Lecithocera luridella, CHRISTOPH, 1882

Ponomarenko, M. G. & Chernikova, P. N., 2018, To the taxonomic position of Lecithocera luridella Christoph and Carcina Hübner in the system of oecophoroid moths (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae sensu lato), Far Eastern Entomologist 366, pp. 1-18 : 7-8

LECITHOCERA LURIDELLA CHRISTOPH, 1882

The species Lecithocera luridella Christoph, 1882 was described in a nominative genus of the family Lecithoceridae on the base of a type series including specimens collected at Radde village (Jewish Autonomous Region) and at Vladivostok,

Russian Far East. The species has been forgotten about 75 years from last mention in the catalog of Gelechiadae [sic!] (Meyrick, 1925). It is noteworthy that this species is absent in the Key to the insects of Russian Far East, part 2 (Lvovsky,

1999). However, the mentioned issue of the book includes the species Carcina homomorpha (Meyrick, 1931) . It should be noted that the last species, described from Hokkaido, is a type of monotypic genus Heterodmeta Meyrick, 1931 , which was treated as the junior synonym of Carcina Hübner, [1825] by Moriuti (1982).

After a long period of oblivion, the syntypes of the L. luridella was studied and designation of the lectotype was made. As result, it was established that luridella is conspecific with homomorpha and the latter specific name was proposed to consi-

der as junior synonym of the previous one (Lvovsky, 2001).

In the Check-list of broad-winged moths and in the Catalogue of Lepidoptera of

Russia the specific name luridella was given as senior synonym of homomorpha in combination with the genus Carcina within the family Oecophoridae (Lvovsky, 2003,

2008). Both the proposed synonymy and the taxonomic position of the species luridella were not unanimously accepted by colleagues and adopted in taxonomic sites on Lepidoptera .

Proposed synonymy was reflected on the site " Lepidoptera and some other life forms" (Savela, 2001), but genus Carcina is considered there in the subfamily

Peleopodinae within the family Depressariidae . The species homomorpha and luridella are listed in the status of independent taxa in the database of the Museum of Natural History in London, both valid names are given in original combination with generic names: homomorpha – with the genus Heterodmeta in the family

Oecophoridae , and luridella with the genus Lecithocera adequately in the Lecithoceridae (Beccaloni et al., 2003) . In the book "The Standard of Moths in Japan ", the homomorpha is listed as a valid species name in the genus Carcina in the family

Oecophoridae (Ueda, 2013) .

In the recently published Annotated catalogue of the insects of Russian Far East,

Vol. 2, luridella is given in combination with the generic name Heterodmeta

Meyrick, 1931, without restoring of this generic name from synonymy, also without indications on establishing of a new combination and transferring of the species into the family Oecophoridae (Lvovsky, 2016) . As to the genus Carcina , it was excluded from the fauna of the Russian Far East without comments.

As to taxonomic position and status of the genus Carcina , it was originally included into the family Oecophoridae sensu lato . Meyrick, describing the Australian fauna, proposed Carcinides , as name for group of genera close to genus Carcina

(Meyrick, 1906). This group was placed there in Depressarianae [sic!] within family Oecophoridae . Later the genus was included into Depressariades group in the same family (Meyrick, 1922). At the end of last century the name Carcinides was changed on Carcinini by Nye and Fletcher (1991). Soon Leraut (1992) proposed to consider this group as separate family Carcinidae . Often the genus Carcina was not included in any oecophoroid family-group taxa and in the systems resulting from the phylogenetic analyses of superfamily Gelechioidea was given in generic rank along with the family-group taxa (Minet, 1990; Fetz, 1994).

At the beginning of current century the status of separate family Carcinidae in oecophoroid lineage was supported by Kaila (2004). But soon the status of this group was re-considered and it was included into family Peleopodidae (Kaila et al.,

2011) or family Depressariidae (Heikkilä et al., 2013) . In lastest phylogenetic analysis this taxon was not included and its position and status were not discussed

(Sohn et al., 2015/2016). Shortly before cited paper it was established that family name Carcinidae Meyrick, 1906 , based on Carcina Hübner, [1825] , invalid being a junior homonym of Carcinidae MacLeay, 1838 based on Carcinus Leach, 1814 , in

Malacostraca (van Nieukerken et al., 2011).

It should be noted that authors traditionally placed this genus into family Oecophoridae (Lvovsky, 1981, 1999, 2003; Hodges, 1983; Ueda, 2013).

Considered taxonomic changes in the position of the species luridella , transferring not only between two genera but two families, and genus Carcina , which status had been changed from generic one within Oecophoridae and Depressariidae to separate family, make these taxa "problematic" with uncertain taxonomic position.