Creatonotos

Can you see if the antennae are bipectinate or flagellate...

http://szmn.eco.nsc.ru/vvdubat/pdf/EEJ_9(4)727-730.pdf

@juhakinnunen, based on Dubatolov (2010), I was considering re-identifying this as C. gangis. He suggests that the nominate subspecies of C. fasciatus, which is what should be in Cambodia (type location), has less expressed dark markings, and that only the new subspecies, described therein, has dark markings similar to C. gangis. http://szmn.eco.nsc.ru/vvdubat/pdf/EEJ_9(4)727-730.pdf

@geechartier Well, for the time being, I am not identifying the species C. gangis at all. Only in India to the complex of interrupta-gangis aggregate, and the reason for my behaviour is this: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194200 See especially Fig. 1. And, it may be that even my IDing to that complex is bad since there are separate entities near India (1 in Nepal, 2 in Myanmar). So, summa summarum, we do not know what is what with gangis and its kins.

@juhakinnunen, thank you. My reading of the Discussion section suggests that it is safe to ID C. gangis to species level, but the subspecies level is, as yet, unclear. The paper even suggests that C. omanirana should be considered a subspecies of C. gangis. Unfortunately, the paper does not cover C. fasciatus.

@geechartier I think we have not heard the last word of this yet. To me, the most bewildering part of the tree are those that are not part of the main gangis-tree: gang34 (Middle Andaman), gang11 (Myanmar) and gang 14-15 (Thailand). That means that they are not very close to what we consider to be gangis sensu stricto. Why so? Australia and Lesser Sundas are in the main tree but some small populations have started evolving to new directions...!