Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2020 | 12(13): 16868–16878
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893
(Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4882.12.13.16868-16878
#4882 | Received 11 February 2019 | Final
received 29 July 2020 | Finally accepted 28 August 2020
A checklist of butterfly fauna of
Bankura Town, West Bengal, India
Ananya Nayak
Department of Zoology, Bankura Sammilani College, Kenduadihi,
Bankura, West Bengal 722102, India.
Editor: Monsoon J. Gogoi, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. Date
of publication: 26 September 2020 (online & print)
Citation: Nayak,
A. (2020). A checklist
of butterfly fauna of Bankura Town, West Bengal, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 12(13): 16868–16878. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4882.12.13.16868-16878
Copyright: © Nayak 2020. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License. JoTT
allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any
medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of
publication.
Funding: Self-funded.
Competing interests: The author declares
no competing interests.
Acknowledgements: The author would like to express his sincere thanks to
Anupran Nayak, sargeant of
Indian Air Force, Barrackpore Air Force Station and Debabrata
Mukherjee and Sourav Bhattacharyya, students of Department of Zoology, Bankura Sammilani College for their immense help during the
fieldwork in the study area.
Abstract: The present study on butterflies
was conducted in different habitat types in Bankura Town along the banks of Gandheswari and Dwarakeswar
rivers for 24 months from January 2017 to December 2018. The results of the study recorded the
presence of 1,273 individuals of butterflies belonging to 57 species and 42
genera in six families. The study
recorded 20 species of butterflies under Nymphalidae,
14 species under Lycaenidae, 10 species under Pieridae, eight species under Hesperiidae,
six species under Papilionidae, and only one species
under Riodinidae. The present study provides a
preliminary report on the butterfly diversity of Bankura Town which in turn may
generate awareness among the local people and government about the importance
of these essential pollinators and their conservation.
Keywords: Diversity, Dwarakeswar,
Gandheswari River, Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae,
pollinator, riverside vegetation.
Bankura, the fourth largest
district of West Bengal is located in the western part of the state. It covers an area of 6,882km2 and
is bounded by Paschim Medinipur and Hooghly districts
in the east, Purulia District in the west, and Bardhaman
District in the north and east. The town
is well-connected with its surrounding districts by two state (SH-2, SH-9)
and two national highways (NH-14 and NH-314). Two rivers, Gandheswari
and Dwarakeswar flow from the north-east to the
south-west in courses roughly parallel to one another.
Being very frequent visitors of
a wide variety of flowers, butterflies constitute an effective and potential
pollinator group along with other insect pollinators of the world. These beautiful floral visitors contribute to
the pollination of more than 75% of the leading global food crops and thereby
saving US$235–577 billion per year (Breeze et al. 2016; Grooten & Almond 2018).
In recent times several authors
have reported on the diversity of butterfly population in different ecosystems
under many districts of West Bengal (Chowdhury 2014; Mandal 2016; Samanta et al. 2017).
No comprehensive report on butterfly diversity from any part of Bankura
District, however, has been reported to date.
The present study was conducted in the municipality areas of Bankura
Town and several villages located near the river banks Gandheswari
and Dwarakeswar of Bankura I community development
block (Fig.1).
Study area
Bankura Town (23.25N &
87.07E) with an average elevation of 78m, is located in Bankura District and
has a narrow alluvial strip along the lateritic and red soils (Ghosh & Guchhait 2015).
Bankura District belongs to a tropical savannah climate that represents
a hot summer (April–May), monsoon (June–September) and winter
(November–February). The town
experiences a hot and humid weather except during the three months of
winter. In summer the temperature rises
to a maximum of 48°C and in winter the temperature barely goes below 7°C. Relative humidity is generally high
throughout the year.
The study area encompasses a
heterogeneous landscape characterized by diverse patches of aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems including riverside vegetations of the two rivers,
roadside plantations, habitats on railway embankments, grasslands, barren
lands, bushes of weeds, gardens, agricultural lands, ponds, two rivers, and
different forms of human habitation which ranges from a single settlement to
densely populated city areas (Image 1 and 2).
Riverside vegetation: It includes a wide variety of
natural flora of the river basin (e.g., wild sugarcane, Acacaia
sp., Solanum xanthocarpum, Calotropis gigantea),
scrubland (e.g., Calotropis gigantea, Datura metel,
Justicia adhatoda)
and trees (e.g., Alstonia scholaris, Azadirachta
indica, Terminalia arjuna, Ficus benghalensis)
along the riverbanks, agro-ecosystems (e.g., paddy
field and other crop plants) and plantations by human habitations (e.g., Carica papaya, Cocos nucifera, Moringa
oleifera, Psidium guajava).
Roadside plantations: These are characterized
by distinct vegetation assemblages dominated by weedy plant species (e.g., Argemone mexicana,
Cuscuta reflexa, Lantana
camara, Parthenium hysterophorus)
and other trees like Albizia lebbeck, Azadirachta indica, Bombax ceiba, Borassus
flabellifer, Butea monosperma,
Cassia fistula, Phoenix sylvestris, Tamarindus indica, Acacia auriculiformis, and Eucalyptus tereticornis.
Railway embankments: These artificial habitats around
the railway tracks harbour species-rich plant communities including various
flowering plants and invasive plant species (e.g., Parthenium hysterophorus, Lantana camara,
Hyptis suaveolens)
that constitute an important part of biodiversity in the urban landscape.
Home garden: These habitats are represented
by several ornamental plants (e.g., Catharanthus
roseus, Chrysanthemum indicum, Clitoria ternatea, Combretum
indicum, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis,
Ixora coccinea, Rosa sp., Tagetes
erecta, T. patula)
and a number of common ethnomedicinal and fruit plants (e.g., Aloe barbadensis, Ocimum
sanctum, Mentha spicata, Annona
squamosa, Mangifera indica,
Punica granatum,
Psidium guajava)
Open grassland: These are naturally occurring
areas where the vegetation is dominated by different types of grasses along
with sedges and other herbaceous plants.
Most of the abandoned agricultural lands near Bankura Town are examples
of this type of habitat.
Some of the places that were
visited for data collection are Palastola, Bhairabsthan, Krishi Vaban, Machantala, Satighat, Kenduadihi, Junbedia, Arabindanagar, Nutanchati, Lalbazar, Lokepur, Gobindanagar, Katjuridanga, Keranibandh, Kesiakole, Pratapbagan, Kamrarmath, Doltala, Dhaldanga, Heavy More, Sanbandha, Railway station and five kilometres along the
railroad that traverse the town. Besides
these several villages in the suburban areas of the town and the river banks
were also visited.
Methods
Bankura Town was surveyed for 24
months between January 2017 and December 2018.
In order to estimate the number of individuals of each butterfly species
and to record all the species each study site was visited twice a month and
more than four hours were spent at each site from dawn to dusk.
Butterfly counts were done from
10.00h to 15.00h, using binoculars (Olympus 10×50) and species were identified
and counted. Most of them were
photographed using DSLR Camera with zoom lens to support further
identification. Butterflies were
identified based on physical features with the help of field guides and
reference books viz. (Kehimkar 2016; Shihan 2016; Kasambe 2018) and previously published works (viz., Sondhi et al. 2013; Chowdhury 2014; Mandal 2016; Samanta et al. 2017) and website on Indian butterflies
(ifoundbuterfies.org). Surveys were
conducted in all possible types of butterfly habitats mentioned in the study
area. The study has classified the
encounter rates of each species in four groups- Very Common (number observed
>30), Common (15–30), Uncommon (8–14), and Rare (1–7). We analysed our data with Microsoft Office
Excel, 2010. None of the species was
captured or killed during the entire period of the study.
Results
The present study has observed a
total of 1,273 butterflies belonging to 57 species and 42 genera in different
habitats of Bankura Town and adjoining areas (Images 3–8). The results showed that Nymphalidae
was the most abundant family followed by Lycaenidae, Pieridae, Papilionidae, Hesperiidae and the least abundant family, Riodinidae (Fig. 2).
The study has observed 12 genera and 20 species under the family Nymphalidae, 14 genera and 14 species under the family Lycaenidae, six genera and 10 species under the family Pieridae, six genera and six species under the family Hesperiidae, three genera and six species under the family Papilionidae and only one species under the family Riodinidae (Table 1).
Depending on the occurrence of these species during the study period
they can be grouped into four broad classes namely very common, common, uncommon,
and rare. The study found 12 very
common, 31 common, eight uncommon and six rare species of butterflies in the
study area (Table 2). The most abundant
species encountered in the study was Common Castor Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1777) followed by Common Evening Brown
Melanitis leda
(Linnaeus, 1758), Plain Tiger Danaus chrysippus
(Linnaeus, 1758), Common Emigrant Catopsilia
pomona (Fabricius,
1775), Psyche Leptosia nina
(Fabricius, 1793), and Grey Pansy Junonia
atlites (Linnaeus, 1763). The study, however, has also been able to
detect the presence of some of the rare butterfly species of southern Bengal
like Purple Leaf Blue Amblypodia anita (Hewitson, 1862), Plum
Judy Abisara echerius
(Stoll, 1790), Apefly Spalgis
epius (Westwood, 1851), Common Tit Hypolycaena erylus
(Godart, 1824), Common Baron Euthalia
aconthea (Cramer, 1777), and Slate Flash Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863). The
study has also tried to assess the habitat-wise occurrence of these species in
the total study area. The highest number
of species was observed in the riverside vegetations followed by roadside
plantations, railway embankments, home gardens and open grasslands (Fig.
3). A total of 45 species were recorded
from different types of habitats near the river banks of Gandheswari
and Dwarakeswar rivers (data not shown). These rivers are rain-fed followed by the
drying up to a perennial stream throughout the cold and hot seasons. The maximum habitat diversity of the riverine
landscape encompassing the town, may be a key factor behind the existence of a
large number of butterfly species in these regions. The study has observed a large number of
species in different habitats along roadsides.
A number of main roads including national and state highways have passed
through the town with a wide range of habitats harbouring these species. A large number of species besides the railway
track were recorded. Railway
embankments, built of crushed stone or different sized gravel, are linear
habitats that are warmer at the top of the embankment and colder and wetter at
the bottom (Moroń et al. 2014). The study also noticed that the density of
some of the species was much more in these man–made altered ecosystems having a
higher number of natural vegetations that serve as host plants for these species. This observational evidence is also
consistent with some of the studies reported earlier (Moroń
et al. 2014; Kalarus & Bąkowski
2015). This can be explained by the fact
that the railway track encompasses an area containing numerous nectar plants
that thrive there in an undisturbed landscape without human intervention for a
long time.
Discussion
Bankura District like some other
southern Bengal districts has an almost entirely tropical climate. Most of the flowering plants essential for
human nutrition and survival are pollinated by insects and other animals. Studies have shown that the proportion of
animal–pollinated wild plant species rises from an average of 78% in
temperate–zone communities to 94% in tropical communities (Ollerton et al. 2011;
Grooten & Almond 2018). The role of butterflies as a pollinator is
more important in a drought prone district like Bankura where chances of
pollination may make the difference between a good and poor production of some
of the principal crops of the area.
In the process of rapid
urbanization several species have lost their habitats. For example, this study has revealed that a
number of butterflies prefer their host plants as bushy weeds which are
annihilated during the course of building construction or other processes of
urbanization. The study has noticed
similar destruction of the host plants during the process of trenching and
widening of shallow Gandheswari River near Satighat of Bankura Town.
In recent times several unauthorized constructions on Gandheswari river banks have also resulted in a rapid
decline of a number of native flora, essential for the survival of some
butterfly species. Rapid urbanization of
both the river bank areas is a leading cause for the production of massive
amounts of household and industrial wastes which in turn causes pollution of
the riverbank soil and vegetations.
Another matter of concern
regarding loss of butterfly diversity was observed in Dwarakeswar
River. Unauthorized excessive instream
sand mining has resulted in the partial or complete destruction of the river
bed which in turn causes the erosion of the river banks leading to increased
flooding and causing a severe threat to butterfly host plants and affect
riverine ecology.
Although known for its dry and
drought areas, in the past few years several places of Bankura have experienced
a tremendous flood situation and the flood season occurs during the months of
June, July, August and September.
Generally, it happens during the months of July and August. Sudden cloudbursts and shallow riverbeds of Dwarakeswar and Gandheswari are
the two major causes of this flood situation.
In most of the places including Bankura town it does not last long. But when the flood comes, it destroys a large
part of the biodiversity particularly in the ecosystems of the river banks
leading to an annihilation of a large number of flora and fauna.
Conclusion
The investigations presented in
this study address several significant and previously unreported aspects of
butterfly population and their diversity in the study area. The present study also identified a number of
anthropogenic factors which directly or indirectly cause destruction or
alteration of the natural habitat. The
study was conducted in a very small area in comparison to the whole
district. More surveys and research are
needed to unveil the actual status of butterfly diversity in other parts of the
district with a vast range of landscapes.
This in turn will deepen our understanding of their conservation status
and will help us to stop and reverse the decline of many insect species and
create a healthier environment.
Table 1. Subfamily-wise diversity of the butterflies of
Bankura town and adjoining areas.
|
Family |
Subfamily |
Number of |
Number of |
|
Hesperiidae |
Hesperiinae |
6 |
6 |
|
Papilionidae |
Papilioninae |
3 |
6 |
|
Pieridae |
Coliadinae |
2 |
6 |
|
Pierinae |
4 |
4 |
|
|
Lycaenidae |
Theclinae |
4 |
4 |
|
Polyommatinae |
9 |
9 |
|
|
Miletinae |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Nymphalidae |
Danainae |
2 |
3 |
|
Satyrinae |
3 |
5 |
|
|
Heliconiinae |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Limenitnae |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Biblidinae |
1 |
2 |
|
|
Nymphalinae |
2 |
6 |
|
|
Riodinidae |
Nemeobiinae |
1 |
1 |
|
Total: 6 |
14 |
42 |
57 |
Table 2. Detailed checklist of the butterflies of
Bankura Town and adjoining areas.
|
|
Scientific name |
English name |
Relative Abundance |
Number of individuals Observed |
Schedule Species -WPA, 1972 |
|
Family: Hesperiidae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Hesperiinae |
|
|
|
||
|
1 |
Parnara sp. |
|
Common |
18 |
|
|
2 |
Telicota bambusae (Moore, 1878) |
Dark Palm Dart |
Very Common |
39 |
|
|
3 |
Udaspes folus (Cramer, 1775) |
Grass Demon |
Common |
19 |
|
|
4 |
Suastus gremius (Fabricius, 1798) |
Indian Palm Bob |
Common |
24 |
|
|
5 |
Borbo cinnara (Wallace, 1866) |
Rice Swift |
Common |
21 |
|
|
6 |
Pelopidas mathias (Fabricius, 1798) |
Small Branded Swift |
Common |
28 |
|
|
Family: Papilionidae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Papilioninae |
|
|
|
||
|
7 |
Graphium doson (Felder & Felder, 1864) |
Common Jay |
Uncommon |
14 |
|
|
8 |
Papilio demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Lime |
Common |
28 |
|
|
9 |
Papilio clytia (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Mime |
Common |
13 |
|
|
10 |
Papilio polytes (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Mormon |
Common |
23 |
|
|
11 |
Graphium agamemnon (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Tailed Jay |
Common |
17 |
|
|
12 |
Pachliopta aristolochiae (Fabricius,
1775) |
Common Rose |
Common |
19 |
|
|
Family: Pieridae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Coliadinae
|
|
|
|
||
|
13 |
Catopsilia pomona (Fabricius, 1775) |
Common Emigrant |
Very Common |
44 |
|
|
14 |
Eurema hecabe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Grass Yellow |
Very Common |
32 |
|
|
15 |
Catopsilia pyranthe (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Mottled Emigrant |
Common |
29 |
|
|
16 |
Eurema andersonii (Moore, 1886) |
One-spot Grass Yellow |
Uncommon |
14 |
|
|
17 |
Eurema brigitta (Stoll, 1780) |
Small Grass Yellow |
Common |
16 |
|
|
18 |
Eurema blanda (Boisduval, 1836) |
Three-Spot Grass Yellow |
Uncommon |
12 |
|
|
Subfamily: Pierinae |
|
|
|
||
|
19 |
Cepora nerissa (Fabricius, 1775) |
Common Gull |
Very Common |
31 |
|
|
20 |
Pareronia hippia (Fabricius, 1787) |
Common Wanderer |
Common |
27 |
|
|
21 |
Leptosia nina (Fabricius, 1793) |
Psyche |
Very Common |
41 |
|
|
22 |
Appias libythea (Fabricius, 1775) |
Striped Albatross |
Common |
23 |
Sch IV |
|
Family: Lycaenidae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Theclinae |
|
|
|
||
|
23 |
Spindasis vulcanus (Fabricius, 1775) |
Common Silverline |
Uncommon |
8 |
|
|
24 |
Hypolycaena erylus (Godart, 1824) |
Common Tit |
Rare |
6 |
|
|
25 |
Amblypodia anita (Hewitson, 1862) |
Purple Leaf Blue |
Rare |
5 |
|
|
26 |
Rapala manea (Hewitson, 1863) |
Slate Flash |
Rare |
7 |
|
|
Subfamily: Polyommatinae |
|
|
|
||
|
27 |
Jamides celeno (Cramer, 1775) |
Common Cerulean |
Uncommon |
11 |
|
|
28 |
Castalius rosimon (Fabricius, 1775) |
Common Pierrot |
Very Common |
31 |
|
|
29 |
Zizeeria karsandra (Moore, 1865) |
Dark Grass Blue |
Common |
27 |
|
|
30 |
Catochrysops strabo (Fabricius, 1793) |
Forget-Me-Not |
Common |
24 |
|
|
31 |
Zizina otis (Fabricius, 1787) |
Lesser Grass Blue |
Common |
27 |
|
|
32 |
Chilades lajus (Stoll, 1780) |
Lime Blue |
Common |
26 |
|
|
33 |
Tarucus balkanicus (Freyer, 1844) |
Little Tiger Pierrot |
Uncommon |
12 |
|
|
34 |
Pseudozizeeria maha (Kollar, 1844) |
Pale Grass Blue |
Uncommon |
14 |
|
|
35 |
Tarucus nara (Kollar, 1848) |
Striped Pierrot |
Uncommon |
12 |
|
|
Subfamily: Miletinae |
|
|
|
||
|
36 |
Spalgis epius (Westwood, 1851) |
Apefly |
Rare |
6 |
|
|
Family: Nymphalidae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Danainae |
|
|
|
||
|
37 |
Euploea core (Cramer, 1780) |
Common Crow |
Common |
25 |
|
|
38 |
Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Plain Tiger |
Very Common |
44 |
|
|
39 |
Danaus genutia (Cramer 1779) |
Striped Tiger |
Common |
21 |
|
|
Subfamily: Satyrinae |
|
|
|
||
|
40 |
Mycalesis perseus (Fabricius, 1775) |
Common Bushbrown |
Very Common |
33 |
|
|
41 |
Melanitis leda (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Evening Brown |
Very Common |
48 |
|
|
42 |
Elymnias hypermnestra (Linnaeus, 1763) |
Common Palmfly |
Common |
15 |
|
|
43 |
Melanitis phedima (Cramer, 1780) |
Dark Evening Brown |
Common |
19 |
|
|
44 |
Mycalesis mineus (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Dark–branded Bushbrown |
Common |
17 |
|
|
Subfamily: Heliconiinae |
|
|
|
||
|
45 |
Phalanta phalantha (Drury, 1773) |
Common Leopard |
Common |
19 |
|
|
46 |
Acraea terpsicore (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Tawny Coster |
Common |
18 |
|
|
Subfamily: Limenitidinae |
|
|
|
||
|
47 |
Euthalia aconthea (Cramer, 1777) |
Common Baron |
Rare |
6 |
|
|
48 |
Neptis hylas (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Common Sailer |
Common |
20 |
|
|
Subfamily: Biblidinae |
|
|
|
||
|
49 |
Ariadne ariadne (Linnaeus, 1763) |
Angled Castor |
Very Common |
33 |
|
|
50 |
Ariadne merione (Cramer, 1777) |
Common Castor |
Very Common |
55 |
|
|
Subfamily: Nymphalinae |
|
|
|
||
|
51 |
Junonia orithya (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Blue Pansy |
Common |
15 |
|
|
52 |
Junonia iphita (Cramer, 1779) |
Chocolate Pansy |
Common |
17 |
|
|
53 |
Hypolimnas bolina (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Great Eggfly |
Common |
20 |
|
|
54 |
Junonia atlites (Linnaeus, 1763) |
Grey Pansy |
Very Common |
40 |
|
|
55 |
Junonia lemonias (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Lemon Pansy |
Common |
28 |
|
|
56 |
Junonia almana (Linnaeus, 1758) |
Peacock Pansy |
Common |
27 |
|
|
Family: Riodinidae |
|
|
|
||
|
Subfamily: Nemeobiinae |
|
|
|
||
|
57 |
Abisara echerius (Stoll, 1790) |
Plum Judy |
Rare |
5 |
|
WPA, 1972—Wildlife Protection Act (1972).
For
figures & images - - click here
References
Breeze,
T.D., N. Gallai, L.A. Garibaldi & X.S. Li (2016).
Economic
measures of pollination services: shortcomings and future directions. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 31: 927–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.002
Chowdhury,
S. (2014). Butterflies
of Sundarban Biosphere Reserve, West Bengal, eastern
India: a preliminary survey of their taxonomic diversity, ecology and their
conservation. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(8): 6082–6092. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3787.6082-92
Ghosh, S
& S.K. Guchhait (2015). Characterization and evolution
of primary and secondary laterites in northwestern Bengal Basin, West Bengal. Journal
of Palaeogeography 4(2): 203–230. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1261.2015.00074
Grooten, M. & R.E.A. Almond (eds.)
(2018). Living
Planet Report–2018:
Aiming Higher. World Wide Fund For Nature, Gland, Switzerland, 148pp.
Kalarus, K. & M. Bąkowski (2015). Railway tracks can have great
value for butterflies as a new alternative habitat. Italian Journal of
Zoology 82: 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2015.1078417
Kasambe, R. (2018). Butterflies of Western Ghats.
2nd edition. Published by author, 372pp.
Kehimkar, I. (2016). BNHS Field Guides,
Butterflies of India. Bombay Natural history Society. Oxford University
Press, Mumbai, 506pp.
Mandal, S.
(2016). Butterflies
of the Rice Research Station and adjoining locality in Chinsurah,
West Bengal, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(5): 8804–8813. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2815.8.5.8804-8813
Moroń, D., P. Skórka,
M. Lenda, E. Rożej–Pabijan, M. Wantuch, J. Kajzer–Bonk, W. Celary, Ł.E. Mielczarek, P. Tryjanowski
(2014). Railway
Embankments as New Habitat for Pollinators in an Agricultural Landscape. Plos One 9(7): e101297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101297
Ollerton,
J., R. Winfree & S. Tarrant (2011). How many flowering plants are
pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
Samanta, S., D. Das & S. Mandal
(2017). Butterfly
fauna of Baghmundi, Purulia, West Bengal, India: a
preliminary checklist. Journal of Threatened Taxa 9(5): 10198–10207. http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2841.9.5.10198-10207
Shihan, T.R.
(2016). A
Photographic Guide to the Butterflies of Bangladesh. Butterfly
Reintroduction Farm, Chuadanga, Bangladesh, 165pp.
Sondhi, S., K. Kunte,
G. Agavekar, R. Lovalekar
& K. Tokekar (2013). Butterflies of the Garo
Hills. Samrakshan Trust (New Delhi), Titli Trust (Dehradun) and Indian Foundation for
Butterflies (Bengaluru), 200pp.