Velkommen til volum åtte av inconsistently reoccurring serie, Geni av pressen. Jeg kom over denne artikkelen recently regarding an endemic Puerto Rican butterfly. Hvem kan fortelle meg nøyaktig hvorfor denne rapporten er misvisende? Det kan være litt mer komplisert enn standard GOP (Jeg foreslår at du forkaster eventuelle tidligere forbundet akronymer med disse bokstavene). Hint, just telling me the butterfly in the picture is from Malaysia is not the answer I’m looking for!
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 (family Nymphalidae), while the Malayan species shown (Paralaxita orphua) is a metalmark (family Riodinidae).
Bingo. 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…