There is information that such a spot just in the male should be: http://yutaka.it-n.jp/dan/30010001.html http://flutters.org/home/photogallery/index.php?level=picture&id=1851
Alexander, I think, that your copy - it's a male E. core godartii f. layardi (http://yutaka.it-n.jp/dan/30270020.html)
Alexander, in this photo and photo №42372 shows the same specimen, top and bottom view respectively. Indeed, if we do not take into account that there is a kind of Euploea orontobates Fruhstorfer, 1910, the most this instance resembles E. core. In determining the use of the following materials; http://yutaka.it-n.jp/dan/30255001.html Please note that it is the female (photo №42373) and a ...
This comment implies that the author does not object to the transfer of an additional photo in the gallery. The problem in fact is not far off!
According to this source ([9] Tree of Life (funet.fi), 2012), there is a subspecies Z. o. sangra (Moore, [1866]). Please add.
In connection with the innovations, can I tie it on their own photo to the genusPieris? If not, please do so moderators.
Can habitat will: open, xerophytic community near suburban areas of butterflies were there Lycaena thersamon, Hyponephele lupinus, Pontia edusa, Iphiclides podalirius?
Undecided, just a guess, Basil on photo # 33972 male with the same color, and photo # 33970 female on the other. If agreed, the right to information to the photo set. Probably just the variability in color.
Not measured, unfortunately! Yes, and I do not remember, it was a year ago. Only on the flower (inflorescence) can navigate. I do not mind the cabbage.
And characteristically, new species are often described in those taxa that are popular with collectors (in the broad sense). Communication with commerce on the face, and the theory of evolution - alas!
As for the taxonomy, especially at the level of species, genera, in my opinion, works recognized authoritative opinions of individual authors. Communication with the theory of evolution is not captured.
Is it possible to formalize the data dissemination in the region to this kind displayed in the directory when searching?
I agree with Basil on a single observation in one part of the range can not make a generalization for the species as a whole. Namely, the total for the kind of information is seen on this page. If Yuri took the trouble to describe in this report all the circumstances of the individual case (there was something there somewhere, observation of so many copies.for so some seasons), then it may be, it ...
I think that the definition of the copies. (photo # 29278 and # 29280) mistake. It does not match any coloring or area; http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/nymphalidae/satyrinae/chazara/ http://www.eurobutterflies.com/sp/prieuri.php Perhaps itChazara enervata. The same applies to the copies. on photo # 29281 - # 29282