The Arhopala butteries described by Fabricius: A. centaurus is from Java, A.

democritus from Phuket (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Richard I. VANE-WRIGHT and Harish GAONKAR
Department of Entomology, the Natural History Museum, London, UK

Abstract
The origins and identities of two Fabrician buttery species now included in the genus Arhopala Boisduval, 1832, are examined; the species are Papilio centaurus Fabricius, 1775, and Hesperia democritus Fabricius, 1793 (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). To dispel recent confusion, complete taxonomic histories are presented for both. The type locality of Arhopala centaurus is established as near Jakarta, Java, and that of Arhopala democritus as Phuket Island, south-western peninsular Thailand. Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847, described from Java, is re-established as a subjective synonym of Arhopala centaurus sensu stricto. The subspecies of centaurus that ies in the Malay Peninsula is re-established as A. centaurus nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860). The distinct Australian species misidentied in recent literature as Arhopala centaurus should be known as Arhopala eupolis (Miskin, 1890). Lectotype designations are made for the nominal species Papilio centaurus, Hesperia democritus, Amblypodia pseudocentaurus and Amblypodia nakula. Key words: Arhopala eupolis, Arhopala nakula, Arhopala pseudocentaurus, Joseph Banks, lectotype designation, Niels Tnder Lund, William Hunter.

INTRODUCTION
The oakblues (Arhopala Boisduval, 1832) form the major genus of the tribe Arhopalini Bingham, 1907, of the lycaenid subfamily Theclinae (Eliot 1973; Megens et al. 2004a). Alternatively, following Eliot (1990), this major group is sometimes demoted to tribal rank, with the Arhopalina included as a subtribe (Ackery et al. 1999). Comprising approximately 200 species, Arhopala is amongst the largest and most complex of genera currently recognized among the butteries (Megens et al. 2004b). Distributed widely in the Oriental and Australian regions, adult Arhopala are generally found in primary forest and second-growth areas, but some species occur in coastal mangroves and woody savannahs. The larvae feed mainly on Fagaceae and Euphorbiaceae, but also utilize a range of other plant families, and always appear to be associated with ants (Fiedler 1991).

Correspondence: Richard I. Vane-Wright, Department of Entomology, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. Email: dickvanewright@btinternet.com Received 7 September 2004; accepted 15 March 2006.

This paper addresses a major nomenclatural problem that currently affects one of the best-known Oriental species of the genus. The problem has its origins in poor scholarship by certain 20th century authors normally credited with prociency in such work. Despite this being a very particular case, various arguments presented here have wide application, because they concern a name introduced by J.C. Fabricius, Linnaeuss most able and prolic entomological student. The original descriptions of certain Fabrician species, belonging to various insect orders, give very inaccurate information about the geographic origin of the material on which they were based. Our example represents a major subset of these problems relating to critically important but poorly documented specimens from Java, obtained by Sir Joseph Banks, naturalist on Captain Cooks HMS Endeavour. We also take this opportunity to give a brief account of the only other species of Arhopala named by Fabricius, also misidentied in the past. Abbreviations for depositories are as follows: BMNH, 17531881 British Museum, 18811990 British Museum (Natural History), since 1990 the Natural History Museum, London; EIC, former Honourable East India Company Museum, London; HM, Hunterian

Museum, University of Glasgow; LS, Linnean Society of London; OUM, Oxford University Museum, Oxford; ZMUC, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen (formerly the Zoologisk Museum, University of Copenhagen).

GENUS ARHOPALA BOISDUVAL, 1832

(Amblypodia Horseld, 1829, sensu auctorum: see Hemming (1967): 38, 58.) Arhopala Boisduval, 1832. Type species by selection by Scudder (1875): Arhopala phryxus Boisduval, 1832 (phryxus is now regarded as a subspecies of Arhopala thamyras (Linnaeus, 1758); for an account of Linnaean buttery types, see Honey & Scoble (2001)). An Indo-Australasian genus distributed from Sri Lanka, Pakistan and India to Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Australia and the Solomon Islands. The distinct genus Amblypodia Horseld, 1829, was formerly confused with Arhopala, due to the false designation of Papilio apidanus Cramer, 1777, as type species. The correct use of Amblypodia, with Thecla narada Horseld, 1829, as type species, and now placed in a separate tribe (Amblypodiini Doherty, 1886), was determined by Hemming (1967) (see Pitkin & Jenkins 2003). Papilio apidanus is the type species of Flos Doherty, 1889, representing a group of species closely related to Arhopala, but currently separated from it. Evans (1957) gives a detailed history of Arhopala and associated genera. Eight available generic names are currently included in the synonymy of Arhopala: Narathura Moore, 1879; Nilasera Moore, 1881 (of which the type species is Papilio centaurus Fabricius); Panchala Moore, 1882; Acesina Moore, 1884; Darasana Moore, 1884; Satadra Moore, 1884; Iois Doherty, 1889; and Aurea Evans, 1957. For original references and type species, see Pitkin and Jenkins (2003). Other key works on Arhopala include de Nicville (1890), Bethune-Baker (1903), Corbet (1941b, 1946), Evans (1957), Eliot (1963, 1972, 1973), Seki et al. (1991), Corbet and Pendlebury (1992), Megens (2002), Huang and Xue (2004), and Megens et al. (2004a,b).

bear some responsibility for initiating the recent history of errors. Usage for centaurus was previously well established, although not entirely soundly, by Fabricius (1793), Godart (1824), Horseld (1829), Hewitson (1862), Butler (1870), Distant (1885), and de Nicville (1890). Among the 19th century authors, only Doubleday (1847) made mistakes similar to those introduced by Corbet. Despite Corbets unfortunate intervention, the correct application of the name centaurus to an Oriental insect was otherwise universally maintained right up to Evans (1957), by most authors until the 1990s, and by some to this day. So far as we have been able to ascertain, after Doubleday (1847) and Corbet (1941a), the rst recent author to apply centaurus to an Australian buttery appears to have been DAbrera (1977), acting on well-meant but incorrect advice received from the late John Eliot and Charles Cowan. Since then, more and more have followed this incorrect path. It is this confusion that necessitates the historical review presented here. Fabricius (1775), who worked in London during the summer months of 17721775 (Hope 1845: viii), originally described Papilio centaurus from an unspecied number of specimens from the Banks Collection, and gave its origin as Habitat in nova Hollandia (=Australia). His entire Latin description, in its original layout, is reproduced here:
Centaurus. 329. P[apilio]. P[lebeji]. R[urales]. alis caudatis, coerulescentibus; limbo fusco, subtus cinereis: maculis baseos ocellaribus. Habitat in nova Hollandia. Mus. Banks. Alae anticae supra coerulescentes, margine exteriori et postico fuscis; subtus cinereae, maculis quatuor vel quinque fuscis, annulo albo cinctis, pone has fascia fusca, albomarginata, quae tamen marginem tenuiorem haud attingit. Posticae coerulescentes, limbo fusco; subtus cinereae, basi maculis sex vel septem fuscis, annulo albido cinctis; apice obsolete undatae.

ARHOPALA CENTAURUS FABRICIUS, 1775

Taxonomic history
Papilio centaurus Fabricius, 1775, has become one of the most thoroughly misinterpreted of Fabrician buttery names. As related below, Steven Corbet (1941a) must

The Banks Collection (BMNH) now includes two very old specimens over the name centaurus. In addition to this obvious source for original material, we have searched the Sehested and Tnder Lund collection (ZMUC) and the HM, where we also found very old Arhopala specimens associated with the name centaurus. Banks allowed Fabricius to take certain duplicates, and on occasion Fabricius passed some of these to other colleagues (Fabricius 1784: 123). As noted in his autobiography, Fabricius had close links with Banks and the Hunter brothers while in London (Fabricius 1805; see Hope 1845: vi, viii), and with Niels Tnder Lund in Copenhagen (Hope 1845: xv). However, as detailed

below, the Glasgow and Copenhagen specimens are not conspecic with authentic centaurus, nor is there any proof that these specimens originated from the Banks collection, and so we exclude them from the type series. Fabricius (1775, 1781, 1787) described the buttery as blue with fuscous edge (. . . coerulescentibus; limbo fusco . . .). Later, Fabricius (1793) moved centaurus from Papilio to Hesperia, and gave a slightly extended description. Although the color expression shining dark purple-blue or violaceous-blue used by modern authors to describe the male of P. centaurus has no parallel in any of Fabriciuss descriptions, it was primarily his citation of Australia as the provenance for centaurus that ultimately led to erroneous interpretations. Following Fabricius (1775), the next person to study the Banks Collection was William Jones, who illustrated both the upper and under-surfaces of a specimen of Papilio centaurus as a Fabrician species in his celebrated, but unpublished Icones (volume 6: pl. 22, g. 6). Although the Icones are undated, all six of the Jones volumes seen by Fabricius during 1787 appear to have been completed well before his return to London in the summer of that year (Hope 1845: xii). According to Salmon (2000: 120), the illustrations were all made by Jones in the period 17831785. Fabricius had access to Joness paintings throughout his 1787 visit (E.B. Poulton 1938 in Waterhouse 1938: 149). However, his rst references to the Jones illustrations and new descriptions based on them did not appear until 6 years later, when he next published on buttery taxonomy (Fabricius 1793). Bankss collection was bequeathed to the Linnean Society, arriving there in 1823 from Bankss London residence in Soho Square. Horseld (1829: 102, 103), while identifying the EIC collections that he and others had made in Java (for an account of the history of the EIC, see Cowan 1975), compared their specimens to the Banks material, commenting at the end of his Latin diagnosis of Amblypodia centaurus: Hospitatur in Muso Domini Banks, Societati Linnean Londinesi munic donato, nomine Fabricio ipso inscripto (our italics). On the next page he states in English, I have been able to identify this species with the Hesperia centaurus of Fabricius (1793: 275), by the examination of a specimen contained in the Banksian Museum, bearing a ticket in his own (Fabriciuss) hand-writing, going on to note that the EIC collection contained three male and six female specimens of this very beautiful species. Thus the identity of Papilio centaurus, at least to Horseld, was certain. For him the type specimen that he examined in the Banks Collection (LS), the EIC

material from Java, and Fabriciuss description were all positively established as referring to one and the same species from the Oriental region. However, Horseld did not specically state that, in his opinion, the Banks material came from Java. No further confusion would have arisen if Doubleday, while compiling his List of . . . Lepidopterous Insects in . . . the British Museum, had followed the positive conclusion of Horseld. However, on the testimony of Fabriciuss published habitat of Nova Hollandia, Doubleday (1847) displaced centaurus (together with Godarts 1824 citation) to Australia. He then named Horselds nine specimens (by reference to Horselds description of centaurus), together with other material from Java, India and Sri Lanka listed as in the BMNH, as a new species, Amblypodia pseudocentaurus. Doubleday did not mention (or apparently study) the putative type specimen in the Banks Collection. When Doubleday made his list, the Banks Collection was still in the LS and Horselds collection was still at the EIC. However, it would appear from Doubledays text that at least one Javanese specimen from the EIC had by then been presented to the BMNH, most probably one of the nine specimens recorded by Horseld (1829). Doubleday was also able to examine a specimen of what he believed represented the true Fabrician Hesperia centaurus, given to the BMNH by the Earl of Derby and originating from Repulse Bay, Queensland. Unfortunately, we have been unable to locate this specimen and so ascertain its identity according to current taxonomy. Horseld and Moore (1858) did not accept Doubledays notion that Fabriciuss taxon was from Australia. However, by recording two pairs of Amblypodia centaurus, one from Cherra Poonje (ex Buckley) and the other from Darjeeling (ex Schlagintweit), and at the same time recognizing Doubledays pseudocentaurus as a separate species from Java, they effectively introduced a third concept for the species. For pseudocentaurus they listed three Javanese specimens, representing both sexes, from Dr Horselds Collection in the EIC. These three are now in the BMNH: two females and one male. Presumably they are a subset of the three males and six females originally recorded by Horseld (1829). During the ensuing 30 years, four females and two males must have been lost, destroyed or given away, one probably being the Javanese specimen listed in Doubleday (1847), of which we can nd no trace. We believe, however, that we have located three of these other Horseld specimens: two in London, which reached the BMNH by way of the Felder and then the

Rothschild collections, and one in Oxford (ex Westwood Collection, OUM). Felder and Felder (1860) described a new nominal species from peninsular Malaya as Amblypodia nakula. Five years later the Felders transferred nakula to Arhopala, stating the provenance to be Malacca interior and Sumatra, and comparing it to Fabriciuss description of centaurus (Felder & Felder 1865). Hewitson (1862) synonymized both Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday and A. nakula Felder and Felder (and by implication, Horseld and Moores interpretation of centaurus) with Fabriciuss centaurus, a decision followed by Kirby (1871) in his inuential world catalog. The next author to study the material in the Banks and BMNH collections, Joness Icones, and all postFabrician taxonomic interpretations, was Butler (1870). The Banks Collection passed from the LS to the BMNH in 1863, and Butler would have been able to make direct comparisons with the rapidly growing BMNH collection, and consult all the literature. He stated that the type of centaurus agreed with the Felders nakula. At rst sight it seemed surprising to us that he did not mention any of the BMNH specimens listed by Doubleday (1847), or the three Horseld specimens from Java that had arrived only 10 years before (registered as 186015 in the BMNH annual registers). Instead, Butler notes just one example of centaurus in the BMNH, a Sumatran specimen obtained in 1854 that formerly belonged to Sir Stamford Rafes. Again, regrettably, we have been unable to trace this specimen for comparison (Sumatran centaurus is considered to belong to the same race as material from the Malay Peninsula, the type-locality of nakula; see below). However, examination of other entries in Butlers catalog shows in almost all cases the same pattern: citation of just a single BMNH specimen. The implication is that Butler simply considered the particular specimen cited to be typical, in terms of phenotype, of the Fabrician taxon in question. Butler is thus (unfortunately) silent regarding the full range of BMNH material that was then available to him for comparison. Distant (1885) summarized the discussions to date and stated that the true Fabrician centaurus, of which he had examined the type in the Banksian collection in the British Museum, was an Oriental species. De Nicville (1890) reproduced all relevant previous descriptions and stabilized the nomenclature of the Fabrician taxon as Arhopala centaurus. This was followed by virtually all taxonomists and faunistic workers on the Oriental region, including Bell (1919: 447), who published the rst detailed life history of the species,

from southern India. Thus Moulds (1977), in his bibliography of Australian butteries, noted centaurus, stated that it was not Australian, and claimed that the published type locality was an error on Fabriciuss part (cf. Watkins 1923). Thus from 1870 until Corbets intervention in 1941 (and even after that), all workers accepted that centaurus s.s. applied to an Oriental rather than Australian taxon. However, there was still uncertainty regarding its origin. This is particularly clear in the work of those who did not switch to the polytypic species concept, as introduced by Karl Jordan and others in the mid-1890s. Amongst buttery specialists, Frederic Moore was almost at the opposite extreme to Jordan: Moores genera equated to species groups or even single collective species in the new taxonomy, whereas his species were mostly equivalent to what were increasingly regarded as subspecies. Moore stayed with this approach throughout his magnum opus, the remarkable Lepidoptera Indica. This great series was continued after his death in 1907 by Charles Swinhoe, who evidently did not see t to alter Moores taxonomic style. Thus, in dealing with what we would now consider to be a single polytypic species, Swinhoe (1911) recognized four separate specieslevel taxa: A. pirithous (Sikkim, Assam), A. centaurus (Burma, Singapore, Borneo, Sumatra, Nias, with nakula as a synonym), A. coruscans (Andamans, South India, Ceylon), and pseudocentaurus (Java). In this way the idea that the type material of centaurus could have come from the Asian mainland, as originally but incorrectly proposed by Horseld and Moore (1858), was maintained. This view was reinforced a few years later by Watkins (1923), who stated that the type of centaurus in the Banks Collection, though described from New Holland, is certainly non-Australian. Watkins then continued: As pointed out by Butler . . . it belongs to the race nakula [sic!], Felder, and is probably from Malacca. As already indicated, Corbet (1941a) was responsible for introducing several new errors. First, he claimed that the male Arhopala specimen in the Banks Collection, which was long regarded as the type of centaurus, was not authentic, partly on the grounds that it (and various other specimens in the Banks Collection) did not have any original labels. Secondly, that the original description ts a female rather than a male. Corbet further suggests that neither of the two specimens of centaurus in the Banks Collection could have been present at the time when Fabricius made his original description (prior to 1775), and that the putative type was probably

obtained by Koenig in the Malay Peninsula or Peninsular Siam. As Corbet correctly points out in the introduction to his paper, Johann Gerhard Koenig collected in those areas during 1778 and 1779 (see also below), thus implying that the supposed type of centaurus was a later addition to the Banks Collection, and that the original material that he presumed Banks obtained in North Queensland must have been lost or destroyed, either before or subsequently. A reprint of Watkins (1923), annotated by Watkins and held in the BMNH, may have inuenced Corbets thinking on possible type localities. Despite Corbets views, those writing taxonomic or faunistic accounts of the Oriental region and of Australia initially took no notice of these suggestions, and in this they were supported by Evans (1957), who explicitly stated that he saw no reason to upset stability. A further suggestion of Corbet (1941a) was that Fabriciuss original description of centaurus best ts an Australian taxon, Arhopala eupolis (Miskin 1890). Evans (1957: 136), who revised the whole of this large and difcult group, dismissed this idea as well, and acted to maintain the Fabrician name for an Oriental species. The increasingly inuential Eliot (1972) at rst followed Evans but, in the revised third edition of The Butteries of Malaya Peninsula (Eliot, in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978: 468), he unfortunately rejected Evanss plea for stability and upheld Corbets interpretation. This had been foreshadowed in print a year earlier by DAbrera (1977), who noted that Eliot has drawn my attention to this fact [that the type locality for centaurus was originally given as Nova Hollandia] and to a rather extensive correspondence between himself and Col. C.F. Cowan on the subject, conrming Corbets arguments. Seemingly Eliot did not do any research on this issue himself but, in his revision of Corbet and Pendlebury (1978), added the information supplied by Cowan (in litt.) on Koenigs collecting activity in Malaya and Thailand. Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978: 468), closely echoing the words of Corbet (1941a: 100), condently stated there is every reason for supposing that it [the centaurus specimen] was not in coll. Banks when Fabricius described centaurus. However, we have been unable to discover what this every reason might be! Neither Corbet nor Eliot gave explicit grounds for rejecting the Banks type specimen as part of the type series. As we demonstrate below by a re-examination of various specimens and an analysis of Cooks itinerary, we believe the conclusions of Corbet, as compounded by Eliot, are erroneous. The changes they proposed have

now been followed uncritically by many taxonomists in the Indo-Australian region, but not by all, and some authors have inadvertently used both centaurus and pseudocentaurus as if they applied to two different species, when in reality they were dealing with one and the same insect (e.g. Robinson et al. 2001).

Taxonomic conclusions
To arrive at defensible conclusions concerning application of the name Papilio centaurus Fabricius, two issues must be resolved. First, what is the identity and status of the centaurus type specimen that has been in the Banks Collection for so long? Apparently it was there before 1791, the last time Fabricius studied in England, and at least one specimen seems to have been depicted by Jones as a Fabrician species during 17831785 and thus, critically, before Koenigs material reached London. Secondly, we must establish the true type locality. While traveling between Queensland in Australia and the Cape of Good Hope, HMS Endeavour touched land only in New Guinea (very briey), the small island of Savu (or Sawu) south-west of Timor, and for about 2 months at Batavia (near modern day Jakarta), in Indonesia. Although there is no direct evidence in the Banks, Solander and Cook journals to show what kinds of butteries (for that matter, insects in general) were collected where, there is evidence that they did collect in Queensland, near Jakarta (Java), and nally at the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. There is no evidence that they collected any material on Savu (H. Gaonkar, unpubl. data, 2003). Fabricius generally knew with condence which insects Banks collected in Madeira, Rio de Janeiro, Patagonia, Tahiti and New Zealand, and most of those obtained from Australia. He did describe a Zygaena from Madeira, a type of moth that could not possibly have come from there (O. Karsholt, pers. comm., 2004), and there may be other individual mistakes. However, Fabricius was frequently confused about the provenance of specimens that were collected when Endeavour made landfall in Java and the Cape. Some of these cases were correctly interpreted (and some also misinterpreted) in the late 19th century. The reason for these errors regarding butteries from Java, the Cape and, in a few cases, Australia, was simply that neither Banks nor Solander kept (or could keep) any records of their natural history activities in Java or the Cape. Their serious illnesses, and how numerous crew members of Cooks HMS Endeavour died in Java and on the way to the Cape, are now so well documented that we need not go into detail here (Banks in Beaglehole 1962; OBrian 1987).

For example, Papilio astenous Fabricius, 1775, a taxon that Walter Rothschild interpreted as belonging to Troides helena (Linnaeus, 1758), was undoubtedly collected in Java, and could only have been collected there. But Fabricius gave the habitat as in Capite Bonae Spei Mus. Banks . . ., that is, the Cape of Good Hope (Rothschild 1895). In this way, Fabricius gave the habitat for many insects collected in Java either as Nova Hollandia (Bankss collecting stop before Java) or Capite Bonae Spei (the Cape of Good Hope, which was Bankss stop after Java). The original material of Papilio centaurus must have reached the Banks Collection before 1772 (Cooks Endeavour, with Banks and his collections on board, returned to England in 1771; Beaglehole 1962). The Banks Collection (BMNH) now contains two specimens over the name centaurus. We consider that the assumption of Corbet (1941a), that both of these specimens came from Malacca, must be wrong. Koenig certainly collected a number of butteries in Malacca during 1778 and 1779. Most of these specimens, now in ZMUC and BMNH, were described by Fabricius in 1781 and 1787, and a few (smaller) species in 1793. Any Koenig material from Malacca would have come to Banks in approximately 1786, because all the specimens that Koenig bequeathed to him came to London after Koenigs death in India in 1785 (Dryander 1800: vol. 5, 309). Fabricius would then have most certainly described any new species in these accessions, either in his Mantissa Insectorum in 1787 or in his Entomologia Systematica in 1793 (e.g. see the account of democritus below). But centaurus was described in 1775, long before any of Koenigs material had reached Banks. It seems that because Corbet appreciated this fact, and accepted the Nova Hollandia source for centaurus without question, he convinced himself that the material in the Banks Collection could not have been collected during the Endeavour voyage, and most likely had been substituted by material from the later Koenig accession. That one or both of the specimens might have been collected by Banks or other members of the Endeavour crew in Java does not seem to have occurred to him. As related further below, it does indeed seem plausible that the second centaurus specimen in the Banks Collection is just such a later addition, and could well have been collected in the Malay/Thai peninsula by Koenig. But we are condent that this is not the case for the other Banks specimen that, for so long, was regarded as the type. We now believe that this example was collected during the Cook voyage, and it came from Java (see further below, under type material).

Consequently, the conclusions of the majority of classical authors are here reinstated. In particular, Doubledays pseudocentaurus from Java must be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Arhopala centaurus (Fabricius, 1775), sensu stricto. The name to be applied to the race of centaurus that ies in the Malay Peninsula is not subspecies centaurus, but centaurus nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860). The name of the separate Australian species that has been confused with centaurus (and A. araxes) is Arhopala eupolis. The results of the research outlined above are in harmony with the Code (see ICZN 1999: Articles 23.9 and 23.9.6, but see also 3.2). The overwhelmingly continuous usage of this name for the Oriental taxon for more than 200 years (and its continued use in many local checklists) is enough reason to maintain stability in this case. Finally, the type locality of the nominotypical subspecies of Papilio centaurus should be regarded as Java (near Jakarta), not Malaya as proposed by Evans, Nova Hollandia as given by Fabricius, or North Queensland as suggested by Corbet.

Synonymy of Javanese buttery to be known as Arhopala centaurus centaurus (currently known as A. pseudocentaurus pseudocentaurus)
Papilio (Plebeji Rurales) Centaurus Fabricius, 1775: 520, no. 329. Lectotype male, Nova Hollandia (recte Indonesia, Java, near Jakarta), in Banks Collection, BMNH, here designated (examined). BMNHE# 668233. (Fig. 1.) Papilio centaurus Fabricius, 1775: Fabricius (1781): 117, no. 523; Jones (MS 17831785, volume 6: pl. 22, g. 1, OUM); Fabricius (1787): 68, no. 646; Butler (1870): 179; Evans (1957): 135; Zimsen (1964): no. 118. Hesperia (Rurales) Centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Fabricius (1793): 275, no. 63. Polyommatus centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Godart (1824): 658. Amblypodia centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Horseld (1829): 102; Hewitson (1862): 3,4 (may be a misidentication according to Distant 1885); Butler (1870): 179; Kirby (1871): 419; Norman (1950): 813. Amblypodia (Arhopala) centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Watkins (1923): 205. Arhopala centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Felder and Felder (1865): 222; de Nicville (1890): 234; de Nicville and Martin (1896): 464; Swinhoe (1911): 147; Bell

Figures 14 1 Lectotype of Papilio centaurus Fabricius, 1775 (male; nr Jakarta, Java 1770, ex J. Banks; forewing length 29.8 mm; BMNH). 2 Arhopala amantes (Hewitson, 1862) in HM (male; India?, collector unknown; forewing length ~28 mm). 3 Arhopala sp. indet., Sehested and Tnder Lund Collection, ZMUC (male; original source unknown; forewing length 25.5 mm). 4 William Jones original, unpublished illustration of Papilio centaurus in the Banks Collection, painting made 17831785 (OUM). Figures 13 show upper side on left, underside on right, label below.

(1919): 448450 (biology); Evans (1957): 113; Eliot (1963): 206; Fleming (1975): 39; Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978): 468; Robinson et al. (2001): 63; Vane-Wright and de Jong (2003): 124. Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847: 24. Lectotype female, Indonesia, Java, BMNH, here designated (examined). BMNHE# 147889. Formally synonymized with Arhopala centaurus (Fabricius) by Bethune-Baker (1903): 40. Syn. rev. (Fig. 5) Amblypodia pseudo-centaurus Doubleday, 1847: Westwood (in Westwood 1852): 478. Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847: Hewitson (1862): 4, as synonym of centaurus; Corbet (1941a): 100. Narathura centaurus (Fabricius): Distant (1885): 261. Nilasera centaurus (Fabricius): Moore (1881): 115. Amblypodia amazona Pagenstecher, 1890: 107 (Java), nomen nudum: Bethune-Baker (1903): 40. Arhopala centaurus pseudocentaurus (Doubleday, 1847): Fruhstorfer (1914): 158; Corbet (1941b): 163. Arhopala pseudocentaurus (Doubleday, 1847): Corbet and Pendlebury (1978): 285; (1992): 275; Fleming (1983): 85; DAbrera (1986): 576; Seki et al. (1991): 53; DAbrera (1998): 162; Bascombe et al. (1999): 209; Osada et al. (1999): 170; Robinson et al. (2001): 63; Megens (2002): 35; Monastyrskii and Devyatkin (2003): 37; Huang and Xue (2004): 195; Megens et al. (2004a,b).

Type material of Papilio centaurus Fabricius

Papilio centaurus was described from an unstated number of specimens in Mus. Banks, purportedly from Nova Hollandia (Australia). As noted above, there are two male centaurus in the Banks Collection. On the testimony of Horseld (1829), at least one should have had a ticket in his own (Fabriciuss) hand-writing but, as Corbet (1941a) pointed out, neither of these specimens has a locality label, nor does either of them have an original Fabrician ticket. This helped convince Corbet that neither of them could represent original material. One of the specimens (BMNHE# 668232) has no label at all. It is exceedingly low-set, on a coarse pin that is different from the pin of the second specimen. The underside of this unlabeled, low-set specimen is dull, like that of A. centaurus nakula from the Malay Peninsula and elsewhere on the South-East Asian mainland (see the underside of a specimen from Laos, beautifully illustrated by Osada et al. 1999: 170). In our view it is very plausible that this is a Koenig specimen from Peninsular Thailand, collected during 17781779,

and added by Banks to his collection sometime around 1786. However, there is no independent evidence that would back such an assertion. The real importance of this specimen is that it is typical of nakula, and surely helped convince Corbet (who in his own mind was only trying to decide between Malay Peninsula versus Queensland as the likely origin) that the Banks specimens must have been from the former, and therefore could not be original material for Fabriciuss 1775 description. The second specimen (BMNHE# 668233), higher set and on a different type of pin, is clearly the one referred to by many authors as the Fabrician type. It has an old label (Papilio P.R. Centaurus, Fab. Entom. p. 520, n. 329), in addition to a more recent circular label relating to its accession to the BMNH, a circular type label, and a drawer label added by Watkins (Fig. 1). However, the old label offers no proof of direct connection with Fabricius, and is probably not the ticket that Horseld referred to. Lengthy but supercial (in the sense that we have not undertaken any biometric or colorimetric analyses) comparison with a long series of both Malayan and Javanese centaurus leaves us a little uncertain regarding its origin, even if we restrict ourselves to a choice between just Malaya and Java. This insect is more variegated beneath than the other Banks Collection specimen, being on the bright end of the range for the Malay Peninsula population, and at the dull end of the range for Java. As pointed out by Evans (1957), the mean difference between the subspecies is clear, but there is a lot of individual variation. The illustration in Joness unpublished Icones (MS, volume 6, plate 22, OUM; reproduced here as Fig. 4) is, to our eye, well tted to the Javanese phenotype. However, we also consider that Joness illustration ts Banks BMNHE# 668233 very well, including wing shape, setting angle, shape and disposition of underside spots, and even color (Figs 1,4). A further insight into the origin of this specimen is afforded by Bethune-Baker (1903: 40), who evidently considered the Malay Peninsula form to be typical centaurus, and usually a duller blue than the Javanese population. We quote (our emphasis added):
Pseudocentaurus Doubleday (amazona Pagenstecher). This I take to be the Java form of centaurus, of which I have a number of specimens before me: the blue of some, not all, is rather brighter and bluer than ordinary centaurus Fabricius; it is, however, a curious fact that my only specimen, out of a great number, which is exactly typical with the type specimen in the Banksian collection is one from Java, and

is not of the dull purple of the common form, but rather brighter and bluer . . . pseudocentaurus . . . must therefore be sunk under centaurus Fab.

We imagine, had Bethune-Baker been apprised of what we consider to be the true origin of the Banks material, his observation would not have seemed curious to him at all. The loss of the original Fabrician label from the Banks Collection type specimen, after so many years and the vicissitudes that befall collections, is not convincing evidence of replacement. Taking all the information together, we are thus quite satised that this specimen (Fig. 1) was originally collected by Banks in Java during the very difcult phase of the Endeavour voyage, and is not a later Koenig specimen originating from the Malay Peninsula, or anywhere else. Accordingly, we designate the Banks Collection type (BMNHE# 668233; Fig. 1) as the lectotype of Papilio centaurus Fabricius, 1775. We exclude the second Banks Collection specimen (BMNHE# 668232) from the type series, as well as material labeled centaurus that we found in the HM and ZMUC collections: As already indicated, based on Fabriciuss known links with William Hunter and Tnder Lund, we searched for possible Banks Arhopala material in the HM (Glasgow) and the Sehested and Tnder Lund and Fabrician collections in the ZMUC (Copenhagen). In the HM we found a single Arhopala male, labeled Pap. Centaurus Fabr p. 117 No. 523 (Fig. 2). It is quite similar to A. centaurus, and initially we thought it might be a syntype, not least because it is set in such a similar fashion to the lectotype (cf. Figs 1,2). However, on the evidence of the wide black margin to the upperside wings, and details of the underside pattern, we believe that this is an example of the related species A. amantes (Hewitson, 1862), a buttery found from Sri Lanka and southern India to Myanmar and Laos. It corresponds well to the image given in DAbrera (1998: 161). Cooks Endeavour did not make landfall anywhere in this region, and thus this specimen could not have been collected by Banks (prior to 1775). Most likely it is a contemporary specimen from India, an area from which, by the mid-late 18th century, English collectors were receiving much Lepidoptera material (Vane-Wright & Hughes 2005: 254). In the Sehested and Tnder Lund Collection (ZMUC), there are male and female specimens of Arhopala, both of which carry the name centaurus on old labels. The female, which we identify as A. anthelus (Westwood, 1851), is labeled H. Centaurus ex Ind.

Or. More challenging is the male. It bears a label that appears to have been written at two different times, in two different hands (Fig. 3). At the bottom, in faded brown ink, is the single word Centaurus. At the top, in black ink, it appears to say H. n. sp. ex Ind. orient, e Sumatra. As pointed out to us by Ole Karsholt (pers. comm., 2004), the work of Zimsen (1964: 12) suggests that most specimens in the Sehested and Tnder Lund Collection had their original labels replaced by new ones, written by some unknown person working in the rst half of the 19th century. In this context, inclusion of Sumatra may be signicant. So far as we are aware, the rst people to note in the literature that A. centaurus occurs on Sumatra were Felder and Felder (1865) and Butler (1870), the latter documenting a specimen then in BMNH dating from 1854. Possibly this replacement Sehested and Tnder Lund label was made rather later than Zimsen suggests, perhaps even after the appearance of the Butler catalog. However, as Ole Karsholt (pers. comm., 2006) has further pointed out to us, it is difcult to imagine anyone working in Copenhagen in the 1800s having such detailed knowledge of tropical butteries. With respect to the specimen itself (Fig. 3), initially we thought that this might also be a genuine A. centaurus, and so conceivably ex Banks. However, it has wider black borders to the wing uppersides than true centaurus, and the (damaged) hindwing underside cannot be matched to any centaurus material that we have seen. Notably, it has a well-developed tornal lobe. Frustratingly, the critical forewing underside pattern is not visible. It has been suggested to us that it could be an example of the Australian species A. madytus Fruhstorfer, 1914, but having compared it with A. madytus material in the BMNH, we do not think it ts this species either (cf. illustrations in DAbrera 1977: 312; Braby 2000: 689). It seems to us more comparable to the Oriental species A. bazalus (Hewitson, 1862). While we remain uncertain as to its identity, it clearly does not correspond to the lectotype of centaurus (Fig. 1), or to Joness painting (Fig. 4). The pin on which it is xed is old, short, and of a different gauge from that of the lectotype. Ole Karsholt (pers. comm., 2006) has pointed out that Fabricius was not in the habit of giving away specimens, unless duplicates, from his own collection, so it is unlikely that he would have given such a specimen to Tnder Lund when no such specimen can be found in his own collection in ZMUC. We conclude that this specimen cannot have been part of the original type series, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was collected by Banks.

Type material of Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday

Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847, was described from eight syntypes in the collection of the British Museum: one from Java. Presented by the Hon. East India Company, one from Moulmein, four from Silhet, and two from Ceylon, together with eight or nine additional specimens originally in the EIC that should be included as part of the series by virtue of the clear reference to Horselds (1829) account of centaurus. In the BMNH collections we have found one male and two female specimens of A. centaurus received from the EIC in 1860, registered as BMNH 186015 (according to Cowan 1975; the EIC collections were dispersed to Kew and South Kensington during 1879, but this is clearly not the case, at least for much of the insect material). These must be the three specimens listed by Horseld and Moore (1858) as remaining in the EIC collection at that time. In addition, we have also located two specimens apparently presented by Horseld to the Felders that probably originated from the EIC, and one apparently presented to Westwood. The other three of nine EIC specimens noted by Horseld (1829) remain unaccounted for, including the one that evidently passed to the BMNH sometime between 1829 and the mid-1840s (Doubleday 1847). Of the eight specimens listed by Doubleday as being in the BMNH collection in 1847, we have located only the two from Sri Lanka. From this total of eight putative syntypes that we have located, we designate the ex-EIC female long ago placed as the type in the BMNH as the lectotype of Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847. This specimen (BMNHE# 147889) has been labeled accordingly (Fig. 5), and the other seven specimens have been labeled as paralectotypes (six in BMNH: BMNHE# 147890147895; one male in OUM labeled W Horseld Java/Westw/Arhopala centaurus f. pseudo-centaurus Doubld. Named by H.H. Druce 19001904.). Horselds material originated largely or entirely from East Java, if it is necessary to delimit the type locality more precisely.

group included about 15 species mostly from Papua. Parsons (1998) now recognizes 18 species in the group. We conrm that the lectotype of A. centaurus (Fabricius, 1775), as designated here, runs to Eliots couplet 155 (Eliot 1963: 206) where, based on the false type locality of Malaysia due to Evans (1957), Eliot recognized the Malaysian race of this buttery as centaurus centaurus. In the later key to Malaysian Arhopala revised by Eliot for Corbet and Pendlebury (1978, 1992), the lectotype of centaurus runs out very early, at entry 4, to A. pseudocentaurus. Following Corbet and Pendlebury (1978, 1992), amongst the Malayan fauna, A. pseudocentaurus is distinguishable from all other Malaysian species by the silvery green lines edging the markings in the cell on the forewing beneath. Again, we conrm that this characteristic is evident in the lectotype of centaurus. Corbet and Pendlebury note two other species in the Indo-Malayan region with similar venation and silvery markings in the forewing cell beneath, A. araxes Felder and Felder from Sumatra, Sulawesi, etc., and A. amantes from southern Myanmar.

Distribution of Arhopala centaurus

Because of the confusion over application of the name centaurus, as well stated by Distant (1885) more than 100 years ago, accounts of the distribution of this species are also confused in the literature. Following Seki et al. (1991), we consider A. centaurus to be a polytypic Oriental species, the collective taxon extending from Sri Lanka and Nepal in the west to southern China, and the western Lesser Sunda Islands and Philippines in the east. Despite the claim by Bascombe et al. (1999), according to Vane-Wright and de Jong (2003) there is no reliable record of A. centaurus from Sulawesi. Thus although Detani (1983) recorded A. pseudocentaurus (here regarded as a strict synonym of A. centaurus) from the Banggai Islands, immediately to the east of central Sulawesi, the identity of the species recorded by Detani must be regarded as very uncertain (Vane-Wright & de Jong 2003). Based on Evans (1957), Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978) and Schroeder and Treadaway (1999), 12 subspecies of A. centaurus are currently recognized: Arhopala centaurus pirama (Moore, 1881), from Sri Lanka and southern India (note: Bethune-Baker (1903): 40, considered this to be a synonym of coruscans); Arhopala centaurus pirithous (Moore, 1883), from northern India to southern China and Hainan (Bascombe et al. 1999: 210), and recently noted from Vietnam by Monastyrskii and Devyatkin (2003) (but

Identity of Arhopala centaurus

Having located the authentic specimen on which Fabriciuss Papilio centaurus is based, and established its origin, it remains to conrm the identity of centaurus within the current framework of Arhopala systematics. In a key with 244 entries, Eliot (1963) divided the species found in Malaysia into 27 species groups, of which the centaurus-group was one, noting that the

Figures 57 5 Lectotype of Amblypodia pseudocentaurus Doubleday, 1847 (female; (East) Java, ex EIC; forewing length 26.3 mm; BMNH). 6 Lectotype of Amblypodia nakula Felder and Felder, 1860 (male; Malaysia, Malacca, de Castelnau; forewing length 27.0 mm; BMNH). 7 Lectotype of Hesperia democritus Fabricius, 1793 (male; Phuket 17781779, J.G. Koenig; forewing length 15.5 mm; ZMUC). All gures show upper side on left, underside on right, label below.

this record needs to be checked for possible misidentication of A. c. nakula); Arhopala centaurus coruscans Wood-Mason and de Nicville, 1880, from the Andaman Islands (India); Arhopala centaurus nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860), treated as A. c. centaurus by Evans (1957), from Myanmar, Thailand, Indo-China, Malay Peninsula to Sumatra and Borneo, and from Busuanga, Dumaran, Linapocan and Palawan in the western Philippines (Schroeder & Treadaway 1999; Treadaway in litt. to RIVW, 23.xii.2003); also reported from China by Chou (1994: 635), but needs conrmation regarding subspecies identity; Arhopala centaurus dixoni Eliot, 1978, from Pulau Tioman (Malaysia); Arhopala centaurus centenitus Fruhstorfer, 1914, from Batu and N. Pagi islands (Indonesia); Arhopala centaurus centaurus Fabricius, 1775, treated as A. c. pseudocentaurus Doubleday by Evans (1957), from Kangean, Java, Bali, Lombok and Sumbawa (Indonesia); Arhopala centaurus cuyoensis Schroeder and Treadaway, 1999, from Cuyo (Philippines); Arhopala centaurus babuyana Schroeder and Treadaway, 1999, from Babuyanes (Philippines); Arhopala centaurus aglais Felder and Felder, 1865, from Leyte, Luzon, Marinduque (type locality of the synonym A. setsuroi Hayashi, 1981), Masbate, Mindoro, Mindanao, Pollilo, Samar, Sibuyan and Tawitawi (Philippines; data from Treadaway 1995; Schroeder & Treadaway 1999); Arhopala centaurus decimarie Schroeder and Treadaway, 1999, from Homonhon (Philippines); and Arhopala centaurus dinacola Schroeder and Treadaway, 1999, from Dinagat (Philippines).

Arhopala centaurus centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Evans (1957): 113; Fleming (1975): 39. Misidentications. Arhopala centaurus nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860): Corbet (1941b): g. 70; Corbet (1946): 87; Corbet and Pendlebury (1956): 328. Arhopala pseudocentaurus (Doubleday, 1847): Fiedler (1991): 167; Huang and Xue (2004): 195. Arhopala pseudocentaurus nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860): Corbet and Pendlebury (1978): 285; Corbet and Pendlebury (1992): 275; Pinratana (1981): 75; Seki et al. (1991): 55; Chou (1994): 635.

Type material of Amblypodia nakula Felder and Felder

Felder and Felder (1860) originally described Amblypodia nakula in a paper listing new butteries from the Malay Peninsula. No specic distributional data were given for nakula, or any of the other species described at the time. Five years later the Felders moved nakula to the genus Arhopala, and gave two localities for it based on material in their own collection: Malacca Interior (Com. de Castelnau) and Sumatra (Wallace). Ex Felder material from both sources is now present in the BMNH (received as part of the Rothschild Bequest). In our view only Malayan ex Felder specimens can qualify as potential syntypic material, as Sumatra was not mentioned in the original description, whereas the Malay Peninsula was. Accordingly, we have selected a specimen ex Felder Collection (Fig. 6) evidently collected by de Castelnau as the lectotype of Amblypodia nakula Felder and Felder, 1860. This specimen (BMNHE# 147896) bears a label in W.H. Evanss handwriting dated 1955 (Fig. 6), stating that the specimen was Incorrectly placed over type of vihara, and Is identical with type of nakula (i.e. the Sumatra specimen now excluded as a valid type).

Synonymy of Malayan taxon to be known as Arhopala centaurus nakula (currently known as A. pseudocentaurus nakula)
Amblypodia nakula Felder and Felder, 1860: 395. Lectotype male, Malaysia, Malacca interior (de Castelnau), BMNH, here designated (examined). BMNHE# 147896. (Fig. 6.) Amblypodia centaurus centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Corbet and Pendlebury (1934): 198; Pholboon (1965): 41, 42, 43, 64. Misidentications. Arhopala nakula (Felder & Felder, 1860): Felder and Felder (1865): 222, pl. 29, g. 14; Moore 1879): 835. Arhopala centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Swinhoe (1911): 147. Misidentication.

Identity of Arhopala centaurus nakula

If it is accepted, as established above, that Fabriciuss centaurus is based on material from Java, then the correct name for the South-East Asian race that includes Malay Peninsula populations is A. centaurus nakula.

Distribution of Arhopala centaurus nakula

Arhopala centaurus nakula occurs from Indo-China throughout most of Neomalaya (Moulton 1915), from Myanmar, Indo China, Hainan, Thailand and the Malay Peninsula to Singkep, Sumatra, Nias, Belitung, Bangka, the Natuna Islands, Borneo, and Dumaran and the Calamian group in western Philippines (Evans 1957; Seki et al. 1991; Schroeder & Treadaway 1999).

According to Chou (1994), this taxon also occurs in China but, as noted above, this requires conrmation. Bascombe et al. (1999) considered the Hong Kong population to belong to subspecies pirithous.

ARHOPALA EUPOLIS MISKIN, 1890

Synonymy of Australian taxon to be known as Arhopala eupolis Miskin, 1890, sp. rev. (currently known as A. centaurus)
Amblypodia eupolis Miskin, 1890: 42. Two male, four female syntypes, Australia: Cooktown and Cardwell, Queensland (in Queensland Museum, Brisbane) (Edwards et al. 2001: 200; not examined). Arhopala eupolis (Miskin, 1890): Bethune-Baker (1903): 41. Arhopala centaurus eupolis (Miskin, 1890): Waterhouse and Lyell (1914): 124. Arhopala araxes eupolis (Miskin, 1890): Evans (1957): 114; DAbrera (1971): 311. Narathura araxes eupolis (Miskin, 1890): Quick (1974). Amblypodia centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Doubleday (1847): 24; Westwood (1852): 478; Corbet (1934). Misidentications. Arhopala centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): Fiedler (1991): 168; Megens (2002): 35; Megens et al. (2004a): 118; Megens et al. (2004b): 1193. Misidentications. Arhopala centaurus centaurus (Fabricius, 1775): DAbrera (1977): 311; Common and Waterhouse (1981): 468; DAbrera (1990): 311; Parsons (1998): 386387; Braby (2000): 687; Edwards et al. (2001): 199. Misidentications.

centaurus (the most likely type locality, if based on Australian material, would have been Cooktown: Watkins 1923). Evans (1957), followed by DAbrera (1971) and Quick (1974), regarded eupolis as a subspecies of a somewhat more restricted polytypic species, A. araxes Felder and Felder (1865). The latter (type locality Sulawesi) is now regarded as a separate species that occurs from Sumatra and Java to the Lesser Sunda Islands and the Sulawesi Region (see Vane-Wright & de Jong 2003).

Distribution of Arhopala eupolis

Taking the works of Evans (1957), Common and Waterhouse (1981), DAbrera (1990), Parsons (1998), Braby (2000), Edwards et al. (2001), Tennent (2002) and Vane-Wright and de Jong (2003) together, this species apparently occurs as just two weakly separated races. Since Parsons (1998) proposed that the New Guinea region populations formerly regarded as subspecies philtron Fruhstorfer, 1914, cannot be separated from Queensland butteries, nominate A. eupolis eupolis is seen to extend along the Queensland coastal belt, through the islands of the Torres Strait and the whole of New Guinea, westwards to Aru and Kep. Kai, and eastwards along the Louisiade Archipelago to Tagula. Arhopala eupolis asopus Waterhouse and Lyell, 1914, is found in north-western Australia and Northern Territory, including Groote Eylandt. Both Parsons (1998) and Tennent (2002) regard the BismarckSolomons taxa previously included within this collective taxon to comprise a separate species, A. eurisus Druce, 1891.

Type material of Amblypodia eupolis

Originally described from a syntypic series of both sexes, collected at Cooktown & Cardwell, Queensland. See Hancock (1995) for details.

ARHOPALA DEMOCRITUS (FABRICIUS, 1793)

Hesperia democritus was misinterpreted throughout the 19th century, notably by Butler (1870: 167) and de Nicville (1890: 157), when this insect was confused with butteries such as Papilio bochus Stoll, 1782 (now in Jamides), and Amblypodia nila Horseld, 1829. Aurivillius (1898) was the rst to indicate the true identity of this species, which he did by locating an original Fabrician specimen in ZMUC, collected by Koenig during his travels to western Malaysia and Thailand in either 1778 or 1779. Aurivillius (1898) compared this Copenhagen type with Arhopala albopunctata (Hewitson, 1869) and A. lycaenaria (Felder & Felder, 1860). Corbet (1934), who examined the ZMUC specimen and noted that Aurivillius was not certain of the identity, was emphatic

Discussion of Arhopala eupolis

Following Corbet (1941a), DAbrera (1977) and Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978), the name centaurus Fabricius has in recent years been applied erroneously by various authors to an Australian member of the centaurus group. The species concerned should now be known as A. eupolis, returned here to full and valid species status. Corbet (1941a: 100), because of his mistaken belief that centaurus had an Australian provenance, considered the Australian eupolis (type localities Cooktown and Cardwell) to be a strict synonym of

that Hesperia democritus and Arhopala albopunctata were the same, a view with which Evans (1957) agreed. The type specimens of Hewitsons Amblypodia albopunctata were captured in Moulmein, about 1000 km north of Koenigs presumed locality of Phuket (see type material below). Evans (1957) recognized four subspecies of democritus. Among these, according to Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1992), the race found in the main southern area of the Malay Peninsula, Arhopala democritus lycaenaria, may represent a distinct species from A. democritus, but in the current faunal literature it is still treated as a subspecies, and the two might also be confused in the molecular literature (e.g. Megens 2002; Megens et al. 2004a,b).

Amblypodia albopunctata Hewitson, 1869: Kirby (1879): 141.

Type material of Hesperia democritus

Hesperia democritus was described by Fabricius from an unspecied number of specimens (but probably just one) in Mus. Dom. Lund . . ., collected by Koenig (Corbet 1941a). A single male in the Sehested and Tnder Lund Collection, ZMUC, illustrated together with its labels in Fig. 7, is hereby designated the lectotype of Hesperia democritus Fabricius, 1793. This selection reects Corbets (1934) earlier valid restriction, in which he stated that there appears to be no valid reason for regarding this specimen as other than the type of democritus. Taking into account the known distribution of butteries with a typical democritus phenotype (see below), the original material could only have been collected either in western Malaysia (Kedah), or on the island of Pulau Salang or Junk Ceylon, now known as Phuket, the familiar holiday destination in Peninsular Thailand. Corbet (1941a) concluded that it must have been the latter, and since there is no evidence conrming or contradicting this, we accept his inference. Koenig spent several weeks on Phuket in 1778 and 1779.

Synonymy of Arhopala democritus

Hesperia (Rurales) Democritus Fabricius, 1793: 285, no. 94. Lectotype male (abdomen missing; Corbet 1934), in India Orientali . . . (Phuket, southwestern Thailand), in Sehested and Tnder Lund Collection, ZMUC, here designated (examined). (Fig. 7.) Hesperia democritus Fabricius, 1793: Aurivillius (1898): 147; Corbet (1934); Corbet (1941a): 105; Zimsen (1964): no. 1042, incorrectly indexed as Hepialus. Polyommatus democritus (Fabricius, 1793): Godart (1824): 656. (Hesperia democritus Fabricius, 1793: de Nicville (1890): 157. Misidentication of Jamides bochus (Cramer (recte Stoll) 1782).) (Lampides democritus (Fabricius, 1793): Butler (1870): 166. Misidentication.) (Cupido democritus (Fabricius, 1793): Kirby (1871): 352, gives type locality as Ceylon. Misidentication.) Arhopala democritus (Fabricius, 1793): Aurivillius (1898): 147, 171; Corbet (1934, 1941a): 105; Evans (1957): 105, synonymy; Fleming (1975): 36; Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1978): 291; Corbet and Pendlebury (1992): 281, index, p. 527, incorrectly states originally published as sp. of Papilio; Pinratana (1981): 84, as nominate subspecies from Thailand; Seki et al. (1991): 72, 61; Megens (2002): 35; Megens et al. (2004a): 118; Megens et al. (2004b): 1193. Amblypodia albopunctata Hewitson, 1869. Two male, one female syntype, Myanmar: Moulmein, ex Atkinson Collection, in BMNH (examined; all unaccountably discolored, but instantly recognizable as democritus). Synonymized by Corbet (1934); see also Evans (1957: 105).

Current status and distribution of Arhopala democritus

Arhopala democritus is not found in southern India, but is distributed from Orissa (H. Gaonkar, unpubl. data, 2004) to north-eastern India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Neomalaya (Indonesia west of Sulawesi and Java, including northern Borneo). The following three subspecies are rather dully marked beneath: A. d. olinda (H. Druce, 1873), endemic to Borneo; A. d. buxtoni (Hewitson, 1878) restricted to Sumatra; and A. d. lycaenaria (Felder & Felder, 1860), the population that occurs south of Kedah to Singapore. These three could collectively constitute a separate species (to which the name Arhopala lycaenaria would apply) from democritus sensu stricto, which ies from Kedawi north to Thailand and Myanmar, and is brightly marked with silverywhite beneath (as suggested by the synonym albopunctata). Eliot (in Corbet & Pendlebury 1992) notes a specimen of the bright phenotype collected as far south as Frasers Hill, suggesting that democritus democritus and democritus lycaenaria overlap without intergrading (see also Fleming 1975, who implies overlap in Kedah). Material from Orissa and NE India has yet to be determined to subspecies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to our friends and colleagues Phil Ackery, Kim Goodger and Julie Harvey (BMNH), Ole Karsholt, Niels Peder Kristensen and Nikolaj Scharff (ZMUC), Stella Brecknell, Darren Mann, George McGavin and Stephen Simpson (OUM), C.G. Treadaway (Limbach, Germany), and Geoff Hancock and Margaret Reilly (HM) for suggestions, assistance, and sharing their knowledge. Harry Taylor (BMNH) took many of the digital photographs, and Campbell Smith kindly designed the gure layouts. We are grateful to Geert Brovad (ZMUC) for the images of butteries in the Sehested and Tnder Lund collection. The image from Joness Icones was kindly prepared by Rennison Hall (OUM). HG acknowledges the EU-funded SysResource programme for support while working in London. We thank the Department of Entomology (BMNH) for helping to defray the costs of color reproduction. The rst draft of this paper was written by HG, with subsequent versions by HG and RIVW. However, the nal manuscript was prepared and submitted by RIVW alone. Subsequently, one of the referees pointed out signicant errors in the treatment of the HM and ZMUC material, and the paper was re-drafted by RIVW to take this into account, again without the benet of input from HG. Finally, the author sequence was reversed, to reect the fact that RIVW has sole responsibility for the nal content. However, it was HG who rst realized that Arhopala centaurus was based on Javanese material, and carried out a large part of the original work.

REFERENCES
Ackery PR, de Jong R, Vane-Wright RI (1999) The butteries: Hedyloidea, Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea. In: Kristensen NP (ed.) Handbook of Zoology, Vol. 4, pp 263 300. de Gruyter, Berlin. Aurivillius POC (1898) Bermerkungen zu den von. J. Chr. Fabricius aus dnischen Sammlungen beschriebenen Lepidopteren. Entomologisk Tidskrift 18, 139174. (In German.) Bascombe MJ, Johnston G, Bascombe FS (1999) The Butteries of Hong Kong. Academic Press, London. Beaglehole JC, ed. (1962) The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Bell TR (1919) The common butteries of the plains of India. Part 22. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 26, 438487, 1 pl. Bethune-Baker GT (1903) A revision of the Amblypodia group of butteries of the family Lycaenidae. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 17, 1164, 5 pls.

Braby MF (2000) Butteries of Australia, their Identication, Biology and Distribution, Vol. 2. CSIRO, Melbourne. Butler AG (1870) Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera Described by Fabricius in the Collection of the British Museum. British Museum, London. Chou I (1994) Monographia Rhopalocerorum Sinensium, Vol. 2. Henan Scientic And Technological Publishing House, Zhengzhou, China. (In Chinese.) Common IFB, Waterhouse DF (1981) Butteries of Australia, 2nd edn, revised. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Corbet AS (1934) Amblypodia democritus (Fab.) (= albopunctata Hew.) (Lep. Lycaenidae). Entomologist 67, 60. Corbet AS (1941a) Observations on certain of the Fabrician names of Indo-Australian Rhopalocera. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (B) 10, 98 106. Corbet AS (1941b) A key to the Indo-Malayan species of Arhopala Boisduval (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (B) 10, 149183. Corbet AS (1946) Observations on the Indo-Australian species of the genus Arhopala Boisduval (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 96, 7388, 7 pls. Corbet AS, Pendlebury HM (1934) The Butteries of the Malay Peninsula. Kyle, Palmer and Co., Kuala Lumpur. Corbet AS, Pendlebury HM (1956) The Butteries of the Malay Peninsula, 2nd edn. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. Corbet AS, Pendlebury HM (1978) The Butteries of the Malay Peninsula, 3rd edn, revised by J.N. Eliot. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. Corbet AS, Pendlebury HM (1992) The Butteries of the Malay Peninsula, 4th edn, revised by J.N. Eliot. Malayan Nature Society, Kuala Lumpur. Cowan CF (1975) Horseld, Moore, and the Catalogues of the East India Company Museum. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 7, 273284. DAbrera B (1971) Butteries of the Australian Region. Lansdowne, Melbourne. DAbrera B (1977) Butteries of the Australian Region, 2nd edn. Lansdowne, Melbourne. DAbrera B (1986) Butteries of the Oriental Region, Part III: Lycaenidae and Riodinidae. Hill House Publishers, Melbourne and London. DAbrera B (1990) Butteries of the Australian Region, 3rd revised edn. Hill House Publishers, Melbourne and London. DAbrera B (1998) The Butteries of Ceylon. Hill House Publishers, Melbourne and London. de Nicville L (1890) The Butteries of India, Burmah and Ceylon, Vol. 3. Calcutta Central Press, Calcutta. de Nicville L, Martin L (1896) A list of the butteries of Sumatra with especial reference to the species occurring in the north-east of the island. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal [II] 64, 357555.

Detani H (1983) Butteries of Peleng Island. Iwase, Japan 1, 3060, 7172, 8 plates (In Japanese and English.) Distant WL (18821886) Rhopalocera Malayana: a Description of the Butteries of the Malay Peninsula. WL Distant, London and Penang. Doubleday E (1847) List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum, Part II. British Museum, London. Dryander J (17961800) Catalogus Bibliothecae HistoricoNaturalis Josephi Banks, Vol. 5. G. Bulmer, London. Edwards ED, Newland J, Regan L (2001) Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea. Zoological Catalogue of Australia, Vol. 31.6. CSIRO, Melbourne. Eliot JN (1963) A key to the Malayan species of Arhopala Boisduval, 1832. Malayan Nature Journal 17, 188 217. Eliot JN (1972) Some Arhopala from Borneo, with a revision of the Arhopala cleander group (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of Natural History 6, 115. Eliot JN (1973) The higher classication of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative arrangement. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 28, 371505, 6 pl. Eliot JN (1990) Notes on the genus Curetis Hbner (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Ty to Ga 41, 201225. Evans WH (1957) A revision of the Arhopala group of the Oriental Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology) 5, 85141. Fabricius JC (1775) Systema Entomologiae. Flensburgi et Lipsiae. (In Latin.) Fabricius JC (1781) Species Insectorum. Hamburgi et Kilonii. (In Latin.) Fabricius JC (1784) Briefe aus London vermischten Inhalts. Dessau und Leipzig. (In German.) Fabricius JC (1787) Mantissa Insectorum. Hafniae. (In Latin.) Fabricius JC (17921794) Entomologia Systematica. Hafniae. (In Latin.) Fabricius JC (1805) Johan Christian Fabricius. Professor ved Universitetet i Kiel. In: Lahde GL (ed.) Portrter Med Biographier Af Danske, Norske Og Holsteener. 4, 1 35. (In Danish. For English translation, see Hope, 1845.) Felder C, Felder R (1860) Lepidoptera nova in paeninsula Malayica collecta diagnosibus instructa. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift 4, 394402. (In Latin.) Felder C, Felder R (1865) Lepidoptera 1. Rhopalocera. Heft (2). Reise der sterreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zoologia, 2, 137378, 26 pl. Carl Gerolds Sohn, Vienna. (In German.) Fiedler K (1991) Systematic, evolutionary, and ecological implications of myrmecophily within the Lycaenidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Bonner Zoologische Monographien 31, 1210. Fleming WA (1975) Butteries of West Malaysia and Singapore, Vol. 2. Longman Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.

Fleming WA (1983) Butteries of West Malaysia and Singapore, 2nd edn (revised by A. McCartney). Longman Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. Fruhstorfer H (1914) Neue Arhopala Rassen. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift Iris 27, 155166. (In German.) Godart JB (1824) Histoire Naturelle. Entomologie. In: Latreille PA, Godart JB (eds) Encyclopdie Mthodique (Zool.), Vol. 9, pp 329828. Paris. (In French.) Hancock DL (1995) The buttery types of W.H. Miskin in the Queensland Museum (Lepidoptera). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 38, 519528. Hemming F (1967) The generic names of the butteries and their type-species (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, Suppl 9, 509. Hewitson WC (1862) Specimen of a Catalogue of Lycaenidae in the British Museum. British Museum, London. Honey MR, Scoble MJ (2001) Linnaeuss butteries (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 132, 277399. Hope FW (1845) The autobiography of John Christian Fabricius, translated from the Danish, with additional notes and observations. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 4, ixvi, 1 pl. Horseld T (18281829) Descriptive catalogue of the lepidopterous insects contained in the museum of the honourable East-India Company [pp 180 appeared in 1828, remainder in 1829]. London. Horseld T, Moore F (1858) A Catalogue of the Lepidopterous Insects Contained in the Museum of the Honourable East-India Company, Vol. 1. London. Huang H, Xue Y-P (2004) On the female genitalia of some lycaenids of the tribe Arhopalini and the genus Amblopala, with a modication on their higher classication. Neue Entomologische Nachrichten 57, 187207. ICZN (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Kirby WF (1871) A Synonymic Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera. John van Voorst, London. Kirby WF (1879) Catalogue of the Collection of Diurnal Lepidoptera Formed by the Late William Chapman Hewitson. John van Voorst, London. Megens H-J (2002) Understanding the diversity of the speciose tropical buttery genus Arhopala, a molecular phylogenetic approach (PhD Thesis). University of Leiden. Megens H-J, van Nes WY, van Moorsel CHM, Pierce NE, de Jong R (2004a) Molecular phylogeny of the Oriental buttery genus Arhopala (Lycaenidae, Theclinae) inferred from mitochondrial genes. Systematic Entomology 29, 115131. Megens H-J, van Moorsel CHM, Piel WH, Pierce NE, de Jong R (2004b) Tempo of speciation in a buttery genus from Southeast Asian tropics, inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31, 11811196.

Miskin WH (1890) Descriptions of hitherto undescribed Australian Lepidoptera (Rhopalocera). Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 2, 2943. Monastyrskii AL, Devyatkin AL (2003) Butteries of Vietnam (an Illustrated Checklist). Dolphin Media, Vietnam. Moore F (1879) A list of lepidopterous insects collected by Mr Ossian Limborg in Upper Tenasserim, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1878, 821858. Moore F (1881) Lepidoptera of Ceylon, Vol. 1. L. Reeve, London. Moulds MS (1977) Bibliography of the Australian Butteries (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea) 1773 1973. Australian Entomological Press, Greenwich, NSW. Moulton JC (1915) A swarm of butteries in Sarawak. Entomologist 48, 153156. Norman T (1950) Note on the larva of Amblypodia centaurus. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 48, 813 814. OBrian P (1987) Joseph Banks: a Life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Osada S, Umura Y, Uehara J (1999) An Illustrated Checklist of the Butteries of Laos P.D.R. Mokuyo-sha, Tokyo. (In Japanese.) Pagenstecher A (1890) Beitrage zur Lepidopteren: Fuana des malayischen Archipels. Jahrbuch des Nassauischen Vereins fr Naturkunde, Wiesbaden 43, 93110. (In German.) Parsons M (1998) Butteries of Papua New Guinea: Their Systematics and Biology. Academic Press, San Diego and London. (Note: although this book indicates 1999 as its publication date, there is no doubt that it was published and available in 1998; J Tennent, pers. comm.) Pholboon P (1965) A Host List of the Insects of Thailand. Department of Agriculture, Royal Thai Government and United States Operations Mission to Thailand, Bangkok. Pinratana A (1981) Butteries in Thailand. Volume Four. Lycaenidae. Brothers of Saint Gabriel in Thailand, Bangkok. Pitkin BR, Jenkins P (2003) Butteries and moths of the world. Generic names and their type-species. [Cited 18 June 2006] Available from URL: http//http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ entomology/butmoth/index.html Quick WNB (1974) Early stages of the buttery Narathura araxes eupolis (Miskin) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Victorian Entomologist 4, 2324. Robinson GS, Ackery PR, Kitching IJ, Beccaloni GW, Hernndez LM (2001) Hostplants of the Moth and Buttery

Caterpillars of the Oriental Region. Southdene, Kuala Lumpur. Rothschild W (1895) A revision of the Papilios of the eastern hemisphere, exclusive of Africa. Novitates Zoologicae 2, 167463, 6 pl. Salmon MA (2000) The Aurelian Legacy. British Butteries and Their Collectors (with additional material by P Marren, B Harley). Harley Books, Colchester, UK. Schroeder HG, Treadaway CG (1999) Zur Kenntnis philippinischer Lycaenidae, 12 (Lepidoptera). Entomologische Zeitschrift, Frankfurt 109, 206212. (In German.) Seki Y, Takanami Y, Otsuka K (1991) Lycaenidae. Butteries of Borneo, Vol. 2. Tobishima Corporation, Tokyo. (In Japanese and English.) Swinhoe C (19101911) Lepidoptera Indica, Vol. 8. Lovell Reeve, London. Tennent JT (2002) Butteries of the Solomon Islands: Systematics and Biogeography. Storm Entomological Publications, Dereham, Norfolk, UK. Treadaway CG (1995) Checklist of the butteries of the Philippine Islands (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). Nachrichten Des Entomologischen Vereins ApolloSuppl 14, 7118. Vane-Wright RI, de Jong R (2003) The butteries of Sulawesi: annotated checklist for a critical island fauna. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 343, 3267. Vane-Wright RI, Hughes HWD (2005) The Seymer Legacy. Henry Seymer and Henry Seymer Jr of Dorset, and their entomological paintings, with a catalogue of Butteries and Plants (17551783). Forrest Text, Tresaith, Ceredigion, Wales. Waterhouse DF (1938) Notes on Jones Icones (Lepidoptera). With footnotes and appendix by Sir Edward Poulton. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London (a) 13, 917. Waterhouse GA, Lyell G (1914) The Butteries of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Watkins HTG (1923) Notes on the butteries of the Banks Collection. The Entomologist 56, 204209. Westwood JO (1852) The Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera, Vol. 2. Doubleday E, Westwood JO (eds). Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, London. [This multi-part, two-volume work was started by Doubleday in 1848, but he died before volume two commenced; the latter volume was almost entirely written by Westwood.] Zimsen E (1964) The Type Material of I.C. Fabricius. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.