Hesperia lyrcea Plötz, 1882

Nakahara, Shinichi, Zilli, Alberto, Calhoun, John V., Espeland, Marianne, Padrón, Pablo Sebastián & Grishin, Nick V., 2022, Resolving two centuries of mistaken identity: Reinterpretation of Papilio marcus Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Hesperiidae), Zootaxa 5195 (3), pp. 241-255 : 250

Hesperia lyrcea Plötz, 1882

Carl Plötz described Hesperia lyrcea simultaneously in Entomologische Zeitung (Stettin) in a page preceding his description of H. aurelius , based on an unspecified number of specimens that were also from Brasilien (= Brazil) ( Plötz 1882: 454). After examining illustrations prepared by Carl Plötz (see above under aurelius ), Godman (1907) synonymized H. lyrcea under P. “ marcus ”. Hesperia aurelius , which supposedly appeared in Carl Plötz’s plates for his new skipper species, was not commented on in Godman (1907), perhaps because Godman (1900) already discussed its conspecificity with P. “ marcus ” as discussed above. Draudt (1923: 979) followed this synonymy by Godman. Evans (1955: 183) considered lyrcea as a subspecies of Vettius diversa (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) , a taxon initially described as Cobalus diversa . Evans (1955) refers to figures for “ diversa ” (i.e., diversus) in Godman & Salvin (= Godman 1900) and Seitz (= Draudt 1923) as lyrcea without any explanation as to these associations. This decision by Evans (1955) was presumably based mainly on the fact that lyrcea possesses dark veins on the hindwing (thus dividing yellowish ventral hindwing markings), whereas veins are not dark in P. “ marcus ”, a character used to distinguish V. diversa from V. marcus in Evans (1955). The internal view of the valva figured for lyrcea ( Evans 1955: pl. 66) illustrates differences in the harpe and overall shape of the valva compared to other potential congeners figured on the same plate, including V. marcus and other subspecies of V. diversa .

A review of specimens at NHMUK reveals 32 specimens of lyrcea that show consistent differences between Troyus “ marcus ” mainly by Rs, M 3 and Cu 1 of the ventral hindwing being dark and thus dividing yellowish or whitish markings. Evans (1955) examined 34 specimens in total, 33 from Ecuador and a single male from Peru. There exists space for two specimens in the corresponding section of the drawer in the NHMUK, thus it is reasonable to consider that these were the specimens examined by Evans to investigate the identity of lyrcea . Furthermore, we found four specimens without abdomens, as well as two specimens with apparently intact abdomens with their genitalia glued on a card that is pinned beneath them. They were presumably dissected by humidifying the abdomens and extracting the genitalia without removing the abdomens from the specimens. In the preceding work ( Evans 1949), Norman D. Riley stated that Evans’ intention was to provide “diagrammatic” illustrations of male genitalia, and given that any of these six individuals (summary of multiple, or none of them) might have been used to establish the identity of lyrcea sensu Evans (1955) , it is impossible to draw conclusions as to how Evans (1955) identified this taxon. Carl Plötz’s key leading to lyrcea is questionable as to its reliability in distinguishing this taxon from congeners, namely by stating “ the pale spot beneath in cells 4 [M 2 -M 3] and 5 [M 1 -M 2] of the FW is sharp delimited [opposed to “ the lower hyaline apical spot is washed out”] ”. Even based solely on specimens in the drawer in the NHMUK, these spots in the ventral hindwing cells M 2 -M 3 and M 1 -M 2 do not appear to show inter-specific differences in these taxa. Plötz therefore likely examined limited numbers of specimens, or perhaps single specimens, to prepare his descriptions. Despite the lack of type material and original illustrations, the most up-to-date comprehensive catalogue for Hesperiidae retains the taxonomic status of lyrcea as a subspecies of Vettius diversa ( Mielke 2004, 2005), in accordance with Evans (1955). As stated above, our attempt to locate syntype (s) at ZIMG and MFNB did not yield any specimens which could represent Plötz’s type material relevant to the present study. While there appears to be no ambiguity as to Evans’ (1955) concept of lyrcea , we are unable to apply the specific epithet lyrcea sensu Plötz (1882) mainly due to the lack of type material. In the present study, we refrain from drawing any conclusions regarding the identity of Hesperia lyrcea , which may or may not represent a species whose concept matches P. “ marcus ”. Under the current circumstances, we will not designate a neotype for H. lyrcea , and consequently do not regard this taxon as conspecific with P. “ marcus ”.