Cynea, Zhang & Cong & Shen & Grishin, 2022

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui & Grishin, Nick V., 2022, Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), Insecta Mundi 2022 (921), pp. 1-135 : 54-55

Quinta Evans, 1955 is a subgenus of Cynea Evans, 1955

Our genomic tree shows that Cynea Evans, 1955 (type species Hesperia cynea Hewitson, 1876 ) is paraphyletic with respect to Quinta Evans, 1955 (type species Cobalus cannae Herrich-Schäffer, 1869 ) ( Fig. 13 ), and Quinta is closely related to a clade consisting of Cynea species. To restore the monophyly, we propose to treat Quinta as a subgenus of Cynea , new status.

Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 is a junior subjective synonym of Cynea (Quinta) cannae (Herrich- Schäffer, 1869)

Original descriptions of Hesperia lochius Plötz, 1882 (type locality Venezuela: La Guaira) and Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 (type locality Venezuela) were placed next to each other in the key ( Plötz 1882b) and preceded by a redescription of Cobalus cannae Herrich-Schäffer, 1869 (type locality not specified in the original description and given as [ Venezuela:] “Laguayra” by Plötz, the same as for H. lochius ). The lectotype (NVG-15035D04) and paralectotypes of Cynea (Quinta) cannae are in the ZMHB, they are from Herrich-Schäffer collection and agree with the his original description. Therefore, the identity of this species is without a doubt. However, C. cannae might have been misidentified by Plötz, because he mentioned “a weak stigma” in male, but true C. cannae lacks stigma, and only has a small brand over the vein 1A+2A, covered by a tuft of long scales ( Evans 1955).

The two other names ( H. lochius and H. dido ) have been considered synonymous since Evans (1955). Type specimens of these species have not been documented. To learn about these taxa, we only have their original descriptions augmented with the copies of unpublished Plötz’s drawings made by Godman’s request ( Godman 1907) ( Fig. 12g,h ), now in the Library of the Natural History Museum London. The following combination of characters differentiates H. dido from similar species, including H. lochius , as translated from Plötz (1882b), with the relevant parts gathered throughout his key: “Dorsal side of wings black-brown. Forewing with mostly white, often very faint glass spots, which are sometimes missing except for the three dots in front of the apex. Forewing without a hyaline spot in the discal cell. Fringes not checkered. Forewing cells 4 (M 2 -M 3) and 5 (M 1 -M 2) without spots. Forewing cell 1 (CuA 2 -1A+2A) with a whitish spot, cells 2 (CuA 1 -CuA 2) and 3 (M 3 -CuA 1) with transverse spots. Hindwing red-brown on ventral side, overscaled with violet-gray in the middle and in the submarginal area, with two rusty-yellow spots in the costal area and one such [rusty-yellow] postdiscal band.”

Godman’s copies of two Plötz’s illustrations of this species (Nos. 577 and 577a, inspected and photographed by N. V. G.), agree perfectly with this description, except that the fringes appear checkered on the ventral side. Both images are recognizable as minor variations of C. cannae , and can hardly be confused with any other species, thus differing from H. lochius illustration (No. 576) and description (for example, brown, not violet-overscaled, submarginal area on ventral hindwing). The fringes are mostly not checkered in C. cannae , however, in many specimens, there are patches of dark scales at the outer margin in the middle of cells on ventral side of wings, creating an impression of checkering. Moreover, in some specimens, fringes are darker at veins near the wing margin, thus agreeing with the illustrations. Despite this detail, agreement between the original description, copies of unpublished illustrations, and C. cannae specimens is nearly perfect.

A search for syntypes of H. dido in the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany (ZMHB) and the Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Germany (ZSMC), where primary types of many taxa authored by Plötz are deposited failed to find them. Inspection of photographs of the drawers with Plötz types in the collection of the Universität Greifswald (EMAU) revealed no H. dido syntypes either. Therefore, we believe that the syntypes were lost, and we proceeded with the neotype designation. There is an exceptional need to stabilize nomenclature by a neotype of H. dido , because the identity of this taxon has been misunderstood, and it has been placed in synonymy with Lerema accius (J. E. Smith, 1797) (type locality USA: Georgia) or with L. a. lochius , both not in agreement with information available about H. dido . To ensure that this name is applied consistently with the original description and illustrations, a neotype is necessary. Therefore, N. V. G. designates a female of C. cannae from Venezuela illustrated in Fig. 12e,f as the neotype of Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 . The wing pattern of the neotype agrees with the description and the illustrations of H. dido , and the only discrepancy is the larger size of the neotype: forewing length is about 19 mm, not 16 mm as in the H. dido description. However, size is variable, for example, forewing of the specimen from Venezuela: Puerto Cabello in the ZMHB collection used as the basis for the unavailable name Pamphila byzas Godman, 1900 (Mabille in litt.), proposed in synonymy with C. cannae , is only 15.5 mm. Therefore, forewing length of H. dido falls within the range known for C. cannae .

This neotype of H. dido satisfies all requirements set forth by ICZN Article 75.3, namely: 75.3.1. It is designated to clarify the taxonomic identity of this taxon, which has been confused and inconsistent with its original description; 75.3.2. The characters for the taxon have been given in its original description by Plötz (1882a: 53) and are re-stated above; 75.3.3. The neotype specimen bears the following labels: || El Valle | Venez | 1443 | CHBallou | Sofia “ || on Canna ind- | ica Oct.21.’40 | Pupa.Oct.25 | Adult.Nov.10 || DNA sample ID: | NVG-15102B06 | c/o Nick V. Grishin ||, and can be recognized by a tear at the base of right hindwing; 75.3.4. Our unsuccessful search for the syntypes is described above, leading us to conclude that the specimens composing the type series of H. dido are lost; 75.3.5. As detailed above, the neotype is consistent with the original description and additional information (for example, copies of Plötz drawings) known about this taxon; 75.3.6. The neotype is from Venezuela: Caracas, El Valle, and the type locality given for H. dido in the original description is “ Venezuela ”; 75.3.7. The neotype is in the collection of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA (USNM). The neotype implies that Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 is a junior subjective synonym of Cynea (Quinta) cannae ( Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) .

Figures

Figure 12. Specimens of Hesperiinae. a) Decinea colombiana Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; b) ibid. ventral; c) Cynea rope Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; d) ibid. ventral; e) Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 neotype dorsal; f) ibid. ventral; g) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of H. dido, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 577; h) ibid. no. 577a; i) Lerema lucius Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; j) ibid. ventral; k) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of Hesperia lochius Plötz, 1882, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 576; l) H. lochius illustration (left-right inverted for comparison) from the plate 187c[5] in Draudt (1921-1924), ventral; m) Cymaenes laureolus (Schaus, 1913) ventral, Panama: Cocoli, 4-Oct-1962, leg. G. B. Small, NVG-7250 [USNM]; n) ibid. Mexico: Veracruz, Coatepec, Jun-1917, NVG-15111G01 [AMNH]; o) Lerodea sonex Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; p) ibid. ventral; q) Metiscus goth Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; r) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of Apaustus vicinus Plötz, 1884, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 764; s) specimen of Corticea from the Staudinger and Bang-Haas collection bearing an old identification label “Padraona vicinus”, NVG-18096C08, dorsal; t) ibid. ventral. Specimen images are to scale and missing data are in the text. Photographs a–d (by Bernard Hermier) and g, h, k, r (by N.V.G.) are © of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum London and are made available under Creative Commons License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), and photographs o, p are © of Jim Brock, used with permission.

Figure 13. Genomic tree of Moncina, part 1, and relatives. See Fig. 1 legend for notations.