Lachesilla salvini n. sp. Female

(Figs 46–50)

Diagnosis. Subgenital plate of pyramidal profile, posteriorly truncate, flap medium sized, slender, distally rounded. Gonapophyses proximally wide, slightly projected distally, proximal and outer borders sclerotized, the latter projected towards the clunium. Ninth sternum with anterior half pigmented, with one longitudinal and one U shaped band on each side of the longitudinal midline.

Description. Color (58 years in 80% ethanol). Body pale brown. Compound eyes black, ocelli hyaline, without pigmented centripetal crescents. Thoracic pleura with slender ochre band. Wings hyaline, veins pale brown, R1 bordering pterostigma ochre. Abdomen with brown subcuticular rings, faded ventrally.

Morphology. As in diagnosis, plus the following: Compound eyes slightly below the level of the almost straight vertex (Fig. 47). Forewing pterostigma much wider distally, Rs-M joined by a short crossvein, areola postica triangular, apically rounded (Fig. 46). Subgenital plate (Fig. 48), wide, setae as illustrated. Gonapophyses and ninth sternum (Fig. 49), posterior half of ninth sternum unpigmented, spermapore with broad pigmented rim, located centrally. Paraprocts (Fig. 50), broad, elliptical, setae as illustrated, sensory fields with 10 trichobothria. Epiproct (Fig. 50), slightly concave anteriorly, rounded posteriorly, setal field on distal half.

Specimen studied. Holotype female. GUATEMALA. Patzún. 31.viii.1959. Beating dead cedar. R. J. Dysart (ISU).

Measurements. FW: 2316, HW: 1716, F: 437, T: 778, t1: 308, t2: 94, ctt1: 12, Mx4: 109, f1: 260, f2: 237, f3: 204, f4: 137, f5: 86, IO: 325, D: 172, d: 113, 2.87, PO: 0.65.

Etymology. This species honors the memory of Osbert Salvin, co-editor, with Frederick DuCane Godman, of the Biologia Centrali-Americana, and co-author of the Insecta. Lepidoptera. Rhopalocera. Volume I (1879–1901), Volume II (1887–1901), and Volume III (1879–1901), of the same.

Remarks. Close to L. jacalaensis García Aldrete (2015 a), from the state of Hidalgo, differing from it by having the flap of the subgenital plate much smaller, by having the subgenital plate much less projected posteriorly in the middle, and by having the ninth sternum clearly different (compare Fig. 49 in this paper with Fig. 6 in García Aldrete, 2015 a).