Deudorix doherty

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Taxonavigation: Papilionoidea 

Superregnum: Eukaryota
Cladus: Unikonta
Cladus: Opisthokonta
Cladus: Holozoa
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Cladus: Panarthropoda
Phylum: Arthropoda
Cladus: Pancrustacea
Cladus: Allotriocarida
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Cladus: Dicondylia
Subclassis: Pterygota
Infraclassis: Neoptera
Cladus: Eumetabola
Cladus: Holometabola
Superordo: Panorpida
Cladus: Amphiesmenoptera
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Cladus: Coelolepida
Cladus: Myoglossata
Cladus: Neolepidoptera
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Cladus: Eulepidoptera
Cladus: Ditrysia
Cladus: Apoditrysia
Cladus: Obtectomera
Superfamilia: Papilionoidea

Familia: Lycaenidae
Subfamilia: Theclinae
Tribe: Deudorigini
Genus: Deudorix
Subgenus: Virachola
Species: Deudorix doherty



Deudorix doherty Tytler, 1915.

Type locality: "Naga Hills, Kirbari, 5,000-6,000ft".

Holotype: ♂ BMNH?


  • Virachola doherty Tytler, 1915: 138.
  • Virachola dohertyi [sic] Tytler; D'Abrera, 1986: 624; Bridges, 1994: VIII. 144.
    • All authors subsequent to Tytler, 1915: 138 have referred to Virachola doherty as dohertyi (not doherty) and this has led to much confusion with Deudoryx dohertyi of Oberthur, 1894. Bridges suggests, as far back as 1988, that the Tytler taxon is a homonym and should be replaced. I cannot find any record of this being done. D'Abrera appears to have had a chance to rectify this but just left a confusing reproduction of a note from Tite alongside his image of what might be the unique Type male of Virachola doherty. He also shows the underside of a similar, but perhaps undescribed, specimen but this is captioned "Rapala sp.v" not "Virachola sp.v". Tytler also described Cyaniris doherty in the 1915 paper, but called it Cyaniris dohertyi on the key to plate 4. As he did not figure the new Virachola species, he did not show a specific epithet for it other than "doherty"