Aproaerema telaviviella (Amsel, 1935) comb. nov.

Anacampsis telaviviella Amsel, 1935 —Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berl. 20(2): 301, pl. 11, fig. 107.

Records. Amsel 1933: 125; Amsel 1935a: 301, pl. 11, fig. 107; Amsel 1935c: 264; Amsel 1936: 366, pl. 15, fig. 23; Bodenheimer 1937: 101.

Material examined. Syntypes of Anacampsis telaviviella 1 ♀, “ Tel-Aviv ( Düne), 19.v.1930 H. G. Amsel ” | ”GU. 713” | “ Typus. leg. H. Amsel, Anacampsis telaviviella ” , 1 ♂ (abdomen missing), “ Tel-Aviv, Lichtf. [ang], Düne, 15.v.30 (Pal), H. Amsel ” | “ Paratypus. leg. H. Amsel, Anacampsis telaviviella ” ; 3 ♂, Tel-Aviv ( Düne), 25.v.1932 (Einsler) (gen. slide 29/18, O. Bidzilya) ; 1 ♂, same place but 21.x.1932 (all SMNK) .

Distribution. Israel.

Remarks. Anacampsis telaviviella was described from an unstated number of specimens collected 19.v. 1930 in Tel-Aviv (“ Tel-Aviv, Düne”). A holotype was not selected in the original description, and two specimens in SMNK should be considered as syntypes. There are three additional males in SMNK collected sympatrically with syntypes of A. languidella 25.v.1932, of which one (Fig. 17) looks similar to the one of syntype (Fig. 18) and also bears a type label, but it does not belong to the type series.

The genitalia slide of the female syntype is uninformative, because the antrum is not visible and both ductus bursae and corpus bursae are missing. The male genitalia of a specimen externally similar to A. telaviviella (Fig. 19), but collected 25.v.1932, look indistinguishable from those of A. anthyllidella and A. languidella . The status of this and the previous species remains unclear and can hardly be clarified without studying morphology and DNA of additional material.