
ab

1138
Whitebrowed Bulbul
R?
F
r

1143
Yellowbrowed Bulbul
R?
F
o

1149
Black Bulbul
R/L
F
u?

1154
Spotted Babbler
R
FS
o

1173
Slatyheaded Scimitar Babbler
R
FS
o

1220/1222
Rufousbellied Babbler
R
FGS
o

1231
Yelloweyed Babbler
R
FS
c

1254
Common Babbler
R
GS
u

1258
Large Grey Babbler
R
APS
c

1262
Jungle Babbler
R
AFPS
c

1389
Quaker Babbler
R
FS
o

1407
Brown Flycatcher
L
AFPS
u

1411/1412
Redbreasted Flycatcher
M
FPS
c

1421
Whitebrowed Blue Flycatcher
R
FPS
u
i?
1435
Whitebellied Blue Flycatcher
L
F
o

1442
Tickell's Blue Flycatcher
R
FPS
o
i?
1445
Verditer Flycatcher
L
F
o

1448
Greyheaded Flycatcher
M
F
c

1458
Whitespotted Fantail Flycatcher
R
FPS
o

1461
Paradise Flycatcher
L
FP
o

1465
Blacknaped Blue Flycatcher
R
FP
c

1498
Streaked Fantail Warbler
R
AG
c
l?
1503
Franklin's Wren Warbler
R
FPS
c

1506
Rufousfronted Wren Warbler
R
S
o

1511
Indian Wren Warbler
R
FS
o
d
1517
Ashy Wren Warbler
R
AGHPS
c

1521
Jungle Wren Warbler
R
GS
c

1535
Tailor Bird
R
AHPS
c

1547
Bristled Grass Warbler
R
GR
o

1550
Great Reed Warbler
R/M
SWv
o

1556
Blyth's Reed Warbler
M
AS
c

1562
Booted Tree Warbler
M
S
o

1565
Orphean Warbler
M
S
u

1567
Lesser Whitethroat
M
S
o
d
1575
Chiffchaff or Brown Leaf Warbler
M
GPS
c

1645
Bluethroat
M
APWv
u?
d
1661
Magpie Robin
R
AFHPS
c

1665
Shama
R
F
u

1671
Black Redstart
M
AS
c

1697
Collared Bush Chat
M
AS
o

1700/1701
Pied Bush Chat
R
APS
c

1719
Indian Robin
R
APS
c

1723
Blueheaded Rock Thrush
M
F
u?

1726
Blue Rock Thrush
M
FS
c

1728
Malabar Whistling Thrush
L
F
o

1734
Whitethroated Ground Thrush
R
F
o

1753
Blackbird
R
FP
c

1794
Grey Tit
R
PS
c

1810
Yellowcheeked Tit
R
FP
o

1855
Tree Pipit
M
AGS
c

1859
Indian or Paddyfield Pipit
R
AGS
c

1868
Brown Rock Pipit
R
GSWb
c

1876
Yellow Wagtail
M
Wb
o

1881
Yellowheaded Wagtail
M
Wb
o

1884
Grey Wagtail
M
Wbp
c

1885
White Wagtail
M
APWb
c

1891
Large Pied Wagtail
R
Wb
c

1892
Thickbilled Flowerpecker
R
FPS
o
I?
1899
Tickell’s Flowerpecker
R
FPS
c
d?
1907
Purplerumped Sunbird
R
FHPS
c

1909
Small Sunbird
R
F
u

1917
Purple Sunbird
R
FPS
c

1929
Yellowbacked Sunbird
R?
F
u

1933
White-eye
R
FPS
c

1938
House Sparrow
R
AFGHPS
ab

1949
Yellowthroated Sparrow
R
AFS
c
d
1957
Weaver Bird
R
AGS
c

1964
Red Munia
R
GWv
c

1966
Whitethroated Munia
R
PS
c

1974
Spotted Munia
R
AFPS
c

1978
Blackheaded Munia
R
Awv
o
d
2011
Common Rosefinch
M
S
c

2043
Blackheaded Bunting
M
A
u

2050
Greynecked Bunting
L
S
o
d
2057
Striolated Bunting
R/L
S
o

2060
Crested Bunting
R
FGS
c
I