Melitaea ornata, Christoph, 1893

Russell, Peter J. C., Lukhtanov, Vladimir A. & Tennent, W. John, 2022, Reassessment of the status of some European and Asian Melitaea taxa described as subspecies of Melitaea phoebe ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775), with designations of lectotypes where appropriate (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), Zootaxa 5141 (1), pp. 25-38 : 26

Identification of M. ornata and M. phoebe based on underside wing morphology and antennae

Identification of individual museum specimens of ornata and phoebe may never be achieved with 100% accuracy; although there are morphological features to accommodate identification in many cases, accurate identification requires an examination of their respective late instar larvae. However, the shape of the submarginal markings on the wing undersides and the tips of the antenna usually provides a very good indication of species, particularly when there is a series of syntypes from the same population, taken at the same time (cf. Tóth & Varga, 2011: appendix only; Russell et al. 2020). These differences can be seen on figures 1–4, which show the undersides of male specimens from two sympatric and partially synchronic populations of M. ornata and M. phoebe from the Southern Urals, Russian Federation and females from similar populations near Rakitovec, Slovenia. Identifications of M. telona and M. phoebe abbas were based solely on morphometric measurements of genitalia and the biochemical results of Tóth et al. (2014, 2016 & 2017). DNA analysis has confirmed the specific status of M. telona and is widely regarded as a tool for the reliable separation of closely related species. However, it is not definitive, as exemplified by the similarity of the results of the analysis of the COI gene in M. ornata and M. phoebe from western populations. Also DNA analysis has so far been unable to separate M. phoebe from M. sibina Alphéraky, 1881 ( Lukhtanov et al., 2009; Leneveu et al., 2009; Tóth et al. 2014), whilst differences in their wing morphology are distinctive.