Nachr. entomol. Ver. Apollo, N. F. 25 (4): 161–174 (2004) 161 Check-list of the butterflies of the Kakamega Forest Nature Reserve in western Kenya (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) Lars Kühne, Steve C. Collins and Wanja Kinuthia1 Lars Kühne, Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Invalidenstraße 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany; email: [email protected] Steve C. Collins, African Butterfly Research Institute, P.O. Box 14308, Nairobi, Kenya Dr. Wanja Kinuthia, Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya Abstract: All species of butterflies recorded from the Kaka- list it was clear that thorough investigation of scientific mega Forest N.R. in western Kenya are listed for the first collections can produce a very sound list of the occur- time. The check-list is based mainly on the collection of ring species in a relatively short time. The information A.B.R.I. (African Butterfly Research Institute, Nairobi). Furthermore records from the collection of the National density is frequently underestimated and collection data Museum of Kenya (Nairobi), the BIOTA-project and from offers a description of species diversity within a local literature were included in this list. In total 491 species or area, in particular with reference to rapid measurement 55 % of approximately 900 Kenyan species could be veri- of biodiversity (Trueman & Cranston 1997, Danks 1998, fied for the area. 31 species were not recorded before from Trojan 2000). Kenyan territory, 9 of them were described as new since the appearance of the book by Larsen (1996). The kind of list being produced here represents an information source for the total species diversity of the Checkliste der Tagfalter des Kakamega-Waldschutzge- Kakamega forest. In addition it forms the basis for an bietes in Kenia (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoi- dea) environmental evaluation and the construction of protec- tion- and management programmes using this important Zusammenfassung: Erstmals werden alle aus dem Kaka- insect group. This contribution arose in cooperation with mega-Waldschutzgebiet im Westen Kenias nachgewiesenen Tagfalterarten aufgelistet. Die Zusammenstellung basiert the German project on Biodiversity Monitoring Tran- hauptsächlich auf der Sammlung des A.B.R.I (African But- sect Analysis in Africa (BIOTA), the African Butterfly terfly Research Institute, Nairobi). Weiterhin wurden die Research Institute (A.B.R.I., Nairobi) and the National Sammlung des Nationalmuseums von Kenia (Nairobi), die Museum of Kenya (NMK) in Nairobi. Aufsammlungen des BIOTA-Projekts und Literatur ausge- wertet. Insgesamt werden 491 Tagfalterarten für das Wald- The recording of the butterfly fauna in Eastern Africa schutzgebiet Kakamega-Forst im Westen Kenias nachgewie- has a long tradition. These developments were predomi- sen; dies sind etwa 55 % der ca. 900 aus Kenia bekannten Tag- nantly carried by the former scientists of the Stoneham falterarten. 31 Arten werden erstmals für das Staatsgebiet Kenias nachgewiesen, 9 davon wurden seit dem Erscheinen Museum (Kitale) and the Coryndon Museum (today the des Buches von Larsen (1996) neu beschrieben. National Museum of Kenya) at the beginning of the last century. From 1925 (Rogers & van Someren 1925) until 1939, K. Rogers and V. G. L. van Someren (later conti- Introduction nued by van Someren only) published regularly-appear- Tropical forests are species-rich and their importance is ing treatises of the systematical processing of the butter- increasingly being recognised for studies of biodiversity. flies of Kenya and Uganda. This work was continued by Insect species of the African rainforests are only rarely W. Peters (1952) and H. F. Stoneham (1951–1965) and investigated. In fact species lists of smaller areas, below finally resulted in the well-known book of Kenyan butter- the level of country, do not exist for many groups and flies (Larsen 1991), in which 870 species were recorded areas. However, this basic information is necessary for for Kenya. protection, landscape planing and management (Miller & Rogo 2001). Only an inventory list can form a sound The Kakamega forest was always regarded as a highly basis for the “measurement of biodiversity” and its eva- interesting area within Kenya with an independent luation, for instance from different degrees of land use. flora and fauna. It is distinguished from the Congolese Therefore the species inventory must take precedence. rainforest in its composition due to special geographical The establishment of an inventory list of a species group features. For Kenya this forest area surely represents a can be carried out in different ways: recording in the hot-spot of diversity. field, lists from the literature or an inventory of available However, only rarely published data about fieldwork on collection material. In practice a balanced combination butterflies in the forest itself exist (Angwin 1980, Emmel of these three possibilities is usually used. & Warren 1993). The forest area was already mentioned Collections are the “memory of science” and form the in an expedition report from the year 1920 (Aurivillius basis for information on biodiversity. It is only possible to 1921). Herein the forest was designated as an island preserve what is known. During the compilation of this north of the old Kaimosi mission in a cultivated coun- 1 We dedicate this paper to our late friend and colleague Prof. Dr. Clas M. Naumann, Bonn. © Entomologischer Verein Apollo e. V., Frankfurt am Main 162 163 Maps 1–3: Map of the Kakamega Forest Nature Reserve and its position within Kenya and the African continent. try. The number of butterfly species for the Kakamega was necessary to compile all recorded butterflies from forest was initially estimated at 350 (Larsen 1991). In this area (see above). the second edition of the book 18 species were added for Kakamega (Collins & Larsen 1996). Subsequently a fur- As a result, in total 491 species or 55 % of around 900 ther 25 species have been found new to Kenya. Kenyan species could be verified for the area of Kaka- mega forest. 31 species were not recorded before from However, up to now a checklist of the butterflies of this Kenyan territory, 9 of them were described as new since very important area is absent. But for monitoring and the appearance of the book of Larsen (1996; for example research on biodiversity as part of the BIOTA project it Libert 1999, Collins & Larsen 1998, 2000). © Entomologischer Verein Apollo e. V., Frankfurt am Main 162 163 Investigation area more importantly a detailed study and/or inventory of the collections of the A.B.R.I. and the NMK. All discov- The Kakamega forest is the most eastern relict of the ered records were databased. Only the most recent central African forest block in the Western Region, appro- record for each species is given here. The systematics of ximately 70 km north of Kisumu, at an altitude of around the present work follows Ackery et al. (1995). 1600 m above sea level (see Maps 1–2 and Fig. 2). The forest is an island in a densely settled area. The ground topography, in particular the Nandi escarpment and the Checklist proximity to Lake Victoria, result here in locally higher Additional abbreviation used: rainfalls of up to 2000 mm/year (Schultka 1975, Kigomo BMNH The Natural History Musuem, London (formerly British 1987) as compared to surrounding areas, for example Museum (Natural History)), U.K. Kisumu with 1200 mm/year. The precipitation in this Hesperiidae area falls the whole year. There are no distinct wet and dry seasons. Only the months December and January Coeliadinae have on the average less precipitation. Variations from Coeliades libeon (Druce, 1875) year to year are frequent. The reason is the close spatial v. 1996 (A.B.R.I.), Kaimosi: 1952 (NMK). proximity to Lake Victoria, by which cloud formation Coeliades forestan (Stoll, 1782) occurs permanently and precipitation depends on wind 10. iii. 1999 (A.B.R.I.). direction near the lake. Pyrginae The human impact in this area was and remains an Celaenorrhinus proxima (Mabille, 1877) important factor. A sawmill existed in the Kakamega Larsen (1991). forest until end of the 1960s (Schultka 1975) and the forest has been logged (Kigomo 1987, Kiama & Kiyipi Celaenorrhinus plagiatus Berger, 1976 ix. 2001 (BIOTA), ix. 1995 (A.B.R.I.). 2000). The forest became a Forest Reserve in 1933. In 1967 two Nature Reserves (Yala and Isecheno) were esta- Celaenorrhinus proxima Mabille, 1877 blished and in 1985 two National Reserves (Byango and Emmel & Warren (1993). Kisere) were created. The re-generation of the forest (for Celaenorrhinus macrostictus Holland, 1893 more details see Kiama & Kiyipi 2000) is closely related to iii. 1997 (A.B.R.I.). these developments. Celaenorrhinus galenus (Fabricius, 1793) The forest is currently strongly fragmented with many ix. 1999 (A.B.R.I.). open fields, which are undoubtedly anthropogenic in Celaenorrhinus ovalis Evans, 1937 origin (Map 3). However, within the rainforest investiga- ix. 1999 (A.B.R.I.). tion into the effects of large game animals on the land- Celaenorrhinus intermixtus Aurivillius, 1896 scape — as a part of the natural habitat — is still poorly vi. 1995 (A.B.R.I.), Kaimosi: 1935 (NMK). known. Large game makes an essential (natural) contri- Celaenorrhius bettoni Butler, 1902 bution towards the maintenance of an open landscape. vii. 2000 (A.B.R.I.), 1972 (NMK). Therefore small fragments at different stages of succes- Tagiades flesus (Fabricius, 1781) sion inside a forest also have to be accepted as natural x. 1988 (A.B.R.I.). conditions (Fig. 1). These different stages are essential for many insect species. However, it can be proven that Eagris lucetia (Hewitson, 1876) records of typical savanna species go back to the 1930s in ix. 2001 (BIOTA). the Kakamega region. Eagris sabadius (Gray, 1832) xii. 1993 (A.B.R.I.). Methods Eagris nottoana (Wallengren, [1857]) vii.