Female. Specimen photographed in Blasiwald (Baden-Württemberg) on August 10, 2013.
Subspecies
The status of the Asian taxon alexandra should
be revised. It is currently regarded as a separate species; however,
there is cumulating evidence that either the present species is a
complex of at least three cryptic species, or the taxon alexandra could
be regarded only as a subspecies of Speyeria aglaja: (1) the genitalia
morphology is very similar between aglaja and alexandra, as originally
noted by Dos Passos and Grey (1945), who already suggested that alexandra may only be a subtaxon of aglaja; (2) in the phylogenetic analysis by De Moya et al. (2017)
alexandra is placed within the aglaja clade, thus suggesting that
either aglaja is a complex of species, or that alexandra is conspecific
with aglaja.
Synonyms
Papilio aglaja Linnaeus, 1758
Mesoacidalia aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Argynnis aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Speyeria aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Argynnis charlotta
Mesoacidalia charlotta
Mesoacidalia aglaia auct. (misspelling)
Argynnis aglaia auct. (misspelling)
Additional German name: Großer Perlmuttfalter
The present species has been placed in its own genus Mesoacidalia by some authors. De Moya et al. (2017) have performed a detailed phylogeny analysis and have shown that the species aglaja together with other species traditionally placed in Mesoacidalia form a paraphyletic group at the base of a large clade containing all North American Speyeria species. In addition to being paraphyletic, Mesoacidalia is not divided from Speyeria with a deep split. De Moya et al. (2017) therefore suggest that Mesoacidalia should not be ranked at the genus level, and include it in Speyeria. The thorough analysis by De Moya et al. (2017) provides very convincing arguments for placing the present species in the genus Speyeria and therefore I adopt this generic placement here. In addition, it has been noted before that the unique bursa morphology of American Speyeria species is virtually identical to the bursa morphology of the present species, thus providing a convincing apomorphy of this clade (Grey 1989). If the concept of Speyeria as proposed by De Moya et al. (2017) is used to define monophyletic sub-groups, and if these monophyletic groups are named according to the type species they contain of previously published genus-group names, then the subgeneric system as shown in Fig. 1 can be derived.
Mesoacidalia aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Argynnis aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Speyeria aglaja (Linnaeus, 1758)
Argynnis charlotta
Mesoacidalia charlotta
Mesoacidalia aglaia auct. (misspelling)
Argynnis aglaia auct. (misspelling)
Additional German name: Großer Perlmuttfalter
Fig. 1: A possible subgeneric system for Speyeria as derived from the analysis by De Moya et al. (2017). Only those species included in the analysis by De Moya et al. (2017) are listed. Monophyletic groups were taken directly from the phylogram (Fig. 2 in De Moya et al. (2017))
and were then ranked and named as subgenera according to the type
species (in boldface) they contain. Please note that this system does
not agree with the traditional concepts of these subgenera, but is
instead consistent with the phylogeny in De Moya et al. (2017).
Please note: although most authors have regarded the name Neoacidalia
as an available name, its status remains to be clarified nomenclatorily,
because Reuss (1926) has described the name in synonymy. The green dot denotes the species of the German fauna.
The present species has been placed in its own genus Mesoacidalia by some authors. De Moya et al. (2017) have performed a detailed phylogeny analysis and have shown that the species aglaja together with other species traditionally placed in Mesoacidalia form a paraphyletic group at the base of a large clade containing all North American Speyeria species. In addition to being paraphyletic, Mesoacidalia is not divided from Speyeria with a deep split. De Moya et al. (2017) therefore suggest that Mesoacidalia should not be ranked at the genus level, and include it in Speyeria. The thorough analysis by De Moya et al. (2017) provides very convincing arguments for placing the present species in the genus Speyeria and therefore I adopt this generic placement here. In addition, it has been noted before that the unique bursa morphology of American Speyeria species is virtually identical to the bursa morphology of the present species, thus providing a convincing apomorphy of this clade (Grey 1989). If the concept of Speyeria as proposed by De Moya et al. (2017) is used to define monophyletic sub-groups, and if these monophyletic groups are named according to the type species they contain of previously published genus-group names, then the subgeneric system as shown in Fig. 1 can be derived.
Identification
No information has been entered yet.
Distribution
No information has been entered yet.
Biology
No information has been entered yet.