Delias woodi

Delias woodi is listed as a species in the current catalogue. The specialist account preserves an older suggestion that it might be a form of ottonia. This article uses the current rank while reporting that history; it does not present the historical debate as a modern genetic resolution. [1][2]

The specialist comparison emphasizes a compact, stockier wing form and clearly defined forewing markings. Shape is useful only with like-for-like views: wing position and camera angle can make a living butterfly appear narrower or broader. Compare the same sex with ottonia under consistent conditions. [2]

Named Mindanao records include Mount Apo, Kitanglad and Parker. A living photograph from Mount Talomo, Davao, is dated 14 April 2018 and credited to Forest Botial Jarvis. These mountain names give finer context than a single Philippine-wide label. [2]

The living adult photograph documents an adult encounter. It is not a developmental series for woodi. A reared egg-to-adult sequence from a named Mindanao locality would be especially valuable because it could add characters to the comparison with ottonia.

A larval food plant was not established in the checked woodi references. The host gap reported for ottonia should not be resolved by assuming the two share a plant. Each population needs direct feeding evidence and a determination of the resulting adult.

The dated Mount Talomo photograph demonstrates a living occurrence at a named site. It does not establish a flight season or a preference for the particular surface shown. Repeated observations would be needed to identify regular activity, reproductive sites and seasonal timing.

Woodi makes a species-boundary problem visible in ordinary identification. A difference in wing proportions may be consistent, or may overlap when a larger series is examined. Localized adults, type-linked comparisons and voucher-based genetics would help test the historical alternative.

Ecological evidence could enrich the woodi–ottonia comparison without deciding rank on its own. Distinct host use or emergence timing would raise useful questions; shared resources would not automatically make the taxa identical. The biological observations should remain separate from the nomenclatural conclusion.

The specialist synthesis reports Talbot's earlier uncertainty about woodi's relationship to ottonia. A current species catalogue and a historical author's suggestion answer different questions. Keeping both visible lets readers understand why a stable modern identification needs more than a name copied from an old plate. [2]

The source set does not establish a current global threat category. Named Mindanao mountains provide a practical starting set for repeat surveys. Surveyors should record access, effort and breeding evidence before interpreting a lack of photographs from a site as a population decline.

Compare wing proportions only after accounting for pose. Add both surfaces and a measured scale to the adult series, retaining the mountain locality. The clearest comparison would place matched woodi and ottonia specimens together with their source determinations visible.

A consistent spread pose can make the compact wing form understandable. It must follow the reference's actual outline, not exaggerate stockiness to force a distinction. Record the reference population so the illustration remains useful if a later revision changes the boundary.

Keep the display away from physical knocks. Preserve the original identification and any later woodi–ottonia redetermination as dated records. A history of determinations is useful evidence, especially for a taxon with a documented alternative interpretation. [3]

Which adult characters separate woodi reliably across sexes? Do its immature stages differ from ottonia? Can voucher-linked genetic sampling include their named Mindanao localities? These questions directly test the comparison that has accompanied woodi through its taxonomic history.

The current catalogue supplies the rank, while the specialist account provides adult comparisons, Mindanao localities and the attributed living photograph. Its historical taxonomic note identifies an unresolved research question. A modern revision is needed before the debate can be described as settled.