DISTRIBUTION:

The Fine Emperor, Imbrasia affinis flies in Zimbabwe and Delagoa Bai in Mozambique.

Ground colour is an orangey-hue.

Rolf Oberprieler reports the Fine Emperor, Imbrasia affinis, (Bouvier, 1926) from Zimbabwe.

Thierry Bouyer equates Imbrasia affinis with Imbrasia obscura.

Rolf writes, "Bouyer is quite wrong in placing this taxon in I. obscura. Obscura belongs in the true Imbrasia (with tailed hindwings, as on the pic), whereas affinis belongs to the "Nudaurelia group", its larva being similar to those of I. petiveri ("dione"), I. wahlbergii, I. rubra and others. Pinhey (1972) actually records affinis as widespread in Zimbabwe and has b&w photos of the moths (which are correct).

Thierry (January 2010) maintains that affinis is not valid by itself and the holotype is a synonym of one of the Imbrasia species. Thierry writes:

"Bill,
The problem is about affinis identity. N. affinis holotype is a female of ertli (itself probably no more than a ssp of obscura). Bouvier (who described affinis), synonymises it with ertli (a few years after the description). The holotype is housed in Paris Museum. I have seen it, and I confirm it is an Imbrasia female. 1972 Pinhey's insect is something of the gueinzi group (or may be rhodina group) (B/W photo is not the best thing to identify such difficult material) that contains more than a dozen names available (by memory at least gueinzii, venus, myrtea, cleoris, murphyi, nyassana, hurumai, mariae, rungwensis, reducta ?, belayneshae, perscitus, herbuloti, flammelola, broschi, kilumilorum, renvazorum, ...) some of them being probably synonyms. the name affinis is not of this group. John's specimen is something near perscitus more than gueinzii itself (anyway the same group). Thierry"

I (Bill Oehlke) wrote back to Thierry:

"Thanks for comments about affinis. I am not entirely sure how the ICZN code works. I am surprised that Pinhey was not aware of Bouvier's correction. I am wondering if possibly a male type was designated for affinis before Bouvier made his correction??

"I have images of what I am confident are Imbrasia obscura females and Imbrasia ertli females and they do not look like Pinhey's depiction of what he calls an affinis female on Plate 23. So, as you say, "Pinhey's insect is something of the gueinzi group (or may be rhodina group)".

"It is my understanding that if no male type for affinins was designated and the only female so designated as affinis was later corrected to be an Imbrasia species, that there is currently no provision in the Code for either Imbrasia affinis or Gonimbrasia (Nudaurelia) affinis. Is that your interpretation? If that is so, I will post same to the website."

Adam Cotton provided the following explanation:

"Bill,

The ICZN Code only covers nomenclature, not taxonomy, thus it does not regulate subjective synonymy (where an author decides that 2 taxa are actually the same thing). However in the case of affinis, where the holotype is a female, then the name is inextricably bound to that specimen, regardless of the fact that there may or may not be any male types. Only the holotype really matters, the other paratypes (if there are any) are only an expression of the author's original opinion that they belong to the same taxon. They can be important in the case where the holotype is lost or destroyed, in which case it is usually best to designate a neotype from one of the original type series (if a neotype designation is necessary). If "a male type" were to have been designated some time after the original description it would have no effect on the status of the name, as the extant holotype is always the name-bearing type, and in fact this designation would probably be invalid.

"To clarify the situation with the name affinis (without knowing the details of each name), if the holotype female is actually the same taxon as a species of Imbrasia, the name affinis becomes a synonym of the taxon name. Which name is actually the valid name for that taxon depends on seniority, thus, if affinis is the older name, it would become the valid name for that Imbrasia species. If affinis was described later than the other name, then it would be a junior synonym of that name, and effectively the name affinis would not be in general use (unless the senior name was found to be unavailable for some reason, such as being a homonym, when affinis could then become the valid name for that taxon).

"I hope this explains things. It sounds complex, but in reality it isn't; it's very logical once you understand the rules. You can read the ICZN Code at http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp"

Many thanks to Thierry, Rolf, Adam and John Kamps. I will post the unidentified Nudaurelia image provided by John to the perscitus page, where it will also remain until there is further clarification.

Nudaurelia affinis ??, Zimbabwe, March 13, 1963, courtesy of John Kamps,
very tentative id by Bill Oehlke; might be N. gueinzii, perscitus or something else,
affinis is not a valid name for a Nuduarelia species, see notes above.

FLIGHT TIMES AND LARVAL HOSTS:

Imbrasia affinis larvae feed upon Euphorbiaceae and Rhamnaceae.

Nudaurelia affinis female, by Elliot Pinhey, on my home computer only,
affinis is not a valid name for a Nuduarelia species, see notes above.

ECLOSION, SCENTING AND MATING:

Both sexes are active at night. Males come in to lights around midnight when females are scenting.

EGGS, LARVAE AND PUPAE:

Listed below are primary food plant(s) and alternate food plants listed in Stephen E. Stone's Foodplants of World Saturniidae. It is hoped that this alphabetical listing followed by the common name of the foodplant will prove useful. The list is not exhaustive. Experimenting with closely related foodplants is worthwhile.

Euphorbiaceae..... Rhamnaceae

Euphorbiaceae Rhamnaceae

Use your browser "Back" button to return to the previous page.