Volume 26: 80–82 METAMORPHOSIS ISSN 1018–6490 (PRINT) LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY OF AFRICA ISSN 2307–5031 (ONLINE)

NOTE The presence of floricola (Boisduval, 1833) (: ) in South Africa Published online: 23 November 2015

Alan J. Gardiner Southern African Wildlife College, Pvt Bag X3015, Hoedspruit, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa

INTRODUCTION but can also be found venturing into thicker vegetation. E. hecabe can fly fast, on occasions, but The genus Eurema Hübner, (1819) is often usually when disturbed. E. floricola was also considered a difficult taxonomic group by recently caught at Maputo and its presence in South lepidopterists. The genus occurs in all habitats and Africa was suspected. The species was quite although often common they are under-collected. common at the aforementioned Nelspruit locality Eurema, as a whole, is an interesting group in need and since then it has been taken commonly at a of taxonomic revision, and this is relevant in number of other localities around Nelspruit (e.g. southern Africa for the species Eurema hecabe 20km east) and along the Levubu River in the (Linnaeus, 1758), E. floricola and E. senegalensis Limpopo Province. Yata (1994, 1995) demonstrated (Boisduval, 1836). A recent paper by Liseki & Vane- small but significant differences between the male Wright (2013) highlighted the E. disjardensii genitalia of these two species (Fig. 1). The dissection (Boisduval, 1833) complex for revision. As stated by of 10 South African E. floricola agreed with the Liseki & Vane-Wright (2013) for floricola & hecabe genitalia from other parts of Africa (Fig. 1A). In “Although there is no reasonable doubt that two addition six E. hecabe dissected from South Africa species are involved, superficially E. hecabe and agreed with the genitalia of E. hecabe from other E. floricola are similar, and some individuals parts of Africa. These observations confirmed the apparently identified on the basis of their genitalia presence and identification of E. floricola in South are difficult to differentiate based on wing pattern” Africa as detailed in recent taxonomic works. (underlining mine). In addition to this work all recent regional work agree on two species being involved (Berger 1981, Yata 1989–1995, Kielland 1990, Larsen 1991, Heath et al. 2002 & Larsen 2005). This article is not intended as a revision of the complex. It merely shows if one accepts the most recent works that include E. floricola then it must be considered to occur in South Africa. This note will aid the identification of E. floricola in South Africa and this in turn will allow the update of the distribution of the two species in southern Africa.

OBSERVATIONS A B In January 2013 while visiting friends just outside Figure 1 – A Eurema floricola uncus, arrow Nelspruit, 10km west, the author was immediately indicating the long slender shape compared to B aware of the flying pattern of a Eurema which E. hecabe with the widened base to the uncus and not coincided with the habits of E. floricola, which is a narrowing as in E. floricola (after Yata 1989–1995). rapid flier and tends to keep to the thicker vegetation, riparian or forest, only stopping or venturing slightly DISCUSSION away to feed on flowers. Eurema hecabe by contrast is often found fluttering slowly in open vegetation Larsen (2005) illustrated a floricola male from and even grassland or savanna in drier conditions, Swaziland in his of West Africa. The plates of E. hecabe in Pringle et al. (1994) have also Received: 11 November 2015 added to the confusion about Eurema in Southern Accepted: 23 November 2015 Africa. It is likely that three species of Eurema are

Copyright: This work is licensed under the Creative figured, and although genitalia preparations would Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 be required to confirm the identifications, my Unported License. To view a copy of this license, send a preliminary identification of the figures are: 660a i– letter to Creative Commons, Second Street, Suite 300, San iv E. hecabe wet season; 660a v–vi E. hecabe dry Francisco, California, 94105, USA, or visit: http://creative season; 660a vii E. senegalensis wet season; 660a commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ viii–x E. floricola wet season; 660a xi

Gardiner/ Metamorphosis 26: 80–82 81

E. senegalensis dry season, 660a xii E. floricola dry

A B

C D

E F Figure 2 – Eurema hecabe A ♂ forewing recto; B ♂ hindwing recto; C ♀ wet season forewing recto; D hindwing recto; E ♀ dry season forewing recto; F hindwing recto.

A B Figure 3 – Eurema floricola A ♂ forewing recto; B ♂ hindwing recto. Gardiner/ Metamorphosis 26: 80–82 82

C D Figure 3 (contd.) – Eurema floricola C ♂ forewing recto; D ♂ hindwing recto.

E. senegalensis dry season; 660a xii E. floricola dry discussions on the Eurema species-groups. Dave season. Below is a guide to aid in the separation of Edge and Steve Woodhall are also thanked for the two species. encouraging the publication of this short note to clarify the status of E. floricola. Diagnostic characters separating E. floricola from E. hecabe LITERATURE CITED

The males of E. hecabe, E. floricola and BERGER, L.A. 1981. Les papillons du Zaïre. E. senegalensis have a brand on the lower vein of the Présidence de la République, Kinshasa. forewing cell (Figs 2A & 3A). The combination of HEATH, A., NEWPORT, M.A. & HANCOCK, D. characters below makes for separation between 2002. The Butterflies of . African E. hecabe and E. floricola. The spots on underside Research Institute, Nairobi, & cannot always be used and is the least useful of the Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa. characters but most of the time the upper side black KIELLAND, J. 1990. Butterflies of . Hill margin can be used. The set of characters together House, Melbourne and London: 1–363. with the genitalia make identification fairly straight LARSEN, T.B. 1991. The Butterflies of Kenya and forward. their Natural History. Oxford University Press, Oxford: i–xxii, 1–490. E. floricola: the marginal black “tooth” of the LARSEN, T.B. 2005. Butterflies of West Africa. forewing apex is broadest above vein 4, rarely on Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark. vein 4, as seen in Fig. 3A (male) and Fig. 3C LISEKI, S.D. & VANE-WRIGHT, R.I. 2013. (female). The hindwing margin has distinct spots at Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of the end of each vein, they are not joined to one Mount Kilimanjaro: family Pieridae, subfamily another and never form a band – see Fig. 3B (male) Coliadinae. Journal of Natural History 47(19- and Fig. 3D (female). On the underside hindwing the 20): 1309–1323. spot at the end of the cell is often bulging towards the PRINGLE, E.L.L., Henning, G.A. & Ball, J.B. (eds) apical end and the bulge is often twice the width of 1994. Pennington’s Butterflies of Southern the narrow portion (seen shining through the wing in Africa, 2nd edition. Struik, Cape Town. Fig. 3B). In E. floricola the male uncus is long and YATA, O. 1989-1995. A revision of the old world sticks out from the base (Fig. 1A) species of the genus Eurema Hübner

E. hecabe: the marginal black “tooth” of the (Lepidoptera: Pieridae). Bulletin of the forewing apex is broadest at vein 4 or just above as Kitakyushu Museum of Natural History: 1989 seen in Fig. 2A (male) and Figs 2C & E (females). part 1, 9: 1–103; 1991 part 2, 10: 1–51; 1992 part The hindwing margin has a continuous black margin 3, 11: 1–77; 1994 part 4, 13: 59–105; 1995 part Fig. 2B (male) & 2D (female) wet season or if it has 5, 14: 1–54 (Kyushu University, Japan). spots, normally dry season, these are flattened indicating the remnants of the black margin (Fig. 2F female dry season). On the underside hindwing the spot at the end of the cell only on occasions bulges towards the apical end (Figs 2B, D & F seen shining through the wing) and when it does it is normally less than twice the width of the narrow portion. In E. hecabe the male uncus has a widened base and hence does not form a long narrow portion (Fig. 1B).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to the late Torben Larsen for