Prioneris clemanthe

This article uses Prioneris clemanthe following the current catalogue. Cambodia's 2022 checklist and Kosterin's field paper instead use Prioneris philonome clemanthe. The disagreement concerns rank within a broader philonome concept; clemanthe should not be counted again as an additional unnamed species. [1][3][4]

The photographer-linked record supplies an underside view of a male. Compare the red basal hindwing mark, yellow field and surrounding dark veins with an identified reference, retaining the whole pattern. Its resemblance to philonome is precisely why the regional naming treatment should accompany the image. [2]

The primary Cambodian photographic paper records a male near O’Som in Pursat Province on 24 March 2015. The country checklist adds province-level records. These observations document occurrence under the authors' combination; they are not a complete continental range or an elevation envelope. [3][4]

The dated adult record does not provide a developmental series. Connecting eggs, caterpillars and pupae with a successfully determined adult from that population would add a distinct kind of evidence. The study should state whether it adopts species rank or philonome clemanthe.

A host record needs the same geographic and naming precision as the adult photograph. This article does not transfer a plant association from sita or a broadly named philonome population. A feeding observation with botanical identification and a reared adult would establish the relevant local relationship.

A photograph made during a field encounter is stronger behavioural context than a mounted specimen, but a still image records only a moment. Resting on a plant should not become feeding, territoriality or oviposition in the caption unless the observer documented that action.

The scientific story is unusually practical: field observations can be sound even when the rank of their name differs from a current catalogue. Retaining the exact original combination lets a future revision reuse the observations. Silently modernizing the name risks changing their meaning.

Ecological comparisons should begin with the Cambodian population and its documented activities. Pooling its records with Javan philonome before inspecting the species concept could create a false host range or seasonal pattern. Local evidence remains useful whichever rank is ultimately preferred.

The Cambodian checklist and photographic paper provide an authored naming history in recent use. FUNET links photographs to their observer and locality. The catalogue supplies the display rank here; none of these sources alone constitutes a modern integrative revision of the boundary. [1][2][3][4]

Conservation searches should include both clemanthe and philonome clemanthe. A rank change can fragment records across databases and publications. The dated Cambodian photographs supply occurrence evidence, but they do not establish population trend or justify assigning a present global threat category.

Keep the author's locality, date and original determination beside the underside image. If adding a dorsal view, use the same individual or label the separate reference. Matched surfaces from males and females would be more informative than several almost identical side views.

An illustration should follow a documented continental reference and preserve the relative positions of the ventral marks. A caption can name the original philonome clemanthe determination and the catalogue rank used in the Atlas. That keeps the artwork legible and the taxonomy traceable.

Keep printed reference records and digital originals linked to the frame catalogue. Handle the frame gently and avoid wing contact. If a determination changes, add its authority and date; the original field name remains part of the evidence. [5]

What evidence supports clemanthe at species rank? Can Cambodian vouchers be compared directly with Javan philonome and Bornean vollenhovii? Which local hosts are confirmed by rearing? A revision combining geography, morphology and voucher-linked genetics would clarify the records already available.

The Cambodian papers are the key primary occurrence sources; the current catalogue explains the article's rank. FUNET provides the photograph and bibliographic trail. Use the original published combination when citing a field observation, even when the Atlas display name differs.