Skaphita surinamensis Möschler, 1878

Cock, Matthew J. W., 2021, A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies, Zootaxa 5020 (2), pp. 307-327 : 317-320

Skaphita surinamensis Möschler, 1878 ( Notodontidae , Heterocampinae )

( Figs 11–12 , Table 1)

Möschler (1878) described and illustrated Heterocampa surinamensis based on a single female from Paramaribo, Suriname. The holotype is in the MNB ( Fig. 11 ), has been dissected by P. Thiaucourt. Becker (2014) transferred the taxon to Skaphita . V.O. Becker (pers. comm. 2020) identified my images of the male and its genitalia ( Fig. 12 ). I note that the male genitalia of S. surinamensis are very different from those of all other species of Skaphita for which the genitalia have been documented ( Table 1) particularly with regard to the A8 sternite and the spoon-shaped lobes each side of the aedeagus of S. surinamensis —probably part of the juxta firmly joined to the aedeagus (compare Fig. 12 with Fig. 17 ). In spite of the similarities in habitus, it seems likely that S. surinamensis does not belong in this genus, although the correct genus is not clear to me.

Kaye (1923) described and illustrated Boriza kalodonta Kaye, 1923 from Trinidad, the type (i.e. holotype) being given as from ‘ Trinidad, Palmiste, 30.x.11 (N. Lamont)’. This date is suspect since the earliest of the many documented specimens from Lamont’s collection is dated 1913, as Lamont didn’t start to label his specimens until that year (M.J.W. Cock unpublished). When Kaye and Lamont (1927) subsequently listed this species, they referred to specimens from ‘Palmiste, 31 Dec., 1920, San Fernando, 22 Feb., 1922 (N.L.)’ but do not mention the type data. The former specimen is in NHMUK, and is a male labelled and curated as the type of B. kalodonta . The latter is a male in NMS, pinned with a drawer label ‘ Boriza kalodonta Kaye’ in W.J. Kaye’s handwriting, and incorrectly labelled in typescript as the type. Kaye’s (1923) illustration is poor, with hardly any distinguishable markings apart from a submarginal dark spot on the dorsal forewing space 3 (M 3 –Cu 1); although it appears to be a male, it is otherwise undistinguished. It is therefore worthwhile to establish whether the NHMUK specimen is correctly labelled as the type. I suggest that it is the type and that the collection date, 30.XII.1920 ( Fig. 11 ) at some stage prior to publication was transcribed as 20.X.11 as in the type description ( Kaye 1923). The fact that Kaye and Lamont (1927) did not include the date given for the type suggests they either realised this or overlooked it. I conclude that it is safe to accept the NHMUK specimen as the holotype. Becker (2014) made B. kalodonta a synonym of S. surinamensis . Becker (2014) also made Disphragis sexnotata Kaye, 1923 and Heterocampa aroensis Schaus, 1901 synonyms of S. surinamensis , but these actions are reassessed under S. cubana ( Grote, 1865) below.

Trinidad material examined. Palmiste : ♂ 22.xii.1920 (N. Lamont) [ NHMUK, holotype of Boriza kalodonta Kaye ]. S[an] F[ernan]do: ♂ 22.ii.1922 [N. Lamont] [ NMS, labelled as Boriza kalodonta Kay ; MJWC dissection 1062] .

Figures

FIGURE 11. Type material of Skaphita surinamensis. Above, male holotype of Boriza kalodonta Kaye [NHMUK]; photo A. Schintlmeister, © The Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London, made available under Creative Commons License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Below, female holotype of Heterocampa surinamensis Möschler [MNB]; photos MNB, with permission. To scale as shown, x2.

FIGURE 12. Terminalia of male Skaphita surinamensis, Trinidad, San Fernando, 22.ii.1922, N. Lamont [NMS, MJWC dissection 1062]. A–B, genitalia with aedeagus in situ; A, dorsal view; B, ventral view; C–F, genitalia with aedeagus removed; C, dorsal view; D, ventrolateral view; E, dorsolateral view; F, lateral view; G–I, aedeagus, vesica not extruded; G, dorsal view; H, lateral view; I, ventral view; J, A8 tergite (left) and sternite (right) (the central projections of the distal margin of the sternite are broken).All to scale as shown, x10.

FIGURE 17. Terminalia of Skaphita indirae sp. nov. A–E, genitalia in dorsal, ventral, lateral, dorsolateral and ventrolateral view; F–I, aedeagus, in lateral (left), lateral (right), ventral and dorsal views, with enlargement of apex of each; J–K A8 sclerites; J, dissected (sternite on left, tergite on right); K, sternite in situ. All to same scale, i.e. x10, apart from aedeagus apex enlargements.