Ennominae

Hausmann, Axel & Parra, Luis E., 2009, An unexpected hotspot of moth biodiversity in Chilean northern Patagonia (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), Zootaxa 1989, pp. 23-38 : 31-32

[ Ennominae ]

[65–70] [genus Leucolithodes ]: Possibly rather a boarmiine than a nacophorine genus (the latter suggested by Pitkin 2002), cf. the New Zealandian boarmiine genus Pseudocoremia , which is similar in habitus.

[71–88; 98–103; 153–157] [Nacophorini]: Chilean “nacophorines”, according to the concept of Pitkin (2002) not well clustering together in the COI NJ tree and in the multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown). Deep phylogeny relationships and tribal systematics requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[75–79] Talca sp. 1: COI NJ tree with shallow split of 1.4% maximum divergence between both branches. However, without corresponding differential feature in habitus.

[83–85] Euangerona valdiviae Butler, 1882 (on fig. 4b as ' Omaguaca cf. longibursae '): Larvae of different development stages beaten from Nothofagus dombeyi . Nearest neighbour in COI analysis is Macrolyrcea monochorda with a comparatively low sequence divergence (6.3%). Larval morphology well corresponding to that of Euangerona longibursae Parra, 1984 (central Chile), feeding on Nothofagus obliqua . However, coloration of larva quite different.

[89–109; 110–148] [Lithinini]: Chilean “lithinines”, according to the concept of Pitkin (2002), clustering together in two clades of the COI NJ tree. In the multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown), however, Psilaspilates , Tanagridia and Caltha sp. 2 grouped together with Tasmanian Nacophorini. Deep phylogeny relationships and tribal systematics requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[89–97] [genus Odontothera ]: In Pitkin (2002) as Lithinini genus. Both COI NJ tree and multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) showing a clade including Chloroclydon , “ Opisogonia ”, Neorumia , Macrolyrcea , Euangerona and Odontothera . Therefore the hypothesis should be tested, that Odontothera may be a Nacophorini genus. Hostplants are unknown for genus Odontothera .

[91–94] Odontothera mixta ( Butler, 1882) : Molecular analysis (COI) revealing specific difference (sequence divergence 3.3%; mean intraspecific variation 0.4% and 0% resp.) from Odontothera valdiviata , but some specimens [91] similar to the latter.

[98–100] Chloroclydon ? rinodaria ( Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875). In Scoble (1999) as larentiine moth. In Pitkin (2002) not included. In the COI NJ tree and multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped with “ Opisogonia ”, Neorumia , Macrolyrcea , Euangerona and Odontothera . Therefore, preliminarily, attributed to Nacophorini sensu Pitkin (2002).

[101–103] Opisogonia ? diffissata Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875: According to Pitkin (2002) the generic combination with Opisogonia is incorrect and the species may be attributed to Nacophorini. In the COI NJ tree and multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped with Chloroclydon , Neorumia , Macrolyrcea , Euangerona and Odontothera .

[104–107] Neorumia gigantea Bartlett-Calvert, 1883 ( Fig. 3): According to Pitkin (2002) possibly a nacophorine or lithinine moth, the former supported in the COI NJ tree by the position in the clade together with Chloroclydon , “ Opisogonia ”, Macrolyrcea , Euangerona and Odontothera .

[108–109] Calta debilis ( Butler, 1882) , comb. n.: Morphology (current research of junior author) and position in COI NJ tree suggesting a separate genus from Odontothera where it was currently placed ( Pitkin 2002). Male antennae lamellate, anellus process long, thin, with a tuft of apical setae as long as length of anellus. Position in Lithinini not supported by position in COI NJ tree, where it groups together with some putative nacophorine genera such as Chloroclydon , “ Opisogonia ”, and Neorumia . COI data from other seasons (not shown in the tree) suggesting two different species, possibly.

[110–117] [genus Tanagridia ]: In Pitkin (2002) as Lithinini genus, but in the multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped together with the genera Psilaspilates , Euclidiodes , Lacaria and the species “ Calta ” sp. 2 and well clustering to a large set of Tasmanian Nacophorini genera. Tribal systematics and position of Tanagridia requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[116–117] Tanagridia rhaphis ( Rindge, 1986) : COI data (barcoding fragment) suggesting two different species, possibly (sequence divergence 1.9%).

[118–120] ” Calta ” sp. 2: Generic combination very tentatively. See remarks to [110–117]. ” Calta ” sp. 2 groups especially close to the Tasmanian Capusa senilis with which it shares also the narrow forewings.

[121–122] [genus Lacaria ]: See remarks to [110–117].

[123–124] [genus Euclidiodes ]: See remarks to [110–117].

[125–148] [genus Psilaspilates ]: See remarks to [110–117]. In the multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) interestingly at a close position to the Australian genus Amelora (Nacophorini) , with which it shares a close similarity in habitus.

[125] Psilaspilates ceres ( Butler, 1882) : Sequence divergence from P. signistriata 1.7%, intraspecific variation of the latter 0.06%. Correlated with differences in habitus e.g., darker ground colour, transverse fascia almost absent.

[136–138] Psilaspilates sp. 2 ( cf. signistriata ): COI data showing a shallow split to P. signistriata . Though being small (0.6%) the sequence divergence is correlated with particular wing pattern. Mean infraspecific variation is 0.06% and 0.1% respectively.

[153–157] [genus Catophoenissa ]: see remarks to Nacophorini [71–88; 98–103; 153–157]. In the multigene analysis (COI, EF1alpha, 28S; 1914 bp; not shown) Catophoenissa comes out as sister genus of Hasodima , however.

[158–159] Syncirsodes sp. 1 ( cf. primata ): COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[160–164] Syncirsodes primata ( Walker, 1862) : One of the records, BC 11154, referring to a L4 larva, beaten from Luma apiculata (Myrtaceae) and identified through DNA barcoding.

[165–168] Syncirsodes hyadesii (Mabille, 1882) : COI data suggesting clear specific difference from the other four members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[169–170] Syncirsodes sp. 2: COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[171] Syncirsodes straminea ( Butler, 1882) : COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus