Xylophanes neoptolemus (Cramer, 1780)

(Figs. 3 a, 3b, 10a–c)

Chaerocampa trilineata (Walker, [1865]) Chaerocampa brasiliensis Schaufuss, 1870 Xylophanes trinitatis Closs, 1917

Taxonomic Notes: As noted above, we failed to locate any type material for Sphinx neoptolemus in any of the major European museums that might have been expected to house it. Furthermore, the quality of the original painting is insufficient to determine the species that Cramer had before him. Although there is no taxonomic problem per se regarding Sphinx neoptolemus itself in “ Suriname ” (even if this term is used in its broader Eighteenth Century interpretation, which could include the West Indies), it may not represent the taxon we treat here as Xylophanes neoptolemus but another species of Xylophanes altogether. Thus, we do not consider the painting to be useful as a representation of the type of Sphinx neoptolemus, although it is essentially consistent with our concept of this species. Therefore, with the express purpose of clarifying the taxonomic status of Sphinx neoptolemus and fixing the type locality, we hereby designate the following specimen as neotype (Figs. 3 a, 3b; in coll. JH, to be deposited in the BMNH, BC-Hax4339/SOWE440-07): ɗ, Venezuela, Aragua State, Maracay, station Rancho Grande, 30-31.viii.1983, leg. J. Haxaire & J.-Y. Rasplus. No specimens were available to us from Surinam and so we chose one from a locality that was as close as was practicable. Diagnostic features separating Xylophanes neoptolemus from its closest relatives, X. balcazari n. sp. and X. cthulhu n. sp., are given below in the descriptions of those two species and in the identification key.

Chaerocampa trilineata (Fig. 1 a) was described from two specimens from “ Venezuela ” from the Dyson collection. In the original description, Walker ([1865]: 30) indicated that he had only males. However, we have located both specimens in the BMNH and found that one of the syntypes is actually a female. To stabilize the nomenclature, we hereby designate the male specimen (BMNH(E)#274441) as the lectotype. The lectotype and its original labels are illustrated in Fig. 1 a. The pale blue-edged syntype label will be replaced with a purple-edged lectotype label. In addition to a pale blue-edged syntype label (which will be replaced with a pale blue-edged paralectotype label), circular locality label and a printed specimen register number label, the paralectotype female (BMNH(E)#274442) has a hand-written label stating “ trilineata Wlk. ” and a label comprising the words “CHAEROCAMPA TRILINEATA .” cut from a copy of Walker’s catalogue.

As noted above, we have been unable both to locate the holotype of C. brasiliensis and to determine the identity of the taxon. Therefore, we maintain C. brasiliensis as a synonym of X. neoptolemus pending discovery of type material.

Xylophanes trinitatis was described from a holotype male from Trinidad, deposited in the ZSM. We have examined a color photograph of the holotype and this, together with the type locality, confirms its synonymy with X. neoptolemus .

Distribution: Following the neotype designation above, our specimens from Venezuela and French Guiana represent Xylophanes neoptolemus (Fig. 13, group 1). Furthermore, our biogeographic results support the previous treatments of X. trilineata and X. trinitatis as junior subjective synonyms of X. neoptolemus . X. neoptolemus occurs in the lowland tropical rain forest of the northern part of South America. We know it from western Venezuela to French Guiana. In the latter country, it is only frequent in the so-called ‘zone 1’ region of St-Laurent and St-Jean-du-Maroni (Haxaire 1987), near the Surinam border. This moth becomes far less abundant southward. The furthest south it has been recorded is from the Jari Celulose S.A. landholding (Hawes 2005), between the Jari and Paru rivers, northwest of Monte Dourado in Pará state, Brazil, but it may not cross the Amazon river as it is not mentioned by Moss (1920) in his work on the sphingids of Belém.

Genetic variation: There is some diversity in the barcode region (Fig. 13, group 1) but intraspecific divergence is low, with the five different haplotypes differing from each other by only a single base pair.