Notul. odonatol. Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 69-76, December 1, 2011 71

NOTES ON THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF VESTALIS SUBMONTANA ERASER, 1934FROM SOUTH INDIA (ZYGOPTERA: CALOPTERYGIDAE)

M. HAMALAINENNetherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands;- Mailing address: Sunankalliontie 13, Fl-02760 Espoo, Finland; - matti.hamalainen@helsinki.fi

Abstract - V. submontana Fraser, 1934 (typelocality: India, [Tamil Nadu], Nilgiris, Guda-lur) is upgraded to full species and V. gradlismontana Fraser, 1934 is synonymised with it.Distinguishing characters separating V. sub-montana from its South Indian congeners areprovided.

IntroductionFRASER (1929) described two new subspe-cies Vestalis gradlis amaena and Vestalis apica-lis amaena [the use of the diphthong 'ae' was anobvious misspelling of the intended 'oe'] fromsouthern India. Since these subspecific nameswere homonyms (and moreover to be confusedwith V. amoena Hagen in Selys, 1853), FRAS-ER (1934) introduced the replacement names V.gradlis montana and V. apicalis submontana forthese taxa. Otherwise the descriptions were al-most identical with the original ones. V. gradlismontana was stated as differing from V. g. gra-dlis (Rambur. 1842) by only a small venation-al detail (only a single row of cells separatingIA and Cu2) and by its smaller size. V. apicalissubmontana was stated to differ from V. apicalisapicalis Selys, 1873 by the same venational de-tail as above, by its smaller size and by some col-our differences, e.g. the genae being black andthe black apex of wings being more restricted.Both of these taxa are still listed as valid subspe-cies in the latest catalogues of Indian dragonflies(PRASAD & VARSNEY, 1995; SUBRAMA-NIAN, 2009). I have studied the type specimensof these taxa and other material preserved incollections of BMNH (London), IRSN (Brus-sels) and RMNH (Leiden) and present heremy conclusions of their taxonomic status.

Taxonomic status of submontana and montanaIn the list of Odonata types described by Fra-ser kept at British Museum (Natural History),KIMMINS (1966) wrote for 'submontana (ssp.of Vestalis apicalis)''. "Holotype 3 [in fact lec-

totype], India, Nilgiris, Gudalur, 3000 ft, 20.ix.1922, F.C. Fraser. Vestalis apicalis submontanaFraser c? [labels D.E.K., transcribed from rub-ber stamped labels]. V. submontana(type) [la-bel F.C.F.). Allotype $. Same locality, date9.ix.l922. V. submontana allotype 9 [labelF.C.F.]". For 'montana (ssp. of Vestalis grad-lis)' KIMMINS (1966) wrote: "The types ofthis subspecies, which was a new name for V.gradlis amoena Fraser, have not yet been tracedin the Fraser collection".

FRASER (1929) described Vestalis grad-lis amaena (= montana) based on an unspeci-fied number of specimens from "Coorg and theNilgiri Wynaad, all specimens taken at about3500 ft altitude". While studying the collectionsat BMNH in October 2007, I found some fe-male specimens from these two localities, whichmight belong to the syntype series of Vesta-lis gradlis amaena (= montana). The localityname, collecting date well before 1929, and dis-tinguishing characters agree with the data givenby FRASER (1929, 1934). Unfortunately, theidentity of these specimens has been changedboth by Fraser and later workers, older speciesnames being struck out and new names replacedin a confusing way; in one case as many as fournames: 'gradlis, apicalis, amaena and submon-tana had been given to the same specimen indifferent times. The identification 'montana' inFraser's hand was not found on any specimen.Additional confusion had been created whensome specimens were later placed into new en-velopes in the 'Cowley Collection'. For instancethere are two male and one female specimensfrom Nilgiri Wynaad marked as 'paratype ofVestalis gradlis amoena'. However, these speci-mens are in fact V. g. gradlis, and in the originallabels by Fraser reads only ' V. gradlis'.

It would be rather meaningless to designateone of these potential female specimens as thelectotype of montana, since the study of allavailable South Indian Vestalis material in the

72 Notul. odonaiol., Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 69-76, December 1, 2011

three museums listed above showed that allavailable 'amaena'[sensu FRASER, 1929] spec-imens can be confidently placed into a singletaxon. All specimens are conspecific with themale lectotype and female allotype of the tax-on submontana, as designated by KIMMINS(1966). The colour differences in the wing apexof montana and submontana, indirectly indicat-ed by FRASER (1934), seem to be age depend-ant. The taxa montana and submontana wereintroduced in the same publication (FRASER,1934). Although the name montana has pagepriority, as the First Reviser (Article 24.2.2. inthe Code) I am selecting the name submontana,since its primary types are known and its origi-nal description is more detailed.

The striking structural and colour differenc-es, discussed below, indicate that submontana isa distinct species. Its sympatric occurrence (seebelow) with apicalis and gracilis alone rules outits former subspecific status. Therefore, the newarrangement is:Vestalis submontana Fraser, 1934, stat. nov.Vestalis gracilis montana Fraser, 1934, syn. nov.

Distinguishing charactersThe structure of male appendages of V. sub-montana (Figs 1-2) is clearly different from thatin V. apicalis (Fig. 3) and V. gracilis (Fig. 4). Insubmontana the inferior appendages are propor-tionally longer and the apical part of the superi-ors is more obtuse than in apicalis and gracilis,both of which have quite similar appendages. Inboth sexes of submontana there is usually onlya single row separating the veins IA and Cu2,whereas there is a section with two cell rows inapicalis and gracilis. This venational characteris, however, not fully reliable; in one submon-tana male specimen studied (Anamalai Hills,Cinchona) the character state is similar to thatof apicalis and gracilis. In mature males of sub-montana the darkened area in wing tips is morenarrowly (only 2-3 mm) and less intensivelycoloured than in apicalis (5-6 mm). The dark-ening is age dependant in submontana, in ten-eral specimens the wing tips are hyaline and insemi-mature males they are only slightly dark-ened. In submontana females the apex of wingsis hyaline also in mature specimens or at mostvery slightly darkened at the extreme apex, butin apicalis females the apex is slightly darkenedfor some 5 mm. In submontana the abdomen isproportionally slightly shorter than in apicalisand gracilis. There are also distinct colour dif-ferences. For example, the genae below the baseof the antennae are shining black (with only asmall yellow streak at the level of the base ofthe mandibles, which is also yellow) in both sex-es of submontana, but wholly bright yellow inapicalis and gracilis. In submontana the metal-lic green area on metepimeron is slightly largerand legs are a little darker. The size of submon-tana specimens seems to be rather variable. In asmall casual sample of 6 males and 12 femalesfrom various locations, the measurements areas follows. Male: hind wing 34-39 mm, abdo-men (incl. appendages) 47-53.5 mm. Female:35-39.5 mm and 42-47.5 mm, respectively.

Figs 1-2. Anal appendages of Vestalis submon-tana male: (1) ventral view; - (2) ventro-lateralview.

DistributionThe BMNH houses specimens of V. submon-tana from the following localities in southern In-dia, all collected in 1920-1930's: "Hallery, Mes-cara, Coorg", "Maput Ghat, Coorg", "SambajiGhat, Coorg, 3500 ft", "Nilgiris. Gudalur,

Notul. odonatoi. Vol. 7, No. 8, pp. 69-76, December 1, 2011 73

3000 ft", "Nilgiris Wynaad, 3500 ft", "Wy-naad", "Muthikolan 3000 ft Coimbatore Dt. ","Bolampatti Valley, Coimbatore Dt.", "VajitriRd, 32-33 mile, Malabar", "S. Malabar", "To-nymudi, Mudis Hills", "Tenmalai, 500-800 ft,Travancore", "Munar Ghat, Travancore", "Fir-med 3400ft, Travancore", "Thekkadi, PeriyarDam, Travancore", "Waltair, Madras".

In the RMNH and IRSN there are speci-mens from "Anamalai Hills, Cinchona. 3500ft","Nilgiri Hills, Devala, 3200ft" , "Nilgiri Hills,Chuangude, 3500ft", "Kerala State, Trivan-drum District, Poonmudi Range, 3000 ft", col-lected in 1950-1970's. Based on the collectingdata of the specimens preserved in the threemuseums above, V. submontana has often beenrecorded in the same locations as V. gracilis andV. apicalis, and it may co-occur with them in thesame sites. This can also be concluded from thepublished records of Vestalis taxa from Kerala.EMILIYAMMA et al. (2007) listed both V. g.gracilis and V. gracilis montana from the samesite and date (Idamaruku). Vestalis a. apicalisand V. gracilis montana were recorded from thesame locality and date (Kulasekaram). EMIL-IYAMMA et al. (2007) characterised V. sub-montana [identified as V. gracilis montana] as'locally common' and gave its distribution asfollows: "Arunachal Pradesh and South India:Kerala: Kottayam, Kozhikode, New Amaram-balam Reserve Forest, Parambikulam Wild-life Sanctuary, Thiruvananthapuran and Way-anad." The record from Arunachal Pradesh innorthern India looks very dubious, especially asthe status of this taxon has been misunderstood

Fig. 3. Anal appendages of Vestalis apicalismale, ventral view.

Fig. 4. Anal appendages of Vestalis gracilismale, ventral view.

with its identification being based on a singlevenational detail only. Obviously V. submontanais not uncommon in the remaining upland andmountain forests in southern India.

Acknowledgements - My best thanks are dueto Dr DIRK GASSMANN for taking theSEM photographs and to Dr SAMI KAR-JALAINEN for help in editing them. Dr A.G.ORR made useful comments on the manu-script draft. I am grateful to the curators ofthe BMNH, RMNH and IRSN for permittingme to study their collections and for providingloans of specimens. The museum visits tookplace in the framework of the SYNTHESYSProject (http://www.synthesys.info/) which is fi-nanced by the European Community ResearchInfrastructure Action.

References - EMILIYAMMA, K.G.,C.RAD-HAKRISHNAN & M. JAFER PALOT, 2007,Rec. zool. Sun: India (Occ. Pap.) 269: 1-195, pis1-8 excl.; - ERASER, F.C., 1929, J. Bombaynot. Hist. Soc. 33: 576-596, 2 pis excl.; - 1934,The fauna of British India, including Ceylon andBurma: Odonata, vol. 2. Taylor & Francis, Lon-don; - KIMMINS, D.E., 1966, Bull. Br. Mus.nat. Hist. (Ent.) 18(6): 173-227; - PRASAD,M. & R.K. VARSNEY, 1995, Oriental Insects29: 385-428; - SUBRAMANIAN, K.A.,2009, A checklist of Odonata (Insecta) of India.Western Regional Centre, Zoological Survey ofIndia, Pune. [Pdf available at http://zsi.gov.in/checklist/OdonataJndicaJ 51209.pdf