Lophomyra commixta (Schaus, 1914) Schaus, 1914

Goldstein, Paul Z., Janzen, Daniel H., Proshek, Benjamin, Dapkey, Tanya & Hallwachs, Winnie, 2018, Review of Lophomyra Schaus, 1911 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae): a new combination and re-descriptions of species newly associated with ferns (Polypodiaceae), ZooKeys 788, pp. 135-165 : 138-140

Lophomyra commixta (Schaus, 1914) comb. n. Figs 49-56, 57-64; Male genitalia: Figs 69-72, 81-84; Figs 95, 98, 99). Female genitalia: Figs 85, 86; Larvae: Figs 100-107

Chytonidia commixta Schaus, 1914. Type locality: French Guiana.

Material examined.

Type material. HOLOTYPE ♂: FRENCH GUIANA: St. Laurent, Maroni, Chytonix commixta Type Schs, Collection Wm Schaus, Type No. 16530 U.S.N.M., USNMENT01370304, ♂ USNM Dissection 148186. Type at USNM.

Other material examined.

(11♂, 14♀) FRENCH GUIANA (2♂, 5♀): ♂AOUT, GUYANE FRANÇAISE St-LAURENT du MARONI COLL LE MOULT, Dognin Collection, USNMENT01437236, Male genitalia imaged in situ; ♂ JUILLET, Ibid, USNMENT01438844, USNM Dissection 148087; ♀JUILLET, Ibid, USNMENT01437245; ♀ JANVIER, Ibid, USNMENT01437277; ♀ Cayenne, F. Guiana., Collection Wm Schaus, USNM Dissection 148086, USNMENT01370319; ♀Ibid, Chytonix commixta Schs., USNMENT01370317; ♀ S.-Laurent du Maroni Guy. Franc, Dognin Collection, Chytonix commixta Schs., USNMENT01370327 COSTA RICA (9♂, 9♀):

The following label data precede Santa Rosa National Park (SRNP) identifier codes on all reared and light-trapped specimens examined (16♂, 29♀): Voucher: D.H. Janzen & W. Hallwachs DB: http://janzen.sas.upenn.edu Area de Conservacion Guanacaste, COSTA RICA. Except for those denoted “Alajuela,” all localities are within Guanacaste Province.

Males: Alajuela: Sector Rincon Rain Forest: Jacobo, 10.94076, -85.3177, el. 461m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/07/2011, ecl. 02/03/2011, Edwin Apu, collector, 11-SRNP-69041, USNMENT01370325, USNM Dissection 148098; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/27/2010, ecl. 03/05/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70532, USNMENT01438818; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/27/2010, ecl. 03/06/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70533, USNMENT01438849; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Polypodium fraxinifolium : 01/29/2010, ecl. 03/06/2010, Manuel Rios, collector, 10-SRNP-70574, USNMENT01437246; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Polypodium fraxinifolium : 01/29/2010, ecl. 03/05/2010, Manuel Rios, collector, 10-SRNP-70573, USNMENT01437262; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/07/2014, ecl. 02/17/2014, Ricardo Calero, collector, 14-SRNP-70035, USNMENT01438824; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Niphidium oblanceolatum : 01/25/2010, ecl. 02/27/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70488, USNMENT01438848, USNM Dissection 148180; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 02/15/2010, ecl. 03/24/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70810, USNMENT01370328, USNM Dissection 148050; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 02/15/2010, ecl. 03/20/2010, Dinia Martinez, collector, 10-SRNP-70812, USNMENT01437227.

Females: Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Niphidium oblanceolatum : 01/21/2010, ecl. 03/04/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70495, USNMENT01437182; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/24/2010, ecl. 03/02/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70470, USNMENT01437196, USNM Dissection 148299; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Polypodium fraxinifolium : 02/03/2010, ecl. 03/17/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70609, USNMENT01437192; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 11/07/2010, ecl. 12/22/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-73249, USNMENT01437207; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Polypodium fraxinifolium : 01/29/2010, ecl. 03/11/2010, Manuel Rios, collector, 10-SRNP-70572, USNMENT01437261; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 02/15/2010, ecl. 03/24/2010, Dinia Martinez, collector, 10-SRNP-70811, USNMENT01437202; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Polypodium fraxinifolium : 01/27/2010, ecl. 03/03/2010, Dinia Martinez, collector, 10-SRNP-70534, USNMENT01437267 USNM Dissection 148187; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 01/23/2010, ecl. 03/02/2010, Ricardo Calero, collector, 10-SRNP-70436, USNMENT01370329, USNM Dissection 148051; Sector Pitilla: Estacion Quica, 10.99697, -85.39666, el. 470m: larva on Microgramma percussa : 03/15/2012, ecl. 04/18/2012, Ricardo Calero, collector, 12-SRNP-70644, USNMENT01370326, USNM Dissection 148106.

Diagnosis.

Smaller and with distinct patterning and genitalic differences that distinguish it from the other described Lophomyra . Overall, we note the more mottled appearance to the forewing than in L. tacita or L. santista . More specifically, the green orbicular spot outlined in cream and the reniform spot outlined in white form a pair of figure 8's in L. commixta that meet at their posterior edges to form a deformed U-shaped stigma. These pattern elements are less obvious in L. tacita and L. santista , where the fusion of the reniform and orbicular spots is more complete. The male genitalia of L. commixta are distinct from and less robust than those of its congeners by virtue of the clasper’s being less sharply developed, and the cucullus' appearing simple and spatulate; the vesica bears a basal diverticular nipple (Figs 81-84). Female L. commixta also bear an appendicular lobe at the caudal end of the ductus bursae, a feature shared with L. santista but not with L. tacita .

Re-description.

Head. Labial palpi as for genus. Proboscis with paired lateral rows of ~28 small protuberances at terminus. Frons and vertex scaled with a mixture of whitish and grayish brown. Remaining scales of head and palpi a mixture of white, gray-brown and “lilacine” (cf. Schaus 1914: 487). Antennae filiform, finely scaled, dorsally edged with white and a few green scales toward the base.

Thorax. Male prothorax with two fans of stalked scales, predominantly lime green, each fan gray-brown at its center and peppered with black; a third predominantly brown medial crest immediately posterior. Wings. Forewing length 11.5 mm (holotype, male), average 10.6 mm (males, n = 9), 11.5 mm (females, n = 7). Forewing patterning appearing less blended than in congeners, largely due to visibility of reniform-subreniform complex (see above) and the visibility of the postmedial line; on undersides, green shading confined primarily to forewing terminal areas; post-medial lines present but faint on undersides. Legs. Scaling, tibial spurs, and rows of tibial spines as for genus.

Abdomen. Dorsal scales predominantly tannish, except on terminal segments where visibly green; a medial line of dark scaling ventrally. Males with prominent medio-dorsal tuft of brown spatulate scales on A2; dorsal tufts posterior to A2 composed primarily of hairs concolorous with adjacent abdominal scaling.

Male genitalia. Structures less robust than those of larger congeners, including the much-reduced sacculus (1), a barely visible ampulla-like structure within it (4); the spines associated with the editum; the clasper (2), which is small and beak-like; and the cucullus (3), which is spatulate or modestly swollen distally, and not strongly recurved. Vesica with a shallow subbasal diverticular bump and a separate, more conspicuous, basal nipple.

Female genitalia. Antrum narrow, not more than twice the width of the ductus; ventral appendicular lobe present at caudal end of ductus bursae.

Immature stages. Larvae known from images (Figs 100-107). Pattern highly disruptive, with less contrast in coloration amid thoracic than abdominal segments. Head capsule pale with reddish calico patterning and black pinacula; dorsal chalazae red and raised, bearing bicolorous pinacula, black towards the front, red backward, forming setose spines, most prominent on A1-3; cream-colored subdorsal patches lateral to each spine form a series of ventro-caudally directed diagonal streaks, faintly shaded with green, again most conspicuous on A1-3, fainter on A4-7 and stronger again on A8; highly anastomosing pattern of fine pale lines centered mid-dorsally. This color pattern is highly cryptic among tangles of fern rhizomes where the caterpillars rest and pupate.

Biology.

Wild-caught caterpillars were found feeding on leaves of Microgramma percussa , Niphidium oblanceolatum , Polypodium fraxinifolium (all Polypodiaceae ). Eighteen reared individuals (10 males, 8 females) used an average of 24 days between the onset of the prepupal stage and adult eclosion in their ACG rain forest habitat. All ACG specimens were reared from wild-caught caterpillars and none light-trapped despite massive ACG-wide light-trapping, and all have the same DNA COI barcode and BIN (BOLD:AAY4740). No barcodes were available for South American specimens.

Distribution.

French Guiana, Costa Rican rain forest.

Remarks.

The conspicuous genitalic similarities as well as provisional analyses of DNA barcode data corroborate the placement of " Chytonidia " commixta with Lophomyra . The reared Costa Rican specimens may well represent a species distinct from L. commixta ; they are larger than a small series of topotypic specimens from French Guiana (and reared specimens are commonly smaller than wild-caught adults). However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have elected to continue to include them under L. commixta , recognizing that additional data may well separate the two, and that it is not un common for South American specimens to be recognized as taxonomically distinct from their Costa Rican look-alikes (e.g., Grishin et al. 2013, Janzen et al. 2017).