Nicephellus Austin, 2008
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.4532815 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038E87A6-130A-A607-FF21-C6307424F91E |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Nicephellus Austin |
status |
gen. nov. |
GENUS Nicephellus Austin , new genus
Type species: Eudamus nicephorus Hewitson, 1876
Description. Male: large in size (FW length = 28-30 mm), forewing moderately produced, with narrow costal fold (52% of forewing length) filled with very dense white hair-like scales, termen slightly convex; hindwing rounded, weakly lobed at tornus; dorsal color dark brown with red-brown overscaling basad on both wings, faint pale discal macules on posterior hindwing (at times extending to forewing); venter similar to dorsum, red-brown less intense, anal margin on forewing paler; palpi robust, quadrate in dorsal view, broadly rounded in lateral view, third segment not extending beyond scaling of second segment; antennae 55% of forewing length recurved to apiculus longer than club length, nudum of 31-32 segments; legs with dense hair-like scales on posterior edge, mid-tibia strongly spined and with single pair of spurs, hind tibia with two pairs of spurs; ventral hindwing with deep groove lined with small gray scales on basal 2/3 of wing along vein 2A and with long recumbent hair-like scales above this on dorsal surface.
Male genitalia ( Fig. 114 View Figure 111-114 ): tegumen not robust, broadening cephalad in dorsal view with pair of thin processes from caudal end overlaying uncus in lateral view; uncus robust, undivided, narrowing gradually caudad from termen in dorsal view; gnathos well-developed, undivided; valva broad, broadest cephalad, harpe tapered with broad rounded dorsal flap that is variably bent inwards, edges finely serrate; aedeagus about length of valva, slender, with thin and hook-like process from ventral edge of caudal end; no cornutus. Neither the processes of the tegumen nor the form of the aedeagus were indicated by Evans (1952).
Female: similar to male, larger (FW length = 33.3 mm, n = 1), wings more rounded, forewing less produced, no costal fold on forewing or groove on ventral hindwing, paler brown.
Female genitalia ( Fig. 116 View Figure 115-116 ): lamella postvaginalis narrow with deep central notch, becoming membranous cephalad; lamella antevaginalis represented by pair of broad lateral plates; antrum short and sclerotized.
Distribution. Nicephellus occurs from southern Mexico to Peru and western Brazil ( Godman and Salvin 1879 -1901, Draudt 1921 -1924, Hoffmann 1941, Evans 1952, de la Maza and de la Maza 1985, Cock and Alston-Smith 1990, de la Maza et al. 1991, Lamas 1994, Robbins et al. 1996, Warren 2000).
Etymology. The name of this genus is a combination of parts of the specific name of its single included species and the name of its previous genus.
Diagnosis and discussion. Evans (1952) included Eudamus nicephorus in Dyscophellus based apparently upon its antennae (“bent to the apiculus well after the beginning of the nudum”), its “slender” uncus, and the presence of a costal fold. While these characters are like those of the other taxa included in that genus, the overall aspect of Nicephellus is quite different from that of Dyscophellus . Both sexes of Nicephellus have broadly rounded wings (male Dyscophellus have a relatively short and less rounded forewing and a more tornally produced hindwing generally angled at CuA 2 and again at 2A) and there is little sexual dimorphism in wing shape or markings as is prevalent among Dyscophellus in which females have broad wings and often large pale macules. The palpi of Dyscophellus are more rounded in dorsal view than are those of Nicephellus , less broadly rounded in lateral view, and have the third segment extending slightly forward of the scales of the second segment. The mid-tibia of Nicephellus is prominently spined, but is unspined on Dyscophellus . On the dorsal hindwing of male Dyscophellus , vein Sc+R 1 is usually prominently pale for at least part of its length with a shiny area anterior to this; this is not seen on Nicephellus . The costal fold of Dyscophellus is proportionally considerably shorter (33-42% of forewing length) than on Nicephellus . The antennae are of similar proportional length (49-54% of forewing length on Dyscophellus ) in the two genera with a similar number of segments to the nudum (31-35 on Dyscophellus ), but the club of Dyscophellus is longer, being approximately the length of the apiculus. The genitalia especially set Nicephellus apart from Dyscophellus . On the male ( Fig. 114 View Figure 111-114 ), this includes the robust uncus, which tapers gradually caudad (thin and abruptly very narrow on Dyscophellus ), the processes of the tegumen (absent on Dyscophellus ), the well-developed gnathos (generally weakly developed on Dyscophellus ), the aedeagus with its curious twisted caudal process (caudal process absent on Dyscophellus ), and the absence of a cornutus (present as two groups of spikes on Dyscophellus ). Female genitalia ( Fig. 116 View Figure 115-116 ) are likewise different, with a narrow and deeply notched lamella postvaginalis (broad and shallowly notched on Dyscophellus ) and no central portion to the lamella antevaginalis (well-developed on Dyscophellus ). The relationships of the apparently monotypic Nicephellus (but note that the status of Telegonus dexo Mabille, 1888 , a putative synonym of Eudamus nicephorus , has yet to be established) are problematical, but nothing is lost for the moment by leaving it associated with other group “D” species. Recently, information on life history and DNA have reinforced the disassociation of Nicephellus from Dyscophellus and suggested its affinity with Bungalotis and Salatis ( Janzen et al. 2005) .
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.