Epinotia penkleriana, Fabricius, 1787

Baixeras, Joaquín & Karsholt, Ole, 2011, The Tortricidae described by J. C. Fabricius (Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 3127, pp. 1-37 : 16

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.279412
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6194753
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/53714960-FFE9-FFAE-FF79-B2E7FAB78795
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Epinotia penkleriana
status

Treatment

penkleriana Fabricius, 1787 View in CoL

Pyralis penkleriana Fabricius, 1787: 236 ; 1794: 275.

Type locality. Austria (“Habitat in Austria Mus. Dom. Schieffermyller”).

Material examined. None.

Identity. Epinotia tenerana ( Denis and Schiffermüller, 1775) .

Remarks. Pyralis penkleriana is based on material in Schiffermüller’s collection, but Fabricius (1787) gives no literal reference to Tinea penkleriana Denis and Schiffermüller, 1775 . Herrich-Schäffer (1856 (4): 32) associated the name with Gypsonoma oppressana (Treitschke) . Werneburg (1864) synonymised the species with Tortrix aspidiscana Hübner. However , the association of the name with Denis and Schiffermüller persisted in the older literature. This must be the origin of many misidentifications as the identity of penkleriana D. and S. has been controversial. However, as pointed out by Karsholt (in Razowski 1996), Fischer von Röslerstamm (1840: 198) stated that specimens of penkleriana in Schiffermüller's collection belong to the species currently known as Epinotia tenerana ( Denis and Schiffermüller, 1775) , and many authors treat the name in this sense. Among them are widely used references such as Kennel (1910, 1921), Meyrick (1895), and Rebel (1901). Another group of authors, derived from Hübner (1825) associate this name with Phiaris olivana Treitschke. Finally, Beccaloni et al. (2005) , strongly influenced by Obraztsov (1959), associate penkleriana with Cydia splendana (Hübner, 1796) . Because C. splendana is an economically important pest on Fagaceae , the name is well established in the literature. Brown (2005) prefers to conserve splendana and questions the use of penkleriana D. and S. as a synonym. Today, the correct identity of Pyralis penkleriana (Fabricius) cannot be proved. However, we find that it serves stability best to follow the authors who treat it as a synonym of Epinotia penkleriana (D. and S.) and of E. tenerana (D. and S.).