Daedalma fraudata Pyrcz

Pyrcz, Tomasz W., Greeney, Harold F., Willmott, Keith R. & Wojtusiak, Janusz, 2011, 2898, Zootaxa 2898, pp. 1-68 : 17-18

Daedalma fraudata Pyrcz

( Figs. 3A, 3B, 9B, 9F, 14B, 23C, 24A, 24B)

Daedalma fraudata Pyrcz, 2004: 510 , 596 (Figs. 63, 64), 608 (Fig. 147).

Remarks: D. fraudata resembles D. boliviana and D. rubroreducta n. sp. It can be distinguished from D. boliviana , almost immediately, by the smaller and darker FW orange patches in D. fraudata which are usually slightly obscured by brown scaling on the ventral surface. D. rubroreducta and D. fraudata can also be separated by comparing their FW orange patches: in D. rubroreducta the patch is dull red, overcast with brown, faint or occasionally barely noticeable on the ventral surface, contrary to D. fraudata , whose patch is bright orange and well marked on both surfaces.

Material examined: PERU: HOLOTYPE male: Amazonas, Alto Río Nieva , 2200–2500 m, VI.2002, B. Calderón leg., MUSM: 2 males: Amazonas , Alto Río Nieva , Abra Pardo Miguel , 2200–2300 m, M. Tafur leg., TWP; 5 males: Dept. Amazonas, 1889, M. de Mathan leg., BMNH; 1 female: Amazonas , Alto Río Nieva , Abra Pardo Miguel , 2200–2300 m, no date, M. Tafur leg., TWP; 1 female: Amazonas , Alto Rio Nieva , 2500 m, VIII.2003, B. Calderón leg., PBF; ECUADOR: 1 male: Zamora-Chinchipe, San Francisco , 2000–2100 m, 14.I.2002, I. Aldaz leg., (prep. genit. 03- 10.05.2004), TWP; 1 male: 24.III.(19)03, F.A.H., Hewitson coll. 79-69, BMNH; 1 male: Eastern Side Ecuador, C. Buckley, 1879, ex. Oberthür coll, 1927-3, BMNH; 3 males: Granadillas, E. Ecuador, Buckley , Godman-Salvin coll., 1904-1, BMNH (all PARATYPES); 1 male: Tungurahua, Baños area , XII.1995, I. Aldaz leg., (prep. genit. 04– 15.04.2004), TWP; 1 male: Baños , I.1991, (prep. genit. 05– 19.08.2008), TWP; 1 male: Baños , (prep. genit. G-?), TWP; 1 male: Baños , XII.1995, TWP; 3 males: Baños , Río Pastaza, E. Ecuador, 5–7000 feet, M. G. Palmer, Joicey Bequest 1934-120, BMNH; 4 males: Env. d’Ambato, R. P. Irenée Blanc, ex. Oberthür coll., 1927-3, BMNH; 2 males: Granadillas, E. Ecuador, Buckley , Godman-Salvin coll. 1904- 1, BMNH; 1 male:? Bogotá , white rectangular label “ Hewitson coll. 79-69, Daedalma dinias Hew I ”; white rectangular label “BMType No. Rh. 4062, Daedalma dinias , male Hew.”; white rectangular label “ Daedalma dinias male Hew., agrees with figure 2, ex. Butt II, Daedalma , patch not quite as big as in fig.”; rounded red and white label “?Type Daedalma dinias Hew. ”; 1 male: Río Blanco , 16.V.1966, USNM; 1 female: Tungurahua, Vizcaya , 2000 m, IV.1997, P. Boyer leg., PBF; 1 male: Zamora-Chinchipe, km 24 Loja-Zamora rd. , San Francisco , Reserva Arcoiris , 2100 m, 15.II.2002, R. Aldaz leg., KWJH; 5 males: Azuay, road Méndez-Guarumales (~ 2°37’S 78°32’W), 2200 m, X.2001, I. Aldaz leg., ex MBLI, TWP; 3 males: same data, MBLI; 1 male: Pichincha, La Viudilla [mislabeled], 3500 m, VII.1971, R. de Lafebre, A. C. Allyn Acc. 1971-31, FLMNH 117210 , genitalic vial KW-08-23 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: same data [mislabeled], FLMNH 117207 , genitalic vial KW-08-15 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: Bolívar, San Pablo [mislabeled], 3200 m, VIII.1975, R. de Lafebre, A. C. Allyn Acc. 1976-2, FLMNH 117219 , genitalic vial KW-08-22 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: Bolívar, San Pablo [mislabeled], 3900 m, IX.1971, R. de Lafebre, A. C. Allyn Acc. 1971-46, FLMNH 117222 , genitalic vial KW-08-16 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: Cotopaxi, Río Mulatos [mislabeled], 3800 m, IV.1971, R. de Lafebre, FLMNH 117223 , genitalic vial KW-08-17 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: Oriente, Río Blanco , 1600 m, 20.IV.1968, R. de Lafebre, A. C. Allyn 1968-8, FLMNH 117198 , genitalic vial KW-08-14 K. R. Willmott, FLMNH; 1 male: Runtún, Tungurahua, X.2008, 2700 m, J-C. Petit leg., JCP.

Redescription: MALE ( Fig. 3A): FWD blackish brown; a large postdiscal dark orange oval patch extending from distal corner of discal cell to median part of cell Cu1-Cu2. HWD uniform blackish brown. FWV blackish brown; postdiscal orange patch reflected from upperside but slightly smaller and with diffused edges; subapical area along costa with magenta and grey scales; two black apical dots in R5-M1 and M1-M2, latter displaced basally in relation to former; apical area and outer margin to vein M3 dusted with chocolate brown and yellow scales. HWV predominant colour chocolate brown with an extremely complex mosaic of black, brown and beige with traces of magenta, and three elongate milky white submarginal patches in cells M2-M3, M3-Cu1 and Cu1- Cu2. Genitalia: ( Figs. 9B, 9F, 24B): Uncus long, moderately thin and straight; gnathos thin, 2/3 length of uncus; valvae gradually narrowing towards apex, with a short, sharp tip pointing distally; saccus moderately long; aedeagus slightly curved in middle and contorted towards distal end.

FEMALE ( Fig. 3B): FWD dark brown; postdiscal orange patch as in male. HWD dark brown; an elongate apical orange patch with diffused edges enclosing three dark brown spots. FWV colour pattern as in male except that dark brown ground colour slightly lighter. HWV colour pattern as in male except that slightly lighter with more conspicuous milky white elements especially in postmedian area. Genitalia ( Fig. 14B, 24A): Sinus vaginalis very large, a part of it forms a gutter-pipe-like wall covering antrum anteriorly. Lamella postvaginalis, large, wide, consisting of two concave plates with a large central part protruding ventrally, tightly covering entrance to sinus vaginalis. Long axis of ductus bursae positioned dorso-ventrally, perpendicularly to the long axis of the abdomen. This is a unique anatomical arrangement of the bursa and the ductus within the genus Daedalma . Papillae anales each with small flattened lobe on ventral part and a small bump on outer surface. Setae stretching on posterior surface of papillae anales and on their edges originate from very small warts. Apophyses posteriores reduced and sclerotized. Eighth segment wide, sclerotization of its tergite extending laterally to sinus vaginalis. Bursa copulatrix with two ribbon-like signa, consisting of minute teeth arranged in rows.

Remarks: Pyrcz (2004) considered D. fraudata and D. boliviana as specifically distinct based both on morphological differences as well as the overlap of their geographic ranges in northern Peru (Amazonas). They were, however, not found sympatrically in the same locality (except for one unconfirmed report from Rodríguez de Mendoza), but parapatrically, with D. fraudata occurring at slightly lower elevations and in more easterly localities. The same pattern occurs in southern Ecuador; while both species are broadly sympatric, D. boliviana is the only species known to date from the Valladolid region where it reaches its northerly limit, whereas D. fraudata is known from the upper Río Zamora (one unconfirmed report of a female of D. boliviana ) and occurs as far north as central Ecuador (Tungurahua). Specimens in the FLNHM labeled as from Bolívar, Cotopaxi and Pichincha come from the Lafebre collection which is notorious for erroneous data. Apart from these, there are no reports of Daedalma fraudata from the western slopes of the Andes. Throughout central eastern Ecuador (Morona-Santiago, Tungurahua) the range of D. fraudata overlaps with D. rubroreducta n. sp. Again, the two species are mostly elevationally parapatric, with D. fraudata at slightly higher elevations than D. rubroreducta , with an admittedly wide zone of overlap. D. fraudata has been recorded from Zamora-Chinchipe, southern Morona-Santiago and Tungurahua, and D. rubroreducta from central Morona-Santiago, Azuay, Napo and Sucumbíos. They are apparently elevationally parapatric in the Pastaza valley. Differences in male genitalia between D. rubroreducta and D. fraudata are slight and mostly quantitative, but there are apparently consistent differences in the female genitalia. The anatomical arrangement of female genital structures described above suggests that in this species the copulatory position, allowing the aedeagus to successfully penetrate into ductus bursae, differs from all other species of Daedalma . Nevertheless, the systematic arrangement proposed here is tentative. Since reliable and exact collecting data for all three of these species are few, their relative status may be subject to modification in the future, and study of their affinities based on molecular sequence data would also be valuable.