Txais tos mus ntim yim ntawm koob inconsistently reoccurring, Ntse heev ntawm qhov xovxwm. Kuv tuaj cov tshooj no tsis ntev los no hais txog ib tug twg npauj npaim Puerto Rican. Leej twg thiaj paub kuv xyov yog vim li cas qhia Resolution? Nws yuav trickier me ntsis dua tus txheem GOP (Kuv hais heev yam kab twb acronyms nrog cov tsiaj ntawv). Hint, cia li qhia kuv tus npauj npaim nyob hauv daim duab nyob rau Malaysia tsi muaj cov lus teb uas kuv tab tom nrhiav rau!
The article’s title contradicts with the content. The habitat will receive the protected status, not the species.
Is this the solution?
The review also could determine that protected status is not warranted – the report makes it seem as if protection is imminent.
You’re both right, but not quite the answer I’m looking for! This GOP is in line with the others I’ve done and is taxonomy related, just not as glaring (I actually didn’t realize it for a while).
“Harlequin butterfly family”? There is no such thing. The PR species (Atlantea tulita) is one of the brush-footed butterflies (tsev neeg Nymphalidae), while the Malayan species shown (Paralaxita orphua) is a metalmark (family Riodinidae).
Nkaug. I took for granted that I’ve seen similar Riodinidae in Costa Rica – figured it wasn’t a stretch that one was threatened on PR. I actually posted this link on a message board without looking any of it up to fact check – dawned on me days later to go back and find out more about the lep. Almost snuck by me…